I tried to compile the issues people currently have with two player
format and order them a bit. They are listed below each with A, B, C
etc.
After that I took some of the suggested formats and tried to come up
with some others, plus I tried to note down which (if any) of the
issues I felt this solution would improve. If included in paranthesis
it is because they might only partially help with that particular
issue.
Please add more possible solution or suggestions if you have them, or
comment on some of the ones below.
ISSUES:
A- Some stable cards are useless.
B- Some cards with "X players" in the effect become too weak.
C- Cards that a passed on to predator or prey can break the game.
D- Certain deck types (especially weenie decks) are too strong, as
there are no other players to help you against them.
E- Having the Edge is too strong, and it becomes too easy to hold on
to it.
F- Lack of interaction based on the two deck types can make the game
boring.
G- Rock-Paper-Scissor can screw you over more so than in a normal
game.
H- Combat decks, or decks that target minions are too strong, as they
only have to focus on "half" as many minions as usually.
I - Lack of player-player interaction makes the game too simple and
boring compared to a 5 player game.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
1:
• You must burn the edge to gain a pool at your untap.
• Any bleed redirection costs at least 1 blood for minion cards and 1
pool for master cards or effects and makes the bleed action fail.
• Any X referring to the number of players is =3
• Start with 40 pool and 4 transfers every turn
Help with A, B, (D), E
2:
In addition to option 1, add the following:
• You can only take ONE action targeting your opponent or cards
controlled by him per turn.
• You can only block ONE of your opponents actions per turn.
Helps with A, B, D, E, H,
3:
• Add 2 imaginary players with only pool (15, 20 or 30)
Helps with B, C, (E)
4:
• In addition to option 2 the imaginary players each receive two 1 cap
vampire in their untap phase. One vampire will try to bleed for 1 with
no stealth. If in combat he plays no cards and attempts to strike for
1. The other vampire will remain untapped and attempt to block any
action (normal prey/predator order) and if in combat will play no
cards.
• At the beginning of the untap phase the imaginary player also
removes the vampires from the previous turn from the game.
Helps with A, B, C, (D), E, (I)
I was thinking about writing some of these out, print them on paper
with a note/comment field and bringing them to the NAC. Maybe try and
get some people involved in trying the different formats out over the
week and then compile it all at the end of the week.
On Sep 18, 9:33 am, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
[ quoted text not captured ]
eh, are you serious? any intercept deck is useless then. (think of a
swarm deck failing one action and passing another 10)
>
> 3:
> • Add 2 imaginary players with only pool (15, 20 or 30)
> Helps with B, C, (E)
That's better than starting with 40 pool, but it should prbably only
be 10 though, and no 6 pool/vp for ousting them
Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt wrote:
> POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
>
> 1:
> � You must burn the edge to gain a pool at your untap.
I don't think holding the Edge is problematic. Blocking decks themselves a
problematic, but Edge-holding is only a miniscule part of that.
That said, if you use this rule, you should errata the cards that allow burning
the Edge during your untap for some other effect to also gain the standard Edge
pool, then.
Sabbat Threat
Deploy the Hand
Hand Intervention
Lucinde, Alastor
burning 419 Operation
Alonzo Guillen
Extortion
Mapatano Utando
Tragic Love Affair
Arguably Sarrasine and Victoria as well (e.g., burn the Edge during your untap
phase to gain 1 pool and gain an MPA in your next master phase).
> � Any bleed redirection costs at least 1 blood for minion cards and 1> pool for master cards or effects and makes the bleed action fail.
This rule would certainly make Edge-holding easier. If Edge-holding is a
problem, you shouldn't use this rule.
Better: "Any effect that would change the target of the bleed instead reduces
the bleed amount by 1"
> � Any X referring to the number of players is =3
Affects three cards (plus one banned card):
Turns ConAg into a weaker KRC. May as well play KRC.
Makes Parity Shift stronger, which isn't needed.
Turns Slave Auction into a unique STI. May as well use STI.
So, in all, not effective at addressing B except in making Parity Shift
stronger, and Parity Shift is strong enough in 2p as printed.
> � Start with 40 pool and 4 transfers every turn
? Which "problem" is this addressing?
In any event, if you want more pool, fine. If you want faster influence, you
should still use the ramp: first player gets 2 transfers on first turn. Every
player gets 4 transfers on all other turns.
> 2:
> In addition to option 1, add the following:> � You can only take ONE action targeting your opponent or cards> controlled by him per turn.> � You can only block ONE of your opponents actions per turn.> Helps with A, B, D, E, H,
? How does that help with A?
B?
This rule just turns the game into a fatties-only game (esp. if combined with
the 40pool start). Which is fine if that's what you want, but it seems unnecessary.
You could implement a borrow-transfer system to help address D without going to
the extreme above:
During your influence phase, gain 6 transfers (3 for the first player on the
first turn).
Spend transfers as normal. Unused transfers are kept (use counters to track them).
Attempting an action costs a transfer.
Successfully blocking costs a transfer. (Or 2 if the acting minion is an older
vampire, bwahaha).
If banking them becomes a problem, add
At the start of your influence phase, burn all unused transfer counters you have
before gaining your 6 new ones.
On Sep 18, 10:38 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt wrote:> > • Any X referring to the number of players is =3>
> Affects three cards (plus one banned card):
> Turns ConAg into a weaker KRC. May as well play KRC.
> Makes Parity Shift stronger, which isn't needed.
> Turns Slave Auction into a unique STI. May as well use STI.
>
> So, in all, not effective at addressing B except in making Parity Shift
> stronger, and Parity Shift is strong enough in 2p as printed.
Both the "may as well use" points are valid if you're specifically
building a deck to play a 2p game under this rule-set, but if what
you're doing is looking for a set that lets folks play a 2-player game
with decks they've already got built for multiplayer, they're worth
addressing.
- D.J.
[ quoted text not captured ]
True. The idea was to limit one strong archetype, the weenie deck, but
then it didnt seem balanced to not also limit another strong
archetype, the intercept deck. But yes, in that matchup between those
two it would be pretty tragic.
>
>
>
> > 3:
> > • Add 2 imaginary players with only pool (15, 20 or 30)
> > Helps with B, C, (E)
>
> That's better than starting with 40 pool, but it should prbably only> be 10 though, and no 6 pool/vp for ousting them- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
On Sep 18, 10:37 am, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
[ quoted text not captured ]
Erm... I don't get it. A) Why either of you is saying that a swarm
deck could do anything, because it would be completely hosed by this.
Any deck that can't either bleed for 6+ or pass votes is completely
useless, because you'll never oust a player doing 1 bleed per turn
otherwise. B) Why this would be even remotely desirable.
D.J. wrote:
> On Sep 18, 10:38 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt wrote:>>> � Any X referring to the number of players is =3>> Affects three cards (plus one banned card):
>> Turns ConAg into a weaker KRC. May as well play KRC.
>> Makes Parity Shift stronger, which isn't needed.
>> Turns Slave Auction into a unique STI. May as well use STI.
>>
>> So, in all, not effective at addressing B except in making Parity Shift
>> stronger, and Parity Shift is strong enough in 2p as printed.>
> Both the "may as well use" points are valid if you're specifically
> building a deck to play a 2p game under this rule-set, but if what
> you're doing is looking for a set that lets folks play a 2-player game
> with decks they've already got built for multiplayer, they're worth
> addressing.
Then you should use a suitable rule:
ConAg errataed to have text identical to KRC.
Slave Auction errataed to have text identical to STI.
Parity Shift plays as printed.
On 18 Sep., 16:38, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt wrote:
>
> > POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
>
> > 1:> > • You must burn the edge to gain a pool at your untap.>
> I don't think holding the Edge is problematic. Blocking decks themselves a
> problematic, but Edge-holding is only a miniscule part of that.
>
> That said, if you use this rule, you should errata the cards that allow burning
> the Edge during your untap for some other effect to also gain the standard Edge
> pool, then.
>
> Sabbat Threat
> Deploy the Hand
> Hand Intervention
> Lucinde, Alastor
> burning 419 Operation
> Alonzo Guillen
> Extortion
> Mapatano Utando
> Tragic Love Affair
>
> Arguably Sarrasine and Victoria as well (e.g., burn the Edge during your untap
> phase to gain 1 pool and gain an MPA in your next master phase).
I see what you mean, but with this you would just have to choose what
you want to burn it for. I still believe that the one pool you can get
each turn means a lot more in a 2 player game, than in a regular game.
So maybe toning it down like this (in case you are up against those
types of decks) isnt actually a bad thing.
>
> > • Any bleed redirection costs at least 1 blood for minion cards and 1> > pool for master cards or effects and makes the bleed action fail.
>
> This rule would certainly make Edge-holding easier. If Edge-holding is a
> problem, you shouldn't use this rule.
But if holding the edge is no longer a problem, sine you have to burn
it to get an effect, then by this you still have a use for bleed
redirections, without unbalancing either.
>
> Better: "Any effect that would change the target of the bleed instead reduces
> the bleed amount by 1"
>> > • Any X referring to the number of players is =3>
> Affects three cards (plus one banned card):
> Turns ConAg into a weaker KRC. May as well play KRC.
> Makes Parity Shift stronger, which isn't needed.
> Turns Slave Auction into a unique STI. May as well use STI.
>
> So, in all, not effective at addressing B except in making Parity Shift
> stronger, and Parity Shift is strong enough in 2p as printed.
That Slave auction becomes similar to STI should be fine. Its true
that parity shift doesnt need to get any stronger, and it seems more
important to keep Parity shift where it is, than it does to bring
ConAg in line with KRC in my opinion.
So maybe this ruled should be skipped altogether.
>
> > • Start with 40 pool and 4 transfers every turn>
> ? Which "problem" is this addressing?
> In any event, if you want more pool, fine. If you want faster influence, you
> should still use the ramp: first player gets 2 transfers on first turn. Every
> player gets 4 transfers on all other turns.
Hoping to limit the power of weenie decks. Especially in a two player
game it seems to swing to their advantage. If you have more pool, the
slower decks should have a better chance at getting "set up".
I dont know if more transfers would help out the slower decks as much
as it would help the weenies.
>
> > 2:
> > In addition to option 1, add the following:> > • You can only take ONE action targeting your opponent or cards> > controlled by him per turn.> > • You can only block ONE of your opponents actions per turn.> > Helps with A, B, D, E, H,
>
> ? How does that help with A?
> B?
Doesnt help A and B. Must have been a typo.
>
> This rule just turns the game into a fatties-only game (esp. if combined with
> the 40pool start). Which is fine if that's what you want, but it seems unnecessary.
>
> You could implement a borrow-transfer system to help address D without going to
> the extreme above:
> During your influence phase, gain 6 transfers (3 for the first player on the
> first turn).
> Spend transfers as normal. Unused transfers are kept (use counters to track them).
> Attempting an action costs a transfer.
> Successfully blocking costs a transfer. (Or 2 if the acting minion is an older
> vampire, bwahaha).
>
> If banking them becomes a problem, add
> At the start of your influence phase, burn all unused transfer counters you have
> before gaining your 6 new ones.
I like that idea. Should probably be non-mandatory actions, and maybe
only succesful actions instead of attempts.
[ quoted text not captured ]> -witness1- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
Could be, yes.
I think the less specific cards that get mentioned in the rules for
the format, the better.
Not that the specific cases shouldnt be considered, but if there are
general rules that solve the problem, or like here where the problem
maybe isnt that big, then I think they should be kept out of the rules.
[ quoted text not captured ]> otherwise. B) Why this would be even remotely desirable.- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn ->
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
True.
[ quoted text not captured ]> I like that idea. Should probably be non-mandatory actions, and maybe
> only succesful actions instead of attempts.
It should be attempts, unless you also don't count successful blocks.
(You either get to peel off a block counter from your opponent or you get a
successful action. Either way, it's worth a counter of your own. Just like the
rules don't tap you only for successful actions: you tap whether your action is
successful or not).