(Hypothetical Rules Tweak) Changing Contestation

So as we were driving back from the New York Qualifier last night, during the post game analysis of my pal Ben's crashing and burning with what should be (and tends to be locally) a very solid IC member/Orlando vote deck for the second tournament in a row, it turned out that in both this qualifier and the Origins Qualifier, Ben got completely killed in two (of 6 total) games by randomly getting his Lutz contested. I pointed out that I can't remember the last time that I actually had a vampire contested or was in a situation where it was actually problematic that a vampire I had in my uncontrolled region was already in play under someone else's control (as opposed to it just being mildly annoying), and that losing games due to contestation is just incredibly random punishment. Yeah, Lutz is really good and really popular, so he is more likely to be contested than, like, Gabriel de Cambrai or something, but still, having a big important vampire getting contested is both incredibly random and usually completely game destroying from very early in the game. As vampire contestation (specifically big vampire contestation--when Old Netdecker is contested, it is hardly a problem. When the IC member your deck is relying on to go, or whatever, is contested, your game is generally over before it even starts) is soooo incredibly random (how many vampires are in the game now?), it seems like it might be prudent to make it less completely devastating when it happens. What we came up with was that maybe the game would work better for all involved if when a vampire was contested, instead of both players losing control of that vampire, you got to alternate control of him instead. Something like: "If two (or more) copies of a unique minion are in play, both are flipped over and considered out of play. During each player's untap phase, they must pay a pool to flip over their copy of the minion into play (and flip over their opponent's copy out of play) and may use the vampire as normal until their opponent does the same on their untap phase. They may choose to not pay a pool and burn their copy of the minion immediately." I'm sure it could be worded better, buy in any case, the end result would be that you still burn a pool each turn like normal, but instead of just not having a vampire, you get that guy on your turn and until your opponent's turn. There certainly could be disparity in terms of how long each player has the minion in play, i.e. if me and my prey are contesting a guy, I only get the guy on my turn, and then get the guy during their turn, and then all the way around the table till my turn again, but I suspect that the advantage that was gained by being the predator in that situation (i.e. I get my guy to attack my prey and he doesn't have that guy to defend himself) would balance that out. I don't think this would be necessary for unique non minion cards--you don't generally lose the game on T4 when someone contests your Ivory Bow or KRCG News Radio or anything, where you do often lose the game starting on T4 when someone contests (or brings out the big important guy you have 10 pool on in your uncontrolled region), but a rules tweak like this would really help mitigate the incredibly crippling and incredibly random loss that is dropped on you just 'cause of the incredibly small chance of someone contesting your important guy. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

On Jul 12, 2:56 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > "If two (or more) copies of a unique minion are in play, both are > flipped over and considered out of play. During each player's untap > phase, they must pay a pool to flip over their copy of the minion into > play (and flip over their opponent's copy out of play) and may use the > vampire as normal until their opponent does the same on their untap > phase. They may choose to not pay a pool and burn their copy of the > minion immediately." I like it a lot, and I hate contesting vampires a lot. One vote in favor. John Eno

>> "If two (or more) copies of a unique minion are in play, both are >> flipped over and considered out of play. During each player's untap >> phase, they must pay a pool to flip over their copy of the minion into >> play (and flip over their opponent's copy out of play) and may use the >> vampire as normal until their opponent does the same on their untap >> phase. They may choose to not pay a pool and burn their copy of the >> minion immediately." > >I like it a lot, and I hate contesting vampires a lot. One vote in >favor. Sometimes, I intentionally contest minions to deal pool damage and/or take a minion out of play. It's pretty rare strategy in constructed play, but in draft it happens more often - especially for the launch event of a new set. One time, I stopped bleeding my prey when he was down to two pool. I thought the two anarch revolts on the table would take him out, but I had totally forgotten that if you have anarchs, anarch revolt doesn't hurt you anymore. I know contesting sucks, but rule & card-text changes can suck too. Maybe a new card that lets you keep a contested minion in play would be a better solution than changing the rulebook and confusing older (relatively) players like myself.

On Jul 12, 2:02 pm, "Vincent Crisafulli" <vac...@netcarrier.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I think I like something like Peter's idea better than creating another corner-case card. If you put that card in your deck, you are counting on having your vampire (or other card, depending on the wording) contested, at which point play another deck. In recent limited events, we removed vampire contestation, but allowed them to contest titles, for just the reason Peter describes. For how often it comes up, contestation of vampires could be completely eliminated as far as I'm concerned. Sure it's not in keeping with the theme, but look at aggravated damage, strike: combat ends, etc. Contestation of vampires is a rule that doesn't seem very justified for it's sheer randomness. Brandon Brandon

On Jul 12, 5:02 pm, "Vincent Crisafulli" <vac...@netcarrier.com> wrote: > Sometimes, I intentionally contest minions to deal pool damage and/or take a > minion out of play. Oh, sure--sometimes when it comes up, it is a good play. But again, it is so completely, wildly random. And very often, when it does randomly come up, it completely ends someone's game before it even started. Which is really lame. The rules tweak I suggest (which I'm not actually expecting to be adopted or anything, but it would be nice :-) still allows you to contest minions to deal pool damage and to take them out of play for limited periods of time (i.e. on your turn, and until it is their turn, their minion is out of play). But the game crippling "Oops. My game is destroyed 'cause the guy across the table accidentally got out my key minion before I did. And I haven't even taken an action yet." goes away for the most part. > Maybe a > new card that lets you keep a contested minion in play would be a better > solution than changing the rulebook and confusing older (relatively) players > like myself. Too corner case. There are soooooo many vampires in the game that contestation generally is pretty rare. But can completely end your game. -Peter

On Jul 12, 1:56 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > So as we were driving back from the New York Qualifier last night, > during the post game analysis of my pal Ben's crashing and burning with > what should be (and tends to be locally) a very solid IC member/Orlando > vote deck for the second tournament in a row, it turned out that in both > this qualifier and the Origins Qualifier, Ben got completely killed in > two (of 6 total) games by randomly getting his Lutz contested. I pointed > out that I can't remember the last time that I actually had a vampire > contested or was in a situation where it was actually problematic that a > vampire I had in my uncontrolled region was already in play under > someone else's control (as opposed to it just being mildly annoying), > and that losing games due to contestation is just incredibly random > punishment. Yeah, Lutz is really good and really popular, so he is more > likely to be contested than, like, Gabriel de Cambrai or something, but > still, having a big important vampire getting contested is both > incredibly random and usually completely game destroying from very early > in the game. I ended up contesting Lutz in our Imperator Storyline games. It was crosstable, and neither of us wanted to give him up, despite being 'allies'. Players 1 and 3 were both vote decks, and neither of them wanted Lutz's ability pointed in their particular direction. Then amazingly, Praxis Solomon popped up from the Imperator Deck...

[ quoted text not captured ] > amazingly, Praxis Solomon popped up from the Imperator Deck...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - But to be honest, there are only a few vampires that are ever likely to end up in this situation... and Lutz is the biggest contender. Are we just creating a rule to allow people to have their "Lutz Decks" and eat it too??? Trying not to play Devil's Advocate here, but seriously what decks are "Lutz Only" Decks?? If they are vote decks, why aren't they "Voting people off the table" like normal vote decks do... rather than trying some random tricky crap of "4,000 Anarch Revolts + If you vote this off, my prey loses pool *snicker snicker snicker*" And yes, you can tactically cross-table contest. Like taking out Theo Bell from your soon-to-be-prey's ready minions... or something else like that. Also, how is that not going to jerk around cards like Fame? If Player A is contesting with Player B, then we have the effect of Player B's Fame for more turns than Player A's fame... even though both target vampires are allegedly famous. Sure it works for The Rack, The Coven, Vampires, Hunting Grounds, etc... but Fame???

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > [stuff about contesting vampires] I would just like to say, I am incredibly amused that this rule is being advocated by the namesake of the Bakija Gambit ;)

I suggest that you burn 1 pool as normal, and if you want to do the flippy-thing you burn an additional pool. The crypt card then flips back during your discard phase. If people just talked to each other cross-table, this wouldn´t be much of a problem.

Peter D Bakija wrote: [snip] > [...] > but a rules > tweak like this would really help mitigate the incredibly crippling > and incredibly random loss that is dropped on you just 'cause of the > incredibly small chance of someone contesting your important guy. Aren't you the guy that has advocated in the past about not changing things that happen incredibly rarely? :) In any case, how is this functionally different than your deck without maneuvers getting pwned by IG combat, or your Imbued deck getting schooled by a stealth-vote deck? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

On Jul 12, 11:56 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > and that losing games due to contestation is just incredibly random > punishment. It's not random at all. One player brought out the vampire first, and another player then chooses to bring out that same vamp and contest. Don't contest the vamp if you don't want to suffer the consequences! Alternately, if you've spent 10 transfers on a 11-cap vampire on turns 1-3, then someone else brings out that vamp, that's part of the risk of playing a big cap vampire. First, don't put 10 transfer on - just do 7 on, in case that happens (or Brainwash!). Second, you can likely negotiate with that person, "If I don't bring out Lutz, what can you offer me?" Ira

> Trying not to play Devil's Advocate here, but seriously what decks are > "Lutz Only" Decks?? If they are vote decks, why aren't they "Voting > people off the table" like normal vote decks do... rather than trying > some random tricky crap of "4,000 Anarch Revolts + If you vote this > off, my prey loses pool *snicker snicker snicker*" Because otherwise, they might as well be Tor/Bru? There's no harm in trying for alternate methods, if those methods are effective. I still like Deranging people back to Camarilla after they Go Anarch, for example.

Peter D Bakija schrieb: > "If two (or more) copies of a unique minion are in play, both are > flipped over and considered out of play. During each player's untap > phase, they must pay a pool to flip over their copy of the minion into > play (and flip over their opponent's copy out of play) and may use the > vampire as normal until their opponent does the same on their untap > phase. They may choose to not pay a pool and burn their copy of the > minion immediately." That would help decks that mainly act with their big caps. What about a big-cap wall deck? You still can´t do nothing. So we move from one sort of random to another sort of random.

Juggernaut1981 schrieb: > Are we just creating a rule to allow people to have their "Lutz Decks" > and eat it too??? > > Trying not to play Devil's Advocate here, but seriously what decks are > "Lutz Only" Decks?? If they are vote decks, why aren't they "Voting > people off the table" like normal vote decks do... rather than trying > some random tricky crap of "4,000 Anarch Revolts + If you vote this > off, my prey loses pool *snicker snicker snicker*" The problem is not really Lutz specific, you know. The problem is just that investing 11 pool and 3-4 turns of transfers into *nothing* is going to loose you the game. Lutz was just a good example since he is one of the better recently printed vampires and therefore (more) prone to contestation. That being said I still think contesting is fine, you just should not contest an 11 cap and try to work something out.

[ quoted text not captured ] And the worst can be avoided just by asking the guy who seems to influence out a 9+ cap whose clan is his vampire... I've never been contesting or contested a high cap vampire accidentaly (though it may happen on purpose in the late game). Contesting vampires in the early game leads to defeat for both player.

On a more serious response, I am one of those people who thinks that contestation of vampires is rare enough that you just have to deal with those "sucks to be you" games; it isn't much worse than having some other bad matchup. And in a tournament, "there's always next round". BUT... If I were to design a change to the contestation rules, it would be to allow you to resolve the contest by paying pool back-and-forth all at once, during the first untap phase of one of the contesters. That is: Player A brings out Lutz. Player B brings out Lutz. They become contested. On Player A's turn, player A may choose to burn a pool, then player B may choose to burn a pool, then A, then B, etc, until one of the players is ousted or yields. Something like that?

On Jul 12, 7:13 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are we just creating a rule to allow people to have their "Lutz Decks" > and eat it too??? I think a better question is, "How does vampire contestation make VTES a better game than it would be without it?" John Eno

Johann von Doom <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think a better question is, "How does vampire contestation make VTES > a better game than it would be without it?" Is "it encourages variety in deckbuilding" a cop-out?

On Jul 13, 5:26 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think a better question is, "How does vampire contestation make VTES > > a better game than it would be without it?" > > Is "it encourages variety in deckbuilding" a cop-out? How about "It punishes people for net decking and playing the same decks?" See !Malk, Lutz, Arika, etc.....

On Jul 13, 11:26 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think a better question is, "How does vampire contestation make VTES > > a better game than it would be without it?" > > Is "it encourages variety in deckbuilding" a cop-out? Hmm. Maybe? I don't see how vampire contestation encourages variety, as I very much doubt anyone is going to build a different deck because they're afraid they're going to contest a vampire. On top of which, I tend to think that deckbuilding variety usually comes from libraries rather than crypts, since you can build many different decks with a given crypt composition but the inverse isn't quite as true. John Eno

On Jul 13, 11:48 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > How about "It punishes people for net decking and playing the same > decks?" Why would anyone want to punish anyone else for doing that? John Eno

On Jul 13, 12:05 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Aren't you the guy that has advocated in the past about not changing > things that happen incredibly rarely? :) I dunno. Maybe? > In any case, how is this functionally different than your deck without > maneuvers getting pwned by IG combat, or your Imbued deck getting > schooled by a stealth-vote deck? 'Cause it is a built in rule that is incredibly random and often incredibly debilitating in the unlikely chance that it comes up. -Peter

On Jul 13, 4:15 am, Ira Fay <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's not random at all. Of course it is random. It only happens in the incredibly unlikely instance that someone is using the one of 1300 vampires that you are sits at a table with you, gets that vampire in their opening crypt draw at the same time you do, and then gets theirs out either when you have yours out or before you do. That is pretty darn random. > One player brought out the vampire first, and > another player then chooses to bring out that same vamp and contest. > Don't contest the vamp if you don't want to suffer the consequences! And if you need the vampire to make your deck work? Or you have a bunch of pool on them already? Ok, you don't bring out the vampire, spend 4 or 5 turns getting the pool back, and another 3 or 4 turns influencing out someone else. You are already suffering the consequences even if you don't bring out the same vampire. > Alternately, if you've spent 10 transfers on a 11-cap vampire on turns > 1-3, then someone else brings out that vamp, that's part of the risk > of playing a big cap vampire. So the game has been steadily moving in the direction of encouraging people to use big cap vampires, but this highly random hosing still completely hoses you. > First, don't put 10 transfer on - just > do 7 on, in case that happens (or Brainwash!). Second, you can likely > negotiate with that person, "If I don't bring out Lutz, what can you > offer me?" Often, what you get to offer them is "If I don't bring out Lutz, I can get ousted for you, making someone else win." -Peter

On Jul 12, 7:13 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > But to be honest, there are only a few vampires that are ever likely > to end up in this situation... and Lutz is the biggest contender. Not necessarily. Lots of big vampires are popular to build decks around. Lutz was just a convenient example. > Are we just creating a rule to allow people to have their "Lutz Decks" > and eat it too??? No, I'm suggesting that the current vampire contestation rules tend to be very random and deblitating. And it might be good if they were different to avoid that. > Trying not to play Devil's Advocate here, but seriously what decks are > "Lutz Only" Decks?? It isn't a matter of "Lutz only" decks. In the example I handed out, Guy A went second. Got 10 pool on Vampire X. His prey, who went 3rd, got Vampire X out. Guy A now has 10 pool on a vampire, no other pool on other big vampires. So he can spend another 3 turns getting out another huge vampire (and be ousted before he takes an action) or spend 5 turns pulling the pool off Lutz, and then another 3 turns getting out another dude. And again, get ousted before he takes an action. > If they are vote decks, why aren't they "Voting > people off the table" like normal vote decks do... rather than trying > some random tricky crap of "4,000 Anarch Revolts + If you vote this > off, my prey loses pool *snicker snicker snicker*" Uh, left field straw man much? > Also, how is that not going to jerk around cards like Fame? If Player > A is contesting with Player B, then we have the effect of Player B's > Fame for more turns than Player A's fame... even though both target > vampires are allegedly famous. Eh, ya know, you work around it. -Peter

On Jul 13, 11:26 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > Is "it encourages variety in deckbuilding" a cop-out? I'm not saying that there shouldn't be consequences for contesting vampires--it would still be a huge pain in the ass to have a vampire contested. But at least you aren't completely shut down right out of the gate with the rule I suggest. -Peter

On Jul 13, 11:48 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > How about "It punishes people for net decking and playing the same > decks?" Uh, that is a completely preposterous statement. A) who the hell cares if people netdeck such that they need to be punished? B) There are currently 1300+ vampires in the game. Even if everyone in the world did nothing but netdeck, contestation of key vampires would *still* be incredibly random. -Peter

On Jul 12, 7:41 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > I would just like to say, I am incredibly amused that this rule is being > advocated by the namesake of the Bakija Gambit ;) Heh. The rule I suggest wouldn't save you from that--I'd never suggest changing the "you can't play unique cards you already control" rule. 'Cause how would that be fun? :-) -Peter

On Jul 13, 6:25 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > If I were to design a change to the contestation rules, it would be to > allow you to resolve the contest by paying pool back-and-forth all at > once, during the first untap phase of one of the contesters. > > That is: > Player A brings out Lutz. > Player B brings out Lutz. They become contested. > On Player A's turn, player A may choose to burn a pool, then player B > may choose to burn a pool, then A, then B, etc, until one of the players > is ousted or yields. > > Something like that? That sounds like how it currently works in practice, except that your version gets to the end result much more quickly. John Eno

On Jul 13, 9:30 am, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] It's not remotely how it works in practice - getting to the end much more quickly removes most of the effects of contesting minion cards. This method is interesting to think about for how it would completely change how contestation works. The only reason to contest with this system is if you know you will win or do so much damage to the other player that it sets you up for VPs (or spite the other player massively if you aren't trying to get VPs). Under the current system, there are all kinds of temporary contests possible when people are playing the same unique minions, most of which are horrible for one or both players. But, having one of the players get ousted will end the contest, which can completely change the board position. This system is far cleaner, but I don't know that it helps the screwjob that is contesting any. Rather than chime in elsewhere in the thread, on the subject of its randomness. True, choosing to contest isn't random. Being in a position to contest is incredibly random, even here where we see contestations or discussions to avoid contestations often enough that it's a meaningful problem. Not long ago, my grandpredator decided not to contest my ... Fakir. That still screwed me as my predator had no predator all game. I've contested Samedi in the past several years. I contested Ezmerelda to lock up a game. Even with the vast number of crypt options and a wide open metagame, similar lines of thinking do result, which is fine when they happen at different times and not so much when they happen at the same time. Forget Lutz, in our environment, I'd be worried about contesting Lucian, The Perfect right now.

On Jul 13, 1:01 pm, Curevei <Cure...@aol.com> wrote: > It's not remotely how it works in practice - getting to the end much > more quickly removes most of the effects of contesting minion cards. I was talking about contesting vampires. I have no gripe with the contestation rules as they stand regarding library cards. John Eno

On Jul 12, 1:56 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > So as we were driving back from the New York Qualifier last night, > during the post game analysis of my pal Ben's crashing and burning with > what should be (and tends to be locally) a very solid IC member/Orlando > vote deck for the second tournament in a row, it turned out that in both > this qualifier and the Origins Qualifier, Ben got completely killed in > two (of 6 total) games by randomly getting his Lutz contested. I pointed > out that I can't remember the last time that I actually had a vampire > contested or was in a situation where it was actually problematic that a > vampire I had in my uncontrolled region was already in play under > someone else's control (as opposed to it just being mildly annoying), > and that losing games due to contestation is just incredibly random > punishment. Yeah, Lutz is really good and really popular, so he is more > likely to be contested than, like, Gabriel de Cambrai or something, but > still, having a big important vampire getting contested is both > incredibly random and usually completely game destroying from very early > in the game. > > As vampire contestation (specifically big vampire contestation--when Old > Netdecker is contested, it is hardly a problem. When the IC member your > deck is relying on to go, or whatever, is contested, your game is > generally over before it even starts) is soooo incredibly random (how > many vampires are in the game now?), it seems like it might be prudent > to make it less completely devastating when it happens. And yet, this is a consequence of playing 'popular' crypts in tournaments. The same dilemma has been facing folks in the last several years when they wanted to play Arika-centric decks (or even Law Firm in general) - there's been a decidedly non-zero chance of seeing somebody else playing the same general crypt in a tournament. Same holds true for 1/2 big cap Lasombra vote decks - you won't always run into them, but there's a reasonably small chance of it occuring. (I've seen contestation issues for both of the above crypts in tournaments this year, even.) Lutz happens to be fairly popular at the moment. This isn't hard to fathom by reading tournament reports and talking to other players about what they see in their own tournaments. Heck, I think I have seen at least one Lutz deck in _every_ tournament I have played in this year save the smallest, and in several of those there were multiple Lutz decks. If you build a deck around huge vampires and focus on a very popular vampire (or set of popular, large vampires), you run the risk of contesting. This is a metagame choice on your part - your friend could have decided it was worth the trouble to include a Praxis: Solomon, or to negotiate with people ahead of time. Or he could have thought "boy, I might be contesting with folks, maybe I should play something else instead." Contesting a vampire is never "random". Your friend suffer from "randomly getting his Lutz contested." As noted elsewhere in the thread, the second person to bring out a vampire is deliberately choosing to start the contestation. Yeah, it sucks when it happens. But that is a calculated risk you take when you elect to play with a vampire/crypt that is seen more often than most in a tournament. I don't see this as making it necessary to change the contestation rules, any more than I see it necessary to change the rules just because someone built a big rockstar deck and had their star vamp get Sense Dep'ed, or rushed on turn 2 and burned, or Pentex'ed, or Spirit Marionette-tricksed, or any of the other unfortunate things that happen when you build a rockstar deck and your rockstar gets immediately annihiliated. > Peter D Bakija -John Flournoy

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:56:26 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > "If two (or more) copies of a unique minion are in play, both are > flipped over and considered out of play. During each player's untap > phase, they must pay a pool to flip over their copy of the minion into > play (and flip over their opponent's copy out of play) and may use the > vampire as normal until their opponent does the same on their untap > phase. They may choose to not pay a pool and burn their copy of the > minion immediately." Cute idea. Nice to see a thought experiment on this. I think it is unnecessary because on one hand contestation tends to be so rare; on the other hand because V:tES is generally a game of rock-paper-scissors, and you do get screwed by seating, etc. every once in a while. Plus, unique cards carry a specific risk by being unique - they can be constested. Having the contestation rule forces people to consider variety. -- Regards, Daneel

On Jul 13, 1:20 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > And yet, this is a consequence of playing 'popular' crypts in > tournaments. Oh, sure. But I don't know that the risk for "playing a popular crypt" should equal "occasionally, you just lose the game outright, 'cause of incredibly random happenstance." I don't know that that improves the game. > The same dilemma has been facing folks in the last several years when > they wanted to play Arika-centric decks (or even Law Firm in general) > - there's been a decidedly non-zero chance of seeing somebody else > playing the same general crypt in a tournament. Of course. And yet, still, completely random. There is no inherent cost of playing popular vampires. Just a slightly increased chance of getting completely hosed by contestation. > Lutz happens to be fairly popular at the moment. This isn't hard to > fathom by reading tournament reports and talking to other players > about what they see in their own tournaments. Heck, I think I have > seen at least one Lutz deck in _every_ tournament I have played in > this year save the smallest, and in several of those there were > multiple Lutz decks. Again, Lutz is not the issue. In the case I presented as an example (as it was convenient and actually happened), Lutz wasn't particularly key to the deck (the crypt of which consisted of 2 each of the all the IC members and 2 Orlando or something). The issue was not "my deck needs Lutz and I can't get him out". The issue was "I put 10 pool on my first vampire, my prey got him out first 'cause he was 1 transfer ahead of me, and now I'm out 10 transfers, have no vampires, and have to spend another 3 turns getting out a different vampire and 5 more turns after that trying to get the pool back (or bring him out anyway to spite contest him). And by then I'll be ousted." I realize that contestation exists to disincentive using the same vampires all the time. But I don't know that the harsh random punishment fits the "crime". > Contesting a vampire is never "random". Your friend suffer from > "randomly getting his Lutz contested." As noted elsewhere in the > thread, the second person to bring out a vampire is deliberately > choosing to start the contestation. Nope. Completely random. See above. > I don't see this as making it necessary to change the contestation > rules, any more than I see it necessary to change the rules just > because someone built a big rockstar deck and had their star vamp get > Sense Dep'ed, or rushed on turn 2 and burned, or Pentex'ed, or Spirit > Marionette-tricksed, or any of the other unfortunate things that > happen when you build a rockstar deck and your rockstar gets > immediately annihiliated. I don't see that it is necessary either. I just think that it would probably improve the game by reducing the incredibly harsh, random punishment that comes from someone else accidentally having the same big vampire as you. -Peter

It's not only that you lose all the pool but the minion is out of play for so long. So perhaps a good alternate methode would be a closed auction between the two contesting Methuselahs. Whoever bids the most gets control of the minion and the loser has his or hers burned. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On Jul 13, 1:48 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > Cute idea. Nice to see a thought experiment on this. I think it is > unnecessary because on one hand contestation tends to be so rare; Oh, sure. Again, I don't think this is a necessary change or anything. But I suspect it would make the game slightly less affected by "sometimes you get completely and utterly hosed by pure random chance", which strikes me as a good thing. That, and in a conceptual sense, I kind of like the idea that contested vampires would be "playing both sides" rather than just out of play. But that is completely secondary to it making the random punishment of contesting important vampires less harsh. > on > the other hand because V:tES is generally a game of rock-paper-scissors, > and you do get screwed by seating, etc. every once in a while. Absolutely--but I think going out of ones way to reduce that factor when you can is a worthwhile goal. > Plus, > unique cards carry a specific risk by being unique - they can be > constested. Having the contestation rule forces people to consider > variety. Sure. This still punishes you for having a unique minion contested. You still pay a pool a turn, and still don't have that minion for defense when it is generally important. Which is still something to want to avoid. It just isn't "my game is automatically over 'cause of a random happenstance". -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> In any case, how is this functionally different than your deck >> without maneuvers getting pwned by IG combat, or your Imbued >> deck getting schooled by a stealth-vote deck? > > 'Cause it is a built in rule that is incredibly random and often > incredibly debilitating in the unlikely chance that it comes up. Rules aren't "random". And it only comes up when the next player *chooses* to contest the vampire which just came up. So, that player shouldn't choose to debilitate herself, right? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

On Jul 13, 2:00 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > So perhaps a good alternate methode would be a closed auction between > the two contesting Methuselahs. Whoever bids the most gets control of > the minion and the loser has his or hers burned. That is pretty much how Shadowfist deals with the same issue, and it works fine there, as you pay for guys with constantly renewable resources; it is usually a pretty serious kick in the teeth to lose a unique character to a uniqueness auction, but generally way less bad than, like, losing an 11 cap vampire would be to a uniqueness auction. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Ira Fay <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It's not random at all. > > Of course it is random. It only happens in the incredibly unlikely > instance that someone is using the one of 1300 vampires that you are > sits at a table with you, gets that vampire in their opening crypt > draw at the same time you do, and then gets theirs out either when you > have yours out or before you do. That is pretty darn random. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the next player *chose* to do what she did? That isn't random, by definition. Rare, perhaps, but not random at all. Or perhaps you aren't ignoring it, as you say here... > And if you need the vampire to make your deck work? Sucks to be you. Deal with it. > Or you have a bunch of pool on them already? Sucks to be you. Deal with it. > Ok, you don't bring out the vampire, spend 4 or 5 turns > getting the pool back, Sucks to be you. Deal with it. > and another 3 or 4 turns influencing out someone else. You are > already suffering the consequences even if you don't bring out > the same vampire. Sucks to be you. Deal with it. >> Alternately, if you've spent 10 transfers on a 11-cap vampire >> on turns 1-3, I guess we're talking about someone going 2nd, who puts 2/4/4 on their 11-cap? Seriously, why would you do such a thing ESPECIALLY given that you went 2nd? You should go 2/4/1-3 on someone else/4 instead. >> then someone else brings out that vamp, that's part of >> the risk of playing a big cap vampire. Or being a bad player and transferring badly. > So the game has been steadily moving in the direction of encouraging > people to use big cap vampires, but this highly random hosing still > completely hoses you. IT ISN'T RANDOM WHEN SOMEONE CHOOSES TO DO A THING. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 13, 2:17 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Rules aren't "random". And it only comes up when the next player > *chooses* to contest the vampire which just came up. So, that > player shouldn't choose to debilitate herself, right? What is random is being in the position to be contesting a vampire in the first place. Which is completely and utterly random. It was much less random when the rule was first invented--when there were only, like, 110 total vampires, contestation was a significant issue to worry about and much less of a "I happened to get hit by a meteor" hosing. Now, with 1300+ vampires, it is incredibly unlikely to sit down at a table with someone who has the same minion as you. And then have them draw that minion. And then have them play that minion. *That* is what is random. And as often, the consequences are so hugely game destroying, it makes sense to me to at least attempt to minimize the game destroying impact of such a random event. And again, going back to the original example--player A puts 10 pool on an 11 cap vampire. His prey brings out the same 11 cap vampire, because he is one transfer ahead. Player A's game is pretty much over at this point, even *without* actually contesting the vampire. He has already spent 3 turns not getting out a vampire, and is going to spend another 3 turns (given a big vampire deck) getting out his first vampire (that is *6* turns and, say, 20 pool invested before a single minion hits the table. What deck in what circumstance is still going to be standing after this?). And then it is going to take 5 more turns to recoup the 10 pool invested in the first vampire. And there is still only 1 minion in play. This is a completely random "my game is over" due to the contestation rules. Even without anyone choosing to contest a minion. -Peter

XZealot wrote: > It's not only that you lose all the pool but the minion is out of play > for so long. > > So perhaps a good alternate methode would be a closed auction between > the two contesting Methuselahs. Whoever bids the most gets control of > the minion and the loser has his or hers burned. Still pretty harsh. Somebody loses X (the capacity of the vampire, not to mention the transfers involved and the cost in pool, blood, and card play of any cards or other effects on the the yielded vampire) and somebody else loses Y (the winning bid amount). Sometimes a lesser evil to standard contesting. But sometimes more. If the rule is to be changed, better to dive headlong: Off the top of my head: Contesting crypt cards is handled via something akin to Banishment: when another copy of a unique crypt card enters play, all copies are returned to the uncontrolled region (all temporary control effects are broken). (A good reason to keep blood on your star vampire). Trivia for the smattering of effects that care about contested vampires: The vampires are considered contested until one returns to play (ending the contest, although the other copies are not actually yielded). The "cost to contest" is zero (which may be increased by Democritus). Being made to yield a contested card (via Democritus or Praxis Solomon) still results in that contested card being sent to the ash heap, as normal. Olugbenga's special is pretty useless except when Democritus is also around. Contesting titles is as normal. Contesting library cards is as normal. Just an idea. If any idea is needed (and I don't say that any is).

On Jul 13, 2:36 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Contesting crypt cards is handled via something akin to Banishment: when another > copy of a unique crypt card enters play, all copies are returned to the > uncontrolled region (all temporary control effects are broken). Ooh! That is good too! -Peter

On Jul 13, 12:56 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 1:20 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Again, Lutz is not the issue. In the case I presented as an example > (as it was convenient and actually happened), Lutz wasn't particularly > key to the deck (the crypt of which consisted of 2 each of the all the > IC members and 2 Orlando or something). The issue was not "my deck > needs Lutz and I can't get him out". The issue was "I put 10 pool on > my first vampire, my prey got him out first 'cause he was 1 transfer > ahead of me, and now I'm out 10 transfers, have no vampires, and have > to spend another 3 turns getting out a different vampire and 5 more > turns after that trying to get the pool back (or bring him out anyway > to spite contest him). And by then I'll be ousted." Right - but that isn't contestation, technically. You can change the contestation rules to be less painful, but they'll still be painful in some fashion - and your choice will still be "either I contest the vampire, or I have to do the exact same '3 turns getting out a different vampire and 5 more after that' etc that you describe above. > > Contesting a vampire is never "random". Your friend suffer from > > "randomly getting his Lutz contested." As noted elsewhere in the > > thread, the second person to bring out a vampire is deliberately > > choosing to start the contestation. > > Nope. Completely random. See above. I stand by my earlier statement. Contestation - and I mean actually contesting the vampire, not what you describe (getting hosed because you opt not to contest) is not random. I'll agree that being in a situation where the choice comes up is pretty random - but for a small group of decks, it's random-but-not- uncommon, like for the decks I'd listed. > I don't see that it is necessary either. I just think that it would > probably improve the game by reducing the incredibly harsh, random > punishment that comes from someone else accidentally having the same > big vampire as you. It'd certainly encourage more big-rockstar decks, which I'm fine with finding ways to encourage. > -Peter -John Flournoy

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Contesting crypt cards is handled via something akin to Banishment: when another > copy of a unique crypt card enters play, all copies are returned to the > uncontrolled region (all temporary control effects are broken). Would this hypothetical rule also "banish" Spell of Life mummies back to the uncontrolled region? That's harsh (but maybe that card needs a hosin', especially in draft).

On Jul 13, 2:41 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > Right - but that isn't contestation, technically. That is just splitting hairs. It is the result of the contestation rules doing what they do, and then being randomly hosed by them. > You can change the contestation rules to be less painful, but they'll > still be painful in some fashion Sure. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be painful. The rule I proposed still costs you a pool a turn and still leaves you without a minion for significant portions of the game. > I stand by my earlier statement. Contestation - and I mean actually > contesting the vampire, not what you describe (getting hosed because > you opt not to contest) is not random. Being in a situation where contestation is an issue is completely and totally random. Yes. Choosing to put a minion in play when another copy of that minion is already in play is not random. But it also isn't really relevant to my point. Even when you aren't actively contesting a vampire, the contestation rules can randomly end your game. > It'd certainly encourage more big-rockstar decks, which I'm fine with > finding ways to encourage. Especially as the designers seem like they are trying really hard to make big vampires better. -Peter

Howdy, On Jul 13, 11:33 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Ira Fay <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It's not random at all. > > > Of course it is random. It only happens in the incredibly unlikely > > instance that someone is using the one of 1300 vampires that you are > > sits at a table with you, gets that vampire in their opening crypt > > draw at the same time you do, and then gets theirs out either when you > > have yours out or before you do. That is pretty darn random. > > Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the next player *chose* to do > what she did? That isn't random, by definition. Rare, perhaps, but > not random at all. Peter is correct - finding oneself in the position to contest a vampire is indeed random. Placing significant pool onto the same vampire that someone else at the same table is placing pool on is also random. You are correct that placing the last pool onto a vampire that someone else has already brought out is NOT random - it is a choice. But Peter is righter, as you can, as he points out, be completely hosed by the potential contestation before you even get to make that choice. Giving him a hard time for using the words 'random' and 'contest' is not responsive to the argument he is making. <Snip a bunch of really snarky attacks on people who are hosed by a very rare circumstance - I don't see why it is a good thing that someone has to have a shitty game every 1 in N games just in the name of, what, traditionalism? What is the good thing that the contestation rules are providing that offsets the bad thing that Peter is describing? Would deck diversity really change noticeably if we got rid of vampire contestation (between players) altogether?> > IT ISN'T RANDOM WHEN SOMEONE CHOOSES TO DO A THING. Meaning that one cannot make a random choice? Or that all choices are made on a non-random basis? If I have to pick a card and I roll a die to choose which one to pick, my choice is random, right? (Though, of course, my choice of how to choose is not random, though it is perhaps arbitrary...) You seem to be saying that people are not capable of randomness, which makes me wonder about your definition of random. (I've heard theories that nothing is random [e.g. the result of rolling the die depends on initial state and Newtonian physics - it is completely predictable give accurate enough measurements], and they make some sense, so I'm interested, as I don't think most people use the word 'random' the way you are using it.) Alex

wumpus wrote: > Peter is correct - finding oneself in the position to contest a > vampire is indeed random. Finding yourself seated in such a way that your deck is hosed is random, yes. But it happens. Contesting is but one (very tiny) aspect of that.

Howdy, Following up on my own point(s): > ...I don't see why it is a good thing that > someone has to have a shitty game every 1 in N games just in the name > of, what, traditionalism? What is the good thing that the > contestation rules are providing that offsets the bad thing that Peter > is describing? Would deck diversity really change noticeably if we > got rid of vampire contestation (between players) altogether?> How about making contestation of unique vampires work this way: - Pay 1 pool in your untap to maintain the contest (or don't and yield, burning as usual). - The contested vampire can't interact with itself: Can't block or react if the other copy is acting, can't enter combat with the other copy, conduct your own sub-referendum if it wants to vote (usually tied, but modifiers can change that). Both players get to use their copy of the vampire, both get the vampire for the same period of play, both are suffering the drag of trying to contest their influence. The vampire takes on different statistics while serving with each Methuselah (different blood totals, different equipment, etc.). Not quite as simple as Peter's plan, but does allow you to have the vampire all the time. Alex

wumpus wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> IT ISN'T RANDOM WHEN SOMEONE CHOOSES TO DO A THING. > > Meaning that one cannot make a random choice? Of course one can, when one does it in a random fashion. RANDOM - Picking a card. - Rolling a die - Uri Geller NON-RANDOM - choosing to contest - the sun coming up in the East - James Randi > Or that all choices are made on a non-random basis? When one makes a choice in a random fashion, it is random. When one makes a choice in a non-random fashion -- like when one *chooses* to put that last bead on that card and contest that vampire when one doesn't have to do such a thing -- then it isn't random. Yes, I understand your game will suffer. Yes, I understand you will probably lose. Yes, this is part of the game, which you need to deal with once in a great while, just like Archon Investigation. > You seem to be saying that people are not capable of randomness, > which makes me wonder about your definition of random. I said no such thing. It is Peter's definition that is in doubt. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I kinda like this. I think it's too complicated to actually be implemented, but it seems kinda fun and more thematic - especially the sub-referendum part... internal dialog and all that. =) The sub-referendum would work with contesting titles as well, though it would tend to remove the thematics of contesting a title, since it would be almost exactly the same as having two different city titles, though they cost a blood each turn. You'd run into annoyances like what happens if the two vampires are obliged to be in combat with each other, (though blocking itself or directing (D) actions at itself should be denied, it could always happen with like a Hidden Lurker or Ecstatic Agony). I suppose that it could be similar to two vampires controlled by the same methuselah entering combat - effects are prohibited from trying to make that happen, and if it happens somehow, combat does not occur... ? All in all, I like your solution the best, but I think it has the least chance of actually happening (where LSJ's solution probably has a 1% chance of actually happening, and yours and Peter's somewhere less than that). You could perhaps run non-sanctioned events with this rule, but most of the time it'd be pointless, unless you ran a create-your-own storyline for like a single clan, or clan-and-anti- clan, with the Broadhead-Contest Rule in place.

On Jul 13, 3:48 pm, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > What is the good thing that the > contestation rules are providing that offsets the bad thing that Peter > is describing? This is the question I'd like to see answered, particularly as we're all talking about a completely hypothetical rules change. Some folks seem to be defending the contesting rules because, well, they're the rules, but I haven't seen anyone offer any reason to keep them because they make the game better. Anyone? John Eno

Howdy von Doom, (I love how that sounds.) > > What is the good thing that the > > contestation rules are providing that offsets the bad thing that Peter > > is describing? > > This is the question I'd like to see answered, particularly as we're > all talking about a completely hypothetical rules change. Some folks > seem to be defending the contesting rules because, well, they're the > rules, but I haven't seen anyone offer any reason to keep them because > they make the game better. Anyone? To be fair, others have suggested a reason: to increase deck diversity. In theory, the possibility of contestation wrecking your game keeps you from making decks with 'popular' vampires, setting up a negative feedback loop. In practice, there are so many vampires, and so many reasons for popularity, that the mechanism is fairly 'random' (for some value of random, as noted elsewhere in this thread) - it's hard to predict who to avoid, so most people don't try. Alex

Johann von Doom wrote: > Some folks seem to be defending the contesting rules because, well, > they're the rules, but I haven't seen anyone offer any reason to keep > them because they make the game better. Anyone? It isn't the job of what-is-in-place to defend itself against the zeroes-of-the-future that keep appearing. It's the job of those zeroes to show they they have merit *and*are*better* than what-is-in-place, and therefore we should adopt them. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 13, 2:03 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Being in a situation where contestation is an issue is completely and > totally random. Yes. Choosing to put a minion in play when another > copy of that minion is already in play is not random. But it also > isn't really relevant to my point. Even when you aren't actively > contesting a vampire, the contestation rules can randomly end your > game. Let me offer an entirely devils-advocate parallel.. It similarly sucks when you built your deck around (one or more) scarce vampires, and you randomly sit at a table where someone else is playing them and beats you to it. No, this "it costs you 3 pool to play your game, maybe more" isn't as harsh as contestation (usually), but it's another harsh penalty that is applied randomly because of how you got seated - and it's another harsh penalty that is clearly intended by the rules. Do you think the Scarce penalty also needs to be changed? If not, is that because it's usually not as bad as contesting a big vampire? Second devils' advocate question: Is contesting small vampires a problem too? Or is the problem only how it screws you when you contest a big vampire? Does the potential fixes that've been coming up in the thread reduce the penalty for contesting a small vampire to a meaningless level? -John Flournoy > -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] After thinking about this more, I think that making contesting vamps slightly less harsh would be an improvement to the game. I'm not sure it's a significant enough improvement to warrant the change, but maybe the cost of making the change is sufficiently low. I like LSJ's description above, but I would do away with the idea of contesting vamps entirely. Simply say: When another copy of a unique crypt card enters play, all copies burn 1 blood or life and are returned to the uncontrolled region (all temporary control effects are broken). It makes some cards weaker (Clio's Kiss), but that's not an issue IMO. I think the only remaining tricky thing is whether or not you can bring out a duplicate of your own vamp to deal with Pentex, Sense Dep, Fame, torpor, etc. If it's allowed, it would encourage crypt redundancy, which isn't necessarily a good thing. I think it's nice to have crypt diversity. So we might also have to add the rule: if you bring out another copy of a unique crypt card that you control, the incoming copy is burned. Bakija Gambit still lives! Ira

On Jul 13, 2:33 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the next player *chose* to do > what she did? That isn't random, by definition. Rare, perhaps, but > not random at all. The choosing isn't the random bit. The sitting next to someone who just happened to have the same vampire in their deck and just happened to draw that vampire and just happened to transfer him out. That is completely random chance. I fail to see why you are so hung up on the use of the word "random" here. > Sucks to be you. Deal with it. So you'd like *more* instances of the game sucking due to random chance than less? > I guess we're talking about someone going 2nd, who puts 2/4/4 on > their 11-cap? Seriously, why would you do such a thing ESPECIALLY > given that you went 2nd? You should go 2/4/1-3 on someone else/4 > instead. 'Cause you need that vampire? Or all your draws are 11s? This is irrelevant. > Or being a bad player and transferring badly. It is only "transferring badly" if you randomly are sitting next to someone who also is contesting out the exact same vampire. Randomly. > IT ISN'T RANDOM WHEN SOMEONE CHOOSES TO DO A THING. I'm not saying it is random when someone chooses to do a thing. I am saying it is random to sit down next to someone who happens to have the same vampire as you and happens to draw that vampire. That is random. Very random, considering the size of the vampire pool. Whether or not actual contestation is occurring has nothing to do with whether or not the rules for contestation destroy your game in many cases. -Peter

On Jul 13, 4:24 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I said no such thing. It is Peter's definition that is in doubt. Holy crap, Kevin. Have you lost your mind? Sitting at a table where someone happens to have the same vampire as you in their crypt, and happens to draw that vampire in their opening crypt draw? That is completely random. If both of those players need that vampire? Both of them will suffer, one way or the other. Whether or not they are actively contesting the vampire is irrelevant. If one gets Vampire X out first, when the other player has already invested most of the pool they need to get out Vampire X? Either the second player is completely hosed (as he has wasted many transfer and invested pool not getting out a vampire) or they are both hosed (as contestation occurs). -Peter

On Jul 13, 5:38 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > Do you think the Scarce penalty also needs to be changed? If not, is > that because it's usually not as bad as contesting a big vampire? No. It is "I lose 3 pool as random punishment, but still get to play the game". Which is very different than "I lose an important vampire, and maybe a whole bunch of pool, and might not get to play the game." Very different. > Is contesting small vampires a problem too? Or is the problem only how > it screws you when you contest a big vampire? Does the potential fixes > that've been coming up in the thread reduce the penalty for contesting > a small vampire to a meaningless level? As I mentioned, contesting small vampires is less of an issue, as it tends not to destroy you. But I fail to see how paying a pool a turn to use your small vampire sometimes is reducing the penalty to a meaningless level. -Peter

On Jul 14, 2:17 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 7:13 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > But to be honest, there are only a few vampires that are ever likely > > to end up in this situation... and Lutz is the biggest contender. > > Not necessarily. Lots of big vampires are popular to build decks > around. Lutz was just a convenient example. > > > Are we just creating a rule to allow people to have their "Lutz Decks" > > and eat it too??? > > No, I'm suggesting that the current vampire contestation rules tend to > be very random and deblitating. And it might be good if they were > different to avoid that. > > > Trying not to play Devil's Advocate here, but seriously what decks are > > "Lutz Only" Decks?? > > It isn't a matter of "Lutz only" decks. In the example I handed out, > Guy A went second. Got 10 pool on Vampire X. His prey, who went 3rd, > got Vampire X out. Guy A now has 10 pool on a vampire, no other pool > on other big vampires. So he can spend another 3 turns getting out > another huge vampire (and be ousted before he takes an action) or > spend 5 turns pulling the pool off Lutz, and then another 3 turns > getting out another dude. And again, get ousted before he takes an > action. > > > If they are vote decks, why aren't they "Voting > > people off the table" like normal vote decks do... rather than trying > > some random tricky crap of "4,000 Anarch Revolts + If you vote this > > off, my prey loses pool *snicker snicker snicker*" > > Uh, left field straw man much? > > > Also, how is that not going to jerk around cards like Fame? If Player > > A is contesting with Player B, then we have the effect of Player B's > > Fame for more turns than Player A's fame... even though both target > > vampires are allegedly famous. > > Eh, ya know, you work around it. > > -Peter Peter, What I'm trying to say is that reshaping the "Contesting Rule" reshapes the game in a number of other ways you potentially aren't thinking of. Fame is one of the key ousting mechanics for Combat Decks. A number of decks who can't protect themselves reliably from a Combat Deck may consider including a Fame JUST to contest it. Both the offensive Fame and the "counter" Fame are neutered by this change to the rule. And what happens when the Fames keep bouncing in and out? I think it actually becomes a whole lot less predictable. It punishes other tactics in strange ways (my wall with the Ivory Bow & Bowl of Convergence only exists in my turn so it is valid to untap them before paying the contest? After the contest? Can you untap a vampire that is not controlled because of contesting?) Seriously, messing around with this rule is likely to force a whole raft of secondary rule changes, changes to long standing rulings and more. Sure it is suck-tastic if you contest your Superstar Cross- table, but as people have pointed out... it is avoidable and those who do contest vampires cross table deliberately are either a) trying to screw you for later, b) jackassing around, c) have built a deck that is so narrow that even they cannot see it working in another way. Contesting and being burned are what has always been (and possibly always should be) the glass jaw of the Superstar Decks.

> "Johann von Doom" <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:ea21f505-f707-42c6...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Not to get too involved in an issue I don't feel that strongly about, there is a very good argument for status quo in a CCG that has been out for many years and gone through many expansions: because all the cards have been designed and playtested assuming the rule as is. I would concede that this may not be as bad a problem with contestation as a lot of other rules, but it's still not an insignificant factor, IMHO. In fact, my (relatively modest) inclination to resist change in this area is based more on that point than anything else. Peter is correct that random vampire contestation factors can have a really negative effect on a small percentage of games. Fred

On Jul 13, 7:12 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Fame is one of the key ousting mechanics for Combat Decks. A number > of decks who can't protect themselves reliably from a Combat Deck may > consider including a Fame JUST to contest it. Both the offensive Fame > and the "counter" Fame are neutered by this change to the rule. And > what happens when the Fames keep bouncing in and out? You saw the part where I specifically said "This is only for minions and not non-minion cards", right? -Peter

On Jul 13, 5:28 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 5:38 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Do you think the Scarce penalty also needs to be changed? If not, is > > that because it's usually not as bad as contesting a big vampire? > > No. It is "I lose 3 pool as random punishment, but still get to play > the game". Which is very different than "I lose an important vampire, > and maybe a whole bunch of pool, and might not get to play the game." > Very different. It is if you're paying the penalty once and only once; it potentially could be worse. But my point was that it's a matter of scale and worth considering. If you're going to reduce the penalty for contestation, taking a minute to at least consider another 'i got randomly screwed with my crypt' penalty in comparison doesn't hurt. > > Is contesting small vampires a problem too? Or is the problem only how > > it screws you when you contest a big vampire? Does the potential fixes > > that've been coming up in the thread reduce the penalty for contesting > > a small vampire to a meaningless level? > > As I mentioned, contesting small vampires is less of an issue, as it > tends not to destroy you. But I fail to see how paying a pool a turn > to use your small vampire sometimes is reducing the penalty to a > meaningless level. I wasn't suggesting it was meaningless; it was more a general 'whatever solutions are proposed should keep in mind that they don't just affect the worst-case big-vampire scenario' comment. The specific solution you cite might not be meaningless, but other suggestions might be. > -Peter -John Flournoy

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:36:13 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Off the top of my head: > > Contesting crypt cards is handled via something akin to Banishment: when > another copy of a unique crypt card enters play, all copies are returned > to the uncontrolled region (all temporary control effects are broken). > > (A good reason to keep blood on your star vampire). Elegant idea! I really like it. Again, I don't think it's a necessary change, but if I would see a need for change, this would probably be the solution I would be gunning for... :) I love how you can reclaim the pool on the contested vampire if you wish. I also love that you can keep on bringing your copy into play - but then agian, so can the other guy. I especially love how you can weaken or kill the other player's copy and have the contested vampire for yourself. -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm pretty sure that the contesting rules would continue to only affect unique cards. The Spell mummies aren't unique, so no. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Jul 13, 11:35 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > It isn't the job of what-is-in-place to defend itself against the > zeroes-of-the-future that keep appearing. It's the job of those zeroes > to show they they have merit *and*are*better* than what-is-in-place, > and therefore we should adopt them. So even if What-is-in-place is "Lets beat people over te head with a shovel every now and again at seemingly random moments, just cos we can" we should keep it, because it is there already? Weak sauce..... Or alternatively the standard conservative mind frame argument.

On Jul 14, 9:01 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Yes, they are. Too lazy to go search, but try Aabt Kindred Spell of Life Author:LSJ but anyway http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0e9dbde272503272

Blooded Sand wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> It isn't the job of what-is-in-place to defend itself against the >> zeroes-of-the-future that keep appearing. It's the job of those >> zeroes to show they they have merit *and*are*better* than >> what-is-in-place, and therefore we should adopt them. > > So even if [snip ABSOLUTELY ABSURD argument] Seek help. [snip conservative-bashing red-herring] [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> IT ISN'T RANDOM WHEN SOMEONE CHOOSES TO DO A THING. > > I'm not saying it is random when someone chooses to do a thing. I am > saying it is random to sit down next to someone who happens to have > the same vampire as you and happens to draw that vampire. That is > random. Very random, considering the size of the vampire pool. Whether > or not actual contestation is occurring has nothing to do with whether > or not the rules for contestation destroy your game in many cases. The rules for contestation DO NOT ruin your game when it is YOU who CHOOSES to do the contestation. How many times and how many ways can this be said? Someone just brought up your star guy? Don't contest him if you don't want your game utterly ruined. Play with the rest of the vampires in your crypt, try to do something else with your deck, ask for the table's help, pray to whatever gods you believe in... but don't contest that vampire! Alternatively, contest that vampire and then complain loudly that the rules screwed you over and you take no responsibility for your actions, the rules made me do it, ma! Seriously, man. Try playing non-star vampire decks and you won't have this problem, like EVER. Or, play star-vampire decks (like I do in pretty much every deck I make) and deal with the once-a-year occurrence that is totally not worth this much discussion. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 13, 10:48 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> [ quoted text not captured ] They make the game more diverse (thus more fun, imo) by making dementation weenies played somewhat less, since there's a risk for contesting. And just replace "dementation weenies" with some other fotm deck instead of telling me that dementation weenies aren't played at all in your playgroup.

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > >LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Contesting crypt cards is handled via something akin to Banishment: when another > >> copy of a unique crypt card enters play, all copies are returned to the > >> uncontrolled region (all temporary control effects are broken). > > > >Would this hypothetical rule also "banish" Spell of Life mummies back to the > >uncontrolled region? That's harsh (but maybe that card needs a hosin', especially > >in draft). > I'm pretty sure that the contesting rules would continue to only affect > unique cards. The Spell mummies aren't unique, so no. Oh yes they are. I've been totally destroyed by a Spell of Life predator in draft, where he contested all of my ready vampires for free with one stealthy action. They don't call it S.O.L. for nothing.

On Jul 13, 1:36 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > It's not only that you lose all the pool but the minion is out of play > > for so long. > > > So perhaps a good alternate methode would be a closed auction between > > the two contesting Methuselahs. Whoever bids the most gets control of > > the minion and the loser has his or hers burned. > > Still pretty harsh. Somebody loses X (the capacity of the vampire, not to > mention the transfers involved and the cost in pool, blood, and card play of any > cards or other effects on the the yielded vampire) and somebody else loses Y > (the winning bid amount). > > Sometimes a lesser evil to standard contesting. But sometimes more. I can't see how it could be more, but YMMV. > If the rule is to be changed, better to dive headlong: > > Off the top of my head: > > Contesting crypt cards is handled via something akin to Banishment: when another > copy of a unique crypt card enters play, all copies are returned to the > uncontrolled region (all temporary control effects are broken). > > (A good reason to keep blood on your star vampire). > > Trivia for the smattering of effects that care about contested vampires: > The vampires are considered contested until one returns to play (ending the > contest, although the other copies are not actually yielded). The "cost to > contest" is zero (which may be increased by Democritus). Being made to yield a > contested card (via Democritus or Praxis Solomon) still results in that > contested card being sent to the ash heap, as normal. Olugbenga's special is > pretty useless except when Democritus is also around. > > Contesting titles is as normal. > Contesting library cards is as normal. > > Just an idea. If any idea is needed (and I don't say that any is). That certainly is a novel approach that incorporates the unique mechanics of VTES (i.e. the uncontrolled region). Another approach would be to play cards out of your hand that the contested vampire could play until one player yields by not playing a card. This would have an effect similar to "milling" with the result being that players might end up jammed up on Master Cards or other cards that the contested vampire couldn't play.

On Jul 14, 5:13 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > They make the game more diverse (thus more fun, imo) by making > dementation weenies played somewhat less, since there's a risk for > contesting. And the rules tweak I presented wouldn't make this any less the case-- it would still suck to contest a minion. It just wouldn't automatically end your game in certain cases. -Peter

On Jul 14, 5:11 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > The rules for contestation DO NOT ruin your game when it is YOU > who CHOOSES to do the contestation. And again, if someone randomly has the exact same vampire you need to get into play in their crypt? The contestation rules certainly can ruin your game, even if no contestation ever happens. How many times and how many ways can this be said? > Someone just brought up your star guy? Don't contest him if you don't > want your game utterly ruined. And if you have already invested two turns and ~8 pool on him? You are now out: -The vampire you need. -The 8 or so transfers you spent. -The two or so turns you put into transferring out a minion that isn't coming out. -The 4 or so turns and 8 or so transfers you need to get the wasted investement back. This is if you *don't* contest him. If you do contest him, both you and the other guy are even more screwed, as you are also hemmoraging a pool a turn. > Seriously, man. Try playing non-star vampire decks and you won't > have this problem, like EVER. Are you even paying attention to this discussion, here, Kevin? > Or, play star-vampire decks (like I do > in pretty much every deck I make) and deal with the once-a-year > occurrence that is totally not worth this much discussion. I made a suggestion as to how I thought the rules could be tweaked to make what is an uncommon, but generally unpleasant and sometimes game destroying rule, that is governed by pure randomness. If you were concerned about the volume of discussion, you could have ignored it. Or said "Huh. That is probably not needed." Or any other option that wasn't ranting in all caps and arguing about what is or is not random, when the point you are arguing about is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Just sayin. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] ....or another approch would be to leave them both in play, but you still have to pay on pool during your untap or yield. Other copies of this vampire may not block or play reaction cards while this vampire is acting. You would get your cake and eat it tool

On Jul 13, 9:54 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > It is if you're paying the penalty once and only once; it potentially > could be worse. I don't know that it could potentially be worse--the worst possible Scarcity penalty you can pay is 6 (well, ok, if someone already has 3 other Abominations in play...). Which is not great, sure, but you still get to use the vampire you brought out. Generally speaking, in the incredibly random instance of having to pay scarcity costs, you get kicked in the teeth for 3 and that is the end of it. > But my point was that it's a matter of scale and worth > considering. If you're going to reduce the penalty for contestation, > taking a minute to at least consider another 'i got randomly screwed > with my crypt' penalty in comparison doesn't hurt. Oh, sure. It is a completely reasonable comparison. But in comparison, I think scarcity is way less bad for you than contestation, in most instances. > I wasn't suggesting it was meaningless; it was more a general > 'whatever solutions are proposed should keep in mind that they don't > just affect the worst-case big-vampire scenario' comment. The specific > solution you cite might not be meaningless, but other suggestions > might be. Reasonable. -Peter

On Jul 14, 9:20 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 9:54 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It is if you're paying the penalty once and only once; it potentially > > could be worse. > > I don't know that it could potentially be worse--the worst possible > Scarcity penalty you can pay is 6 (well, ok, if someone already has 3 > other Abominations in play...). Which is not great, sure, but you > still get to use the vampire you brought out. Generally speaking, in > the incredibly random instance of having to pay scarcity costs, you > get kicked in the teeth for 3 and that is the end of it. Actually the worst Scarce penalty you can pay without contesting is 15. > > But my point was that it's a matter of scale and worth > > considering. If you're going to reduce the penalty for contestation, > > taking a minute to at least consider another 'i got randomly screwed > > with my crypt' penalty in comparison doesn't hurt. > > Oh, sure. It is a completely reasonable comparison. But in comparison, > I think scarcity is way less bad for you than contestation, in most > instances. > > > I wasn't suggesting it was meaningless; it was more a general > > 'whatever solutions are proposed should keep in mind that they don't > > just affect the worst-case big-vampire scenario' comment. The specific > > solution you cite might not be meaningless, but other suggestions > > might be. Please check out my 3 suggestions and LSJ's one suggestion if you want alternatives.

On Jul 14, 10:24 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Actually the worst Scarce penalty you can pay without contesting is > 15. Oh, heh. You are completely correct. I totally spaced on there being the two groups of everyone. So if someone has 3x Salubri, and you have the other 3x Salubri, and you get out the last one after all of them are already in play, then 15 it is! -Peter

On Jul 13, 5:29 pm, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > Howdy von Doom, > > (I love how that sounds.) Me too! > To be fair, others have suggested a reason: to increase deck > diversity. The jury's still out on whether or not that's a cop-out. :) But, yeah, okay, it's a reason, at least. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] It would be funny because there would be a cumulative of 45 pool of scarce penalties paid in the game once you did. Now that's a nutpuncher!

On Jul 13, 5:35 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > It isn't the job of what-is-in-place to defend itself against the > zeroes-of-the-future that keep appearing. It's the job of those zeroes > to show they they have merit *and*are*better* than what-is-in-place, > and therefore we should adopt them. The entire framework of the conversation is, "What if Rule X was different?" Responding to that with, "Rule X is an official rule, so just deal with it," and no other justification for the existence of Rule X as it currently exists, well, completely misses the point of the question. John Eno

On Jul 13, 8:19 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Not to get too involved in an issue I don't feel that strongly about, > there is a very good argument for status quo in a CCG that has been > out for many years and gone through many expansions: because all the > cards have been designed and playtested assuming the rule as is. I > would concede that this may not be as bad a problem with contestation > as a lot of other rules, but it's still not an insignificant factor, > IMHO. In fact, my (relatively modest) inclination to resist change in > this area is based more on that point than anything else. That doesn't really answer what I'm asking, which is what the rules add, rather than what the effects would be if they were changed or removed. Maybe it's more fruitful to pose the following thought experiment: If you were designing VTES as a new game, why would you include the vampire contestation rules as they currently stand? What would they add to the game? John Eno

On Jul 14, 10:33 am, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > > To be fair, others have suggested a reason: to increase deck > > diversity. > > The jury's still out on whether or not that's a cop-out. :) > > But, yeah, okay, it's a reason, at least. As noted, I don't think my suggested rule (or LSJ's) discourage deck diversity. Contestation (or whatever it is in the case of LSJ's "you just become uncontrolled" idea) still blows. It still costs you pool. And still punishes you for having the same guys as someone else. So it is still worth trying to avoid duplicating vampires. That being said, I don't think it is contestation that encourages deck diversity. Even if you are playing the most obvious net-deck in the world, the likelihood of sitting at a table with someone who has the same vampires as you *and* them drawing them all and wanting to play them all is so small as to not be worth worrying about (which isn't justification for not wanting the rules changed, but is justification for not thinking it makes people diversify their decks). Heck. At the finals to the Origins Qualifier, Dave Litwin and I were playing essentially the exact same deck (G1/2 Nosferatu Breed/Boon, of which, by the way, I have one of the first ones of in the TWDA :-), and the only vampire we had in common in our opening crypt draws was Agripina. I mean, we could have both drawn the exact same guys, at which point both of our games would have been over, but by pure chance, he got Selma and Nik and I got Murat and Calebros, so we got to play the game. The game itself encourages diveristy. Yeah, contestation can kill you if you accidentally have the exact same guys as someone else at the table, but I think the risk of contestation is low enough in most cases that the gain of playing an obvious netdeck (i.e. a proven, good deck) vastly outweighs the chance of outright loss due to minion overlap. Which doesn't make the outright loss due to minion overlap any more palatable when it happens. It's just that I don't think the current contestation rules actually encourage deck diversity any more than a tweaked contestation rule (such as the one LSJ or I proposed) would. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Dementation weenies would be able to sweep a table while contesting 4 minions with your rules. So yes, it would make them more played/more easily playable. If contesting a minion ends your game, your deck kinda sucks. How would that deck handle Pentex Subversion, Mind Rape, Baltimore Purge, Banishment or Coma?

[ quoted text not captured ] And you guys aren't even getting into Clan Impersonation madness.

On Jul 14, 5:13 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > They make the game more diverse (thus more fun, imo) by making > dementation weenies played somewhat less, since there's a risk for > contesting. I'll take your word for it that people actually factor in vampire contestation worries while designing decks, since it's never been an issue for me and I've never heard anyone talking about it being an issue for them. Granted that, I'm not convinced that it's a good thing to try to artificially force deck diversity by effectively disallowing people from playing decks that they want to play. If people want a more diverse playspace, they will create it by playing different kinds of decks, regardless of what's popular. If they want to play what's popular, I'm not sure why there should be a mechanical disincentive against doing so, given that VTES is a build-your-own-deck game. John Eno

On Jul 14, 11:01 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dementation weenies would be able to sweep a table while contesting 4 > minions with your rules. So yes, it would make them more played/more > easily playable. And yet they would still be losing 4 pool a turn more than they would if they weren't randomly contesting 4 minions. Which is likely to make them lose anyway. Fear of contestation has, I suspect, zero impact on ones decision to play Dementation weenies or not. Fear of rush combat and fear of a lot of bounce? Sure. Might affect someone's choice to play Dementation weenies. Fear of contestation? I suspect a total non issue. I occasionally play weenie demenation. I have never once thought "Hmm. This is a bad idea as I might contest." > If contesting a minion ends your game, your deck kinda sucks. How > would that deck handle Pentex Subversion, Mind Rape, Baltimore Purge, > Banishment or Coma? This is completely irrelevant. Again, if you are playing a deck of big vampires, and your prey randomly pulls out the same vampire that you have been transferring to since turn 1, even if you don't have yours out, your game is likely over. As you are going to end up spending, like, 6 turns and 20 pool before you get out a single minion. Even without actively contesting things. -Peter

On Jul 14, 10:51 am, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] The contestation rules (among other things) provide a powerful check against potentially overpowered cards (minion and not). When a card is unique, there is a mechanism by which any other player at the table could (in principle) remove that card from play, as well as increasing the effective cost of that card through the contestation mechanism itself. In effect, were any unique card truly broken, it's effect on the metagame would be naturally diminished by the simple fact that many people would play it (either specifically to use it or specifically to contest it). That doesn't mean the card isn't broken - Succubus Club eventually got banned, for example. But even before the rules team decided to actually ban the card, you had a defense mechanism you could use: contestation. The game itself ends up surviving a relatively long deliberation process before actually banning the card. Many of the suggestions in this thread would provide similar checks, though necessarily less strong, since the entire point of any of them is to make contestation of large (and therefore presumably powerful) vampires less painful. I'd definitely include contestation in the rules were I creating the game anew. Maybe not the exact ones we have, but something similar. -witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] Or embraces. Or even "you have to pay 3 extra just to begin a contestation because he also put 'your' vampire in play already."

[ quoted text not captured ] IN NO WAY did I say "just deal with it". That is complete horseshit. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 14, 12:35 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > IN NO WAY did I say "just deal with it". That is complete horseshit. "Or perhaps you aren't ignoring it, as you say here... > And if you need the vampire to make your deck work? Sucks to be you. Deal with it. > Or you have a bunch of pool on them already? Sucks to be you. Deal with it. > Ok, you don't bring out the vampire, spend 4 or 5 turns > getting the pool back, Sucks to be you. Deal with it. > and another 3 or 4 turns influencing out someone else. You are > already suffering the consequences even if you don't bring out > the same vampire. Sucks to be you. Deal with it. " Just sayin :-) -Peter

On Jul 14, 10:15 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 5:11 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > Seriously, man. Try playing non-star vampire decks and you won't > > have this problem, like EVER. > > Are you even paying attention to this discussion, here, Kevin? It's been pretty clear for a while now that Kevin's responding to arguments nobody is actually making, and seems to be carrying on a conversation with a strawman that nobody is actually espousing. To be clear: Kevin, I haven't seen anyone arguing that it's the actual contestation of a vampire that's problematic or random. As you say, that's completely a choice, and I don't think anyone is trying to claim it isn't. What's random is this: You have 4 minions in your uncontrolled region. You start transferring to the strategically-best one of them. You have no idea what anyone else is playing, and they don't know what you're playing. You're, say, 7 pool into a 10 cap. Or whatever. Some large investment, good strategic sense, etc. And cross-table or something, suddenly, that 10-cap another player brings up randomly turns out to be the same vampire. Now, you're screwed by the contestation mechanics even if you don't go ahead contesting. You're out a lot of transfers, have a big pool investment you don't have time to get back, and still have no vampire, whether you choose to contest the vamp or not. Because of random chance - not because it's your star vamp, not because it's crucial for your deck to function, not because it's some incredibly common vampire, not because you made an informed choice, but just because, randomly, out of 1300 vampires, the same one showed up and got brought out before you - you've been short-changed to an extent that, most likely, your game isn't playable. Remember, we're talking first minions here, and we're talking about having the choice between being screwed alone, or also dragging down your crosstable buddy. Do you disagree that that's random? Do you disagree that that's devastating to a game? Do you disagree that the outcome is due to the contestation mechanics currently in place, even if the mechanics aren't actually used because the vampire isn't contested? Because those three points are the core of the discussion the rest of this thread has been trying to have while you've been vociferously saying that contesting is a choice. - D.J.

D.J. <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > You have 4 minions in your uncontrolled region. You start > transferring to the strategically-best one of them. You have no idea > what anyone else is playing, and they don't know what you're playing. > You're, say, 7 pool into a 10 cap. Or whatever. Some large > investment, good strategic sense, etc. And cross-table or something, > suddenly, that 10-cap another player brings up randomly turns out to > be the same vampire. So hey, here's a thought: Currently it costs: 1 Transfer to move a blood from your pool to an uncontrolled minion. 2 Transfers to move a blood from an uncontrolled minion to your pool. 4 Transfers (and a pool) to draw a crypt card. What if the rules added an option for moving blood from one uncontrolled minion to another (without the jump through your pool) at a really good rate? Say, 1 Transfer to move 2 blood from one of your uncontrolled minions to another. Of course this has larger implications, like moving Art Museum blood onto a Toreador Antitribu or whatever... but maybe something along these lines would alleviate the sting of "random" fattie contestation. Thoughts?

[ quoted text not captured ] Sounds like a pretty good idea, but since it can be used with cards like Art Museum to get blood onto an uncontrolled Toreador or to move blood from a younger vampire that was Governed to onto an older one I think the rate needs to be less generous. I think 1 Transfer to move a blood from one uncontrolled minion to another one would work ok with the current cards that put blood on an uncontrolled but then is it too weak to help with fattie contestation? Later, ~Rehlow

On Jul 14, 4:11 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >> IT ISN'T RANDOM WHEN SOMEONE CHOOSES TO DO A THING. > > > I'm not saying it is random when someone chooses to do a thing. I am > > saying it is random to sit down next to someone who happens to have > > the same vampire as you and happens to draw that vampire. That is > > random. Very random, considering the size of the vampire pool. Whether > > or not actual contestation is occurring has nothing to do with whether > > or not the rules for contestation destroy your game in many cases. > > The rules for contestation DO NOT ruin your game when it is YOU > who CHOOSES to do the contestation. > But 50% (or maybe 100% if you never contest when you are second out of the gate) of the time it is NOT YOU that CHOOSES to do the contestation. I don't know if its because people are stupid, don't think things through, are really pissed that you got their vamp first or that contesting vampires happens so rarely that they just don't know how to deal with it, but people do really stupid things when the vamp they were working on gets brought into play first. I was playing in a qualifier at GenCon when my prey and grand prey contested Arika. This looked like a strategic move on the part of my prey (his Arika deck was backed up with weenie dom vamps and I think he was planning to plow through his now Arika-less prey). Then it gets around to my predator's turn and the vamp he was working on is Arika and puts her in play, in the middle of the ongoing contest. This was a 5 player table. This guy just let his predator completely off the hook since he was sitting between two decks contesting Arika. Why would you join into an already ongoing Arika contest? That is seriously WTF. I was totally fine with this dumbass move as it let me go full steam into my prey (remember, also contesting an Arika). I think this third to the contest deck fell first (his predator had no minions left and right of him for quiet some time) and then my prey died shortly afterward. The remaining Arika contesting deck won the contest, but didn't end up lasting too long. Then I got the final player. 3 way contest of a vampire is super rare, but it also made for a super stupid game. I don't know if the vampire contest rule should be changed, but I'd like to entertain the idea. I like the idea that some moron can't completely ruin my game because they can't understand how contesting almost always makes those 2 players lose. Its often a spite move as lame as transferring out. Later, ~Rehlow

Rehlow <news...@rehlow.com> wrote: > > What if the rules added an option for moving blood from one uncontrolled > > minion to another (without the jump through your pool) at a really good > > rate? > > Say, 1 Transfer to move 2 blood from one of your uncontrolled minions > > to another. > > > > Of course this has larger implications, like moving Art Museum blood > > onto a Toreador Antitribu or whatever... but maybe something along > > these lines would alleviate the sting of "random" fattie contestation. > > > > Thoughts? > Sounds like a pretty good idea, but since it can be used with cards > like Art Museum to get blood onto an uncontrolled Toreador or to move > blood from a younger vampire that was Governed to onto an older one I > think the rate needs to be less generous. I think 1 Transfer to move a > blood from one uncontrolled minion to another one would work ok with > the current cards that put blood on an uncontrolled but then is it too > weak to help with fattie contestation? Well, since the uncontrolled region "knows" clan and capacity, a revised idea: You may use 1 transfer to move 1 blood from any of your uncontrolled minions to another of your uncontrolled minions. You may use 1 transfer to move 2 blood from any vampire in your uncontrolled region to another vampire in your uncontrolled region who is younger or of the same clan. How about that? Is it getting too convoluted?

On Jul 14, 8:41 am, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 14, 10:51 am, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > The contestation rules (among other things) provide a powerful check > against potentially overpowered cards (minion and not). When a card is > unique, there is a mechanism by which any other player at the table > could (in principle) remove that card from play, as well as increasing > the effective cost of that card through the contestation mechanism > itself. > > > -witness1- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - This is true even for vampires. I recently played a game in which my predator did not bring out Anson because I had brought out Anson first. According to him, it killed his game. Anson is a very powerful card, and his uniqueness creates a limit to his power. I absolutely think that unique copies of vampires should not be in play at the same time. LSJ's idea for "banishing" crypt cards if another copy is brought into play seems reasonable. It fits with the concept of the game: two Methusalehs vie for control of a vampire, each using his own methods and resources. Why should the vampire be entirely out of play during this? A vampire is an active agent. Sometimes it will act for one Methusaleh, sometimes for another, depending on which most recently has sufficiently influenced it. The main balance question with this technique is that a vampire whose abilities are useful during others' turns will be more valuable during a contestation than those whose abilities are useful during a Methusaleh's own turn. For instance, Anson's special ability might not be used by anyone if control of him keeps going back and forth during Methusalehs' influence phases. However, the abilities of Arika or Leandro would still be relevant. As for the contestation of other cards, I cannot rationalize why a unique piece of equipment played on a minion could be contested, period. There is only one Ivory Bow. Helena has it in her possession. Black Cat equips it and then neither can use it, but their respective Methusalehs struggle over its possession?? How can a vampire take an action to equip an item in the possession of someone else? I think the contestation rules for other unique cards, such as locations makes sense, since two Methusalehs may be warring over the same turf, leaving it useless for both of them. However, it would probably add an unnecessary layer of complexity to the game to create different contestation rules for different types of cards.

This is the last time I'll make a revision to this rule idea. I swear: Since this is supposed to be addressing the issue of being screwed by "random contestation", why not make the correlation more direct: *If a ready minion has the same name as one of your uncontrolled minions,* you may take 1 transfer to move 2 blood from that uncontrolled minion to one of your other uncontrolled minions. That's simple enough, and easy to remember. Isn't it?

On Jul 14, 12:55 pm, Rehlow <newsgr...@rehlow.com> wrote: > > 3 way > contest of a vampire is super rare, but it also made for a super > stupid game. > 3 way contest of a vampire is super stupid because you're just paying pool to bring out a card that will allow you to pay pool every turn... you're not depriving anyone else of resources at this point. I can't see why anyone would do that unless they just don't know how to play the game, or to use a poker term, have gone "on tilt." Funny story though. =) Much smarter, obviously, would be to wait until someone won the Arika contestation, and *then* decide if it was a good idea to re-contest. I also find that a lot of people continue to contest out of spite, or out of "I just spent 9 pool on this vampire, so yielding loses me 9 pool", rather than weighing the situation at hand and determining whether yielding puts them in a better position than contesting. > I don't know if the vampire contest rule should be changed, but I'd > like to entertain the idea. I like the idea that some moron can't > completely ruin my game because they can't understand how contesting > almost always makes those 2 players lose. Its often a spite move as > lame as transferring out. > I dunno, I find there's very little I can do that is as effective as contesting a card with my prey. Obviously, I don't want to contest a big vampire that I need in order for my deck to work, but I will almost always contest a 3-cap or a location with my prey if I can. Depends on the deck of course, but I'm reminded of a JOL game where I accidentally picked the wrong deck and ended up playing with a stupid 5-year old Gangrel wall deck that used Powerbases and Blood Puppy to gain pool and didn't have much in the way of ousting power. I played a PB:Chicago first turn and discarded a PB:Washington, DC, so it was obvious what I was playing, and then my prey contested Chandler Hungerford... I wanted to kiss him for virtually handing the game to me at that point... =)

[ quoted text not captured ] Of course I forgot the word "unique"!!

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jul 13, 2:33 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the next player *chose* to do >> what she did? That isn't random, by definition. Rare, perhaps, but >> not random at all. > > The choosing isn't the random bit. The sitting next to someone who > just happened to have the same vampire in their deck and just happened > to draw that vampire and just happened to transfer him out. That is > completely random chance. I fail to see why you are so hung up on the > use of the word "random" here. > >> Sucks to be you. Deal with it. > > So you'd like *more* instances of the game sucking due to random > chance than less? > >> I guess we're talking about someone going 2nd, who puts 2/4/4 on >> their 11-cap? Seriously, why would you do such a thing ESPECIALLY >> given that you went 2nd? You should go 2/4/1-3 on someone else/4 >> instead. > > 'Cause you need that vampire? Or all your draws are 11s? This is > irrelevant. > >> Or being a bad player and transferring badly. > > It is only "transferring badly" if you randomly are sitting next to > someone who also is contesting out the exact same vampire. Randomly. > >> IT ISN'T RANDOM WHEN SOMEONE CHOOSES TO DO A THING. > > I'm not saying it is random when someone chooses to do a thing. I am > saying it is random to sit down next to someone who happens to have > the same vampire as you and happens to draw that vampire. That is > random. Very random, considering the size of the vampire pool. Whether > or not actual contestation is occurring has nothing to do with whether > or not the rules for contestation destroy your game in many cases. > Sometimes you get screwed in seating not related to contesting. Should we change the rules to prevent that too? The other thing about this discussion that is sort of bothering me is that you have said repeatedly that it happens *rarely*. If so, why bother with a rules change? best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] Okay, I admit there's some strawman-ness in this point, but assume there was a rule in the rulebook that said, "at the beginning of a game, roll percentile dice. On a roll of 00: you lose, remove your cards from the table and try to find something else to do for the next 2 hours while other people play the game." That rule adds nothing to the game, it simply adds a random, remote possibility that you lose for no good reason. It would obviously be a bad rule. Obviously, contestation isn't the same as that hypothetical "You're Boned" rule. It's in the game for a reason and definitely adds *something*. But the original point is that contesting is similar to the You're Boned rule, in that what it adds to the game is not enough to offset the possibility that you're randomly hosed and can't do anything about it. You may not agree that that's true (and I think there's certainly some question about whether it's bad enough to suggest a rules change - I think the original post is more hypothetical than anything... not necessarily "I think that this should be changed," but more "What if this got changed - would that be good? And if so, *should* it be changed?"), but there's definitely something there to consider...

On Jul 14, 2:39 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Sometimes you get screwed in seating not related to contesting. Should > we change the rules to prevent that too? No. That kind of screwage is the result of two people choosing to make decks, each with strengths and weaknesses which are deliberately designed into their decks. If you see a weakness in your deck and choose to ignore it, and later get hosed by that decision, it's the result of intentionality on your part. Vampire contestation screwage isn't something you can reasonably build for or against. It strips player intentionality out of the game, which is a Bad Thing design-wise. > The other thing about this discussion that is sort of bothering me is > that you have said repeatedly that it happens *rarely*. If so, why > bother with a rules change? Why keep a rule that adds nothing good to the game and only makes people unable to play, even if that rule effects the game only rarely? Fred Scott mentioned inertia as a reason to avoid change, which is probably as good a reason as any to not make any actual changes in the game, but we're just shooting the hypothetical shit here, and don't need to worry about such constraints. (As a pre-emptive response to people complaining about my use of "adds nothing good to the game" above: Due to what folks have written in this thread, at this point I'm willing to concede that vampire contestation can offer interesting randomness and potential stopgap fixes to design errors, but just as often or moreso it introduces random, uninteresting screwage.) John Eno

On Jul 14, 5:31 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 11:01 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dementation weenies would be able to sweep a table while contesting 4 > > minions with your rules. So yes, it would make them more played/more > > easily playable. > > And yet they would still be losing 4 pool a turn more than they would > if they weren't randomly contesting 4 minions. Which is likely to make > them lose anyway. So the point of your new rule would be? That they'd be slightly less fucked? Doesn't feel like enough for a rule change imo. > Fear of contestation has, I suspect, zero impact on ones decision to > play Dementation weenies or not. Fear of rush combat and fear of a lot > of bounce? Sure. Might affect someone's choice to play Dementation > weenies. Fear of contestation? I suspect a total non issue. I > occasionally play weenie demenation. I have never once thought "Hmm. > This is a bad idea as I might contest." I usually think about all the ups and downs of a deck before deciding whether to play it in a tournament. Most people I know do that. > > If contesting a minion ends your game, your deck kinda sucks. How > > would that deck handle Pentex Subversion, Mind Rape, Baltimore Purge, > > Banishment or Coma? > > This is completely irrelevant. Again, if you are playing a deck of big > vampires, and your prey randomly pulls out the same vampire that you > have been transferring to since turn 1, even if you don't have yours > out, your game is likely over. As you are going to end up spending, > like, 6 turns and 20 pool before you get out a single minion. Even > without actively contesting things. Firstly: If your prey "randomly" pulls out vampires, you should be able to win quite easily. If your prey actively choses to contest with you, that's another thing. Or if you chose to actively contest with your prey. Those things are a part of the game, and calling for changes in that part feels a bit like crying about getting bled for 10. But more seriously, if you have a contest upcoming you should just make a deal. "You can get 2 vps and the I take the rest, or we contest and both lose", or something appropriate.

Johann von Doom <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Vampire contestation screwage isn't something you can reasonably build > for or against. It strips player intentionality out of the game, which > is a Bad Thing design-wise. > Why keep a rule that adds nothing good to the game and only makes > people unable to play, even if that rule effects the game only rarely? > Fred Scott mentioned inertia as a reason to avoid change, which is > probably as good a reason as any to not make any actual changes in the > game, but we're just shooting the hypothetical shit here, and don't > need to worry about such constraints. I think any sweeping change needs to address oddball cases like Spell of Life. Seriously. See my suggestion up-thread for something that addresses the issue without as-sweeping of a change. Short version: Modify the way Transfers work, so it's easier for a Methuselah to "back out" of his potential contestation-screw. My specifics aren't as important.

> But more seriously, if you have a contest upcoming you should just > make a deal. "You can get 2 vps and the I take the rest, or we contest > and both lose", or something appropriate. Once someone gets 2 vps (and 12 pool) they are in vastly better position to contest you.

On Jul 14, 3:16 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > So the point of your new rule would be? That they'd be slightly less > fucked? > Doesn't feel like enough for a rule change imo. As noted, the point is to make the incredibly random utter deck failure that can arise in the face of someone else playing the same vampire as you result in less utter deck failure. Which makes the game suffer from less arbitrary hosing. Which strikes me as a good thing. > I usually think about all the ups and downs of a deck before deciding > whether to play it in a tournament. Most people I know do that. Sure. But "I might contest all my weenie dementation vampires" is likely the last thing that factors in. I won't play a superstar deck in competition, because: A) I might not draw the superstar. B) The superstar might get killed. C) Pentex Subversion is incredibly common. D) The superstar might get contested. So in that instance, yeah, contestation is an issue, but the last one. But as superstar decks tend to fall under the "diverse and entertaining" pool of decks, here is a situation where the rules for contestation *decrease* deck diversity. I'd far sooner play a weenie dementation deck in competition than I would a superstar deck. As I'm concerned about contesting when playing a ridiculous superstar deck. I'm not for a second concerned about contesting with a weenie dementation deck (or whatever obvious netdeck you'd care to use as an example). > Firstly: If your prey "randomly" pulls out vampires, you should be > able to win quite easily. Holy crap. Why are you all so hung up on the use of the word "random" in this discussion? There are 1300+ vampires in the game. Whether or not anyone at a given table has the same vampires as you in their crypt in a given game is exactly that--random. Completely and utterly random. Pure chance. Are some individual vampires more likely to show up in any individual game? Sure. I'd expect to see, say, Anson or Arika more often, in the grand scheme than I would, say, Apolonius. But that doesn't mean that when you are playing a deck based on Anson, and you sit down at a tournament game and someone else is also playing an Anson deck, it is any less of a random event. So even if you arbitrarily assign odds to each vampire of showing up, if Anson shows up 4 times more often than Apolonius, Anson showing up in a given game is *still* random. (Yes, if in your local play group, you know your buddy Phil *always* plays Angus the Unruled in every deck he ever plays, and you sit down for a game with Phil and are playing your very own Angus the Unruled superstar deck, not so random. Otherwise? Random.) -Peter

On Jul 14, 1:49 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > On Jul 14, 1:39 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > > > > > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > On Jul 13, 2:33 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > >> Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the next player *chose* to do > > >> what she did? That isn't random, by definition. Rare, perhaps, but > > >> not random at all. > > > > The choosing isn't the random bit. The sitting next to someone who > > > just happened to have the same vampire in their deck and just happened > > > to draw that vampire and just happened to transfer him out. That is > > > completely random chance. I fail to see why you are so hung up on the > > > use of the word "random" here. > > > >> Sucks to be you. Deal with it. > > > > So you'd like *more* instances of the game sucking due to random > > > chance than less? > > > >> I guess we're talking about someone going 2nd, who puts 2/4/4 on > > >> their 11-cap? Seriously, why would you do such a thing ESPECIALLY > > >> given that you went 2nd? You should go 2/4/1-3 on someone else/4 > > >> instead. > > > > 'Cause you need that vampire? Or all your draws are 11s? This is > > > irrelevant. > > > >> Or being a bad player and transferring badly. > > > > It is only "transferring badly" if you randomly are sitting next to > > > someone who also is contesting out the exact same vampire. Randomly. > > > >> IT ISN'T RANDOM WHEN SOMEONE CHOOSES TO DO A THING. > > > > I'm not saying it is random when someone chooses to do a thing. I am > > > saying it is random to sit down next to someone who happens to have > > > the same vampire as you and happens to draw that vampire. That is > > > random. Very random, considering the size of the vampire pool. Whether > > > or not actual contestation is occurring has nothing to do with whether > > > or not the rules for contestation destroy your game in many cases. > > > Sometimes you get screwed in seating not related to contesting. Should > > we change the rules to prevent that too? > > > The other thing about this discussion that is sort of bothering me is > > that you have said repeatedly that it happens *rarely*. If so, why > > bother with a rules change? > > Okay, I admit there's some strawman-ness in this point, but assume > there was a rule in the rulebook that said, "at the beginning of a > game, roll percentile dice. On a roll of 00: you lose, remove your > cards from the table and try to find something else to do for the next > 2 hours while other people play the game." That rule adds nothing to > the game, it simply adds a random, remote possibility that you lose > for no good reason. It would obviously be a bad rule. > > Obviously, contestation isn't the same as that hypothetical "You're > Boned" rule. It's in the game for a reason and definitely adds > *something*. But the original point is that contesting is similar to > the You're Boned rule, in that what it adds to the game is not enough > to offset the possibility that you're randomly hosed and can't do > anything about it. You may not agree that that's true (and I think > there's certainly some question about whether it's bad enough to > suggest a rules change - I think the original post is more > hypothetical than anything... not necessarily "I think that this > should be changed," but more "What if this got changed - would that be > good? And if so, *should* it be changed?"), but there's definitely > something there to consider... I disagree that it is a You're Boned rule, because contesting is fair. It works the same with cheapo minions as with bigcaps. contesting someone's Anarch Convert can be a strong strategic decision, to deny another player an action or block. whoever yields is only going to be out 1 pool usually. and there's also some common unique allies that I could see getting contested often, such as Mylan Horseed, Carlton Van Wyk, or Ossian. no one's game is seriously ruined if those get contested. it could be a very big swing in table balance, but You're Not Boned. however it seems the main argument against the contestation rules is only when bigcap vampires come into question. I don't want to say "tough, deal with it" but isn't using bigcaps or superstars in the first place like putting all your eggs in one basket? and it's true that You're Boned if there's contesting. or first turn potence rush + amaranth. or tricky Serpentis stealing. or Pentex. or sense dep. so is the whole point of this thread really, "let's make bigcaps and superstars stronger!"?

Jozxyqk wrote: > I think any sweeping change needs to address oddball cases like Spell of > Life. Seriously. SoL is handled already: If a SoL mummy crypt card drops to uncontrolled, it waits for counters = starting life = printed capacity to be on it so that it can reenter play (still as a mummy) at the end of some influence phase. No oddballs there. Seriously.

On Jul 14, 2:39 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Sometimes you get screwed in seating not related to contesting. Should > we change the rules to prevent that too? That isn't something you can fix. The contestation rules is. This game has a lot of luck involved in it. And a lot of instances where just due to random chance, you are completely screwed. Which is unsatisfying. Contesting big vampires is something that could, at least in theory, be fixed. I would prefer the game to have *less* random hosing than more random hosing. The argument you are espousing here (i.e. "don't fix the contestation rules 'cause other things randomly hose you sometimes also") is essentially "Well, we can't fix *everything*, so we shouldn't try to fix anything at all." > The other thing about this discussion that is sort of bothering me is > that you have said repeatedly that it happens *rarely*. If so, why > bother with a rules change? 'Cause when it does happen, it tends to be incredibly debilitating. And ends your game before it even starts. Which is extra irritating, considering how unlikely it is. Which isn't good at all. And is something that would be easy to fix. Again, to be clear. I'm not like "THIS RULE MUST BE CHANGED!!!!!" or anything. But it would be nice. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] It's the whole point of a lot of threads. That doesn't make them bad threads. But this thread isn't so much about making the decks stronger. Yes, an actual contestation rules change would make them (very slightly) stronger, but I get the feeling that the main proponents of change would (if necessary) trade this change for another change which made them (very slightly) weaker in some other way, if the end result was that they were about the same in power level overall but the randomly- screwed element was reduced. As an aside, the Undue Influence variant drastically reduces this problem without any changes to the contestation rules, as you'd know before spending a single pool if someone else had already influenced that minion. Still sucks for superstar decks if someone else influences your superstar, but at least you aren't stuck with X pool already on them when it comes around to your turn. -witness1

On Jul 14, 10:02 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 3:16 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So the point of your new rule would be? That they'd be slightly less > > fucked? > > Doesn't feel like enough for a rule change imo. > > As noted, the point is to make the incredibly random utter deck > failure that can arise in the face of someone else playing the same > vampire as you result in less utter deck failure. Which makes the game > suffer from less arbitrary hosing. Which strikes me as a good thing. It's only arbitrary if you play with a certain type of people. I wouldn't contest a vampire unless it'd get me into a better position than not contesting, and I wouldn't call that more arbitrary than rushing that minion and playing Coma. Building your deck so that it can handle one of your vampires disappearing (via contest, diableri, banishing, pentex or whatever) is a part of the game imo. > > I usually think about all the ups and downs of a deck before deciding > > whether to play it in a tournament. Most people I know do that. > > Sure. But "I might contest all my weenie dementation vampires" is > likely the last thing that factors in. I won't play a superstar deck > in competition, because: > > A) I might not draw the superstar. > B) The superstar might get killed. > C) Pentex Subversion is incredibly common. > D) The superstar might get contested. > > So in that instance, yeah, contestation is an issue, but the last one. > But as superstar decks tend to fall under the "diverse and > entertaining" pool of decks, here is a situation where the rules for > contestation *decrease* deck diversity. I'd far sooner play a weenie > dementation deck in competition than I would a superstar deck. As I'm > concerned about contesting when playing a ridiculous superstar deck. > I'm not for a second concerned about contesting with a weenie > dementation deck (or whatever obvious netdeck you'd care to use as an > example). Yeah, I agree it's the last (and least likely) reason not to play a certain deck. It's a reason though, and considering it when building/ picking decks is better than crying about rule changes. > > Firstly: If your prey "randomly" pulls out vampires, you should be > > able to win quite easily. > > Holy crap. Why are you all so hung up on the use of the word "random" > in this discussion? You're the one who started using it. I tried to point out that it was a bad choice of words. > There are 1300+ vampires in the game. Whether or not anyone at a given > table has the same vampires as you in their crypt in a given game is > exactly that--random. Completely and utterly random. Pure chance. Sure. Whether someone has the same vampires in their crypt is kinda random. Whether you influence out the same vampires are all but random. Which was my point. > Are some individual vampires more likely to show up in any individual > game? Sure. I'd expect to see, say, Anson or Arika more often, in the > grand scheme than I would, say, Apolonius. But that doesn't mean that > when you are playing a deck based on Anson, and you sit down at a > tournament game and someone else is also playing an Anson deck, it is > any less of a random event. So even if you arbitrarily assign odds to > each vampire of showing up, if Anson shows up 4 times more often than > Apolonius, Anson showing up in a given game is *still* random. That's why an Anson deck should be built with this in mind, so that it can handle an eventual contest.

[ quoted text not captured ] Doesn't someone have a little incentive to "break the deal"

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, you already explained this one to me about _your_ hypothetical rule.. but other proposed rules (including the one in the original post of this thread) also need to take such things into consideration. The rule which just lets you "back up" more easily in the Influence Phase has its own flaws, but I (obviously) personally believe that a change to Influence is a better path than a change to the Contestation rule. ...if a change is needed... ...which I don't believe it is in the first place.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jul 14, 12:35 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> IN NO WAY did I say "just deal with it". That is complete horseshit. > > "Or perhaps you aren't ignoring it, as you say here... >> And if you need the vampire to make your deck work? > > Sucks to be you. Deal with it. >> Or you have a bunch of pool on them already? > > Sucks to be you. Deal with it. >> Ok, you don't bring out the vampire, spend 4 or 5 turns >> getting the pool back, > > Sucks to be you. Deal with it. >> and another 3 or 4 turns influencing out someone else. You are >> already suffering the consequences even if you don't bring out >> the same vampire. > > Sucks to be you. Deal with it. " > > Just sayin :-) Taking my words out of another part of the thread to try to "get" me in this part of the thread, where I am clearly addressing this specific thing a person is misstating about my words, all the while claiming that I'm misstating what *I'M* saying, might be the most disgusting thing I've ever seen you try, Peter. :( Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

On Jul 14, 5:25 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's only arbitrary if you play with a certain type of people. I > wouldn't contest a vampire unless it'd get me into a better position > than not contesting, and I wouldn't call that more arbitrary than > rushing that minion and playing Coma. And again, the actual contestation is irrelevant. > Building your deck so that it can handle one of your vampires > disappearing (via contest, diableri, banishing, pentex or whatever) is > a part of the game imo. Fine. That does not mean that I need to think that the current rules for contestation aren't unduly harsh. > You're the one who started using it. I tried to point out that it was > a bad choice of words. No, it isn't a bad choice of words. "Random" completely and accurately describes whether or not you sit at a table where someone else is using the same vampires as you. It is completely random. Ok. You could start each game saying "Hey! Is anyone using the following vampires?" and then list them off, and then change your deck accordingly. But you can't do that in competitive play. Consequently, completely random. > Sure. Whether someone has the same vampires in their crypt is kinda > random. Whether you influence out the same vampires are all but > random. Which was my point. "Kinda" random? No. Completely random. That someone across the table influences out a 9 cap vampire that you have spent 8 pool and 8 transfers starting to get out right before you do? Totally random. > That's why an Anson deck should be built with this in mind, so that it > can handle an eventual contest. Sure. And if the contestation rules were somewhat less debilitating, this would still be the case. -Peter

D.J. wrote: > Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >>> Seriously, man. Try playing non-star vampire decks and you won't >>> have this problem, like EVER. >> >> Are you even paying attention to this discussion, here, Kevin? > > It's been pretty clear for a while now that Kevin's responding to > arguments nobody is actually making, and seems to be carrying on > a conversation with a strawman that nobody is actually espousing. Where am I misstating Peter's position and then attacking it? > To be clear: Kevin, I haven't seen anyone arguing that it's the > actual contestation of a vampire that's problematic or random. Then look harder before you accuse me of strawmen. Peter keeps saying that contestation is random. I say it isn't, since a player makes the choice of contestation, which isn't random in any way, and it is the choice to do such a thing (which I personally have chosen NOT to do, repeatedly) which (generally) makes you lose. Peter then says that no, he isn't saying the choosing to contest is the random part (good), he is saying the sitting next to someone who just happened to have the same vampire in their deck (ok) and just happened to draw that vampire (ok) and just happened to transfer him out (nonono!) is the random part -- ridiculous, of course. Peter then re-re-states it and says that he is saying it is random to sit down next to someone who happens to have the same vampire as you and happens to draw that vampire, considering the size of the vampire pool. Now, this re-re-statement of his position *may* be reasonable, given certain definitions of random, but given KoT has recently came out is it *really* so random that Lutz is contesting? This is the whole point of my rebuttal to the core reason of Peter's bad idea to change the contestation rules -- a point which he cannot even bring HIMSELF to support, even though he brought it up -- you do not need to do the thing which causes you "to lose" and to complain about the contestation rules as random! Don't do it! Choose not to lose! Instead, choose to do ANYTHING but that! [ quoted text not captured ]

Rehlow wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> The rules for contestation DO NOT ruin your game when >> it is YOU who CHOOSES to do the contestation. > > But 50% (or maybe 100% if you never contest when you are second > out of the gate) of the time it is NOT YOU that CHOOSES to do the > contestation. I don't know if its because people are stupid, don't > think things through, are really pissed that you got their vamp first > or that contesting vampires happens so rarely that they just don't > know how to deal with it, but people do really stupid things when > the vamp they were working on gets brought into play first. The rules can't be changed to legislate stupidity away, I'm sory to say. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jozxyqk wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Jozxyqk wrote: >>> I think any sweeping change needs to address oddball cases like Spell of >>> Life. Seriously. > >> SoL is handled already: If a SoL mummy crypt card drops to uncontrolled, it >> waits for counters = starting life = printed capacity to be on it so that it can >> reenter play (still as a mummy) at the end of some influence phase. No oddballs >> there. Seriously. > > Yes, you already explained this one to me about _your_ hypothetical rule.. > but other proposed rules (including the one in the original post of this thread) > also need to take such things into consideration. The above is not tied to any particular rule, mine or otherwise. It simply is. "If a SoL mummy crypt card drops to uncontrolled" (no matter how) "then it is handled thus". Moreover, a new general rule need not take into account SoL. A general rule only has to be a general rule. For any instance in which an odd case is in doubt, a special ruling will be needed, but one doesn't need to make special rulings for all the special cases when making a suggestion for the initial general rule. > The rule which just lets you "back up" more easily in the Influence Phase has > its own flaws, but I (obviously) personally believe that a change to Influence > is a better path than a change to the Contestation rule. > > ...if a change is needed... > > ...which I don't believe it is in the first place. > OK.

There is one element to this entire debate, one that Kevin hits on repeatedly, Chris Berger is talking about and a few others... Even if there are two AAA-Toreador, or Saulot-Star, or Theo Eats The World, or [Insert Superstar Deck here] decks Two separate people on the table contest. It requires decisions from two people (or more in the Comedy Gold example above). If you're worried about your cross-table or your predator cracking out Theo Bell (as part of a Miscellaneous Euro-Trash, while you have Theo Eats With Wooden Stakes)... HOW ABOUT YOU CHECK? By the time most people have a vampire out and taken a couple of actions, most people can guess what your deck does. Contesting happening part through the game = probably a plot by someone else. I know I would (and did try to do exactly that). My cross table had a Eurotrash + Theo Brujah deck. I had G1-2 Brujah Eat with Wooden Stakes... when my prey was nearly ousted I decided it was time to cripple my cross-table (by contesting his only ready vampire) and try get a double-kill quickly before my Predator or GrandPred got a chance to stop me. Even when two people run exactly the same decks (or close enough to it), contesting is very very rarely done. It honestly seems like it is so far corner-cased and experienced by so few players as a "truly random/coincidental event" on a regular basis that it is arguing over the life or death of Shrodinger's Cat.

Juggernaut1981 wrote: > There is one element to this entire debate, one that Kevin hits on > repeatedly, Chris Berger is talking about and a few others... [...] > Two separate people on the table contest. It requires decisions from > two people [...] > Even when two people run exactly the same decks (or close enough to > it), contesting is very very rarely done. Yes. That's been covered, as you say. Another point that has been hit on repeatedly is Some decks *require* getting out a particular vampire or else the deck simply has no chance of ousting its prey ever. If two such decks, each depending on the same particular vampire, are put at the same time (note: this is the *random* part: being seated at the same table as a deck that needs the same vampire as your deck) then they either choose to contest (in the hopes of outlasting the other and then cobbling together at least one VP) or one chooses to throw any hope of a VP away and let the other have the vampire uncontested.

[ quoted text not captured ] Both parties always have. Unless it's a really crappy deal for one of them.

On Jul 15, 12:25 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Building your deck so that it can handle one of your vampires > > disappearing (via contest, diableri, banishing, pentex or whatever) is > > a part of the game imo. > > Fine. That does not mean that I need to think that the current rules > for contestation aren't unduly harsh. You can. I'm just saying that adapting to the rules is better than trying to change them in this case (and most others). > > You're the one who started using it. I tried to point out that it was > > a bad choice of words. > > No, it isn't a bad choice of words. "Random" completely and accurately > describes whether or not you sit at a table where someone else is > using the same vampires as you. It is completely random. Ok. You could > start each game saying "Hey! Is anyone using the following vampires?" > and then list them off, and then change your deck accordingly. But you > can't do that in competitive play. Consequently, completely random. It's not the fact that two players partially share crypt cards that's the problem though. It's when one of them (completly non-random, unless xe is an asshat) influences up a vampire that's already in someone elses controlled region. There's nothing random about that. It's a choice made by one of the players. If I have Lutz in my uncontrolled and someone else has him in game, it's not a die in my head that determines whether I influence him out or not. > > Sure. Whether someone has the same vampires in their crypt is kinda > > random. Whether you influence out the same vampires are all but > > random. Which was my point. > > "Kinda" random? No. Completely random. > > That someone across the table influences out a 9 cap vampire that you > have spent 8 pool and 8 transfers starting to get out right before you > do? Totally random. That's random, yes. As random as if that person would've influenced out Mattias when you have spend 8 pool and transfers at Nakthoreb. Neither of those situations leads to an inevitable contest though. The contest is a choice. > > That's why an Anson deck should be built with this in mind, so that it > > can handle an eventual contest. > > Sure. And if the contestation rules were somewhat less debilitating, > this would still be the case. Which just makes a change less meaningful imo.

Interesting thread, so I'm giving my opinion. First, I DO see a lot of contesting in tournaments, and Lutz is just one of the many I see contested, Theo, Arika, Beast, are just another examples, but I don't think that the contesting rule is the problem, but the lack of a fast way to react to the fact that the vampire you've been investing on would now be useless and contested if put into play. So I don't think it's the rule of contesting the one that needs to be changed (and certainly not in the "We're contesting but we're not, because we both pay but we both can use the vampire also" way that Peter defends), but adding something like: - Any player may spend 4 transfers and show all players a unique crypt card from her uncontrolled zone that is controlled by another player to move all counters on that card to another crypt card in her uncontrolled zone. to the Influence phase rules. That way, in the example given, the would be screwed player just shows everybody that Lutz, spends 4 transfers, and moves the 10 blood counters her Lutz has to another of her uncontrolled vampires (ideally a ten cap) to resume playing. That way she's punished from playing that popular vampire without the desire to have it contested, but she can continue playing.

Howdy, > >>> Seriously, man. Try playing non-star vampire decks and you won't > >>> have this problem, like EVER. > > >> Are you even paying attention to this discussion, here, Kevin? > > > It's been pretty clear for a while now that Kevin's responding to > > arguments nobody is actually making, and seems to be carrying on > > a conversation with a strawman that nobody is actually espousing. > > Where am I misstating Peter's position and then attacking it? All over the place in this thread? Including later in this very post? Almost everyone else can figure out what Peter is actually arguing; you seem to need repeated clarifications to still not get it. The really frustrating thing is that your 'rebuttals' of his arguments are completely pointless as you aren't rebutting what he is arguing. > > To be clear: Kevin, I haven't seen anyone arguing that it's the > > actual contestation of a vampire that's problematic or random. > > Then look harder before you accuse me of strawmen. > > Peter keeps saying that contestation is random. No, what Peter keeps saying is that a completely random factor in the game (someone else having the possibility of contesting with you) can lead to really negative consequences for that game, whether or not any actual contestation happens. Really, that fact is not in dispute by anyone who can understand what Peter is saying. The related questions: 1) Does the rules for contestation of unique vampires serve any positive purpose? 2) Should the rules for contestation of unique vampires be modified to mitigate the negative consequences noted above? 3) How should the rules by modified? Are the interesting questions. The question of what Peter is actually arguing is not interesting, as he's now had to repeat it ad nauseum. Alex

Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: >You may use 1 transfer to move 1 blood from any of your uncontrolled minions >to another of your uncontrolled minions. >You may use 1 transfer to move 2 blood from any vampire in your uncontrolled >region to another vampire in your uncontrolled region who is younger or of >the same clan. > >How about that? >Is it getting too convoluted? If the intention is basically to help out with the speed lost during a contest, make it simpler and more straightforward. Something like: If a minion in your uncontrolled region would contest another Methuselah's minion, you may reveal that minion during your influence phase, move all the blood counters on it to other uncontrolled minions, and then (move it to the bottom of your crypt/remove it from the game/something). The extra bookkeeping of younger/same clan can annoy people who feel like they need to check up on people. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> I'm pretty sure that the contesting rules would continue to only affect >> unique cards. The Spell mummies aren't unique, so no. > >Oh yes they are. Apologies for early morning brain freeze. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 14, 7:44 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's not the fact that two players partially share crypt cards that's > the problem though. But see, in many cases, it is. Exactly the problem. > It's when one of them (completly non-random, unless xe is an asshat) > influences up a vampire that's already in someone elses controlled > region. > There's nothing random about that. It's a choice made by one of the > players. > > If I have Lutz in my uncontrolled and someone else has him in game, > it's not a die in my head that determines whether I influence him out > or not. And if you had 10 pool on Lutz when someone else gets Lutz out, either you are completely screwed, or you bring him out and contest him, and you are both completely screwed. Actively contesting a minion is not random. Being in a situation where contestation is even a possibility is completely random. > That's random, yes. As random as if that person would've influenced > out Mattias when you have spend 8 pool and transfers at Nakthoreb. > Neither of those situations leads to an inevitable contest though. The > contest is a choice. Holy crap. Whether or not the contestation actually occurs is irrelevant. If I have 8 pool on a vampire, and someone across the table brings out the exact same vampire first, by pure random chance, I'm screwed. Even if I don't choose to contest that vampire. -Peter

On Jul 14, 6:37 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Peter keeps saying that contestation is random. No. Being in a situation where contestation is even an issue is random. Which, in shorthand, comes across as "contestation is random". To which you object. So I clarify. Over and over again. Being at a table where someone else is using the same vampire as you is completely random. Whether or not the actual contestation occurs is irrelevant. > Peter then says that no, he isn't saying the choosing to contest is the > random part (good), he is saying the sitting next to someone who > just happened to have the same vampire in their deck (ok) and just > happened to draw that vampire (ok) and just happened to transfer > him out (nonono!) is the random part Which is what I said in the initial post of the thread. >-- ridiculous, of course. Where is there ridiculousness here? > Peter then re-re-states it and says that he is saying it is random > to sit down next to someone who happens to have the same vampire > as you and happens to draw that vampire, considering the size of the > vampire pool. And again, I said this in the initial post. > Now, this re-re-statement of his position *may* be > reasonable, given certain definitions of random, but given KoT has > recently came out is it *really* so random that Lutz is contesting? Yes. It is really so random. And really. Lutz was just a convenient example. Which is stuck in your craw for reasons I don't understand. > This is the whole point of my rebuttal to the core reason of Peter's > bad idea to change the contestation rules -- a point which he cannot > even bring HIMSELF to support, even though he brought it up -- you > do not need to do the thing which causes you "to lose" and to complain > about the contestation rules as random! Don't do it! Choose not > to lose! Instead, choose to do ANYTHING but that! The choice isn't always yours. I have 10 pool on an 11 cap minion. My prey brings out the same 11 cap minion before I bring mine out. My game is, pretty much, already lost. By random chance. Choice has little to do with it. -Peter

On Jul 14, 9:19 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Jul 14, 8:30 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 13, 1:36 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > XZealot wrote: > > > > It's not only that you lose all the pool but the minion is out of play > > > > for so long. > > > > > So perhaps a good alternate methode would be a closed auction between > > > > the two contesting Methuselahs. Whoever bids the most gets control of > > > > the minion and the loser has his or hers burned. > > > > Still pretty harsh. Somebody loses X (the capacity of the vampire, not to > > > mention the transfers involved and the cost in pool, blood, and card play of any > > > cards or other effects on the the yielded vampire) and somebody else loses Y > > > (the winning bid amount). > > > > Sometimes a lesser evil to standard contesting. But sometimes more. > > > I can't see how it could be more, but YMMV. > > > > If the rule is to be changed, better to dive headlong: > > > > Off the top of my head: > > > > Contesting crypt cards is handled via something akin to Banishment: when another > > > copy of a unique crypt card enters play, all copies are returned to the > > > uncontrolled region (all temporary control effects are broken). > > > > (A good reason to keep blood on your star vampire). > > > > Trivia for the smattering of effects that care about contested vampires: > > > The vampires are considered contested until one returns to play (ending the > > > contest, although the other copies are not actually yielded). The "cost to > > > contest" is zero (which may be increased by Democritus). Being made to yield a > > > contested card (via Democritus or Praxis Solomon) still results in that > > > contested card being sent to the ash heap, as normal. Olugbenga's special is > > > pretty useless except when Democritus is also around. > > > > Contesting titles is as normal. > > > Contesting library cards is as normal. > > > > Just an idea. If any idea is needed (and I don't say that any is). > > > That certainly is a novel approach that incorporates the unique > > mechanics of VTES (i.e. the uncontrolled region). > > > Another approach would be to play cards out of your hand that the > > contested vampire could play until one player yields by not playing a > > card. This would have an effect similar to "milling" with the result > > being that players might end up jammed up on Master Cards or other > > cards that the contested vampire couldn't play. > > ....or another approch would be to leave them both in play, but you > still have to pay on pool during your untap or yield. Other copies of > this vampire may not block or play reaction cards while this vampire > is acting. You would get your cake and eat it tool ..or if you wanted this to have an anti-weenie element to it as well then the contested vampire has to burn a blood during each untap as well.

wumpus wrote: > Howdy, > >>>>> Seriously, man. Try playing non-star vampire decks and you won't >>>>> have this problem, like EVER. >> >>>> Are you even paying attention to this discussion, here, Kevin? >> >>> It's been pretty clear for a while now that Kevin's responding to >>> arguments nobody is actually making, and seems to be carrying on >>> a conversation with a strawman that nobody is actually espousing. >> >> Where am I misstating Peter's position and then attacking it? > > All over the place in this thread? Including later in this very > post? Almost everyone else can figure out what Peter is actually > arguing; you seem to need repeated clarifications to still not get > it. The really frustrating thing is that your 'rebuttals' of his > arguments are completely pointless as you aren't rebutting what he is > arguing. > >>> To be clear: Kevin, I haven't seen anyone arguing that it's the >>> actual contestation of a vampire that's problematic or random. >> >> Then look harder before you accuse me of strawmen. >> >> Peter keeps saying that contestation is random. > > No, [snip] Learn to read. Feel free to state that I took all these out of context. Peter Bakija wrote: "As vampire contestation...is soooo incredibly random..." Peter Bakija wrote: "But again, [contestation] is so completely, wildly random." Peter Bakija wrote: "There are currently 1300+ vampires in the game. Even if everyone in the world did nothing but netdeck, contestation of key vampires would still be incredibly random." Peter Bakija wrote: Ira wrote: > It's not random at all. "Of course [contestation] is random." Peter Bakija wrote: "Holy crap, Kevin. Have you lost your mind?" Yes, I have. My participation in this thread is over. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 14, 4:11 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 2:39 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > > > Sometimes you get screwed in seating not related to contesting. Should > > we change the rules to prevent that too? > > That isn't something you can fix. The contestation rules is. Pentex Subversion is something that could be fixed, too, by banning it. > Contesting big vampires is something that could, at > least in theory, be fixed. And would not improve the game, IMO, as much as banning Pentex. If you are looking to help big vampires, which it looks like you are. Contesting Bobby Lemon, which happens with predictable frequency because Animalism is awesome, is kind of cool, and not game ending, while contesting huge vampires is one more painful hurdle for them. A hurdle not as large as Pentex. > > Again, to be clear. I'm not like "THIS RULE MUST BE CHANGED!!!!!" or > anything. But it would be nice. > > -Peter Yeah, agreed. I would prefer to ban Pentex, but I'll live a happy life if it sticks around. If we are only talking about the hypothetical contestation rules here, and not just hypothetical rules changes in general that make the game better and better for large vampires, then I like Josh's theory of speeding up the return transfers. But really, I'd rather see Pentex get banned. -dc Making a long thread longer.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jul 14, 2:39 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >> Sometimes you get screwed in seating not related to contesting. Should >> we change the rules to prevent that too? > > That isn't something you can fix. The contestation rules is. There are a couple of cards that could be un-banned to fix it. > > This game has a lot of luck involved in it. And a lot of instances > where just due to random chance, you are completely screwed. Which is > unsatisfying. Contesting big vampires is something that could, at > least in theory, be fixed. > > I would prefer the game to have *less* random hosing than more random > hosing. The argument you are espousing here (i.e. "don't fix the > contestation rules 'cause other things randomly hose you sometimes > also") is essentially "Well, we can't fix *everything*, so we > shouldn't try to fix anything at all." I don't feel like I'm coming at it from that point of view. However, I am usually very much conservative when it comes to rules changes and card text changes. Just recently this NG had a long discussion about how the accretion of rules/errata/text migrations made the game *very* daunting to new players or players returning after long absence. I take the position that rules changes should be made only if it *clearly* fixes something problematic in the game. Especially major rules like the contestation rules. > >> The other thing about this discussion that is sort of bothering me is >> that you have said repeatedly that it happens *rarely*. If so, why >> bother with a rules change? > > 'Cause when it does happen, it tends to be incredibly debilitating. > And ends your game before it even starts. Which is extra irritating, > considering how unlikely it is. Which isn't good at all. And is > something that would be easy to fix. I disagree with that last statement. In this way - yes, you could print the next editions of the rulebooks with your updated rules (or LSJ's, or XZealots, or whomevers). However, spreading the news about the rules changes throughout VTES-dom would not be easy. Doable, yes, but not "easy". best - chris

I agree with this said by librarian: >> Sometimes you get screwed in seating not related to contesting. Should we change the rules to prevent that too? Hey I hate being down-wind from the Swarm Bleed Cheese Monkey Deck... who doesn't? What can I do about being landed on a table with a deck that will completely neuter my game in horrid horrid ways? Sweet FA. Will I get a VP? Same chance as keeping a snowflake in a flamethrower. If you rock up to a tournament with AAA, Theo Eats the World, Beast Must Smash or one of those other iconic "key vamp" decks... then really you should expect to contest, especially if there are more than 20 people playing. Yes there are 1300+ vampires in the game. There are also a number of vampires that FREQUENTLY turn up... why? Because they are considered to be "better" or more powerful vampires. MANY FoS decks now feature Nakhtor-cheese. MANY Old Fight Club Brujah feature Volker & Theo MOST Nos Royalty Decks will have Nikolaus Vermeulen and Calebros MOST Osebo decks feature Cesewayo... MANY Toreador decks will have Anson .... .... .... There are popular vampires. Popular deck concepts and with a big enough pool of players, the chances of two people using variations on the same deck concept go up. 24 people in a room is enough to put the odds in favour of two people sharing a birthday... Why wouldn't it also work for deck-types?

On Jul 15, 4:01 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 7:44 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It's not the fact that two players partially share crypt cards that's > > the problem though. > > But see, in many cases, it is. Exactly the problem. Not really. It's when those two (or one of them) can't make some deal or handle a game without their fav vamp. And that comes more from not thinking about the contesting rule when building a deck than from the complete randomness in outer space. > > If I have Lutz in my uncontrolled and someone else has him in game, > > it's not a die in my head that determines whether I influence him out > > or not. > > And if you had 10 pool on Lutz when someone else gets Lutz out, either > you are completely screwed, or you bring him out and contest him, and > you are both completely screwed. > > Actively contesting a minion is not random. Being in a situation where > contestation is even a possibility is completely random. No, it's not. For someone who doesn't think about contesting when creating or picking decks it might seem that way, I suppose. When going to a tournament, I try to foresee what decks I'm most likely to encounter. Arika and Anson (well, all the three A's) are vampires that comes to mind as more risky to play due to the risk of contesting (in a semi large, general tournament, that is). The contest rule makes the strongest vampires slightly weaker, since more people might want to play them. Unless you don't care about the rule until you end up in the position where you're faced with the choice of contesting or not. Then the rule mostly screws you over. But that's a position where you placed yourself, in that case. At least partially. Being in a situation where a player smooth talks the table into giving him undeserved victory points isn't really random either. Or a situation where you get cross table rushed. Or a situation where you get screwed by the wrong kind of deck being your predator/prey. Or a situation where a table goes to time 3 minutes before you can seal the gw. Getting seated at the table where the smooth talker is, instead of the table with the newbie. That's completly random. Trying to deal with the 3-4 players you get seated with is a part of the game. If you're trying to get them to not throw KRC points into you, not rush your vampires or not contest with you is all the same. > > That's random, yes. As random as if that person would've influenced > > out Mattias when you have spend 8 pool and transfers at Nakthoreb. > > Neither of those situations leads to an inevitable contest though. The > > contest is a choice. > > Holy crap. Whether or not the contestation actually occurs is > irrelevant. If I have 8 pool on a vampire, and someone across the > table brings out the exact same vampire first, by pure random chance, > I'm screwed. Even if I don't choose to contest that vampire. It's not irrelevant. If you have a choice whether to start contesting Lutz or not, you have a situation where you have leverage against the player with Lutz on the table. And again, if you're screwed beyond the possibility of getting a single vp by that fact then there's more to it than just those 8 pool (like an aggressive predator, a lazy ass grand predator, poorly built deck etc.). To me it looks more like the problem is on your side. You keep saying that it's random, that one's screwed if someone uses the same vampires as oneself and that you don't consider contesting when building/ picking decks. Playing by the (current) rules and taking them into consideration when building decks might be better than creating a whine thread here. I've contested minions and won games. I've seen others do that too. If your deck is built to handle one (or more) of your minions disappearing, you have a chance (even if it's much smaller, ofc) to get a vp or two anyway. In the end though, the reality is that sometimes you win and sometimes you don't. If a loss is due to contesting, timing, predator playing the "wrong" deck, grand predator sucking or something else doesn't matter much. All those things are a part of the game, and they contribute to it (even if I get screwed by, and temporary dislike some of them).

The idea of getting partial turns with a contested vampire or Imbued puts a bad taste in my mouth. sure it is might work out fine if you are playing Lutz especially if you get the 4 turns to 1 ratio, but if you are playing Cesewayo you are boned. On top of that the vampire gets a limited invulnerability to rushes(fame, etc..) Baltimore purge, sense deprivation, vampiric disease, Diablerie LSJs' solution is more eloquent, but may fall prey to Might of the Camerilla etc So far the solution I like best is four transfers to get your pool back. the other transfer idea has exploits and does not cover enough deck types. Matt

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jul 14, 6:37 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Peter keeps saying that contestation is random. > > No. Being in a situation where contestation is even an issue is > random. Which, in shorthand, comes across as "contestation is random". > To which you object. So I clarify. Over and over again. Being at a > table where someone else is using the same vampire as you is > completely random. Whether or not the actual contestation occurs is > irrelevant. Try this: P: Getting 365 million dollar in the lotto game is incredibly random. Z: No, it isn't. You have to choose to drive down to the lottery agency and claim your prize. Matching the numbers is random, but collecting the money isn't random.

[ quoted text not captured ] You do make choices which puts you closer to (or further away from) the situation in which contesting can happen though. same way you make a choice to buy 1+ lottery tickets. So it's a random factor (which goes for a lot of what happens in V:tES), but Peter is saying that it's nothing but random, which isn't exactly true. Strong (commonly played) vampires/cards comes with greater risk of contesting and instead of advocating for a rule change I think one should acknowledge and use that information.

henrik wrote: > On Jul 15, 12:40 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Peter D Bakija wrote: >>> On Jul 14, 6:37 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>>> Peter keeps saying that contestation is random. >>> No. Being in a situation where contestation is even an issue is >>> random. Which, in shorthand, comes across as "contestation is random". >>> To which you object. So I clarify. Over and over again. Being at a >>> table where someone else is using the same vampire as you is >>> completely random. Whether or not the actual contestation occurs is >>> irrelevant. >> Try this: >> >> P: Getting 365 million dollar in the lotto game is incredibly random. >> >> Z: No, it isn't. You have to choose to drive down to the lottery agency and >> claim your prize. Matching the numbers is random, but collecting the money isn't >> random. > > You do make choices which puts you closer to (or further away from) > the situation in which contesting can happen though. same way you make > a choice to buy 1+ lottery tickets. So it's a random factor (which > goes for a lot of what happens in V:tES), but Peter is saying that > it's nothing but random, which isn't exactly true. Um. No, he isn't. His point is that no matter what your crypt selection, being seated such that contesting some card in your crypt (or choosing not to contest that same card by not bringing it out) is very detrimental to your game is random. And it is. The obvious facts that 1) Your choice of crypt affects the probability (but does not change it to "not random") 2) After being so seated, at least one of the affected players will get to choose (by making a non-random choice) the way in which xer game will suffer do not change that. > Strong (commonly played) vampires/cards comes with greater risk of > contesting and instead of advocating for a rule change I think one > should acknowledge and use that information. That point is acknowledged. The extent to which that information can be meaningfully used is small and getting smaller still every time new vampires are printed. To bring the lotto parallel a closer one: P: Splitting a jackpot with someone is random. Z: No it isn't, you have to choose to collect. If someone else has already presented a jackpot-winning ticket, you could choose not to present yours. P: But being in that situation is random Z: But that's not what you said Y: And besides, some numbers are more commonly played (1,7, etc.) and so come with greater risk. And some jackpots are more widely played for (i.e., the bigger the jackpot, the more tickets sold). One should acknowledge that and use that information. L: But after choosing to play and selecting your numbers and matching the jackpot numbers, it's still random to have to split it with someone else. I think one should acknowledge that there is a random element involved in winding up at a table in which contesting (or having a choice to contest) comes up at all.

On Jul 15, 2:00 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [snipped but read and agreed] > That point is acknowledged. Not by Peter and John Eno (at least from what I've been told in this thread). From what I've been told here it seems very uncommon to consider the risks of possible contests when building/selecting decks. In my eyes that's the same as not considering the existance of time limits, certain deck types etc. >The extent to which that information can be meaningfully used is small and >getting smaller still every time new vampires are printed. True. It's still useful though, imo. There will (probably) always be certain decks that are popular, and some vampires tend to never go out of style (Anson, Arika for example). And every time new vampires are printed you reduce the randomness of contesting as well. Not being the math ace in our discussion here I'm not sure if those two evens out, but I'm not sure it's that important. > I think one should acknowledge that there is a random element involved in > winding up at a table in which contesting (or having a choice to contest) comes > up at all. Of course. Just as one should acknowledge that there is several non random elements involved in winding up at a table where the (possible) contest comes up (and even more non random elements involved after the (possible) contest has come up). I understand that nothing will ever make the randomness go away entirely, but plenty of things can be done to minimize it. And without taking any precautions, it's silly to whine.

henrik wrote: > On Jul 15, 2:00 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > [snipped but read and agreed] > >> That point is acknowledged. > > Not by Peter and John Eno (at least from what I've been told in this > thread). Peter (the OP) did. In this thread. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f41054080ee40adb John Eno may or may not have. That doesn't change anything about the point having been acknowledged. >> I think one should acknowledge that there is a random element involved in >> winding up at a table in which contesting (or having a choice to contest) comes >> up at all. > > Of course. Just as one should acknowledge that there is several non > random elements involved in winding up at a table where the (possible) > contest comes up (and even more non random elements involved after the > (possible) contest has come up). Yes, and it has been. And yet there's still some harping on the idea that making the statement "contesting is random" reflects some sort of ridiculousness on the part of the speaker instead of a reference to the underlying bit about the random element involved in winding up in a situation where contesting is possible, even after that reference has been made explicit. > I understand that nothing will ever make the randomness go away > entirely, but plenty of things can be done to minimize it. And without > taking any precautions, it's silly to whine. Perhaps, but straw. The OP's not whining or suggesting that nothing can be done to minimize it (see link above), he's suggesting a way to improve the game. Which is not silly.

On Jul 15, 2:41 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Not by Peter and John Eno (at least from what I've been told in this > > thread). > > Peter (the OP) did. In this thread. > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f410... Oh, I forgot about that one. I just remembered the earlier posts where he said he had never thought about contesting when chosing decks. > > Of course. Just as one should acknowledge that there is several non > > random elements involved in winding up at a table where the (possible) > > contest comes up (and even more non random elements involved after the > > (possible) contest has come up). > > Yes, and it has been. > > And yet there's still some harping on the idea that making the statement > "contesting is random" reflects some sort of ridiculousness on the part of the > speaker instead of a reference to the underlying bit about the random element > involved in winding up in a situation where contesting is possible, even after > that reference has been made explicit. I'm more harping about the statement "contesting is completely random", which is slightly different. Anyway, it seems I'm not the worst harper about this so I'll let you save strength and quit here. I mostly thought the lottery thingy was somewhat misleading since Peter doesn't seem to buy lottery tickets but still wants to change the lottery system. > > I understand that nothing will ever make the randomness go away > > entirely, but plenty of things can be done to minimize it. And without > > taking any precautions, it's silly to whine. > > Perhaps, but straw. > > The OP's not whining or suggesting that nothing can be done to minimize it (see > link above), he's suggesting a way to improve the game. Which is not silly. Improving is quite relative there though. I (and the ones I've spoke to about contesting) thinks the current rules are good and that adapting to them is better than changing them.

henrik wrote: > On Jul 15, 2:41 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> And yet there's still some harping on the idea that making the statement >> "contesting is random" reflects some sort of ridiculousness on the part of the >> speaker instead of a reference to the underlying bit about the random element >> involved in winding up in a situation where contesting is possible, even after >> that reference has been made explicit. > > I'm more harping about the statement "contesting is completely > random", which is slightly different. In context, it means the same. > Improving is quite relative there though. I (and the ones I've spoke > to about contesting) thinks the current rules are good and that > adapting to them is better than changing them. Adapting to the rules and looking to see if the rules can be improved are not mutually exclusive. See also aggravated damage, contesting prince/archbishop titles, etc.

On Jul 15, 4:15 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not really. It's when those two (or one of them) can't make some deal > or handle a game without their fav vamp. Making a deal is completely irrelevant when you spend the first 6 turns of the game without a vampire in play. Or spending three of the 6 contesting a vampire without another minion in play, as you bring someone else out. If you start the game with the first minion you are bringing out already hitting the table before you bring yours out, deal making is irrelevant. You will be ousted before you have a minion in play. > And that comes more from not thinking about the contesting rule when > building a deck than from the complete randomness in outer space. No, no it does not. Whether or not someone else at the table is playing and influencing out the same minion as you is completely random. > No, it's not. Do you understand what "random" means? There are 1300+ minions in the game. If I have minion X in my crypt, and then I shuffle and (randomly) draw minion X into my opening crypt draw, for contestation to even be a *possibility*, the following things need to happen: A) Someone in the room has to have selected minion X out of the 1300+ minions in the game and put them in their crypt. B) They need to have ended up at the same table as me. C) They needed to have shuffled and also (randomly) drawn minion X into their opening crypt draw. D) They needed to decide to start influencing out that vampire. This is a chain of events that is governed primarily by random chance. Yes. Some vampires are more likely to show up than others. But even then, the odds of a given specific vampire showing up in someone's deck, at the same table, in their opening crypt draw, and then be influenced before anyone has any information about what minions are in play, is very, very small. And random. Yes. Once and a while, all these things line up, and then someone will specifically contest a minion for strategic reasons. That isn't what I'm talking about. > For someone who doesn't think about contesting when > creating or picking decks it might seem that way, I suppose. Even if you put all the thought in the world into whether or not a minion might be contested, being put in a situation where contestation is a possibility is still a completely random event. I could have gone to the last tournament and said "Huh. I want to be sure I don't even contest a primary minion. To that end, I'm going to make a deck that revolves around one of the worst vampires I can think of. Lucretia the Cess Queen. No one will ever contest her!" and yet someone at that tournament was playing a Lucretia, Cess Queen superstar deck. If we sat at the same table, we would both be completely screwed. By utter, random chance. > When > going to a tournament, I try to foresee what decks I'm most likely to > encounter. And yet whether or not you encounter them is a completely random event. Or sit next to them. Or have the same minions as someone in their opening crypt draw. Yes. You can mitigate the likelihood of contestation by trying to read the metagame. But still, being put into a situation where contestation is a possibility is pure randomosity. If you say "I will avoid playing Arika, as she is likely to be contested!", and go to a tournament where everyone else came to the exact same conclusion, no one will ever contest Arika (which is a random event), but the likelihood of contesting other vampires has increased (randomly) by virtue of Arika being removed from the pool of total minions. You might like to think that by being super clever and trying to read the metagame to avoid contesting minions makes being in a situation where contestation is a possibility less random. It doesn't. You can build the most contestation resistant deck in the world (well, ya know, other than making it all out of Aabt Kindred) and still end up randomly in a situation where contestation is a problem for you. 'Cause being in a situation where contestation is a possibility is random. > It's not irrelevant. If you have a choice whether to start contesting > Lutz or not, you have a situation where you have leverage against the > player with Lutz on the table. How are you missing (or actively ignoring) the point that *you don't even need to be actively contesting a minion to still be screwed*. The choice is irrelevant in many situations. I am influencing out big vampire X. I invest multiple turns and multiple transfers getting out vampire X. Right before I get out vampire X, my prey brings out vampire X (by pure random chance). I have a significant amount of pool, transfers, and time invested in that minion. I now can: A) Bring him out and contest him and screw us both. or B) Start bringing out a new minion, who might be just as big, and take just as long, and be without any minions at all for a really long time, and have a bunch of pool invested in a minion that will never see play, and I'll probably be ousted before I see that investment returned. Does actually contesting the minion come into play here? No, unless I feel spiteful, and I want to screw both of us extra hard. But the *rules* of contestation have essentially ended my game before it even started. By pure random chance. > And again, if you're screwed beyond the possibility of getting a > single vp by that fact then there's more to it than just those 8 pool > (like an aggressive predator, a lazy ass grand predator, poorly built > deck etc.). Please read the above example. Now read it again. And don't ignore it. Go on. I'll wait. Really. Go reread it. As I have presented it multiple times now, and you still don't seem to see what I am talking about. In the situation as presented, which isn't that far out of the realm of reason (you can say all you want "Well, if your opening crypt is all big vampires, then you suck", which doesn't change the fact that many good decks are made of all big vampires. And you can say "but if you planned on not contesting vampires, you wouldn't have randomly sat down next to someone who randomly also has the same vampire as you", which doesn't actually work like that), being "screwed beyond the possibility of getting a single VP" doesn't really describe it. You don't even get to get a minion out before you are likely ousted (spend 20 pool and 20 transfers on one minion all the while even a completely low impact predator can likely oust you). > To me it looks more like the problem is on your side. Did you even read the start of this thread? Do you know what the premise is? -Peter

On Jul 14, 10:36 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Learn to read. Feel free to state that I took all these out of context. > > Peter Bakija wrote: > > "As vampire contestation...is soooo incredibly random..." > > Peter Bakija wrote: > > "But again, [contestation] is so completely, wildly random." > > Peter Bakija wrote: > > "There are currently 1300+ vampires in the game. Even if everyone in > the world did nothing but netdeck, contestation of key vampires would > still be incredibly random." > > Peter Bakija wrote: > Ira wrote: > > It's not random at all. > > "Of course [contestation] is random." > > Peter Bakija wrote: > > "Holy crap, Kevin. Have you lost your mind?" > > Yes, I have. My participation in this thread is over. Kevin, how is it that you are willfully ignoring the fact that my point is clearly that "being in a position where contestation is a possibility is random" and when I say "contestation is random", I am simply saving some typing. Which is ironic, I know. But has been explained at length. And I figure that through both paying attention and context, that the issue that is random is *being in a position where contestation is even a possibility*, is clear enough that I don't need to type "being in a position where contestation is even a possibility is random" every time it comes up. Yes. You are completely correct. Actively bringing out a vampire that is already on the table is not a random event. But that is irrelevant to the discussion. And has been since the first post. 'Cause that isn't what is being, and never has been, discussed. And I simply am at a loss as to why you are unable or unwilling to see this. -Peter

On Jul 15, 8:26 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not by Peter and John Eno (at least from what I've been told in this > thread). Well, incorrect. In multiple places (most of which were direct responses to you), I have completely and in every way acknowledged that once can attempt to minimize the likelihood of contesting vampires. And yet if it happens to come up, it is still a random happenstance. > From what I've been told here it seems very uncommon to > consider the risks of possible contests when building/selecting decks. No, I pointed out specific instances where one would consider such a thing and then factor it into one's deck choice. In both specific (see: superstar decks and competetive play) and abstratct (see: Arika and Anson) senses. But in regards to your example of "weenie dementation", contestation is the last thing I would consider. As such a deck is not remotely worried about contesting vampires (as it is, ya know, full of interchangeable weenies). > I understand that nothing will ever make the randomness go away > entirely, but plenty of things can be done to minimize it. And without > taking any precautions, it's silly to whine. And again, I ask--did you even read the initial post in this thread? I'm not whining about anything. I'm not complaining 'cause I lost a game due to contesting something. I'm not demanding that rules be changed 'cause they are inconvenient to me. I observed something in the game that strikes me as both problematic and makes the game less fun when it happens. And suggested that it might be beneficial to the game as a whole to address this issue with a hypothetical rules change, and presented it to the group as an interesting source of discussion. Which is all made very clear in the initial post of the thread. -Peter

On Jul 15, 12:56 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > I don't feel like I'm coming at it from that point of view. However, I > am usually very much conservative when it comes to rules changes and > card text changes. Just recently this NG had a long discussion about > how the accretion of rules/errata/text migrations made the game *very* > daunting to new players or players returning after long absence. I take > the position that rules changes should be made only if it *clearly* > fixes something problematic in the game. Especially major rules like > the contestation rules. Sure. But even the *title* of this thread has the word "Hypothetical" in it. Objecting to hypothetical rules changes on the grounds that it would confuse new players kind of misses the point. Yes. I agree that changing the rules is not something to be undertaken lightly. But one can discuss rules changes on their own merits, ignoring things like "will it confuse new players" for the purposes of determining if such a rules change is a good idea or not in and of itself. If one determines that, yes, such a rules change would be an overall improvement to the game, in regards to the rules themselves? Yeah, *then* you can start debating if changing the rules at all is a good or bad thing. -Peter

On Jul 14, 11:10 pm, quickbeam <dcloo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Pentex Subversion is something that could be fixed, too, by banning > it. Certainly true. Although I think I was talking about how, in general, sometimes you just get screwed by seating. Which happens. But as John pointed out, that sort of thing is just as much the result of player choice (i.e. if I choose to build my deck to be completely screwed by combat, and I randomly end up next to a combat deck, I'm completely, randomly screwed, but this is much more the result of me specifically deciding to ignore combat defense. This sort of random hosing doesn't actually bother me at all.) > If we are only talking about the hypothetical contestation rules here, > and not just hypothetical rules changes in general that make the game > better and better for large vampires, then I like Josh's theory of > speeding up the return transfers. That isn't bad either (the "get your wasted investment back quicker" plan that Josh came up with), but would probably have to work in such a way that it wouldn't, like, just also make Govern the Unaligned even better than it already is. > But really, I'd rather see Pentex get banned. There is probably a lot to be said for that. But not here :-) -Peter

On Jul 12, 2:56 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > "If two (or more) copies of a unique minion are in play, both are > flipped over and considered out of play. During each player's untap > phase, they must pay a pool to flip over their copy of the minion into > play (and flip over their opponent's copy out of play) and may use the > vampire as normal until their opponent does the same on their untap > phase. They may choose to not pay a pool and burn their copy of the > minion immediately. I think if there were a refund on blood counters on your contested vampire, that would negate enough of the game-destroying effect of contesting a large or vital vampire. "When a player chooses to yield a contested vampire, that player may move all the blood counters on that vampire to his or her pool." This doesn't remove the possibility of extended contesting, but it does give players a chance to get their pool back and hopefully get out another vampire. Even in the scenario being repeated in this thread, where you have 10 counters on your 11 cap all-star, and then another player plays that all-star, you can choose to contest for one turn and then yield, getting all 10 counters back immediately and in time for your following influence phase. This does not solve the problem of "If I don't have All-Star Vamp, I can't play this deck." I believe that if you put all your deckbuilding eggs in one basket, you take the consequences of having that basket smashed with a baseball bat. I don't believe the current contestation rules need any changes. I empathize with having your deck screwed over and 1/3 of your pool tied up, but Pentex and Sense Dep already discourage the overplacement of eggs in baskets. These are the risks you take. --hza

On Jul 15, 10:13 am, the HZA <matthew.hes...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think if there were a refund on blood counters on your contested > vampire, that would negate enough of the game-destroying effect of > contesting a large or vital vampire. > > "When a player chooses to yield a contested vampire, that player > may move all the blood counters on that vampire to his or her pool." Ooh! That isn't bad either. It saves you from the "my game is ended before it even starts" more or less; if you already got a lot of use out of your guy before he got contested (like you Minion Tapped him for 10 or something), it doesn't pay back much. Yeah, superstar decks can still be ended, but that is a problem for superstar decks from all possible levels. I might like this one better than my original idea. See, this is why I like hypothetical discussions where people don't get all hung up on semantics and just go with what the discussion as actually about--we get a lot of interesting ideas. -Peter

On Jul 14, 6:16 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Taking my words out of another part of the thread to try to "get" me > in this part of the thread, where I am clearly addressing this specific > thing a person is misstating about my words, You wrote "deal with it" four times in one post. How is that not saying "deal with it"? What words did I put into your mouth? John Eno

On Jul 14, 6:16 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Taking my words out of another part of the thread to try to "get" me > in this part of the thread, where I am clearly addressing this specific > thing a person is misstating about my words, all the while claiming > that I'm misstating what *I'M* saying, might be the most disgusting > thing I've ever seen you try, Peter. :( Kevin, I'm not trying to "get" you. John said "you said 'deal with it'", and you claimed you didn't. I realize that you and he were talking about something else completely. It was levity. Heck. I even put in a smiley face. And still... -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] This post would have been +5 Awesome if you just replied "deal with it"... =)

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Um. No, he isn't. His point is that no matter what your crypt selection, being >seated such that contesting some card in your crypt (or choosing not to contest >that same card by not bringing it out) is very detrimental to your game is >random. And it is. It's not completely random like Peter has said many times. Opposing players don't select their crypts by shuffling all their crypt cards and randomly drawing 12 cards. And even that wouldn't be completely random, the result would be biased towards the distribution of cards they own. In a tournament setting, or in a big active play group, which I'm guessing are all Peter realy cares about, maybe it appears to be completely random, as it's much harder to predict what people will play with. In a small play group or maybe one with novice players with relatively few cards to draw on, it can be much more predicitable and appear much less random. In such a group it might be so predicitable to make it practical to design a deck around the idea of deliberately contesting a vampire with another player. >The obvious facts that > >1) Your choice of crypt affects the probability (but does not change it to "not >random") Your choice of crypt affects a number of random events all biased by your choices and those made by other players. >2) After being so seated, at least one of the affected players will get to >choose (by making a non-random choice) the way in which xer game will suffer > >do not change that. Again V:TES as usual. >> Strong (commonly played) vampires/cards comes with greater risk of >> contesting and instead of advocating for a rule change I think one >> should acknowledge and use that information. > >That point is acknowledged. Acknowledged, but its implications ignored. >The extent to which that information can be meaningfully used is small and >getting smaller still every time new vampires are printed. And similarily the "random" occurance of contesting vamparies also becomes a less likely event. >To bring the lotto parallel a closer one: You've only made it more of a straw-man. It's not in anyone's self-interest to turn down a split jackpot. For vampire contesting to be anywhere near "completely random", then given the number of crypt cards published, it also has to be an extreamly rare occurance. If that's always the case then you might as well just remove penalties for contesting vampires with other players all together since it *can't* come up often enough to make a difference. The more unpredicable vampire contesting is in a game of V:TES, then more unlikely it is to occur. Quite frankly I'd just leave it alone. The rules for contesting vampires sounds like a nice self-adjusting system to me. In games where crypt selection is more predictable and thus contesting more common then to that extent the penalties encourage deck diversity. In games where it's completely unpredictable as Peter says it's just another random event that can screw your deck over, much more rare than some, and becoming even more rare with each new set you release. Ross Ridge -- l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU [oo][oo] rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca -()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ db //

Ross Ridge wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Um. No, he isn't. His point is that no matter what your crypt selection, being >> seated such that contesting some card in your crypt (or choosing not to contest >> that same card by not bringing it out) is very detrimental to your game is >> random. And it is. > > It's not completely random like Peter has said many times. It is as completely random as his sentence implies in context, though, which includes the caveats you list (snipped). >>> Strong (commonly played) vampires/cards comes with greater risk of >>> contesting and instead of advocating for a rule change I think one >>> should acknowledge and use that information. >> That point is acknowledged. > > Acknowledged, but its implications ignored. No. Just the context is ignored. Peter likes to play loose with his words. That leads to trouble occasionally (and needlessly long threads). But that doesn't change his meaning. >> The extent to which that information can be meaningfully used is small and >> getting smaller still every time new vampires are printed. > > And similarily the "random" occurance of contesting vamparies also > becomes a less likely event. > >> To bring the lotto parallel a closer one: > > You've only made it more of a straw-man. It's not in anyone's > self-interest to turn down a split jackpot. Non-sequitur. The parallel is in encountering the circumstance, not the advantage or disadvantage of operating within that circumstance.

Mr. Bakija, while I agree with your solution, please tell your friend on my behalf that when I play vampires big enough that contesting kills me, I announce the table what I am influencing on. This is not that bad to tell Lutz is coming 2 turns before he actually is, and that saves big losses.

On Jul 15, 11:49 am, Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > It's not completely random like Peter has said many times. In a purely mathematical sense, you are correct. Some things are more likely than others--in any given game, you are more likely to see, say, Anson (as he is really good and often the basis for many decks as well as being a good utility player in general) as you are, say, Uriah Winter (as he is really bad and rarely shows up except in very weird corner case decks). And in a given play environment, some minions are more common than others (for example, Asif only has 3 or 4 playable decks at any given time, and one of them always includes Enkidu. Thus, there is a roughly 1 in 4 chance of Enkidu showing up in any game I play with Asif). Yes. Correct. But in a general sense, if I sit down at a game with a random field of players with a random field of decks, that someone in a given game is playing the same minion as me and happens to draw that minion, is close enough to a totally random occurrence so as to not be worth worrying about the less random parts. Certainly for a discussion about "Is the penalty for contesting an important minion appropriate, considering how random it happens to be"? > Acknowledged, but its implications ignored. No, they aren't ignored. Yes. It is certainly possible/likely that the original designers said "Huh. The contestation rules are a good failsafe in case certain minions are too strong or people are too predictable...", and as such, the harsh penalty was measured in specifically to make people afraid of it. But as the pool of vampires gets bigger and bigger, and the likelihood of contesting even the strongest of minions gets smaller and smaller, I'm getting less and less convinced that the benefit to the current contestation rules (i.e. a failsafe against overpowered minions, for ex.) outweigh the negatives to the game (i.e. it occasionally totally screws you in a completely unfun way, even when you are using a totally un-overpowered minion). > For vampire contesting to be anywhere near "completely random", > then given the number of crypt cards published, it also has to be an > extreamly rare occurance. It is extremely rare. To be in a situation where: A) Contestation is even a possibility. and B) It matters. And yet it still happens sometimes. And when it does, it is often leads to an incredibly lame and unsatisfying loss/demolishing of a whole game. Due to pure chance. -Peter

Howdy, > >>>>> Seriously, man. Try playing non-star vampire decks and you won't > >>>>> have this problem, like EVER. > > >>>> Are you even paying attention to this discussion, here, Kevin? > > >>> It's been pretty clear for a while now that Kevin's responding to > >>> arguments nobody is actually making, and seems to be carrying on > >>> a conversation with a strawman that nobody is actually espousing. > > >> Where am I misstating Peter's position and then attacking it? > > > All over the place in this thread? Including later in this very > > post? Almost everyone else can figure out what Peter is actually > > arguing; you seem to need repeated clarifications to still not get > > it. The really frustrating thing is that your 'rebuttals' of his > > arguments are completely pointless as you aren't rebutting what he is > > arguing. > > >>> To be clear: Kevin, I haven't seen anyone arguing that it's the > >>> actual contestation of a vampire that's problematic or random. > > >> Then look harder before you accuse me of strawmen. > > >> Peter keeps saying that contestation is random. > > > No, > > [snip] > > Learn to read. Feel free to state that I took all these out of context. Yay! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! (We're into the ad hominem phase.) I know how to read, and more importantly, I know how to parse and understand what I am reading, taking into account context. You are, for reasons unknown and possibly unknowable, bullheadedly asserting that Peter is 'saying' X, when Peter himself (and several other, ostensibly disinterested observers, which should be a red flag) has(/ have) repeatedly clarified that he is, in fact, meaning Y. Yes, Peter is often using shorthand in what he is 'saying' when he is meaning Y. This is a blessing, as the amount of words necessary to be absolutely precise about Y is infinite, and far too many of that infinity have already been spent. So, you can attack X and Peter for 'saying' X all you want, but your attacks will be ineffective on his actual argument, Y. And you will simply seem insane if you continue to assert that his 'real' argument is X. Viz: > Peter Bakija wrote: > > "Holy crap, Kevin. Have you lost your mind?" > > Yes, I have. My participation in this thread is over. Good. Maybe it can move on, now. Alex

Ross Ridge wrote: > Acknowledged, but its implications ignored. LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >No. Just the context is ignored. Peter likes to play loose with >his words. That leads to trouble occasionally (and needlessly long >threads). But that doesn't change his meaning. No, he ingored them as you have. Peter explained what he ment by "random" quite clearly in this post: http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/6406804ca8321e14 He describes a nearly completely random series events that have "very, very, small" chance of occuring. He's not playing loose with his words, just ignoring their implication. The more random it is, the more unlikely it is to occur. If it's occuring enough to be a significant problem, then it's not as random as Peter describes. If it's that random then it's so unlikely to occur that any change to the penalties won't make any practical difference. Either remove the penalities as a waste of space in the rule book or just leave them as they are. They only case that it makes sense for the penalities to be tweaked if they're coming up often enough for their occurance to be not to be entirely unpredictible as Peter says. >> You've only made it more of a straw-man. It's not in anyone's >> self-interest to turn down a split jackpot. > >Non-sequitur. The parallel is in encountering the circumstance, not the >advantage or disadvantage of operating within that circumstance. No, it follows directly. Turning down the split jackpot makes the statements of "Z" in your lotto "parallel" absurd, which in the context of your post implies that what "Z" actually said was also absurd. Since you're arguing against what was actually said, it's a straw-man. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 15, 1:46 pm, Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > Ross Ridge wrote: > > Acknowledged, but its implications ignored. > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >No. Just the context is ignored. Peter likes to play loose with > >his words. That leads to trouble occasionally (and needlessly long > >threads). But that doesn't change his meaning. > > No, he ingored them as you have. Peter explained what he ment by "random" > quite clearly in this post: > > http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/64068... > > He describes a nearly completely random series events that have "very, > very, small" chance of occuring. He's not playing loose with his words, > just ignoring their implication. The more random it is, the more unlikely > it is to occur. If it's occuring enough to be a significant problem, > then it's not as random as Peter describes. Dubious assertion. Peter explicitly states elsewhere that the rarity of it happening is _part_ of the problem. > If it's that random then > it's so unlikely to occur that any change to the penalties won't make > any practical difference. In terms of making any given deck better or worse? Very unlikely to make any practical difference. In terms of making people have a better overall experience of the game? Somewhat more important, since even if only two people at a table are subjected to the random contestation a) all four or five players experience the side effect of an out-of-whack table and b) possibly the finals table of the tournament is also thrown out-of-whack by the results of that wacky game. Possibly still too small to matter, but not nonexistent. But contrary to your assertion, Peter is not ignoring this. He's stated already that he's not actually trying to get the rules changed. He's trying to find out whether or not he's missing some value that the rules add to the game, and generate discussion of alternatives, in a very hypothetical sense. He's also been clear about this in the thread. > Either remove the penalities as a waste of > space in the rule book or just leave them as they are. They only case > that it makes sense for the penalities to be tweaked if they're coming up > often enough for their occurance to be not to be entirely unpredictible > as Peter says. It's true that due to the rarity of the problem, the effort involved in fixing that problem may exceed the value of doing so. None of that proves that there isn't actually a problem. Peter's done a fine job of acknowledging both of these statements and wishes to have a hypothetical discussion focussing on the second; his detractors continue pressing first. Over and over and over again. -witness1

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >And yet it still happens sometimes. And when it does, it is often >leads to an incredibly lame and unsatisfying loss/demolishing of a >whole game. Due to pure chance. Sounds like V:TES to me, and I've never contested a vampire. There are so many ways the "random" choices of other players can screw you over. Or just your own choices. A bad crypt draw can seriously hurt you, but that doesn't seem to stop people putting four or more of the same vampire in the same deck. What you say makes vampire contesting a problem, the extream randomness of it, also makes it so much less of a problem. Since it occurs so rarely, if your hypothetical changes or anyone else's tweaks were applied to rules, how would you know if they actually had a net benefit? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 15, 2:12 pm, Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > Since it occurs so rarely, if your hypothetical changes or anyone else's > tweaks were applied to rules, how would you know if they actually had > a net benefit? He's not looking for a _net_ benefit, because he's not lobbying for a change. He's trying to have a theoretical discussion. Pretend Peter is in the process of making his own game, that hasn't been released yet. He's considering some kind of contestation mechanic, but after looking at the one present in V:tES, he's not sure it's the one he wants. -witness1

On Jul 15, 2:12 pm, Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > Sounds like V:TES to me, and I've never contested a vampire. There are > so many ways the "random" choices of other players can screw you over. Yes. But as pointed out by many in this discussion already, losing a game due to randomly being in a seat where contestation is an issue is completely divorced from the choices you, as a player, have made. Yes, I can build a deck that is totally screwed if it sits next to a Rush deck, but that was my choice when building the deck. When I randomly sit down next to a Rush deck (which, again, is random), and I get totally blown out of the water, it is a different kind of "random hosing" than when a minion is contested. I chose to not have combat defense. I can't choose to not have minions that can be contested (well, again, other than playing with all Aabt Kindred or something). And random choices that other players screw you over with are, again, completely different. Those are instances of people choosing to do something that might be insane, but at the very least, it is something that is being decided upon. When I am getting out a big vampire, and my prey gets out the exact same one right before I do? No choice there. Nothing I could have done during the deck building or choosing phase. Yeah, I could have said "Hey, I'm getting out Vampire X. Is anyone else?" and when your prey says "Uh, yeah, me too...", you then are both screwed if you both need that minion. Randomly. -Peter

On Jul 15, 1:46 pm, Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > He describes a nearly completely random series events that have "very, > very, small" chance of occuring. He's not playing loose with his words, > just ignoring their implication. The more random it is, the more unlikely > it is to occur. If it's occuring enough to be a significant problem, > then it's not as random as Peter describes. It is random. And it happens once and a while. And when it does, it often ends someone's game before it even starts. It makes sense to me, at least in theory, that some difference in the contestation rules could be beneficial to the "fun" aspect of the game, if it mitigates this problem. -Peter

On Jul 15, 3:40 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I can build a deck that is totally screwed if it sits next to a Rush > deck, but that was my choice when building the deck. When I randomly > sit down next to a Rush deck (which, again, is random), and I get > totally blown out of the water, it is a different kind of "random > hosing" than when a minion is contested. I chose to not have combat > defense. I can't choose to not have minions that can be contested > (well, again, other than playing with all Aabt Kindred or something). ...<snip>... > Yeah, I could have said > "Hey, I'm getting out Vampire X. Is anyone else?" and when your prey > says "Uh, yeah, me too...", you then are both screwed if you both need > that minion. Randomly. > > -Peter Well, during deckbuilding you could have chosen not to make your deck so reliant on a single minion. -witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] Or you could have made your deck less reliant on getting minions out altogether. I prefer my Ascendance / Protected Resources deck, personally.

Is there value in uniqueness? Certainly in this game,I believe. I do not think that anyone will argue that being able to contest many of the power cards has value. Would you seriously remove the unique quality from this game or remove the ability to contest those cards? Granted having your rock star contested can crush your game when it happens. I think we can agree it is going to happen with decreasing frequency as more crypt cards are printed. is it really a problem that the power cards get contested. This has always been a mechanic of the game. I would say an excellent balancing factor to a powerful card. When I sit down to a table with a linchpin in my deck I accept the possibility of a contest. It was Lutz... LUTZ ...please of course he was contested. Well maybe not of course but very likely. After more thought IF there is a change what LSJ proposed seems best. Some option to get the pool back may be warranted so you can start working on alternatives or not. Matt

On Jul 15, 3:51 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > Well, during deckbuilding you could have chosen not to make your deck > so reliant on a single minion. And again, it does not need to be a deck that is "so reliant" on a single minion. I have a deck made of big vampires. Which vampires I get out if irrelevant. I just need, ya know, some minions. I put 10 pool on 11 cap X. My prey influences out same 11 cap X. I am now without a minion, with 10 pool invested in minion X. If I start getting out someone else, it will be 6 turns and 20 some odd pool before I have a single minion in play. Which has nothing at all to do with being "so reliant" on a single minion. It is just being, ya know, "so reliant" on having some minions. I know. Who would make such a deck? -Peter

On Jul 15, 3:16 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > henrik wrote: > > On Jul 15, 2:41 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> And yet there's still some harping on the idea that making the statement > >> "contesting is random" reflects some sort of ridiculousness on the part of the > >> speaker instead of a reference to the underlying bit about the random element > >> involved in winding up in a situation where contesting is possible, even after > >> that reference has been made explicit. > > > I'm more harping about the statement "contesting is completely > > random", which is slightly different. > > In context, it means the same. I don't call things you have some (minor) control over "completely random". But ok.

On Jul 15, 4:17 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > It was Lutz... LUTZ ...please of course he > was contested. Well maybe not of course but very likely. Oh, for crap's sake. Please turn "Lutz" in all parts of this discussion into "Vampire X", That it was Lutz was just a convenient example. It could just as well have been Lucretia, the Cess Queen. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Not likely... =) There is *some* point to what they're saying. It's much more likely to be Lutz or Anson than it is to be, like, Zubeida or Marconius. While you can't eliminate the possibility of contestation ruining your day, you can certainly reduce it by not playing Lutz decks... Of course, the point he's trying to make is still hung up on the "randomness" argument that is making this thread way less interesting. Ignoring how contestation happens, or how often, would your rule or LSJ's (or Alex's, which is the one I prefer) make the game more fun? That's what I wish this thread was focused on. But c'est la mort...

On Jul 15, 4:43 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 15, 3:51 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > Well, during deckbuilding you could have chosen not to make your deck > > so reliant on a single minion. > > And again, it does not need to be a deck that is "so reliant" on a > single minion. I have a deck made of big vampires. Which vampires I > get out if irrelevant. I just need, ya know, some minions. I put 10 > pool on 11 cap X. The specific case I was referring to: 'Yeah, I could have said "Hey, I'm getting out Vampire X. Is anyone else?" and when your prey says "Uh, yeah, me too...", you then are both screwed if you both need that minion. Randomly.' In which case, well, you could have made a deck which _doesn't_ need that minion. -witness1

witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >It's true that due to the rarity of the problem, the effort involved >in fixing that problem may exceed the value of doing so. None of that >proves that there isn't actually a problem. Peter's done a fine job of >acknowledging both of these statements and wishes to have a >hypothetical discussion focussing on the second; his detractors >continue pressing first. Over and over and over again. Bullshit. I've tried to participate in a discussion about this, but you and LSJ and to a lesser extent Peter have prefered to argue in circles about what Peter really means. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] The vampire in question and its power are relevant to the discussion. I can count on one hand the times I have seen Lucretia enter the ready region. Less times than I have seen Arika or Leandro contested. Maybe you wish the original post was vampire X, but the fact that it was Lutz means something to me. Matt

On Jul 15, 4:56 pm, Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > Bullshit. I've tried to participate in a discussion about this, but you > and LSJ and to a lesser extent Peter have prefered to argue in circles > about what Peter really means. Oh, go on. Where am I arguing in circles? My position is incredibly clear in the first post of the thread. And most of the rest of them are clarification, 'cause people are in a twist as to what is or is not "random" and/or het up 'cause they think that if you choose to try and use vampires that are less likely to be contested, it somehow makes being in a situation where contestation comes up less random. Please. Point out circles. 'Cause that is fun. -Peter

On Jul 15, 4:58 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > In which case, well, you could have made a deck which _doesn't_ need > that minion. And yet people make decks where the require a certainly minion all the time. What are you gonna do? -Peter

Ross Ridge wrote: > witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> It's true that due to the rarity of the problem, the effort involved >> in fixing that problem may exceed the value of doing so. None of that >> proves that there isn't actually a problem. Peter's done a fine job of >> acknowledging both of these statements and wishes to have a >> hypothetical discussion focussing on the second; his detractors >> continue pressing first. Over and over and over again. > > Bullshit. I've tried to participate in a discussion about this, but you > and LSJ and to a lesser extent Peter have prefered to argue in circles > about what Peter really means. Ah, the rhetorical coup d'�tat of profanity. Well played. Oh, and :-). No. We've been trying to get the people arguing about straw men (such arguments stemming from misunderstanding what Peter means, even after Peter explicitly clarifies that) to understand what Peter's been saying so that the superfluous assertions about obvious things that we all agree on can give way to constructive conversation about the proposed rule (or alternative rules).

Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > Sounds like V:TES to me, and I've never contested a vampire. =A0There are > so many ways the "random" choices of other players can screw you over. Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >Yes. But as pointed out by many in this discussion already, losing a >game due to randomly being in a seat where contestation is an issue is >completely divorced from the choices you, as a player, have made . Yes, >I can build a deck that is totally screwed if it sits next to a Rush >deck, but that was my choice when building the deck. When I randomly >sit down next to a Rush deck (which, again, is random), and I get >totally blown out of the water, it is a different kind of "random >hosing" than when a minion is contested. Random hosing is random hosing and would feel just as bad to me either way. Like I said, the fact people are *willing* to choose to play a deck that increases their chances getting the same screwed outcome, means that a tiny by comparision chance of unavoidably being hosed doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Getting unexpectly screwed just seems like something you should expect to happem from time to time in V:TES. Anyways, if you're at all serious about this, and aren't just interested going in circles, let try making my point once again. You said the following: ... I'm getting less and less convinced that the benefit to the current contestation rules (i.e. a failsafe against overpowered minions, for ex.) outweigh the negatives to the game (i.e. it occasionally totally screws you in a completely unfun way, even when you are using a totally un-overpowered minion). If we assume that in fact the benefits don't currently outweigh the negatives, then hypothetically speaking, if your tweaks or anyone elses were applied to the rules, again hypothetically speaking, how could you tell, hypothetically, that the changes altered game so that negatives no longer outweigh the postives? If the event is so rare that you couldn't, hypothetically speaking, tell if some hypothetical change improved things, if it's lost in the background noise, then it a problem so minor it's not worth considering a problem. Even hypothetically. [ quoted text not captured ]

Howdy, On Jul 15, 1:55 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > On Jul 15, 3:45 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:> On Jul 15, 4:17 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > It was Lutz... LUTZ ...please of course he > > > was contested. Well maybe not of course but very likely. > > > Oh, for crap's sake. Please turn "Lutz" in all parts of this > > discussion into "Vampire X", That it was Lutz was just a convenient > > example. It could just as well have been Lucretia, the Cess Queen. > > Not likely... =) > > There is *some* point to what they're saying. It's much more likely > to be Lutz or Anson than it is to be, like, Zubeida or Marconius. > While you can't eliminate the possibility of contestation ruining your > day, you can certainly reduce it by not playing Lutz decks... I think that there are (at least) two senses in which the word 'random' is being used in this thread. One is 'unpredictable', which is close-ish to the probability sense of the word. Something that is random in this sense can be more or less likely, uniformly or otherwise distributed, etc. The other sense is 'unlikely', which is a more colloquial usage. (As, in, "Dude, that was totally random! Did you see that?") In this sense, something that is unlikely to happen or happens very rarely is described as 'random' (even if no random factors were involved in its occurrance). But for purposes of this discussion, the latter sense is pretty much a subset of the former, and essentially includes some assumptions about the distribution and/ or frequency of the randomness. So, having the possibility to contest _any_ vampire is governed by random factors. But to some, contesting Anson or Lutz or Arika is less 'random' than contesting Rex or Lucretia or Patrizia, by which they mean that it has a higher probability of occurrence. (Or, alternatively, rolling '00' on percentile dice is 'more random' than flipping a coin and getting 'heads'.) You can't really measure a degree of randomness in the former, mathematical sense; you can measure a probability of occurrence. I know that this has been commented on explicitly in places in the thread, but I'm pretty sure that the usage issue is still muddling things. > Of course, the point he's trying to make is still hung up on the > "randomness" argument that is making this thread way less > interesting. Ignoring how contestation happens, or how often, would > your rule or LSJ's (or Alex's, which is the one I prefer) make the > game more fun? That's what I wish this thread was focused on. But > c'est la mort... I kind of like the alternate influence rules (both the transfer from uncontrolled minion to uncontrolled minion and the reveal and dump suggestions) for relative simplicity myself, though, of course I like mine as well. Thanks for noticing mine and trying to discuss it (and the others). Hope that helps, Alex

On Jul 15, 3:54 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 15, 8:26 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Not by Peter and John Eno (at least from what I've been told in this > > thread). > > Well, incorrect. In multiple places (most of which were direct > responses to you), I have completely and in every way acknowledged > that once can attempt to minimize the likelihood of contesting > vampires. And yet if it happens to come up, it is still a random > happenstance. Ok, you acknowledged the fact but my impression was that you (and people you played with/knew) didn't really take it into account when selecting/building decks. I could've gotten that wrong I suppose. > > From what I've been told here it seems very uncommon to > > consider the risks of possible contests when building/selecting decks. > > No, I pointed out specific instances where one would consider such a > thing and then factor it into one's deck choice. In both specific > (see: superstar decks and competetive play) and abstratct (see: Arika > and Anson) senses. But in regards to your example of "weenie > dementation", contestation is the last thing I would consider. As such > a deck is not remotely worried about contesting vampires (as it is, ya > know, full of interchangeable weenies). It's not, really. Imo you still have key vampires in a dementation weenie (without Jackie and Midget, the deck is quite a lot crappier). My example was just a popular strong deck though, and the point wasn't about that exact deck. But ok, I guess I read you wrong and you do take contesting into account when building decks and selecting them for tournaments. > > I understand that nothing will ever make the randomness go away > > entirely, but plenty of things can be done to minimize it. And without > > taking any precautions, it's silly to whine. > > And again, I ask--did you even read the initial post in this thread? > I'm not whining about anything. I'm not complaining 'cause I lost a > game due to contesting something. I'm not demanding that rules be > changed 'cause they are inconvenient to me. I think you're whining in the same sense that you think some people (I'm probably one of them) are on crack. I see that you're not demanding a rule change, and that you're more interested in discussion. I do think that your starting point was that a friend (so yeah, not you) lost a game due to contesting, and you all thought it sucked (which I'm sure it did). So yes, I did read the initial post. My short version of it would be "contesting is too random and too harsh, it could use a change". I don't agree with those points.

Howdy Ross, > If we assume that in fact the benefits don't currently outweigh the > negatives, then hypothetically speaking, if your tweaks or anyone elses > were applied to the rules, again hypothetically speaking, how could you > tell, hypothetically, that the changes altered game so that negatives no > longer outweigh the postives? A hypothetical valve works fine almost all the time. Very, very rarely, it causes an explosion. The benefit of having the valve in the design at all is questionable. How do we tell that removing it has improved things? (Yikes. You can probably tell that I'm a software engineer and do lots of debugging of hard to reproduce bugs from the above.) > If the event is so rare that you couldn't, hypothetically speaking, > tell if some hypothetical change improved things, if it's lost in the > background noise, then it a problem so minor it's not worth considering > a problem. Even hypothetically. I'd think that games not exploding as often (i.e. even more rarely and/ or with less force) would be a good sign. This seems obvious to me, so I'm wondering if I don't understand what you are saying. Alex

Appropriate image to much of the discussion at this point (totally work-safe): http://tinyurl.com/m78kxg - D.J.

On Jul 14, 6:37 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > D.J. wrote: > > To be clear: Kevin, I haven't seen anyone arguing that it's the > > actual contestation of a vampire that's problematic or random. > > Then look harder before you accuse me of strawmen. I'm looking for the answers to the direct questions I posted, that you chose to ignore, which are the basis for the discussion of everyone else in the thread, dude. - D.J.

On Jul 15, 4:57 pm, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > > I kind of like the alternate influence rules (both the transfer from > uncontrolled minion to uncontrolled minion and the reveal and dump > suggestions) for relative simplicity myself, > For the record, I hate those. =) For one, changing the influence rules to allow you to move blood more easily between uncontrolled minions is kind of scattershot... to help avoid contestation issues, you end up changing a bigger part of the game with effects on all kinds of things. Then if you try to narrow the focus by adding stipulations, it just becomes too convoluted. The reveal and dump method just seems like it adds something weird that wasn't there before. I dunno, it's kind of nebulous, but I just don't like the "feel" of it. The other suggestion (from James, I think), that when yielding, you can move any blood on the vampire to your pool seems a little better. However it seems to remove most of the danger from contesting and seems wrong flavor-wise. > though, of course I like > mine as well. Thanks for noticing mine and trying to discuss it (and > the others). > I like your variant (both vampires stay controlled; you must pay to contest or else yield; contesting vampires may not "interact", meaning that one cannot react while the other is acting, they may not direct actions at each other, and they may not enter combat with each other (as if they were minions controlled by the same methuselah); they hold a sub-referendum to determine how their votes are cast) because it seems most in keeping with the story of the game. Similarly to how one methuselah can control minions who might be at odds with each other (like clan and anti-clan, frex) - just because those minions are acting in the best interests of the controlling methuselah doesn't mean that they are friends or are even aware that they're on the same team. For the same reason, it makes sense to me that two methuselahs can both be influencing the same minion and trying to guide his actions to best suit their own agenda - the minion need not be aware of the influence and is simply acting in what he regards as his own best interests, but due to conflicting aims of the methuselahs he's controlling, he may take actions to further both methuselahs' aims. It makes sense to me even *more* than the current contestation rules, because I don't really understand how two methuselahs can try to influence the same vampire and the vampire is just "out of play." It has the added benefit that it's not terribly complex, and also solves the "problem" that was set forth by the OP. Peter's original proposal fits in a similar way, although there's some unbalance in the case of who gets to have the minion for more time around the table and the point of sometimes the vampire is more useful during your own turn and sometimes more useful during others' turns. It also seems confusing that one vampire can be "protected" by being out of play, like if there's a Baltimore Purge played, or something like that. All-in-all, I think it would work out just fine, but it's not my favorite. LSJ's proposal uses an existing mechanic (banishment - although maybe mechanic is the wrong word? game concept?) to resolve the contestation. It has some benefits as well - it's also reasonably simple, and being able to transfer off the vampire in order to gracefully yield is a plus (which I know I said felt a little "wrong" in James' method, but I think that's more due to it being instantaneous in that case). Obviously, there's still the question of whether it would be worth changing the existing contestation rules. I think it would be, if it made the game more fun, but since I'm not part of the rules team, it's just speculation. But being able to use a vampire while still having to pay to contest it seems like it's most reasonable within the framework of how the game currently works - there's still a cost for contestation, but it's not a double-whammy that takes your big cap off the table temporarily *and* bleeds you dry (or else just takes your big cap off the table permanently). For those that say that contestation is around for a reason, and it encourages deck diversity, I don't disagree, I just have to wonder whether the minimal encouragement it provides (because of the unlikelihood of the penalty being enforced) is really enough to warrant the sledgehammer to the balls that happens when it *is* enforced.

On Jul 15, 3:37 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 15, 4:15 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Not really. It's when those two (or one of them) can't make some deal > > or handle a game without their fav vamp. > > Making a deal is completely irrelevant when you spend the first 6 > turns of the game without a vampire in play. Or spending three of the > 6 contesting a vampire without another minion in play, as you bring > someone else out. If you start the game with the first minion you are > bringing out already hitting the table before you bring yours out, > deal making is irrelevant. You will be ousted before you have a minion > in play. In some cases, yes. It might be over. In most cases though, I don't think it necessarily is. > > And that comes more from not thinking about the contesting rule when > > building a deck than from the complete randomness in outer space. > > No, no it does not. Whether or not someone else at the table is > playing and influencing out the same minion as you is completely > random. Thing is, I agree with you in one way. It is random. Then again, today I played a game with a vote deck in which I haven't put much stealth. My prey started with recruiting Carlton Van Wyk turn 3 (when I had just influenced up my first minion), and then he brought up Nadima. That was, in a way, completely random. And I lost my game due to that. That doesn't mean any rules needs changing though. It just means that I got smacked since I didn't prepare for it. > Do you understand what "random" means? There are 1300+ minions in the > game. If I have minion X in my crypt, and then I shuffle and > (randomly) draw minion X into my opening crypt draw, for contestation > to even be a *possibility*, the following things need to happen: > > A) Someone in the room has to have selected minion X out of the 1300+ > minions in the game and put them in their crypt. > > B) They need to have ended up at the same table as me. > > C) They needed to have shuffled and also (randomly) drawn minion X > into their opening crypt draw. > > D) They needed to decide to start influencing out that vampire. > > This is a chain of events that is governed primarily by random chance. > Yes. Some vampires are more likely to show up than others. But even > then, the odds of a given specific vampire showing up in someone's > deck, at the same table, in their opening crypt draw, and then be > influenced before anyone has any information about what minions are in > play, is very, very small. And random. > > Yes. Once and a while, all these things line up, and then someone will > specifically contest a minion for strategic reasons. That isn't what > I'm talking about. Your points: A is not a random selection. That someone selects a certain minion and puts in their crypt is controlled by them (and influenced by the power level of the minion, plus some other things). B is random. C is somewhat random, but also somewhat controlled by the player who built the crypt. Including more than one of said minion etc. D isn't something I'd say is random unless it's not a key minion in said players deck. It's an active choice since xe wants that particular minion. So here's where I don't agree that the chain is governed primarily by random chance. It can be brought down to that level, yes. But then we're taking away all merits of meta gaming, which I think is bad. > > For someone who doesn't think about contesting when > > creating or picking decks it might seem that way, I suppose. > > Even if you put all the thought in the world into whether or not a > minion might be contested, being put in a situation where contestation > is a possibility is still a completely random event. I could have gone > to the last tournament and said "Huh. I want to be sure I don't even > contest a primary minion. To that end, I'm going to make a deck that > revolves around one of the worst vampires I can think of. Lucretia the > Cess Queen. No one will ever contest her!" and yet someone at that > tournament was playing a Lucretia, Cess Queen superstar deck. If we > sat at the same table, we would both be completely screwed. By utter, > random chance. Not completely screwed, depending on the rest of the table and the rest of your crypts/decks. But yeah, the game would be tough and very much affected by that. And if you really wanted to be sure, you'd play Aabbt Kindred. > > When > > going to a tournament, I try to foresee what decks I'm most likely to > > encounter. > > And yet whether or not you encounter them is a completely random > event. Or sit next to them. Or have the same minions as someone in > their opening crypt draw. > Yes. You can mitigate the likelihood of contestation by trying to read > the metagame. But still, being put into a situation where contestation > is a possibility is pure randomosity. If you say "I will avoid playing > Arika, as she is likely to be contested!", and go to a tournament > where everyone else came to the exact same conclusion, no one will > ever contest Arika (which is a random event), but the likelihood of > contesting other vampires has increased (randomly) by virtue of Arika > being removed from the pool of total minions. > > You might like to think that by being super clever and trying to read > the metagame to avoid contesting minions makes being in a situation > where contestation is a possibility less random. It doesn't. You can > build the most contestation resistant deck in the world (well, ya > know, other than making it all out of Aabt Kindred) and still end up > randomly in a situation where contestation is a problem for you. > 'Cause being in a situation where contestation is a possibility is > random. I don't think it makes ending up in the situation less random. I think it reduces the risk of ending up in the situation. I do think that trying to boil contesting down to nothing but randomness is bad for the game and for ones ability to play the game. Blaming chance is the easy way out. Thinking about what I could've done different is better. > > It's not irrelevant. If you have a choice whether to start contesting > > Lutz or not, you have a situation where you have leverage against the > > player with Lutz on the table. > > How are you missing (or actively ignoring) the point that *you don't > even need to be actively contesting a minion to still be screwed*. The > choice is irrelevant in many situations. I am influencing out big > vampire X. I invest multiple turns and multiple transfers getting out > vampire X. Right before I get out vampire X, my prey brings out > vampire X (by pure random chance). I have a significant amount of > pool, transfers, and time invested in that minion. I now can: > > A) Bring him out and contest him and screw us both. > > or > > B) Start bringing out a new minion, who might be just as big, and take > just as long, and be without any minions at all for a really long > time, and have a bunch of pool invested in a minion that will never > see play, and I'll probably be ousted before I see that investment > returned. > > Does actually contesting the minion come into play here? No, unless I > feel spiteful, and I want to screw both of us extra hard. But the > *rules* of contestation have essentially ended my game before it even > started. By pure random chance. I'd say that your attitude has ended your game before it even started if you don't even try to make something of the table. But sure, the actual contest doesn't need to happen. However, you do have more options than your A and B. You have leverage against the player who you could contest with, using that might be a start. Unless the one you're close to contesting with is your prey or predator, they should at least have some interest in helping you out. If they are your predator, you might benefit from influencing out vampire X. If it's your prey, your predator might have some interest in xer not living highlife until you're ousted. I'm not saying it doesn't suck when compared to how you imagined your rounds, just that the game doesn't end instantly unless a whole lot of more randomness gives you a ride. > > And again, if you're screwed beyond the possibility of getting a > > single vp by that fact then there's more to it than just those 8 pool > > (like an aggressive predator, a lazy ass grand predator, poorly built > > deck etc.). > > Please read the above example. Now read it again. And don't ignore it. > Go on. I'll wait. Check. > Really. Go reread it. As I have presented it multiple times now, and > you still don't seem to see what I am talking about. Check. > In the situation as presented, which isn't that far out of the realm > of reason (you can say all you want "Well, if your opening crypt is > all big vampires, then you suck", which doesn't change the fact that > many good decks are made of all big vampires. I can also add (without joking a single bit) that if your opening crypt is all big vampires and you don't play with crypt acceleration, then you do suck. It shouldn't take 3 turns to influence out Lutz if he's that important for you. It shouldn't take 3 more turns to influence out your second minion if Lutz got smacked (by contest, Pentex, Amaranth or whatever). Of course, sometimes you'll get all your crypt acceleration cards in the bottom of your deck and your 4-5 copies of Lutz lined up from the top of your crypt. And that'll suck. But in a well built deck it shouldn't happen often. > And you can say "but if > you planned on not contesting vampires, you wouldn't have randomly sat > down next to someone who randomly also has the same vampire as you", > which doesn't actually work like that), being "screwed beyond the > possibility of getting a single VP" doesn't really describe it. I could say that. But I gotta go to bed soon, so I won't push those buttons. > You > don't even get to get a minion out before you are likely ousted (spend > 20 pool and 20 transfers on one minion all the while even a completely > low impact predator can likely oust you). Crypt acceleration and/or some weenie minions. Really. > > To me it looks more like the problem is on your side. > > Did you even read the start of this thread? Do you know what the > premise is? TLDR-version is "a friend got a crap table due to contesting Lutz and you thought about the contest rules and agreed that they're too harsh". My TLDR-version is "rules are fine, l2p".

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:40:41 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > P: Getting 365 million dollar in the lotto game is incredibly random. > > Z: No, it isn't. You have to choose to drive down to the lottery agency > and claim your prize. Matching the numbers is random, but collecting the > money isn't random. Randomness seems to come up a lot. I agree it's random to get seated at the same table with another deck that uses the same key vampire. But it is likewise random and much more prevalent to sit next to a deck that is the rock to your scissors. Using a deck that completely relies on a star vampire is carrying a risk in itself - and that risk is primarily attributable to Pentex and general tac-nukes out there, not so much contestation. Like, in one game, I brought up Lazverinus, and next turn got rushed by the Gangrel my predator brought up in the meantime. No prevent in hand I took 1 agg and got Amaranthed (*poof* 10 pool). I call this random. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:40:41 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> P: Getting 365 million dollar in the lotto game is incredibly random. >> >> Z: No, it isn't. You have to choose to drive down to the lottery >> agency and claim your prize. Matching the numbers is random, but >> collecting the money isn't random. > > Randomness seems to come up a lot. I agree it's random to get seated at > the same table with another deck that uses the same key vampire. But it > is likewise random and much more prevalent to sit next to a deck that is > the rock to your scissors. Yep. The follow-up to that point, when it was made in this thread before, is: and one of those cannot be helped (it's the nature of TCGs), but that is no reason to give up on looking at things that may be improved.

> Yep. The follow-up to that point, when it was made in this thread before, is: > and one of those cannot be helped (it's the nature of TCGs), but that is no > reason to give up on looking at things that may be improved. How about this you may pay contest by using blood of the vampire or ever time you pay contest you may move up to two-four blood from the contested minion too a minion in your uncontrolled region. and/or if you yield a contest you may move all the blood to a minion in you uncontrolled region Matt

On Wed, 15 July 2009 15:36:28 -0700 (PDT), henrik wrote: >TLDR-version is "a friend got a crap table due to contesting Lutz and >you thought about the contest rules and agreed that they're too >harsh". >My TLDR-version is "rules are fine, l2p". Steak is fine. That doesn't mean it can't be better prepared. I would be in favor of increasing the cost of the contest (1 blood from the vampire + 1 pool) while allowing the vampire to remain in play and not interact with its other self in any way. Playing the game being the important thing. Sitting on your hands contesting a vampire is insufficient to meet this criteria. Your mileage may vary. Carpe noctem. The Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com Your best source of V:TES information. Now also selling boxes and individual cards.

On Jul 15, 6:36 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > TLDR-version is "a friend got a crap table due to contesting Lutz and > you thought about the contest rules and agreed that they're too > harsh". > My TLDR-version is "rules are fine, l2p". I know you think the rules are fine. Your whole argument seems to be based in "the rules are fine". Great. I disagree, and proposed a hypothetical tweak. Arguing against that hypothetical tweak on the basis of "the rules are fine" is completely besides the point. Many people argued that "the rules are fine" when a single point of aggravated damage could burn you. Many people argued that "the rules are fine" when Return to Innocence was legal. Many people argued that the "rules are fine" when being infernal cost you a pool even if you didn't need to untap. And yet I think all those changes made the game better too. -Peter

> I would be in favor of increasing the cost of the contest (1 blood > from the vampire + 1 pool) while allowing the vampire to remain in > play and not interact with its other self in any way. What if said vampire has a title? city, justicar or I.C. is it also contested would other titles be contested. or could they vote against one another

On Jul 15, 6:49 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > Randomness seems to come up a lot. I agree it's random to get seated at > the same table with another deck that uses the same key vampire. Which, again, isn't what the folks proposing changes are saying. It's not about key vampires being contested that sucks. Heck, in the example that started the thread, Lutz wasn't even key to Peter's friend's deck - Lutz was just the 11-cap he started working on first, who happened to come up before he could finish, thus wasting quite a large number of turns and transfers and pool whether or not he contested, whether or not he'd have been just as happy with someone who wasn't Lutz. But it's not *about* star vampire decks not working if you don't get your star out. That's a deck design issue that, as you say, also comes up with Pentex, etc. It's about the existence of the contestation rules in their present form meaning that if someone by pure random chance beats you to influencing out a vampire that you may or may not have cared about when you're halfway through or more, you've lost turns, pool, and transfers to random chance, and your game is, if not completely over, at the very least severely handicapped, whether or not you ever actually contest. - D.J.

On Wed, 15 July 2009 17:25:32 -0700 (PDT), wedge wrote: >> I would be in favor of increasing the cost of the contest (1 blood >> from the vampire + 1 pool) while allowing the vampire to remain in >> play and not interact with its other self in any way. >What if said vampire has a title? Contest as normal, 1 blood. (so, 1 pool + 2 blood) >city, justicar or I.C. is it also contested Of course, any unique title. >would other titles be contested. I don't see that non-unique titles would need to be contested. > or could they vote against one another Nope. Cannot interact in any way. Likely to result in both being forced to abstain. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 15, 6:09 pm, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 15 July 2009 17:25:32 -0700 (PDT), wedge wrote: > >> I would be in favor of increasing the cost of the contest (1 blood > >> from the vampire + 1 pool) while allowing the vampire to remain in > >> play and not interact with its other self in any way. > >What if said vampire has a title? > > Contest as normal, 1 blood. (so, 1 pool + 2 blood) > > >city, justicar or I.C. is it also contested > > Of course, any unique title. > > >would other titles be contested. > > I don't see that non-unique titles would need to be contested. > > > or could they vote against one another > > Nope. Cannot interact in any way. Likely to result in both being > forced to abstain. Well it would be fun to see five Jan Pieterzoon or five Lutz on a table. What the heck, I say lets do it.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jul 15, 12:56 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >> I don't feel like I'm coming at it from that point of view. However, I >> am usually very much conservative when it comes to rules changes and >> card text changes. Just recently this NG had a long discussion about >> how the accretion of rules/errata/text migrations made the game *very* >> daunting to new players or players returning after long absence. I take >> the position that rules changes should be made only if it *clearly* >> fixes something problematic in the game. Especially major rules like >> the contestation rules. > > Sure. But even the *title* of this thread has the word "Hypothetical" > in it. Objecting to hypothetical rules changes on the grounds that it > would confuse new players kind of misses the point. > > Yes. I agree that changing the rules is not something to be undertaken > lightly. But one can discuss rules changes on their own merits, > ignoring things like "will it confuse new players" for the purposes of > determining if such a rules change is a good idea or not in and of > itself. If one determines that, yes, such a rules change would be an > overall improvement to the game, in regards to the rules themselves? > Yeah, *then* you can start debating if changing the rules at all is a > good or bad thing. Please see new subject heading. best - chris And to reply to your point. There's no such thing as hypothetical once it's publicly discussed, regardless of what you call it. Especially since LSJ has chimed in with his own version of a rules tweak. Discussion of rules changes or card tweaks here always start out hypothetical; but LSJ has acknowledged that the design team reads the NG, and points made here can influence their decisions. So, just thought I would bring up my concerns with rules changes of any sort, as early in the process as possible. I don't like thought experiments per se. Let's set up some JOL games, or RL games with the alternate contesting rules and see what the effect is. If I was to build the game from scratch, I'd choose LSJ's rule suggestion. Most simple, most seems to represent what "contesting" or "uniqueness" would represent in the "real world".

*isn't sure which THESIS to read anymore... just waits for the amendment to be made (or not to be made) in the rules book or a nice big announcement of a rules change*

On Jul 16, 2:13 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > I know you think the rules are fine. Your whole argument seems to be > based in "the rules are fine". Great. I disagree, and proposed a > hypothetical tweak. Arguing against that hypothetical tweak on the > basis of "the rules are fine" is completely besides the point. Why as that beside the point? I mean, the whole random/not random discussion aside I've given a couple of arguments for why I think the rules are fine and doesn't need a change. > Many people argued that "the rules are fine" when a single point of > aggravated damage could burn you. Many people argued that "the rules > are fine" when Return to Innocence was legal. Many people argued that > the "rules are fine" when being infernal cost you a pool even if you > didn't need to untap. And yet I think all those changes made the game > better too. The aggravated damage thingy didn't bother me much before the change, possibly because we didn't play too serious at the time. Return to Innocence's bleed-version wasn't much worse than Lucian the Perfect tbh, I wouldn't want it back but I wouldn't care much about it either. If someone had written a post about the old infernal changes I would've agreed. Don't see how that stuff isn't beside the point though. Except to show that people have different thoughts about whether certain rules are good/bad, and we both already knew that. My impression was, as I've said before, that you didn't seem to think much about contest risks and/or alternative ways to handle contests other than saying "my game is screwed, this sucks" (as you described with the vampire X example above). That made me think that you don't see the rule the same way I do, so I tried to explain why I thought it was good and how you could play against the rule differently and have a better experience during contesting situations.

On Jul 16, 1:57 am, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 15 July 2009 15:36:28 -0700 (PDT), henrik wrote: > >TLDR-version is "a friend got a crap table due to contesting Lutz and > >you thought about the contest rules and agreed that they're too > >harsh". > >My TLDR-version is "rules are fine, l2p". > > Steak is fine. > That doesn't mean it can't be better prepared. > > I would be in favor of increasing the cost of the contest (1 blood > from the vampire + 1 pool) while allowing the vampire to remain in > play and not interact with its other self in any way. > > Playing the game being the important thing. > Sitting on your hands contesting a vampire is insufficient to meet > this criteria. Your mileage may vary. Yeah, the varying is that I think dealing about not contesting, sitting in a crap situation and trying to get out of it somehow (through talking etc) is playing the game. I don't think the game is over because someone else transfers up my star vampire before I do.

On Jul 12, 8:56 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > "If two (or more) copies of a unique minion are in play, both are > flipped over and considered out of play. During each player's untap > phase, they must pay a pool to flip over their copy of the minion into > play (and flip over their opponent's copy out of play) and may use the > vampire as normal until their opponent does the same on their untap > phase. They may choose to not pay a pool and burn their copy of the > minion immediately." > > I'm sure it could be worded better, buy in any case, the end result > would be that you still burn a pool each turn like normal, but instead > of just not having a vampire, you get that guy on your turn and until > your opponent's turn. There certainly could be disparity in terms of how > long each player has the minion in play, i.e. if me and my prey are > contesting a guy, I only get the guy on my turn, and then get the guy > during their turn, and then all the way around the table till my turn > again, but I suspect that the advantage that was gained by being the > predator in that situation (i.e. I get my guy to attack my prey and he > doesn't have that guy to defend himself) would balance that out. Unless I'm reading it wrong you'd never have the vampire during your predator's turn, which would mean that wall decks would get as screwed (more or less) with this rule as the current rules while acting decks would have it easier. Similar situations would probably occur with Alex' version (the one where both have the vampire but it can't rush/block itself) since that'd disfavor a Hardestadt multirush deck while favoring a Hardestadt vote/bleed deck (as well as making an Anatole wall deck screwed by the Anatole power bleed deck). Not sure if there's some solution for those cases in your further posts, but I couldn't find anything with a quick look.

librarian wrote: > I don't like thought experiments per se. I don't like thinking all that much, myself. It's a filthy habit. :-) > Let's set up some JOL games, > or RL games with the alternate contesting rules and see what the effect > is. If I was to build the game from scratch, I'd choose LSJ's rule > suggestion. Most simple, most seems to represent what "contesting" or > "uniqueness" would represent in the "real world". How about this: Contesting crypt cards works the same as it does now, but the incoming copy (if it isn't burned for self-contesting) remains in play. When you pay to contest, your copy re-enters play and the other copy is flipped out of play. When you yield, the crypt card returns to your* uncontrolled region. * Where "you" means "the controller's, after breaking any temporary control effects", as normal. I think it works a little better than my original suggestion. Simple and very near to the current rules. The only changes are that the contested card is still around to use for your part of the table cycle and yielding leaves you with the card in your uncontrolled region, to siphon blood from or to reinfluence later.

On Jul 16, 12:48 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > How about this: > > Contesting crypt cards works the same as it does now, but the incoming copy (if > it isn't burned for self-contesting) remains in play. When you pay to contest, > your copy re-enters play and the other copy is flipped out of play. When you > yield, the crypt card returns to your* uncontrolled region. > > * Where "you" means "the controller's, after breaking any temporary control > effects", as normal. > > I think it works a little better than my original suggestion. Simple and very > near to the current rules. The only changes are that the contested card is still > around to use for your part of the table cycle and yielding leaves you with the > card in your uncontrolled region, to siphon blood from or to reinfluence later. I think that version seems to disfavor wall decks in the same way Peter's original suggestion does. The yielding part isn't too bad though. However, if (as Peter's been advocating) contesting is as big an issue whether or not the actual contest happens (since using several turns and poll/transfers in vain is too harsh) then this wouldn't change much (or at least only change that for certain type of decks). This also goes against your other suggestion if I remember it correctly, since that was to banish the vampires right away when the contesting started. Even if the current rules disfavors some deck types (not sure if it does, but it's possible) I don't see the point in just changing what type gets screwed more.

henrik wrote: > On Jul 16, 12:48 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> How about this: >> >> Contesting crypt cards works the same as it does now, but the incoming copy (if >> it isn't burned for self-contesting) remains in play. When you pay to contest, >> your copy re-enters play and the other copy is flipped out of play. When you >> yield, the crypt card returns to your* uncontrolled region. >> >> * Where "you" means "the controller's, after breaking any temporary control >> effects", as normal. >> >> I think it works a little better than my original suggestion. Simple and very >> near to the current rules. The only changes are that the contested card is still >> around to use for your part of the table cycle and yielding leaves you with the >> card in your uncontrolled region, to siphon blood from or to reinfluence later. > > I think that version seems to disfavor wall decks in the same way > Peter's original suggestion does. Yeah. That part is not unnoticed. But it can't be helped without much more complexity and then there's always the question of whether it would be worth any effort at all to ease the life of wall decks. > However, if (as Peter's been advocating) contesting is as big an issue > whether or not the actual contest happens (since using several turns > and poll/transfers in vain is too harsh) then this wouldn't change > much (or at least only change that for certain type of decks). Well, obviously, you cannot change how often contesting occurs (or rather, how often the situation develops in which contesting can occur). That's just deck construction. Tying any rule to accomplishing that change is just another way of saying "it's fine. don't change". And, just as obviously, if the severity of the disability inflicted when the circumstances that lead to the possibility of contesting occur can be lessened (that is, make the effect of landing in those circumstances less game-destroying), then it is better for the game (assuming one finds the contesting lottery's nuke-pot bad for the game). The above rule takes the consequences of losing the contesting lottery and scales them back (perhaps toward reasonableness): 1. Instead of losing the minion altogether, the lottery co-losers split the minion's table cycle among them (while still paying the 1 pool per cycle cost to contest). 2. When yielding, the lottery co-loser is able to harvest whats left of xer original pool investment from the vampire (or can wait until xe is strong enough to resume the contest). Those two events: 1) losing the minion (to some degree) and 2) losing the investment (to some degree) are the things that can be changed. The above proposal and the other proposals put forward all look at ways to change one or both of those things, in different degrees (and with varying amounts of complexity). > This > also goes against your other suggestion if I remember it correctly, > since that was to banish the vampires right away when the contesting > started. Um. It is a different suggestion. But other than that, it doesn't go against any other suggestion. My previous suggestion accomplishes changes to the above two points as well, but to a lesser degree than the above suggestion and with greater complexity. So you might view the above as an evolutionary step forward from my previous suggestion. But certainly not against one another. > Even if the current rules disfavors some deck types (not sure if it > does, but it's possible) I don't see the point in just changing what > type gets screwed more. The point isn't just changing what decks get screwed more, obviously. The point is lessening the penalty involved in losing the contesting lottery.

On Jul 16, 1:59 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > henrik wrote: > > On Jul 16, 12:48 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> I think it works a little better than my original suggestion. Simple and very > >> near to the current rules. The only changes are that the contested card is still > >> around to use for your part of the table cycle and yielding leaves you with the > >> card in your uncontrolled region, to siphon blood from or to reinfluence later. > > > I think that version seems to disfavor wall decks in the same way > > Peter's original suggestion does. > > Yeah. That part is not unnoticed. But it can't be helped without much more > complexity and then there's always the question of whether it would be worth any > effort at all to ease the life of wall decks. Wall decks have it hard enough already imo, so making life harder for them would be bad (even if just this one small thing wouldn't mean much). It would also make the contested vampires less targetable by certain effects, which could prove weird and disrupt the table just as randomly as current contesting does (only it would screw the rush deck who'd never be able to rush his prey's star vampire etc). So it could end up worse for the people who doesn't have anything to do with the contest than for the ones who's actually contesting, which would make stuff really messy imo. > > However, if (as Peter's been advocating) contesting is as big an issue > > whether or not the actual contest happens (since using several turns > > and poll/transfers in vain is too harsh) then this wouldn't change > > much (or at least only change that for certain type of decks). > > Well, obviously, you cannot change how often contesting occurs (or rather, how > often the situation develops in which contesting can occur). That's just deck > construction. Tying any rule to accomplishing that change is just another way of > saying "it's fine. don't change". > > And, just as obviously, if the severity of the disability inflicted when the > circumstances that lead to the possibility of contesting occur can be lessened > (that is, make the effect of landing in those circumstances less > game-destroying), then it is better for the game (assuming one finds the > contesting lottery's nuke-pot bad for the game). Sure. I'm just one of those that thinks the contesting lottery is as much part of the game as the Ventrue vs New Carthage lottery, or the Tremere vote vs Malkavian Seven Miseries lottery. It sucks when it happens, but in the end it'll even out. And if contesting happens often enough to be a real problem for someone, then it's not randomness but bad meta gaming imo. In my world, I guess we could say that there are two parts of the game: The part where you play against 3-4 other players and try to beat them with stealth/intercept/combat/voting/whatever and the part where you play against Lady Luck and try to beat her by minimizing the risk of being the victim of a bad library/crypt draw, contesting, scissor vs paper seating etc. > The above rule takes the consequences of losing the contesting lottery and > scales them back (perhaps toward reasonableness): > > 1. Instead of losing the minion altogether, the lottery co-losers split the > minion's table cycle among them (while still paying the 1 pool per cycle cost to > contest). > > 2. When yielding, the lottery co-loser is able to harvest whats left of xer > original pool investment from the vampire (or can wait until xe is strong enough > to resume the contest). > > Those two events: 1) losing the minion (to some degree) and 2) losing the > investment (to some degree) are the things that can be changed. The above > proposal and the other proposals put forward all look at ways to change one or > both of those things, in different degrees (and with varying amounts of complexity). I've talked about event 1 (or will further down, I'm writing in weird order so not sure). It leads to some strange stuff this early in thought experimenting, which I think means it'll end up getting some really corny situations if implemented for real. Event 2 is the part where I think it doesn't really change much from how it is now. At least when using the example Peter forced me to read twice (!!!) yesterday. Peter's example (tm): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am influencing out big vampire X. I invest multiple turns and multiple transfers getting out vampire X. Right before I get out vampire X, my prey brings out vampire X (by pure random chance). I have a significant amount of pool, transfers, and time invested in that minion. I now can: A) Bring him out and contest him and screw us both. or B) Start bringing out a new minion, who might be just as big, and take just as long, and be without any minions at all for a really long time, and have a bunch of pool invested in a minion that will never see play, and I'll probably be ousted before I see that investment returned. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doing A) will still screw us both (a little less depending on what minion we're talking about and what xe's supposed to do). Doing B) will still be as crappy (either before I bring Vampire X out, or after I've brought X out and yielded). I see how there's some difference from the current rules, I just don't think it's enough to open the box of weird situations that I believe will come when minions hops in and out of controlled/contested state every now and then. > > This > > also goes against your other suggestion if I remember it correctly, > > since that was to banish the vampires right away when the contesting > > started. > > Um. It is a different suggestion. But other than that, it doesn't go against any > other suggestion. My previous suggestion accomplishes changes to the above two > points as well, but to a lesser degree than the above suggestion and with > greater complexity. So you might view the above as an evolutionary step forward > from my previous suggestion. But certainly not against one another. I meant that my critcism worked against that suggestion as well, not that your new suggestion went against your old one (which it did, but that wasn't my point). The part which went against your old suggestion (which might be obsolete now, in which case you can just cut this part) was that it didn't seem to do much good, really. Since with that rule you'd end up having wasted your turns/pool/transfers just the same as if you had decided to not bring up vampire X after spending resources to be able to. Again, the new suggestion is slightly better for that part so this discussion might be even more pointless. > > Even if the current rules disfavors some deck types (not sure if it > > does, but it's possible) I don't see the point in just changing what > > type gets screwed more. > > The point isn't just changing what decks get screwed more, obviously. > > The point is lessening the penalty involved in losing the contesting lottery. Yeah, but if you're only lessening the penalty for some decks I think the rule is arbitrary (since it's created with the knowledge that it'll screw wall decks more than active decks) and not very good. So in a way, those two go hand in hand.

On Jul 16, 4:45 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, the varying is that I think dealing about not contesting, > sitting in a crap situation and trying to get out of it somehow > (through talking etc) is playing the game. And again, that is great for you. That doesn't mean that a tweak to the contestation rules might not make the game better. Some people like sitting in a hopeless situation and trying to talk their way out of it for an hour until they inevitably lose, and think that is awesome entertainment. I suspect a lot of people don't. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] And some people like to just roll over and blame bad luck. I wrote some more about playing the game and different parts of that in the latest answer to LSJ in case you're interested.

On Jul 16, 4:43 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why as that beside the point? 'Cause when discussing the merits of hypothetical rules changes, where no one is actually suggesting changing the rules, saying "the rules are fine" isn't addressing the actual discussion. > I mean, the whole random/not random discussion aside I've given a > couple of arguments for why I think the rules are fine and doesn't > need a change. Yes, you have. Yaa. The basic assumption of the discussion is "if the rules *were* changed, what would work?" Entering that discussion with "the rules don't need changing" is like walking into a discussion about "what is the best flavor of ice cream" and saying "I don't eat ice cream". I mean, yeah, ok? But it doesn't add anything. > The aggravated damage thingy didn't bother me much before the change, > possibly because we didn't play too serious at the time. Return to > Innocence's bleed-version wasn't much worse than Lucian the Perfect > tbh, I wouldn't want it back but I wouldn't care much about it either. > If someone had written a post about the old infernal changes I > would've agreed. Wow. Your opinions on the examples of "rules that have been changed even though people thought they were fine"? Sooooo not the point. > Don't see how that stuff isn't beside the point though. Except to show > that people have different thoughts about whether certain rules are > good/bad, and we both already knew that. That and "many times people have said the rules are fine, and they changed anyway, and it made the game better." > My impression was, as I've said before, that you didn't seem to think > much about contest risks and/or alternative ways to handle contests > other than saying "my game is screwed, this sucks" (as you described > with the vampire X example above). Your impression is incorrect. Yes. There are risks and/or alternative ways to handle contests. That doesn't mean that changing the contestation rules might not improve the game. Yes. Some people love sitting in situations where they are randomly screwed and trying to talk their way out of it. Most people probably don't. The premise here is that this might be a good rule to tweak and what would be good ways to tweak it that would: A) Make the game less prone to random screwing than it already is, as *less* opportunity for random screwing strikes me as better than more. B) Make the game more fun, by reducing the opportunities for having your game end, randomly, before it even starts. You think the rules are fine. Yes. Great. Ok. Move along. > That made me think that you don't see the rule the same way I do, so I > tried to explain why I thought it was good and how you could play > against the rule differently and have a better experience during > contesting situations. I assure you, I don't need instructions on possible ways to deal with contestation. Really. -Peter

On Jul 16, 4:58 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Unless I'm reading it wrong you'd never have the vampire during your > predator's turn, which would mean that wall decks would get as screwed > (more or less) with this rule as the current rules while acting decks > would have it easier. Ah, see! Now we are getting somewhere! Yeah, in situations where you and your predator are contesting the same vampire, yeah, the prey wouldn't have Vampire X during his predator's turn (advantage predator). On the other hand, predator wouldn't have Vampire X during any other turn), i.e. predator has Vampire X during his turn; prey has Vampire X during his turn and the next 3 turns. Probably a wash. I mean, if prey's deck is completely predicated on Vampire X blocking everything, that could be a problem when it is predator's turn. But then, that isn't really any worse than if Vampire X was contested under the actual rules. > Not sure if there's some solution for those cases in your further > posts, but I couldn't find anything with a quick look. Yeah, there are plenty of flaws with my initial plan. I'm kind of more inclined to like the "If you give up the contest, you get all the blood on that vampire put back in your pool immediately" that someone suggested up in there. -Peter

On Jul 16, 7:34 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 1:59 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > henrik wrote: > > > > I think that version seems to disfavor wall decks in the same way > > > Peter's original suggestion does. > > > Yeah. That part is not unnoticed. But it can't be helped without much more > > complexity and then there's always the question of whether it would be worth any > > effort at all to ease the life of wall decks. > > Wall decks have it hard enough already imo, so making life harder for > them would be bad (even if just this one small thing wouldn't mean > much). > Whoa... I have to strongly disagree with that. Wall decks already are able to ruin their predator's game, and usually their prey's as well without even trying that hard. It's super easy to build a wall deck that does nothing but slow the game down and piss everyone off. There's so much more permanent intercept than permanent stealth, and more defensive untap/wakes than offensive untaps. While it's a little bit more difficult to make a wall deck that wins consistently, it can certainly be done, and anything that makes that easier will just increase the frequency of both types of wall decks. Anything that makes wall decks weaker is AOK in my book. Make every action start with default 1 stealth, that's what I say. =) And ban Neighbor John. (not 100% serious, but still, he's so broken =P )

On Jul 16, 12:31 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Please see new subject heading. Seen. I like that you are a winner! > And to reply to your point. There's no such thing as hypothetical once > it's publicly discussed, regardless of what you call it. Especially > since LSJ has chimed in with his own version of a rules tweak. > Discussion of rules changes or card tweaks here always start out > hypothetical; but LSJ has acknowledged that the design team reads the > NG, and points made here can influence their decisions. Sure. But I think it is safe to assume that *every* suggested rules change, ever, will result in someone objecting to it on the grounds of "but it makes the game more confusing for new players" (or something to that effect). Yes. That is true. But we can safely just imagine that all suggested rules tweaks/changes/errata/variations have appended to them "And yes, one downside is that it will make the game more confusing for new players." and move on. > So, just thought I would bring up my concerns with rules changes of any > sort, as early in the process as possible. We all have the exact same concern. > I don't like thought experiments per se. Let's set up some JOL games, > or RL games with the alternate contesting rules and see what the effect > is. If I was to build the game from scratch, I'd choose LSJ's rule > suggestion. Most simple, most seems to represent what "contesting" or > "uniqueness" would represent in the "real world". The problem here is that you'd have to randomly stumble into a situation where it made a difference. Which would take a while to find. Especially on JOL. -Peter

On Jul 16, 2:55 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Why as that beside the point? > > 'Cause when discussing the merits of hypothetical rules changes, where > no one is actually suggesting changing the rules, saying "the rules > are fine" isn't addressing the actual discussion. If you read "the rules are fine" as "the current rules are better than the suggested changed ones" it's addressing it. > > I mean, the whole random/not random discussion aside I've given a > > couple of arguments for why I think the rules are fine and doesn't > > need a change. > > Yes, you have. Yaa. The basic assumption of the discussion is "if the > rules *were* changed, what would work?" Entering that discussion with > "the rules don't need changing" is like walking into a discussion > about "what is the best flavor of ice cream" and saying "I don't eat > ice cream". I mean, yeah, ok? But it doesn't add anything. More like walking into a discussion about "what new ice cream flavour would you like instead of chocolate" and saying "I'm fine with chocolate, don't take it away". > Wow. Your opinions on the examples of "rules that have been changed > even though people thought they were fine"? Sooooo not the point. Sorry, I guess? You were the one who brought up your opinions on rules that have been changed. I assumed you wanted my opinions on them or something. > > Don't see how that stuff isn't beside the point though. Except to show > > that people have different thoughts about whether certain rules are > > good/bad, and we both already knew that. > > That and "many times people have said the rules are fine, and they > changed anyway, and it made the game better." Better according to some people, yeah. Which a change to the contest rules might do as well, but I don't see how it'll make the game better for me (which is why I'm stating that, even if the discussion is about a hypthetical rule change and not an actual one). > > My impression was, as I've said before, that you didn't seem to think > > much about contest risks and/or alternative ways to handle contests > > other than saying "my game is screwed, this sucks" (as you described > > with the vampire X example above). > > Your impression is incorrect. Yes. There are risks and/or alternative > ways to handle contests. That doesn't mean that changing the > contestation rules might not improve the game. Or worsen the game. And without someone saying that the old way is better, that point might be missed. > Yes. Some people love > sitting in situations where they are randomly screwed and trying to > talk their way out of it. Most people probably don't. The premise here > is that this might be a good rule to tweak and what would be good ways > to tweak it that would: > > A) Make the game less prone to random screwing than it already is, as > *less* opportunity for random screwing strikes me as better than more. > > B) Make the game more fun, by reducing the opportunities for having > your game end, randomly, before it even starts. I don't love sitting in situations where I'm screwed. It sucks. I do love playing the meta game and try to beat scissors with my rock (whether that's playing an uncommon vampire with hopes of not contesting or if it's playing Brunhilde with hopes of facing loads of Ventrues). And taking away that part would worsen the game imo. Playing against the odds is a big part of the game, the way I see it. And I like it to stay that way. Even in a hypthetical discussion I think this is worth mentioning, and I think being allowed to express it is important since otherwise the rules might get changed without anyone considering that part. > You think the rules are fine. Yes. Great. Ok. Move along. You hypothetically think they're not. Yes. Great. Ok. Move along? > > That made me think that you don't see the rule the same way I do, so I > > tried to explain why I thought it was good and how you could play > > against the rule differently and have a better experience during > > contesting situations. > > I assure you, I don't need instructions on possible ways to deal with > contestation. Really. You've kept saying that contesting a ~10 cap is the same as being totally screwed and unable to even look at a vp. So in my eyes you seem to need them.

On Jul 16, 8:46 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > And some people like to just roll over and blame bad luck. So. Not. The. Point. > I wrote some more about playing the game and different parts of that > in the latest answer to LSJ in case you're interested. Yes. That is infinitely more interesting than you saying "The rules are fine. Stop whining." -Peter

On Jul 16, 3:01 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 4:58 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Unless I'm reading it wrong you'd never have the vampire during your > > predator's turn, which would mean that wall decks would get as screwed > > (more or less) with this rule as the current rules while acting decks > > would have it easier. > > Ah, see! Now we are getting somewhere! Yeah, I can play nice as well. > Yeah, in situations where you and your predator are contesting the > same vampire, yeah, the prey wouldn't have Vampire X during his > predator's turn (advantage predator). On the other hand, predator > wouldn't have Vampire X during any other turn), i.e. predator has > Vampire X during his turn; prey has Vampire X during his turn and the > next 3 turns. Probably a wash. > > I mean, if prey's deck is completely predicated on Vampire X blocking > everything, that could be a problem when it is predator's turn. But > then, that isn't really any worse than if Vampire X was contested > under the actual rules. It could be worse than the current rules. Say A is the predator of B. Currently, if they're contesting vampire X, then noone can use vampire X against the other. That's fair. in my book. With your rules A would be able to use vampire X against B, but B might not be able to use vampire X against A, depending on what type of deck xe's built.

henrik wrote: > Wall decks have it hard enough already imo, so making life harder for > them would be bad (even if just this one small thing wouldn't mean > much). The first point is debatable, and the proposed rule wouldn't make life any harder for them (except by way of making life a little easier for them but a little bit more easier for proactive decks). But that's not really germaine to the thread. The change to agg damage made agg poke decks weaker and they had "a hard enough time" of it pre-change. And the change to damage prevention (allowing damage prevention to be used in combat even for non-strike-resolution damage) made it harder for some combat decks. Any change to any rule will disadvantage some decks in comparison to others. But that has little to nothing to do with determining if the change is good for the game. > It would also make the contested vampires less targetable by certain > effects, which could prove weird and disrupt the table just as > randomly as current contesting does (only it would screw the rush deck > who'd never be able to rush his prey's star vampire etc). So it could > end up worse for the people who doesn't have anything to do with the > contest than for the ones who's actually contesting, which would make > stuff really messy imo. And more targetable by other effects. But this is just a side note to an already rare event. > Sure. > I'm just one of those that thinks the contesting lottery is as much > part of the game as the Ventrue vs New Carthage lottery, or the > Tremere vote vs Malkavian Seven Miseries lottery. It sucks when it > happens, but in the end it'll even out. Sure. But the things you mention are inherent in the nature of TCGs and are not changeable. Contesting, on the other hand, is not inherent and is changeable. And changing the effect it has when it does happen to be more in line with the rest of the game is a good thing. > And if contesting happens > often enough to be a real problem for someone, then it's not > randomness but bad meta gaming imo. Agreed. And not part of this topic. > In my world, I guess we could say that there are two parts of the > game: The part where you play against 3-4 other players and try to > beat them with stealth/intercept/combat/voting/whatever and the part > where you play against Lady Luck and try to beat her by minimizing the > risk of being the victim of a bad library/crypt draw, contesting, > scissor vs paper seating etc. Yes. I agree. And I'd also like to make the game better by bringing the wild fluctuations under Lady Luck's umbrella a little closer to home so that the game becomes a little less beholden to the latter effects and a little more about the former strategy. You still wind up with all of the above, but with Lady Luck's influence curtailed a bit. > [Starting the contest] will still screw us both (a little less depending on what > minion we're talking about and what xe's supposed to do). A lot less in most cases (e.g., when the minion is intended to do something to the prey). For the minion whose sole purpose is to interact on the predator's turn, yeah, xe'll be almost as screwed in that endeavor as under the current rules, but xe has other options (like interacting with the prey), which could still be useful even if it isn't the intended role the vampire was imagined to have when constructing the crypt. And then, either you eventually win the contest (better for you, since you've been able to use the minion a bit in the interim), or you yield (better for you, since you've had a chance to redistribute any equipment that minion had and now have a chance to reclaim whatever blood the minion has, and the minion's back in your uncontrolled region, with any other cards still on him, ready to be brought out again if you find it advantageous to restart the contest or if the other copy gets burned or otherwise leaves play). So no worse even in the worst case and most often better. > [Switching vampires] will still be as crappy (either before I bring Vampire X out, > or after I've brought X out and yielded). Yeah. The effect of not contesting doesn't change. But now the other alternative (contesting) is more viable, so you won't have to choose to switch to another vampire as much. At worst, this comes out to no worse than the current. > I see how there's some difference from the current rules, I just don't > think it's enough to open the box of weird situations that I believe > will come when minions hops in and out of controlled/contested state > every now and then. The current rules allow hopping in and out, so there's no new weirdness there. >>> This >>> also goes against your other suggestion if I remember it correctly, >>> since that was to banish the vampires right away when the contesting >>> started. >> Um. It is a different suggestion. But other than that, it doesn't go against any >> other suggestion. My previous suggestion accomplishes changes to the above two >> points as well, but to a lesser degree than the above suggestion and with >> greater complexity. So you might view the above as an evolutionary step forward >> from my previous suggestion. But certainly not against one another. > > I meant that my critcism worked against that suggestion as well, not > that your new suggestion went against your old one (which it did, but > that wasn't my point). Ah. (And, wow, even after me explaining how it didn't, you still want to claim that it did? Even for no point? No wonder these threads are so long and tedious.) > The part which went against your old suggestion (which might be > obsolete now, in which case you can just cut this part) was that it > didn't seem to do much good, really. Since with that rule you'd end up > having wasted your turns/pool/transfers just the same as if you had > decided to not bring up vampire X after spending resources to be able > to. > Again, the new suggestion is slightly better for that part so this > discussion might be even more pointless. I think so. >>> Even if the current rules disfavors some deck types (not sure if it >>> does, but it's possible) I don't see the point in just changing what >>> type gets screwed more. >> The point isn't just changing what decks get screwed more, obviously. >> >> The point is lessening the penalty involved in losing the contesting lottery. > > Yeah, but if you're only lessening the penalty for some decks I think > the rule is arbitrary (since it's created with the knowledge that > it'll screw wall decks more than active decks) and not very good. Yes, any change will affect some decks to the detriment of others. Otherwise, it would be no change. Not very good is possible, I suppose, but I'd have to see some evidence of why to contradict the evidence provided that it is good before I change my position. > So in a way, those two go hand in hand. Those two are quite distinct.

On Jul 16, 3:05 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > On Jul 16, 7:34 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 16, 1:59 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > henrik wrote: > > > > > I think that version seems to disfavor wall decks in the same way > > > > Peter's original suggestion does. > > > > Yeah. That part is not unnoticed. But it can't be helped without much more > > > complexity and then there's always the question of whether it would be worth any > > > effort at all to ease the life of wall decks. > > > Wall decks have it hard enough already imo, so making life harder for > > them would be bad (even if just this one small thing wouldn't mean > > much). > > Whoa... I have to strongly disagree with that. Wall decks already are > able to ruin their predator's game, and usually their prey's as well > without even trying that hard. It's super easy to build a wall deck > that does nothing but slow the game down and piss everyone off. I meant that wall decks have it hard enough if they're trying to win (that's how I usually build decks). > There's so much more permanent intercept than permanent stealth, and > more defensive untap/wakes than offensive untaps. There are also more ways to make a block fail than to make an action fail. And Pentex Subversion kicks the teeth in on wall decks so hard it's not even funny (if they're using an above midcap blocker at least). > While it's a little > bit more difficult to make a wall deck that wins consistently, it can > certainly be done, and anything that makes that easier will just > increase the frequency of both types of wall decks. Making it easier to build good (vp taking) wall decks shouldn't increase the amount of bad ones I think? Anyway, I wasn't saying that you can't build winning walls atm, just that making wall decks harder to play would be bad. > Anything that makes wall decks weaker is AOK in my book. Personally, I think building stealth/bleed decks that gets 1 vp and then chokes is way to easy and should be toned down.

On Jul 16, 3:13 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 8:46 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > And some people like to just roll over and blame bad luck. > > So. Not. The. Point. Just as the sentence I replied to wasn't the point.

On Jul 16, 8:25 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 3:05 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > > There's so much more permanent intercept than permanent stealth, and > > more defensive untap/wakes than offensive untaps. > > There are also more ways to make a block fail than to make an action > fail. And Pentex Subversion kicks the teeth in on wall decks so hard > it's not even funny (if they're using an above midcap blocker at > least). > Pentex Subversion is way nastier when played *by* a wall deck. Sure, it sucks if I can't block with my tooled up 6-permacept star vampire for one turn. But next turn, I remove it and no one wants to block me because my whole deck is based around intercept and tons of combat... Or I just contest it - of course my wall deck has Pentex in it, because Pentex is way nastier when played by a wall deck. I've got at least 2 decks that the only minion that really has a chance of removing a Pentex is the one that it will get played on. If a stealth bleed deck plays a Pentex on that vamp, then no problem, my other minions can easily get rid of it - S&B don't block. Wall plays it? Not only can I not get rid of it, but cross-table usually can't either. > > Making it easier to build good (vp taking) wall decks shouldn't > increase the amount of bad ones I think? Anyway, I wasn't saying that > you can't build winning walls atm, just that making wall decks harder > to play would be bad. > Even the good ones make the game less fun for everyone. They're more justified in doing so because they're winning - doesn't mean I still don't hate it. The bad ones just make the game less fun and still lose. > > Anything that makes wall decks weaker is AOK in my book. > > Personally, I think building stealth/bleed decks that gets 1 vp and > then chokes is way to easy and should be toned down. Building stealth bleed has always been too easy, and they've generally been slowly weakened with every set since Jyhad days. (a few hiccups, like Touch of Clarity - but that hasn't really been the doom card that some predicted, and I don't think it's just because of rarity)

On Jul 16, 8:34 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sure. > I'm just one of those that thinks the contesting lottery is as much > part of the game as the Ventrue vs New Carthage lottery, or the > Tremere vote vs Malkavian Seven Miseries lottery. You'll note that blanket clan hosers have seen very little reprinting (if any, since VTES) and haven't seen any updating/proliferation. As if the designers decided that clan hosers were just too random. And that by not reprinting them, or making new versions of them, they are making the game less prone to random hosing, rather than more prone to random hosing. New Carthage, on the other hand, while kind of a clan hoser (in that it disadvantages Ventrue when it is in play), is much less of a random occurrence (it isn't in someone's deck just in case they can hose the Ventrue, like, say, Malk Dementa; it is in someone's deck to help the Brujah and if it hoses the Ventrue, even better), has a relatively minor impact (if the Ventrue can't deal with -1 vote per guy, then they likely weren't voting anyway), and can be killed. Seems like a reasonable random hosing. If New Carthage said "Ventrue get -3 votes, -2 bleed, and -1 intercept", that would be not good and a serious random hosing. The current contestation rules say "Ventrue get -3 votes, -2 bleed, and -1 intercept". > In my world, I guess we could say that there are two parts of the > game: The part where you play against 3-4 other players and try to > beat them with stealth/intercept/combat/voting/whatever and the part > where you play against Lady Luck and try to beat her by minimizing the > risk of being the victim of a bad library/crypt draw, contesting, > scissor vs paper seating etc. Yes. A certain amount of randomness is inevitable in this kind of game. And a certain amount of planning on it, and trying to game the environment, and trying to play the odds, is all part of the game. But in certain situations (like random contestation), the penalty is simply too big, considering how random the event is, and how little control the players have over it. Yes, you can make a deck that is screwed by combat. And if you sit next to a combat deck, you are probably hosed. But you had a choice to make there, and knew the risks, and said "well, if I sit next to a combat deck, I'm hosed." Being in a situation where contestation is a significant issue is not something you can avoid in the deck building phase. And often not something you can deal with in the playing the game phase (see: I spend 20 pool and 6 turns before I have a single minion in play). I'm not saying that contestation should go away. There still should be a risk to playing popular/powerful vampires that other folks are likely to use. There still should be a possibility of negatively affecting someone's game by strategically contesting their guys. Contestation is an interesting mechanic that is important to the game. But the current rules have an effect that is often simply too devastating and too much of a "you lose the game lottery". Which, considering how completely random and out of the hands of player's control it is, is incredibly unfun. Which is why I'd like to see it get tweaked. My original suggestion? Probably not the best. But a starting point. LSJ's "you just get uncontrolled" is very reasonable. I like the "if you give up a contestation, you get all the blood on that guy put in your pool" (like a wandering Golconda, kind of)--doesn't fix everything, but is simple and fixes a lot. LSJ's new suggestion (a fusion of my idea and his idea) is probably the best, but also the most complicated. -Peter

On Jul 16, 9:13 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you read "the rules are fine" as "the current rules are better than > the suggested changed ones" it's addressing it. Not really. If you don't like the basic assumption (that the game would benefit from changing the contestation rules), fine. But that is the basic assumption. > Sorry, I guess? You were the one who brought up your opinions on rules > that have been changed. I assumed you wanted my opinions on them or > something. No, no, I really didn't. They were just an example of "the rules get changed. Even when people think the rules are fine". > Or worsen the game. And without someone saying that the old way is > better, that point might be missed. No one will ever, ever, ever miss that point. Ever. Someone always insists that the rules are fine. Next time, I'll append my initial idea with: A) Yes. One downside is that this will make the game more confusing to new players. and B) Someone thinks the current rule is fine. And we can save a great deal of verbiage. > And taking away that part would worsen the game imo. No one is talking about taking away that part of the game. No one is saying "remove contestation as a mechanic". The only argument here is "contestation should be less severe than it currently is". Not irrelevant. Not non existent. Just less of a complete and total hose job. > You hypothetically think they're not. Yes. Great. Ok. Move along? No, no, you misunderstand, apparently, how the interweb works. If you want to start a discussion on "the rules are exactly perfect as they currently are", go nuts. I started a different one. I'm not the one who has to move along. I mean, you don't have to move along either. But you are the one who is discussing things that are, what do you say, irrelevant to the discussion at hand. -Peter

On Jul 16, 9:17 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, I can play nice as well. Ah, see, so you realize that in the other part of this thread, you are kind of being a douche. And yet you still continue. Interesting. > It could be worse than the current rules. > Say A is the predator of B. > Currently, if they're contesting vampire X, then noone can use vampire > X against the other. That's fair. in my book. > With your rules A would be able to use vampire X against B, but B > might not be able to use vampire X against A, depending on what type > of deck xe's built. Sure. But, uh, yeah, I'm just going to use "predator" and "prey" instead of "A=predator" and "B=prey". So yeah, prey doesn't get to defend against predator with vampire X as predator gets to use vampire X against prey. Which can be problematic. But predator doesn't get to use vampire X against his predator. So kind of a wash. I mean, yeah, specific situations will make things tilt one way or the other, but on average, kind of a wash. But again, I'm not at all convinced that the "alternating control" idea is the best one. -Peter

On Jul 16, 3:24 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > henrik wrote: > > Wall decks have it hard enough already imo, so making life harder for > > them would be bad (even if just this one small thing wouldn't mean > > much). > > The first point is debatable, and the proposed rule wouldn't make life any > harder for them (except by way of making life a little easier for them but a > little bit more easier for proactive decks). Well, it's my opinion and others might think different so of course it's debatable. Just like it's debatable whether changing the contest rules would be good or bad. And no, if you excempt the way it would make life harder for them it wouldn't make life harder for them. But... > But that's not really germaine to the thread. The change to agg damage made agg > poke decks weaker and they had "a hard enough time" of it pre-change. And the > change to damage prevention (allowing damage prevention to be used in combat > even for non-strike-resolution damage) made it harder for some combat decks. > > Any change to any rule will disadvantage some decks in comparison to others. But > that has little to nothing to do with determining if the change is good for the > game. Factoring in how deck types are affected by new rules has it's point in discussions about changing/creating new rules imo. Rule X being bad for certain deck types could mean that rule X is bad for the game, so considering it has merits. > > It would also make the contested vampires less targetable by certain > > effects, which could prove weird and disrupt the table just as > > randomly as current contesting does (only it would screw the rush deck > > who'd never be able to rush his prey's star vampire etc). So it could > > end up worse for the people who doesn't have anything to do with the > > contest than for the ones who's actually contesting, which would make > > stuff really messy imo. > > And more targetable by other effects. But this is just a side note to an already > rare event. More targetable by what effects? The ones that targets contested vampires? And isn't everything in this discussion just side notes to an already rare event? Contesting is a rare event, so the entire hypothetical new rule is about a rare event. > > Sure. > > I'm just one of those that thinks the contesting lottery is as much > > part of the game as the Ventrue vs New Carthage lottery, or the > > Tremere vote vs Malkavian Seven Miseries lottery. It sucks when it > > happens, but in the end it'll even out. > > Sure. But the things you mention are inherent in the nature of TCGs and are not > changeable. Contesting, on the other hand, is not inherent and is changeable. > And changing the effect it has when it does happen to be more in line with the > rest of the game is a good thing. Of course they're changeable. Errata and bans are ways to change it, and I'd even say that the point about Seven Miseries already have changed since I don't see new cards that are burnable by anyone except members of a certain clan. If contesting is a random event and hoses the ones it happens to too much, then the same could be said about the event of New Carthage being played against a Ventrue deck (it's random and it's too harsh). And changes could be applied in both cases (rule changes would "fix" the contest issue and errata/ban would "fix" the New Carthage issue). > > [Starting the contest] will still screw us both (a little less depending on what > > minion we're talking about and what xe's supposed to do). > > A lot less in most cases (e.g., when the minion is intended to do something to > the prey). For the minion whose sole purpose is to interact on the predator's > turn, yeah, xe'll be almost as screwed in that endeavor as under the current > rules, but xe has other options (like interacting with the prey), which could > still be useful even if it isn't the intended role the vampire was imagined to > have when constructing the crypt. Key word being "other" options I think, since some current options would disappear. Options that I think are nice to have. > And then, either you eventually win the contest (better for you, since you've > been able to use the minion a bit in the interim), or you yield (better for you, > since you've had a chance to redistribute any equipment that minion had and now > have a chance to reclaim whatever blood the minion has, and the minion's back in > your uncontrolled region, with any other cards still on him, ready to be brought > out again if you find it advantageous to restart the contest or if the other > copy gets burned or otherwise leaves play). > > So no worse even in the worst case and most often better. The worst case would be if my predator would use the contested minion to oust me (and me not having the current option of denying my predator that minion). Contesting Midget with my predator is a net gain of 2 pool each turn. > > [Switching vampires] will still be as crappy (either before I bring Vampire X out, > > or after I've brought X out and yielded). > > Yeah. The effect of not contesting doesn't change. But now the other alternative > (contesting) is more viable, so you won't have to choose to switch to another > vampire as much. > > At worst, this comes out to no worse than the current. I'm not totally convinced that it's more viable. It depends a lot on the situation I think, since (as noted earlier) there are reasons to contest with the current rules that would disappear with the new suggestion. > > I see how there's some difference from the current rules, I just don't > > think it's enough to open the box of weird situations that I believe > > will come when minions hops in and out of controlled/contested state > > every now and then. > > The current rules allow hopping in and out, so there's no new weirdness there. Yeah, they allow it but it very, very rarely happens more than once per game (1 disappear act when contest starts, and 1 appear act when it's done). With the new suggestion there would be much more disappearing and reappearing, which I think could be weird. > >> Um. It is a different suggestion. But other than that, it doesn't go against any > >> other suggestion. My previous suggestion accomplishes changes to the above two > >> points as well, but to a lesser degree than the above suggestion and with > >> greater complexity. So you might view the above as an evolutionary step forward > >> from my previous suggestion. But certainly not against one another. > > > I meant that my critcism worked against that suggestion as well, not > > that your new suggestion went against your old one (which it did, but > > that wasn't my point). > > Ah. (And, wow, even after me explaining how it didn't, you still want to claim > that it did? Even for no point? No wonder these threads are so long and tedious.) The point was that if I had skipped the brackets it could've been read as if I didn't think your new suggestion went against your old one. And that could've made this thread longer and more tedious. I just wanted to be clear. > > Yeah, but if you're only lessening the penalty for some decks I think > > the rule is arbitrary (since it's created with the knowledge that > > it'll screw wall decks more than active decks) and not very good. > > Yes, any change will affect some decks to the detriment of others. Otherwise, it > would be no change. I think a change could theoretically affect all decks without being detriment to some. > Not very good is possible, I suppose, but I'd have to see some evidence of why > to contradict the evidence provided that it is good before I change my position. I'm trying, but since good or bad depends on whether you like the current rules or not it seems hard.

On Jul 16, 3:47 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > If you read "the rules are fine" as "the current rules are better than > > the suggested changed ones" it's addressing it. > > Not really. If you don't like the basic assumption (that the game > would benefit from changing the contestation rules), fine. But that is > the basic assumption. I still think arguing against the basic assumption is within the reaches of a discussion. > > Sorry, I guess? You were the one who brought up your opinions on rules > > that have been changed. I assumed you wanted my opinions on them or > > something. > > No, no, I really didn't. They were just an example of "the rules get > changed. Even when people think the rules are fine". Yes, you did bring them up. I do understand that most often, a rule change will leave at least one person unhappy though. But that doesn't mean that one person shouldn't be allowed to say that xe is unhappy about the rule change. > > Or worsen the game. And without someone saying that the old way is > > better, that point might be missed. > > No one will ever, ever, ever miss that point. Ever. Someone always > insists that the rules are fine. Next time, I'll append my initial > idea with: > > A) Yes. One downside is that this will make the game more confusing to > new players. > > and > > B) Someone thinks the current rule is fine. > > And we can save a great deal of verbiage. If you really believe that'll work, I think you're the one who needs a lesson in how the internet works. > > And taking away that part would worsen the game imo. > > No one is talking about taking away that part of the game. No one is > saying "remove contestation as a mechanic". The only argument here is > "contestation should be less severe than it currently is". Not > irrelevant. Not non existent. Just less of a complete and total hose > job. I have a hard time seeing that could be done. Partly because I think it's fine as it is, but also because I think that contesting might get too mild instead (which would remove the part I was talking about). I'm just not sure a change can be done that'll keep contesting harsh enough to "scare people into diversity" while at the same time not screwing them over when they end up in contest country. > > You hypothetically think they're not. Yes. Great. Ok. Move along? > > No, no, you misunderstand, apparently, how the interweb works. If you > want to start a discussion on "the rules are exactly perfect as they > currently are", go nuts. I started a different one. I'm not the one > who has to move along. I mean, you don't have to move along either. I know I don't have to move along. But you told me to (even when you knew as well that I didn't have to). So I told you back (even when I knew you didn't have to either). Could've worked better with a smiley, I guess.

On Jul 16, 3:35 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > On Jul 16, 8:25 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 16, 3:05 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > > > There's so much more permanent intercept than permanent stealth, and > > > more defensive untap/wakes than offensive untaps. > > > There are also more ways to make a block fail than to make an action > > fail. And Pentex Subversion kicks the teeth in on wall decks so hard > > it's not even funny (if they're using an above midcap blocker at > > least). > > Pentex Subversion is way nastier when played *by* a wall deck. Sure, > it sucks if I can't block with my tooled up 6-permacept star vampire > for one turn. But next turn, I remove it and no one wants to block me > because my whole deck is based around intercept and tons of combat... > Or I just contest it - of course my wall deck has Pentex in it, > because Pentex is way nastier when played by a wall deck. Before your next turn, you're ousted because you got whacked by Pentex. > I've got at > least 2 decks that the only minion that really has a chance of > removing a Pentex is the one that it will get played on. If a stealth > bleed deck plays a Pentex on that vamp, then no problem, my other > minions can easily get rid of it - S&B don't block. Wall plays it? > Not only can I not get rid of it, but cross-table usually can't > either. Yeah, I know. My opinions about Pentex Subversion could fill an entire thread though, so I think I'll not get into a discussion about it here. > > Making it easier to build good (vp taking) wall decks shouldn't > > increase the amount of bad ones I think? Anyway, I wasn't saying that > > you can't build winning walls atm, just that making wall decks harder > > to play would be bad. > > Even the good ones make the game less fun for everyone. They're more > justified in doing so because they're winning - doesn't mean I still > don't hate it. The bad ones just make the game less fun and still > lose. Same goes for rush decks, SnB decks and vote decks? I don't think wall decks are worse than any other archetype, really. > > > Anything that makes wall decks weaker is AOK in my book. > > > Personally, I think building stealth/bleed decks that gets 1 vp and > > then chokes is way to easy and should be toned down. > > Building stealth bleed has always been too easy, and they've generally > been slowly weakened with every set since Jyhad days. (a few hiccups, > like Touch of Clarity - but that hasn't really been the doom card that > some predicted, and I don't think it's just because of rarity) They've been made better than ever by the dementation weenies imo. You need like ~15 Confusion and ~20 Kindred Spirits and ~40 other random cards.

On Jul 16, 3:35 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 8:34 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Sure. > > I'm just one of those that thinks the contesting lottery is as much > > part of the game as the Ventrue vs New Carthage lottery, or the > > Tremere vote vs Malkavian Seven Miseries lottery. > > You'll note that blanket clan hosers have seen very little reprinting > (if any, since VTES) and haven't seen any updating/proliferation. As > if the designers decided that clan hosers were just too random. And > that by not reprinting them, or making new versions of them, they are > making the game less prone to random hosing, rather than more prone to > random hosing. Yeah, I've noticed that. And I think it's better now than before. On the other hand, not reprinting them (while at the same time not banning them) makes running into them more rare (which means taking it into account when creating decks will be harder). So in one way, the game gets more prone to random hosing. > New Carthage, on the other hand, while kind of a clan hoser (in that > it disadvantages Ventrue when it is in play), is much less of a random > occurrence (it isn't in someone's deck just in case they can hose the > Ventrue, like, say, Malk Dementa; it is in someone's deck to help the > Brujah and if it hoses the Ventrue, even better), has a relatively > minor impact (if the Ventrue can't deal with -1 vote per guy, then > they likely weren't voting anyway), and can be killed. Seems like a > reasonable random hosing. If New Carthage said "Ventrue get -3 votes, > -2 bleed, and -1 intercept", that would be not good and a serious > random hosing. And on the other hand here: Since New Carthage isn't put into a deck to hose Ventrues, the times you actually end up on a table with a Ventrue it's more due to randomness than due to you thinking "I'll play New Carthage in my deck to screw with all the Ventrue decks I've been facing lately". So in one way there's more randomness here as well. Then again, I just throw in some Unnatural Disaster in Ventrue decks these days, so it's not the end of the world. But anyway. > > In my world, I guess we could say that there are two parts of the > > game: The part where you play against 3-4 other players and try to > > beat them with stealth/intercept/combat/voting/whatever and the part > > where you play against Lady Luck and try to beat her by minimizing the > > risk of being the victim of a bad library/crypt draw, contesting, > > scissor vs paper seating etc. > > Yes. A certain amount of randomness is inevitable in this kind of > game. And a certain amount of planning on it, and trying to game the > environment, and trying to play the odds, is all part of the game. But > in certain situations (like random contestation), the penalty is > simply too big, considering how random the event is, and how little > control the players have over it. Yes, you can make a deck that is > screwed by combat. And if you sit next to a combat deck, you are > probably hosed. But you had a choice to make there, and knew the > risks, and said "well, if I sit next to a combat deck, I'm hosed." Here's where we're different. I think you had a choice with the contest as well. When you made a deck that consisted of Mr X and his 10 cap friends, you knew that if you ended up on the same table as another mr X deck, you'd be hosed. You could've changed your deck to a "Mr X and his 3-4 cap friends" instead, but you didn't. And now you'll have to suck it up. > Being in a situation where contestation is a significant issue is not > something you can avoid in the deck building phase. And often not > something you can deal with in the playing the game phase (see: I > spend 20 pool and 6 turns before I have a single minion in play). > > I'm not saying that contestation should go away. There still should be > a risk to playing popular/powerful vampires that other folks are > likely to use. There still should be a possibility of negatively > affecting someone's game by strategically contesting their guys. > Contestation is an interesting mechanic that is important to the game. > But the current rules have an effect that is often simply too > devastating and too much of a "you lose the game lottery". Which, > considering how completely random and out of the hands of player's > control it is, is incredibly unfun. Which is why I'd like to see it > get tweaked. Mostly, we're not agreeing on how much you can control it. I'll leave it there.

On Jul 16, 10:10 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I still think arguing against the basic assumption is within the > reaches of a discussion. Clearly, you do. Which is your right. But for my money, you are much better off just saying "This is dumb, I think the regular rules are fine." and leaving it at that. But that is me. > > > Sorry, I guess? You were the one who brought up your opinions on rules > > > that have been changed. I assumed you wanted my opinions on them or > > > something. > > > No, no, I really didn't. They were just an example of "the rules get > > changed. Even when people think the rules are fine". > > Yes, you did bring them up. No, no. I really didn't want your opinions on them. I certainly brought them up. > I do understand that most often, a rule > change will leave at least one person unhappy though. But that doesn't > mean that one person shouldn't be allowed to say that xe is unhappy > about the rule change. I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed. You have said you would be unhappy about a rules change. Noted. That doesn't help the discussion on "what would be a good rules change if such a change was warranted". > If you really believe that'll work, I think you're the one who needs a > lesson in how the internet works. Well, ya know, I can be hopeful. Yes. You object to changing the rules. I got that. Yes. Changing the rules would make the game more confusing for new players. Correct. All already covered. No need to cover that any longer. > I have a hard time seeing that could be done. Partly because I think > it's fine as it is, but also because I think that contesting might get > too mild instead (which would remove the part I was talking about). > I'm just not sure a change can be done that'll keep contesting harsh > enough to "scare people into diversity" while at the same time not > screwing them over when they end up in contest country. So you gotta structure the rule such that the penalty is not too mild. I don't think losing a pool a turn and only having your vampire occasionally is too mild. I also don't think that a different version where you get your blood back from a guy when you give up contestation is too mild. And I don't think that changing the contestation rules such that they were not a total hose job when they hit would suddenly result in everyone only playing Anson and Arika in every deck ever. 'Cause all the other rules in the game *also* encourage deck diversity. Not just the contestation rules. In fact, I suspect that contestation has considerably less impact on deck diversity than all the other aspects of the game. I mean, people still play Anson and Arika all the time. > I know I don't have to move along. But you told me to (even when you > knew as well that I didn't have to). So I told you back (even when I > knew you didn't have to either). Could've worked better with a smiley, > I guess. Yeah, I suppose. I always like when discussions enter the "I'm made of rubber and your made of glue" phase. -Peter

On Jul 16, 10:25 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, I've noticed that. And I think it's better now than before. See. The game is better when it moves in the direction of "less things that can randomly hose you". > On the other hand, not reprinting them (while at the same time not > banning them) makes running into them more rare (which means taking it > into account when creating decks will be harder). So in one way, the > game gets more prone to random hosing. Well, really, it gets less prone, as they are even less likely to occur. But yeah, I agree that in the incredibly unlikely event that it comes up, it is extra irritating to be killed by, like, a Malkavian Dementia or something. But that is considerably less likely to occur than even contesting a vampire. And that is not that likely to happen. > And on the other hand here: > Since New Carthage isn't put into a deck to hose Ventrues, the times > you actually end up on a table with a Ventrue it's more due to > randomness than due to you thinking "I'll play New Carthage in my deck > to screw with all the Ventrue decks I've been facing lately". So in > one way there's more randomness here as well. No, no, that is less randomness. New Carthage is *likely* to show up. It is a strong card that makes a strong clan stronger. Seeing New Carthage show up in a given game is not at all unlikely, in the random case where there is a Brujah deck. But on the upside, New Carthage doesn't actually hurt the Ventrue all that much. A relatively minor inconvenience in the worst situation, totally irrelevant in the best (as you don't have any votes on the table anyway). > Then again, I just throw in some Unnatural Disaster in Ventrue decks > these days, so it's not the end of the world. But anyway. 'Cause you weren't using Dominate Kine already? But I digress. > Here's where we're different. I think you had a choice with the > contest as well. Well, sure, you have the choice to not transfer to your guys. Or the choice to say "I'm getting out vampire X" and your prey says "I'm also getting out vampire X, and I get mine out first, so suck on it". This isn't the kind of choice that gets you out of a randomly applied losing position that you got for just sitting down. > When you made a deck that consisted of Mr X and his 10 cap friends, > you knew that if you ended up on the same table as another mr X deck, > you'd be hosed. You could've changed your deck to a "Mr X and his 3-4 > cap friends" instead, but you didn't. And now you'll have to suck it > up. So your answer to your own assertion of "contestation makes people make more diverse decks" is that because of contestation, you are limited in your ability to make diverse decks? Check. > Mostly, we're not agreeing on how much you can control it. I'll leave > it there. You can't at all control if someone randomly sits at a table with you and randomly has the same vampire as you. No control at all. Pure randomosity. At that point, there is a bit of choosing to be done. But often, not enough to save you from being in the totally hosed position from the get go. -Peter

On Jul 16, 8:06 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 10:25 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Yeah, I've noticed that. And I think it's better now than before. > > See. The game is better when it moves in the direction of "less things > that can randomly hose you". I don't always think that is the case though. When I want non random games, I don't play V:tES. > > On the other hand, not reprinting them (while at the same time not > > banning them) makes running into them more rare (which means taking it > > into account when creating decks will be harder). So in one way, the > > game gets more prone to random hosing. > > Well, really, it gets less prone, as they are even less likely to > occur. But yeah, I agree that in the incredibly unlikely event that it > comes up, it is extra irritating to be killed by, like, a Malkavian > Dementia or something. But that is considerably less likely to occur > than even contesting a vampire. And that is not that likely to happen. Well, Dementia is one of those cards that you put into a deck when you have a good guess that you'll be facing Malkavians. Cards like Malkavian Seven Miseries are ones that you put in to hose vote decks, but that just happens to completely screw Tremere vote decks, which is different. > > And on the other hand here: > > Since New Carthage isn't put into a deck to hose Ventrues, the times > > you actually end up on a table with a Ventrue it's more due to > > randomness than due to you thinking "I'll play New Carthage in my deck > > to screw with all the Ventrue decks I've been facing lately". So in > > one way there's more randomness here as well. > > No, no, that is less randomness. New Carthage is *likely* to show up. > It is a strong card that makes a strong clan stronger. Seeing New > Carthage show up in a given game is not at all unlikely, in the random > case where there is a Brujah deck. But on the upside, New Carthage > doesn't actually hurt the Ventrue all that much. A relatively minor > inconvenience in the worst situation, totally irrelevant in the best > (as you don't have any votes on the table anyway). Yeah, I know that New Carthage is a strong card and that the risk for it to appear is relatively high. I was talking about the fact that the Brujah player didn't put it in xer deck to have a nice defence against Ventrue decks. The Ventrue part is just a somewhat arbitrary side effect, which only helps on random occasions. Those kind of random things are what I dislike. > > Then again, I just throw in some Unnatural Disaster in Ventrue decks > > these days, so it's not the end of the world. But anyway. > > 'Cause you weren't using Dominate Kine already? But I digress. Actually, I wasn't. And even if I were, it wouldn't really help to steal New Carthage since the effect would remain. > > Here's where we're different. I think you had a choice with the > > contest as well. > > Well, sure, you have the choice to not transfer to your guys. Or the > choice to say "I'm getting out vampire X" and your prey says "I'm also > getting out vampire X, and I get mine out first, so suck on it". This > isn't the kind of choice that gets you out of a randomly applied > losing position that you got for just sitting down. I was talking about the choice you had when building the deck. But yeah, the announce thingy works as well. At least you won't waste your turns/transfers/pool without knowing that you'll end up in a contest. > > When you made a deck that consisted of Mr X and his 10 cap friends, > > you knew that if you ended up on the same table as another mr X deck, > > you'd be hosed. You could've changed your deck to a "Mr X and his 3-4 > > cap friends" instead, but you didn't. And now you'll have to suck it > > up. > > So your answer to your own assertion of "contestation makes people > make more diverse decks" is that because of contestation, you are > limited in your ability to make diverse decks? Check. You're not limited other than to your metagame. Building a Mr X and his 10 cap friends is fine, but the risk of you getting screwed goes up slightly. And that's a choice you're making. > > Mostly, we're not agreeing on how much you can control it. I'll leave > > it there. > > You can't at all control if someone randomly sits at a table with you > and randomly has the same vampire as you. No control at all. Pure > randomosity. At that point, there is a bit of choosing to be done. But > often, not enough to save you from being in the totally hosed position > from the get go. Before the randomness, you have some control over the risk of sitting down at a table where someone contests with you. You can't control Lady Luck's dice throw. After the randomness you have control again. And after all, I do believe that you're bound to get screwed by the randomness every now and then. Be it due to contest or to a second turn War Ghoul from your prey. And sometimes your predator will get screwed by the very same randomness, causing you to have a great game (vp/seating wise). You win some and you lose some, that's how the game goes. Contesting is a small thing that can cause you to lose a table. I'm fine with that considering the gains I see from the current contest rules when compared to the alternatives.

On Jul 16, 2:45 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > See. The game is better when it moves in the direction of "less things > > that can randomly hose you". > > I don't always think that is the case though. When I want non random > games, I don't play V:tES. I think it is the case that even in games based on randomness, having less arbitrary total hosing than more is pretty much always going to be a worthwhile goal. Like, in poker, which is a game based on a great deal of randomness, the most popular version is the one where a great deal of randomness as is removed (see: Texas Hold'em). And Poker could have rules like "If you draw QH and 7D, you lose!" (like Cups!), but it doesn't. 'Cause even in games governed by chance, minimizing random hosing is generally a good thing. VTES is a game with randomness. Yes. But having fewer ways to randomly and arbitrarily get shut out of the game seems to be, and have been, and overall goal for the designers. I mean, *you* might like VTES if it had a rule where at the start of each game, everyone draws a card off the top of their deck, and the person (or people) who have the card that comes first alphabetically loses 15 pool (and heck! You can even plan for it! Build your deck with only cards that start with the letters X, Y, Z!). But I suspect that most people would not. > And after all, I do believe that you're bound to get screwed by the > randomness every now and then. Be it due to contest or to a second > turn War Ghoul from your prey. The second turn War Ghoul from your prey is something that you can plan for--have combat defense in your deck. Or Entrancement. Or whatever. The contestation is not. Do you at least see the conceptual difference there? If you are screwed by second turn War Ghouls (or whatever), that is the result of a choice you made when building your deck. If you are screwed by someone having the same minion as you, that is the result of the completely unreasonable choice you made to have minions in your deck. > You win some and you lose some, that's how the game goes. Contesting > is a small thing that can cause you to lose a table. I'm fine with > that considering the gains I see from the current contest rules when > compared to the alternatives. We haven't seen the alternatives. And if the alternatives make, for the majority of people involved, the game slightly more fun for being less prone to random arbitrary hosing due to brutal contestation (without otherwise significantly injuring the balance of the game), that strikes me as a good direction to go in. Clearly, you think otherwise. There you go. -Peter

Peter, another way to fix the problem you're talking about would be to play with an open uncontrolled region. When everyone's uncontrolled region is visible for everyone else to see, it is instantly obvious whether two Methusalehs have a chance of contesting a vampire. If you both have Lutz in your opening crypt draw, the Methusaleh going first will not be surprised when his prey gets Lutz out first. There would be no particular reason to change the contestation rules since the circumstance you're talking about would be completely foreseen. Playing with an open uncontrolled region would have a major change on how players act in the first few turns. The rule would affect only a few cards ruleswise, such as Harrod. Playing with an open uncontrolled region would also: - remove any doubts about the legality of effects that target cards in the uncontrolled region. - make it physically easier to manipulate cards and blood counters since the counters would not have to be removed from the card when it leaves the uncontrolled region and flips over. Seeing other Methusalehs' uncontrolled region would help strengthen strategy over chance, since you would be able to gauge other players' strategies from turn one and start acting appropriately. It would also weaken the disadvantage of having fewer transfers as player 1, 2, or 3 since your prey can't surprise you as much. -Aaron Clark

On Jul 16, 9:27 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I mean, *you* might like VTES if > it had a rule where at the start of each game, everyone draws a card > off the top of their deck, and the person (or people) who have the > card that comes first alphabetically loses 15 pool (and heck! You can > even plan for it! Build your deck with only cards that start with the > letters X, Y, Z!). But I suspect that most people would not. So now, after me trying to discuss this alternative rule seriously here, you bring this? Do you think that I would like that rule addition, or are you just doing that strawman thingy? I'm just not agreeing about how arbitrary random the contesting is. > > And after all, I do believe that you're bound to get screwed by the > > randomness every now and then. Be it due to contest or to a second > > turn War Ghoul from your prey. > > The second turn War Ghoul from your prey is something that you can > plan for--have combat defense in your deck. Or Entrancement. Or > whatever. The contestation is not. Do you at least see the conceptual > difference there? I see a difference, yes. But I'm still saying that you can plan for the contestation (and I'm not even talking about the cards that specifically has to do with contesting, like Democritus or Praxis Solomon). As I've said before, building your deck so that you can adapt to losing one of your minions is something one should do. If that loss is due to Banishment, War Ghouls, Pentex Subversion of a contest isn't really relevant (other than that there are different ways to defend against the different cards I mentioned). > If you are screwed by second turn War Ghouls (or > whatever), that is the result of a choice you made when building your > deck. If you are screwed by someone having the same minion as you, > that is the result of the completely unreasonable choice you made to > have minions in your deck. To have *certain* minions in your deck. Which is an important thing. And as I said earlier in the thread (not sure if it was in a response to you or not): if contesting ruins a table for you more than once in a blue moon, then you and your metagaming/deck building is to blame. > > You win some and you lose some, that's how the game goes. Contesting > > is a small thing that can cause you to lose a table. I'm fine with > > that considering the gains I see from the current contest rules when > > compared to the alternatives. > > We haven't seen the alternatives. We've seen a couple of suggestions in this thread. > And if the alternatives make, for > the majority of people involved, the game slightly more fun for being > less prone to random arbitrary hosing due to brutal contestation > (without otherwise significantly injuring the balance of the game), > that strikes me as a good direction to go in. I haven't seen any alternative like that though, and as I said I'm very doubtful that I will. > Clearly, you think otherwise. There you go. Yeah. Clearly, I want V:tES to be nothing but the roll of a die. Clearly.

On Jul 16, 9:35 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter, another way to fix the problem you're talking about would be to > play with an open uncontrolled region. > > When everyone's uncontrolled region is visible for everyone else to > see, it is instantly obvious whether two Methusalehs have a chance of > contesting a vampire. If you both have Lutz in your opening crypt > draw, the Methusaleh going first will not be surprised when his prey > gets Lutz out first. There would be no particular reason to change > the contestation rules since the circumstance you're talking about > would be completely foreseen. That can be done with the current rules if people wants to not risk contesting, by just stating what minion you're starting to influence. As someone (Ruben I think) already mentioned in this thread.

On Jul 16, 3:40 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > So now, after me trying to discuss this alternative rule seriously > here, you bring this? It is an absurd example of "not going in the direction of making the game less prone to arbitrary hosing". As you were saying that you didn't necessarily think that going in the direction of less arbitrary hosing was always a good idea: > > See. The game is better when it moves in the direction of "less things > > that can randomly hose you". > > I don't always think that is the case though. When I want non random > games, I don't play V:tES. I said "the game is better when it moves in the direction of "less things that can randomly hose you", and you said "I don't always think that is the case, though." Indicating that you think that sometimes the case is that moving the game in the direction of more things that can randomly hose you is preferable. So I came up with an absurd example of moving the game in a direction of more things that can randomly hose you. > I'm just not agreeing about how arbitrary random the contesting is. That wasn't what you said, or what I was responding to. You specifically said that you didn't always think that it was the case that moving in the direction of less things that can randomly hose you was a good idea. That might not have been what you meant, but it was certainly what you said. > I see a difference, yes. Ok. Good. > But I'm still saying that you can plan for > the contestation (and I'm not even talking about the cards that > specifically has to do with contesting, like Democritus or Praxis > Solomon). Well, you can also plan for being at ground zero to a nuclear strike, but that isn't going to help much either. > As I've said before, building your deck so that you can adapt to > losing one of your minions is something one should do. Sure. But if the first big minion you are bringing out gets contested, you are already in a huge hole. And you can build your deck so that it also has small minions too, but maybe you didn't draw any. And maybe you wanted to try a deck with all big minions, as deck diversity is something that we are all in favor of, but if the contestation rules make it so that playing a deck with all big minions is a bad idea, then the contestation rules are making deck choices less diverse, rather than more. > If that loss is > due to Banishment, War Ghouls, Pentex Subversion of a contest isn't > really relevant (other than that there are different ways to defend > against the different cards I mentioned). Yeah, see, I think you are mistaken here. 'Cause losing due to random contestation issues is a very different issue than losing due to sitting next to a deck you can't deal with. Heck. You even agreed that they were different. > To have *certain* minions in your deck. I'm not talking about *certain* minions. 'Cause contestation can just as badly hose you simply 'cause you wanted *a* minion, not *the* minion. > Which is an important thing. > And as I said earlier in the thread (not sure if it was in a response > to you or not): if contesting ruins a table for you more than once in > a blue moon, then you and your metagaming/deck building is to blame. Well, that, or pure, random bad luck. > I haven't seen any alternative like that though, and as I said I'm > very doubtful that I will. That's you. I think at least a few of the ideas presented here would go a long way towards fixing what I think could use fixing. > Yeah. Clearly, I want V:tES to be nothing but the roll of a die. > Clearly. Well, you did say that you thought that it wasn't always a good idea to move in the direction of making less things that randomly hose you... -Peter

On Jul 16, 3:35 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter, another way to fix the problem you're talking about would be to > play with an open uncontrolled region. Certainly a possibility. I don't know that it would be my preferred solution, simply 'cause it seems fundamentally wrong to me, but I can certainly see the advantages. But also doesn't save you from situations where you and someone else both want to use the same guy and you can't come to a amicable solution--one of you still gets completely hosed. I'd like to see one of you being slightly less hosed. -Peter

On Jul 16, 5:37 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 3:40 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > See. The game is better when it moves in the direction of "less things > > > that can randomly hose you". > > > I don't always think that is the case though. When I want non random > > games, I don't play V:tES. > > I said "the game is better when it moves in the direction of "less > things that can randomly hose you", and you said "I don't always think > that is the case, though." Indicating that you think that sometimes > the case is that moving the game in the direction of more things that > can randomly hose you is preferable. So I came up with an absurd > example of moving the game in a direction of more things that can > randomly hose you. It would have probably been better to come to the conclusion that henrik was noting (again) that movement is not made in a vacuum, and any change will have side effects that could make the game worse in some manner other than the random hosing, instead of coming up with an absurd example so that you could run circles around each other some more. Not that the internet is likely to run out of bits anytime soon. -witness1

The only reason contesting MAY need to change is because it does not happen with regularity anymore. I remember a time when contesting your predators dominate weenie was a defense when you ran out of bounce. When a late game contest was the killing blow. It could be said that the game has lost something now that vampires being contested is no longer common. The eternal struggle was not just about pool, votes and actions. The control of the vampires themselves was contested. Now it is a ~RANDOM~ happenstance. Peter may be right about this antiquated rule. > > Contesting crypt cards works the same as it does now, but the incoming copy (if > it isn't burned for self-contesting) remains in play. When you pay to contest, > your copy re-enters play and the other copy is flipped out of play. When you > yield, the crypt card returns to your* uncontrolled region. > > * Where "you" means "the controller's, after breaking any temporary control > effects", as normal. > > I think it works a little better than my original suggestion. Simple and very > near to the current rules. The only changes are that the contested card is still > around to use for your part of the table cycle and yielding leaves you with the > card in your uncontrolled region, to siphon blood from or to reinfluence later. Vampire X is presumed to be unique. Xe bounces in and out with different blood and cards on constantly changing like a character in a b movie with time travel. As already stated this unfavorable to reactive decks. Opens the possibility of pre-game collusion for intentional contestation as a possible defense against fame rush, sense dep,Baltimore purge,mind rape,Velas Hunt yadda yadda... The cost of doing so is no more than the infernal cost with added benefits. The up side of this change, get to take some actions with a contested minion and /or recoup the pool invested via minion tap, villien, golconda, setite location( I forget the name ) or transfers. I did post my own contest changes that apparently were not worth discussion. Sigh Matt

On Jul 16, 11:37 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > See. The game is better when it moves in the direction of "less things > > > that can randomly hose you". > > > I don't always think that is the case though. When I want non random > > games, I don't play V:tES. > > I said "the game is better when it moves in the direction of "less > things that can randomly hose you", and you said "I don't always think > that is the case, though." Indicating that you think that sometimes > the case is that moving the game in the direction of more things that > can randomly hose you is preferable. So I came up with an absurd > example of moving the game in a direction of more things that can > randomly hose you. It's indicating that I think the game is fine as it is. Not that I want more randomly hosing, and not that I want less. > > I'm just not agreeing about how arbitrary random the contesting is. > > That wasn't what you said, or what I was responding to. You > specifically said that you didn't always think that it was the case > that moving in the direction of less things that can randomly hose you > was a good idea. That might not have been what you meant, but it was > certainly what you said. Not what I said right there, but I've said that earlier. Anyway, I don't think that moving in the direction of less things that can randomly hose me always is good for the game. I don't really want V:tES to become a game where no random hosing exists, which is where we'll end up if we always strive to move towards less random hosing. Now, I don't think that's where you want V:tES to end up either. But always trying to lessen the amount of random hosing will get us there, so at some point we need to say "This amount of random hosing is ok, and actually good for the game. Even if it means that someone, sometimes will get screwed by Lady Luck". > > But I'm still saying that you can plan for > > the contestation (and I'm not even talking about the cards that > > specifically has to do with contesting, like Democritus or Praxis > > Solomon). > > Well, you can also plan for being at ground zero to a nuclear strike, > but that isn't going to help much either. Not sure how that's relevant, but it's quite possible that it is going to help. I mean, certain places are more likely to get hit by a nuclear strike than others (kinda like the vampire contest thing we're discussing). > > As I've said before, building your deck so that you can adapt to > > losing one of your minions is something one should do. > > Sure. But if the first big minion you are bringing out gets contested, > you are already in a huge hole. And you can build your deck so that it > also has small minions too, but maybe you didn't draw any. Maybe. Or maybe all my 4-5 copies of my star vampire ended up in the bottom of my crypt. That wouldn't be different at all with any change to the contest rule though. > And maybe > you wanted to try a deck with all big minions, as deck diversity is > something that we are all in favor of, but if the contestation rules > make it so that playing a deck with all big minions is a bad idea, > then the contestation rules are making deck choices less diverse, > rather than more. Good thing that the contestation rules doesn't make it so that playing a deck with all big minions is a bad idea then. There are plenty of other things that makes playing a deck with all big minions a bad idea though, and I'd be happy for some of them to get fixed. > > If that loss is > > due to Banishment, War Ghouls, Pentex Subversion of a contest isn't > > really relevant (other than that there are different ways to defend > > against the different cards I mentioned). > > Yeah, see, I think you are mistaken here. 'Cause losing due to random > contestation issues is a very different issue than losing due to > sitting next to a deck you can't deal with. Heck. You even agreed that > they were different. It's a different thing, but you're still sitting next to a deck you can't deal with. So they're somewhat similar, the difference is what precautions you could've/should've taken to prevent the situation from screwing you completely. > > To have *certain* minions in your deck. > > I'm not talking about *certain* minions. 'Cause contestation can just > as badly hose you simply 'cause you wanted *a* minion, not *the* > minion. Well, yeah. A: I'm going to influence out the big vampire X. B: No way! I'm gonna bring vampire X out, and since I start with 2 transfers and you only get 1, I'm gonna get xer out first! A: Aww, that sucks. But ok, I'll bring out vampire Y instead then. C: No way! I'm gonna bring vampire Y out, and since I start with 3 transfers and you only get 1, I'm gonna get xer out first! A: Aww, that sucks. But ok, I'll bring out vampire Z instead then. D: No way! I'm gonna bring vampire Z out, and since I start with 4 transfers and you only get 1, I'm gonna get xer out first! A: Aww, that sucks. But ok, I'll bring out vampire XYZ instead then. E: No way! I'm gonna bring vampire XYZ out, and since I start with 4 transfers and you only get 1, I'm gonna get xer out first! But then again, you could try dealing with C or D, who does have some interest in you getting a minion out and being able to put pressure/ handle your prey/predator. > > Which is an important thing. > > And as I said earlier in the thread (not sure if it was in a response > > to you or not): if contesting ruins a table for you more than once in > > a blue moon, then you and your metagaming/deck building is to blame. > > Well, that, or pure, random bad luck. If it's nothing but random bad luck, it'll even out. Unless we're talking carma or something like that (I think that evens out in the end as well, but..). I think we should be able to agree with that, at least? That the random hosing will, at least after a while, get spread enough to screw everyone over equally much. > > I haven't seen any alternative like that though, and as I said I'm > > very doubtful that I will. > > That's you. I think at least a few of the ideas presented here would > go a long way towards fixing what I think could use fixing. I think they would go a long way towards fixing what you think could use fixing as well. I just think they'd bring other bad things instead (worse things, actually). > > Yeah. Clearly, I want V:tES to be nothing but the roll of a die. > > Clearly. > > Well, you did say that you thought that it wasn't always a good idea > to move in the direction of making less things that randomly hose > you... Yeah. And you want to play chess. Right?

On Jul 17, 12:05 am, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > I did post my own contest changes that apparently were not worth > discussion. Sigh > ever time you pay contest you may move up to two-four blood from the > contested minion too a minion in your uncontrolled region. This one wasn't too bad. I don't see any direct flaw with it at least. Think I missed it (since like, the thread is full of crackheads whining about what random means) when I wrote my small half serious post which talked about a couple of the suggestions in the thread. I actually think this is the one I like the most now that I've read it (don't let it get to your head though, I still don't see the need for any change at all).

[ quoted text not captured ] The problem here IMO would be cards like Brainwash/Memory's Fading Glimpse/etc, especially in the early goings. Basically all the Uncontrolled Region affecting things either become useless (and weren't much chop before), or become a lot more powerful. Too much? Not so sure, but something that would needs be considered. Morgan Vening

On Jul 16, 5:47 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > It would have probably been better to come to the conclusion that > henrik was noting (again) that movement is not made in a vacuum, and > any change will have side effects that could make the game worse in > some manner other than the random hosing, Or, he could have made that clear in his response, in which case this all could have been avoided. > instead of coming up with an > absurd example so that you could run circles around each other some > more. I wasn't trying to run circles anywhere. It struck me as an absurd, but kind of funny example of "making the game more prone to random hosing as opposed to less". Optimal response probably would have been "Uh, yeah, that's not what I meant", and then all would have been good. -Peter

On Jul 16, 6:11 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's indicating that I think the game is fine as it is. Not that I > want more randomly hosing, and not that I want less. Ok. So you are perfectly happy with the current amount of random hosing. Reasonable. I'm not. It is unlikely you are going to convince me to like the current amount of random hosing in the game. > Not what I said right there, but I've said that earlier. Ok. > Anyway, I don't think that moving in the direction of less things that > can randomly hose me always is good for the game. Ok. > I don't really want > V:tES to become a game where no random hosing exists, which is where > we'll end up if we always strive to move towards less random hosing. I don't know that it is. The game is based in chance. There will always be things that go wrong randomly. Otherwise, it is a completely different game. But some things (randomly losing the game due to contestation) are both incredibly frustrating and incredibly unfun when they happen where other things (a bad draw, bad seating, whatever) strike me as much less so. > Now, I don't think that's where you want V:tES to end up either. But > always trying to lessen the amount of random hosing will get us there, > so at some point we need to say "This amount of random hosing is ok, > and actually good for the game. Even if it means that someone, > sometimes will get screwed by Lady Luck". We haven't gotten to that point yet. > Good thing that the contestation rules doesn't make it so that playing > a deck with all big minions is a bad idea then. There are plenty of > other things that makes playing a deck with all big minions a bad idea > though, and I'd be happy for some of them to get fixed. So you are ok with fixing some parts of the game that you think suck, but not ok with fixing some parts of the game that I think suck. > I think they would go a long way towards fixing what you think could > use fixing as well. I just think they'd bring other bad things instead > (worse things, actually). Please expound. What worse things are these? See, if you explain why a given plan is specifically bad, rather than just saying "the current rules are fine", the discussion might go somewhere. > Yeah. And you want to play chess. Right? Sometimes. But not right now. -Peter

On Jul 15, 1:12 pm, Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > >And yet it still happens sometimes. And when it does, it is often > >leads to an incredibly lame and unsatisfying loss/demolishing of a > >whole game. Due to pure chance. > > Sounds like V:TES to me, and I've never contested a vampire. This sums up your point in its entirety. You know the rules, but have no experience with the matter being discussed. Do you often debate subjects that you have no experience in?

On Jul 16, 2:40 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 3:35 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Peter, another way to fix the problem you're talking about would be to > > play with an open uncontrolled region. > > > But also doesn't save you from situations where you and someone else > both want to use the same guy and you can't come to a amicable > solution--one of you still gets completely hosed. I'd like to see one > of you being slightly less hosed. > > -Peter Huh. I thought this post was about when you place counters on a vampire during your minion phase, but someone else gets out that vampire first so you've lost a lot of turns. It seems like a lot of the discussion is really about the vulnerabilities of star vampire decks. I don't see how anyone will get completely hosed if everyone's uncontrolled regions are open. If two people are playing a star vampire deck with the same vampire, the amical way to decide is the person who starts later gets the vampire and the one who starts earlier influences out his second-stringers. The un-amical way to decide is for the person who goes earlier to knowingly contest the vampire. VTES does have unique cards, after all. Do you really think it will ever be changed to allow players to control the same unique card at the same time? I don't. Star vampire decks will always have this vulnerability one way or another. It seems like a good idea to put in a couple of copies of a younger second-stringer vampire into your crypt who can still use most of the cards the star can use so your game might not be completely hosed if you lose access to your star.

On Jul 17, 2:14 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > I don't really want > > V:tES to become a game where no random hosing exists, which is where > > we'll end up if we always strive to move towards less random hosing. > > I don't know that it is. The game is based in chance. There will > always be things that go wrong randomly. Otherwise, it is a completely > different game. But some things (randomly losing the game due to > contestation) are both incredibly frustrating and incredibly unfun > when they happen where other things (a bad draw, bad seating, > whatever) strike me as much less so. That's my point here. It'll be a different game. And really, if we always keep doing every change that leads to less random hosing, it will become a different game. And in the end, there won't be anything that can go wrong randomly. Another example could be that changing the crypt rules to allow a minimum of 4 cards instead of the current 12 would also reduce random hosing (since one would be able to pick start crypt instead of having to play with chance to get a good one). I don't think that would be good for the game. But if you think that always reducing random hosing, you should? > > Now, I don't think that's where you want V:tES to end up either. But > > always trying to lessen the amount of random hosing will get us there, > > so at some point we need to say "This amount of random hosing is ok, > > and actually good for the game. Even if it means that someone, > > sometimes will get screwed by Lady Luck". > > We haven't gotten to that point yet I know we're not at your point (and you know we're not at mine). I just wanted to point out why I don't think that we should always try to change the game into having less random hosing, and it seems you agree (at least to a certain point, which is all I'm saying). > > Good thing that the contestation rules doesn't make it so that playing > > a deck with all big minions is a bad idea then. There are plenty of > > other things that makes playing a deck with all big minions a bad idea > > though, and I'd be happy for some of them to get fixed. > > So you are ok with fixing some parts of the game that you think suck, > but not ok with fixing some parts of the game that I think suck. Well, in this case that's the deal. It's not like I'll always object to changing things just because you think they suck. In general though, I think that changing the rules is something you do when you can't handle them, and that you should adapt to the rules instead. > > I think they would go a long way towards fixing what you think could > > use fixing as well. I just think they'd bring other bad things instead > > (worse things, actually). > > Please expound. What worse things are these? See, if you explain why a > given plan is specifically bad, rather than just saying "the current > rules are fine", the discussion might go somewhere. I did mention stuff earlier. Wall decks getting screwed more than active decks, rush decks getting screwed more than bleed decks, somewhat removing the ability to contest for strategic reasons are the ones I get on top of my head. And for me, they're more than enough reason to not change the current rules (since I think the current rules are fine).

On Jul 16, 7:53 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 10:10 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I still think arguing against the basic assumption is within the > > reaches of a discussion. > > Clearly, you do. Which is your right. But for my money, you are much > better off just saying "This is dumb, I think the regular rules are > fine." and leaving it at that. But that is me. I'd just like to point out here, that my starting post in this thread was a direct answer to a question about the good things with the current rules. Just saying that they're fine would've somewhat fun, but still not have answered John's question that well.

On Jul 17, 3:06 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's my point here. It'll be a different game. > And really, if we always keep doing every change that leads to less > random hosing, it will become a different game. And in the end, there > won't be anything that can go wrong randomly. I guess you misunderstand what I mean by "hosing". I'm not trying to imply that the game should have no chance at all. Good and bad events that result from chance are part and parcel of the game. I'm talking about "Your game is essentially over, or at the very least, very, very damaged due to complete randomness", like losing the game before you get a single vampire out due to contestation issues. Or losing 15 pool at the start of the game 'cause you drew Aid from Bats. I'm not talking about issues like "Oh, I didn't draw a master in my opening hand". I'm talking solely about "this random event has essentially ended my game before it even started". Any argument directed at removing all random elements of the game is moot. As that's not remotely what I'm talking about. > I know we're not at your point (and you know we're not at mine). I > just wanted to point out why I don't think that we should always try > to change the game into having less random hosing, and it seems you > agree (at least to a certain point, which is all I'm saying). "Random hosing" = "my game is essentially over before I take a turn, due to random chance." not "Random hosing" = "sometimes inconvenient things happen due to random chance". > Well, in this case that's the deal. It's not like I'll always object > to changing things just because you think they suck. > In general though, I think that changing the rules is something you do > when you can't handle them, and that you should adapt to the rules > instead. And yet people could adapt to 1 point of aggravated damage burning their minions (Which was hilarious when KoKo got to burn Arika with a Pulled Fangs. To me.) And people could adapt to Return to Innocence (play 20 bounce cards in every deck) and people could adapt to the bad infernal rules (don't play the Baali). These were all things that people could adapt to. And yet they got fixed anyway. 'Cause they made the game better. > I did mention stuff earlier. Wall decks getting screwed more than > active decks, rush decks getting screwed more than bleed decks, > somewhat removing the ability to contest for strategic reasons are the > ones I get on top of my head. And for me, they're more than enough > reason to not change the current rules (since I think the current > rules are fine). These aren't necessarily worse things being brought. Some decks would suffer a little more than others to new rules, just like current some decks suffer a little more than others to the current rules. And there are certainly ways to structure such a rule that does not remove the ability to contest for strategic reasons if that is a problem. -Peter

On Jul 17, 2:27 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I guess you misunderstand what I mean by "hosing". I'm not trying to > imply that the game should have no chance at all. Good and bad events > that result from chance are part and parcel of the game. I'm talking > about "Your game is essentially over, or at the very least, very, very > damaged due to complete randomness", like losing the game before you > get a single vampire out due to contestation issues. Or losing 15 pool > at the start of the game 'cause you drew Aid from Bats. I'm not > talking about issues like "Oh, I didn't draw a master in my opening > hand". I'm talking solely about "this random event has essentially > ended my game before it even started". Any argument directed at > removing all random elements of the game is moot. As that's not > remotely what I'm talking about. I think it's more about me thinking that contestation isn't random hosing. Not more than facing a combat deck or having a crap ass grand predator (this one is like the worst thing that can happen, and ruins far more games for far more people than contesting does). > "Random hosing" = "my game is essentially over before I take a turn, > due to random chance." > > not > > "Random hosing" = "sometimes inconvenient things happen due to random > chance". "Contesting a high cap star vampire after having spent 2-3 turns and 8-11 pool/transfers, and only having other high caps in my crypt" = "I should've put more Zillah's Valley's in my deck, asked about possible contests before starting to transfer or maybe put some weenies/midcaps in my deck so I could play even though my star vampire got contested. I also should've considered that my star vampire is such a good vampire that plenty of others will play him at the tournament" not "Contesting a high cap vampire" = "my game is essentially over before I take a turn due to random chance" > And yet people could adapt to 1 point of aggravated damage burning > their minions (Which was hilarious when KoKo got to burn Arika with a > Pulled Fangs. To me.) And people could adapt to Return to Innocence > (play 20 bounce cards in every deck) and people could adapt to the bad > infernal rules (don't play the Baali). These were all things that > people could adapt to. And yet they got fixed anyway. 'Cause they made > the game better. I think the Pulled Fangs thingy was more about Pulled Fangs doing 1 aggravated damage (often to an already empty vampire on it's way to torpor) than about whether 1 or 2 aggravated damage was required to burn a vampire. But that's not the topic. Neither is that I don't really care about Return to Innocence being banned. The Baali thing is the most relevant here for me. And yes, that was a change that I think made the game (at least a small part of it) better. If the only way to adapt to the current contestation rules would be to not play unique minions in your crypt, then I'd say these two examples could be compared. But that's not true at all. > > I did mention stuff earlier. Wall decks getting screwed more than > > active decks, rush decks getting screwed more than bleed decks, > > somewhat removing the ability to contest for strategic reasons are the > > ones I get on top of my head. And for me, they're more than enough > > reason to not change the current rules (since I think the current > > rules are fine). > > These aren't necessarily worse things being brought. Some decks would > suffer a little more than others to new rules, just like current some > decks suffer a little more than others to the current rules. They're not necessarily worse things, just like contesting being easier isn't necessarily a good thing. That's just how you and I have different opinions. And as for the current rules making some decks suffer more than others, I'd like an example (other than the obvious example that crap decks suffer more than good decks). I don't see any direct way that a certain type of decks are hurt more than any other type by the current rules. > And there > are certainly ways to structure such a rule that does not remove the > ability to contest for strategic reasons if that is a problem. Maybe. I haven't seen any suggestion that doesn't lessen or remove that ability though.

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:59:30 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > henrik wrote: >> I think that version seems to disfavor wall decks in the same way >> Peter's original suggestion does. > > Yeah. That part is not unnoticed. But it can't be helped without much > more complexity and then there's always the question of whether it would > be worth any effort at all to ease the life of wall decks. Well said! Especially, since, you know, we don't have a card like: Butt of Argus Action Modifier Obfuscate <no cost> [obf]: Only usable on a (D) action against your prey. +2 Stealth. [OBF]: Only usable after a successful (D) action against your prey. This vampire untaps. > And, just as obviously, if the severity of the disability inflicted when > the circumstances that lead to the possibility of contesting occur can > be lessened (that is, make the effect of landing in those circumstances > less game-destroying), then it is better for the game (assuming one > finds the contesting lottery's nuke-pot bad for the game). Ok, you could just kill "Unique" and stop the contesting. I think there's a reason why it's in place. > 1. Instead of losing the minion altogether, the lottery co-losers split > the minion's table cycle among them (while still paying the 1 pool per > cycle cost to contest). > > 2. When yielding, the lottery co-loser is able to harvest whats left of > xer original pool investment from the vampire (or can wait until xe is > strong enough to resume the contest). Let me reiterate: good idea. -- Regards, Daneel

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:55:50 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:40:41 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >>> P: Getting 365 million dollar in the lotto game is incredibly random. >>> >>> Z: No, it isn't. You have to choose to drive down to the lottery >>> agency and claim your prize. Matching the numbers is random, but >>> collecting the money isn't random. >> >> Randomness seems to come up a lot. I agree it's random to get seated at >> the same table with another deck that uses the same key vampire. But it >> is likewise random and much more prevalent to sit next to a deck that >> is >> the rock to your scissors. > > Yep. The follow-up to that point, when it was made in this thread > before, is: and one of those cannot be helped (it's the nature of TCGs), > but that is no reason to give up on looking at things that may be > improved. It's an improvement if we agree that the current contestation rules are bad. -- Regards, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] Something doesn't have to be bad to be improved.

On Jul 17, 10:18 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it's more about me thinking that contestation isn't random > hosing. And yet it is completely random when it comes up at all. So random. And there is certainly debate over what is or is not "hosing", but if your game is seriously hindered by contestation issues, I'd call that hosing. But ok. > Not more than facing a combat deck or having a crap ass grand predator > (this one is like the worst thing that can happen, and ruins far more > games for far more people than contesting does). Again, while it is certainly random to sit next to a deck that you are not prepared for, that you are not prepared for it is a choice that you made when building your deck. You can't (realistically) choose to not use minions. > "Contesting a high cap star vampire after having spent 2-3 turns and > 8-11 pool/transfers, and only having other high caps in my crypt" = "I > should've put more Zillah's Valley's in my deck, asked about possible > contests before starting to transfer or maybe put some weenies/midcaps > in my deck so I could play even though my star vampire got contested. > I also should've considered that my star vampire is such a good > vampire that plenty of others will play him at the tournament" You could have all the Zillah's Valleys in the world, spent all the time in the world trying to convince people not to contest out the same minion as you, and used the most obscure minions you could think of. And still, if it comes up and someone else has that minion or the minion you want to use, randomly, the penalty is simply too often too harsh. > I think the Pulled Fangs thingy was more about Pulled Fangs doing 1 > aggravated damage (often to an already empty vampire on it's way to > torpor) than about whether 1 or 2 aggravated damage was required to > burn a vampire. But that's not the topic. Neither is that I don't > really care about Return to Innocence being banned. The point is simply that these were issues in the game that people could have "adapted to" rather than having them fixed. I would certainly argue that the game was vastly improved (in the case of the middle ag damage rules and RTI) by these rules being fixed rather than adapted to. The designers of the game seem to agree with me here. > The Baali thing is the most relevant here for me. And yes, that was a > change that I think made the game (at least a small part of it) > better. And yet people thought those rules were fine too. And all sorts of folks were like "We don't need to change those rules. They are fine." and all "Changing those rules might make things worse!". And yet... > And as for the current rules making some decks suffer more than > others, I'd like an example (other than the obvious example that crap > decks suffer more than good decks). I don't see any direct way that a > certain type of decks are hurt more than any other type by the current > rules. Decks that rely on big vampires are considerably more hindered by contestation than decks that rely on small vampires. Decks that rely on specific minions are considerably more hindered by contestation than decks that rely on interchangeable minions. Decks that tend to tool up a single minion (i.e. No Secrets from the Sniper Rifle or wall of Raven Spies or Someone gets an Assault Rifle) are considerably more hindered by contestation than decks where no particular minion is any better than any others at doing what you need to do. The current incredibly debilitating contestation rules incentivize decks where contesting a particular minion will be particularly troublesome. Which encourages people to avoid particular decks (and by "particular", I mean, "an awful lot of deck strategies"). Which means that the contestation rules are shooting deck diversity in the foot. If the contestation rules were less debilitating, this would be less of the case. > Maybe. I haven't seen any suggestion that doesn't lessen or remove > that ability though. "If you give up contestation, all the blood on that minion is returned to your pool." This still allows you to strategically contest a minion, have it leave play, and have contestation go on as normal. Except if they give up that minion, they aren't totally out of their whole investment (unless they already used their pool investment through pulling the blood back or playing cards or something). "If you bring a unique minion into play that is already in play, the one already in play is moved to the uncontrolled region." This allows you to strategically remove a minion from play until it comes back to play. If it is low on blood, it might be out of play forever. Opening up all sorts of clever "I get all the blood off your guy and then contest him" tech. Do both of these lessen the penalty of having a minion contested? Sure. That is the whole point. Do they remove the ability to strategically contest a minion where it is beneficial to you and detrimental to your foe? No. It just makes it work differently. -Peter

Was VTES designed so that each and every game could be transcribed into story form?

Were the rules for contesting "bad" when the were only 111 vampires?

On Jul 17, 7:34 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Not more than facing a combat deck or having a crap ass grand predator > > (this one is like the worst thing that can happen, and ruins far more > > games for far more people than contesting does). > > Again, while it is certainly random to sit next to a deck that you are > not prepared for, that you are not prepared for it is a choice that > you made when building your deck. You can't (realistically) choose to > not use minions. Again, while it is certainly random to sit next to a deck that you are contesting with, that you are not prepared for it is a choice that you made when building your deck. You can (realistically) choose to use minions that have a higher or lower risk of contesting. You can choose to use minions that are replaceable with each other (so that contesting one of them doesn't kill your entire game). You can choose to name the minion you want to influence out in order to see if anyone else wants the same minion and then you can make some sort of deal about who gets the minion. Just like you can plan for facing combat decks, you can plan to be able to handle a contest. > You could have all the Zillah's Valleys in the world, spent all the > time in the world trying to convince people not to contest out the > same minion as you, and used the most obscure minions you could think > of. And still, if it comes up and someone else has that minion or the > minion you want to use, randomly, the penalty is simply too often too > harsh. For the most common contest situations (from my experience) it's a great weenie or midcap vampire like Stick/Beetleman, Victor Pelletier, Midget/Jackie, Keith Moody or similar. In those cases I think the current penalty is perfect. The second most common contest (again, from my experience) would be a higher cap, really strong vampire like Anson, Arika, Leandro, Gratiano or the likes. In those cases I think the penalty is harsh, but not too harsh. It's deserved for playing with sleazy vampires like that. The times when a contest like the one you talk about happens are so really, really, really incredibly rare that changing the rules on behalf of those situations creates more work than what's gained from it. Imo. And still, it can be prepared for. > > The Baali thing is the most relevant here for me. And yes, that was a > > change that I think made the game (at least a small part of it) > > better. > > And yet people thought those rules were fine too. And all sorts of > folks were like "We don't need to change those rules. They are fine." > and all "Changing those rules might make things worse!". And yet... I haven't really met anyone who thought the first infernal rules were fine, but if you say so. I did win a tournament with a Baali deck under the old rules though, so they we'rent that bad. What they did though, was to hose wall decks more than active decks. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, or so I heard. > > And as for the current rules making some decks suffer more than > > others, I'd like an example (other than the obvious example that crap > > decks suffer more than good decks). I don't see any direct way that a > > certain type of decks are hurt more than any other type by the current > > rules. > > Decks that rely on big vampires are considerably more hindered by > contestation than decks that rely on small vampires. Decks that rely > on specific minions are considerably more hindered by contestation > than decks that rely on interchangeable minions. Decks that tend to > tool up a single minion (i.e. No Secrets from the Sniper Rifle or wall > of Raven Spies or Someone gets an Assault Rifle) are considerably more > hindered by contestation than decks where no particular minion is any > better than any others at doing what you need to do. The current > incredibly debilitating contestation rules incentivize decks where > contesting a particular minion will be particularly troublesome. Which > encourages people to avoid particular decks (and by "particular", I > mean, "an awful lot of deck strategies"). Which means that the > contestation rules are shooting deck diversity in the foot. I know I didn't mention it when asking for examples, but those are deck types that are hindered by contestation in general. They'd be more hindered by any of the suggested rules in this thread as well (I'd even go as far as saying that they'd be more hindered by any contest rules ever, but there are probably some weird exceptions). I meant that I wanted to know if any deck types are more hindered by todays contest rules that wouldn't be hindered as much by a new rule. For example, with your suggestion, wall decks would suffer more than active decks. I don't think wall decks suffer more from a contest than active decks with the current rules. I'm not sure how to explain my point better than this, so I hope you understand what I'm after here. > If the contestation rules were less debilitating, this would be less > of the case. How so? > > Maybe. I haven't seen any suggestion that doesn't lessen or remove > > that ability though. > > "If you give up contestation, all the blood on that minion is returned > to your pool." > > This still allows you to strategically contest a minion, have it leave > play, and have contestation go on as normal. Except if they give up > that minion, they aren't totally out of their whole investment (unless > they already used their pool investment through pulling the blood back > or playing cards or something). It lessens the ability since it gives back pool and makes a new minion appearing more probable. > "If you bring a unique minion into play that is already in play, the > one already in play is moved to the uncontrolled region." > > This allows you to strategically remove a minion from play until it > comes back to play. If it is low on blood, it might be out of play > forever. Opening up all sorts of clever "I get all the blood off your > guy and then contest him" tech. And when it comes back, your minion disappears. Interesting, but sounds like an inverted version of your original post (meaning it would punish active decks and favor wall decks instead)? It does open up for new techs though, I'll give you that. > Do both of these lessen the penalty of having a minion contested? > Sure. That is the whole point. Do they remove the ability to > strategically contest a minion where it is beneficial to you and > detrimental to your foe? No. It just makes it work differently. Differently and, in ways, less effective. Thus lessening the ability.

Is it your position that decks should be able to get there key minion into play no matter what? As long as you have a proactive deck that is. Or that there should be an easier way to recoup your loses?

Will you concede that Lutz is strong and will be contested if at all possible at some point in a game? Or Orlando for that matter. Can you tell me what is so wrong with that?

wedge wrote: > Were the rules for contesting "bad" when the were only 111 vampires? Quote for context.

[ quoted text not captured ] yeah, dude, your quoting button is seriously broken...

I haven't read the entire thread, but i do have thoughts on vampire contests. There is the theory that you can control for the chances of getting contested (ie. don't play Arika) which encourages people not to play popular decks (ie why play any clan other than ventrue if it weren't for contest :p), which is positive for the game. However, i do agree that the penalty for vampire contest is very harsh. I haven't thought this through completely but an idea might be to leave the vampires in play but penalize the vampires themsevles (something like lose all abilities and have capacity round halved round up - as in the vampire is torn between the influence of the two methuselahs. They could even pay the contest like that of a title). That way when you pay 11 for Arika, you lose most of her value but stil have a vampire with nice disciplines. It should also be considered that contesting can be a strategic decision in the game. (contesting your predator can be very beneficial). You may also mention who you are influencing on at the cost of more information to others. Not to mention strategies like putting beast in your deck because you can't handle him, like Kamel did in a few tournaments!

On Jul 17, 1:34 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > The current > incredibly debilitating contestation rules incentivize decks where > contesting a particular minion will be particularly troublesome. Ah. Clearly I meant "disincentivize" here. If that is an actual word. -Peter

On Jul 17, 3:24 pm, frubeng <frub...@gmail.com> wrote: > I haven't read the entire thread, but i do have thoughts on vampire > contests. While understandable, a lot of the things you mention have already been covered. A lot :-) > There is the theory that you can control for the chances of getting > contested (ie. don't play Arika) which encourages people not to play > popular decks (ie why play any clan other than ventrue if it weren't > for contest :p), which is positive for the game. And yet the actual situations where contestation occurs is a completely random factor. And people still play Arika (and Anson and whomever) all the time. That Anson and Arika are as popular as they are, and win tournaments as often as they do kind of indicates to me that, no, contestation rules don't actually deter people from playing popular vampires. > It should also be considered that contesting can be a strategic > decision in the game. Yes it can. But it is a strategy that is only enabled by random chance--you can't realistically enter a tournament with the plan of "contesting my opponent's important vampires" (although, to be fair, I'm sure someone could try with a crypt of 1300+ vampires and a bunch of Recruitments...). And none of the hypothetical fixes presented here prevent you from using contestation as a strategic decision (i.e. no one is suggesting removing uniqueness and contestation as a mechanic completely). Just the end results would be different. But still something you could do strategically to disadvantage your opponent by contesting their minion. > Not to mention strategies like putting beast in your deck because you > can't handle him, like Kamel did in a few tournaments! Huh. Was it a deck that used Beast, or was it just a deck that happened to have a few Beasts in it, just in case he needed to contest Beast? I mean, certainly an interesting and clever idea, but again, totally random, doesn't help against any of the other similar vampires, and in reality, there are probably more effective ways to go about saving yourself from Beast. But certainly an interesting idea. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] "Discourages" would have worked just as well.

On Jul 17, 2:21 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Was VTES designed so that each and every game could be transcribed > into story form? Uh, what? -Peter

On Jul 17, 2:23 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Were the rules for contesting "bad" when the were only 111 vampires? The negative effects were just as debilitating. But as it was a lot more likely to happen in a given game, it was less of a random misery phase and more of a reliable function of the game. But it still sucked when it happened. And often led to games where you didn't get to play, just like now. -Peter

On Jul 17, 4:50 pm, The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Discourages" would have worked just as well. True, true. Probably should have used that from the get go. But I suspect I was thinking that it provided incentive for something and lost track in the middle of the sentence. So yeah. Discourages. That's what I meant :-) -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] The CCG is based on an RPG in which the "GM" is called the storyteller. Most of the minions have a name (are characters) instead of just clan and rank (Brujah Neonate). We to this day still have storyline tournaments.

[ quoted text not captured ] What does that have to do with anything? Or is the connection lost in the part that you didn't quote in the first post above?

On Jul 17, 3:24 pm, frubeng <frub...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is the theory that you can control for the chances of getting > contested (ie. don't play Arika) which encourages people not to play > popular decks (ie why play any clan other than ventrue if it weren't > for contest :p), which is positive for the game. I'm totally not convinced that this is positive for the game, even if it is true. Why is it positive for the game if people can't play the decks they want to play? There's nothing that makes deck diversity inherently superior to seeing the same decks again and again, as far as the game is concerned. If individual people want to see more deck diversity, they can play more diverse decks, regardless of whether the penalties for contestation are mild, game-ending, or non-existent. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Will who concede what? Please learn to use your news-reader's quoting functions. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

[ quoted text not captured ] Indeed, the rules for transferring back off your vampires were implemented to allow players to not feel forced to contest. (As in, I've put 8 counters on this copy of Sheldon and you've brought yours out, and I couldn't transfer counters back - no mechanism to do so - so I put an extra one on to contest yours.) Garfield says: I nearly lost faith in the concept [of contesting] after people had noticed so many conflicts, and the effect of a contested card was so dramatic and often decisive to the game. Skaff Ellis convinced me it was too good a tool to discard, because how can a player assemble an always-winning deck when she can't even rely on her vampires being hers when all the smoke clears? ... The fact that two players lost the whole game if their powerful vampires were contested bothered many players, and I eventually became convinced that it was a problem. I don't mind arbitrary swings of fate in games, but not such large ones in long games. Tom Fontaine, or someone in his playtest group, came up with the idea of withdrawing influence from an uncontrolled vampire. This was an excellent solution because two players are still hosed if their big vampires are contested, but at least one of those players can be righteously angry at the other for not withdrawing blood rather than plowing ahead and contesting the vampire. It's interesting that Garfield notes that "two players lost the whole game" - which is more or less what we're saying, 15 years later. I think, however, that the impression I get from the early writings is that the extremes weren't pushed. Just as it appears that no-one put together decks with 20 copies of Majesty in, I get the impression that crypts were a diverse set of vampires. Therefore, you bringing out Anneke and me bringing out Anneke would be because one of my perhaps 2 copies of Anneke came into my uncontrolled region, and the same with you. The idea of forcing a single vampire strategy through crypt stacking doesn't seem to be the case - I imagine that you were expecting a quite different uncontrolled region each time. It's this that means that Garfield's proposed fix - righteous indignation - doesn't work when both players need the same vampire. You might be righteously indignant at me, but I need Anson for my deck and you need Anson for your deck, or each deck simply doesn't work. I don't think we're going to be able to wean people off single vampire strategies (where one vampire is so key, even if there are a hoard of weenie fans, or something). At least, not this side of the heat death of the universe. People like them because they're often fun. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > I don't think we're going to be able to wean people off single vampire > strategies (where one vampire is so key, even if there are a hoard of > weenie fans, or something). At least, not this side of the heat death > of the universe. People like them because they're often fun. Weaning is for the weak. Another "solution": a one card limit on unique crypt cards.

[ quoted text not captured ] That would be preferable to alternating control.

[ quoted text not captured ] Alternating control is a non-issue as far as "alternatives" go, since it is unavoidable. See also Dreams of the Sphinx or Anarch Troublemaker. As far as solutions go, though, the 1CL would be quite a bit worse than adjusting the effect of contesting and/or of yielding, and probably worse than the current ruleset.

[ quoted text not captured ] My reply was no more serious than your "solution".

[ quoted text not captured ] Sorry. Missed the quotes on your reply. Glad to here you like the alternating control solution.

On Jul 16, 3:48 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > librarian wrote: > > I don't like thought experiments per se. > > I don't like thinking all that much, myself. It's a filthy habit. :-) > > > Let's set up some JOL games, > > or RL games with the alternate contesting rules and see what the effect > > is. If I was to build the game from scratch, I'd choose LSJ's rule > > suggestion. Most simple, most seems to represent what "contesting" or > > "uniqueness" would represent in the "real world". > > How about this: > > Contesting crypt cards works the same as it does now, but the incoming copy (if > it isn't burned for self-contesting) remains in play. When you pay to contest, > your copy re-enters play and the other copy is flipped out of play. When you > yield, the crypt card returns to your* uncontrolled region. > > * Where "you" means "the controller's, after breaking any temporary control > effects", as normal. > > I think it works a little better than my original suggestion. Simple and very > near to the current rules. The only changes are that the contested card is still > around to use for your part of the table cycle and yielding leaves you with the > card in your uncontrolled region, to siphon blood from or to reinfluence later. I definitely like returning to uncontrolled instead of burning, since it makes the penalty for losing a contest much lower. One of the reasons that contests are so painful under the current rules is that once you're in one, it's too costly to give up. The idea of alternating control seems good for cross-table contests, but for predator-prey contests (which happen most often in my experience), it's much worse for the prey than the current rules. In the proposal above, when I'm contesting with my prey I pay a pool to get a vamp and deprive my prey of a vamp. In the current rules, I pay a pool and both of us are deprived our vamp. Also, under the proposed rules, when I start contesting, it takes a whole round before I get any use, while the other player gets to use the vamp the entire round. I like this better: Exactly like the current rules, but instead of burning the vamp when you yield, you burn 1 blood on the vamp and return it to your uncontrolled region. That way, if you yield, you can get back your investment, but the prey doesn't get screwed. Also, this is a very small change, and I think smaller changes are generally better. Finally, I think the current rules do cause people to consider whether or not they want to play Arika, Lutz, Una, etc. The chances of contesting those vamps are still small, but I've seen Arika contested a lot more than I've seen Nakova, Advocate of Golconda. Ira

On Jul 17, 5:41 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > The CCG is based on an RPG in which the "GM" is called the > storyteller. Most of the minions have a name (are characters) instead > of just clan and rank (Brujah Neonate). We to this day still have > storyline tournaments. Hmm. Well, yes? I guess I'm not understanding what this has to do with the discussion at hand? -Peter

On Jul 17, 2:33 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is it your position that decks should be able to get there key minion > into play no matter what? As long as you have a proactive deck that > is. Hmm. You seem to be not actually quoting who you are responding to. Which makes understanding what you are talking about specifically difficult. And not everyone uses google.groups, so they can't necessarily see what post you are responding to. Just, ya know, quote relevant text that you are responding to, and this is all going to work better. As this question pertains to the topic as a whole, and I might be the person you are asking, I'll say that it is not my position that decks should be able to get their key minion into play no matter what--I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea of contestation. I just think the current rule is too harsh and occasionally results in people sitting down to play a game and simply not getting to play due to random chance hosing. Which is why I'd like to see a change to the contestation rules so that they aren't so totally harsh. > Or that there should be an easier way to recoup your loses? That is a possibility. I'm currently siding with the "if you yield contestation, move all the blood on that vampire to your pool" idea. Nice. Simple. Clean. Not confusing. Doesn't fundamentally change the contestation dynamic (just how much pool you lose for losing your guy). Doesn't require any extra explanation as to how different rules affect non minions (i.e. "if you yield contestation, burn your copy of the card. If that card is a vampire, move all the blood on that vampire to your pool.") I'm not sure how it would interact with the Imbued, but that is easy to clarify. I mean, not as interesting as some sort of alternating control, and superstar decks still take it in the junk. But a simple, non complicated fix is often the best option. -Peter

On Jul 17, 2:39 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Will you concede that Lutz is strong and will be contested if at all > possible at some point in a game? Or Orlando for that matter. Will who concede that? > Can you tell me what is so wrong with that? If your point is "it is good that big scary powerful minions get contested a lot, which makes them less good", well, sometimes that happens. But it is completely random, and as such, not really a good balancing mechanism. And doesn't really discourage (see Jeff! I learn!) people from playing the super powerful guys. Just once and a while, they lose the "I'm hosed" lottery. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I'd play Turbo Baron more in this Vtes universe. Later, ~Rehlow

[ quoted text not captured ] I have made a dam fool of myself in this thread. That said, if control of a contested minion shifts back and forth between two Meths. The blood and cards on them will likely change with each control change. So I guess my point is the continuity would be bad. some examples of contested control shifts I don't like You could see a tapped Sensory Deprived minion in torpor contested and removed from play only to come back during the controllers untap phase ready and untapped just because it was contested. An anarch revolt deck that had an anarch convert its predator could not interact with. I have no problem with a decease in the severity of contesting. read an easier way to recoup invested pool and maybe transfers. Matt Matt

[ quoted text not captured ] OK. I will concede this. I do think both are very strong. Given the opportunity (pool and motive) I would. Matt

wedge wrote: > On Jul 17, 8:50 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> On Jul 17, 5:41 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The CCG is based on an RPG in which the "GM" is called the >>> storyteller. Most of the minions have a name (are characters) instead >>> of just clan and rank (Brujah Neonate). We to this day still have >>> storyline tournaments. >> Hmm. Well, yes? I guess I'm not understanding what this has to do with >> the discussion at hand? >> >> -Peter > > I have made a dam fool of myself in this thread. That said, if control > of a contested minion shifts back and forth between two Meths. The > blood and cards on them will likely change with each control change. > So I guess my point is the continuity would be bad. Already true of the current contesting rules. And, really, of any contesting rules that don't involve "and when the eldest played card is yielded, it is given to one of the other players contesting the card to replace that player's copy of the card". So unless you're advocating the latter, the point is moot. > some examples of contested control shifts I don't like > > You could see a tapped Sensory Deprived minion in torpor contested and > removed from play only to come back during the controllers untap phase > ready and untapped just because it was contested. ? It would still be in torpor. But untapped, yes. Just like the current contesting rules. > An anarch revolt deck that had an anarch convert its predator could > not interact with. Yeah. That's one of the effects of the proposed rule. > I have no problem with a decease in the severity of contesting. read > an easier way to recoup invested pool and maybe transfers. One of the severities of contesting is loss of investment, yes. But one of the severities is also loss of access to the minion which you presumably had a reason for putting in your crypt in the first place.

On Jul 18, 2:40 am, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have made a dam fool of myself in this thread. That said, if control > of a contested minion shifts back and forth between two Meths. The > blood and cards on them will likely change with each control change. > So I guess my point is the continuity would be bad. Oh, I see. Well, I dunno that I would be particularly bothered by that. I mean, like, in a story sense, see, if one guy is going back and forth between two masters, he is playing both sides. And under deep cover, so if when he is working for me, he has a leather jacket and an assault rifle, and when he is working for you, he is famous and missing fangs, well, ya know, he is tricky and under deep cover. -Peter

> Already true of the current contesting rules. And, really, of any contesting > rules that don't involve "and when the eldest played card is yielded, it is > given to one of the other players contesting the card to replace that player's > copy of the card". > > So unless you're advocating the latter, the point is moot. OK, the point is moot. > One of the severities of contesting is loss of investment, yes. > > But one of the severities is also loss of access to the minion which you > presumably had a reason for putting in your crypt in the first place. Is there a reason not to add control shifting to library cards as well. What would be the harm? There certainly are cards some decks require to function Soul Gem of Etrius and Kamakli fragment, come to mind. Is there a reason those decks game should be ruined because of "random" contesting.

On Jul 18, 12:55 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is there a reason not to add control shifting to library cards as > well. What would be the harm? There certainly are cards some decks > require to function Soul Gem of Etrius and Kamakli fragment, come to > mind. Is there a reason those decks game should be ruined because of > "random" contesting. The difference between "my clever trick can't go off 'cause my Soul Gem is contested" and "I can't play the game 'cause my first minion was contested, and I got ousted before I brought out another one" is, for my money, very significant. Yes. Some decks really rely on particular unique equipment. But they still get to play the game if they don't have that equipment (even the most well honed Soul Gem deck still has the opportunity to never get a Soul Gem in play through either not ever drawing it or being blocked or it being destroyed built right in to the deck). Contesting a big vampire often results in simply not getting to play the game. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jul 18, 12:55 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Is there a reason not to add control shifting to library cards as >> well. What would be the harm? There certainly are cards some decks >> require to function Soul Gem of Etrius and Kamakli fragment, come to >> mind. Is there a reason those decks game should be ruined because of >> "random" contesting. > > The difference between "my clever trick can't go off 'cause my Soul > Gem is contested" and "I can't play the game 'cause my first minion > was contested, and I got ousted before I brought out another one" is, > for my money, very significant. Correct, that is one reason: lack of sufficient reason to investigate alternatives to the way library cards are contested. Indeed, that is likely the primary reason and sufficient on its own. Another reason, though, is that controlling a Soul Gem is not a matter of exerting influence to convince the Gem to do your bidding, it's a matter of holding the Gem, so the contest of influence model doesn't make sense there (just like the influence phase model didn't make sense there and a take-an-action-and-pay-a-cost model was used instead). For unique library-card allies, the contest of influence might work fine as a concept, but again that doesn't match the concept used for playing the card in the first place, and the card still falls under the primary reason above, too.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes those points are true, but none of them say why shifting control for contesting shouldn't apply to the library as well. Whats more crypt contest control shifting does not give you any defense you can not block, bounce or vote. All you can do is hope you can bloat in some way [ minion tap, villien, golconda, vote (cap), govern down (and the like)] or rush backwards. I am working on the presumption that the issue is still large cap vampires and tournament play. some non-reactive minions "required" to make a deck function UNA Mata Hari Alan Sovern Demdemeh Ian Forsestal Jacob the glitch the Baron the scare vamps some ICs' and other 11 caps Anson and the Guruhi? Sebastien Goulet? cold be funny to see him stealing allies back and forth Travis? bloat function The Nephandous guy? That is all that comes to mind and not all are required. Redundancy can be built into many. Also I have doubts the trick decks will see tournament play. In casual play if key minion is contested early we would most likely start over. Matt

[ quoted text not captured ] And Spell of Life. best - chris Nah, not really.

> Correct, that is one reason: lack of sufficient reason to investigate > alternatives to the way library cards are contested. Indeed, that is likely the > primary reason and sufficient on its own. It is my understanding that the reason crypt cards come into consideration is the players inability to play their game. Contested library cards can have the same effect on a deck. > Another reason, though, is that controlling a Soul Gem is not a matter of > exerting influence to convince the Gem to do your bidding, it's a matter of > holding the Gem, so the contest of influence model doesn't make sense there And yet it is still POOL that pays the contest. I do not think it matters how "it" comes into play, just that "it" is. Why wouldn't a retainer change allegiance, equipment be stolen back and forth, locations besieged, Fame be fickle. Okay, I don't like my argument either, please forget it. The reason crypt cards shouldn't shift control without card driven effects. It is now an incredibly rare occurrence. Some say random. Don't add a mechanic that is EXPLOITABLE, reduces continuity, excludes reactive decks types, can interact poorly with some common cards Temptation, Sense Dep. etc etc etc Change the rules for contesting so that a player can recover more quickly from it, but please don't add shifting control as a basic game mechanic. Matt

On Jul 18, 10:14 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Correct, that is one reason: lack of sufficient reason to investigate > > alternatives to the way library cards are contested. Indeed, that is likely the > > primary reason and sufficient on its own. > > It is my understanding that the reason crypt cards come into > consideration is the players inability to play their game. Yeah, that's my understanding as well ;D

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:23:38 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:55:50 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> Yep. The follow-up to that point, when it was made in this thread >>> before, is: and one of those cannot be helped (it's the nature of >>> TCGs), but that is no reason to give up on looking at things that may >>> be improved. >> >> It's an improvement if we agree that the current contestation rules are >> bad. > > Something doesn't have to be bad to be improved. *sigh* Yes indeed. Anything - except for something perfect - can be improved. Thank you for my daily dose of stating-the-obvious enlightenment. I could reply with a similar pearl, but at this point, I'd rather concede to your infinite wisdom. -- Regards, Daneel

wedge wrote: >> Correct, that is one reason: lack of sufficient reason to investigate >> alternatives to the way library cards are contested. Indeed, that is likely the >> primary reason and sufficient on its own. > > It is my understanding that the reason crypt cards come into > consideration is the players inability to play there game. Contested > library cards can have the same effect on a deck. Not really, no. >> Another reason, though, is that controlling a Soul Gem is not a matter of >> exerting influence to convince the Gem to do your bidding, it's a matter of >> holding the Gem, so the contest of influence model doesn't make sense there > > And yet it is still POOL that pays the contest. I do not think it > matters how "it" comes into play, just that "it" is. Um, sure. If you're talking about the current rules. The suggested rule, which model a contest of influence, are different. And the model they use (contest of influence) doesn't really apply to things that aren't a contest of influence. > Change the rules for contesting so that a player can recover more > quickly from it, but please don't add shifting control as a basic game > mechanic. It's already in there. Note being added.

Daneel wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:23:38 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Daneel wrote: >>> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:55:50 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> Yep. The follow-up to that point, when it was made in this thread >>>> before, is: and one of those cannot be helped (it's the nature of >>>> TCGs), but that is no reason to give up on looking at things that >>>> may be improved. >>> >>> It's an improvement if we agree that the current contestation rules >>> are bad. >> >> Something doesn't have to be bad to be improved. > > *sigh* > > Yes indeed. Anything - except for something perfect - can be improved. > Thank you for my daily dose of stating-the-obvious enlightenment. When one says something obviously wrong, a response stating the obviousness of it is not a sighable offense.

[ quoted text not captured ] I should have put this quote in everything in my last couple of posts pertain to it >> Contesting crypt cards works the same as it does now, but the incoming copy (if >> it isn't burned for self-contesting) remains in play. When you pay to contest, >> your copy re-enters play and the other copy is flipped out of play. When you >> yield, the crypt card returns to your* uncontrolled region. I do not know what you mean by contest of influence could you clarify, please. Do you mean "When you pay to contest, your copy re-enters play and the other copy is flipped out of play." is a contest of influence? Matt

On Jul 18, 2:47 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes those points are true, but none of them say why shifting control > for contesting shouldn't apply to the library as well. 'Cause it isn't as necessary. But then, I'm currently not convinced that shifting control is the optimal way to go. > I am working on the > presumption that the issue is still large cap vampires and tournament > play. Tournament play isn't an actual issue. Sucking due to contestation sucks just as much in casual play as competitive play. -Peter

On Jul 18, 4:14 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > It is my understanding that the reason crypt cards come into > consideration is the players inability to play their game. Contested > library cards can have the same effect on a deck. Not as significantly, no. > Why wouldn't a retainer change allegiance, equipment be stolen back > and forth, locations besieged, Fame be fickle. Deep cover. When Sheldon works for you, he has a retainer and a chopper. When he works for me, he has some birds a machine gun and a really secure house. He isn't going to bring the retainer and the chopper to work for me, as then I'll know something is up. Yeah, ok, I'm really not actually concerned with "realism" in this game (i.e. "realism" leaves the equation when vampiric snakes ride around on motorcycles). But it is easy enough to explain away logical gaffs, and the game effect is interesting enough to justify it. > The reason crypt cards shouldn't shift control without card driven > effects. It is now an incredibly rare occurrence. Some say random. > Don't add a mechanic that is EXPLOITABLE, reduces continuity, > excludes reactive decks types, can interact poorly with some common > cards Temptation, Sense Dep. etc etc etc The current rules are exploitable. Saying "Huh. My prey has an important minion. I can bring out the same minion I happen to randomly have in my uncontrolled region, remove his from play, and kill him..." is very exploitive of a rule, for my money. -Peter

wedge wrote: >>> Contesting crypt cards works the same as it does now, but the incoming copy (if >>> it isn't burned for self-contesting) remains in play. When you pay to contest, >>> your copy re-enters play and the other copy is flipped out of play. When you >>> yield, the crypt card returns to your* uncontrolled region. > > I do not know what you mean by contest of influence could you clarify, > please. > > Do you mean "When you pay to contest, your copy re-enters play and the > other copy is flipped out of play." is a contest of influence? Yes. You exert your influence (pay to contest), so you get to influence the vampire's activity until someone else exerts xer influence.

On Jul 18, 5:31 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 4:14 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It is my understanding that the reason crypt cards come into > > consideration is the players inability to play their game. Contested > > library cards can have the same effect on a deck. > > Not as significantly, no. > > > Why wouldn't a retainer change allegiance, equipment be stolen back > > and forth, locations besieged, Fame be fickle. > > Deep cover. When Sheldon works for you, he has a retainer and a > chopper. When he works for me, he has some birds a machine gun and a > really secure house. He isn't going to bring the retainer and the > chopper to work for me, as then I'll know something is up. That part of the post pertains to > > When you pay to contest, your copy re-enters play and the other copy is flipped out of play. For instance you have a Fame that is contested on your preys minion who is not. during your untap phase you pay the contest and return fame to play. soul gem, heidelberg, khobar towers, khamakli fragment are some examples that can break a trick deck if contested. > > The reason crypt cards shouldn't shift control without card driven > > effects. It is now an incredibly rare occurrence. Some say random. > > Don't add a mechanic that is EXPLOITABLE, reduces continuity, > > excludes reactive decks types, can interact poorly with some common > > cards Temptation, Sense Dep. etc etc etc > > The current rules are exploitable. Saying "Huh. My prey has an > important minion. I can bring out the same minion I happen to randomly > have in my uncontrolled region, remove his from play, and kill him..." > is very exploitive of a rule, for my money. > > -Peter Having a minion in your crypt should not be random. Having the same minion as another player is random, the probability of which I would base the power and "newness" of said minion. Of coarse some people do choose to put in minions they think need to be contested same as library cards. It is crypt function that now is greatly reduce in effectiveness. So yes exploitable, barely. From what I am to understand random and infrequent. Matt

[ quoted text not captured ] My point was currently same contest of influence applies to every unique card in the game. i.e. A turbo deck will not function without the soul gem. The truth is I have voiced my concerns to the best of my ability. I do hope this [When you pay to contest, your copy re-enters play and the other copy is flipped out of play.] will not become part of the game, but there is little more I can say. signing out, Matt

On Jul 18, 9:22 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > For instance you have a Fame that is contested on your preys minion > who is not. during your untap phase you pay the contest and return > fame to play. soul gem, heidelberg, khobar towers, khamakli fragment > are some examples that can break a trick deck if contested. You are totally losing me here. I don't think anyone at all is talking about alternating control for contested non minion cards. I'm pretty sure that when LSJ mentioned "alternating control" for, what was it, Dreams and Anarch Troublemaker, he wasn't talking about a hypothetical alternating control due to contestation. But the actual alternation of control of these unique cards (i.e. I use up my unique Dreams, and then you play your unique Dreams. Alternating control. I use Anarch Troublemaker, so you get it. Alternating control). > Having a minion in your crypt should not be random. No, no. Having a minion in your crypt that someone else has in play is random. > Having the same > minion as another player is random, the probability of which I would > base the power and "newness" of said minion. Ok. I think I just said that. > So yes exploitable, barely. From what I am to understand random and > infrequent. How would that be any different if contested unique minions alternated control? If I understand you correctly, you were saying that if contested unique minions alternated control, that would be an exploitable rule (you even used all caps to emphasize the exploitable part). I was pointing out that it would be no more or less exploitable than the current contestation rules. -Peter

On Jul 18, 7:38 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 9:22 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > For instance you have a Fame that is contested on your preys minion > > who is not. during your untap phase you pay the contest and return > > fame to play. soul gem, heidelberg, khobar towers, khamakli fragment > > are some examples that can break a trick deck if contested. > > You are totally losing me here. I don't think anyone at all is talking > about alternating control for contested non minion cards. I bought it up as an example. Whats more I believe it is true that library cards can have just as big an impact on your game if contested. Although I do not feel there is anything wrong with any contest ruining your game, if you built a deck with no other options. I am not opposed to an easier way to recoup you losses, but that is as far as I go. > How would that be any different if contested unique minions alternated > control? Anarch Revolt and Anarch Convert. The convert is easy to contest and with alternating control not targetable by your predator. Pay the contest in your untap phase to prevent damage from the revolts. that is the simplest and likely w/o collution. Matt

On Jul 16, 3:48 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > librarian wrote: > > I don't like thought experiments per se. > > I don't like thinking all that much, myself. It's a filthy habit. :-) > > > Let's set up some JOL games, > > or RL games with the alternate contesting rules and see what the effect > > is. If I was to build the game from scratch, I'd choose LSJ's rule > > suggestion. Most simple, most seems to represent what "contesting" or > > "uniqueness" would represent in the "real world". > > How about this: > > Contesting crypt cards works the same as it does now, but the incoming copy (if > it isn't burned for self-contesting) remains in play. When you pay to contest, > your copy re-enters play and the other copy is flipped out of play. When you > yield, the crypt card returns to your* uncontrolled region. Ah, I just read this more carefully. Is this the intended design: Meth A has Arika. Meth C contests. A's Arika goes out of play, and Meth C's Arika remains in play. Meth A pays a pool, takes actions with Arika. Meth C yeilds, pays nothing, and on his influence phase brings Arika into play again, causing A's Arika to go out of play. Meth A must pay a pool again on his turn. Therefore, at the cost of tying up pool on Arika, Meth C can cause Meth A to lose Arika for part of the cycle around the table and pay 1 pool per turn to contest. Maybe that cost is still sufficient, since tying up all that pool is non-trivial, and Arika could lose blood on her between the end of Meth C's turn and the start of Meth A's turn. I still think this proposal is worse than the current rules in the case of a pred-prey contest, since the pred will get to act with their star minion while the prey cannot defend. I think moving both to the uncontrolled region (less 1 blood) is simpler and isn't worse than the current rule regardless of prey-pred-grandprey-etc relationship. Ira

On Jul 19, 12:12 am, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > I bought it up as an example. I guess I'm not understanding what it was an example of. No one in this discussion is actually advocating changing the contestation rules of non-minion cards. You are mentioning it, and then apparently defending (?) such a notion by pointing out how it would could be confusing. That is, well, confusing. > Whats more I believe it is true that > library cards can have just as big an impact on your game if > contested. Again, I don't know that it true. Contesting a minion can prevent you from playing the game at all. Contesting a piece of equipment can be a moderately inconvenient problem in the game that you are otherwise successfully playing. Like, assuming you are envisioning something like Turbo Baron contesting the Soul Gem. You have minions in play. Your deck can still bleed and defend itself and take actions and play the game. You can contest the Soul Gem and hope that your opponent gives it up, or give it up and hope that they are ousted at some point. You still get to do stuff. And Turbo Soul Gem decks *often* (if not most of the time) don't have The Trick happening. > Anarch Revolt and Anarch Convert. The convert is easy to contest and > with alternating control not targetable by your predator. Pay the > contest in your untap phase to prevent damage from the revolts. that > is the simplest and likely w/o collution. I don't really understand what this is illustrating. I'm going to attempt to imagine what you are seeing here: -Player A has Anarch Convert and Anarch Revolt. -Player B has Anarch Convert During Player A's turn, he pays to contest (assuming alternating control) Anarch Convert. He gains control of Anarch Convert. He then does not take damage from Anarch Revolt. During Player B's turn, he pays to contest Anarch Convert. He gains control of Anarch Convert. He then does not take damage from Player A's Anarch Revolt. It is a wash. If there was not alternating control, they'd both (assuming no other Anarchs in play, which is not a really reasonable assumption, but I'll go with it) lose pool from the Anarch Revolts. With alternating control, they both don't take damage from Anarch Revolts. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. -Peter

On Jul 13, 8:19 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > "Johann von Doom" <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:ea21f505-f707-42c6...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > > On Jul 13, 3:48 pm, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > What is the good thing that the > > > contestation rules are providing that offsets the bad thing that Peter > > > is describing? > > > This is the question I'd like to see answered, particularly as we're > > all talking about a completely hypothetical rules change. Some folks > > seem to be defending the contesting rules because, well, they're the > > rules, but I haven't seen anyone offer any reason to keep them because > > they make the game better. Anyone? > > Not to get too involved in an issue I don't feel that strongly about, > there is a very good argument for status quo in a CCG that has been > out for many years and gone through many expansions: because all the > cards have been designed and playtested assuming the rule as is. I > would concede that this may not be as bad a problem with contestation > as a lot of other rules, but it's still not an insignificant factor, > IMHO. In fact, my (relatively modest) inclination to resist change in > this area is based more on that point than anything else. I wish the newsgroup had something like Slashdot moderation. I'd mod you up. > Peter is correct that random vampire contestation factors can have a > really negative effect on a small percentage of games. The part that I'm having trouble with -- and perhaps this is addressed somewhere in the thread, but I think I'm going to stop reading at around 50 posts -- is that all this is predicated on an admittedly *rare* occurrence. Now, $DEITY knows, I've advocated for rules and card changes in the past. But in each case they were for things that I perceived to be *common* occurrences, and thus worth the risk of perturbing a very stable game. I mean, some day I might sit next to a deck with 10 Oath of Loyalty's and my game would be utterly wrecked. But I don't think anyone would consider that to be a good argument for changing anything. If contesting superstars (which I'm personally partial towards playing) is such a rare occurrence, how does it rise to the level of warranting a change, especially when we could extend ad infinitum similarly game-wrecking rare occurrences? -- David Cherryholmes

On Jul 20, 10:02 am, dcherryholmes <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > The part that I'm having trouble with -- and perhaps this is addressed > somewhere in the thread, but I think I'm going to stop reading at > around 50 posts -- is that all this is predicated on an admittedly > *rare* occurrence. Which is certainly a reasonable viewpoint. But that it comes up rarely (and completely randomly) doesn't make it suck any less when it does. > Now, $DEITY knows, I've advocated for rules and > card changes in the past. But in each case they were for things that > I perceived to be *common* occurrences, and thus worth the risk of > perturbing a very stable game. I mean, some day I might sit next to a > deck with 10 Oath of Loyalty's and my game would be utterly wrecked. Sure. But running into 10 Oath of Loyalties is something you can plan on avoiding (i.e. don't play Assamites. Not an optimal solution, but it's there), is something that doesn't completely end your game when it accidentally hits the table (you don't care if you can't bleed him if you are just gonna blow up all his guys...) and can be dealt with when it is on the table (you can burn them. At stealth. 'Cause you are Assamites). I realize that it was just a kind of silly example, but even then, cards like that don't simply end your game randomly, generally speaking. Contestation issues are not something you can plan for (other than by not, ya know, using minions) and can completely end your game before it even starts when they come up. Which, for my money, is something worth fixing, where Oath of Loyalty is not. > But I don't think anyone would consider that to be a good argument for > changing anything. If contesting superstars (which I'm personally > partial towards playing) is such a rare occurrence, how does it rise > to the level of warranting a change, especially when we could extend > ad infinitum similarly game-wrecking rare occurrences? 'Cause Contestation is a different kind of game wrecking rare occurrence than most of the other ones--it is completely and utterly random, and isn't something you can avoid in deck construction. You have no control over whether or not your game is ruined from turn 1 by random contestation issues. You do have control over whether or not your game is ruined from turn 1 by random seating issues (do you not want to be wrecked by randomly sitting next to combat? Have combat defense. Do you not want to be wrecked by randomly sitting next to intercept? Have stealth. Or whatever.) Random contestation issues are not something you can control ever.* *Ok, you can play all Aabt Kindred or Fidai. But if you play all Fidai, then you are opening up getting killed by 10 Oath of Loyalties... -Peter

On Jul 20, 5:56 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Random contestation issues are > not something you can control ever.* Since we had this discussion a while back, and you told me that you had understood how one could minimize the risk of getting into a random contest, how come you still act like it's impossible to build a deck that can control it somewhat? You can control it almost as much as you can control "random" combat issues. The thing we all agreed on, was that the actual seating process is random. So whether you'll end up at the same table as one (or more) other "Vampire X" decks, is random and uncontrollable. Still, whether you'll end up at the same table as one (or more) combat decks, is equally random and uncontrollable. What you have control over is the same in both situations though. The way your deck looks. So either both things are totally random and uncontrollable, or neither is. You can build a deck which isn't relying 100% on having a certain minion in play. You can build a deck where the second minion can get influenced out rather fast in case something happens to your first. Of course, there are no fool proof way to protect (except, as you said, playing Aabbt and stuff like that). You might not get enough crypt acceleration to bring up your second minion fast enough, you might end up with 4 copies of your star vampire in your starting crypt etc. However, the same goes for anti combat. You can add Obedience/Majesty/ Earth Meld/Alpha Glint/Skin of Steel/Bloodform/whatever, but there's still a (random) risk that you won't have one of those cards in your hand if you get rushed and trapped by a second turn War Ghoul. I'm not trying to get into the debate about what's more random than the other, or what you can have better/worse protection from. But don't keep saying that there are no ways in hell to plan ahead for eventual contestation. There are plenty, and they can reduce the risk of contesting quite much (tbh you don't even need to agree that they're plenty, just that they exist as much as the ways to protect you from combat).

On Jul 20, 12:15 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Since we had this discussion a while back, and you told me that you > had understood how one could minimize the risk of getting into a > random contest, how come you still act like it's impossible to build a > deck that can control it somewhat? Once can attempt to minimize the risk of contesting by trying to outthink your opponents and playing vampires that you think are unlikely to show up, yes. And yet still, it can happen, and when it does, it is completely random. You can't control that. Even "somewhat". You seem to be under the impression that saying "Hmm. I won't use Anson, as I don't want to contest him." is you having some amount of control over whether or not you end up being in a situation where you can contest minions. It is not having any amount of control over that. If it happens, it is still completely and utterly random. > You can control it almost as much as you can control "random" combat > issues. > The thing we all agreed on, was that the actual seating process is > random. So whether you'll end up at the same table as one (or more) > other "Vampire X" decks, is random and uncontrollable. Correct. > Still, whether > you'll end up at the same table as one (or more) combat decks, is > equally random and uncontrollable. And you can build your deck to not get hosed by combat decks. You can't build your deck to not get hosed by contestation. > What you have control over is the same in both situations though. Incorrect. Building a deck to be vulnerable to combat is a choice you can take or not take. Building a deck to be vulnerable to contestation simply means that you are using minions. > I'm not trying to get into the debate about what's more random than > the other, or what you can have better/worse protection from. But > don't keep saying that there are no ways in hell to plan ahead for > eventual contestation. The only way to avoid issues that come from contestation is to not use unique minions. Which isn't something you can realistically do (again, excepting Aabt Kindred/Fidai/Tupdog) -Peter

On Jul 20, 6:34 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > You can't control that. Even "somewhat". You seem to be under the > impression that saying "Hmm. I won't use Anson, as I don't want to > contest him." is you having some amount of control over whether or not > you end up being in a situation where you can contest minions. It is > not having any amount of control over that. If it happens, it is still > completely and utterly random. You're close. I'm more under the impression that saying "Hmm, Anson is popular so if I build a deck relying on him I should probably try to make it work even if I don't get Anson in play" (of course, the deck will probably be worse, but not necessarily unplayable). And to a certain degree, chosing less commonly played vampires instead of the classic, powerful ones, you can control the risk of getting into a situation where you can contest minions. An example could be our casual games here. If I played a deck with 3-4 Midgets in the crypt at every table on our Wednesday games, I'd contest him very close to once each week (I would say at least once, but 100 % isn't realistic). However, playing an Abombwe weenie, I would reduce that chance to almost 0 %. The example is rather extreme, and I know that one won't have the same control over the risk in a larger tournament, but the control will still exist. So I do think that an amount of choice is involved, even if (as has been stated) the seating randomisation is uncontrollable. > > Still, whether > > you'll end up at the same table as one (or more) combat decks, is > > equally random and uncontrollable. > > And you can build your deck to not get hosed by combat decks. You > can't build your deck to not get hosed by contestation. Yes, you can. You can build a deck that will be able to function even if it will contest (or otherwise lose) it's first influenced (and star) vampire. It is possible to do that. > > What you have control over is the same in both situations though. > > Incorrect. Building a deck to be vulnerable to combat is a choice you > can take or not take. Building a deck to be vulnerable to contestation > simply means that you are using minions. Not entirely true. Of course, all decks that use unique minions will be somewhat vulnerable to contests. That's the thing about uniqueness and contesting. Some decks will be more vulnerable though (either because they try to exploit a certain vampires powerful ability, or because they don't have any means to survive if their first minion would be contested), but how vulnerable your deck is to contestation is very much controllable. > The only way to avoid issues that come from contestation is to not use > unique minions. Which isn't something you can realistically do (again, > excepting Aabt Kindred/Fidai/Tupdog) The only way to completely avoid it yes. But it's not the only way to avoid having your entire game screwed because of a contest.

On Jul 20, 12:55 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > You're close. I'm more under the impression that saying "Hmm, Anson is > popular so if I build a deck relying on him I should probably try to > make it work even if I don't get Anson in play" Sure. But that is neither here nor there in terms of the question "are the rules for contestation too harsh", which I think they are. > And to a certain degree, chosing less commonly played vampires instead > of the classic, powerful ones, you can control the risk of getting > into a situation where you can contest minions. And yet you aren't controlling it. 'Cause you still can get randomly contested. Lower chance or no. > Yes, you can. You can build a deck that will be able to function even > if it will contest (or otherwise lose) it's first influenced (and > star) vampire. It is possible to do that. Yes. And again, this is you saying "contestation exists to promote deck diversity by limiting deck diversity". -Peter

On Jul 20, 7:11 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 12:55 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > You're close. I'm more under the impression that saying "Hmm, Anson is > > popular so if I build a deck relying on him I should probably try to > > make it work even if I don't get Anson in play" > > Sure. But that is neither here nor there in terms of the question "are > the rules for contestation too harsh", which I think they are. I know you think that, and you know what I think about that, that's not what I'm trying to change here. I'm just asking you to stop pretending that there are no ways to limit whether or not your entire game will be over before it started because of a contest. > > And to a certain degree, chosing less commonly played vampires instead > > of the classic, powerful ones, you can control the risk of getting > > into a situation where you can contest minions. > > And yet you aren't controlling it. 'Cause you still can get randomly > contested. Lower chance or no. You're controlling it as much as you can control anything in this game. Lowering or increasing the chances for certain things to happen is what you do when you build a deck, which is a part of V:tES. In the end it's all about randomness deciding whether you'll have a good starting crypt, functional card flow or a seating where you'll have a chance to get victory points. > > Yes, you can. You can build a deck that will be able to function even > > if it will contest (or otherwise lose) it's first influenced (and > > star) vampire. It is possible to do that. > > Yes. And again, this is you saying "contestation exists to promote > deck diversity by limiting deck diversity". Nope. You should probably have guessed since that quote doesn't come from me though. My main point about contestation is that it exists to balance out the most powerful crypts. But in the way that the most powerful minions gets a bit more balanced, and in the way that a deck built purely on big, fat minions will be weaker than a deck with a more diverse crypt (in terms of contest vulnerability), contestation does promote deck diversity. And making contestation less harsh will change that. Then again, the risk of contesting is small even with the most powerful vampires. In my mind though, that's just one more reason not to change the rules. And of course, contestation does limit deck diversity in some ways. But overall I'm fairly sure that it does more to promote deck diversity than limiting it.

henrik wrote: > On Jul 20, 7:11 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> On Jul 20, 12:55 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> You're close. I'm more under the impression that saying "Hmm, Anson is >>> popular so if I build a deck relying on him I should probably try to >>> make it work even if I don't get Anson in play" >> Sure. But that is neither here nor there in terms of the question "are >> the rules for contestation too harsh", which I think they are. > > I know you think that, and you know what I think about that, that's > not what I'm trying to change here. > I'm just asking you to stop pretending that there are no ways to > limit whether or not your entire game will be over before it started > because of a contest. He's not. He's pretending that the reality of the randomness exists. Which it does. And that, when it hits (which is a random thing -- you can only affect the odds, you can't turn it into a non-random thing), it is debilitating. Which it is. Thus, he follows that with a constructive suggestion as to how the rules could have been in order to make it less debilitating when it happens so that, when it happens, the effect is just "bad" and not "apocalyptic". >>> And to a certain degree, chosing less commonly played vampires instead >>> of the classic, powerful ones, you can control the risk of getting >>> into a situation where you can contest minions. >> And yet you aren't controlling it. 'Cause you still can get randomly >> contested. Lower chance or no. > > You're controlling it as much as you can control anything in this > game. Lowering or increasing the chances for certain things to happen > is what you do when you build a deck, which is a part of V:tES. So you agree that it is random. > In the > end it's all about randomness deciding whether you'll have a good > starting crypt, functional card flow or a seating where you'll have a > chance to get victory points. So a rule that says: If your opening hand is all masters, you are immediately ousted (and your VP vanishes -- your predator gets no VP and no pool bonus). would be OK. Sure, it's random and unduly harsh when it occurs. But it happens very rarely, and you can control it by putting fewer master cards in your deck.

On Jul 20, 7:54 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > I know you think that, and you know what I think about that, that's > > not what I'm trying to change here. > > I'm just asking you to stop pretending that there are no ways to > > limit whether or not your entire game will be over before it started > > because of a contest. > > He's not. He's pretending that the reality of the randomness exists. Which it > does. And that, when it hits (which is a random thing -- you can only affect the > odds, you can't turn it into a non-random thing), it is debilitating. Which it is. The odds aren't the only thing you can affect. You can also affect how debilitating it will be. > Thus, he follows that with a constructive suggestion as to how the rules could > have been in order to make it less debilitating when it happens so that, when it > happens, the effect is just "bad" and not "apocalyptic". And I'm following with constructive suggestions as to how the deck could have in order to make it less debilitating when it happens, so that, when it happens, the effect is just "bad" and not "apocalyptic". > >>> And to a certain degree, chosing less commonly played vampires instead > >>> of the classic, powerful ones, you can control the risk of getting > >>> into a situation where you can contest minions. > >> And yet you aren't controlling it. 'Cause you still can get randomly > >> contested. Lower chance or no. > > > You're controlling it as much as you can control anything in this > > game. Lowering or increasing the chances for certain things to happen > > is what you do when you build a deck, which is a part of V:tES. > > So you agree that it is random. In a way, yes. Just like it's random whether or not I'll end up in a traffic congestion on my way to work, even though I can make pretty sure that I won't by thinking ahead. > > In the > > end it's all about randomness deciding whether you'll have a good > > starting crypt, functional card flow or a seating where you'll have a > > chance to get victory points. > > So a rule that says: > > If your opening hand is all masters, you are immediately ousted (and your VP > vanishes -- your predator gets no VP and no pool bonus). > > would be OK. Sure, it's random and unduly harsh when it occurs. But it happens > very rarely, and you can control it by putting fewer master cards in your deck. Well, my standpoint is kinda that we should try to not change the rules. So that's a no for that question. Not sure if this is a serious question or not, but I think that the current rules about the amount of master phase actions you get (1) is good enough when it comes to balancing the amount of master cards one can play in a deck. And, maybe most importantly, if such a rule existed I would play fewer master cards to minimize the risk of me getting ousted. And those few times I would play with "too much" master cards to get a more powerful deck in exchange for a random chance of getting ousted, I'd suck it up and say "I've got myself to blame for being greedy". And also, if I were to complain about the rule and suggest changes, I would not state that it was totally uncontrollable and nothing but randomness that decided whether or not the rule ousted you.

Having read the 300+ messages in this rather... if-you-can't-say- anything-nice-don't-say-anything-at-all thread, I've come to this conclusion: Contesting does indeed suck. However, contesting SHOULD, indeed, suck. It is a tax and a punishment for those who aren't original enough to play something other than the flavor of the month. 'Random' contesting is (and should be) so unbelievably rare given the game's card pool, that the random punishment doled out is fairly minor. I'd be for ignoring the contesting rules in draft environments, given the more limited card pool. Other than that, carpe contestium! The moral of this thread: Stop playing net decks, stop playing what the herd considers the 'best and brightest', and you will avoid the issue of contesting 99.9 percent of the time. Problem solved.

On 12 Juli, 20:56, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > So as we were driving back from the New York Qualifier last night, > during the post game analysis of my pal Ben's crashing and burning with > what should be (and tends to be locally) a very solid IC member/Orlando > vote deck for the second tournament in a row, it turned out that in both > this qualifier and the Origins Qualifier, Ben got completely killed in > two (of 6 total) games by randomly getting his Lutz contested. I pointed > out that I can't remember the last time that I actually had a vampire > contested or was in a situation where it was actually problematic that a > vampire I had in my uncontrolled region was already in play under > someone else's control (as opposed to it just being mildly annoying), > and that losing games due to contestation is just incredibly random > punishment. Yeah, Lutz is really good and really popular, so he is more > likely to be contested than, like, Gabriel de Cambrai or something, but > still, having a big important vampire getting contested is both > incredibly random and usually completely game destroying from very early > in the game. > > As vampire contestation (specifically big vampire contestation--when Old > Netdecker is contested, it is hardly a problem. When the IC member your > deck is relying on to go, or whatever, is contested, your game is > generally over before it even starts) is soooo incredibly random (how > many vampires are in the game now?), it seems like it might be prudent > to make it less completely devastating when it happens. What we came up > with was that maybe the game would work better for all involved if when > a vampire was contested, instead of both players losing control of that > vampire, you got to alternate control of him instead. Something like: > > "If two (or more) copies of a unique minion are in play, both are > flipped over and considered out of play. During each player's untap > phase, they must pay a pool to flip over their copy of the minion into > play (and flip over their opponent's copy out of play) and may use the > vampire as normal until their opponent does the same on their untap > phase. They may choose to not pay a pool and burn their copy of the > minion immediately." > > I'm sure it could be worded better, buy in any case, the end result > would be that you still burn a pool each turn like normal, but instead > of just not having a vampire, you get that guy on your turn and until > your opponent's turn. There certainly could be disparity in terms of how > long each player has the minion in play, i.e. if me and my prey are > contesting a guy, I only get the guy on my turn, and then get the guy > during their turn, and then all the way around the table till my turn > again, but I suspect that the advantage that was gained by being the > predator in that situation (i.e. I get my guy to attack my prey and he > doesn't have that guy to defend himself) would balance that out. > > I don't think this would be necessary for unique non minion cards--you > don't generally lose the game on T4 when someone contests your Ivory Bow > or KRCG News Radio or anything, where you do often lose the game > starting on T4 when someone contests (or brings out the big important > guy you have 10 pool on in your uncontrolled region), but a rules tweak > like this would really help mitigate the incredibly crippling and > incredibly random loss that is dropped on you just 'cause of the > incredibly small chance of someone contesting your important guy. > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" > -Gaff Now I've read and read and read this thread and I think I atleast should show some support for the things Henrik have been saying. So, I'm not trying to add much by this post. I'm mostly just trying to show my support. Firstly I must say that it's hilarious that it all started by Lutz being contested, Lol! V:tES is a game that include alot of random elements and to be a good player/deckbuilder you need to be able to handle that. This you can do in alot of different ways considering V:tES is an awesome game that have added things like dealing and x-table buddies etc to our arsenal. I think my most important point when it comes to this thread is that changing the contest rules would be a bad idea. It won't affect most casual games since in casual games since you usually make sure you don't play the same starvamp deck as your friend in a casual game, atleast not in the playgroups I play with. Basically it would help decks that are just plain miserable (that can't handle the odds) and it would help decks like the dem weenie which is already cornercase broken. The latter needs no help and the former needs to be terminated as quick as possible to not fuck up the balance of the table anyway. So, Peter, I saw that you where trying to hijack the thread with Erols twd regarding this and you're right. It is a good exaple. Problem is that you're plain wrong (IMO) when it comes to your thesis that that deck would be screwed by a contest. I'm not saying it wouldn't suck. I'm just saying there are multiple things you can do, if a contest happens, to solve the situation. Especially since you know that if you bring a crypt like that to a big event you'll probably end up risking contest in atleast 1 game. Just to mention a few things you could do to avoid the 0 vps. You could talk your opponent into not contesting at all, you could talk whoever loses the most from the contest balancewise to help you kill off the one you contest with, you could bring out a second vampire and parity shift the one you contest with, etc... Well, point is that you always have options if you've built a good deck. Sure, you can take the risk of building a 12x Cybel CtGB deck. But my opinion on that is that if you play 12x the same strong and fairly common vampire you probably deserve it. Just like I risk getting 0/6 if I bring a dominate weenie to a tournament with alot of decks that features alot of x-table interaction. Well... I just keep rambling now. Most things have already been said in this thread already. So to sum up. Don't change the rules for a cornercase situation which usually screws the game for players who haven't one their pre-tourney and deckbuilding homeworks. It's not worth opening that Pandoras box and risk unblanacing a stable CCG for such a cornercase thing. Regards Alex

Bill Ricardi wrote: > Having read the 300+ messages in this rather... if-you-can't-say- > anything-nice-don't-say-anything-at-all thread, I've come to this > conclusion: > > Contesting does indeed suck. However, contesting SHOULD, indeed, suck. > It is a tax and a punishment for those who aren't original enough to > play something other than the flavor of the month. What about the two players who get tired of playing the flavor of the month and go back to their respective drawing boards and come up with original decks that happen to focus on the same obscure and rarely-used vampire? > 'Random' contesting > is (and should be) so unbelievably rare given the game's card pool, > that the random punishment doled out is fairly minor. Not quite. The random punishment is doled out infrequently, but when it is doled out, it is seldom in a minor manner. See also the example "ousted if you start with 7 masters in hand" rule. Unbelievably rare, but that rarity doesn't make the punishment doled out "minor". > I'd be for ignoring the contesting rules in draft environments, given > the more limited card pool. Other than that, carpe contestium! > The moral of this thread: Stop playing net decks, stop playing what > the herd considers the 'best and brightest', and you will avoid the > issue of contesting 99.9 percent of the time. Why the exception for draft? By your POV, those players should avoid playing the good vampires in the set and instead play the weak ones and the ones that don't mix well with the sets being drafted (the draft equivalent of "stop playing net decks, stop playing what the herd considers the best"). So as to lower their chances of having contestation issues come up. Unless other players also seek to minimize their odds of losing the contestation lottery. Just like in constructed. > Problem solved. Not quite.

_angst_ wrote: > Sure, you can take the risk of building a 12x Cybel CtGB deck. But my > opinion on that is that if you play 12x the same strong and fairly > common vampire you probably deserve it. Just like I risk getting 0/6 > if I bring a dominate weenie to a tournament with alot of decks that > features alot of x-table interaction. ? This strawman keeps coming up. It isn't about the 12x net-decks. What if you specifically avoid the same strong and fairly commons vampires *and* so do other players and you and one of those other players end up in a position to contest one of your seldom-used vampires? Or you get really paranoid and build a deck that uses four different clans, but the other four players at the table overlap on each of your opening four seldom-used vampires? Is that still a fault of your lack of imagination? > Well... I just keep rambling now. Most things have already been said > in this thread already. So to sum up. Don't change the rules for a > cornercase situation which usually screws the game for players who > haven't one their pre-tourney and deckbuilding homeworks. It's not > worth opening that Pandoras box and risk unblanacing a stable CCG for > such a cornercase thing. No one's suggesting opening Pandora's box.

On Jul 20, 1:37 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I know you think that, and you know what I think about that, that's > not what I'm trying to change here. > I'm just asking you to stop pretending that there are no ways to > limit whether or not your entire game will be over before it started > because of a contest. I'm not pretending anything. Whether or not you can attempt to limit whether or not your entire game will be over before it started is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Can you attempt to limit such a thing? Yes. Yes you can (see--not pretending anything of the sort). Does it still suck to unreasonable levels when it randomly happens? A lot of the time, yes. Even if you have done everything in your disposal to attempt to limit it from sucking. The issue is not "can I attempt to avoid contesting" or "can I play in such a way that contesting doesn't suck as much as it could". Those are both things you can do. But are irrelevant. The issue is "when contestation is an issue, it is often far more debilitating than is warranted." > > Yes. And again, this is you saying "contestation exists to promote > > deck diversity by limiting deck diversity". > > Nope. You should probably have guessed since that quote doesn't come > from me though. Well, not literally, no. You are correct. In your initial foray into this discussion, you specifically pointed out that contestation rules promote diversity: "They make the game more diverse (thus more fun, imo) by making dementation weenies played somewhat less, since there's a risk for contesting. " And then continually follow that up with "well, if you are playing a deck that does X, it sucks" and "well, if you build your deck to have some big guys and some small guys, it won't be so hindered by contestation" as well as "if you rely on a particular minion, you are asking to get killed by contestation." Right. So you think that the contestation rules promote deck diversity. But at the same time, you point out that the contestation rules discourage many types of decks. The math does itself. > And of course, contestation does limit deck diversity in some ways. > But overall I'm fairly sure that it does more to promote deck > diversity than limiting it. Contestation does limit deck diversity... [Contestation] does more to promote deck diversity... These two statements do not work together. -Peter

On Jul 20, 3:27 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Contesting does indeed suck. However, contesting SHOULD, indeed, suck. > It is a tax and a punishment for those who aren't original enough to > play something other than the flavor of the month. And yet in a grand sense, you are about as likely to contest and suck with a totally original, completely unforeseen deck as you are a deck that is "flavor of the month". If it is a tax and punishment for those who aren't original enough to play something other than the flavor of the month, why does it punish people who aren't doing that just as much? How is that good? > The moral of this thread: Stop playing net decks, stop playing what > the herd considers the 'best and brightest', and you will avoid the > issue of contesting 99.9 percent of the time. Problem solved. Except when it isn't. And has nothing at all to do with playing net decks. -Peter

On Jul 20, 9:40 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > 'Random' contesting > > is (and should be) so unbelievably rare given the game's card pool, > > that the random punishment doled out is fairly minor. > > Not quite. The random punishment is doled out infrequently, but when it is doled > out, it is seldom in a minor manner. Really? Is that your experience as a tournament judge/visitor? As I wrote elsewhere in this thread, my experience tells me that the most common contesting is expendable weenie/midcaps. In those cases it's tough, but very much survivable. Second most common would be Arika, Anson, Lutz and other power vampires. You're quite probably visiting (and overlooking) more tournaments than me though. > See also the example "ousted if you start with 7 masters in hand" rule. > Unbelievably rare, but that rarity doesn't make the punishment doled out "minor". In the long run, the punishment could be considered "minor" even if it actually did screw your game so hard that you had no chance to play at all. It probably won't happen more often than 1/500 games at most, so I think "minor" would be a kinda appropriate term. If it happens very often that you find yourself in a situation where contesting is a problem, it's probably your own fault (bad meta gaming, bad deck building etc.) In an single game though, the severeness of the punishment is mostly dependent on deck building and/or table talking skills (with some luck involved, as always).

On Mon, 20 July 2009 15:48:14 -0400, LSJ wrote: >No one's suggesting opening Pandora's box. I hereby suggest opening Pandora's box.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:41:04 -0400, The Lasombra wrote: Damn my quick fingers.... >On Mon, 20 July 2009 15:48:14 -0400, LSJ wrote: >>No one's suggesting opening Pandora's box. I hereby suggest opening Pandora's box. Let's see if she has any better vampire contestation rules in it. There is no reason library cards should be discussed in this thread in any manner.

On Jul 20, 3:39 pm, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote: > It won't affect most > casual games since in casual games since you usually make sure you > don't play the same starvamp deck as your friend in a casual game, Again with this starvamp nonsense. If, as you'd said, you've "read and read and read" the thread, you've seen the repeated explanations that that's not the problem case that's trying to get fixed. > So, Peter, I saw that you where trying to hijack the thread with Erols > twd regarding this and you're right. It is a good exaple. Problem is > that you're plain wrong (IMO) when it comes to your thesis that that > deck would be screwed by a contest. I'm not saying it wouldn't suck. That deck picks the most innocuous of its opening-crypt minions and spends 2 turns' worth of transfers to it. Just before that vamp can come out on turn 3, someone crosstable influences out the same minion, because, like sensible players, you didn't announce to the whole table what you were playing and ask if anyone else was thinking of influencing to any of these 4 vampires. How, in that situation, are you to recover? Spend another 2 turns influencing somewhere else, by which time you've put 18 pool down and been defenseless for 5 total turns? Contest anyway, and royally screw up the table balance? THAT is the "random hosing" under discussion. > I'm just saying there are multiple things you can do, if a contest > happens, to solve the situation. Especially since you know that if you > bring a crypt like that to a big event you'll probably end up risking > contest in atleast 1 game. So, before each game starts, have a discussion about who you're planning to influence to? That's about all I can see, and that's not exactly good strategy... > Sure, you can take the risk of building a 12x Cybel CtGB deck. Not about that. Next? - D.J.

henrik wrote: > On Jul 20, 9:40 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> 'Random' contesting >>> is (and should be) so unbelievably rare given the game's card pool, >>> that the random punishment doled out is fairly minor. >> Not quite. The random punishment is doled out infrequently, but when it is doled >> out, it is seldom in a minor manner. > > Really? Is that your experience as a tournament judge/visitor? As a player/judge/observer, yeah. > As I wrote elsewhere in this thread, my experience tells me that the > most common contesting is expendable weenie/midcaps. In those cases > it's tough, but very much survivable. > Second most common would be Arika, Anson, Lutz and other power > vampires. The small ones are actually contested more often, I guess. But the frequency with which the decision to contest comes up is about the same (perhaps more for all-stars like Arika over other individual choices of crypt cards, but capacity-wise it occurs, I imagine, on about the same distribution as the capacity of available crypt cards -- or at least on the distribution of actual crypts as a whole). And, of course, when the decision comes up, the effects of each of the choices available (contest or avoid contesting) are more severe, on average, as the capacities go up. > You're quite probably visiting (and overlooking) more tournaments than > me though. > >> See also the example "ousted if you start with 7 masters in hand" rule. >> Unbelievably rare, but that rarity doesn't make the punishment doled out "minor". > > In the long run, the punishment could be considered "minor" even if it > actually did screw your game so hard that you had no chance to play at > all. It probably won't happen more often than 1/500 games at most, so > I think "minor" would be a kinda appropriate term. Minor is appropriate when talking about the level of effect the rule (or any alternate version of the rule) has on the game as a whole, yes. But it isn't appropriate when describing the severity of the penalty *when* it is applied (or when it comes up). And, as questions go, the question: can an adjustment be better for the game as a whole (although it won't affect most games -- since the contesting rules for crypt cards don't affect most games)? is a pretty good one to examine. Make the game better in the cases in which it comes up without affecting the game (good or ill) in the cases in which it doesn't. Garfield thought so: that's why there are rules for using influence to retrieve pool counters from uncontrolled vampires at all. That rule exists only because the effect of being put into a position where contesting is an option is unnecessarily harsh without it. So. Did that rule go far enough? Perhaps not. Why make it cost 2 instead of 1? Or let it "cost" the vampire in question instead of influence (i.e., you can retrieve all the blood on the uncontrolled vampire by burning that vampire)? And why only mitigate the cost pre-contest? (Answer: because that is the portion of the problem completely "random" -- that is, completely out of the player's control once xe sat down at the table). But why make the decision to yield so painful as to rush a player to a lost position (and remove any strategic element the game might offer for that player)? You could adjust the rules so that either (or both) the decision to yield is less game-destroying or the decision to continue to contest is less game-destroying, increasing the strategic value of the contesting angle of the game. Like by some sort of shared-control-on-contesting rules. Or blood-recoup-on-yielding rule. > If it happens very > often that you find yourself in a situation where contesting is a > problem, it's probably your own fault (bad meta gaming, bad deck > building etc.) Yes. No one claims that it occurs often for anyone, problematically or otherwise. > In an single game though, the severeness of the punishment is mostly > dependent on deck building and/or table talking skills (with some luck > involved, as always). It is affected somewhat by that, yes. But for many decks (which are not themselves "bad" decks to be punitively affected by the rules just to make players decide to play them less), the severity choices range from "very bad" to "very very bad". A question is: would "merely bad" or "strategic risk" be good to have as options instead?

The Lasombra wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:41:04 -0400, The Lasombra wrote: > > Damn my quick fingers.... I hereby damn your quick fingers. >> On Mon, 20 July 2009 15:48:14 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >>> No one's suggesting opening Pandora's box. > > I hereby suggest opening Pandora's box. > Let's see if she has any better vampire contestation rules in it. > > There is no reason library cards should be discussed in this thread in > any manner. This is the Internet. That itself is reason to discuss any topic in any thread. :-)

On Jul 20, 9:54 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > The issue is not "can I attempt to avoid contesting" or "can I play in > such a way that contesting doesn't suck as much as it could". Those > are both things you can do. But are irrelevant. The issue is "when > contestation is an issue, it is often far more debilitating than is > warranted." Again, how debilitating it is depends on your deck and how you chose to handle the contest (and, of course, the rules). > > > Yes. And again, this is you saying "contestation exists to promote > > > deck diversity by limiting deck diversity". > > > Nope. You should probably have guessed since that quote doesn't come > > from me though. > > Well, not literally, no. You are correct. In your initial foray into > this discussion, you specifically pointed out that contestation rules > promote diversity: > > "They make the game more diverse (thus more fun, imo) by making > dementation weenies played somewhat less, since there's a risk for > contesting. " > > And then continually follow that up with "well, if you are playing a > deck that does X, it sucks" Did I? Or are you mixing actual quotes of what I said with made up quotes now? Please note what you're doing or at least be consequent about it. I recall stating that certain decks sucked (high caps only with no crypt acceleration etc), but not that "a deck that does X" sucks. More like "a crappy deck that does X" sucks. > and "well, if you build your deck to have > some big guys and some small guys, it won't be so hindered by > contestation" as well as "if you rely on a particular minion, you are > asking to get killed by contestation." First one is close to what I've said at least. Second isn't really my words. I said something more similar to "if you rely on a particular minion that's strong and rather common in tournament play, you should be prepared to contest". > Right. So you think that the contestation rules promote deck > diversity. But at the same time, you point out that the contestation > rules discourage many types of decks. The math does itself. My math still comes out on more room for deck diversity with the current rules than with an "easier" contest rule. > > And of course, contestation does limit deck diversity in some ways. > > But overall I'm fairly sure that it does more to promote deck > > diversity than limiting it. > > Contestation does limit deck diversity... > > [Contestation] does more to promote deck diversity... > > These two statements do not work together. They do if you try to understand them. The current contesting rules A) disfavors crap decks that can't handle a contest B) promotes deck diversity since it "forces" people to play something that they don't think anyone else will play Now, we could remove both A and B by changing the contest rules. But over all, I think that would end up seeing a lesser diversity of decks in tournament play.

On Jul 20, 5:06 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 9:54 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > The issue is not "can I attempt to avoid contesting" or "can I play in > > such a way that contesting doesn't suck as much as it could". Those > > are both things you can do. But are irrelevant. The issue is "when > > contestation is an issue, it is often far more debilitating than is > > warranted." > > Again, how debilitating it is depends on your deck and how you chose > to handle the contest (and, of course, the rules). How debilitating it is to your deck is a function of the capacity of the contested vampire. The larger the vampire, then more debilitating it is. Even if it is not a star vampire, the mechanics of the game do not reward having pool stuck on a minion (i.e. Brainwash) > > > > Yes. And again, this is you saying "contestation exists to promote > > > > deck diversity by limiting deck diversity". > > > > Nope. You should probably have guessed since that quote doesn't come > > > from me though. > > > Well, not literally, no. You are correct. In your initial foray into > > this discussion, you specifically pointed out that contestation rules > > promote diversity: > > > "They make the game more diverse (thus more fun, imo) by making > > dementation weenies played somewhat less, since there's a risk for > > contesting. " > > > And then continually follow that up with "well, if you are playing a > > deck that does X, it sucks" > > Did I? Or are you mixing actual quotes of what I said with made up > quotes now? Please note what you're doing or at least be consequent > about it. > I recall stating that certain decks sucked (high caps only with no > crypt acceleration etc), but not that "a deck that does X" sucks. > More like "a crappy deck that does X" sucks. High Cap decks are penalized more than low-cap decks, acceleration or not. > > and "well, if you build your deck to have > > some big guys and some small guys, it won't be so hindered by > > contestation" as well as "if you rely on a particular minion, you are > > asking to get killed by contestation." > > First one is close to what I've said at least. Second isn't really my > words. I said something more similar to "if you rely on a particular > minion that's strong and rather common in tournament play, you should > be prepared to contest". The reality of it is that high cap vampires are punished more under the current contesting rules more so than low capacity vampires. > > Right. So you think that the contestation rules promote deck > > diversity. But at the same time, you point out that the contestation > > rules discourage many types of decks. The math does itself. > > My math still comes out on more room for deck diversity with the > current rules than with an "easier" contest rule. You are self-conflicted in your viewpoint. Honestly, contesting has almost no impact on deck diversity, due to the size of pool of vampires availible, other than preventing a player from influencing out multiple copies of the same minion into play (which has been addressed in multiple ways). > > > And of course, contestation does limit deck diversity in some ways. > > > But overall I'm fairly sure that it does more to promote deck > > > diversity than limiting it. > > > Contestation does limit deck diversity... > > > [Contestation] does more to promote deck diversity... > > > These two statements do not work together. > > They do if you try to understand them. > > The current contesting rules > A) disfavors crap decks that can't handle a contest > B) promotes deck diversity since it "forces" people to play something > that they don't think anyone else will play > > Now, we could remove both A and B by changing the contest rules. But > over all, I think that would end up seeing a lesser diversity of decks > in tournament play. How so? There are easily 10+ Tier 1 archtypes, most of which have access to multiple groups of interchangable vampires from a pool of 1300+ vampires. The number of different combinations is dazzling. You would have a hard time intentionally contesting if you tried.

On Jul 21, 12:01 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > And, as questions go, the question: can an adjustment be better for the game as > a whole (although it won't affect most games -- since the contesting rules for > crypt cards don't affect most games)? is a pretty good one to examine. Make the > game better in the cases in which it comes up without affecting the game (good > or ill) in the cases in which it doesn't. I consider the effect the rule has on deck diversity to make the game better than it would be without that effect (or with a weakening of that effect). So it's not just about making the game outright better by adjusting the "penalty" for contesting. > Garfield thought so: that's why there are rules for using influence to retrieve > pool counters from uncontrolled vampires at all. That rule exists only because > the effect of being put into a position where contesting is an option is > unnecessarily harsh without it. Not to disrespect Garfield, but he also thought giving dominate G:tU, Conditioning and Deflection was good :s > So. Did that rule go far enough? Perhaps not. > > Why make it cost 2 instead of 1? > Or let it "cost" the vampire in question instead of influence (i.e., you can > retrieve all the blood on the uncontrolled vampire by burning that vampire)? What it does now is to balance out the effect of cards like Govern the Unaligned, Fourth Tradition: The Accounting etc, especially when combined with multi acting. For example, using three actions with 1-3 cap 4 vampire to add 9 blood counters to a 3 cap vampire, burning it and transferring out a 6 cap for that blood. Stuff like that is one thing to consider at least. I'm not sure why 2 was the magic number for Garfield though, but I don't really see how that would matter either. Personally I think the contest rules are more important today than it was 15 years ago, since net decking is more common and somewhat limited by contest risks. > But why make the decision to yield so painful as to rush a player to a lost > position (and remove any strategic element the game might offer for that player)? Strategic elements are still there, with the exception of the contested minion. Playing master cards, table talk, using your other minions etc. And I'm still not convinced that yielding a contest leads you to a lost position, at least not if your deck was built to be able to handle the loss of a minion. > You could adjust the rules so that either (or both) the decision to yield is > less game-destroying or the decision to continue to contest is less > game-destroying, increasing the strategic value of the contesting angle of the game. I'm not sure how the strategic value of contesting would increase by making it easier. > Like by some sort of shared-control-on-contesting rules. Or > blood-recoup-on-yielding rule. The shared-control rule has some, imo rather big, issues which has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread. Blood-recoup-on-yielding changes the game (better for some, worse for some) but doesn't do much that a simple announcement of what minion you're influencing to wouldn't fix as well. (Assuming we're talking about the early game contest, that is. Later in the game contesting might be used for strategic reasons, and in those cases I think the cost of both contesting and yielding is fine). > > In an single game though, the severeness of the punishment is mostly > > dependent on deck building and/or table talking skills (with some luck > > involved, as always). > > It is affected somewhat by that, yes. But for many decks (which are not > themselves "bad" decks to be punitively affected by the rules just to make > players decide to play them less), the severity choices range from "very bad" > to "very very bad". A question is: would "merely bad" or "strategic risk" be > good to have as options instead? In one way, it would perhaps be good to have those options. But then again, certain sleazy decks would become more viable if contesting was less of an issue. Dementation weenies are a pretty good example of a deck that most likely would be played more often if contesting wasn't as hard as it is today. In the end, I'm not totally blind to that a change of the current rules could possibly bring something good. I just think that what such a change would remove as well, is worth more. At least with the suggestions seen so far.

On Mon, 20 July 2009 15:50:02 -0700 (PDT), henrik wrote: >I consider the effect the rule has on deck diversity to make the game >better than it would be without that effect (or with a weakening of >that effect). So it's not just about making the game outright better >by adjusting the "penalty" for contesting. I have a specific example that disagrees with you. The diversity of decks actually played by real players is decreased because of the current state of the contesting rules. New Laibon set just now tournament legal, Laibon very popular in non-tournament play, zero Laibon decks at tournament because contesting is too harsh. Result: Net-deck won, Akunanse and Osebo intercept decks would have shut it down as would the Guruhi vote deck, the Ishtarri bleed deck would have stomped all over it. None of them were played, because the cost of contesting the vampires in those clans is too high. See also: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/b53ff27e3ba63cf8 Carpe noctem. The Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com Your best source of V:TES information. Now also selling boxes and individual cards.

On Jul 21, 12:28 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > Again, how debilitating it is depends on your deck and how you chose > > to handle the contest (and, of course, the rules). > > How debilitating it is to your deck is a function of the capacity of > the contested vampire. The larger the vampire, then more debilitating > it is. Even if it is not a star vampire, the mechanics of the game do > not reward having pool stuck on a minion (i.e. Brainwash) All things equal, it's usually tougher to contest a big minion than a small one. But how tough it is to contest it depends on how well your deck performs without said minion. > > I recall stating that certain decks sucked (high caps only with no > > crypt acceleration etc), but not that "a deck that does X" sucks. > > More like "a crappy deck that does X" sucks. > > High Cap decks are penalized more than low-cap decks, acceleration or > not. Ok. They're still less likely to lose due to a contest if they can get a second minion out faster (that minion being either a weenie/midcap or a big vampire via crypt acceleration). > > First one is close to what I've said at least. Second isn't really my > > words. I said something more similar to "if you rely on a particular > > minion that's strong and rather common in tournament play, you should > > be prepared to contest". > > The reality of it is that high cap vampires are punished more under > the current contesting rules more so than low capacity vampires. Depends on how important the minion is to your deck. Contesting Jacob the Glitch can be worse than contesting Sutekh, depending on what you're planning to do. > > My math still comes out on more room for deck diversity with the > > current rules than with an "easier" contest rule. > > You are self-conflicted in your viewpoint. Honestly, contesting has > almost no impact on deck diversity, due to the size of pool of > vampires availible, other than preventing a player from influencing > out multiple copies of the same minion into play (which has been > addressed in multiple ways). Sure it does. And if people just build decks without fear of contests, they should just suck it up. Just like people who doesn't play combat defence should suck it up when they encounter combat decks. > > The current contesting rules > > A) disfavors crap decks that can't handle a contest > > B) promotes deck diversity since it "forces" people to play something > > that they don't think anyone else will play > > > Now, we could remove both A and B by changing the contest rules. But > > over all, I think that would end up seeing a lesser diversity of decks > > in tournament play. > > How so? There are easily 10+ Tier 1 archtypes, most of which have > access to multiple groups of interchangable vampires from a pool of > 1300+ vampires. The number of different combinations is dazzling. I think it would mean that people would play the same decks a lot more, instead of the same deck types but with different vampires. Building a tier 1 deck these days requires some thinking about contesting imo (you might not think about it, me and the ones I play with certainly do). Lessening the "penalty" for contesting would lessen the amount of such thinking needed, something I would consider a bad thing. > You would have a hard time intentionally contesting if you tried. That's one more reason not to mess with the current rules imo.

On Jul 21, 12:56 am, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >I consider the effect the rule has on deck diversity to make the game > >better than it would be without that effect (or with a weakening of > >that effect). So it's not just about making the game outright better > >by adjusting the "penalty" for contesting. > > I have a specific example that disagrees with you. The diversity of > decks actually played by real players is decreased because of the > current state of the contesting rules. > > New Laibon set just now tournament legal, Laibon very popular in > non-tournament play, zero Laibon decks at tournament because > contesting is too harsh. Yet Laibon decks have actually won tournaments since the set was released. > Result: > Net-deck won, Akunanse and Osebo intercept decks would have shut it > down as would the Guruhi vote deck, the Ishtarri bleed deck would have > stomped all over it. None of them were played, because the cost of > contesting the vampires in those clans is too high. > > See also:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/b53ff27e3ba63cf8 Same goes for Toreador and Tremere intercept decks, Brujah vote decks or Ventrue bleed decks? But sure, sometimes the fear of contesting brings you back to classic decks. I'd say it has more to do with the high risk of contesting than the harshness of contesting (since, let's face it, contesting would be worse than not contesting even if we were to ease up on the penalty).

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:13:18 -0700 (PDT), henrik <www.h...@gmail.com> wrote: >Yet Laibon decks have actually won tournaments since the set was >released. In the month of July? Show me.....

On Jul 20, 6:02 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 12:28 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > Again, how debilitating it is depends on your deck and how you chose > > > to handle the contest (and, of course, the rules). > > > How debilitating it is to your deck is a function of the capacity of > > the contested vampire. The larger the vampire, then more debilitating > > it is. Even if it is not a star vampire, the mechanics of the game do > > not reward having pool stuck on a minion (i.e. Brainwash) > > All things equal, it's usually tougher to contest a big minion than a > small one. But how tough it is to contest it depends on how well your > deck performs without said minion. Exactly, so you have already spent 2 turns transferring to the minion and now you are contesting them. So you are already 2 to 3 pool more on average invested on that minion then on a smaller minion. This results in the effect of contesting being 3 to 4 TIMES more expensive on the first turn you pay to contest, which is also another turn without the minion. In a game that lasts 12-15 turn then you have already spent 20% to 25% of the game "not playing" while paying for a minion. No deck performs well in that situation. > > > I recall stating that certain decks sucked (high caps only with no > > > crypt acceleration etc), but not that "a deck that does X" sucks. > > > More like "a crappy deck that does X" sucks. > > > High Cap decks are penalized more than low-cap decks, acceleration or > > not. > > Ok. They're still less likely to lose due to a contest if they can get > a second minion out faster (that minion being either a weenie/midcap > or a big vampire via crypt acceleration). Which takes time to influence out, plus the time that they have already spent influening out the contested minion. If you lose a large minion to a contest, you have already lost because you are 25% or more behind the rest of the table with pool in "limbo" > > > First one is close to what I've said at least. Second isn't really my > > > words. I said something more similar to "if you rely on a particular > > > minion that's strong and rather common in tournament play, you should > > > be prepared to contest". > > > The reality of it is that high cap vampires are punished more under > > the current contesting rules more so than low capacity vampires. > > Depends on how important the minion is to your deck. Contesting Jacob > the Glitch can be worse than contesting Sutekh, depending on what > you're planning to do. Jacob the Glitch does not influence into play like other minions an as such is not a valid case for comparison. But otherwise you agree that contesting a high cap minion is much more detremental that contesting a low cap minion. > > > My math still comes out on more room for deck diversity with the > > > current rules than with an "easier" contest rule. > > > You are self-conflicted in your viewpoint. Honestly, contesting has > > almost no impact on deck diversity, due to the size of pool of > > vampires availible, other than preventing a player from influencing > > out multiple copies of the same minion into play (which has been > > addressed in multiple ways). > > Sure it does. And if people just build decks without fear of contests, > they should just suck it up. Just like people who doesn't play combat > defence should suck it up when they encounter combat decks. Every highcap deck fears contesting, is your solution "don't play high- cap decks"? > > > The current contesting rules > > > A) disfavors crap decks that can't handle a contest > > > B) promotes deck diversity since it "forces" people to play something > > > that they don't think anyone else will play > > > > Now, we could remove both A and B by changing the contest rules. But > > > over all, I think that would end up seeing a lesser diversity of decks > > > in tournament play. > > > How so? There are easily 10+ Tier 1 archtypes, most of which have > > access to multiple groups of interchangable vampires from a pool of > > 1300+ vampires. The number of different combinations is dazzling. > > I think it would mean that people would play the same decks a lot > more, instead of the same deck types but with different vampires. > Building a tier 1 deck these days requires some thinking about > contesting imo (you might not think about it, me and the ones I play > with certainly do). Lessening the "penalty" for contesting would > lessen the amount of such thinking needed, something I would consider > a bad thing. It would be one less thing to think about during deck construction. Honestly, the odds of contesting are so small that even trying to deal with it from a construction point of view borders on "irrational paranoia" > > You would have a hard time intentionally contesting if you tried. > > That's one more reason not to mess with the current rules imo. If so then "irrational paranoia" is a pretty weak reason,

On Jul 21, 1:14 am, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:13:18 -0700 (PDT), henrik > > <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > >Yet Laibon decks have actually won tournaments since the set was > >released. > > In the month of July? > > Show me..... http://thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k9blackplanet and http://thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k9origins4 (from June, but it was still after the release and tournament legalness of Ebony Kingdom)

On Jul 20, 6:50 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > In one way, it would perhaps be good to have those options. But then > again, certain sleazy decks would become more viable if contesting was > less of an issue. Dementation weenies are a pretty good example of a > deck that most likely would be played more often if contesting wasn't > as hard as it is today. I realize that this is just the example you like, but again, it is not a good example. Dementation weenies are completely unconcerned with contestation, as the deck is made out of interchangeable weenie vampires. If your 3 cap is contested? You either keep contesting it (if it hurts your prey as much as it hurts you) or you don't (if it doesn't), and you don't care that you lost the 3 cap. There is no part of "Dementation weenies" that equals "good example of a deck that most likely would be played more if contesting wasn't as hard as it is today". There simply is not. Dementation weenies? They get played all the time. 'Cause, among other reasons, contestation is in no way a concern for such a deck. Find another example of a "deck that most likely would be played more if contesting wasn't as hard as it is today". As Dementation weenies is a *really* bad example of that. To the point that it makes me concerned that you don't actually have any idea what you are talking about. Which I don't think is actually the case. But using Dementation weenies as your example in this context makes me worried. -Peter

On Jul 20, 6:06 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Again, how debilitating it is depends on your deck and how you chose > to handle the contest (and, of course, the rules). Again, I'll point back to the VTES era aggravated damage rules. These rules were overly debilitating. How debilitating it was depended on your deck and how you chose to handle aggravated damage. And yet the rules were determined to be overly harsh. And changed to the current rules. As it improved the game. Even though plenty of people thought the rules were fine. > > > Nope. You should probably have guessed since that quote doesn't come > > > from me though. > > > Well, not literally, no. You are correct. In your initial foray into > > this discussion, you specifically pointed out that contestation rules > > promote diversity: > > > "They make the game more diverse (thus more fun, imo) by making > > dementation weenies played somewhat less, since there's a risk for > > contesting. " > > > And then continually follow that up with "well, if you are playing a > > deck that does X, it sucks" > > Did I? Yes. You did. The "They make the game more diverse..." quote was directly cut and pasted from a post you made on July 14th. And the "well, if you are playing a deck that does X, it sucks" is a paraphrase of where you said something along the lines of "If you are playing a deck with big vampires without crypt acceleration, it sucks." Do you not remember saying these things? Should I go find them for you? -Peter

On Jul 21, 1:19 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > All things equal, it's usually tougher to contest a big minion than a > > small one. But how tough it is to contest it depends on how well your > > deck performs without said minion. > > Exactly, so you have already spent 2 turns transferring to the minion > and now you are contesting them. So you are already 2 to 3 pool more > on average invested on that minion then on a smaller minion. This > results in the effect of contesting being 3 to 4 TIMES more expensive > on the first turn you pay to contest, which is also another turn > without the minion. In a game that lasts 12-15 turn then you have > already spent 20% to 25% of the game "not playing" while paying for a > minion. No deck performs well in that situation. No decks performs as good as it was meant to do, no. Contesting comes with a price, indeed. I'm not saying it doesn't. But, let's say that you and gets into a contest over Lutz von Hohenzollern. If you can influence up Midget and Jackie and start KS bleeding me while I start to influence up Ysador the Foul, which deck would you agree that your deck performed better than mine without Lutz? > Which takes time to influence out, plus the time that they have > already spent influening out the contested minion. If you lose a > large minion to a contest, you have already lost because you are 25% > or more behind the rest of the table with pool in "limbo" So you'd say that it was alright for someone who's contesting Democritus after 3 turns to selfoust? Would you say that, in the example above, you had already lost the game? > > Depends on how important the minion is to your deck. Contesting Jacob > > the Glitch can be worse than contesting Sutekh, depending on what > > you're planning to do. > > Jacob the Glitch does not influence into play like other minions an as > such is not a valid case for comparison. You put pool on him and then he pops up into play. Just like any other. > But otherwise you agree that contesting a high cap minion is much more > detremental that contesting a low cap minion. Jacob was just an example (and yes, he can be as important as any high cap vampire in the right deck), we can say Hector Trelane instead. I agree that if we're talking about a minion that's equally needed for the deck to function, then a high cap vampire will be worse to contest than a low cap. > > Sure it does. And if people just build decks without fear of contests, > > they should just suck it up. Just like people who doesn't play combat > > defence should suck it up when they encounter combat decks. > > Every highcap deck fears contesting, is your solution "don't play high- > cap decks"? No. My solution is to build the deck so that it can function (at least somewhat) without the key minion. There will always be something that can happen to that key minion of your, Pentex Subversion, combat, Banishment etc. You can never be sure you'll get to keep it. Being able to handle a situation where you don't have your key minion is something you should add to your decks. > > I think it would mean that people would play the same decks a lot > > more, instead of the same deck types but with different vampires. > > Building a tier 1 deck these days requires some thinking about > > contesting imo (you might not think about it, me and the ones I play > > with certainly do). Lessening the "penalty" for contesting would > > lessen the amount of such thinking needed, something I would consider > > a bad thing. > > It would be one less thing to think about during deck construction. > > Honestly, the odds of contesting are so small that even trying to deal > with it from a construction point of view borders on "irrational > paranoia" I don't agree. At bigger tournaments, it's almost guaranteed that at least one copy (and probably more) of certain vampires will come into play. Arika, Anson, Alexandra, Midget. Some others are not at all guaranteed, like Democritus, Appolonius or Angus the Unruled.

On Jul 21, 1:24 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I realize that this is just the example you like, but again, it is not > a good example. > > Dementation weenies are completely unconcerned with contestation, as > the deck is made out of interchangeable weenie vampires. If your 3 cap > is contested? You either keep contesting it (if it hurts your prey as > much as it hurts you) or you don't (if it doesn't), and you don't care > that you lost the 3 cap. I don't agree that the weenies are interchangable. The Midget/Jackie combo is one of the reasons that the deck is as strong as it is. But I see your point, there are other decks that would suffer more. > Find another example of a "deck that most likely would be played more > if contesting wasn't as hard as it is today". As Dementation weenies > is a *really* bad example of that. To the point that it makes me > concerned that you don't actually have any idea what you are talking > about. Which I don't think is actually the case. But using Dementation > weenies as your example in this context makes me worried. Nephandus decks could work as well (Antonio d'Erlette being the key). AAA would probably be more common if contesting wasn't an issue.

henrik wrote: > On Jul 21, 12:01 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> And, as questions go, the question: can an adjustment be better for the game as >> a whole (although it won't affect most games -- since the contesting rules for >> crypt cards don't affect most games)? is a pretty good one to examine. Make the >> game better in the cases in which it comes up without affecting the game (good >> or ill) in the cases in which it doesn't. > > I consider the effect the rule has on deck diversity to make the game > better than it would be without that effect (or with a weakening of > that effect). The effect it has on deck diversity is less than the effect it has on the game as a whole. And it has practically no effect on the game as a whole. Indeed, that is itself the very reason it has such an infinitesimal effect on deck diversity. Any effect it would have on deck diversity would also cancel itself out upon iteration, making the net effect even less. > So it's not just about making the game outright better > by adjusting the "penalty" for contesting. Um. Yeah, it is. Where "it" is defined to be exactly that goal (as it was defined by the OP in the IP). Now, of a given suggested alternate rule, there may be a drawback. Any such drawbacks should be considered, of course, in evaluating whether the effect of that particular option is a gain or a loss for the game as a whole. >> Garfield thought so: that's why there are rules for using influence to retrieve >> pool counters from uncontrolled vampires at all. That rule exists only because >> the effect of being put into a position where contesting is an option is >> unnecessarily harsh without it. > > Not to disrespect Garfield, but he also thought giving dominate G:tU, > Conditioning and Deflection was good :s Um. Yeah. And pred/prey. And pool as influence cost. He wasn't perfect. Neither am I. No news there. But I don't think you can point to a state of the game in playtest where Dominate didn't have Deflection and someone said "Dominate isn't strong enough: it need more/better bounce" or similar for Conditioning. >> So. Did that rule go far enough? Perhaps not. >> >> Why make it cost 2 instead of 1? >> Or let it "cost" the vampire in question instead of influence (i.e., you can >> retrieve all the blood on the uncontrolled vampire by burning that vampire)? > > What it does now is to balance out the effect of cards like Govern the > Unaligned, Fourth Tradition: The Accounting etc, especially when > combined with multi acting. For example, using three actions with 1-3 > cap 4 vampire to add 9 blood counters to a 3 cap vampire, burning it > and transferring out a 6 cap for that blood. Stuff like that is one > thing to consider at least. Yeah. It is being considered. That's one of the purposes of this thread. Costing the vampire in question would certainly not empower GtU. Indeed, it would weaken it (and the other bloat-through-the-uncontrolled-region effects). > I'm not sure why 2 was the magic number for Garfield though, but I > don't really see how that would matter either. Personally I think the > contest rules are more important today than it was 15 years ago, since > net decking is more common and somewhat limited by contest risks. Nah. The variety of decks available and crypt choices being played in particular has increased, even if some players net deck. It is not limited in a meaningful way by contest risks. >> But why make the decision to yield so painful as to rush a player to a lost >> position (and remove any strategic element the game might offer for that player)? > > Strategic elements are still there, with the exception of the > contested minion. Playing master cards, table talk, using your other > minions etc. Um. Yeah. But the strategic elements that could be involved in contesting are largely absent, suppressed by the overly-extreme penalty involved in contesting. > And I'm still not convinced that yielding a contest leads you to a > lost position, at least not if your deck was built to be able to > handle the loss of a minion. Um. OK. That it at variance with my experience, especially as the capacity of the vampire in question increases. >> You could adjust the rules so that either (or both) the decision to yield is >> less game-destroying or the decision to continue to contest is less >> game-destroying, increasing the strategic value of the contesting angle of the game. > > I'm not sure how the strategic value of contesting would increase by > making it easier. It makes the decision strategic instead of tragic. >> Like by some sort of shared-control-on-contesting rules. Or >> blood-recoup-on-yielding rule. > > The shared-control rule has some, imo rather big, issues which has > been mentioned elsewhere in the thread. There haven't been any big issues mentioned so far. The few issues that were mentioned were aknowledged, considered, and answered. > Blood-recoup-on-yielding changes the game (better for some, worse for > some) but doesn't do much that a simple announcement of what minion > you're influencing to wouldn't fix as well. It wouldn't. Besides the main, it also fails when all four of your minions are "reserved" by other players. >>> In an single game though, the severeness of the punishment is mostly >>> dependent on deck building and/or table talking skills (with some luck >>> involved, as always). >> It is affected somewhat by that, yes. But for many decks (which are not >> themselves "bad" decks to be punitively affected by the rules just to make >> players decide to play them less), the severity choices range from "very bad" >> to "very very bad". A question is: would "merely bad" or "strategic risk" be >> good to have as options instead? > > In one way, it would perhaps be good to have those options. But then > again, certain sleazy decks would become more viable if contesting was > less of an issue. Dementation weenies are a pretty good example of a > deck that most likely would be played more often if contesting wasn't > as hard as it is today. I don't think so. > In the end, I'm not totally blind to that a change of the current > rules could possibly bring something good. I just think that what such > a change would remove as well, is worth more. At least with the > suggestions seen so far. Most seem to be strictly positive for the game, while most of the rest seem to be a net positive.

On Jul 21, 1:31 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > And then continually follow that up with "well, if you are playing a > > > deck that does X, it sucks" > > > Did I? > > Yes. You did. Partially. You were mixing actual quotes with made up ones, which was my point there. It confused me somewhat, which I didn't like, so I pointed it out. Apparently the point went past you. > The "They make the game more diverse..." quote was > directly cut and pasted from a post you made on July 14th. And the > "well, if you are playing a deck that does X, it sucks" is a > paraphrase of where you said something along the lines of "If you are > playing a deck with big vampires without crypt acceleration, it > sucks." Do you not remember saying these things? Did you read the rest of my post? Like the parts where I said "Or are you mixing actual quotes of what I said with made up quotes now? Please note what you're doing or at least be consequent about it. I recall stating that certain decks sucked (high caps only with no crypt acceleration etc), but not that "a deck that does X" sucks. More like "a crappy deck that does X" sucks." > Should I go find them > for you? No need at all, I did that myself to assure me that I hadn't really said such things.

On Jul 20, 8:40 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Bill Ricardi wrote: > > Contesting does indeed suck. However, contesting SHOULD, indeed, suck. > > It is a tax and a punishment for those who aren't original enough to > > play something other than the flavor of the month. > > What about the two players who get tired of playing the flavor of the month and > go back to their respective drawing boards and come up with original decks that > happen to focus on the same obscure and rarely-used vampire? Already addressed. Given the massive card pool available in the game, the random contesting situation is rare enough. You're talking about a one in a thousand situation, where two people think up the same 'obscure and rarely-used' theme and use it at the same time. To that I say, if you wanted to play a game without the random chance of bad luck, switch to chess. When you have to come up with a a bizarre situation that involves the words 'happen to focus on the same obscure and rarely-used', you should probably re-think the issue.. > > 'Random' contesting > > is (and should be) so unbelievably rare given the game's card pool, > > that the random punishment doled out is fairly minor. > > Not quite. The random punishment is doled out infrequently, but when it is doled > out, it is seldom in a minor manner. > > See also the example "ousted if you start with 7 masters in hand" rule. > Unbelievably rare, but that rarity doesn't make the punishment doled out "minor". Of course it does. You have to think long term. > > I'd be for ignoring the contesting rules in draft environments, given > > the more limited card pool. Other than that, carpe contestium! > Why the exception for draft? By your POV, those players should avoid playing the > good vampires in the set and instead play the weak ones and the ones that don't > mix well with the sets being drafted (the draft equivalent of "stop playing net > decks, stop playing what the herd considers the best"). So as to lower their > chances of having contestation issues come up. I already explained why the exception for draft: A more limited card pool. If that isn't a good enough reason for you, then you don't understand how to create a good draft environment. VTES is already an iffy draft game (and if you disagree, let's compare the ratio of draft to normal product sales in VTES and Magic, shall we?), so it is reasonable to tweak the rules to make it more enjoyable. Without a harsh penalty for contesting, all you're doing from a design point of view is encouraging a narrow tournament pool. From a sales point of view, you're driving secondary market activity, not primary. It hurts the game to only have a handful of viable archetypes, and it drives people away from innovation. If that's what you want, go for it.

On Jul 21, 1:41 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Any effect it would have on deck diversity would also cancel itself out upon > iteration, making the net effect even less. I don't really understand that part. Could you explain it further? > > What it does now is to balance out the effect of cards like Govern the > > Unaligned, Fourth Tradition: The Accounting etc, especially when > > combined with multi acting. For example, using three actions with 1-3 > > cap 4 vampire to add 9 blood counters to a 3 cap vampire, burning it > > and transferring out a 6 cap for that blood. Stuff like that is one > > thing to consider at least. > > Yeah. It is being considered. That's one of the purposes of this thread. > > Costing the vampire in question would certainly not empower GtU. Indeed, it > would weaken it (and the other bloat-through-the-uncontrolled-region effects). It would change GtU. In ways which could be either good or bad for the one playing the card. If the current pool withdraw rules remained, then it would only make GtU stronger since you could sacrifice a minion to gain a lot of pool instead of having to wait and get 2/turn. If the current withdraw rules was changed to the "burn to gain all blood back", it would be better or worse depending on the deck and situation. > > I'm not sure why 2 was the magic number for Garfield though, but I > > don't really see how that would matter either. Personally I think the > > contest rules are more important today than it was 15 years ago, since > > net decking is more common and somewhat limited by contest risks. > > Nah. The variety of decks available and crypt choices being played in particular > has increased, even if some players net deck. It is not limited in a meaningful > way by contest risks. My experience from building decks and watching good players build decks says otherwise. > Um. Yeah. > > But the strategic elements that could be involved in contesting are largely > absent, suppressed by the overly-extreme penalty involved in contesting. Other strategic elements exists though, like threatening to contest a minion with someone. > > And I'm still not convinced that yielding a contest leads you to a > > lost position, at least not if your deck was built to be able to > > handle the loss of a minion. > > Um. OK. That it at variance with my experience, especially as the capacity of > the vampire in question increases. Well, of course losing a minion is always crappy. And more crappy if it's a high capacity minion. But whether or not it inevitably leads to a lost position has more variables imo. > >> You could adjust the rules so that either (or both) the decision to yield is > >> less game-destroying or the decision to continue to contest is less > >> game-destroying, increasing the strategic value of the contesting angle of the game. > > > I'm not sure how the strategic value of contesting would increase by > > making it easier. > > It makes the decision strategic instead of tragic. It's strategic with today's rules as well. Yielding will give my opponent the minion, not yielding will cost me a pool and force my opponent to either yield or pay a pool. How is that not strategic? (Unless you're forced to yield since you're on 1 pool.) > >> Like by some sort of shared-control-on-contesting rules. Or > >> blood-recoup-on-yielding rule. > > > The shared-control rule has some, imo rather big, issues which has > > been mentioned elsewhere in the thread. > > There haven't been any big issues mentioned so far. > The few issues that were mentioned were aknowledged, considered, and answered. I think they're big, and I don't think they've been satisfyingly (is that a real word?) answered. The hosing of wall decks and boosting of certain other deck types by making contested minions semi untargetable by some effects etc. > > Blood-recoup-on-yielding changes the game (better for some, worse for > > some) but doesn't do much that a simple announcement of what minion > > you're influencing to wouldn't fix as well. > > It wouldn't. Besides the main, it also fails when all four of your minions are > "reserved" by other players. When all your four minions are "reserved" by other players, you should have a reasonable chance of talking yourself out of the situation though. If they're reserved by the same player, xe will probably not be able to contest all four. If they're reserved by different players, at least one of them should have some interest in you getting a minion into play so there's an opening for some sort of deal. > > In one way, it would perhaps be good to have those options. But then > > again, certain sleazy decks would become more viable if contesting was > > less of an issue. Dementation weenies are a pretty good example of a > > deck that most likely would be played more often if contesting wasn't > > as hard as it is today. > > I don't think so. I know for a fact that contest risks are taken into account by certain players when selecting decks for bigger tournaments. > > In the end, I'm not totally blind to that a change of the current > > rules could possibly bring something good. I just think that what such > > a change would remove as well, is worth more. At least with the > > suggestions seen so far. > > Most seem to be strictly positive for the game, while most of the rest seem to > be a net positive. Not my view.

Bill Ricardi wrote: > On Jul 20, 8:40 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Bill Ricardi wrote: >>> Contesting does indeed suck. However, contesting SHOULD, indeed, suck. >>> It is a tax and a punishment for those who aren't original enough to >>> play something other than the flavor of the month. >> What about the two players who get tired of playing the flavor of the month and >> go back to their respective drawing boards and come up with original decks that >> happen to focus on the same obscure and rarely-used vampire? > > Already addressed. Given the massive card pool available in the game, > the random contesting situation is rare enough. You're talking about a > one in a thousand situation, where two people think up the same > 'obscure and rarely-used' theme and use it at the same time. To that I > say, if you wanted to play a game without the random chance of bad > luck, switch to chess. When you have to come up with a a bizarre > situation that involves the words 'happen to focus on the same obscure > and rarely-used', you should probably re-think the issue.. These situations aren't q requirement. These bizarro-world situations are only presented for those people who refuse to look at the issue through the main lens of simply making the game better for the cases when it does come up (without harming it for when it doesn't). As for playing chess, the same could be said for the lose-on-seven-masters rule. Not being completely deterministic is no reason to be overly punitive on matters of bad luck. >>> 'Random' contesting >>> is (and should be) so unbelievably rare given the game's card pool, >>> that the random punishment doled out is fairly minor. >> Not quite. The random punishment is doled out infrequently, but when it is doled >> out, it is seldom in a minor manner. >> >> See also the example "ousted if you start with 7 masters in hand" rule. >> Unbelievably rare, but that rarity doesn't make the punishment doled out "minor". > > Of course it does. You have to think long term. No. The random punishment is doled out infrequently, but when it is doled out, it is seldom in a minor manner. >>> I'd be for ignoring the contesting rules in draft environments, given >>> the more limited card pool. Other than that, carpe contestium! > >> Why the exception for draft? By your POV, those players should avoid playing the >> good vampires in the set and instead play the weak ones and the ones that don't >> mix well with the sets being drafted (the draft equivalent of "stop playing net >> decks, stop playing what the herd considers the best"). So as to lower their >> chances of having contestation issues come up. > > I already explained why the exception for draft: A more limited card > pool. And your rationale for not changing the rule in constructed applies just as much to limited, so the exception doesn't hold water under your strictures. > If that isn't a good enough reason for you, then you don't > understand how to create a good draft environment. Actually, the reason is explicitly described in my post, which you quoted. And it has nothing to do with a lack of understanding of how to create a good draft environment on my part. > VTES is already an > iffy draft game (and if you disagree, let's compare the ratio of draft > to normal product sales in VTES and Magic, shall we?), so it is > reasonable to tweak the rules to make it more enjoyable. But unreasonable to tweak the rules of constructed to make it more enjoyable? > Without a harsh penalty for contesting, all you're doing from a design > point of view is encouraging a narrow tournament pool. Not at all. Contesting would still carry a penalty, just not an overly-punitive one. > From a sales > point of view, you're driving secondary market activity, not primary. > It hurts the game to only have a handful of viable archetypes, and it > drives people away from innovation. If that's what you want, go for it. Strawman. Not even worth the seven characters it takes to say so.

henrik wrote: > On Jul 21, 1:41 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Any effect it would have on deck diversity would also cancel itself out upon >> iteration, making the net effect even less. > > I don't really understand that part. Could you explain it further? If the idea that it drive players away from tier one is accepted as a given, then that means they go to tier 2. Where they again find each other. Iterate. >> Costing the vampire in question would certainly not empower GtU. Indeed, it >> would weaken it (and the other bloat-through-the-uncontrolled-region effects). > > It would change GtU. In ways which could be either good or bad for the > one playing the card. Um. Yeah. In the vast majority of cases in which a player puts GtU in the deck to crypt bloat, it will be worse.

On Jul 20, 7:38 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nephandus decks could work as well (Antonio d'Erlette being the key). > AAA would probably be more common if contesting wasn't an issue. Yeah, those are much better examples. Except I see them all the time, too. -Peter

On Jul 20, 7:43 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Partially. You were mixing actual quotes with made up ones, which was > my point there. It confused me somewhat, which I didn't like, so I > pointed it out. Apparently the point went past you. I was mixing actual quotes with paraphrased quotes. > Did you read the rest of my post? Yep. > Like the parts where I said > "Or are you mixing actual quotes of what I said with made up quotes > now? Please note what you're doing or at least be consequent about it. > I recall stating that certain decks sucked (high caps only with no > crypt acceleration etc), but not that "a deck that does X" sucks. > More like "a crappy deck that does X" sucks." Yes, yes you did. Which is why I was saying that you said that. -Peter

On Jul 21, 1:20 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > These situations aren't q requirement. These bizarro-world situations are only > presented for those people who refuse to look at the issue through the main lens > of simply making the game better for the cases when it does come up (without > harming it for when it doesn't). Except, as I already pointed out, it DOES harm the game to make contesting less severe. So the rest is moot. > As for playing chess, the same could be said for the lose-on-seven-masters rule. > > Not being completely deterministic is no reason to be overly punitive on matters > of bad luck. There's nothing 'overly' punitive about it. Where was this discussion when there was only 3 or 4 sets? THAT was when you might consider the contesting rules overly punitive. Now, when the chances of it happening should be less and less with each new card that is released... now the discussion is important? > > Of course it does. You have to think long term. > > No. > > The random punishment is doled out infrequently, but when it is doled out, it is > seldom in a minor manner. And yet, in the scope of what matters in a competitive environment, it IS a minor matter. If you have a truly good deck, you think in terms of the three or four rounds it takes to make a final table, not 1 round. You can get hosed by the random contesting in 1 round and still easily have enough VP's for the final table. In fact, depending on what is being contested, you might pick up a VP or two in that round as well! So yes you DO have to think long term, at least as long as a standard tournament. That is the unit, that is the yardstick. And if your quality, non-net deck does happen to have a catastrophic contesting issue in the final round, then you either weren't as original as you thought you were, or you are suffering from a bout of very bad luck. And yet it is still better than sitting down and facing three net decks stolen right from the TDWA that don't have to worry very much about contesting with each other. And if you're not talking about a competitive environment, anyone can make their own 'house rules' about contesting, so please don't go there. If we're not talking about an official rules change that impacts the tournament landscape, then knock yourself out with whatever 'casual' solution you want. > > I already explained why the exception for draft: A more limited card > > pool. > > And your rationale for not changing the rule in constructed applies just as much > to limited, so the exception doesn't hold water under your strictures. How can you not understand that you will contest a hell of a lot more in a limited environment, and that your deck construction is often forced to be much more narrow depending on the 'theme' of the set? Do you get that, or do you not? > > VTES is already an > > iffy draft game (and if you disagree, let's compare the ratio of draft > > to normal product sales in VTES and Magic, shall we?), so it is > > reasonable to tweak the rules to make it more enjoyable. > > But unreasonable to tweak the rules of constructed to make it more enjoyable? IF it made it more enjoyable, but as I pointed out, it will make constructed LESS enjoyable. Do you really, honestly want to see the same decks over and over again because you watered down the penalty for contesting? That is what you consider more enjoyable? > > Without a harsh penalty for contesting, all you're doing from a design > > point of view is encouraging a narrow tournament pool. > > Not at all. Contesting would still carry a penalty, just not an overly-punitive one. Looking at the TDWA, it is already on the edge of a lack of innovation, given the massive card pool. That suggests that the penalty is NOT overly-punitive, or people would diversify more to avoid the risks. You're suggesting weakening a mechanic that doesn't need weakening. > > From a sales > > point of view, you're driving secondary market activity, not primary. > > It hurts the game to only have a handful of viable archetypes, and it > > drives people away from innovation. If that's what you want, go for it. > > Strawman. Not even worth the seven characters it takes to say so. When it comes to the corporate bottom line, there's nothing strawman about my statement. If you don't want to address sales figures, that's fine. But there is a reason that other companies register card sales in the hundreds of millions gross per annum, with player bases measured in the millions. The reasons include having a viable draft environment, a unified card database that has standardized wording with card text that is promptly updated for all rulings (without using the crutch of 'designer intent'), and an online version of the product that is so addictive that it makes money hand over fist, despite its own issues. Of the problems that need fixing with VTES, contesting rates so low on the list as to be laughable. Why is this fairly rare issue so important to you, when there is so much work to be done that can attract new players and enhance everyone's enjoyment of the game?

Bill Ricardi wrote: > Except, as I already pointed out, it DOES harm the game to make > contesting less severe. So the rest is moot. As pointed out, it doesn't harm the game to make the severity more appropriate than it is now while still leaving it severe to be appropriate. > There's nothing 'overly' punitive about it. Where was this discussion > when there was only 3 or 4 sets? THAT was when you might consider the > contesting rules overly punitive. Overlooked, I suppose. My apologies on behalf of all us who should have been more diligent. > Now, when the chances of it > happening should be less and less with each new card that is > released... now the discussion is important? I'm always interested in improving the game, sure. > And yet it is still better than sitting down and facing three net > decks stolen right from the TDWA that don't have to worry very much > about contesting with each other. No one is suggesting making it the case that any decks won't have to worry very much about contesting. Net-decking or otherwise. > And if you're not talking about a competitive environment, anyone can > make their own 'house rules' about contesting, so please don't go > there. No one did go there. I prefer to discuss the point and not digress into straw men like net decking and the fact that anyone can play any game with any house rules xe likes. >>> I already explained why the exception for draft: A more limited card >>> pool. >> And your rationale for not changing the rule in constructed applies just as much >> to limited, so the exception doesn't hold water under your strictures. > > How can you not understand that you will contest a hell of a lot more > in a limited environment, and that your deck construction is often > forced to be much more narrow depending on the 'theme' of the set? Do > you get that, or do you not? I get it. How do you not get that your "then you shouldn't have used the best cards" argument applies just as well to the limited environment? > Do you really, honestly want to see the > same decks over and over again because you watered down the penalty > for contesting? That is what you consider more enjoyable? Another strawman. Is the pool of crypt cards large enough that contesting is a significant factor in selecting decks or not? I contend (and your point about the importance of this discussion above supports) that it is not. > >>> Without a harsh penalty for contesting, all you're doing from a design >>> point of view is encouraging a narrow tournament pool. >> Not at all. Contesting would still carry a penalty, just not an overly-punitive one. > > Looking at the TDWA, it is already on the edge of a lack of > innovation, given the massive card pool. That suggests that the > penalty is NOT overly-punitive, or people would diversify more to > avoid the risks. No. It only suggests that the risk-reward is acceptable. And, as you've noted already, the risk is negligible, this seems to follow obviously. > You're suggesting weakening a mechanic that doesn't > need weakening. The suggestions are to weaken a mechanic that seems to need weakening (in that it is too severe when it comes up). > Of the problems that need fixing with VTES, contesting rates so low on > the list as to be laughable. Yes. It is indeed a negligible deterrent to net decking. > Why is this fairly rare issue so > important to you, when there is so much work to be done that can > attract new players and enhance everyone's enjoyment of the game? Obviously, looking at one way to improve the game does not preclude looking at other ways. If there are other constructive suggestions made in other threads, I'll read them and respond as appropriate there, too.

On Jul 20, 6:34 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 1:19 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > All things equal, it's usually tougher to contest a big minion than a > > > small one. But how tough it is to contest it depends on how well your > > > deck performs without said minion. > > > Exactly, so you have already spent 2 turns transferring to the minion > > and now you are contesting them. So you are already 2 to 3 pool more > > on average invested on that minion then on a smaller minion. This > > results in the effect of contesting being 3 to 4 TIMES more expensive > > on the first turn you pay to contest, which is also another turn > > without the minion. In a game that lasts 12-15 turn then you have > > already spent 20% to 25% of the game "not playing" while paying for a > > minion. No deck performs well in that situation. > > No decks performs as good as it was meant to do, no. Contesting comes > with a price, indeed. I'm not saying it doesn't. > But, let's say that you and gets into a contest over Lutz von > Hohenzollern. > If you can influence up Midget and Jackie and start KS bleeding me > while I start to influence up Ysador the Foul, which deck would you > agree that your deck performed better than mine without Lutz? I think you are dead in either situation with a half-way competent predator. 10 pool is nothing to bleed through. You are probably halfway through it by the time the contest starts > > Which takes time to influence out, plus the time that they have > > already spent influening out the contested minion. If you lose a > > large minion to a contest, you have already lost because you are 25% > > or more behind the rest of the table with pool in "limbo" > > So you'd say that it was alright for someone who's contesting > Democritus after 3 turns to selfoust? Would you say that, in the > example above, you had already lost the game? 10 + 3 is 13 pool + 6 turns (3 to influence and 3 to contest) half your pool and half the game is gone. Can you self-oust? Sure, all you have to do is claim that you can't play your game without Democritus. Would I say that the game is already lost? In most cases, yes, your game is over. > > > Depends on how important the minion is to your deck. Contesting Jacob > > > the Glitch can be worse than contesting Sutekh, depending on what > > > you're planning to do. > > > Jacob the Glitch does not influence into play like other minions an as > > such is not a valid case for comparison. > > You put pool on him and then he pops up into play. Just like any > other. > > > But otherwise you agree that contesting a high cap minion is much more > > detremental that contesting a low cap minion. > > Jacob was just an example (and yes, he can be as important as any high > cap vampire in the right deck), we can say Hector Trelane instead. I > agree that if we're talking about a minion that's equally needed for > the deck to function, then a high cap vampire will be worse to contest > than a low cap. Since Hector is only 16% of your starting pool versus 33% for Democritus (or any other 10 cap), it is not nearly as debilitating for you to contest Hector. > > > Sure it does. And if people just build decks without fear of contests, > > > they should just suck it up. Just like people who doesn't play combat > > > defence should suck it up when they encounter combat decks. > > > Every highcap deck fears contesting, is your solution "don't play high- > > cap decks"? > > No. My solution is to build the deck so that it can function (at least > somewhat) without the key minion. There will always be something that > can happen to that key minion of your, Pentex Subversion, combat, > Banishment etc. You can never be sure you'll get to keep it. Being > able to handle a situation where you don't have your key minion is > something you should add to your decks. Pentex is removable. Combat is defensible Banishment gets more difficult (to the point of impossibility) the larger your minion is. Also may be blocked or voted down (which your large cap can assist in doing). You can build your deck to defend against all three of these and they are cards that you would normally include in any deck. If your large cap is contested, then for the most part you have no defense. > > > I think it would mean that people would play the same decks a lot > > > more, instead of the same deck types but with different vampires. > > > Building a tier 1 deck these days requires some thinking about > > > contesting imo (you might not think about it, me and the ones I play > > > with certainly do). Lessening the "penalty" for contesting would > > > lessen the amount of such thinking needed, something I would consider > > > a bad thing. > > > It would be one less thing to think about during deck construction. > > > Honestly, the odds of contesting are so small that even trying to deal > > with it from a construction point of view borders on "irrational > > paranoia" > > I don't agree. At bigger tournaments, it's almost guaranteed that at > least one copy (and probably more) of certain vampires will come into > play. Arika, Anson, Alexandra, Midget. Some others are not at all > guaranteed, like Democritus, Appolonius or Angus the Unruled. While that may be true, odds are that you won't be sitting at that table when it happens, but when it does happens, someone's game ends right there. Game Over.

On Jul 20, 9:08 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Except, as I already pointed out, it DOES harm the game to make > contesting less severe. So the rest is moot. I don't know that you have pointed this out to any level that I'm buying into. How does making contestation have more of a reasonable penalty harm the game? Currently, contestation is not enough of a deterrent to prevent people from playing derivative decks; people play with Anson and Arika and Dememntation weenies all the time. Making it less severe isn't going to change this. The rest of the game rules do a much better job of encouraging deck diversity than the contestation rules do. That being said, currently, the contestation rules are so harsh so that in the random and infrequent instances that it comes up, it can end your game before it even starts. Which, again, doesn't dissuade people from playing powerful/popular minions (go look at the TWDA. Oh, wait. You already did.) But does manage to make the game incredibly unfun a great deal of the time that it randomly comes up. > IF it made it more enjoyable, but as I pointed out, it will make > constructed LESS enjoyable. Do you really, honestly want to see the > same decks over and over again because you watered down the penalty > for contesting? That is what you consider more enjoyable? What actual evidence do you have that people don't play the same decks over and over again because they are afraid of contesting minions? The TWDA is full of decks that use the same good minions over and over again. I see the same good minions over and over again. The risk of contestation is small enough that it does not dissuade using the same good minions over and over again. > Looking at the TDWA, it is already on the edge of a lack of > innovation, given the massive card pool. That suggests that the > penalty is NOT overly-punitive, or people would diversify more to > avoid the risks. You're suggesting weakening a mechanic that doesn't > need weakening. You are attributing something to a mechanic that it doesn't necessarily do. People use different decks in VTES 'cause the game encourages you to use different decks. Playing the metagame, trying new and interesting strategies, trying to game the environment. These all encourage people to use different decks. Fear of contestation? This does not discourage people from using the same obvious vampires (heck, someone just posted a TWD that could have been called "Team Most Likely To Be Contested". The person playing it would not have been using Arika and Marcus Vitel had he been particularly concerned about the likelihood of contesting). -Peter

On Jul 21, 2:23 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Obviously, looking at one way to improve the game does not preclude looking at > other ways. Do whatever you want. You will anyway.

[ quoted text not captured ] That's something we agree on, I guess. Free will. Each of us does exactly and only we ultimately want to do at any given second. Not really relevant to the discussion, but agreement is agreement.

> Except, as I already pointed out, it DOES harm the game to make > contesting less severe. So the rest is moot. Where is your proof that it does harm the game to make contesting less severe?

Howdy, > > These situations aren't q requirement. These bizarro-world situations are only > > presented for those people who refuse to look at the issue through the main lens > > of simply making the game better for the cases when it does come up (without > > harming it for when it doesn't). > > Except, as I already pointed out, it DOES harm the game to make > contesting less severe. So the rest is moot. Huh? Can you repeat your argument? Even looking back through your posts in this thread I don't see anything showing that making contesting less severe would harm the game. Well, except assertions that that is true, but an assertion is not an argument. > > As for playing chess, the same could be said for the lose-on-seven-masters rule. > > > Not being completely deterministic is no reason to be overly punitive on matters > > of bad luck. > > There's nothing 'overly' punitive about it. Where was this discussion > when there was only 3 or 4 sets? THAT was when you might consider the > contesting rules overly punitive. Now, when the chances of it > happening should be less and less with each new card that is > released... now the discussion is important? You seem to be missing LSJ's point. The level of punishment for contesting has not changed over time. The _probability_ of contesting has changed. And you judge the severity of the punishment on the level, not on the probability. Several years back, the US launched a probe into deep-ish space to do some sort of survey. The probe was powered by a plutonium radiation source. The chance of the the rocket malfunctioning and the plutonium being spread finely into the atmosphere killing all life on the planet was said to be zero. If it had malfunctioned, though, while it would have been a very unlikely (or rare - probably singular, even) event, the 'punishment' would not have been minor, at least not from a human perspective. > > > Of course it does. You have to think long term. > > > No. > > > The random punishment is doled out infrequently, but when it is doled out, it is > > seldom in a minor manner. > > And yet, in the scope of what matters in a competitive environment, it > IS a minor matter. I don't get to play often enough that I can consider wasting two-ish hours in exceedingly unfun play a minor matter. Maybe you do? You should probably concede that others don't consider it minor to randomly lose. > If you have a truly good deck, you think in terms > of the three or four rounds it takes to make a final table, not 1 > round. You can get hosed by the random contesting in 1 round and still > easily have enough VP's for the final table. In fact, depending on > what is being contested, you might pick up a VP or two in that round > as well! > > So yes you DO have to think long term, at least as long as a standard > tournament. That is the unit, that is the yardstick. And if your > quality, non-net deck does happen to have a catastrophic contesting > issue in the final round, then you either weren't as original as you > thought you were, or you are suffering from a bout of very bad luck. Ah, the 'sucks to be you' rejoinder. I'd rather have it suck to be me less if possible, thanks. > And yet it is still better than sitting down and facing three net > decks stolen right from the TDWA that don't have to worry very much > about contesting with each other. Dude. Is this a serious concern where you play? (I.e. do you run into lots of people who not only netdeck, but are competent enough players that they can benefit from doing so, but still not competent enough that they can make their own decks?) Do you personally take into account the most popular decks when choosing what decks to build yourself and what vampires to play? (And if you do, do you consider that to be good for the game?) I recently built a deck that uses Anson. And Theo. It's not a net deck by any stretch of the imagination. I like to play it, but I do worry about contestation. But there is no way for me to build the deck such that it can handle Anson being contested. Should I just not play with Anson? Is the deck, prima facie, crappy because it relies on Anson? It seems like I should be able to use the cards I paid for, especially if they are good and/or popular. > And if you're not talking about a competitive environment, anyone can > make their own 'house rules' about contesting, so please don't go > there. If we're not talking about an official rules change that > impacts the tournament landscape, then knock yourself out with > whatever 'casual' solution you want. > > But unreasonable to tweak the rules of constructed to make it more enjoyable? > > IF it made it more enjoyable, but as I pointed out, it will make > constructed LESS enjoyable. Again, you've only asserted this. And while it may be true for you, you'll need to do more work to show that it will be true for me. > Do you really, honestly want to see the > same decks over and over again because you watered down the penalty > for contesting? That is what you consider more enjoyable? Do you seriously think that replacing the nuclear option for explosive contestation with conventional explosives will actually cause that big a change? We are talking about a rare event in the first place, right? I mean it already strikes me as kind of farfetched that henrik will go to, apparently, great lengths to weaken his decks in general play just to make them better in unlikely case that his minions might be contested. But that the fear of contesting is so great that you (and your playgroup?) apparently avoid whole classes of decks and all the most popular vampires, to the degree that the apocalypse would be released if contesting were even slightly less severe, seems ridiculous. > > > Without a harsh penalty for contesting, all you're doing from a design > > > point of view is encouraging a narrow tournament pool. Because, of course, like Magic there are only a handful of successful deck types in V:tES at any point in time? > > Not at all. Contesting would still carry a penalty, just not an overly-punitive one. > > Looking at the TDWA, it is already on the edge of a lack of > innovation, given the massive card pool. That's not what I see when I look at the TWDA. Are we talking about the same thing? Which three (or six or ten) decks are dominating the field? > That suggests that the > penalty is NOT overly-punitive, or people would diversify more to > avoid the risks. You're suggesting weakening a mechanic that doesn't > need weakening. Seriously, you need some sort of statistics to back this up, and the TWDA, as often discussed, probably can't provide hard enough statistics for that purpose. And, in this case, I'm pretty sure its statistics will show the opposite, to the degree they show anything. > > > From a sales > > > point of view, you're driving secondary market activity, not primary. > > > It hurts the game to only have a handful of viable archetypes, and it > > > drives people away from innovation. If that's what you want, go for it. > > > Strawman. Not even worth the seven characters it takes to say so. > > When it comes to the corporate bottom line, there's nothing strawman > about my statement. If you don't want to address sales figures, that's > fine. But there is a reason that other companies register card sales > in the hundreds of millions gross per annum, with player bases > measured in the millions. Indeed. And those reasons are really not even peripherally related to the contestation rules. I hope that you can see that you have launched yourself well into orbit with hyperbole here? > The reasons include having a viable draft environment, a unified card > database that has standardized wording with card text that is promptly > updated for all rulings (without using the crutch of 'designer > intent'), and an online version of the product that is so addictive > that it makes money hand over fist, despite its own issues. V:tES has a viable draft environment. And a reasonably well maintained card database, prompt rulings, etc. It has had a variety of online versions over the years, mostly fan created. Do you even play V:tES? I ask because no one I know who plays V:tES wants it to be an addictive money making scheme. We all know where to go if we want to 'turn pro'; what we want is to play a good game. And V:tES does a much, much better job of providing that than any game with an anime cartoon series on TV does. > Of the problems that need fixing with VTES, contesting rates so low on > the list as to be laughable. And yet, here is a thread of more than 350 messages of people debating the issue. Which other issue is generating so much traffic right now? Seems like some people, including the OP, don't consider this issue laughable (though Peter has also stated that he doesn't consider it the end of the world, either) - just an opportunity to maybe make the game a little better. > Why is this fairly rare issue so > important to you, when there is so much work to be done that can > attract new players and enhance everyone's enjoyment of the game? Asshole. You want prompt rulings (on things that are important to you, I guess), but don't want the designers to consider potential improvements suggested by players? Micromanage much? Do everyone here a favor and don't try to attract new players or enhance anyone's enjoyment of the game - the game doesn't need players like you. Yeesh. I'm pretty sure this doesn't help, Alex

If it could possibly behave the personages attendant upon this conversation, could the production of examples of the milliner's trade's finest apparel made of reconstructed posteriors cease? The original query (yes i am ignoring all the ridiculous off topic arguments and strawmen here, as well as all asshats involved): Is the vampire contestation penalty too harsh? I say yes. I do not believe that lessening the stringency of the penalty will in any way negatively affect the game. I have no proof of this, just my own belief (And yes, that is a personal opinion, as are all opinions expressed by me in this or any other thread, whether such statements are pre- or postfaced with the statement "This is my opinion). Do I believe the penalty is overweaning, to the same extent that giving dom GtU, Deflection and Conditioning is? Yes Do I give a single gram of sub standard, b grade quality horse shit about this at the moment in any way except in context of the first and second question? No. But this is a thread that has hit +350 posts, not due to discussion of the subject at hand, but due to certain parties obfuscating and strawmanning the issue at hand. Quite simply, to all those who are not trying to discuss the original query, but are veering off into arcane and obscure tangents: FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUS! And cos tone of voice sucks over the interwebs ;)

On Jul 21, 2:23 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > If the idea that it drive players away from tier one is accepted as a given, > then that means they go to tier 2. Where they again find each other. Iterate. It doesn't necessarily mean that they go to tier 2, and it surely doesn't drive every player there. Some will end up risking a contest there though, but after some time it should even out (since some people will stay in a given "tier"). Other things that can happen instead of players going away from tier 1: 1) they keep playing t1 but makes sure that their decks will be able to handle contesting some other way than rolling over 2) they create new decks, which are on par with t1 but doesn't use the "classic" power vampires 3) they take classic t1 decks, but changes the crypt to another set of vampires in order to not risk contesting as much > >> Costing the vampire in question would certainly not empower GtU. Indeed, it > >> would weaken it (and the other bloat-through-the-uncontrolled-region effects). > > > It would change GtU. In ways which could be either good or bad for the > > one playing the card. > > Um. Yeah. In the vast majority of cases in which a player puts GtU in the deck > to crypt bloat, it will be worse. Just to make it clear, are you talking about exchanging the rule where you can use 2 transfers to bring 1 blood back from an uncontrolled vampire to your pool? If that's the case, then I can see that you have a point (even if it also opens up new ways to use GtU for bloating). If you're talking about just adding a rule that give you the ability to burn/remove a vampire in your uncontrolled region to transfer all the blood on it to your pool, then you're just adding another way to use GtU for bloating, and that's purely better.

On Jul 21, 3:24 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > No decks performs as good as it was meant to do, no. Contesting comes > > with a price, indeed. I'm not saying it doesn't. > > But, let's say that you and gets into a contest over Lutz von > > Hohenzollern. > > If you can influence up Midget and Jackie and start KS bleeding me > > while I start to influence up Ysador the Foul, which deck would you > > agree that your deck performed better than mine without Lutz? > > I think you are dead in either situation with a half-way competent > predator. 10 pool is nothing to bleed through. You are probably > halfway through it by the time the contest starts That wasn't the question. I made an example to show that, depending on how well your deck can perform with your key minion being gone, you can perform better or worse during a contest (even though the "better" performance will still be worse than your optimal performance, of course). > > Jacob was just an example (and yes, he can be as important as any high > > cap vampire in the right deck), we can say Hector Trelane instead. I > > agree that if we're talking about a minion that's equally needed for > > the deck to function, then a high cap vampire will be worse to contest > > than a low cap. > > Since Hector is only 16% of your starting pool versus 33% for > Democritus (or any other 10 cap), it is not nearly as debilitating for > you to contest Hector. If Hector is needed for my deck to perform, than it can be as debilitating. It might be a deck that only plays 12 Hector in the crypt. It wouldn't matter if he costed 5, 10 or 15 pool if I really needed him in order to score victory points. > > No. My solution is to build the deck so that it can function (at least > > somewhat) without the key minion. There will always be something that > > can happen to that key minion of your, Pentex Subversion, combat, > > Banishment etc. You can never be sure you'll get to keep it. Being > > able to handle a situation where you don't have your key minion is > > something you should add to your decks. > > Pentex is removable. > Combat is defensible > Banishment gets more difficult (to the point of impossibility) the > larger your minion is. Also may be blocked or voted down (which your > large cap can assist in doing). > > You can build your deck to defend against all three of these and they > are cards that you would normally include in any deck. > > If your large cap is contested, then for the most part you have no > defense. That's true. For the most part people have no defense against contesting. I'm just saying that's their own fault for not adding the appropriate defense to their decks. > > I don't agree. At bigger tournaments, it's almost guaranteed that at > > least one copy (and probably more) of certain vampires will come into > > play. Arika, Anson, Alexandra, Midget. Some others are not at all > > guaranteed, like Democritus, Appolonius or Angus the Unruled. > > While that may be true, odds are that you won't be sitting at that > table when it happens, but when it does happens, someone's game ends > right there. Game Over. I've seen far more games be over due to Tup Dogs or War Ghouls than contests (and I've even seen people get out on the living side of both). Your game is over when you face something which your deck isn't buit to handle. If you build your deck so that it couldn't handle a contest, then you better suck it up when you face one.

henrik wrote: >>>> Costing the vampire in question would certainly not empower GtU. Indeed, it >>>> would weaken it (and the other bloat-through-the-uncontrolled-region effects). >>> It would change GtU. In ways which could be either good or bad for the >>> one playing the card. >> Um. Yeah. In the vast majority of cases in which a player puts GtU in the deck >> to crypt bloat, it will be worse. > > Just to make it clear, are you talking about exchanging the rule where > you can use 2 transfers to bring 1 blood back from an uncontrolled > vampire to your pool? If that's the case, then I can see that you have > a point (even if it also opens up new ways to use GtU for bloating). Correct. "Originally there was no way to retrieve counters from uncontrolled cards. Due to contesting, a way was added. It costs 2 transfers. Why cost 2? Why not cost 1 or cost the vampire?"

On Jul 21, 4:22 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 3:24 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > No decks performs as good as it was meant to do, no. Contesting comes > > > with a price, indeed. I'm not saying it doesn't. > > > But, let's say that you and gets into a contest over Lutz von > > > Hohenzollern. > > > If you can influence up Midget and Jackie and start KS bleeding me > > > while I start to influence up Ysador the Foul, which deck would you > > > agree that your deck performed better than mine without Lutz? > > > I think you are dead in either situation with a half-way competent > > predator. 10 pool is nothing to bleed through. You are probably > > halfway through it by the time the contest starts > > That wasn't the question. I made an example to show that, depending on > how well your deck can perform with your key minion being gone, you > can perform better or worse during a contest (even though the "better" > performance will still be worse than your optimal performance, of > course). Then your question is irrelavent. If you are dead prior to ousting your prey, then all you are doing is making your prey more vulnerable to your predator once you are ousted. > > > Jacob was just an example (and yes, he can be as important as any high > > > cap vampire in the right deck), we can say Hector Trelane instead. I > > > agree that if we're talking about a minion that's equally needed for > > > the deck to function, then a high cap vampire will be worse to contest > > > than a low cap. > > > Since Hector is only 16% of your starting pool versus 33% for > > Democritus (or any other 10 cap), it is not nearly as debilitating for > > you to contest Hector. > > If Hector is needed for my deck to perform, than it can be as > debilitating. It might be a deck that only plays 12 Hector in the > crypt. It wouldn't matter if he costed 5, 10 or 15 pool if I really > needed him in order to score victory points. 12x of vampire A crypts are not relevant to a contesting discussion. > > > No. My solution is to build the deck so that it can function (at least > > > somewhat) without the key minion. There will always be something that > > > can happen to that key minion of your, Pentex Subversion, combat, > > > Banishment etc. You can never be sure you'll get to keep it. Being > > > able to handle a situation where you don't have your key minion is > > > something you should add to your decks. > > > Pentex is removable. > > Combat is defensible > > Banishment gets more difficult (to the point of impossibility) the > > larger your minion is. Also may be blocked or voted down (which your > > large cap can assist in doing). > > > You can build your deck to defend against all three of these and they > > are cards that you would normally include in any deck. > > > If your large cap is contested, then for the most part you have no > > defense. > > That's true. For the most part people have no defense against > contesting. I'm just saying that's their own fault for not adding the > appropriate defense to their decks. What would you add? > > > I don't agree. At bigger tournaments, it's almost guaranteed that at > > > least one copy (and probably more) of certain vampires will come into > > > play. Arika, Anson, Alexandra, Midget. Some others are not at all > > > guaranteed, like Democritus, Appolonius or Angus the Unruled. > > > While that may be true, odds are that you won't be sitting at that > > table when it happens, but when it does happens, someone's game ends > > right there. Game Over. > > I've seen far more games be over due to Tup Dogs or War Ghouls than > contests (and I've even seen people get out on the living side of > both). Your game is over when you face something which your deck isn't > buit to handle. If you build your deck so that it couldn't handle a > contest, then you better suck it up when you face one. Tupdogs and Warghouls are irrelavent to the discussion. Contesting is not driven by deck contruction; it is driven by rules mechanics. If you don't understand that this is a discussion of rules mechanics (i.e. would this be better?), then we need to go back to square 1. Do you play VTES? Do you understand contesting? Do you have experience with contesting? Do you like the current contesting rules? Do you think the current contesting rules are "fair" and "appropriate"? Do you think that the contesting rules can be improved? If so, please suggest your ideas. If not, please give reasons that they are not improvable.

[ quoted text not captured ] Norm, you put this so much better than me. I just like the drawn out scream of focus tho... ;)

On Jul 21, 5:20 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > 12x of vampire A crypts are not relevant to a contesting discussion. Then again, if you had even tried the slightest to understand my point you might have succeeded. Just stop being silly, really. If you can't for your life understand that contesting a 5 cap vampire can be devastating for a deck, just like contesting a 10 cap vampire can then I'm not sure that you're reading the right newsgroup. > > That's true. For the most part people have no defense against > > contesting. I'm just saying that's their own fault for not adding the > > appropriate defense to their decks. > > What would you add? Depends on the deck. And I've mentioned stuff to add already. Other minions that can use the library cards is probably the most important thing, but cards that enables you to get those minions out in play fast enough (if the minions are high caps) is another example. Poolgain is another thing that can be useful. > > I've seen far more games be over due to Tup Dogs or War Ghouls than > > contests (and I've even seen people get out on the living side of > > both). Your game is over when you face something which your deck isn't > > buit to handle. If you build your deck so that it couldn't handle a > > contest, then you better suck it up when you face one. > > Tupdogs and Warghouls are irrelavent to the discussion. Contesting is > not driven by deck contruction; it is driven by rules mechanics. If > you don't understand that this is a discussion of rules mechanics > (i.e. would this be better?), then we need to go back to square 1. > > Do you play VTES? Yes. > Do you understand contesting? Yes. > Do you have experience with contesting? Yes. > Do you like the current contesting rules? Yes. > Do you think the current contesting rules are "fair" and > "appropriate"? Yes. > Do you think that the contesting rules can be improved? For my part, that's irrelevant. I don't see any need for improvement. For Peter's (and others) part, it seems they can. > If not, please give reasons that they are not improvable. They're "fair" and "appropriate". I don't see any problem with them.

On Jul 21, 10:56 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 5:20 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > 12x of vampire A crypts are not relevant to a contesting discussion. > > Then again, if you had even tried the slightest to understand my point > you might have succeeded. Just stop being silly, really. > If you can't for your life understand that contesting a 5 cap vampire > can be devastating for a deck, just like contesting a 10 cap vampire > can then I'm not sure that you're reading the right newsgroup. rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Yep, it's the right newsgroup. Is contesting a 5 cap as devastating as devastating as contesting a 10 cap? No, it is not. > > > That's true. For the most part people have no defense against > > > contesting. I'm just saying that's their own fault for not adding the > > > appropriate defense to their decks. > > > What would you add? > > Depends on the deck. And I've mentioned stuff to add already. Other > minions that can use the library cards is probably the most important > thing, but cards that enables you to get those minions out in play > fast enough (if the minions are high caps) is another example. > Poolgain is another thing that can be useful. Other minions do not free a vampire from contestation. Nor do other minions pay for contestation. You cannot regain pool off of a contested vampire. So that is moot. [ quoted text not captured ] So it is "fair" and "appropriate" that you lose the game if you are playing with the same 10-11 cap as another player with little or no interaction with the other players at the table?

On Jul 21, 6:20 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Is contesting a 5 cap as devastating as devastating as contesting a 10 > cap? > > No, it is not. If you think that's true no matter what, then you're wrong, plain and simple. For, let's for example say, a Hector Trelane deck it would most likely be worse to contest Hector Trelane than it would be to contest Melinda Galbraith. Can you understand my point here at all? > > Depends on the deck. And I've mentioned stuff to add already. Other > > minions that can use the library cards is probably the most important > > thing, but cards that enables you to get those minions out in play > > fast enough (if the minions are high caps) is another example. > > Poolgain is another thing that can be useful. > > Other minions do not free a vampire from contestation. Nor do other > minions pay for contestation. I know. Other minions can help you gain pool to pay for the contest though. Or you could yield the contest and use your other minions instead. > You cannot regain pool off of a contested vampire. So that is moot. You can gain pool through some means even while you're contesting a minion. Ascendance is one example (not saying it should be added as primary contest def though, just naming an example). > > > Do you think that the contesting rules can be improved? > > > For my part, that's irrelevant. I don't see any need for improvement. > > For Peter's (and others) part, it seems they can. > > > > If not, please give reasons that they are not improvable. > > > They're "fair" and "appropriate". I don't see any problem with them. > > So it is "fair" and "appropriate" that you lose the game if you are > playing with the same 10-11 cap as another player with little or no > interaction with the other players at the table? Well, you don't automatically lose the game due to that. Other circumstances are involved as well (no crosstable help, no other minions to bring out etc.). But yeah, losing due to something that's in the rulebook and that you knew about when building the deck (but obviously chose to not prepare enough for) is as "fair" as V:tES is gonna get.

On Jul 21, 11:35 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 6:20 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > Is contesting a 5 cap as devastating as devastating as contesting a 10 > > cap? > > > No, it is not. > > If you think that's true no matter what, then you're wrong, plain and > simple. For, let's for example say, a Hector Trelane deck it would > most likely be worse to contest Hector Trelane than it would be to > contest Melinda Galbraith. > Can you understand my point here at all? Contesting Melinda Galbraith will end your game for the most part, irregardless. The void of 10 + pool vanishing for an unspecified duration has the consequence of guaranteeing that you or the person you are contesting with will lose. Most likely, you will both lose. > > > Depends on the deck. And I've mentioned stuff to add already. Other > > > minions that can use the library cards is probably the most important > > > thing, but cards that enables you to get those minions out in play > > > fast enough (if the minions are high caps) is another example. > > > Poolgain is another thing that can be useful. > > > Other minions do not free a vampire from contestation. Nor do other > > minions pay for contestation. > > I know. Other minions can help you gain pool to pay for the contest > though. Or you could yield the contest and use your other minions > instead. Again, if you lose 10-11 pool by yielding a high capacity minion, then your game is over. I am not saying that you can't keep yourself "on life support" but any chance at winning the game is signifigantly diminished (remember that you only start with a base chance 20% to win) > > You cannot regain pool off of a contested vampire. So that is moot. > > You can gain pool through some means even while you're contesting a > minion. Ascendance is one example (not saying it should be added as > primary contest def though, just naming an example). Which is nothing more than giving life support to the convalescent that your game has become. You can stay alive, but your chances of winning have been, for all practical purposes, eliminated. > > > > Do you think that the contesting rules can be improved? > > > > For my part, that's irrelevant. I don't see any need for improvement. > > > For Peter's (and others) part, it seems they can. > > > > > If not, please give reasons that they are not improvable. > > > > They're "fair" and "appropriate". I don't see any problem with them. > > > So it is "fair" and "appropriate" that you lose the game if you are > > playing with the same 10-11 cap as another player with little or no > > interaction with the other players at the table? > > Well, you don't automatically lose the game due to that. Other > circumstances are involved as well (no crosstable help, no other > minions to bring out etc.). > But yeah, losing due to something that's in the rulebook and that you > knew about when building the deck (but obviously chose to not prepare > enough for) is as "fair" as V:tES is gonna get. So you agree that by any reasonable standard this isn't "fair". Hence, why we are discussing "changes to the rulebook". Now that you are all caught up with the rest of us, what are your ideas?

On Jul 21, 6:51 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > If you think that's true no matter what, then you're wrong, plain and > > simple. For, let's for example say, a Hector Trelane deck it would > > most likely be worse to contest Hector Trelane than it would be to > > contest Melinda Galbraith. > > Can you understand my point here at all? > > Contesting Melinda Galbraith will end your game for the most part, > irregardless. The void of 10 + pool vanishing for an unspecified > duration has the consequence of guaranteeing that you or the person > you are contesting with will lose. Most likely, you will both lose. Compared to the other 3 players, we'll both be in a worse position (assuming we were all equal in positions before the contest started). I'm just saying that when comparing yielding a 5 cap on which your entire deck relies with yielding a 10 cap which isn't really important to your deck, it's probably worse to yield the 5 cap. > Again, if you lose 10-11 pool by yielding a high capacity minion, then > your game is over. I am not saying that you can't keep yourself "on > life support" but any chance at winning the game is signifigantly > diminished It's not over, but yeah the chance of winning or getting victory points is diminished. I think that's an appropriate penalty though. > (remember that you only start with a base chance 20% to > win) That's where you're gravely mistaken. If you think that V:tES is "fair" and that every person that sits down at the table has an equal chance of winning, you're wrong. > > You can gain pool through some means even while you're contesting a > > minion. Ascendance is one example (not saying it should be added as > > primary contest def though, just naming an example). > > Which is nothing more than giving life support to the convalescent > that your game has become. You can stay alive, but your chances of > winning have been, for all practical purposes, eliminated. Only if your attitude eliminates them. > > Well, you don't automatically lose the game due to that. Other > > circumstances are involved as well (no crosstable help, no other > > minions to bring out etc.). > > But yeah, losing due to something that's in the rulebook and that you > > knew about when building the deck (but obviously chose to not prepare > > enough for) is as "fair" as V:tES is gonna get. > > So you agree that by any reasonable standard this isn't "fair". That's not what I said. I don't think any game of V:tES will be "fair" in the sense that a non random game is though, since randomness and luck will always play their parts. Changing the rules because you can't cope with that is the wrong way to take. > Now that you are all caught up with the rest of us, what are your > ideas? 1) Don't change the rules. 2) Learn to handle contests in a different way than saying "my game is over".

> > > Well, you don't automatically lose the game due to that. Other > > > circumstances are involved as well (no crosstable help, no other > > > minions to bring out etc.). > > > But yeah, losing due to something that's in the rulebook and that you > > > knew about when building the deck (but obviously chose to not prepare > > > enough for) is as "fair" as V:tES is gonna get. > > > So you agree that by any reasonable standard this isn't "fair". > > That's not what I said. I don't think any game of V:tES will be "fair" > in the sense that a non random game is though, since randomness and > luck will always play their parts. Changing the rules because you > can't cope with that is the wrong way to take. So by your standards, arbitrarily getting eliminated or starting with 33% less pool than most of the other players is "fair". So when you take a test, if the best you can score is a 67 and the best everyone else can score is a 100, then you would consider that fair. Is that correct?

On Jul 21, 8:50 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > Well, you don't automatically lose the game due to that. Other > > > > circumstances are involved as well (no crosstable help, no other > > > > minions to bring out etc.). > > > > But yeah, losing due to something that's in the rulebook and that you > > > > knew about when building the deck (but obviously chose to not prepare > > > > enough for) is as "fair" as V:tES is gonna get. > > > > So you agree that by any reasonable standard this isn't "fair". > > > That's not what I said. I don't think any game of V:tES will be "fair" > > in the sense that a non random game is though, since randomness and > > luck will always play their parts. Changing the rules because you > > can't cope with that is the wrong way to take. > > So by your standards, arbitrarily getting eliminated or starting with > 33% less pool than most of the other players is "fair". You only get eliminated by contesting if you and/or your deck couldn't handle that situation. It's a situation that you know can come up, and you can chose to prepare for it or not. If you chose to ignore it, and take your chance that the situation won't come up that's your call. You made it knowingly, and if the situation comes up you should suck it up. Just like you can take your chance that you won't face any nasty vote decks and remove your Delaying Tactics from your deck in favour of some other card. Unless I play a deck with one or more of the most popular/strong vampires I take my chances that I won't end up in a contest. Sometimes I lose a game due to that, but that's the price I pay. > So when you take a test, if the best you can score is a 67 and the > best everyone else can score is a 100, then you would consider that > fair. Is that correct? If the reason for me not being able to get 100 is that I didn't study enough, then yes.

[ quoted text not captured ] Except, contesting in V:TES is absolutely nothing like "not studying enough". -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Jul 22, 12:18 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> So when you take a test, if the best you can score is a 67 and the > >> best everyone else can score is a 100, then you would consider that > >> fair. Is that correct? > > >If the reason for me not being able to get 100 is that I didn't study > >enough, then yes. > > Except, contesting in V:TES is absolutely nothing like "not studying > enough". Neither is it anything like not having a chance to score more than 67/100 on a test. I just played along. Though, for one part, losing a game due to not being able to handle a contest is like "not studying enough" in the sense that it could have been (at least to a certain point) fixed by a stable deck that could handle the contest. Studying is done prior to a test in order to be able to maximize your score, just like deck building is done prior to a game of V:tES in order to be able to maximize your score. But overall, the comparision is kinda crappy.

[ quoted text not captured ] You know what, I don't think you are actually joking. Which is a clear misuse of the smiley for nefarious purposes. Please be advised that our solar maize roaster is fired up and ready for anything you may throw at us, or others. In addition, I'm amazed that you can find someone to sell you, or even give you b-grade Horseshit. Mostly, I can only find either a or c-grade (and when lucky, D-grade (get it, "d-grade"!)). And in a more light tone, I think that contesting is not as bad as Dominate. And maybe the real problem with the game is bleeding. best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] You lose as soon as you start contesting a large cap vampire, agreed. > > So when you take a test, if the best you can score is a 67 and the > > best everyone else can score is a 100, then you would consider that > > fair. Is that correct? > > If the reason for me not being able to get 100 is that I didn't study > enough, then yes. No, the reason for you not being able to get 100 is that another student brought an identical pencil or pen to yours and your teacher took away both of them. It's that arbitrary.

On Jul 21, 9:12 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > Just bring another pencil or 5 Sorry, but you can still only score a 67, don't you see it's in the rules. That makes it fair.

[ quoted text not captured ] > > > > vampires I take my chances that I won't end up in acontest. Sometimes > > > > I lose a game due to that, but that's the price I pay. > > > > You lose as soon as you start contesting a large cap vampire, agreed. > > > > > > So when you take a test, if the best you can score is a 67 and the > > > > > best everyone else can score is a 100, then you would consider that > > > > > fair. Is that correct? > > > > > If the reason for me not being able to get 100 is that I didn't study > > > > enough, then yes. > > > > No, the reason for you not being able to get 100 is that another > > > student brought an identical pencil or pen to yours and your teacher > > > took away both of them. > > > > It's that arbitrary. > > > Just bring another pencil or 5 > > Sorry, but you can still only score a 67, don't you see it's in the > rules. That makes it fair.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I believe we have all seen decks with minions in play a well over 30 pool. If you want to score a decks success do it by VPs not pool in the first four rounds. There are not many reasons(Geminei and Ravnos Pred) to apply more transfers than cap -4 in the case of large vampires, for those of you that forgot.

[ quoted text not captured ] As long as the MilkByproductLubrication device has all the melted yellolowy goodness ready, fire the kernels! > In addition, I'm amazed that you can find someone to sell you, or even > give you b-grade Horseshit. Mostly, I can only find either a or c-grade > (and when lucky, D-grade (get it, "d-grade"!)). That's a humiliating, despicable (say it in the same voice as Daffy!) and depraved allegatino that i will deny with all my might! What am i denying exactly? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 22, 4:04 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > You only get eliminated by contesting if you and/or your deck couldn't > > handle that situation. It's a situation that you know can come up, and > > you can chose to prepare for it or not. If you chose to ignore it, and > > take your chance that the situation won't come up that's your call. > > You made it knowingly, and if the situation comes up you should suck > > it up. Just like you can take your chance that you won't face any > > nasty vote decks and remove your Delaying Tactics from your deck in > > favour of some other card. > > Unless I play a deck with one or more of the most popular/strong > > vampires I take my chances that I won't end up in a contest. Sometimes > > I lose a game due to that, but that's the price I pay. > > You lose as soon as you start contesting a large cap vampire, agreed. That's not true, and I don't even think you believe it is. > > > So when you take a test, if the best you can score is a 67 and the > > > best everyone else can score is a 100, then you would consider that > > > fair. Is that correct? > > > If the reason for me not being able to get 100 is that I didn't study > > enough, then yes. > > No, the reason for you not being able to get 100 is that another > student brought an identical pencil or pen to yours and your teacher > took away both of them. > > It's that arbitrary. Your comparision is quite faulty, since you'd also have to add that the pencil/pen would make me perform better than another pencil/pen I could've brought. And that I actually had the option of bringing several pencils/pens but apparently didn't. If you don't have anything else to come with than stuff like this I suggest you quit here.

[ quoted text not captured ] Dude, your arguments are preposterous, off topic and irritating. As opposed to debating the question "when you contest a vampire, you are screwed, is this reasonable?" you keep going off on side arguments regarding what random means, how it is applied to this situation, that the situation could have been prevented, etc etc. Are you smoking so much crack that you have completely lost sight of consensus reality? When you contest a big vamp, you lose between 8-15 pool, a number of turns, and all defence basically. Your argument is that he should have played a different deck. Thats like saying to a mugging victim that they should not have worn their watch. The question is NOT how to prevent contestation The question is NOT what level of randomness affects contestation. The question is NOT what bloody semantic side trip you feel like taking us on next. The question is whether losing a vampire, turn 2-3, and all possible chance of gaining anything from it, is too extreme an effect for a contestation effect. And before you go off on another strawman hunt, please try to answer the actual question first.

On Jul 22, 11:33 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dude, your arguments are preposterous, off topic and irritating. > As opposed to debating the question "when you contest a vampire, you > are screwed, is this reasonable?" That's because the question is faulty since you're not necessarily screwed when you contest a vampire. Changing the rules on the assumption that contesting automatically leads to a game loss would be stupid. > Are you smoking so much crack that you have completely lost sight of > consensus reality? Consensus reality? Do explain. I'm not alone in the viewpoint that adapting to the rules would be a better way to solve this "issue" than changing the rules, if that's what you're implying. So there's certaintly not any consensus in the entire V:tES community where I'm being the only one who doesn't agree. > When you contest a big vamp, you lose between 8-15 pool, a number of > turns, and all defence basically. Only if "all defence" was composed of that single big vampire, yes. But that's a risk you take when building/playing a deck like that. Being too dependent on you first (big) vampire is a gambit, just like playing a weenie/ally/powerbleed deck is a gambit (but with other possible ways of losing). > The question is NOT how to prevent contestation > The question is NOT what level of randomness affects contestation. > The question is NOT what bloody semantic side trip you feel like > taking us on next. > The question is whether losing a vampire, turn 2-3, and all possible > chance of gaining anything from it, is too extreme an effect for a > contestation effect. The answer is that if you lose that much from a contest, it's due to your own deck building (and, as always in V:tES combined with some bad luck).

On Jul 22, 7:07 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's because the question is faulty since you're not necessarily > screwed when you contest a vampire. Sigh. I had escaped! And then I got pulled back in. I am weak. You are always somewhat screwed when you contest a vampire, relative to not contesting a vampire. Always. It is not consistently instantly game ending screwed, no, but a lot of the time, it is. The issue at hand, which you keep side stepping, is "Are the penalties for contesting a vampire overly harsh". Is potentially losing a huge investment, and one of the important functional aspects of your deck, and then even more pool on top of that an appropriate penalty for accidentally sitting down at at table with someone else who randomly drew the same guy as you? The guy who *designed the game* admitted that the penalty for contestation was possibly larger than it should be, and then invented a rule (un-transferring) to attempt to mitigate the penalty. As time has gone on, it turns out (at least in the view of many people) that, yes, the penalty for contestation is probably larger than it should be, and that the attempt to mitigate that penalty is not sufficient. Yes. You can build a deck that isn't particularly vulnerable to contestation (Like by playing all Dementation weenies. Or by not using huge vampires. Or by not relying on a specific vampire. All of which significantly limits the kinds of decks you can play...) And you can attempt to mitigate the negative effects when it comes up through trying to con people into helping you or whatever. But none of this has any relevance at all to the question "Are the penalties for contesting a vampire overly harsh". And yes, I realize that you believe that they are not. Ok. That is you. And yes, I realize that I believe that they are. Yes. That is me. But at least by arguing about the same thing, we might be able to illuminate the issue, as opposed to just arguing past each other. > Changing the rules on the > assumption that contesting automatically leads to a game loss would be > stupid. Yes. This is true. Which is why no one is doing that. Changing the rules on the assumption that the penalties for contesting vampires is too harsh, however, would not be stupid. Much like it was not stupid to consider changing the rules on the assumption that 1 point of aggravated damage being capable of burning a vampire was not stupid. The penalties for contesting a vampire are too harsh. Are they automatically game losing? Not always, but sometimes. But they certainly are overly debilitating, considering how incredibly random they are. Making the rules for contesting vampires somewhat less harsh seems like a reasonable option to take. Alternating control of minions is, admittedly, complicated and weird. Interesting, but probably too big of a change. Getting all the blood off of a minion when you yield contestation, however, seems like a totally reasonable, minor change that would make contestation much less harsh but without changing it too much. You still lose control of a minion. You still have a penalty for being contested. If you don't want to yield the contestation, you end up in the exact same place you would have with the current rules. You can still "strategically" contest a minion to remove them from play. If someone has gotten a bunch of use out of that minion (i.e. spent all their blood already), they don't get much, if any, return. Any part of the contestation rules that might encourage people to play less popular vampires is still there. A penalty for playing more popular vampires is still there. -Peter

On Jul 22, 3:42 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 4:04 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > You only get eliminated by contesting if you and/or your deck couldn't > > > handle that situation. It's a situation that you know can come up, and > > > you can chose to prepare for it or not. If you chose to ignore it, and > > > take your chance that the situation won't come up that's your call. > > > You made it knowingly, and if the situation comes up you should suck > > > it up. Just like you can take your chance that you won't face any > > > nasty vote decks and remove your Delaying Tactics from your deck in > > > favour of some other card. > > > Unless I play a deck with one or more of the most popular/strong > > > vampires I take my chances that I won't end up in a contest. Sometimes > > > I lose a game due to that, but that's the price I pay. > > > You lose as soon as you start contesting a large cap vampire, agreed. > > That's not true, and I don't even think you believe it is. I believe it is true because both reason and experience have shown it to be true. > > > > So when you take a test, if the best you can score is a 67 and the > > > > best everyone else can score is a 100, then you would consider that > > > > fair. Is that correct? > > > > If the reason for me not being able to get 100 is that I didn't study > > > enough, then yes. > > > No, the reason for you not being able to get 100 is that another > > student brought an identical pencil or pen to yours and your teacher > > took away both of them. > > > It's that arbitrary. > > Your comparision is quite faulty, since you'd also have to add that > the pencil/pen would make me perform better than another pencil/pen I > could've brought. And that I actually had the option of bringing > several pencils/pens but apparently didn't. The performance of the pencil is irrelavent because you don't have that pencil any more. > If you don't have anything else to come with than stuff like this I > suggest you quit here. I hear your suggestion, but yet don't find it valid. Since you still haven't addressed how "it is fair that one player arbitrarily loses 33% of their starting pool at the beginning of the game". Please address how you think that is both "fair" and "appropriate".

On Jul 22, 3:19 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 7:07 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > That's because the question is faulty since you're not necessarily > > screwed when you contest a vampire. > The issue at > hand, which you keep side stepping, is "Are the penalties for > contesting a vampire overly harsh". Is potentially losing a huge > investment, and one of the important functional aspects of your deck, > and then even more pool on top of that an appropriate penalty for > accidentally sitting down at at table with someone else who randomly > drew the same guy as you? I'm only sidestepping them when the discussion goes away from that topic. I've stated several times that I don't believe the penalties are overly harsh though, so I'm not trying to hide that in any way. At least not more than you tried to hide that there are ways to deal with contesting other than losing your current game. > The guy who *designed the game* admitted that the penalty for > contestation was possibly larger than it should be, and then invented > a rule (un-transferring) to attempt to mitigate the penalty. As time > has gone on, it turns out (at least in the view of many people) that, > yes, the penalty for contestation is probably larger than it should > be, and that the attempt to mitigate that penalty is not sufficient. I don't want to start some "counting people" war here, but I honestly haven't seen "many" people stating that the current rules are overly harsh. And I haven't heard anyone outside of the newsgroup that agrees with that the rules are too harsh. Not saying that a majority doesn't think so though, just that it's not the impression I've been getting. > Yes. You can build a deck that isn't particularly vulnerable to > contestation (Like by playing all Dementation weenies. Or by not using > huge vampires. Or by not relying on a specific vampire. All of which > significantly limits the kinds of decks you can play...) And you can > attempt to mitigate the negative effects when it comes up through > trying to con people into helping you or whatever. But none of this > has any relevance at all to the question "Are the penalties for > contesting a vampire overly harsh". In a way they do though, since if you don't try to build a deck that can handle a contest then the penalty for contesting will be tougher. Just like facing combat is tougher for a deck that doesn't have combat defense. If the thoughts of losing a minion was with you during deck building, then the penalties aren't too harsh imo. > > Changing the rules on the > > assumption that contesting automatically leads to a game loss would be > > stupid. > > Yes. This is true. Which is why no one is doing that. Still though, many posts have stated that contesting a vampire inevitably leads to a game loss. > Changing the > rules on the assumption that the penalties for contesting vampires is > too harsh, however, would not be stupid. > The penalties for contesting a vampire are too harsh. Are they > automatically game losing? Not always, but sometimes. But they > certainly are overly debilitating, considering how incredibly random > they are. Well, to me it would be stupid, since I don't think the penalties are too harsh. But one can have that opinion, for sure. For me, and the people I play with, it's only overly debilitating if you haven't prepared for it. And if you haven't prepared for something, then it's just to suck it up when it happens. > Making the rules for contesting vampires somewhat less harsh > seems like a reasonable option to take. If you think the current rules are bad, then yeah. > Getting all the blood > off of a minion when you yield contestation, however, seems like a > totally reasonable, minor change that would make contestation much > less harsh but without changing it too much. You still lose control of > a minion. You still have a penalty for being contested. If you don't > want to yield the contestation, you end up in the exact same place you > would have with the current rules. You can still "strategically" > contest a minion to remove them from play. If someone has gotten a > bunch of use out of that minion (i.e. spent all their blood already), > they don't get much, if any, return. Any part of the contestation > rules that might encourage people to play less popular vampires is > still there. A penalty for playing more popular vampires is still > there. Someone (can't remember who) suggested an option to move 2-4 blood each time you paid to contest. That was imo the best one so far in the thread. I still think the current rules are better though.

On Jul 22, 3:36 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > You lose as soon as you start contesting a large cap vampire, agreed. > > > That's not true, and I don't even think you believe it is. > > I believe it is true because both reason and experience have shown it > to be true. Then you have a lot to learn about V:tES. > > If you don't have anything else to come with than stuff like this I > > suggest you quit here. > > I hear your suggestion, but yet don't find it valid. Since you still > haven't addressed how "it is fair that one player arbitrarily loses > 33% of their starting pool at the beginning of the game". > > Please address how you think that is both "fair" and "appropriate". It's "fair" and "appropriate" the same way I got get bled for 15 by dominate weenies before I got to use my 10 transfers to influence out Democritus. It's "fair" and "appropriate" because I allowed it to happen by building a deck that couldn't handle a contest.

On Jul 22, 4:23 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 3:36 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > You lose as soon as you start contesting a large cap vampire, agreed. > > > > That's not true, and I don't even think you believe it is. > > > I believe it is true because both reason and experience have shown it > > to be true. > > Then you have a lot to learn about V:tES. Apparently, just not from you.... > > > If you don't have anything else to come with than stuff like this I > > > suggest you quit here. > > > I hear your suggestion, but yet don't find it valid. Since you still > > haven't addressed how "it is fair that one player arbitrarily loses > > 33% of their starting pool at the beginning of the game". > > > Please address how you think that is both "fair" and "appropriate". > > It's "fair" and "appropriate" the same way I got get bled for 15 by > dominate weenies before I got to use my 10 transfers to influence out > Democritus. It's "fair" and "appropriate" because I allowed it to > happen by building a deck that couldn't handle a contest. You are trying to sidetrack the discussion with "Dominate weenies" which are not pertinent to the discussion. How would you build a deck that uses Democritus, and is focused on Democritus and vampires like Democritus, that could handle losing Democritus to a contest as soon as you influenced him into play? You are starting on turn 4 with something in the range of 15-20 pool. You haven't played a card that required a minion, discipline or clan yet. You have had 3 discards. Your predator has 3 minions in play (4 turns of transfers with average minion capacity 4-5 range). You prey has 2 minions. Do you contest? What is your strategy to win the game with this starting position? You say that you can strategically and tactically deal with this situation, but I still haven't heard how yet?

> How would you build a deck that uses Democritus, and is focused on > Democritus and vampires like Democritus, that could handle losing > Democritus to a contest as soon as you influenced him into play? You > are starting on turn 4 with something in the range of 15-20 pool. You > haven't played a card that required a minion, discipline or clan yet. > You have had 3 discards. Your predator has 3 minions in play (4 turns > of transfers with average minion capacity 4-5 range). You prey has 2 > minions. Do you contest? What is your strategy to win the game with > this starting position? > > You say that you can strategically and tactically deal with this > situation, but I still haven't heard how yet? You would run Democritus with little Dominaters to bounce early bleeds, so that if your predator showed bleed xe might think twice about pushing it. Who in there right mind would transfer on the last four pool to a 10 cap already in play? Only six pool is invested, you may not even need to transfer off. You don't have to tell the truth about the minion, any large cap on the table will do.

On Jul 22, 5:10 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > How would you build a deck that uses Democritus, and is focused on > > Democritus and vampires like Democritus, that could handle losing > > Democritus to a contest as soon as you influenced him into play? You > > are starting on turn 4 with something in the range of 15-20 pool. You > > haven't played a card that required a minion, discipline or clan yet. > > You have had 3 discards. Your predator has 3 minions in play (4 turns > > of transfers with average minion capacity 4-5 range). You prey has 2 > > minions. Do you contest? What is your strategy to win the game with > > this starting position? > > > You say that you can strategically and tactically deal with this > > situation, but I still haven't heard how yet? > > You would run Democritus with little Dominaters to bounce early > bleeds, so that if your predator showed bleed xe might think twice > about pushing it. okay, so you now start influencing your little dominators on turn 4. Do you contest? > Who in there right mind would transfer on the last four pool to a 10 > cap already in play? Only six pool is invested, you may not even need > to transfer off. You don't have to tell the truth about the minion, > any large cap on the table will do. It isn't your choice. Some OTHER methuselah has contested with you AFTER you influenced Democritus into play. Democritus is contested. How do you deal with it?

On Jul 22, 11:44 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > Please address how you think that is both "fair" and "appropriate". > > > It's "fair" and "appropriate" the same way I got get bled for 15 by > > dominate weenies before I got to use my 10 transfers to influence out > > Democritus. It's "fair" and "appropriate" because I allowed it to > > happen by building a deck that couldn't handle a contest. > > You are trying to sidetrack the discussion with "Dominate weenies" > which are not pertinent to the discussion. If I'm asked to tell how I think something is "fair" and "appropriate" I don't believe using examples should be called "trying to sidetrack". Seriously. > How would you build a deck that uses Democritus, and is focused on > Democritus and vampires like Democritus, that could handle losing > Democritus to a contest as soon as you influenced him into play? You > are starting on turn 4 with something in the range of 15-20 pool. You > haven't played a card that required a minion, discipline or clan yet. > You have had 3 discards. Your predator has 3 minions in play (4 turns > of transfers with average minion capacity 4-5 range). You prey has 2 > minions. Do you contest? What is your strategy to win the game with > this starting position? > > You say that you can strategically and tactically deal with this > situation, but I still haven't heard how yet? My strategy is to not play that deck since it obviously lacks crypt acceleration (4-6 Zillah's, 2-3 Information Highway and 2-3 Dreams of the Sphinx in a ~75 card library are good numbers). This would make me get Democritus up fast, and if he was contested I could probably get a new minion within 1-2 turns. That minion would Parity Shift, GtU down for bloat or something similar. An example where I play a stupid deck doesn't really bring anything to the discussion.

> It isn't your choice. Some OTHER methuselah has contested with you > AFTER you influenced Democritus into play. > > Democritus is contested. How do you deal with it? I would do everything in my power to stay ahead of the OTHER methuselahs pool, to make them yield. Then after the game I would ask what they were planning, if I hadn't already seen it hoping to get some insight as to why they would do such a thing. Contesting should delayed until the table Balance starts to break, but it can be a mechanic to break it when you want, if you have the option.

On Jul 22, 5:20 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 11:44 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > Please address how you think that is both "fair" and "appropriate". > > > > It's "fair" and "appropriate" the same way I got get bled for 15 by > > > dominate weenies before I got to use my 10 transfers to influence out > > > Democritus. It's "fair" and "appropriate" because I allowed it to > > > happen by building a deck that couldn't handle a contest. > > > You are trying to sidetrack the discussion with "Dominate weenies" > > which are not pertinent to the discussion. > > If I'm asked to tell how I think something is "fair" and "appropriate" > I don't believe using examples should be called "trying to sidetrack". > Seriously. Okay if you are serious, then you are dead if you are playing Democritus and your predator is playing dominate weenies. You've hemorrhaged 15 pool while you are trying to influence out Democritus and will hemorrhage the other 5 trying to get out your next minion. Thanks for proving my point, seriously. > > How would you build a deck that uses Democritus, and is focused on > > Democritus and vampires like Democritus, that could handle losing > > Democritus to a contest as soon as you influenced him into play? You > > are starting on turn 4 with something in the range of 15-20 pool. You > > haven't played a card that required a minion, discipline or clan yet. > > You have had 3 discards. Your predator has 3 minions in play (4 turns > > of transfers with average minion capacity 4-5 range). You prey has 2 > > minions. Do you contest? What is your strategy to win the game with > > this starting position? > > > You say that you can strategically and tactically deal with this > > situation, but I still haven't heard how yet? > > My strategy is to not play that deck since it obviously lacks crypt > acceleration (4-6 Zillah's, 2-3 Information Highway and 2-3 Dreams of > the Sphinx in a ~75 card library are good numbers). This would make me > get Democritus up fast, and if he was contested I could probably get a > new minion within 1-2 turns. That minion would Parity Shift, GtU down > for bloat or something similar. So you get out Democritus 1 turn early, so what? He is contested. You've got 20 pool left how do you spend it? Oh on a minion that could play Parity Shift and Govern Down, lucky for you Gilbert Duane the cheapest vampire who can do that is in your crypt. So you get him into play on turn 4 or 5, because you have all this accleration. You now have 13 pool less the amount you predator has taken away from you which if you are still alive will put your pool total down in the single digits plus the cost to contest. So you have 8 pool if you are lucky a contested Democritus and Gilbert Duane at the beginning of turn 5. You're sucking air and have a pulse, but your game is going nowhere quick. Do you contest? Do you act or wall up. You've only got one minion. Even with a perfect hand you are only going to get so much out of that one vampire before he ends up out of blood or tapped out or in torpor. You're just keeping the seat warm at the table with a hot body. You dont' really have a chance at winning. > An example where I play a stupid deck doesn't really bring anything to > the discussion. At least you tried, good for you.

On Jul 22, 5:42 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It isn't your choice. Some OTHER methuselah has contested with you > > AFTER you influenced Democritus into play. > > > Democritus is contested. How do you deal with it? > > I would do everything in my power to stay ahead of the OTHER > methuselahs pool, to make them yield. Sounds like a plan. You still have to be able to execute that plan and with the way things are set up now, you won't have any resources available to do so until you get your next minion into play. > Then after the game I would ask what they were planning, if I hadn't > already seen it hoping to get some insight as to why they would do > such a thing. I imagine you would hear something like, "My deck is focused around Democritus, and I figured I could get you to yield before I got ousted", which is the honest and obvious answer to that question. I imagine you would go have a beer and think , " I can't believe that guy contested me. It ruined my whole game". >Contesting should delayed until the table Balance starts > to break, but it can be a mechanic to break it when you want, if you > have the option. No doubt.

On Jul 22, 5:19 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm only sidestepping them when the discussion goes away from that > topic. I've stated several times that I don't believe the penalties > are overly harsh though, so I'm not trying to hide that in any way. At > least not more than you tried to hide that there are ways to deal with > contesting other than losing your current game. At no point was I "hiding" that there are ways to deal with contesting other than losing your current game. That is simply irrelevant to the discussion. Much like "you can use fortitude" was irrelevant to "is it too powerful that a single point of aggravated damage can burn a vampire?" (the answer was "yes", and the rule was changed). Can you mitigate the damage of contesting? In some cases, sure. But that is not relevant to "is the penalty of contestation too great". > I don't want to start some "counting people" war here, but I honestly > haven't seen "many" people stating that the current rules are overly > harsh. I'm not counting anyone. I simply brought up that Garfield, the designer of the game, stated flat out that the penalty for contestation might be too great. That quote is floating around this thread. > Still though, many posts have stated that contesting a vampire > inevitably leads to a game loss. Sometimes, that is the case. If I am playing weenie Dementaton, and someone contests Eddie Gaines? Yeah, that isn't leading to a game loss. -Peter

On Jul 12, 2:56 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > "If two (or more) copies of a unique minion are in play, both are > flipped over and considered out of play. During each player's untap > phase, they must pay a pool to flip over their copy of the minion into > play (and flip over their opponent's copy out of play) and may use the > vampire as normal until their opponent does the same on their untap > phase. They may choose to not pay a pool and burn their copy of the > minion immediately." I think the idea is cool. I might like it a bit better if the effect you describe cost 2 pool, and 1 pool was merely the cost of not burning your copy. But maybe that's getting too complex now. To play devil's advocate, I think contesting should be scary. It is one of those "equalizing" considerations that makes the "good vampires" less good (though, as you say, the sheer number of vampires -- even "good" vampires -- still makes it incredibly random). At the same tournament as Ben played Lutz as his key vamp, I was playing Lucretia. It may well be that the fact that he got contested, and I did not, was not COMPLETELY random. I note that this thread is 386 posts long, and I have read virtually none of them. Forgive if what I say has been said ten times before.

On Jul 20, 6:08 pm, Bill Ricardi <billrica...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Of the problems that need fixing with VTES, contesting rates so low on > the list as to be laughable. Why is this fairly rare issue so > important to you, when there is so much work to be done that can > attract new players and enhance everyone's enjoyment of the game? Why are you harassing LSJ for trying to improve the game? The cost of this discussion is fairly low; perhaps a few hours of his time spread over a few weeks. If he can come up with a way to improve the problems with contesting, especially while involving the community, that's awesome. Not everyone agrees with you that VTES should strive to be like Magic, as you apparently think is the goal of a CCG. Personally, I think it's extremely cool and elegant that cards from '94 are still balanced and playable today. Ira

On Jul 21, 3:31 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > henrik wrote: > >>>> Costing the vampire in question would certainly not empower GtU. Indeed, it > >>>> would weaken it (and the other bloat-through-the-uncontrolled-region effects). > >>> It would change GtU. In ways which could be either good or bad for the > >>> one playing the card. > >> Um. Yeah. In the vast majority of cases in which a player puts GtU in the deck > >> to crypt bloat, it will be worse. > > > Just to make it clear, are you talking about exchanging the rule where > > you can use 2 transfers to bring 1 blood back from an uncontrolled > > vampire to your pool? If that's the case, then I can see that you have > > a point (even if it also opens up new ways to use GtU for bloating). > > Correct. > > "Originally there was no way to retrieve counters from uncontrolled cards. Due > to contesting, a way was added. It costs 2 transfers. Why cost 2? Why not cost 1 > or cost the vampire?" Hello LSJ, Could you reiterate the most promising improvement that you're currently considering? I will implement that change in all my JOL and non-tournament games moving forward, so that perhaps sometime in the next year I might get some playtest data to report. I probably played 10+ Kuta transfer rule games, and I feel much more informed to speak about it. I think it's good and elegant, but recent card design (Scourge of the Enochians) has done a lot to counter act the weenie issue and fatty issue. I don't think a similar solution will be possible for the contestation problem, so I look forward to testing out a rules change. Maybe many local playgroups can try out the rule, and over enough time, you'll get some real feedback. I really appreciate that you are open to the feedback of the community, and are so responsive to our communication. It is one of the great pleasures of playing this game IMO. Thanks, Ira

On Jul 22, 11:19 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm only sidestepping them when the discussion goes away from that > topic. I've stated several times that I don't believe the penalties > are overly harsh though, so I'm not trying to hide that in any way. At > least not more than you tried to hide that there are ways to deal with > contesting other than losing your current game. Please show what these ways are. Have heard you mention them numerous times now, yet have not seen or read one single concrete example. Please provide one to support your argument > In a way they do though, since if you don't try to build a deck that > can handle a contest then the penalty for contesting will be tougher. > Just like facing combat is tougher for a deck that doesn't have combat > defense. If the thoughts of losing a minion was with you during deck > building, then the penalties aren't too harsh imo. Please elaborate your plan for being able to handle a contestation in your deck building and design phase. Then please explain how to apply that, realistically, during a game. > Well, to me it would be stupid, since I don't think the penalties are > too harsh. But one can have that opinion, for sure. > For me, and the people I play with, it's only overly debilitating if > you haven't prepared for it. And if you haven't prepared for > something, then it's just to suck it up when it happens. Please elaborate your plan for being able to handle a contestation in your deck building and design phase. Then please explain how to apply that, realistically, during a game.

On Jul 23, 3:58 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Much like "you can use fortitude" was irrelevant to "is it > too powerful that a single point of aggravated damage can burn a > vampire?" (the answer was "yes", and the rule was changed). Can you > mitigate the damage of contesting? In some cases, sure. But that is > not relevant to "is the penalty of contestation too great". I believen it's relevant, since the penalties are lessened if you take appropriate precautions. And not doing that is a choice, which can lead to losing a game due to contesting. The fact that there are things to balance out the penalty of contesting is relevant. If someone said that stealth was too strong, than I think that pointing out intercept would be relevant. > I'm not counting anyone. I simply brought up that Garfield, the > designer of the game, stated flat out that the penalty for > contestation might be too great. That quote is floating around this > thread. Yeah, I read the quote. Doesn't mean I think he's right though. I was more opposed to you stating that it was "the view of many people" that contesting was too harsh. Since I don't think that many people have written in this thread. > > Still though, many posts have stated that contesting a vampire > > inevitably leads to a game loss. > > Sometimes, that is the case. If I am playing weenie Dementaton, and > someone contests Eddie Gaines? Yeah, that isn't leading to a game > loss. Of course, sometimes contesting leads to a game loss. Sometimes it leads to a game win as well. And contesting Eddie Gaines can lead to a game loss just like contesting Democritus can, or they can both not lead to a game loss.

On Jul 23, 9:49 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 11:19 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm only sidestepping them when the discussion goes away from that > > topic. I've stated several times that I don't believe the penalties > > are overly harsh though, so I'm not trying to hide that in any way. At > > least not more than you tried to hide that there are ways to deal with > > contesting other than losing your current game. > > Please show what these ways are. Have heard you mention them numerous > times now, yet have not seen or read one single concrete example. > Please provide one to support your argument Read the thread if you're really interested, I'm sure that would do more good than some sort of witch hunt. The short version is to build a better deck and table talk. > Please elaborate your plan for being able to handle a contestation in > your deck building and design phase. > Then please explain how to apply that, realistically, during a game. Don't play crap decks, use crypt acceleration if you want big minions out, don't use 12 x 10 caps in a deck unless you're prepared to handle 3-4 turns without a minion in play. Have more than one minion who can play the cards in your library. When building decks, thinking about what the deck can do when in a tight spot is good, since those tight spots are bound to happen sometimes (if it's a contest, an amaranth or a banishment doesn't matter much). And if I see someone having a vampire, say Democritus, in play just before I was about to influence him out then I can try to make some kind of deal with that player. > Please elaborate your plan for being able to handle a contestation in > your deck building and design phase. > Then please explain how to apply that, realistically, during a game. Please read the thread, then think about how to play the game.

On Jul 23, 12:44 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Okay if you are serious, then you are dead if you are playing > Democritus and your predator is playing dominate weenies. You've > hemorrhaged 15 pool while you are trying to influence out Democritus > and will hemorrhage the other 5 trying to get out your next minion. > Thanks for proving my point, seriously. Here's where you're wrong. Dude, with an attitude like that I don't see how it would be possible to ever get a single victory point. > > My strategy is to not play that deck since it obviously lacks crypt > > acceleration (4-6 Zillah's, 2-3 Information Highway and 2-3 Dreams of > > the Sphinx in a ~75 card library are good numbers). This would make me > > get Democritus up fast, and if he was contested I could probably get a > > new minion within 1-2 turns. That minion would Parity Shift, GtU down > > for bloat or something similar. > > So you get out Democritus 1 turn early, so what? No, I wouldn't. It usually doesn't go that fast even with crypt acceleration. > He is contested. If, like you told wedge earlier, Democritus was contested by someone else (after I had influenced him out) then my problem is playing with asshats, not the rules of contesting. But that's a side point. > You've got 20 pool left how do you spend it? Oh on a minion that > could play Parity Shift and Govern Down, lucky for you Gilbert Duane > the cheapest vampire who can do that is in your crypt. So you get > him into play on turn 4 or 5, because you have all this accleration. > > You now have 13 pool less the amount you predator has taken away from > you which if you are still alive will put your pool total down in the > single digits plus the cost to contest. > > So you have 8 pool if you are lucky a contested Democritus and Gilbert > Duane at the beginning of turn 5. You're sucking air and have a > pulse, but your game is going nowhere quick. Do you contest? Do you > act or wall up. You've only got one minion. Even with a perfect hand > you are only going to get so much out of that one vampire before he > ends up out of blood or tapped out or in torpor. > > You're just keeping the seat warm at the table with a hot body. You > dont' really have a chance at winning. The thing is, I could write up an example where I contest Democritus an entire game while sweeping the table. But that, and this crap you're doing, is more side tracking than this thread has ever seen (and it's seen much, I agree with that). Yesterday I contested Victor Pelletier. 5 pool, 3 pool for Justicar title, 2 more pool and an action for Alastor with a Flame Thrower. And I didn't spend my game sucking air, I spent it trying to oust my prey while defending against a power bleed deck. Please tell me what your point is with the example. To get me to say that one can be screwed by contesting? I know you can. I've never said that you can't get screwed by contesting. I've said that if you play proper decks, getting screwed by a contest requires much more than just ending up at a table where contesting can happen. I've even said that no defence is airtight, so yeah, even a deck that's built to be able to handle a contest might not get the right cards to make it. But that goes for any defence in any deck. Anti combat defence won't always save you from combat either. Sometimes bad luck happens, and when it does it sucks. But changing the rules because you had some bad luck isn't a good option.

On Jul 23, 10:40 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 9:49 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 22, 11:19 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm only sidestepping them when the discussion goes away from that > > > topic. I've stated several times that I don't believe the penalties > > > are overly harsh though, so I'm not trying to hide that in any way. At > > > least not more than you tried to hide that there are ways to deal with > > > contesting other than losing your current game. > > > Please show what these ways are. Have heard you mention them numerous > > times now, yet have not seen or read one single concrete example. > > Please provide one to support your argument > > Read the thread if you're really interested, I'm sure that would do > more good than some sort of witch hunt. > The short version is to build a better deck and table talk. What witch hunt? I ask you to support arguments that you have been forwarding throughout this entire thread (which I have been reading since post 1). Your immediate response is to assume a witch hunt? If your suppositions are too flimsy to bear scrutiny, maybe you should try for a more robust argument. Please explain how to build a better deck against contestation. By this I mean your definition of what a better deck is for this situation. It seems to me that it would (using your previous posts as an example) most likely contain weenie DOM, no star vamps such as Arika, Lutz, hardestadt, Fatima, or any similar. But some actual description of how to make a better deck against contestation would be good > > > Please elaborate your plan for being able to handle a contestation in > > your deck building and design phase. > > Then please explain how to apply that, realistically, during a game. > > Don't play crap decks, use crypt acceleration if you want big minions > out, don't use 12 x 10 caps in a deck unless you're prepared to handle > 3-4 turns without a minion in play. How do you get all these statements into one sentence and not have your brain melt due to self conflict? If you use crypt acceleration you should be able to get your minions out faster than 3-4 turns. And do you mean that any deck with big cap minions is automatically crap? Because if we take the original deck in this thread as an example, I generally do not consider well tuned Lutz Vote decks crap decks. You might, but i certainly don't. > Have more than one minion who can > play the cards in your library. Uh, check. How does this help when I have an 11 cap that has just been contested? Note, as this seems not to get through to you, I have the vamp out already, somebody else contests him. > When building decks, thinking about what the deck can do when in a > tight spot is good, since those tight spots are bound to happen > sometimes (if it's a contest, an amaranth or a banishment doesn't > matter much). Very true. What do you do when your 11 cap IC is contested? > And if I see someone having a vampire, say Democritus, in play just > before I was about to influence him out then I can try to make some > kind of deal with that player. Good point. However, I have Arika in play and someone starts contesting her with me. How does you plan help, AT ALL? > > Please elaborate your plan for being able to handle a contestation in > > your deck building and design phase. > > Then please explain how to apply that, realistically, during a game. > > Please read the thread, then think about how to play the game. Sigh.... I have read the entire thread. Your repeated attempts at denigrating my or Norm' intelligence with statements such as "Think about how to play the game" are tiresome, irritating and avoid the point of the discussion. If you cannot answer the questions posed as a result of your own statements, STFU. Alternatively, try to make a reply that does take your opponents intelligence into question. Of course, that is going to require you making an actual defence of your statement, as opposed to attempting multiple constant distractions instead. Now, to paraphrase you, read the actual questions, and then try to think of a real answer, and not a dodge.

On Jul 23, 10:58 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Read the thread if you're really interested, I'm sure that would do > > more good than some sort of witch hunt. > > The short version is to build a better deck and table talk. > > What witch hunt? I ask you to support arguments that you have been > forwarding throughout this entire thread (which I have been reading > since post 1). > Your immediate response is to assume a witch hunt? If your > suppositions are too flimsy to bear scrutiny, maybe you should try for > a more robust argument. I was talking about the part where you said I just talked about having arguments but not stating them, and the part where you (in the end of your last post) copy+pasted the same thing twice. And the part where you accused me for strawmen, dodging the topic and stuff like that. > Please explain how to build a better deck against contestation. By > this I mean your definition of what a better deck is for this > situation. It seems to me that it would (using your previous posts as > an example) most likely contain weenie DOM, no star vamps such as > Arika, Lutz, hardestadt, Fatima, or any similar. But some actual > description of how to make a better deck against contestation would be > good Again, I've stated this several times in the thread so if you've read it you should know that. But sure. If I'm playing a crypt with only high caps (which is a risk, especially when it comes to contesting) then I make sure to have lots of crypt acceleration. This helps me to get my first minion out fast, so that others might not have influenced said minion out before me (since, in the end, the one who brings out the second copy is usually the one who brings the contest to the table). If I'm playing with a star vampire, I start of by thinking about how big risk there is for contesting that vampire in the upcoming tournament. If it's a new, really strong vampire I probably chose another deck since the risk is too high. Do note that I said risk for contesting, not penalty for contesting. Contesting is worse than not contesting, and this is a choice I'd make even if the rules for contesting was changed to something less harsh. But back to the star vampire scenario. Again, if it's a big minion I use crypt acceleration. If there are no really good reasons for it, which there usually isn't, I don't include more high caps than the actual star vampire. I include weenies/midcaps that are selected by their abilities to get the deck working somewhat even if I don't get the star vampire out (or if I end up in a contest). Yes, dominate weenies that can bounce bleeds are great here (if appropriate to the rest of the deck) but by far not the only choice. Stick, Bobby Lemon and Beetleman could work if the star vampire has ANI. I'm sure you can figure the trick out. Thinking about what clan the supporting vampires might is also be important if you want to use clan based masters or so. There are a couple of ways to lessen the effect of contesting. Basically, make sure your deck can be played without your star vampire or if anything happens to the first minion you bring out. Reality is that lots of things can happen, and which of all the possible things is kinda hard to foresee. But making sure you can manage without that vampire is good. > > Don't play crap decks, use crypt acceleration if you want big minions > > out, don't use 12 x 10 caps in a deck unless you're prepared to handle > > 3-4 turns without a minion in play. > > How do you get all these statements into one sentence and not have > your brain melt due to self conflict? If you use crypt acceleration > you should be able to get your minions out faster than 3-4 turns. 1) you might have bad luck and not get enough crypt acceleration 2) you might end up contesting your first minion (OMG!!! someone considers that when building decks??????) in which case it'll take more time than planned 3) you might get a Pentex Subversion on your first minion in which case you'll have to wait for the second one to remove it (unless someone else at the table has actions to spare, which isn't always the case) > And > do you mean that any deck with big cap minions is automatically crap? Not at all. > Because if we take the original deck in this thread as an example, I > generally do not consider well tuned Lutz Vote decks crap decks. You > might, but i certainly don't. I wouldn't consider a deck that ended up contesting 2/3 games well tuned. > > Have more than one minion who can > > play the cards in your library. > > Uh, check. How does this help when I have an 11 cap that has just been > contested? Note, as this seems not to get through to you, I have the > vamp out already, somebody else contests him. You can bring out a second minion and still be able to play the cards in your deck. If that doesn't help I don't know what will. > > When building decks, thinking about what the deck can do when in a > > tight spot is good, since those tight spots are bound to happen > > sometimes (if it's a contest, an amaranth or a banishment doesn't > > matter much). > > Very true. What do you do when your 11 cap IC is contested? Depends on the situation. Contest or yield, I suppose. If it was Alexandra in the 22x Alexandra deck I suck it up and wish myself better luck on the next table. If it was Arika in a council deck I bring out Marcus or Gratiano and try to bloat/oust. > > And if I see someone having a vampire, say Democritus, in play just > > before I was about to influence him out then I can try to make some > > kind of deal with that player. > > Good point. However, I have Arika in play and someone starts > contesting her with me. How does you plan help, AT ALL? How talking helps in that situation? Well, asking why the player started contesting is a good start. Was it so xe would be able to oust me and get a game win? Not much to do then other than congratulate. Was it completely arbitrary and just because xe could (even though it'll lead to us both getting ousted without victory points)? Then I tell that person how stupid it was, and depending on who it was I probably don't play with xer again. If it's a reasonable person, xe won't just start a contest without telling me (unless it's in a direct attempt to oust me, personally or by giving someone else the opportunity). And for my plan, having other minions who can use the cards in my deck allows me to yield (or possibly keep contesting if I'm good on pool) while getting to play my game anyway (even if I don't get to do it in a perfect situation). > > Please read the thread, then think about how to play the game. > > Sigh.... > I have read the entire thread. Your repeated attempts at denigrating > my or Norm' intelligence with statements such as "Think about how to > play the game" are tiresome, irritating and avoid the point of the > discussion. And your stupid examples about impossible to win scenarios aren't tiresome, irritating and avoiding the point of discussion? Yeah, right. > If you cannot answer the questions posed as a result of > your own statements, STFU. Sure. > Alternatively, try to make a reply that > does take your opponents intelligence into question. Of course, that > is going to require you making an actual defence of your statement, as > opposed to attempting multiple constant distractions instead. > > Now, to paraphrase you, read the actual questions, and then try to > think of a real answer, and not a dodge. I have answered the questions. And if you had, as you said, read the entire thread you should have read those things before.

On Jul 23, 11:55 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 10:58 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Read the thread if you're really interested, I'm sure that would do > > > more good than some sort of witch hunt. > > > The short version is to build a better deck and table talk. > > > What witch hunt? I ask you to support arguments that you have been > > forwarding throughout this entire thread (which I have been reading > > since post 1). > > Your immediate response is to assume a witch hunt? If your > > suppositions are too flimsy to bear scrutiny, maybe you should try for > > a more robust argument. > > I was talking about the part where you said I just talked about having > arguments but not stating them, and the part where you (in the end of > your last post) copy+pasted the same thing twice. And the part where > you accused me for strawmen, dodging the topic and stuff like that. So if I call you out on not supporting your argument, using strawmen, and evading the topic, i am not trying to get this thread back on topic, but am starting a witch hunt? Paranoid much? [ quoted text not captured ] And again you make all kinds of statements about other vampires being able to do the job etc. However, you have STILL not answered the question of what do you do about the fact that you are contesting a 8-11 cap minion thorough no choice of you own, are out the pool and transfers for that minion, cannot recoup the pool/blood, are unable to take any actions until yo have another minion out and will most likely get bled senseless before then. How does yorn deck deal with this? > Basically, make sure your deck can be played without your star vampire > or if anything happens to the first minion you bring out. Reality is > that lots of things can happen, and which of all the possible things > is kinda hard to foresee. But making sure you can manage without that > vampire is good. Very good point. If my minion gets torpored, I have access to golconda or similar, or even a rescue. If my minion gets burnt, I will most likely have the table's sympathy, and it is my own fault for not packing combat defence in the first place. Please explain what you do WHEN YOU ARE BUSY BEING CONTESTED? > > > > Don't play crap decks, use crypt acceleration if you want big minions > > > out, don't use 12 x 10 caps in a deck unless you're prepared to handle > > > 3-4 turns without a minion in play. > > > How do you get all these statements into one sentence and not have > > your brain melt due to self conflict? If you use crypt acceleration > > you should be able to get your minions out faster than 3-4 turns. > > 1) you might have bad luck and not get enough crypt acceleration > 2) you might end up contesting your first minion (OMG!!! someone > considers that when building decks??????) in which case it'll take > more time than planned > 3) you might get a Pentex Subversion on your first minion in which > case you'll have to wait for the second one to remove it (unless > someone else at the table has actions to spare, which isn't always the > case) And again, what does any of this have to do with how your deck handles contestation? > > > And > > do you mean that any deck with big cap minions is automatically crap? > > Not at all. > > > Because if we take the original deck in this thread as an example, I > > generally do not consider well tuned Lutz Vote decks crap decks. You > > might, but i certainly don't. > > I wouldn't consider a deck that ended up contesting 2/3 games well > tuned. So because the player had the very bad luck of sitting in 2 out of 3 games at a table with another Lutz deck, his deck is not well tuned. Crack is bad, stop smoking it. > > > > Have more than one minion who can > > > play the cards in your library. > > > Uh, check. How does this help when I have an 11 cap that has just been > > contested? Note, as this seems not to get through to you, I have the > > vamp out already, somebody else contests him. > > You can bring out a second minion and still be able to play the cards > in your deck. If that doesn't help I don't know what will. You are down to about 5-10 pool at this point, haemorrhaging another pool per turn without taking bleed, how does the second minion help with contestation? > > > > When building decks, thinking about what the deck can do when in a > > > tight spot is good, since those tight spots are bound to happen > > > sometimes (if it's a contest, an amaranth or a banishment doesn't > > > matter much). > > > Very true. What do you do when your 11 cap IC is contested? > > Depends on the situation. Contest or yield, I suppose. If it was > Alexandra in the 22x Alexandra deck I suck it up and wish myself > better luck on the next table. If it was Arika in a council deck I > bring out Marcus or Gratiano and try to bloat/oust. So Arika is contested. Best case scenario: You have Info Highway in play from turn one, you have a counter less Dreams in ply, and A zillah's valley in your hand. opening hand had a second Zillah's used to get Arika out early. You have contested her once now. You are on 17 pool, need 2 turns and another 9 pool to get a minion out, how dop you bloat once your prey bleeds you for 5-8? In fatc, how does this deck now deal with Contestation? Do you consider the extremely well represented in the TWDA Ventrue with Obf deck a generally badly tuned deck? If not, how is it supposed to deal with the first minion getting contested? > > > > And if I see someone having a vampire, say Democritus, in play just > > > before I was about to influence him out then I can try to make some > > > kind of deal with that player. > > > Good point. However, I have Arika in play and someone starts > > contesting her with me. How does you plan help, AT ALL? > > How talking helps in that situation? Well, asking why the player > started contesting is a good start. Does it help with contest? No. Does it make you understand why the contest happened? Yes. > Was it so xe would be able to oust > me and get a game win? Not much to do then other than congratulate. > Was it completely arbitrary and just because xe could (even though > it'll lead to us both getting ousted without victory points)? Then I > tell that person how stupid it was, and depending on who it was I > probably don't play with xer again. > If it's a reasonable person, xe won't just start a contest without > telling me (unless it's in a direct attempt to oust me, personally or > by giving someone else the opportunity). > And for my plan, having other minions who can use the cards in my deck > allows me to yield (or possibly keep contesting if I'm good on pool) > while getting to play my game anyway (even if I don't get to do it in > a perfect situation). So having one minion in play and about 3 pool is a "not perfect situation" for you before your first action? Either you are hyper optimistic, or you are smoking crack. > > > > Please read the thread, then think about how to play the game. > > > Sigh.... > > I have read the entire thread. Your repeated attempts at denigrating > > my or Norm' intelligence with statements such as "Think about how to > > play the game" are tiresome, irritating and avoid the point of the > > discussion. > > And your stupid examples about impossible to win scenarios aren't > tiresome, irritating and avoiding the point of discussion? > Yeah, right. Show me one such example i have made please? > > > If you cannot answer the questions posed as a result of > > your own statements, STFU. > > Sure. > > > Alternatively, try to make a reply that > > does take your opponents intelligence into question. Of course, that > > is going to require you making an actual defence of your statement, as > > opposed to attempting multiple constant distractions instead. > > > Now, to paraphrase you, read the actual questions, and then try to > > think of a real answer, and not a dodge. > > I have answered the questions. And if you had, as you said, read the > entire thread you should have read those things before. Henrik, you have in the above post made actual substantive statements regarding how you would deal with contestation for the first time in this thread, as opposed to vague hints. Your answers still do not give clear understanding of how to deal with an actual contestation, not just the theoretical possibility of one, but at least you are improving now. Keep trying, ok?

On Jul 23, 12:26 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I was talking about the part where you said I just talked about having > > arguments but not stating them, and the part where you (in the end of > > your last post) copy+pasted the same thing twice. And the part where > > you accused me for strawmen, dodging the topic and stuff like that. > > So if I call you out on not supporting your argument, using strawmen, > and evading the topic, i am not trying to get this thread back on > topic, but am starting a witch hunt? Paranoid much? When using the kind of language and tactics that you was, then yeah. Telling me to STFU and stuff like that is hardly trying to bring the thread back on topic. > And again you make all kinds of statements about other vampires being > able to do the job etc. Of course. Not relying 100 % on one single minion is a way to be able to survive a contest. How does that statement not compute? > However, you have STILL not answered the > question of what do you do about the fact that you are contesting a > 8-11 cap minion thorough no choice of you own, are out the pool and > transfers for that minion, cannot recoup the pool/blood, are unable to > take any actions until yo have another minion out and will most likely > get bled senseless before then. How does yorn deck deal with this? Still, I'd bring out 1+ new minion(s), try to gain pool and keep the contesting up or yield and try to win anyway. > > Basically, make sure your deck can be played without your star vampire > > or if anything happens to the first minion you bring out. Reality is > > that lots of things can happen, and which of all the possible things > > is kinda hard to foresee. But making sure you can manage without that > > vampire is good. > > Very good point. If my minion gets torpored, I have access to golconda > or similar, or even a rescue. And if you're gonna go that path, just throw in Praxis Solomon instead of Golconda. All you need is a 1 cap minion to call it, and possible some vote help from crosstable. > If my minion gets burnt, I will most > likely have the table's sympathy, and it is my own fault for not > packing combat defence in the first place. Just like when contesting, you will most likely have the table's sympathy and it's your own fault for not "packing" contest defence. > Please explain what you do WHEN YOU ARE BUSY BEING CONTESTED? Depends on the situation, mr "I post in caps when not witch hunting". Yesterday I contested Victor Pelletier (10 pool spent on him all in all) an entire game. I used my other minions to gain pool so I could keep the contesting up. Sometimes I've yielded when facing a contest. > > 1) you might have bad luck and not get enough crypt acceleration > > 2) you might end up contesting your first minion (OMG!!! someone > > considers that when building decks??????) in which case it'll take > > more time than planned > > 3) you might get a Pentex Subversion on your first minion in which > > case you'll have to wait for the second one to remove it (unless > > someone else at the table has actions to spare, which isn't always the > > case) > > And again, what does any of this have to do with how your deck handles > contestation? Again, if you're prepared for not always being in a perfect situation then you might be able to handle a contest. > > I wouldn't consider a deck that ended up contesting 2/3 games well > > tuned. > > So because the player had the very bad luck of sitting in 2 out of 3 > games at a table with another Lutz deck, his deck is not well tuned. No, it's not well tuned (especially not if contesting was the single reason xe lost those two games). Playing Lutz is one way of increasing the risk for contesting, playing Lutz and not being able to do anything but roll over if you end up contesting him isn't well tuned. > Crack is bad, stop smoking it. And here's you not witch hunting and just innocently bringing the thread back on topic? > > You can bring out a second minion and still be able to play the cards > > in your deck. If that doesn't help I don't know what will. > > You are down to about 5-10 pool at this point, haemorrhaging another > pool per turn without taking bleed, how does the second minion help > with contestation? Parity Shift, Art Scam, Legal Manipulations, Frontal Assault, Transfer of Power etc. There are many ways to gain pool by using a minion. That minion can also help you not lose more pool in a variety of ways. > > Depends on the situation. Contest or yield, I suppose. If it was > > Alexandra in the 22x Alexandra deck I suck it up and wish myself > > better luck on the next table. If it was Arika in a council deck I > > bring out Marcus or Gratiano and try to bloat/oust. > > So Arika is contested. Best case scenario: You have Info Highway in > play from turn one, you have a counter less Dreams in ply, and A > zillah's valley in your hand. > opening hand had a second Zillah's used to get Arika out early. You > have contested her once now. > > You are on 17 pool, need 2 turns and another 9 pool to get a minion > out, how dop you bloat once your prey bleeds you for 5-8? In fatc, how > does this deck now deal with Contestation? I can't tell you how that deck deals with contestation. It's a deck you made in your head. I'm not even sure it can deal with contestation. But one possible way would be to get a midcap (6-8) prince out and call a Parity Shift. Another possible way would be ~2 dominate weenies who could bounce some bleeds to the player you're contesting with. > Do you consider the > extremely well represented in the TWDA Ventrue with Obf deck a > generally badly tuned deck? If not, how is it supposed to deal with > the first minion getting contested? I don't know the exact deck you're talking about. But I might very well do. Many tournament winning decks are such decks that have taken a chance not to run into certain things and succeeded (due to luck or good meta gaming). Every deck has it's flaws, and contest is quite a common thing not to prepare for since it's a rare occurence. > > How talking helps in that situation? Well, asking why the player > > started contesting is a good start. > > Does it help with contest? No. Does it make you understand why the > contest happened? Yes. Understanding why it happened can help you talk your way out of it. > So having one minion in play and about 3 pool is a "not perfect > situation" for you before your first action? Either you are hyper > optimistic, or you are smoking crack. No, it's not a perfect situation. Quit the crack accusations now, they're not as funny as you might think. > > And your stupid examples about impossible to win scenarios aren't > > tiresome, irritating and avoiding the point of discussion? > > Yeah, right. > > Show me one such example i have made please? Read your earlier posts from today. > Henrik, you have in the above post made actual substantive statements > regarding how you would deal with contestation for the first time in > this thread, as opposed to vague hints. I've said most of those things before. > Your answers still do not give > clear understanding of how to deal with an actual contestation, not > just the theoretical possibility of one, but at least you are > improving now. Unless I'm in an actual contestation I won't be able to tell you how to handle that specific situation (and no, written examples about me having Arika contested and 3-4 pool left doesn't count). Each game of V:tES is rather unique, so what works at one table might not work at another. Cards in hand, cards in library, types of decks the others are playing, rest of starting crypt etc are all factors that help decide how a contest needs to be handled. The specific ways to be able to handle a contest are quite obvious to me though. Build your deck so that it can handle losing it's first minion fast. If you can handle that, then you can handle lots of situations that might come up during a tournament.

Ira Fay wrote: > On Jul 21, 3:31 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> "Originally there was no way to retrieve counters from uncontrolled cards. Due >> to contesting, a way was added. It costs 2 transfers. Why cost 2? Why not cost 1 >> or cost the vampire?" > > Hello LSJ, > > Could you reiterate the most promising improvement that you're > currently considering? I will implement that change in all my JOL and > non-tournament games moving forward, so that perhaps sometime in the > next year I might get some playtest data to report. Well, with the understanding that influence-back rule was added to handle contesting issues (and has ended up turning Ecoterrorists and superior Govern and the like into bloat tools instead of the pack-building tools they were designed to be), I'd say changing something along those lines wouldn't be too out of line (as long as something's getting changed regarding contesting): Remove "spend 2 transfers to move 1 counter from a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool." Add "remove from the game a crypt card in your uncontrolled region that would contest a card in play to move all blood counters from it to your pool and draw a card from your crypt". And make yielding a crypt card return the crypt card to the permanent controller's uncontrolled region, for good measure.

On Jul 23, 4:32 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I believen it's relevant, since the penalties are lessened if you take > appropriate precautions. And you could take appropriate precautions against Return to Innocence. That doesn't mean that it wasn't overpowered. > Yeah, I read the quote. Doesn't mean I think he's right though. I was > more opposed to you stating that it was "the view of many people" that > contesting was too harsh. Have I said that? I mean, I might have, but I don't remember doing so. And didn't in the post you responded to. I think you might be attributing things to me I did not say. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] If making it possible to pull back blood is the target, why not just use "you may transfer blood off of a contested vampire as if that vampire was in your uncontrolled region"? Pretty simple, and while it may stop short of completely solving the problem, if you can defend yourself long enough, you can gain all the pool back... Of course, there's the issue of whether I should be forced to yield once I drain the vampire, but I think it's fine if you can drain him and still continue to contest... Getting rid of the transfer back rule seems a little harsh...

[ quoted text not captured ] Especially seeing as a large number of decks, primarily wall decks rely on that 1-2 pool per turn from Powerbase Montreal for survival.....

Chris Berger wrote: > Getting rid of the transfer back rule seems a little harsh... Only if you view the transfer back rule as something desirable in a context other than contesting (e.g. bloat).

[ quoted text not captured ] Harsh is not the word I would use. A change like that would leave a _giant_ footprint. -witness1

On Jul 23, 2:52 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Yeah, I read the quote. Doesn't mean I think he's right though. I was > > more opposed to you stating that it was "the view of many people" that > > contesting was too harsh. > > Have I said that? I mean, I might have, but I don't remember doing so. > And didn't in the post you responded to. I think you might be > attributing things to me I did not say. Well here is the post I responded to: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/bac0a318ec634e2a Where you wrote that "As time has gone on, it turns out (at least in the view of many people) that, yes, the penalty for contestation is probably larger than it should be, and that the attempt to mitigate that penalty is not sufficient.". I read that as you saying that many people think contesting is too harsh these days. I could've read it wrong, I suppose, but it seems pretty clear. I'm not even saying that it's false, just that my experience from talking to people who plays V:tES is different.

On Jul 23, 9:12 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Where you wrote that "As time has gone on, it turns out (at least in > the view of many people) that, yes, the penalty for contestation is > probably larger than it should be, and that the attempt to mitigate > that penalty is not sufficient.". > > I read that as you saying that many people think contesting is too > harsh these days. I could've read it wrong, I suppose, but it seems > pretty clear. I'm not even saying that it's false, just that my > experience from talking to people who plays V:tES is different. Huh. You are correct. I stand corrected. Feel free to read that is "at least in the view of some number of people who might or might not be sizable". -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Perhaps. That should take care of the "contesting is so rare changing the rule won't really matter, so don't change it" argument, at any rate.

On Jul 23, 3:26 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Huh. You are correct. I stand corrected. Feel free to read that is "at > least in the view of some number of people who might or might not be > sizable". I always kinda did. I've figured all the time that you weren't alone in your opinions, just as I'm sure you don't believe that I'm the only one who thinks the current rules are fine. That's why I wrote that thing about not wanting to start some people counting competition about how many we were on each side. It could easy get out of hand and all, something this thread knows much about.

On Jul 22, 11:44 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the idea is cool. I might like it a bit better if the effect > you describe cost 2 pool, and 1 pool was merely the cost of not > burning your copy. But maybe that's getting too complex now. Yeah, as noted elsewhere, while I think my idea has some merit in the name of interesting/fun, it is probably too complicated a change. The plan I like best, currently, is just something along the lines of "if you yield a vampire, move all the blood off that vampire into your pool". > At the > same tournament as Ben played Lutz as his key vamp, I was playing > Lucretia. It may well be that the fact that he got contested, and I > did not, was not COMPLETELY random. Heh. I used your deck as a specific example in this discussion. Yes. You were using Lucritia as a superstar. And did not get contested. But you could have. And it would have been completely random. Heck, I was using Old Nedacka (who is also on the "incredibly likely to see play" list, as much as Lutz), and I did not contest him either. Which also was completely random. -Peter

On Jul 23, 3:53 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 12:44 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > Okay if you are serious, then you are dead if you are playing > > Democritus and your predator is playing dominate weenies. You've > > hemorrhaged 15 pool while you are trying to influence out Democritus > > and will hemorrhage the other 5 trying to get out your next minion. > > Thanks for proving my point, seriously. > > Here's where you're wrong. Dude, with an attitude like that I don't > see how it would be possible to ever get a single victory point. I get plenty. Show up on JOL and you can get some too. > > > My strategy is to not play that deck since it obviously lacks crypt > > > acceleration (4-6 Zillah's, 2-3 Information Highway and 2-3 Dreams of > > > the Sphinx in a ~75 card library are good numbers). This would make me > > > get Democritus up fast, and if he was contested I could probably get a > > > new minion within 1-2 turns. That minion would Parity Shift, GtU down > > > for bloat or something similar. > > > So you get out Democritus 1 turn early, so what? > > No, I wouldn't. It usually doesn't go that fast even with crypt > acceleration. > > > He is contested. > > If, like you told wedge earlier, Democritus was contested by someone > else (after I had influenced him out) then my problem is playing with > asshats, not the rules of contesting. But that's a side point. It's the entire point of the thread: Considering the actual effects of contesting, do you think the contesting rule is too harsh? > > You've got 20 pool left how do you spend it? Oh on a minion that > > could play Parity Shift and Govern Down, lucky for you Gilbert Duane > > the cheapest vampire who can do that is in your crypt. So you get > > him into play on turn 4 or 5, because you have all this accleration. > > > You now have 13 pool less the amount you predator has taken away from > > you which if you are still alive will put your pool total down in the > > single digits plus the cost to contest. > > > So you have 8 pool if you are lucky a contested Democritus and Gilbert > > Duane at the beginning of turn 5. You're sucking air and have a > > pulse, but your game is going nowhere quick. Do you contest? Do you > > act or wall up. You've only got one minion. Even with a perfect hand > > you are only going to get so much out of that one vampire before he > > ends up out of blood or tapped out or in torpor. > > > You're just keeping the seat warm at the table with a hot body. You > > dont' really have a chance at winning. > > The thing is, I could write up an example where I contest Democritus > an entire game while sweeping the table. But that, and this crap > you're doing, is more side tracking than this thread has ever seen > (and it's seen much, I agree with that). I wrote it up as you said you would have played it. "That minion would Parity Shift, GtU down for bloat or something similar." > Yesterday I contested Victor Pelletier. 5 pool, 3 pool for Justicar > title, 2 more pool and an action for Alastor with a Flame Thrower. And > I didn't spend my game sucking air, I spent it trying to oust my prey > while defending against a power bleed deck. So did you have fun? Did you win? > Please tell me what your point is with the example. To get me to say > that one can be screwed by contesting? The point of my example is that the larger the minion contested the more severe the penalty is under the current rules. >I know you can. I've never said > that you can't get screwed by contesting. I've said that if you play > proper decks, getting screwed by a contest requires much more than > just ending up at a table where contesting can happen. > I've even said that no defence is airtight, so yeah, even a deck > that's built to be able to handle a contest might not get the right > cards to make it. But that goes for any defence in any deck. Anti > combat defence won't always save you from combat either. Sometimes bad > luck happens, and when it does it sucks. But changing the rules > because you had some bad luck isn't a good option. If that bad luck is rules-driven, arbitrary and disproportionate, then considering changes to the rules is the only option.

On Jul 23, 4:01 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > If, like you told wedge earlier, Democritus was contested by someone > > else (after I had influenced him out) then my problem is playing with > > asshats, not the rules of contesting. But that's a side point. > > It's the entire point of the thread: > > Considering the actual effects of contesting, do you think the > contesting rule is too harsh? Nope. I think ending up with an asshat who plays bad and thus unintentionally ends up punishing me is too harsh. But whether that player stealthes through a bounced bleed and ousts me just to cycle cards or if xe's contesting Democritus for no good doesn't make any difference. > I wrote it up as you said you would have played it. > > "That minion would Parity Shift, GtU down for bloat or something > similar." Then you added some other stuff, like Gilbert Duane being the vampire and all. I ain't playing that game. > > Yesterday I contested Victor Pelletier. 5 pool, 3 pool for Justicar > > title, 2 more pool and an action for Alastor with a Flame Thrower. And > > I didn't spend my game sucking air, I spent it trying to oust my prey > > while defending against a power bleed deck. > > So did you have fun? Did you win? I had lots of fun, yeah. I didn't win though, my prey did. Partially due to her keeping that contest throughout the entire game, and surviving with some well played Enchant Kindred (just like that Garfield guy predicted 15 years ago, gotta hand it to him). I was really close to ousting her a couple of times though, and if I had played a bit better I might have made it. But all in all, it was a great game for both of us (and the others as well). > The point of my example is that the larger the minion contested the > more severe the penalty is under the current rules. All else equal, yeah. Of course. But depending on how important the minion is to your deck/current game, capacity is hardly the only factor. Contesting Angus the Unruled can be less tough than contesting Bear Paw with 4 Raven Spies. > If that bad luck is rules-driven, arbitrary and disproportionate, then > considering changes to the rules is the only option. Whether it's arbitrary and disproportionate is debatable, I don't believe contesting is. However, I would say that all bad luck is in some way rules-driven. I mean, if I don't get a perfect hand at the start of the game, I can blame 1) bad deck building since I obviously didn't have a good enough ratio in my library 2) the rules that don't allow me to pick my starting hand and stack my library 3) bad luck (if I had a good enough ratio, but it was just one of those days) My order of choice would be 1, 3 and number 2 at a very, very last third place. Same thing goes for contesting, blaming the rules should always be the last outpost.

On Jul 23, 9:16 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 4:01 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > > If, like you told wedge earlier, Democritus was contested by someone > > > else (after I had influenced him out) then my problem is playing with > > > asshats, not the rules of contesting. But that's a side point. > > > It's the entire point of the thread: > > > Considering the actual effects of contesting, do you think the > > contesting rule is too harsh? > > Nope. I think ending up with an asshat who plays bad and thus > unintentionally ends up punishing me is too harsh. But whether that > player stealthes through a bounced bleed and ousts me just to cycle > cards or if xe's contesting Democritus for no good doesn't make any > difference. Is there any situation where contesting your first vampire who is Democritus does not automatically make the other player an "asshat"? > > I wrote it up as you said you would have played it. > > > "That minion would Parity Shift, GtU down for bloat or something > > similar." > > Then you added some other stuff, like Gilbert Duane being the vampire > and all. I ain't playing that game. You would then prefer another vampire who can do the same, perhaps Sir Walter Nash? Would this make the example better of what a sorry state your game would be in? > > > Yesterday I contested Victor Pelletier. 5 pool, 3 pool for Justicar > > > title, 2 more pool and an action for Alastor with a Flame Thrower. And > > > I didn't spend my game sucking air, I spent it trying to oust my prey > > > while defending against a power bleed deck. > > > So did you have fun? Did you win? > > I had lots of fun, yeah. I didn't win though, my prey did. Partially > due to her keeping that contest throughout the entire game, and > surviving with some well played Enchant Kindred (just like that > Garfield guy predicted 15 years ago, gotta hand it to him). > I was really close to ousting her a couple of times though, and if I > had played a bit better I might have made it. But all in all, it was a > great game for both of us (and the others as well). Good, so contesting a 5 cap didn't end your game. Do you play with vampires larger than 5-caps? Would the outcome have been different if you had contested a 10-cap? > > The point of my example is that the larger the minion contested the > > more severe the penalty is under the current rules. > > All else equal, yeah. Of course. But depending on how important the > minion is to your deck/current game, capacity is hardly the only > factor. Contesting Angus the Unruled can be less tough than contesting > Bear Paw with 4 Raven Spies. > > > If that bad luck is rules-driven, arbitrary and disproportionate, then > > considering changes to the rules is the only option. > > Whether it's arbitrary and disproportionate is debatable, I don't > believe contesting is. However, I would say that all bad luck is in > some way rules-driven. > I mean, if I don't get a perfect hand at the start of the game, I can > blame > 1) bad deck building since I obviously didn't have a good enough ratio > in my library > 2) the rules that don't allow me to pick my starting hand and stack my > library > 3) bad luck (if I had a good enough ratio, but it was just one of > those days) > > My order of choice would be 1, 3 and number 2 at a very, very last > third place. Same thing goes for contesting, blaming the rules should > always be the last outpost. If the rules are determined to be the problem, then that should be what you fix.

On Jul 23, 4:43 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Is there any situation where contesting your first vampire who is > Democritus does not automatically make the other player an "asshat"? Yes. If the player does it in order to get a gamewin (and succeeds). > > Then you added some other stuff, like Gilbert Duane being the vampire > > and all. I ain't playing that game. > > You would then prefer another vampire who can do the same, perhaps Sir > Walter Nash? Would this make the example better of what a sorry state > your game would be in? Like I said, I ain't playing that game. No matter what I answer, you can most certainly find a way to twist it against me. > > I had lots of fun, yeah. I didn't win though, my prey did. Partially > > due to her keeping that contest throughout the entire game, and > > surviving with some well played Enchant Kindred (just like that > > Garfield guy predicted 15 years ago, gotta hand it to him). > > I was really close to ousting her a couple of times though, and if I > > had played a bit better I might have made it. But all in all, it was a > > great game for both of us (and the others as well). > > Good, so contesting a 5 cap didn't end your game. Do you play with > vampires larger than 5-caps? Would the outcome have been different if > you had contested a 10-cap? A 5 cap with 5 more pool invested in. I also had a 8 cap (Vidal Jarbeaux) in play, I would've rather contested Vidal since Victor would've helped me more throughout the game. This was actually my entire point here, that it's not purely a matter of capacity when it comes to how debilitating a contest is. It wouldn't have mattered much whether it was a 10 cap or not. As I said, with the investments (Flame Thrower, Alastor and Justicar title), Victor was essentially a 10 cap for me (while just a 5 cap with PRE for my prey). > > Whether it's arbitrary and disproportionate is debatable, I don't > > believe contesting is. However, I would say that all bad luck is in > > some way rules-driven. > > I mean, if I don't get a perfect hand at the start of the game, I can > > blame > > 1) bad deck building since I obviously didn't have a good enough ratio > > in my library > > 2) the rules that don't allow me to pick my starting hand and stack my > > library > > 3) bad luck (if I had a good enough ratio, but it was just one of > > those days) > > > My order of choice would be 1, 3 and number 2 at a very, very last > > third place. Same thing goes for contesting, blaming the rules should > > always be the last outpost. > > If the rules are determined to be the problem, then that should be > what you fix. If they are, yes. But in most cases of contests I don't believe they are.

On Jul 13, 2:00 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > It's not only that you lose all the pool but the minion is out of play > for so long. > > So perhaps a good alternate methode would be a closed auction between > the two contesting Methuselahs. Whoever bids the most gets control of > the minion and the loser has his or hers burned. > > Comments Welcome, > Norman S. Brown, Jr > XZealot > Archon of the Swamp Norm, I think your idea here is brilliant, make the contestation something akin to Temptation of a Greater Power Cardtype: Master Cost: 3 pool Master. Requires a ready justicar. Choose a vampire. Methuselahs may bid pool for control of that vampire. The winner pays the bid to the blood bank and takes control. Methuselahs may be credited up to 5 pool on the bid: winner pays 1 pool toward his or her debt during his or her discard phase until the debt is repaid. Only 1 Temptation of Greater Power can be played in a game. Perhaps akin to: When you bring a Vampire into play that is already controlled by another Methuselah, both Vampires become uncontrolled and then the two Methuselahs bid pool and may be credited up to 5 pool on the bid, the winner gets the vampire back during their next influence phase, which is when they pay the debt. It would need to be tweaked but is that the sentiment you are conveying? David Wilson (Oros)

On Jul 23, 10:49 am, "davewilso...@gmail.com" <davewilso...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Yes, in this example I am looking to accelerate the contestation process so that the vampire isn't removed from play. I would think that the winner would get them when they win the bid, but there certainly different permutations.

[ quoted text not captured ] The removal of transferring back is a huge change. I think it's a good way to bloat that isn't a master card. Maybe even the best/most common way to bloat that doesn't require a master card. I think removing that would do a lot of harm to already existing cards. The other two I think are ok. But I am sure to not be thinking through to every card to see the full ramifications. best - chris

librarian wrote: > The removal of transferring back is a huge change. I think it's a good > way to bloat that isn't a master card. Maybe even the best/most common > way to bloat that doesn't require a master card. Could be. Then the question becomes: is it a bad change, a good change, or a wash (for the game as a whole)? > I think removing that would do a lot of harm to already existing cards. I can't think of any. It would change the way many cards which are used to bloat through the uncontrolled region now are used, of course. > The other two I think are ok. But I am sure to not be thinking through > to every card to see the full ramifications. I think that's the idea behind the playtest offer.

[ quoted text not captured ] The new proposed rule for contestation does nothing to prevent a Methuselah from removing from the game a crypt card they would contest *with themselves* to "bloat" in that manner. I think it's actually not a horrible idea if you allow for that. There is a cost for trying to bloat, and that is eventual removal from the game. But you get a new crypt card which might just work for you as well. Should there be a transfer cost to RFG? Otherwise, you can bloat, RFG, then just transfer onto the new crypt card. In some instances, for example GtU, you can actually bloat better because you could gain 3 pool back, get a new vamp, then push it right back out. It would seem the RFG would probably rightly be priced at 4 influences. Jeff

On Jul 23, 8:15 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > librarian wrote: > > The removal of transferring back is a huge change. [snipped some stuff] > > I think removing that would do a lot of harm to already existing cards. > > I can't think of any. Did you forget Govern the Unaligned? You told me two days ago that such a change would weaken that card and others with it. Unless you're saying that weakening cards isn't the same as doing harm to them? http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/81323d478d9dfd1a "Costing the vampire in question would certainly not empower GtU. Indeed, it would weaken it (and the other bloat-through-the- uncontrolled-region effects)." > It would change the way many cards which are used to bloat through the > uncontrolled region now are used, of course. That's what I said. It would even make them stronger for bloating purposes in some situations (since it would possibly increase the speed of said bloating).

On Jul 23, 8:32 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > It would even make them stronger for bloating > purposes in some situations (since it would possibly increase the > speed of said bloating). Nvm this part, I missed your clause of the card needing to contest a card in play (even if that could possibly be arranged with self contesting unless you had some plan to fix that).

Jeff Kuta wrote: > On Jul 23, 11:15 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> librarian wrote: >>> The removal of transferring back is a huge change. I think it's a good >>> way to bloat that isn't a master card. Maybe even the best/most common >>> way to bloat that doesn't require a master card. >> Could be. Then the question becomes: is it a bad change, a good change, or a >> wash (for the game as a whole)? >> >>> I think removing that would do a lot of harm to already existing cards. >> I can't think of any. >> >> It would change the way many cards which are used to bloat through the >> uncontrolled region now are used, of course. >> >>> The other two I think are ok. But I am sure to not be thinking through >>> to every card to see the full ramifications. >> I think that's the idea behind the playtest offer. > > The new proposed rule for contestation does nothing to prevent a > Methuselah from removing from the game a crypt card they would contest > *with themselves* to "bloat" in that manner. Yeah. I originally wrote it up to prohibit that that, but decided it wasn't a necessary complication (guessing). > I think it's actually not > a horrible idea if you allow for that. There is a cost for trying to > bloat, and that is eventual removal from the game. But you get a new > crypt card which might just work for you as well. > > Should there be a transfer cost to RFG? Otherwise, you can bloat, RFG, > then just transfer onto the new crypt card. In some instances, for > example GtU, you can actually bloat better because you could gain 3 > pool back, get a new vamp, then push it right back out. It would seem > the RFG would probably rightly be priced at 4 influences. Or just eliminate the free crypt draw, for simplicity.

henrik wrote: > On Jul 23, 8:15 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> librarian wrote: >>> The removal of transferring back is a huge change. > [snipped some stuff] >>> I think removing that would do a lot of harm to already existing cards. >> I can't think of any. > > Did you forget Govern the Unaligned? No. I think I mentioned it directly. > You told me two days ago that > such a change would weaken that card and others with it. Unless you're > saying that weakening cards isn't the same as doing harm to them? Yeah, that's right. >> It would change the way many cards which are used to bloat through the >> uncontrolled region now are used, of course. > > That's what I said. It would even make them stronger for bloating > purposes in some situations (since it would possibly increase the > speed of said bloating). Yeah.

On Jul 23, 8:37 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > You told me two days ago that > > such a change would weaken that card and others with it. Unless you're > > saying that weakening cards isn't the same as doing harm to them? > > Yeah, that's right. It's right that weakening wouldn't do harm to the card?

On Jul 23, 11:49 am, "davewilso...@gmail.com" <davewilso...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 13, 2:00 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > So perhaps a good alternate methode would be a closed auction between > > the two contesting Methuselahs. Whoever bids the most gets control of > > the minion and the loser has his or hers burned. > > > Comments Welcome, > > Norman S. Brown, Jr > > XZealot > > Archon of the Swamp > > Norm, > > I think your idea here is brilliant, make the contestation something > akin to Temptation of a Greater Power > > David Wilson (Oros) I actually really like this idea, but would suggest that the winning bid be paid to the loser rather than the blood bank. That way at least that meth will recoup something for the cost in both pool and transfers that was spent on the contesting vamp that just burned. And since this rules change only effects contesting it would likely prove far less disruptive to the play of the game than something as drastic as removing the option to transfer back.

On Jul 23, 9:32 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I always kinda did. I've figured all the time that you weren't alone > in your opinions, just as I'm sure you don't believe that I'm the only > one who thinks the current rules are fine. > That's why I wrote that thing about not wanting to start some people > counting competition about how many we were on each side. It could > easy get out of hand and all, something this thread knows much about. Yeah, see, I've been specifically going out of my way to avoid claiming plurality on this issue, specifically for the reasons you would object to such a claim. Which is why I was surprised that I said something even close. Apparently, I didn't even realize I was writing that, as if I had, I would have changed it :-) -Peter

On Jul 23, 10:33 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 4:43 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > Is there any situation where contesting your first vampire who is > > Democritus does not automatically make the other player an "asshat"? > > Yes. If the player does it in order to get a gamewin (and succeeds). So if that person wins by creating a situation that extremely dibilitating via a rarely used section of the rulebook then you aren't an asshat, but otherwise that person is an asshat. Don't we want to eliminate/improve rarely used sections of the rulebook that are extremely dibilitating and are the cause of name- calling such as "asshat"? > > > Then you added some other stuff, like Gilbert Duane being the vampire > > > and all. I ain't playing that game. > > > You would then prefer another vampire who can do the same, perhaps Sir > > Walter Nash? Would this make the example better of what a sorry state > > your game would be in? > > Like I said, I ain't playing that game. No matter what I answer, you > can most certainly find a way to twist it against me. I am trying to talk to you in specifics so that there is no misunderstanding and glossing over generalities can be avoided. > > > I had lots of fun, yeah. I didn't win though, my prey did. Partially > > > due to her keeping that contest throughout the entire game, and > > > surviving with some well played Enchant Kindred (just like that > > > Garfield guy predicted 15 years ago, gotta hand it to him). > > > I was really close to ousting her a couple of times though, and if I > > > had played a bit better I might have made it. But all in all, it was a > > > great game for both of us (and the others as well). > > > Good, so contesting a 5 cap didn't end your game. Do you play with > > vampires larger than 5-caps? Would the outcome have been different if > > you had contested a 10-cap? > > A 5 cap with 5 more pool invested in. I also had a 8 cap (Vidal > Jarbeaux) in play, I would've rather contested Vidal since Victor > would've helped me more throughout the game. This was actually my > entire point here, that it's not purely a matter of capacity when it > comes to how debilitating a contest is. > It wouldn't have mattered much whether it was a 10 cap or not. As I > said, with the investments (Flame Thrower, Alastor and Justicar > title), Victor was essentially a 10 cap for me (while just a 5 cap > with PRE for my prey). So you into a dibilitating contest, and it was fun. Wouldn't it have been more fun if you didn't get contested? Wouldn't your game have gone better?

On Jul 23, 8:39 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Remove "spend 2 transfers to move 1 counter from a card in your uncontrolled > region to your pool." I don't see any benefit to be gained from this removal above. > Add "remove from the game a crypt card in your uncontrolled region that would > contest a card in play to move all blood counters from it to your pool and draw > a card from your crypt". But this I like. > And make yielding a crypt card return the crypt card to the permanent > controller's uncontrolled region, for good measure. I like this as well. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes. For instance, if a card is too powerful, then making it balanced is fixing the card, not harming it. By way of illustrating the distinction between weaken and harm (not saying that Govern is too powerful).

The Lasombra wrote: > On Jul 23, 8:39 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Remove "spend 2 transfers to move 1 counter from a card in your uncontrolled >> region to your pool." > > I don't see any benefit to be gained from this removal above. The benefit would be that it removes bloating through the uncontrolled region (which was apparently only added as a side-effect of the effort to make being faced with contesting less of a disaster). Well, "removes" except for the cases of contesting, given the replacement rule below. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I feel like rules-based things you do in the influence phase to manipulate the counters on your uncontrolled minions should generally cost transfers. Maybe there's no good reason for that except tradition, but it seems more intuitive. Things that the rules tell you you can do in your Master phase cost MPAs, and things that the rules tell you you can do in the Discard Phase cost DPAs. In phases where the rules don't have a general restriction (like Untap and Action), you also don't have a currency with which to use effects. Obviously card text (as on Blood Doll) can give you something to do that doesn't cost that currency, but it seems more intuitive that things you can do in one of the abstract-currency phases _without_ card text would utilize that currency. -witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] Sounds to me that's what you're saying. Anyway, I'll call it a week. Enjoy your weekend.

On Jul 23, 2:16 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The Lasombra wrote: > > On Jul 23, 8:39 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >> Remove "spend 2 transfers to move 1 counter from a card in your uncontrolled > >> region to your pool." > > > I don't see any benefit to be gained from this removal above. > > The benefit would be that it removes bloating through the uncontrolled region > (which was apparently only added as a side-effect of the effort to make being > faced with contesting less of a disaster). Well, "removes" except for the cases > of contesting, given the replacement rule below. So Democritus w/ a Celerity Skill card Governs down to Democritus in the uncontrolled region 4 times, putting 12 blood on him, then you invoke the Contestation rule to collect 12 pool and a new vampire. Except for the fact that now players will attempt to "bloat through the uncontrolled region" in large amounts rather than small amounts. You aren't stopping it at all.

witness1 wrote: > I feel like rules-based things you do in the influence phase to > manipulate the counters on your uncontrolled minions should generally > cost transfers. Maybe there's no good reason for that except > tradition, but it seems more intuitive. > > Things that the rules tell you you can do in your Master phase cost > MPAs, and things that the rules tell you you can do in the Discard > Phase cost DPAs. In phases where the rules don't have a general > restriction (like Untap and Action), you also don't have a currency > with which to use effects. Obviously card text (as on Blood Doll) can > give you something to do that doesn't cost that currency, but it seems > more intuitive that things you can do in one of the abstract-currency > phases _without_ card text would utilize that currency. I don't see it as a given like that. If there were a rule: "During your untap phase, you get X untap phase actions, where X is the number of Imbued you control. You may use an untap phase action to put a Conviction card on an Imbued. An Imbued cannot receive more than one Conviction card this way each turn." then that would also not preclude the current rules on untapping cards or gaining a pool for the Edge or paying to contest. Likewise, there'd be nothing inherently wrong with discarding down to your hand size only during your discard phase (still without using discard phase actions), or moving the gaining pool for the Edge to the master phase (still without using a master phase action). I'm certainly not opposed to the idea that sacking the vampire could cost a transfer or four, but the cost doesn't seem to be an intrinsic need on the part of the game.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes. That was mentioned already. Try it out. If it is a problem, then see also the previous note about only allowing it for cards you would contest with other players.

On Jul 23, 1:15 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > librarian wrote: > > The removal of transferring back is a huge change. I think it's a good > > way to bloat that isn't a master card. Maybe even the best/most common > > way to bloat that doesn't require a master card. > > Could be. Then the question becomes: is it a bad change, a good change, or a > wash (for the game as a whole)? > > > I think removing that would do a lot of harm to already existing cards. > > I can't think of any. The ones that spring to my mind are Convergence and to a lesser extent Bay and Howl. Unlike cards like Govern or Art Museum, these cards move 'one from each' onto a single uncontrolled vampire. In order for these cards to reach 'strong' usefulness, you need to have more than a few vampires in play to cull from.. which in turn puts a lot of blood onto a single vampire. Which in practice is often more than that vampires capacity, because you packed your deck with smaller vampires so that you could get them out in droves to cull from... or, in the case of Covergence, because almost all of the Panders are small to begin with. And part of the utility of these cards is that you can back-transfer the blood that's above the capacity of your likely-small crypt vampire.. So for Convergence, the card would basically boil down to the following uses after this proposed change: a) get a bunch of blood onto one of the _very_ few mid-cap Panders in the entire game or b) use it to move a very few blood counters onto one of the many small Panders, because you only have a couple of panders in play so far or c) use it to move a very few blood counters onto one of the many small Panders, and move some more blood counters off of the rest of your Panders to the blood bank, because they're going to be over- capacity for the inevitably small target, and you can't bring them back to your pool. A is very corner case, what with all of three printed vampires above a 3-cap (plus an advanced vamp). B is usable, but weak - either you aren't playing many of the clan for which it is intended, or it's still early-game, and it is likely weaker than cards like Tribute or Grooming the Protege once you count the clan requirement C is usable, but even weaker, as now you're actively spending extra blood to achieve the same moderate-to-weak result as case B. (Of course, you could always try to Converge onto a small Pander that would contest with what you have in play.. but why on earth would you play a bunch of small Panders and then plan your crypt to Contest them, when the end result is exactly the same as Tribute to the Master only without burning an uncontrolled vampire?) Bay and Howl suffers the same fate, except that A is mitigated a little by a bigger selection of larger vampires. Of course, if you're getting enough vampires into play to make the reward worth using on a bigger vampire, you aren't including many bigger vampires in your crypt in the first place likely, so you're just hoping that you can get one of those into your uncontrolled region to avoid being stuck in category C. -John Flournoy

On Jul 23, 3:33 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > witness1 wrote: > > I feel like rules-based things you do in the influence phase to > > manipulate the counters on your uncontrolled minions should generally > > cost transfers. Maybe there's no good reason for that except > > tradition, but it seems more intuitive. > > > Things that the rules tell you you can do in your Master phase cost > > MPAs, and things that the rules tell you you can do in the Discard > > Phase cost DPAs. In phases where the rules don't have a general > > restriction (like Untap and Action), you also don't have a currency > > with which to use effects. Obviously card text (as on Blood Doll) can > > give you something to do that doesn't cost that currency, but it seems > > more intuitive that things you can do in one of the abstract-currency > > phases _without_ card text would utilize that currency. > > I don't see it as a given like that. Oh it's absolutely not a logical requirement. It's just that the way the phases currently work, if you do something in the Master phase or the Influence phase or the Discard phase, you are either 1) following card text or 2) ticking down the currency you could spend in those phases. There's nothing in those phases that you need to remember that isn't doing one of those things. So players are primed to think in those terms, during those phases. > If there were a rule: "During your untap phase, you get X untap phase actions, > where X is the number of Imbued you control. You may use an untap phase action > to put a Conviction card on an Imbued. An Imbued cannot receive more than one > Conviction card this way each turn." then that would also not preclude the > current rules on untapping cards or gaining a pool for the Edge or paying to > contest. And that would be less intuitive than the actual rules. Not wrong, unplayable, or even bad. Just less intuitive than an easily available alternative. > Likewise, there'd be nothing inherently wrong with discarding down to your hand > size only during your discard phase (still without using discard phase actions), Sure. The game went a long time without there even really _being_ a discard phase action, because the only thing you could do was discard a single card (barring card text). But it was still a separate phase for that single purpose instead of just "At the end of the influence phase, you can discard one card and draw to replace". And I think it was a separate phase for a reason. > or moving the gaining pool for the Edge to the master phase (still without using > a master phase action). There's nothing wrong with it, but there's a reason that's _not_ the rule. The reason might be "Richard Garfield wanted you to feel stupid when you play a Master Card before gaining for the edge," or even "We never thought of it," but those don't seem any more likely than "We wanted the Master Phase to be a simple phase where you play and use Master cards". It doesn't really hurt the game any that (e.g.) Form of Corruption is burned in the Master Phase, but choosing another phase could have been more intuitive. > I'm certainly not opposed to the idea that sacking the vampire could cost a > transfer or four, but the cost doesn't seem to be an intrinsic need on the part > of the game. Well, they are called "transfers" instead of "uploads". It kind of implies that you can move things around with them (and not necessarily just one direction). I mean, your method (eventually) costs the 4 transfers (and a pool) to draw a new guy if you want to continue bloating and/or start using the relevant effects to bring out more (non-contesting) minions. -witness1

On Jul 23, 4:15 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 1:15 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > librarian wrote: > > > The removal of transferring back is a huge change. I think it's a good > > > way to bloat that isn't a master card. Maybe even the best/most common > > > way to bloat that doesn't require a master card. > > > Could be. Then the question becomes: is it a bad change, a good change, or a > > wash (for the game as a whole)? > > > > I think removing that would do a lot of harm to already existing cards. > > > I can't think of any. > > The ones that spring to my mind are Convergence and to a lesser extent > Bay and Howl. Unlike cards like Govern or Art Museum, these cards move > 'one from each' onto a single uncontrolled vampire. In order for these > cards to reach 'strong' usefulness, you need to have more than a few > vampires in play to cull from.. which in turn puts a lot of blood onto > a single vampire. Which in practice is often more than that vampires > capacity, because you packed your deck with smaller vampires so that > you could get them out in droves to cull from... or, in the case of > Covergence, because almost all of the Panders are small to begin with. > And part of the utility of these cards is that you can back-transfer > the blood that's above the capacity of your likely-small crypt > vampire.. Well, you could alter the rules such that excess blood falls into your pool or something. Though you'd need to word it around Tariq... Increasing the footprint. -witness1

On Jul 23, 7:39 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Remove "spend 2 transfers to move 1 counter from a card in your uncontrolled > region to your pool." > > Add "remove from the game a crypt card in your uncontrolled region that would > contest a card in play to move all blood counters from it to your pool and draw > a card from your crypt". > > And make yielding a crypt card return the crypt card to the permanent > controller's uncontrolled region, for good measure. With all the cards and blood counters left on it, presumably? I'm with Jeff - I like the notion of the latter two, without adding the 'cannot transfer back' rule. -John Flournoy

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >The benefit would be that it removes bloating through the uncontrolled >region (which was apparently only added as a side-effect of the effort >to make being faced with contesting less of a disaster). The "side-effect" part of that isn't entirely clear. We don't know, for example, when Govern the Unaligned or Fourth Tradition (etc.) were added to the game during development. If they were developed prior to the influence change, we don't know if they were re-evaluated in the light of the transferring back rule addition and found to be a perfectly reasonable addition to the game. Perhaps the reason for it being two transfers was to prevent it being an extremely easy bloat mechanism - which at 4 pool a turn, it might well be. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Jul 23, 3:34 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > Well, you could alter the rules such that excess blood falls into your > pool or something. Though you'd need to word it around Tariq... > > Increasing the footprint. And strengthening cards like Govern, because there'd be no downside to overfilling a vampire via those cards too... > -witness1 -John Flournoy

On 23 Jul, 14:06, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Chris Berger wrote: > > Getting rid of the transfer back rule seems a little harsh... > > Only if you view the transfer back rule as something desirable in a context > other than contesting (e.g. bloat). Rather than ponder on the uptake for GtU's prospects, I would worry about the shift in power-level for cards like Banishment, Exile and Reality. Drain

On Jul 24, 9:30 am, Drain <dr...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Rather than ponder on the uptake for GtU's prospects, I would worry > about the shift in power-level for cards like Banishment, Exile and > Reality. As I understand LSJ's suggestion, it is: 1) You can no longer untransfer blood off uncontrolled minions. 2) If you yield contestation, your contested minion is returned to the uncontrolled region. 3) You can burn an uncontrolled minion that, if brought into play, would contest another minion [controlled by another player] and return all the blood on that uncontrolled minion to your pool. Yes, this makes using Govern and Eco Terrorists or whatever to bloat much more difficult (Khalmaky Nightmares for the win!). So in terms of Banishment, the issue is that if your guy gets Banished, you can't pull the blood off of them. Which certainly could be a problem--your prey is low on pool. You Banish their 8 cap who has 4 blood on him. Your prey now is out an 8 cap vampire, can't influence him back out (as he is too low on pool to spend 4 to get him back out and reasonably survive), and can't get the blood back off him. That seems kind of egregiously bad. Another problem that this rule would introduce is the one that happens when you have a big minion half influenced, and when things turn for the worse, you can't then decide to stop influencing him out and get your pool back. You are stuck with 4-6 pool sitting on a minion that you can't ever get back. Which seems sub-optimal to me. I'd suggest retaining the "you can untransfer at 2:1" rule, as that is something that comes up in every game, and would be a really significant change to the game (yeah, I also can't really shed a tear for Govern being downpowered, but I think that would have a lot of negative impact otherwise). But points 2 and 3 (above) strike me as perfectly reasonable, and I don't think that point 1 needs to be in place to make points 2 and 3 work out fairly. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] They aren't affected much: you still get to transfer the vampire back into play, which it what you usually do anyhow. And the drawback that it does give the victim may encourage players not to let their fatties get too low on blood.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > 1) You can no longer untransfer blood off uncontrolled minions. > > 2) If you yield contestation, your contested minion is returned to the > uncontrolled region. > > 3) You can burn an uncontrolled minion that, if brought into play, > would contest another minion [controlled by another player] and return > all the blood on that uncontrolled minion to your pool. > So in terms of Banishment, the issue is that if your guy gets > Banished, you can't pull the blood off of them. Which certainly could > be a problem--your prey is low on pool. You Banish their 8 cap who has > 4 blood on him. Your prey now is out an 8 cap vampire, can't influence > him back out (as he is too low on pool to spend 4 to get him back out > and reasonably survive), and can't get the blood back off him. That > seems kind of egregiously bad. If so, it may be handled by extending the 3) rule to any crypt card that is/was in play since your last turn. (Watch out for those Madness Network Banishment decks, though.) > Another problem that this rule would introduce is the one that happens > when you have a big minion half influenced, and when things turn for > the worse, you can't then decide to stop influencing him out and get > your pool back. You are stuck with 4-6 pool sitting on a minion that > you can't ever get back. Which seems sub-optimal to me. Yeah. Sub-optimal planning can mean your game suffers. Like when you use X=5 on a Secret Horde and later things "turn for the worse" and you can't get your pool back fast enough. But not necessarily a reason to make retrieving pool from a Secret Horde or uncontrolled vampire easier. > I'd suggest retaining the "you can untransfer at 2:1" rule, as that is > something that comes up in every game, and would be a really > significant change to the game (yeah, I also can't really shed a tear > for Govern being downpowered, but I think that would have a lot of > negative impact otherwise). But points 2 and 3 (above) strike me as > perfectly reasonable, and I don't think that point 1 needs to be in > place to make points 2 and 3 work out fairly. 3) is superfluous with 1). It is intended as a substitute to fill the void left by the removal of 1) (serving the purpose that 1 was supposed to serve).

[ quoted text not captured ] It's not that it is a huge drawback but, when it does happen, it might well spell end-game for the afflicted player. Something that one might call random (the getting a high-cap low on blood part, mind you) and game-wrecking at the same time. Precisely the type of situation that this thread is all about avoiding. That, and the loss of flexibility for little reason somehow doesn't seem warranted. Drain

Drain wrote: > On 24 Jul, 15:07, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Drain wrote: >>> On 23 Jul, 14:06, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> They aren't affected much: you still get to transfer the vampire back into play, >> which it what you usually do anyhow. >> >> And the drawback that it does give the victim may encourage players not to let >> their fatties get too low on blood. > > It's not that it is a huge drawback but, when it does happen, it might > well spell end-game for the afflicted player. Something that one might > call random (the getting a high-cap low on blood part, mind you) and > game-wrecking at the same time. Precisely the type of situation that > this thread is all about avoiding. No. That's not random in the same sense as what this thread started with. You have to play with unique minions. If someone else chooses the same minion as you, well, that's just random (the odds are different for different minions). Playing with a high cap and then letting/making him get low on blood while also being unable to block or vote down a known threat (you can see when conditions are favorable for Banishment). Well, that involves quite a bit more player decision. Similarly, having your big-cap, low-blood vampire punched and diablerized can also be game-wrecking. But we're not looking for rules to protect the player from xerself there, either. > That, and the loss of flexibility for little reason somehow doesn't > seem warranted. If it were little reason, perhaps.

On 24 Jul, 15:37, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > No. That's not random in the same sense as what this thread started with. > > You have to play with unique minions. If someone else chooses the same minion as > you, well, that's just random (the odds are different for different minions). > > Playing with a high cap and then letting/making him get low on blood while also > being unable to block or vote down a known threat (you can see when conditions > are favorable for Banishment). Well, that involves quite a bit more player decision. > > Similarly, having your big-cap, low-blood vampire punched and diablerized can > also be game-wrecking. But we're not looking for rules to protect the player > from xerself there, either. Yes, I know it's not random in the same sense. Just drawing parallels. However, effective combat followed by diablerie arguably requires more of an effort from the part of the agressor, meaning that I'm okay with the end-result. Whereas Banishing (with a side of FSR in the mix) is much more straightforward. On 24 Jul, 15:37, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > If it were little reason, perhaps. I can simpathize with the reasoning behind the rules change and agree that bloating from the uncontrolled region might be against the spirit of the game's design. I just don't think that the collateral changes are desirable. Of course, given that you're head-designer, you have a lot of leeway for minimizing the potential harm, with the addition of new cards in a forthcoming set to allow some further degree of manipulation of the uncontrolled region and whatnot. Drain

[ quoted text not captured ] Same here. i would be strongly against removing the current back transfer rules though. There has been m,ore than one game where my blocks against my intensely sneaky prey where not as succesful as i would have hoped, and only by transferring 4 pool back did i get the chance to get enough pool later to end up winning the table. on the other hand this would speed up the game, but at the cost of making bleedzookas more powerful in the short term, game wise.

On Jul 24, 10:18 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > If so, it may be handled by extending the 3) rule to any crypt card that is/was > in play since your last turn. (Watch out for those Madness Network Banishment > decks, though.) Yeah, certainly a possibility, but it seems like adding a lot of extra words where they aren't necessarily needed. Like, I see that removing "untransfer for 2:1" would make sense if other means were implemented to fix contestation, but I don't know that is vital--"untransfer at 2:1" is something that in actual practice isn't necessarily tied on to contestation. Like, I guess I don't see that it would be necessary to remove "untransfer at 2:1" to make the other fixes to contestation balance. 'Cause removing "untransfer at 2:1" impacts a whole lot more than just contestation. > Yeah. Sub-optimal planning can mean your game suffers. Well, ya know, it isn't always suboptimal planning. You are doing well, and you start to transfer out an 8 cap, putting 4 blood on him. As the turn progresses around the table, your cross table buddy says "Hey! He's winning! Get him!" and Parity Shifts 5 pool from you. And then your predator pulls out some heavy bleed tech that you hadn't seen all game. And then suddenly you are at 5 pool and have 4 pool invested in an 8 cap that you can't realistically bring out, when you were at 16 pool after you started influencing him out. > Like when you use X=5 on a Secret Horde and later things "turn for the worse" > and you can't get your pool back fast enough. > > But not necessarily a reason to make retrieving pool from a Secret Horde or > uncontrolled vampire easier. Well, sure. But I don't know that this is a change that the game would benefit from. But maybe it would. Just wanted to throw it out there. > 3) is superfluous with 1). It is intended as a substitute to fill the void left > by the removal of 1) (serving the purpose that 1 was supposed to serve). Fair enough. -Peter

On Jul 24, 10:07 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > They aren't affected much: you still get to transfer the vampire back into play, > which it what you usually do anyhow. > > And the drawback that it does give the victim may encourage players not to let > their fatties get too low on blood. I dunno--it would make Banishment a much more powerful card than it is now--if you Banish a half full minion that the controller of can't realistically influence back out, Banishment becomes PTO, where currently, the controller can at the very least get some of his blood back. But if there is the extra verbiage tacked on ("or any minion that was removed from play since your last turn"), that would be fixed, certainly. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > 'Cause removing "untransfer at 2:1" impacts a whole lot more > than just contestation. Exactly. The problem observed in playtest (the debilitating effect of having your pool trapped on a vampire that someone else just happened to bring out) was addressed by a rule that impacted a whole lot of other things. Perhaps a more targeted rule would have been better. >> Yeah. Sub-optimal planning can mean your game suffers. > > Well, ya know, it isn't always suboptimal planning. You are doing > well, and you start to transfer out an 8 cap, putting 4 blood on him. > As the turn progresses around the table, your cross table buddy says > "Hey! He's winning! Get him!" and Parity Shifts 5 pool from you. And > then your predator pulls out some heavy bleed tech that you hadn't > seen all game. And then suddenly you are at 5 pool and have 4 pool > invested in an 8 cap that you can't realistically bring out, when you > were at 16 pool after you started influencing him out. Oh Kay. That's just game play. Sometimes bad things happen in a game. Someone has to get ousted sooner or later. Having it happen "randomly" just because you happen to be playing with unique minions, that's bad. Having it happen as a matter of play, well, that's how the game works.

On Jul 24, 11:40 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Oh Kay. That's just game play. Sometimes bad things happen in a game. Someone > has to get ousted sooner or later. Sure, sure. I'm not saying "We can't do this 'cause of this thing here!" I was just bringing it up as a significant impact that a rules change like this would have, and making sure that it wasn't overlooked. Much like the Banishment issue (which is certainly something that I think should be addressed). -Peter

> > On Jul 23, 8:39 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > The benefit would be that it removes bloating through the uncontrolled region > (which was apparently only added as a side-effect of the effort to make being > faced with contesting less of a disaster). Well, "removes" except for the cases > of contesting, given the replacement rule below. > Can you explain why you see bloating through Uncontroled region that bad? The game has been going on for very long with this rule. It does not unbalance the game in a way that it becomes an overwelming tactic to win. One of the best things of VtES is the fact that it's a balanced game. Be aware that this will bring out all the cry-babies yelling for you to ban Arika and Banishment. And, of course, that is were all of this is going. ;) Contesting is part of the game. It's part of the flavour of the game. Bloating through influence is not overpowered. To change the 2:1 rule changes lots of things in the game. Please don't.

On 23 Jul, 19:15, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > I think that's the idea behind the playtest offer. Ok, I give to you an idea, like FIFA does in Football (Soccer in your realms). When they want to change / test a new rule that brings a big diference to the game, they do it in some real Championships first to see the impact of the change. On this European Championship there will be a Side Event that is a Storyline. Maybe there (or on any other side event) you can test the changes you are proposing, with people giving feedback on the changes. Cheers, t.

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >On Jul 24, 10:18�am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> If so, it may be handled by extending the 3) rule to any crypt card that is/was >> in play since your last turn. (Watch out for those Madness Network Banishment >> decks, though.) > >Yeah, certainly a possibility, but it seems like adding a lot of extra >words where they aren't necessarily needed. I'd also be worried about the potential for self-Banishment[0]. A deck in trouble has a decent amount of blood on a vampire, banishes it, notes that the vampire has left play since their last turn, and explodes it in the uncontrolled region. This may completely neuter the deck's ability to win (right now), but may give it a large pool buffer. This may well prevent lunging and cause a game to lull, which I think is likely to be a retrograde step. And unlike being able to do this with, for example, Golconda, Banishment is a perfectly ordinary card to include in moderate quantities for pretty reliable offensive action. You could make the rule more complicated again, to prevent this, but I'm not sure that's sensible. [0] And the variety of other controlled-to-uncontrolled tech. Reality, say. The specifics vary from card to card, obviously. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Peter D Bakija wrote: >> 'Cause removing "untransfer at 2:1" impacts a whole lot more >> than just contestation. > >Exactly. The problem observed in playtest (the debilitating effect of >having your pool trapped on a vampire that someone else just happened >to bring out) was addressed by a rule that impacted a whole lot of >other things. Perhaps a more targeted rule would have been better. It might have been then. However, the game has developed so much around this principle that removing it would radically alter the whole game balance. It wouldn't just fix contesting now - it would fundamentally shake the foundations of the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> On Jul 24, 10:18 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> If so, it may be handled by extending the 3) rule to any crypt card that is/was >>> in play since your last turn. (Watch out for those Madness Network Banishment >>> decks, though.) >> Yeah, certainly a possibility, but it seems like adding a lot of extra >> words where they aren't necessarily needed. > > I'd also be worried about the potential for self-Banishment[0]. A deck > in trouble has a decent amount of blood on a vampire, banishes it, notes > that the vampire has left play since their last turn, and explodes it in > the uncontrolled region. That's part of the current landscape, not something new to worry about.

James Coupe wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Peter D Bakija wrote: >>> 'Cause removing "untransfer at 2:1" impacts a whole lot more >>> than just contestation. >> Exactly. The problem observed in playtest (the debilitating effect of >> having your pool trapped on a vampire that someone else just happened >> to bring out) was addressed by a rule that impacted a whole lot of >> other things. Perhaps a more targeted rule would have been better. > > It might have been then. However, the game has developed so much around > this principle that removing it would radically alter the whole game > balance. Not especially. Change game play for some decks, perhaps. But the card set seems indifferent to the change (except maybe bringing some of the more powerful cards that serve double duty as bloat devices more to the median of the power curve). > It wouldn't just fix contesting now - it would fundamentally > shake the foundations of the game. It would affect some things, sure. But nothing foundation-shaking.

[ quoted text not captured ] Arika can't Banish a full Queen Anne and suddenly have 10 pool turn up in my pool during the same turn. Being able to explode Queen Anne because she was Banished this turn and get that pool back in an extreme hurry is what I was pointing out. That's not possible under the current rules - by default, I can get back 2 pool from Queen Anne a turn, not 10 in one go. (3 with Info Highway, 4 if I had Ingrid Rossler in play. Relatively few other options.) Additionally, having a variety of decks lose access to bloating via the uncontrolled region completely while giving a Banishment deck a massively sped up ability to do the above is also not the current landscape. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 24, 4:09 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > That's part of the current landscape, not something new to worry about. Well, to be fair, currently, if you Banish your own guy with 9 blood on him, you will gain 2 blood, then 2 blood, then 2 blood, then 2 blood, then 1 blood over 5 turns. With the hypothetical rules change, if you banish your own guy with 9 blood on him, you get 9 blood now. Which might not be the most significant change ever, but it certainly is different than the current landscape. I'm still partial to simply making a rule that says "If you yield a contestation, burn that minion and move all blood on that minion to your pool." Which is nice, clean, simple, with few words or ambiguities (except for the Imbued, which is easy to fix one way or the other), and is a laser guided fix to contestation without affecting anything else at all. -Peter

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >I'm still partial to simply making a rule that says "If you yield a >contestation, burn that minion and move all blood on that minion to >your pool." Which is nice, clean, simple, with few words or >ambiguities (except for the Imbued, which is easy to fix one way or >the other), and is a laser guided fix to contestation without >affecting anything else at all. While I quite like that, it doesn't address the "Oh crap, cross-table buddy has brought out Queen Anne, and my Queen Anne is on 9 pool, and I was planning on bringing her out and passing Parity Shift to save myself from my weenie predator." You have to pile all your pool onto Suhailah for speed, but then you get perilessly close to being ousted (lots of pool on vampires, but only one out). To fix that, I go with something like: 1) When yielding a contested crypt card, move all the blood/life counters on it to your pool. 2) If a crypt card in your uncontrolled region would contest someone else's controlled minion, you may remove it from the game to move the counters to: a) your pool b) your other uncontrolled cards c) some combination - up to half to other uncontrolled cards, anything else to your pool? 3) The transfer phase works as normal - possibly with or without Kuta modifications. You'd pick one of the options in 2) for the rules, not all of them. And in 3), I mention the Kuta rules since if we're dicking with the uncontrolled region quite a bit, now seems like a reasonable time to do it all in one go. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> James Coupe wrote: >>> Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >>>> On Jul 24, 10:18 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>>> If so, it may be handled by extending the 3) rule to any crypt card >>>>> that is/was >>>>> in play since your last turn. (Watch out for those Madness Network >>>>> Banishment >>>>> decks, though.) >>>> Yeah, certainly a possibility, but it seems like adding a lot of extra >>>> words where they aren't necessarily needed. >>> I'd also be worried about the potential for self-Banishment[0]. A >>> deck >>> in trouble has a decent amount of blood on a vampire, banishes it, notes >>> that the vampire has left play since their last turn, and explodes it in >>> the uncontrolled region. >> That's part of the current landscape, not something new to worry about. > > Arika can't Banish a full Queen Anne and suddenly have 10 pool turn up > in my pool during the same turn. Being able to explode Queen Anne > because she was Banished this turn and get that pool back in an extreme > hurry is what I was pointing out. Naturally. Some details change. 10 now instead of 2 now and 8 later (or instead of 10 now and keep Anne like with Minion Tap). I fail to see how this is so groundbreaking. > That's not possible under the current > rules - by default, I can get back 2 pool from Queen Anne a turn, not 10 > in one go. (3 with Info Highway, 4 if I had Ingrid Rossler in play. > Relatively few other options.) Minion Tap is an obvious option. > Additionally, having a variety of decks lose access to bloating via the > uncontrolled region completely while giving a Banishment deck a > massively sped up ability to do the above is also not the current > landscape. Um. Sure. The premise is to curtail bloating through the uncontrolled region. So naturally decks that are wont to do so will be affected more than decks that aren't.

On Jul 23, 11:15 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > librarian wrote: > > The removal of transferring back is a huge change. I think it's a good > > way to bloat that isn't a master card. Maybe even the best/most common > > way to bloat that doesn't require a master card. > > Could be. Then the question becomes: is it a bad change, a good change, or a > wash (for the game as a whole)? I believe we should strive to minimize change to the ruleset, so we should only make good changes. If it's bad or merely a wash, we shouldn't make the change. Also, the larger the change, the larger the risk of unintended consequences. My understanding of the most recent iteration of the rule is: You may remove from the game a crypt card that would contest a card in play to move all the counters on that card to your pool and decrypt. You may remove from the game a crypt card that was in play since your last turn to move all the counters on that card to your pool and decrypt. Yielding a crypt-card contest returns the card to your uncontrolled region. Also, remove the existing rule that you can transfer back 2:1. Let's not lose sight of the original problem we're trying to fix: randomly getting hosed by vampire contestation is unfun. It seems like what is actually happening is that LSJ has also added the design problem of: Govern the Unaligned (and possibly other bloat cards) are too powerful (or very close to too powerful.) Possibly also: Since Govern the Unaligned (and other similar cards) can be used for bloating, players may use it that way and slow down the game, instead of trying to oust their prey. My concerns with the above solution are as follows: 1) It's a very large change that will likely have unintended consequences. For instance: - That sort of bloat now requires crypt duplication. - That sort of bloat will be more difficult, and therefore we will build decks that bloat in other ways, likely through Masters, which are less interactive. Blocking and stealthing through those bloat actions are very interesting. 2) The rule is trying to solve too much at once. If there are problems with Govern and other similar cards, fix those cards via Blood Cult Awareness Network and similar cards. Event: When any Methuselah puts blood from the blood bank on an uncontrolled minion, put one less blood instead. 3) If you yield at the beginning of your turn, you can contest again at the end of your turn without transfers. Is merely locking up the pool on the vamp sufficient for the contest? 4) Other issues that have already been mentioned. I'd like to stay focused purely on the contestation issue. How about this for a simple solution: If you yield a contest for a unique crypt card, move the blood or life on the minion to your pool, then burn the minion. That's a very minor change from the current rules, but greatly lessens the cost of yeilding contest. Ira

Ira Fay wrote: > Let's not lose sight of the original problem we're trying to fix: > randomly getting hosed by vampire contestation is unfun. > > It seems like what is actually happening is that LSJ has also added > the design problem of: Govern the Unaligned (and possibly other bloat > cards) are too powerful (or very close to too powerful.) No. Just analyzing the current remedy for the contestation problem (2 xfer undo influence) with the findings: 1) It doesn't go far enough in addressing the problems with being randomly hosed by contestation issues. 2) It has the side effect of increaseing bloat (via the uncontrolled region). So, naturally, alternative rules are being put forth. > Possibly also: Since Govern the Unaligned (and other similar cards) > can be used for bloating, players may use it that way and slow down > the game, instead of trying to oust their prey. > > My concerns with the above solution are as follows: > 1) It's a very large change that will likely have unintended > consequences. It's a relatively minor change that will likely have fewer unintended consequences than the current rule did. > For instance: > - That sort of bloat now requires crypt duplication. > - That sort of bloat will be more difficult, Intended. > and therefore we will > build decks that bloat in other ways, likely through Masters, which > are less interactive. Blocking and stealthing through those bloat > actions are very interesting. Um. Not a consequence. These decks already are common. > 2) The rule is trying to solve too much at once. Disputed. > If there are > problems with Govern and other similar cards, fix those cards via > Blood Cult Awareness Network and similar cards. Event: When any > Methuselah puts blood from the blood bank on an uncontrolled minion, > put one less blood instead. Or: if there's a problem with the undo influence rule, fix that. > 3) If you yield at the beginning of your turn, you can contest again > at the end of your turn without transfers. Is merely locking up the > pool on the vamp sufficient for the contest? Only if it's full. It that's an issue (playtesting would tell), then have the yielded vampire burned (and blood returned to pool) instead of going to the uncontrolled region. > 4) Other issues that have already been mentioned. > > I'd like to stay focused purely on the contestation issue. That's what this is. > How about > this for a simple solution: > If you yield a contest for a unique crypt card, move the blood or life > on the minion to your pool, then burn the minion. > > That's a very minor change from the current rules, but greatly lessens > the cost of yeilding contest. True. But as long as you're fixing contestation, may as well look at it as a whole.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] The current rules limit bloating through the uncontrolled region to 2 pool per turn (3 with Info Highway). But a simple Villein + Golconda combo will let you bloat 4 pool per turn (6 with Info Highway), and your proposed rules change would not change that. HG

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >No. Just analyzing the current remedy for the contestation problem (2 >xfer undo influence) with the findings: > >1) It doesn't go far enough in addressing the problems with being >randomly hosed by contestation issues. > >2) It has the side effect of increaseing bloat (via the uncontrolled region). Again, you're claiming this as a side-effect without any evidence as to how the cards like Govern and Ecoterrorists were developed. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> No. Just analyzing the current remedy for the contestation problem (2 >> xfer undo influence) with the findings: >> >> 1) It doesn't go far enough in addressing the problems with being >> randomly hosed by contestation issues. >> >> 2) It has the side effect of increaseing bloat (via the uncontrolled region). > > Again, you're claiming this as a side-effect without any evidence as to > how the cards like Govern and Ecoterrorists were developed. Just the evidence that can be discerned from the cards and rules themselves, right.

Points I would like your feedback, LSJ: 1. Why is this rule so bad? Only Imbued players have a big chance of contesting. 2. Did you consider the fact that changes like these are hard to explain to players? (since not many people see it as a problem) 3. Did you consider that arbitrary changes like these can make players leave the game? I think that this is a big issue I'm seeing in foruns elsewhere and should be taken into acount. This hits at the very core of how WW's rullings system works. One person, alone, doing all the work and taking all the heat. And the problem that arises when few people agree with that person. I wouldn't like to be on your shoes. And in this case I would've done things diferently. t.

Brum wrote: > Points I would like your feedback, LSJ: > > 1. Why is this rule so bad? Only Imbued players have a big chance of > contesting. Covered too many times to count in this thread already. But, again, Contesting is not "so bad" in the game in general, since it seldom is an issue at all. That's not the point. When it comes up, it is usually unnecessarily harsh. That is the point. Then the secondary point of the ubiquitous side effect that the undo influence rule (which was added to address the problem above) has had: uncontrolled region bloat. That rule doesn't go far enough in addressing the issue it was added to address, and the side effect of that rule has a much bigger role in the game. > 2. Did you consider the fact that changes like these are hard to > explain to players? (since not many people see it as a problem) The change is relatively easy to explain. Certainly easier than aggravated damage. > 3. Did you consider that arbitrary changes like these can make players > leave the game? I think that this is a big issue I'm seeing in foruns > elsewhere and should be taken into acount. Flawed question, since it assumed "this" would be an arbitrary change. > This hits at the very core of how WW's rullings system works. One > person, alone, doing all the work and taking all the heat. > And the problem that arises when few people agree with that person. Perhaps. But in this case there are also "few people who disagree". That is, few people have raised a voice at all, one way or the other. Which, is you're an optimist, could indicate that some of the rest are considering the issue in more depth. > I wouldn't like to be on your shoes. And in this case I would've done > things diferently. You wouldn't have talked to players in a public forum to gather input? That's I'll that I've done on this issue.

[ quoted text not captured ] There is no evidence in the cards or rules as to whether this is a side effect. They simply exist. They do not say how or why they interact the way they do. They do not say what revisions were tried out during development and playtest. They do not say what decisions were taking regarding their interaction, assuming it was noticed. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> James Coupe wrote: >>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> 2) It has the side effect of increaseing bloat (via the uncontrolled >>>> region). >>> Again, you're claiming this as a side-effect without any evidence as >>> to >>> how the cards like Govern and Ecoterrorists were developed. >> Just the evidence that can be discerned from the cards and rules >> themselves, right. > > There is no evidence in the cards or rules as to whether this is a side > effect. They simply exist. They do not say how or why they interact > the way they do. They do not say what revisions were tried out during > development and playtest. They do not say what decisions were taking > regarding their interaction, assuming it was noticed. Not true. But moot, at any rate. The fact remains that undo influence was added as a response to playtesters' notes about the severity of getting stuck with a to-be-contested vampire.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >James Coupe wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> James Coupe wrote: >>>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>>> 2) It has the side effect of increaseing bloat (via the uncontrolled >>>>> region). >>>> Again, you're claiming this as a side-effect without any evidence as >>>> to >>>> how the cards like Govern and Ecoterrorists were developed. >>> Just the evidence that can be discerned from the cards and rules >>> themselves, right. >> There is no evidence in the cards or rules as to whether this is a >>side >> effect. They simply exist. They do not say how or why they interact >> the way they do. They do not say what revisions were tried out during >> development and playtest. They do not say what decisions were taking >> regarding their interaction, assuming it was noticed. > >Not true. Then please detail this evidence. If we are to shut off bloating via the uncontrolled region, it would be helpful to know what the designer intent actually was, so that we can bear it in mind and see if, where possible, we can preserve it. >But moot, at any rate. The fact remains that undo influence was added >as a response to playtesters' notes about the severity of getting stuck >with a to-be-contested vampire. This is true, but irrelevant to your assertion that Ecoterrorists was developed to speed up bringing out vampires and that bloating was a side-effect. Perhaps, if the card was developed before transfers back were allowed, an early version of the card said "Move a counter to a younger uncontrolled <vampire of appropriate clan> or to your pool." Perhaps the card was developed after the influence rules were changed, and the pool generation was absolutely a planned, intended, wanted facet of the card. Perhaps Ecoterrorists was developed one side of the change and superior Govern was developed another side of the change. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> James Coupe wrote: >>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> James Coupe wrote: >>>>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>>>> 2) It has the side effect of increaseing bloat (via the uncontrolled >>>>>> region). >>>>> Again, you're claiming this as a side-effect without any evidence as >>>>> to >>>>> how the cards like Govern and Ecoterrorists were developed. >>>> Just the evidence that can be discerned from the cards and rules >>>> themselves, right. >>> There is no evidence in the cards or rules as to whether this is a >>> side >>> effect. They simply exist. They do not say how or why they interact >>> the way they do. They do not say what revisions were tried out during >>> development and playtest. They do not say what decisions were taking >>> regarding their interaction, assuming it was noticed. >> Not true. > > Then please detail this evidence. Just the main. "Govern the Unaligned" not "Tap the Unaligned". "Enchant Kindred" "Art Museum" and so on. >> But moot, at any rate. The fact remains that undo influence was added >> as a response to playtesters' notes about the severity of getting stuck >> with a to-be-contested vampire. > > This is true, but irrelevant to your assertion that Ecoterrorists was > developed to speed up bringing out vampires and that bloating was a > side-effect. > > Perhaps, if the card was developed before transfers back were allowed, > an early version of the card said "Move a counter to a younger > uncontrolled <vampire of appropriate clan> or to your pool." Perhaps > the card was developed after the influence rules were changed, and the > pool generation was absolutely a planned, intended, wanted facet of the > card. Perhaps Ecoterrorists was developed one side of the change and > superior Govern was developed another side of the change. OK. The most likely scenario, though, is that they were designed for speeding the influencing of the target vampires into the ready region.

On 25 Jul, 18:50, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> James Coupe wrote: > >>> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >>>> James Coupe wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > influencing of the target vampires into the ready region.- Ocultar texto citado - > > - Mostrar texto citado - Avoiding the murky waters of original designer intent, I'd rather focus on how much good this tentative change might produce, balanced against the disruption it will induce in the game's balance (which you judge to be small but pretty much everyone else seems to deem too disruptive). I'm also curious as to what is to be considered a 'positive' answer from playtesters, given that contestation is so infrequent and the changes to the influence phase ought to completely overshadow the issue. Drain

[ quoted text not captured ] In your opinion. However, that still does not address the idea that this was a side effect. Designer A: "So, this contesting thing. It's a bit of a crock when it happens and kills two players, don't you think?" Designer B: "Sure is. How about we let them change their mind?" Designer A: "What do you have in mind?" Designer B: "Well, I've got two ideas. In one, you can take all the counters from a vampire in your uncontrolled region and move them all to one other vampire in your uncontrolled region." Designer A: "That sounds interesting. What's the other idea?" Designer B: "My other idea is that you can pull back pool off vampires." Designer A: "Mmm, that's interesting too." Designer B: "Yeah, a feature with this idea is that Art Museum and Fourth Tradition can become a bit more multi-functional. When you draw them early on, they can speed you up. When you draw them later on, they can generate you a bit of pool." Designer A: "So, Ecoterrorists could help you get a Bomb, in a roundabout way?" Designer B: "Yeah, and your Art Museum could help you develop a Society Hunting Ground, too. Obviously, it wouldn't always work out that way, but I think the role-players would appreciate that." Designer A: "What about Fourth Tradition? Three pool is quite a lot to get in one go." Designer B: "That's true. Let me think about that..." Designer A: "Hey, I know, how about we make it a bit slower to pull pool back? That way, players are still encouraged to make the 'right' decision early on. And then it doesn't give them all the pool at once. So a player playing Govern the Unaligned twice in one turn might be able to get six pool, but only, say, two a turn?" Designer B: "Wicked. We've got a better handle on contesting vampires, and come up with some other interesting things for players to do. Let's suggest this at the next meeting." Yet, despite no evidence on the Design Team's thinking at all, you repeatedly assert that this is a side effect. And, further, have just asserted on IRC that this is a side effect that should be avoided. You are developing premises based on baseless assertions. Your so-called evidence on this matter is utterly, utterly meaningless. It is completely devoid of all merit. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jul 12, 2:56 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > So as we were driving back from the New York Qualifier last night, > during the post game analysis of my pal Ben's crashing and burning with > what should be (and tends to be locally) a very solid IC member/Orlando > vote deck for the second tournament in a row, it turned out that in both > this qualifier and the Origins Qualifier, Ben got completely killed in > two (of 6 total) games by randomly getting his Lutz contested. I pointed > out that I can't remember the last time that I actually had a vampire > contested or was in a situation where it was actually problematic that a > vampire I had in my uncontrolled region was already in play under > someone else's control (as opposed to it just being mildly annoying), > and that losing games due to contestation is just incredibly random > punishment. Yeah, Lutz is really good and really popular, so he is more > likely to be contested than, like, Gabriel de Cambrai or something, but > still, having a big important vampire getting contested is both > incredibly random and usually completely game destroying from very early > in the game. > > As vampire contestation (specifically big vampire contestation--when Old > Netdecker is contested, it is hardly a problem. When the IC member your > deck is relying on to go, or whatever, is contested, your game is > generally over before it even starts) is soooo incredibly random (how > many vampires are in the game now?), it seems like it might be prudent > to make it less completely devastating when it happens. What we came up > with was that maybe the game would work better for all involved if when > a vampire was contested, instead of both players losing control of that > vampire, you got to alternate control of him instead. Something like: > > "If two (or more) copies of a unique minion are in play, both are > flipped over and considered out of play. During each player's untap > phase, they must pay a pool to flip over their copy of the minion into > play (and flip over their opponent's copy out of play) and may use the > vampire as normal until their opponent does the same on their untap > phase. They may choose to not pay a pool and burn their copy of the > minion immediately." > > I'm sure it could be worded better, buy in any case, the end result > would be that you still burn a pool each turn like normal, but instead > of just not having a vampire, you get that guy on your turn and until > your opponent's turn. There certainly could be disparity in terms of how > long each player has the minion in play, i.e. if me and my prey are > contesting a guy, I only get the guy on my turn, and then get the guy > during their turn, and then all the way around the table till my turn > again, but I suspect that the advantage that was gained by being the > predator in that situation (i.e. I get my guy to attack my prey and he > doesn't have that guy to defend himself) would balance that out. > > I don't think this would be necessary for unique non minion cards--you > don't generally lose the game on T4 when someone contests your Ivory Bow > or KRCG News Radio or anything, where you do often lose the game > starting on T4 when someone contests (or brings out the big important > guy you have 10 pool on in your uncontrolled region), but a rules tweak > like this would really help mitigate the incredibly crippling and > incredibly random loss that is dropped on you just 'cause of the > incredibly small chance of someone contesting your important guy. > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" > -Gaff I do not mind the contest rules!!! If one builds a deck based on one vampire, than those are the breaks. I was contested at the some event!!!! It was hell, but I almost took my prey out!!! the vampire was Elimelech the Twice-Damned!!!! My reason for not changing the rule is that it works ok!!! It forces players to make sure their deck can still work with out that vampire!!!! If Emilelech was put in torpor, and I could not get him out ,it would be the same thing(by the way it has happened!!! We could remove the group rule(wink,wink)!!!! WIL

Lord of Ventrue <Wilbert...@gmail.com> wrote: >I do not mind the contest rules!!! If one builds a deck based on one >vampire, than those are the breaks. But it's not necessarily the person who built the deck that way that suffers. I build a deck using a variety of Nosferatu. As it happens, I bring out Sheldon first. You have built a deck that needs Sheldon. You bring out Sheldon and force the contest. I didn't build a deck based on one vampire, but I happened to bring out one who got contested. If I yield, I lose 9 pool. If I contest, I continue to lose more pool - and have (temporarily) lost 9 pool of vampire. This can, as repeatedly noted, kill me. Why is the fact that *you* built a deck focused around one vampire reason for it to break *my* game? [ quoted text not captured ]

On 25 Jul., 14:34, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > This hits at the very core of how WW's rullings system works. One > > person, alone, doing all the work and taking all the heat. > > And the problem that arises when few people agree with that person. > > Perhaps. But in this case there are also "few people who disagree". > > That is, few people have raised a voice at all, one way or the other. > Which, is you're an optimist, could indicate that some of the rest are > considering the issue in more depth. Does it make any difference to you if 7 or 8 (or any number) do not go well with the rules-change you are bringing forth? It seems that you *really* want to make some significant changes with the way the influence phase works (yes, I think most people would view the proposed changes as significant). Just for the record, I'm also of the opinion that removing bloat through the uncontrolled region is not a bad thing. And, when you are touching the matter, why don't you go the whole way and alter the transfers and address the speed issue the fatties have? There have been some suggestions (one of them was having to pay one transfer to "activate" a vampire with full blood, if I remember correctly) to lessen the disadvantage large caps have against small caps regarding the speed with which they can be brought into play. If you are pondering changes in the influence phase, why don't do that at the same time? Not related issues, true, but nevertheless a thing that was seen problematic at some point even by you.

On Jul 25, 5:02 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] The contest rule has been around from day one!!!! It makes VTES(along with the rule set) the best card games going!!!! With that being said; I do not believe changing a rule that is a foundation of the game because some players are not happy a good reason!!!! game rules should only be changed to make the game better, not to make some players happy!!! Now as to the "you" deck vs the "my" deck. Contesting happening most when you have new sets come out!!! I have been play since VTES started and I have only been contested at one event!!!! Lets not become like "magic" and other card games that change rules to make money and keep players( I understand the White-wolf needs to make money). Vtes is not for kids, it is for adults who want a challenge. So some times my day is ruin because someone plays a stealth bleed deck or a weenie one!!!! I get over it and kick their but for it. So there will all ways be "you" decks and "my" decks. That is the nature of the game!!!

On Jul 26, 8:49 am, Lord of Ventrue <Wilbert.Bis...@gmail.com> wrote: > The contest rule has been around from day one!!!! It makes VTES(along > with the rule set) the best card games going!!!! With that being > said; I do not believe changing a rule that is a foundation of the > game because some players are not happy a good reason!!!! game rules > should only be changed to make the game better, not to make some > players happy!!! A) Turn off the Exclamation Point lock key. B) Yes. The rule has been around since day one. And it has always been too harsh a penalty for a random event. Even the original game designer recognized that it was an incredibly harsh penalty for something that is essentially completely random. The theory is that fixing said role is a change that makes the game better. > Now as to the "you" deck vs the "my" deck. Contesting happening most > when you have new sets come out!!! I have been play since VTES > started and I have only been contested at one event!!!! No, contesting doesn't happen most when new sets come out. Contesting happens most when you randomly sit down at a table with someone who randomly happens to have the same minions as you. > Lets not become like "magic" and other card games that change rules to > make money and keep players( I understand the White-wolf needs to make > money). What makes you think such a change would be to make money and keep players? Such a change would be to make the game work better. Like all other previous changes. -Peter

Lord of Ventrue <Wilbert...@gmail.com> wrote: >Now as to the "you" deck vs the "my" deck. Contesting happening most >when you have new sets come out!!! I have been play since VTES >started and I have only been contested at one event!!!! So what you're saying is that you don't have an answer to the question. I repeat: however infrequently it happens, why is the fact that *you* built a deck that required one vampire reason to break someone else's deck that just happened to use that vampire first? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I think Amenophobis is on to something here. It has been a while since 777, lets do it again! Jokes aside, anything that empowers Fatties without aiding weenies is good. Removing bloat via uncontrolled will shake people's comfort zones, as a lot of decks will go from tier 1 to wonky. However I think it will create a large enough shift in the meta game as to allow some new and interesting decks to come forth Never mind the fact that less bloat means faster games.....

On Jul 27, 12:51 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jokes aside, anything that empowers Fatties without aiding weenies is > good. Removing bloat via uncontrolled will shake people's comfort > zones, as a lot of decks will go from tier 1 to wonky. However I think > it will create a large enough shift in the meta game as to allow some > new and interesting decks to come forth I agree that anything that empowers fatties without aiding weenies is good. Changing contestation rules so that you could recoup the pool in one way or the other would help fatties. But I think that removing bloat via uncontrolled would harm fatties more. It's usually fatties that use bloat via uncontrolled. When weenies move blood to uncontrolled it's more often used just to bring more vampires into play. Bloat via uncontrolled could be limited somehow, but I think removing it completely wouldn't be so good. > Never mind the fact that less bloat means faster games..... Yeah, and faster games means that faster decks are stronger...

On Jul 23, 2:39 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Well, with the understanding that influence-back rule was added to handle > contesting issues (and has ended up turning Ecoterrorists and superior Govern > and the like into bloat tools instead of the pack-building tools they were > designed to be), I'd say changing something along those lines wouldn't be too > out of line (as long as something's getting changed regarding contesting): > > Remove "spend 2 transfers to move 1 counter from a card in your uncontrolled > region to your pool." > > Add "remove from the game a crypt card in your uncontrolled region that would > contest a card in play to move all blood counters from it to your pool and draw > a card from your crypt". > > And make yielding a crypt card return the crypt card to the permanent > controller's uncontrolled region, for good measure. Hm. Those three points are interesting. I don't like the first one at all. I think it would make slow deck weaker, because not gaining pool anymore from Powerbase: Montreal or Ecoterrorists. This would be a major side-effect of a new rule designed to fix contest issues. The second point is nice. It fixes the "Oh, blast, my grand prey has influenced out my 10-cap star" problem. Shouldn't the removal have a cost (pool or transfers)? Is it intended to allow one to remove for free all Anarch Converts in crypt (and those drawn this way too) so all the cards in uncontrolled are non-Anarch Convert minions? The third point is strange. Sometimes, you want to contest another player's vampire to weaken him. Let's have an example: In the early game, my grand predator has influenced out Anson, and she's playing an Anson Grooming deck. I am playing an Alexandra / Anneke / Anson deck. There's no reason for me to kill her, so I don't influence on Anson. But later on, we're facing each other in duel. Her strongest card is her Anson. If I manage to shut him down, that'd give me the upper hand. So I decide to contest Anson. During her untap phase, she yields the contest. Her copy goes back in the uncontrolled. And she brings him out anew. So, we are now contesting 8-cap vampires with 8 blood each. With this new rule (i.e. "Yielded vampires are returned to the permanent controller's uncontrolled region"), we are no longer paying for the Contest (because yielding during the Untap phase, and putting back in play - well, contested - during the Influence phase). For free when vampire is at full-cap. Other example: My prey has her copy of Stavros, with 4 blood left. I contest Stavros. If my prey wants to get the "free contest" I discribed just above, it'll cost her 3 pool. But for me, contesting Stavros is free (just yield in Untap and send back in contest in Influence). Was that intended?

floppyzedolfin wrote: > On Jul 23, 2:39 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Well, with the understanding that influence-back rule was added to handle >> contesting issues (and has ended up turning Ecoterrorists and superior Govern >> and the like into bloat tools instead of the pack-building tools they were >> designed to be), I'd say changing something along those lines wouldn't be too >> out of line (as long as something's getting changed regarding contesting): >> >> Remove "spend 2 transfers to move 1 counter from a card in your uncontrolled >> region to your pool." >> >> Add "remove from the game a crypt card in your uncontrolled region that would >> contest a card in play to move all blood counters from it to your pool and draw >> a card from your crypt". >> >> And make yielding a crypt card return the crypt card to the permanent >> controller's uncontrolled region, for good measure. > > Hm. Those three points are interesting. > I don't like the first one at all. I think it would make slow deck > weaker, because not gaining pool anymore from Powerbase: Montreal or > Ecoterrorists. This would be a major side-effect of a new rule > designed to fix contest issues. Removing the side-effect of the original fix is not a side-effect of the proposed rule. The proposed is designed and worded expressly to remove that side-effect. > > The second point is nice. It fixes the "Oh, blast, my grand prey has > influenced out my 10-cap star" problem. Shouldn't the removal have a > cost (pool or transfers)? Is it intended to allow one to remove for > free all Anarch Converts in crypt (and those drawn this way too) so > all the cards in uncontrolled are non-Anarch Convert minions? > > The third point is strange. Sometimes, you want to contest another > player's vampire to weaken him. Yes. Any change to any rule will change how some situations are handled. In this case, a rule to make contesting less harsh will result in contesting being less harsh. Yes it may be cool for the person who wants to contest to do so, but that is precisely because contesting is so harsh for the other player. > Let's have an example: > In the early game, my grand predator has influenced out Anson, and > she's playing an Anson Grooming deck. I am playing an Alexandra / > Anneke / Anson deck. There's no reason for me to kill her, so I don't > influence on Anson. But later on, we're facing each other in duel. Her > strongest card is her Anson. If I manage to shut him down, that'd give > me the upper hand. So I decide to contest Anson. > During her untap phase, she yields the contest. Her copy goes back in > the uncontrolled. And she brings him out anew. So, we are now > contesting 8-cap vampires with 8 blood each. With this new rule (i.e. > "Yielded vampires are returned to the permanent controller's > uncontrolled region"), we are no longer paying for the Contest > (because yielding during the Untap phase, and putting back in play - > well, contested - during the Influence phase). For free when vampire > is at full-cap. Yes. > Other example: My prey has her copy of Stavros, with 4 blood left. I > contest Stavros. If my prey wants to get the "free contest" I > discribed just above, it'll cost her 3 pool. But for me, contesting > Stavros is free (just yield in Untap and send back in contest in > Influence). Was that intended? Yes. See also: the existence of some ways to make a vampire lose blood.

[ quoted text not captured ] > See also: the existence of some ways to make a vampire lose blood.- Ocultar texto citado - > > - Mostrar texto citado - I also have to point out that the 2:1 transfer-back rules were perfectly suited for the situation when you had but ~4 counters on a vampire by the time one of the other meths influence that vampire into play. Extinguishing tranfer-back will mean that the player will be forced to play out the influence of a vampire he knows he will not get to use. Drain

Drain wrote: > On 27 Jul, 14:22, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> floppyzedolfin wrote: >>> On Jul 23, 2:39 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> Well, with the understanding that influence-back rule was added to handle >>>> contesting issues (and has ended up turning Ecoterrorists and superior Govern >>>> and the like into bloat tools instead of the pack-building tools they were >>>> designed to be), I'd say changing something along those lines wouldn't be too >>>> out of line (as long as something's getting changed regarding contesting): >>>> Remove "spend 2 transfers to move 1 counter from a card in your uncontrolled >>>> region to your pool." >>>> Add "remove from the game a crypt card in your uncontrolled region that would >>>> contest a card in play to move all blood counters from it to your pool and draw >>>> a card from your crypt". [...] > I also have to point out that the 2:1 transfer-back rules were > perfectly suited for the situation when you had but ~4 counters on a > vampire by the time one of the other meths influence that vampire into > play. Extinguishing tranfer-back will mean that the player will be > forced to play out the influence of a vampire he knows he will not get > to use. Not. That is covered by the replacement undo influence rule quoted above. The player whose uncontrolled vampire would contest the other player's in-play vampire can remove it from the game and move the counters on it back to his or her pool.

[ quoted text not captured ] Actually I would prefer moving it onto another vampire once contestation starts. That way the power of slow decks (back bloating) gets eliminated. This is a good thing (tm). But you do not lose transfers, and it makes bloating a little harder too.... Except for that gain 4 cap when in play vamp. But hey, win some lose some.

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah. Clever. > But you do not lose transfers, and it makes bloating a little harder > too.... Except for that gain 4 cap when in play vamp. > But hey, win some lose some. Looks like win-win. Probably extend it to "move it to other card(s) in your uncontrolled region", in case you wind up with 7 counters on the to-be-contested 11-cap and three 4-caps in your uncontrolled region.

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, that does potentially allow silliness, cannot quite see how, but somehow using, um, Fidai'i, Aziz, tegyrius, and many many effective managements, khabar loyalty, enchant kindred, and fortitude for freak drives? Yeah, yah got me there.....

490 posts is to great number for me to be willing to read it all (would take me few hours at least) so I will quote 1 fragment from this topic that was quoted in different place. >Remove "spend 2 transfers to move 1 counter from a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool." This would: - definitely kill the imbued who just be more like a wallpaper without pool provided by Travis Traveller - make game more strait forward since superior govern in late game often lets some decks to live to another turn and sometimes even win thanks to it (this change would kill lot of versatility and make game more predictable what IMHO would kill lot of fun) - make dominate based bleed decks more aggressive what would limit their non aggressive actions only to hunt or stall - make influencing large vampires more dangerous because pool invested in them would be lost if pool loss would make influencing them out to dangerous or imposible - make lot of players angry (at this moment results in poll about it on extralas blog: Yes. 3 No. 42 I quit playing VtES then. 7 I wouldn't care. 2) Bloating with governlike cards or abilities isn't anything game breaking but lack of it would limit pool production in lot of non tournament winning decks. Bloating with minion tap + voter captivation is now limited by villein (but still good, for me second to golconda + soul gem), blood doll bloat by vessels (another not game breaking tech I don't understand why did vessel appeared in its form, without pool cost and b.d. burning would be good alternative for b.d.). I was angry when vessel appeared, even more angry after villein (because it showed that game goes towards banning popular techs, simplicity, mutual making not playable cards, etc.). It looks like it is only a mater of time before mtg will be more complexed. If I see this rule to come true I don't think that I'll stop playing vtes but I will buy no new new cards, and if vtes will stay on this course it would loose one of the biggest advantage - "you can play only cards from the oldest edition and have competing deck". LSJ please hear the crowd and don't remove quoted rule.

On Jul 27, 3:08 pm, Satrapa <Jedrzej.Komorow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Bloating with governlike cards or abilities isn't anything game > breaking but lack of it would limit pool production in lot of non > tournament winning decks. Bloating with minion tap + voter captivation > is now limited by villein (but still good, for me second to golconda + > soul gem), > Umm... Golconda + Soul Gem = gain pool equal to the vampire's capacity and burn your Soul Gem... How is that better than Minion Tap + Voter Cap?

On Jul 27, 4:08 pm, Satrapa <Jedrzej.Komorow...@gmail.com> wrote: > 490 posts is to great number for me to be willing to read it all > (would take me few hours at least) so I will quote 1 fragment from > this topic that was quoted in different place. > > >Remove "spend 2 transfers to move 1 counter from a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool." I don't think that rule should go anywhere for the simple reason that, whatever the design intent was 15 years ago, a whole lot of cards have been designed since then, presumably balanced based around the rules as they are. However: > This would: > - definitely kill the imbued who just be more like a wallpaper without > pool provided by Travis Traveller That's a really, really dubious assertion. -witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] So how about this as a possible solution. 1) Transfers stay exactly as they are 2) contestation stays as is, except for one change. "When yielding a contestation, a Methuselah may choose not to have any transfers that turn. If the ceding Methuselah chooses to do so, move all blood on the ceded contested vampire to a vampire in that Methuselah's uncontrolled region." Does not upset the apple cart, fixes a silly problem, does not allow abusiveness. Who likes it? ;)

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >floppyzedolfin wrote: >> On Jul 23, 2:39 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> Well, with the understanding that influence-back rule was added to handle >>> contesting issues (and has ended up turning Ecoterrorists and superior Govern >>> and the like into bloat tools instead of the pack-building tools they were >>> designed to be), I'd say changing something along those lines wouldn't be too >>> out of line (as long as something's getting changed regarding contesting): >>> >>> Remove "spend 2 transfers to move 1 counter from a card in your uncontrolled >>> region to your pool." >>> >>> Add "remove from the game a crypt card in your uncontrolled region that would >>> contest a card in play to move all blood counters from it to your pool and draw >>> a card from your crypt". >>> >>> And make yielding a crypt card return the crypt card to the permanent >>> controller's uncontrolled region, for good measure. >> Hm. Those three points are interesting. >> I don't like the first one at all. I think it would make slow deck >> weaker, because not gaining pool anymore from Powerbase: Montreal or >> Ecoterrorists. This would be a major side-effect of a new rule >> designed to fix contest issues. > >Removing the side-effect of the original fix is not a side-effect of >the proposed rule. >The proposed is designed and worded expressly to remove that side-effect. However, an interesting side-effect of the proposed rule is that it demonstrates that a designer can be prompted to ponder introducing a rule for one reason but then, using all their mental faculties, make their proposed rule change do more than one thing at once. It is entirely possible that Richard Garfield did something similar with his 2 transfer->pool rule. With his history of game design, it seems implausible that he could not think of the effects of his rule and tweak it if necessary. This thread shows how easy it is to make a few modifications that don't allow pool generation - would Garfield really be so unable to imagine moving pool to another uncontrolled vampire(s) when you were going to contest? And yet he chose the 2 transfer method instead. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a �crit dans le message de news:h4320q$g52$1...@news.eternal-september.org... > Bill Ricardi wrote: > > VTES is already an > > iffy draft game (and if you disagree, let's compare the ratio of draft > > to normal product sales in VTES and Magic, shall we?), so it is > > reasonable to tweak the rules to make it more enjoyable. > > But unreasonable to tweak the rules of constructed to make it more enjoyable? I've only quickly surveyed this thread, so I'm not sure if this already came up, but did you also consider that a "tweak" of rules is really disruptive and not enjoyable for a pool of players : the casual ones, the oldbies (who resumed the game after not playing for 10+ years or whatever) etc. ? It's tedious enough as it is to explain a new or oldbie player that such and such card text differs from its online card text. Handling that pool of players, telling them that "no, you can no longer Govern down or use Montreal to pool or whatever, just make another deck and re-learn the rules, yes I know that rulebook from 2009 is no longer valid" would only result in pissing them off, and for the sake of what ? Of handling a corner-case "harsh" situation when your star vampire gets contested ? It's less harsh that sitting on a table when you die within 20 minutes because your predator is uber agressive or has your nemesis deck or whatever. It happens. I can't believe we're heading in a situation where some players will be alienated from VtES no longer being what it used to be, just because a minority complained for having their star vampire contested. Sheesh. Stone

On Jul 28, 11:22 am, "Stone" <mc_judge_st...@yahoo.fr> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Stone, read my suggestion for what the change could be about 5 posts up. In essence, you forgo all transfers the turn you yield the contest, and get all the blood on the yielded minion put on another minion of your choice in your uncontrolled region.

[ quoted text not captured ] I wrote it based on Cybele deck I played against. I have never saw better bloat, not even based on Minion Tap + Voter. Cybele gains discipline, and soul gem, than goes minion tap, golconda and soul gem gives brand new Cybele. No need for voting witch could be blocked, don't need to pass trough referendum etc. About what witness1 wrote >> This would: >> - definitely kill the imbued who just be more like a wallpaper without >> pool provided by Travis Traveller >That's a really, really dubious assertion. Ok I played only against one Imbued deck but without TT Imbued have lot less poolgain options than vampire based decks, and when Travis was out of the game Imbued was near to helpless against most ousting decks.

On Jul 28, 9:26 am, Satrapa <Jedrzej.Komorow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 Lip, 22:18, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > Umm... Golconda + Soul Gem = gain pool equal to the vampire's capacity > > and burn your Soul Gem... How is that better than Minion Tap + Voter > > Cap? > > I wrote it based on Cybele deck I played against. I have never saw > better bloat, not even based on Minion Tap + Voter. > Cybele gains discipline, and soul gem, than goes minion tap, golconda > and soul gem gives brand new Cybele. No need for voting witch could be > blocked, don't need to pass trough referendum etc. Golconda doesn't trigger the Soul Gem (it removes vampires from the game instead of burning them). What you want to do is Call the Great Beast to get a new Cybele, then Villein the new Cybele and the Great Beast and Golconda the Beast so you can Call him again when you get another skill card. > About what witness1 wrote > > >> This would: > >> - definitely kill the imbued who just be more like a wallpaper without > >> pool provided by Travis Traveller > >That's a really, really dubious assertion. > > Ok I played only against one Imbued deck but without TT Imbued have > lot less poolgain options than vampire based decks, and when Travis > was out of the game Imbued was near to helpless against most ousting > decks. I believe that there are some imbued decks (and, perhaps more importantly, players) who need Travis in order to survive. Certainly the imbued would be less good overall if Travis were around. However, I was top seed in the finals of a recent tournament with a Judgment deck that had zero copies of Travis because he doesn't have the skill I was using. He's not necessary, just good. -witness1

On 23 juil, 14:39, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Ira Fay wrote: > > On Jul 21, 3:31 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> "Originally there was no way to retrieve counters from uncontrolled cards. Due > >> to contesting, a way was added. It costs 2 transfers. Why cost 2? Why not cost 1 > >> or cost the vampire?" > > > Hello LSJ, > > > Could you reiterate the most promising improvement that you're > > currently considering? I will implement that change in all my JOL and > > non-tournament games moving forward, so that perhaps sometime in the > > next year I might get some playtest data to report. > > Well, with the understanding that influence-back rule was added to handle > contesting issues (and has ended up turning Ecoterrorists and superior Govern > and the like into bloat tools instead of the pack-building tools they were > designed to be), I'd say changing something along those lines wouldn't be too > out of line (as long as something's getting changed regarding contesting): > > Remove "spend 2 transfers to move 1 counter from a card in your uncontrolled > region to your pool." > > Add "remove from the game a crypt card in your uncontrolled region that would > contest a card in play to move all blood counters from it to your pool and draw > a card from your crypt". > > And make yielding a crypt card return the crypt card to the permanent > controller's uncontrolled region, for good measure. I'm full agree with your proposition

On Jul 27, 10:51 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jokes aside, anything that empowers Fatties without aiding weenies is > good. Removing bloat via uncontrolled will shake people's comfort > zones, as a lot of decks will go from tier 1 to wonky. And a lot of kinda wonky decks will become wonkier. Possibly unplayable. My !Brujah uses Enchant Kindred and Gang Territory as a significant part of its bloat module. My !Salubri relies entirely on Mbare Market and Powerbase: Montreal. However I think > it will create a large enough shift in the meta game as to allow some > new and interesting decks to come forth > I don't see how, since presence vote decks and dementation weenie decks will still bloat just as well. Kevin Walsh