Toy Chest Test variant.
Idea: allow a player to partition his/her deck into "set-up",
"mid-game", and "end-game" portions. Something akin to the Lucky Draw
variant by Mark A. Wilker [1]. But with 1 more deck and with a few
restrictions on switching decks.
Rules:
======
Deck construction:
Each player starts with 1 crypt, constructed via the normal rules, and
3 library decks, constructed as follows:
Each of the libraries has between 20 and 30 cards (for a total library
size of 60 to 90 cards). They do not all have to be the same size.
Each deck is suffled and cut individually. Each player chooses one of
his or her libraries to start with. The other two are placed off to
the side (in the player's "toy chest"). Cards in the toy chest are out
of play and cannot be affected.
Play:
During the discard phase, each player gets one fewer discard by
default.
During the master phase, a player may spend a master phase action to
swap his or her library with one from his or her toy chest.
During the untap phase, if a player's library is empty, he or she must
choose one of the libraries from the toy chest to be her new library
(and immediately draw back up to his or her hand size, if necessary.
If this empties the new library, then the final library is taken from
the toy chest as well).
The player may not attempt to withdraw until all three libraries are
exhausted.
That's it.
Thoughts or suggestions?
[1] http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/Variants/Mixed.html
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu)
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson
In message <b2gc07$1ct441$1...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de>,
sjoh...@math.sc.edu (L. Scott Johnson) mumbled something about:
(snip)
>During the untap phase, if a player's library is empty, he or she must
>choose one of the libraries from the toy chest to be her new library
>(and immediately draw back up to his or her hand size, if necessary.
>If this empties the new library, then the final library is taken from
>the toy chest as well).
(snip)
>Thoughts or suggestions?
Both the Harbingers of Skulls and a deck based around Feline Saboteur
are probably broken in this variant. Since the split libraries are
designed to allow for selective positioning of resources, it now becomes
possible to erase all of someone's "early game" resources, almost
certainly leaving them in a non-viable position.
Does it win? Maybe. The traditional problem is getting past that
"first player" after ruining their game -- with split libraries, it'd be
possible to ruin the first person's early game, the second person's
midgame, and stall til the endgame and erase the last person you face.
--
"There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.
Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In message <b2gc07$1ct441$1...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de>,
>sjoh...@math.sc.edu (L. Scott Johnson) mumbled something about:
>
>(snip)
>>>During the untap phase, if a player's library is empty, he or she must
>>choose one of the libraries from the toy chest to be her new library
>>(and immediately draw back up to his or her hand size, if necessary.
>>If this empties the new library, then the final library is taken from
>>the toy chest as well).>
>(snip)
>>>Thoughts or suggestions?>
>Both the Harbingers of Skulls and a deck based around Feline Saboteur
>are probably broken in this variant. Since the split libraries are
>designed to allow for selective positioning of resources, it now becomes
>possible to erase all of someone's "early game" resources, almost
>certainly leaving them in a non-viable position.
I don't see how that would be any worse in this variant than in the
normal game.
>Does it win? Maybe. The traditional problem is getting past that
>"first player" after ruining their game -- with split libraries, it'd be
>possible to ruin the first person's early game, the second person's
>midgame, and stall til the endgame and erase the last person you face.
You can't ruin the second person's mid-game until you oust the first
person. How are you ousting the first person?
[ quoted text not captured ]
>Both the Harbingers of Skulls and a deck based around Feline Saboteur
>are probably broken in this variant. Since the split libraries are
>designed to allow for selective positioning of resources, it now becomes
>possible to erase all of someone's "early game" resources, almost
>certainly leaving them in a non-viable position.
Some additional observations (not necessarily a good or bad thing).
This variant severely weakens cards that allow you to search through your
library for something. The Summoning, Vast Wealth, Magic of the Smith, and
Horrid Reality are far less effective. Even abilities like Ivan's and
Ur-Shulgi's aren't as effective. Similarly, Waste Management Operation is much
stronger now that you only have to wait for 19 more cards (instead of a
possible 88 or 89) to get the same card again.
Also, there may be some sort of strategy involving mixing up cards from one
deck into the other. Cards like Waste Management Operation, Pochtli's ability,
and Reinforcements may have this effect.
Also, by granting one fewer discard during the discard phase, you enhance the
importance of Dreams, Barrens, and the Fraggie. Also, you effectively neuter
Rachel Brandywine's ability and Camarilla Threat.
Also, because your new library is 20-30 cards instead of 60-90, the effect of
Anatole, Maris Streck, and other peeking abilities are distorted as well. In
one sense it might not be as effective since you already have a better idea of
what's coming up. Or it may be more effective since it's more reliable (much
easier to find the right card with Maris Streck).
In addition, I would like to agree with Derek that decking mechanisms like the
Harbingers are far more powerful.
<< I don't see how that would be any worse in this variant than in the
normal game. >>
It would be worse in this variant because the libraries are specialized and
divided up. In a normal game, you are equally as likely to cause someone to
lose a beginning, mid-game, or end-game card (using a simplistic model). Thus
at any phase, you only have a 1/3 chance of depriving your prey of the cards he
needs at that point. With this variant, you can hit the beginning cards at the
beginning and then later on, hit someone's end-game cards at that point. (You
don't end up getting rid of their initial set-up cards at the end of the game).
Etc.
Overall, I'm personally not particularly impressed but this variant but I do
like more options so kudos there!
Halcyan 2
L. Scott Johnson wrote:
<SNIP>
> Each player starts with 1 crypt, constructed via the normal rules, and
> 3 library decks, constructed as follows:
>
> Each of the libraries has between 20 and 30 cards (for a total library
> size of 60 to 90 cards). They do not all have to be the same size.
>
> Each deck is suffled and cut individually. Each player chooses one of
> his or her libraries to start with. The other two are placed off to
> the side (in the player's "toy chest"). Cards in the toy chest are out
> of play and cannot be affected.
>
I can see some, if not major, problems. I assume that, implicitly, all
librarycycling is done to the "current" library. Pochtli and Waste
Management might become VERY powerful if anyone can come up with a
'perfect' 20 card library to be used by Giovanni or !Brujah, or even
a combination thereof.
Otherwise I think it's a fun idea to try, especially for those who
like to play "the ultimate five-card-combination" :)
My own initial response reading this was not a 'problematic' one
though. With cards sorted that way a Parthenon, Storage Annex,
Elder Library 'start library' and a Baltimore Purge, Graverobbing,
Freak Drive, Forgotten Labyrinth 'middle game atrocity' came to mind.
Sten During
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:01:55 GMT, sjoh...@math.sc.edu (L. Scott
Johnson) wrote:
>Toy Chest Test variant.>Idea: allow a player to partition his/her deck into "set-up",
>"mid-game", and "end-game" portions. Something akin to the Lucky Draw
>variant by Mark A. Wilker [1]. But with 1 more deck and with a few
>restrictions on switching decks.>Rules:
>======>Deck construction:>Each player starts with 1 crypt, constructed via the normal rules, and
>3 library decks, constructed as follows:>Each of the libraries has between 20 and 30 cards (for a total library
>size of 60 to 90 cards). They do not all have to be the same size.>Each deck is shuffled and cut individually. Each player chooses one of>his or her libraries to start with. The other two are placed off to
>the side (in the player's "toy chest"). Cards in the toy chest are out
>of play and cannot be affected.>Play:>During the discard phase, each player gets one fewer discard by
>default.>During the master phase, a player may spend a master phase action to
>swap his or her library with one from his or her toy chest.>During the untap phase, if a player's library is empty, he or she must
>choose one of the libraries from the toy chest to be her new library
>(and immediately draw back up to his or her hand size, if necessary.
>If this empties the new library, then the final library is taken from
>the toy chest as well).>The player may not attempt to withdraw until all three libraries are
>exhausted.>That's it.>Thoughts or suggestions?>[1] http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/Variants/Mixed.html
I play 3 decks, 1 all masters, 2 with no masters.
I use Anson as my primary vampire and some of my masters are the
Parthenon, Elder Library, and Fragment of the Book of Nod.
I play 1-2 masters, then switch decks as my last master phase action.
For the rest of my turn I have no issues with masters entering my
hand. Beyond the 1 or 2 I played originally and are replaced from
the master card deck.
Perfect setup :
first turn: Parthenon, Fragment of the Book of Nod -- some transfers
second turn: Dreams, Elder Library -- more transfers bring Anson into
play
third turn: Switch to minion deck, play 2 more master cards, tap
Fragment to drop duplicate masters from hand and draw two minion
cards, tap dreams to acquire 2 more cards from minion deck
Now I have 2 master cards in hand, and 8 minion cards until the end of
this turn. I can switch to the following schedule for the rest of the
turns and never have a hand jammed with masters.
Master phase action 1 - switch to master deck
Master phase action 2 - play 1 master card and replace from that
master deck
Master phase action 3 - switch to either minion card deck
I like it, and will try it when I get a chance.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
http://www.TheLasombra.com/variants.htm
>Some additional observations (not necessarily a good or bad thing).
>
>This variant severely weakens cards that allow you to search through your
>library for something. The Summoning, Vast Wealth, Magic of the Smith, and
>Horrid Reality are far less effective. Even abilities like Ivan's and
>Ur-Shulgi's aren't as effective.
I don't see this. A card like Magic of the Smith I only want to play early.
Twenty to thirty cards is no guarantee of drawing the card you wanted to search
out, while never drawing a MotS (or whatever) later in a game is all good.
I'd actually look at trying turbo tool up where you drop all of the deck's
permanents with your initial deck (i.e. ASAP) and use searching mechanisms for
deck thinning. Besides MotS, which also gives extra stealth, Muricia's Call
would be something else I'd look at to try and abuse deck thinning as much as
possible.
>Also, by granting one fewer discard during the discard phase, you enhance the
>importance of Dreams, Barrens, and the Fraggie. Also, you effectively neuter
>Rachel Brandywine's ability and Camarilla Threat.
Maybe should be tried without the one less discard rule first to see if that's
truly a problem.
>In addition, I would like to agree with Derek that decking mechanisms like
>the
>Harbingers are far more powerful.
I wouldn't use the word powerful since milling someone has no correlation to
winning.
><< I don't see how that would be any worse in this variant than in the
>normal game. >>
>
>It would be worse in this variant because the libraries are specialized and
>divided up. In a normal game, you are equally as likely to cause someone to
>lose a beginning, mid-game, or end-game card (using a simplistic model). Thus
>at any phase, you only have a 1/3 chance of depriving your prey of the cards
>he
>needs at that point. With this variant, you can hit the beginning cards at
>the
>beginning and then later on, hit someone's end-game cards at that point. (You
>don't end up getting rid of their initial set-up cards at the end of the
>game).
>Etc.
That's nice, but milling someone has no correlation to winning. There are
plenty of decks people could play that cause someone to lose but don't win
outside of this format. If people insist on playing such things, then that's
the player's fault.
>Overall, I'm personally not particularly impressed but this variant but I do
>like more options so kudos there!
I'd try it if other people would. I think it requires a bit much effort to get
enough people to try it, though.
The Lasombra wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:01:55 GMT, sjoh...@math.sc.edu (L. Scott
> Johnson) wrote:
>
>> >During the discard phase, each player gets one fewer discard by
> >default.
This means that a perpetual hand-jam is possible: ie, a combat deck with
a full-combat hand can't get into combat, and has no way of cycling to
the rush cards.
It also means that card-cycling cards are more valuable, making
contestation of those cards much more likely.
> >During the master phase, a player may spend a master phase action to
> >swap his or her library with one from his or her toy chest.
I wonder if use of the 'During X, do Y' template is intentional (ie, do
you want to limit switching to once per master phase)? :)
> >During the untap phase, if a player's library is empty, he or she must
> >choose one of the libraries from the toy chest to be her new library
> >(and immediately draw back up to his or her hand size, if necessary.
> >If this empties the new library, then the final library is taken from
> >the toy chest as well).
>
>
> >The player may not attempt to withdraw until all three libraries are
> >exhausted.
>
>
>> I play 3 decks, 1 all masters, 2 with no masters.
> I use Anson as my primary vampire and some of my masters are the
> Parthenon, Elder Library, and Fragment of the Book of Nod.
Given the utility of those cards in this variant, chances are that
they'll soon be contested/stolen (along with The Barrens).
Flux
Flux <fl...@netc.pt> wrote:
> The Lasombra wrote:>> L. Scott Johnson wrote:
>> >During the master phase, a player may spend a master phase action to
>> >swap his or her library with one from his or her toy chest.>
>I wonder if use of the 'During X, do Y' template is intentional (ie, do
>you want to limit switching to once per master phase)? :)
Oops. It wasn't.
Replace with:
A player may spend a master phase action to swap his or her library
with one from his or her toy chest.
--
[ quoted text not captured ]
sjoh...@math.sc.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote in message news:<b2gc07$1ct441$1...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de>...
> Toy Chest Test variant.
>
(snip concept)
This sounds like an avenue worth investigating to me, although I'm not
sure about three libraries - I think that two will work better,
allowing for more card flow. It would be bad to run out of your
current library when your next master phase is a ways off, too!
Suggestion: allow the edge to be burned (in addition to a master phase
spent) for switching libraries, which makes it possible to switch
during your minion phase.
I'll think a bit more over this and see what we can come up with!
Regards,
Patrick
Columbus, OH
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'm suprised nobody mentioned how nasty Brainwash decks would be in this
format. First 20-30 card module based on screwing your prey from
getting minions, then an easy swap for the stuff that lets you go
forward.
The concept is a good one, though wouldn't it be strong enough to allow
a player to swich to the stack of his/her pick after running out of
cards in the initial stack?
Or to prevent some abuse; using your original idea that you can switch
librarys at will, allow deck switching only during the Untap phase and
the player then skips the remainder of thier turn. Or just skip to the
transfer phase. Of course that might be an over-reaction.
How does discard work? You have 3 seperate ash heaps?
Does a player need to maintain 3 lists representative of stack A,B,
and C? Does it matter if a player alters the contents of said stack
between rounds (using cards from other stacks of course)?
Obvious answer would probably each player has one ash heap, and at the
end of each round players may adjust their A,B,C stacks at they choose.
Just some thoughts to explore..
BernieTime
Lansing, Michigan
In message <b2geoh$1cbqhq$1...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de>,
sjoh...@math.sc.edu (L. Scott Johnson) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:>>In message <b2gc07$1ct441$1...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de>,
>>sjoh...@math.sc.edu (L. Scott Johnson) mumbled something about:
>>
>>(snip)
>>>>>During the untap phase, if a player's library is empty, he or she must
>>>choose one of the libraries from the toy chest to be her new library
>>>(and immediately draw back up to his or her hand size, if necessary.
>>>If this empties the new library, then the final library is taken from
>>>the toy chest as well).>>
>>(snip)
>>>>>Thoughts or suggestions?>>
>>Both the Harbingers of Skulls and a deck based around Feline Saboteur
>>are probably broken in this variant. Since the split libraries are
>>designed to allow for selective positioning of resources, it now becomes
>>possible to erase all of someone's "early game" resources, almost
>>certainly leaving them in a non-viable position.>
>I don't see how that would be any worse in this variant than in the
>normal game.
In the normal game, random milling of someone's library is just that --
random. A deck that depends on "early resources" to get set up might
get milled into resources they normally wouldn't have drawn -- mileage
will certainly vary.
In this game, you can be sure that the "first" library is going to be a
lot of critical "early game" stuff. It caters more towards "trick"
decks, sure, but it also caters a lot more towards "denial" decks. For
example, the thought below. If you can mill me out of all my Pulses,
I'm going to have trouble getting anywhere because I certainly won't be
putting any in the midgame or endgame libraries -- those are all going
to be stealth, fortitude, pool gain/defense, and Slaughterhouses.
My real objection is that it increases the odds dramatically of hitting
something "critical" with random milling... where previously, it wasn't
worth it to play a mill deck because the odds of hitting someone's key
stuff in 90 cards was so low.
I can make it even uglier by using Scrying of Secrets... but that
doesn't really count since it's no longer random milling anymore, it's
selected milling. That strategy works even in the normal game.
>>Does it win? Maybe. The traditional problem is getting past that
>>"first player" after ruining their game -- with split libraries, it'd be
>>possible to ruin the first person's early game, the second person's
>>midgame, and stall til the endgame and erase the last person you face.>
>You can't ruin the second person's mid-game until you oust the first
>person. How are you ousting the first person?
With Pulse of the Canaille and Necromancy stealth that I can guarantee
getting early on with this variant, as opposed to the usual "gotta put
too many of them in and hope it comes up early" style. With Feline
Saboteur, I have Ox play Cloak on all my Setite obf/pre stealth/bleeders
each turn after he whacks 5 out of your stuff.
The Harbingers are probably better at decimating someone's library
directly, since you can get Slaughterhouses out pretty damn quickly.
Don't forget about Lupine Assault in that first 20-card library, either;
great way to get rid of your own extra Pulses and maybe a few
Slaughterhouses as well if you already have enough.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <20030213142557...@mb-mb.aol.com>,
cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) mumbled something about:
>I'd actually look at trying turbo tool up where you drop all of the deck's
>permanents with your initial deck (i.e. ASAP) and use searching mechanisms for
>deck thinning. Besides MotS, which also gives extra stealth, Muricia's Call
>would be something else I'd look at to try and abuse deck thinning as much as
>possible.
Remember you said this.
>I wouldn't use the word powerful since milling someone has no correlation to
>winning.
In this variant, though, it does. If I erase all your early permanents
and key cards, your mid-game library will not function properly, and it
will be noticeably easier to oust you since you won't have much hope of
ousting your own prey.
Look at what you said above. If you turbo up your deck with all your
critical cards early on, every card I mill is near-guaranteed to be a
positive thing. In the normal game, what you say is true -- random
milling doesn't help, because I might just mill away your extra copies
of Vast Wealth. In THIS game, milling would be monstrously strong.
>That's nice, but milling someone has no correlation to winning. There are
>plenty of decks people could play that cause someone to lose but don't win
>outside of this format. If people insist on playing such things, then that's
>the player's fault.
What if they won in this format though?
>I'd try it if other people would. I think it requires a bit much effort to get
>enough people to try it, though.
Oh, I dunno about THAT. There's this whole Boston thing happening soon.
I wouldn't mind bringing a couple decks designed specifically to try
this format out... anyone else?
[ quoted text not captured ]
berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote:
>The concept is a good one, though wouldn't it be strong enough to allow
>a player to swich to the stack of his/her pick after running out of
>cards in the initial stack?
That's reasonable, sure.
The idea behind waiting was to offer an strategic decision making
item (i.e., when to swap to the next deck to avoid running out of
cards and playing (temporarily) with a reduced hand).
>Or to prevent some abuse; using your original idea that you can switch
>librarys at will,
That's Mark A. Wilker's original idea, BTW.
> allow deck switching only during the Untap phase and
>the player then skips the remainder of thier turn. Or just skip to the
>transfer phase. Of course that might be an over-reaction.
I think skipping a whole turn to swap would be an over-reaction, yeah.
I think an MPA is a slightly higher cost than an influence phase.
YMMV.
>How does discard work? You have 3 seperate ash heaps?
No. You still just have one ash heap (just like normal V:TES - one ash
heap to cover two decks - the library and the crypt. The ash heap is
not tied to a given deck - a deck doesn't have its own personal ash
heap).
>Does a player need to maintain 3 lists representative of stack A,B,
>and C? Does it matter if a player alters the contents of said stack
>between rounds (using cards from other stacks of course)?
This is a game format. There is no "between rounds" in a game.
If I were to try to run a tournament around this game format, I would
prohibit the alteration of decks between rounds, just as in a normal
tournament, yeah.
>Obvious answer would probably each player has one ash heap, and at the
>end of each round players may adjust their A,B,C stacks at they choose.
How is allowing the player to alter the composition of his decks
between rounds an obvious choice?
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Derek Ray wrote:
> Oh, I dunno about THAT. There's this whole Boston thing happening soon.
> I wouldn't mind bringing a couple decks designed specifically to try
> this format out... anyone else?
I'm game.
David Cherryholmes
Prince of Durham, NC
In message <b2iqvk$1cof65$1...@ID-99714.news.dfncis.de>, L. Scott Johnson
<sjoh...@math.sc.edu> writes:
>> allow deck switching only during the Untap phase and
>>the player then skips the remainder of thier turn. Or just skip to the
>>transfer phase. Of course that might be an over-reaction.>
>I think skipping a whole turn to swap would be an over-reaction, yeah.
>I think an MPA is a slightly higher cost than an influence phase.
>YMMV.
Given that one deck is going to have your start-up gubbins in it, you're
unlikely to want to switch away from that.
In the later game, when your vampires are out, there's probably some
spare transfers going around, unless you're doing lots of Govern the
Unaligned type things.
Masters are usually a little more constant throughout the game, at
least.
I don't think using the influence phase is likely to be as costly.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
Hi! I'm Nancy Drew! You must be the Hardy Boys! 13D7E668C3695D623D5D