Rapid Thought Revised

http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion. Would anyone want to play such a format, if it were able to be rated? 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 Apr 13, 7:48 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt > Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion. > >Tournament Setup > a. 3-player tables *only*, minimum 9 players > b. 45 minutes per round Both totally reasonable. >Special rules > a. LIBRARY = 40-90 cards Why 40 card minimum? Like, sure, it might be handy in such a format, but I can't see a real compelling reason to change the 60 card minimum rule. > b. CRYPT = 6 cards minimum Same here. Why a 6 card minimum crypt? It makes sense in draft, but why is it necessary here? Like, I can see changes that help make the game shorter (i.e. removal of pool gain, for example), but allowing your decks to be smaller doesn't strike me as something that helps game go faster. It strikes me that the 40/6 card minimum doesn't really help things go faster but opens up the window for unforeseen abuse. >c. BANNED CARDS > Vampire: Una > Minion: Blood Doll > Consanguineous Boon > Gran Madre di Dio, Italy > Kindred Spirits > Minion Tap > Reckless Agitation > Shared Nightmare > Taunt the Caged Beast > Tribute to the Master > Vessel > Villein Pool gain removal: Check. Perfect sense to me. But if you are going to kill Kindred Spirits and all those other pool gain cards, why not also kill Govern, et al? Reckless Agitation: Wha? It is a card that makes games go fast. Makes sense to let it exist. Taunt the Caged Beast: Just 'cause it is a 3 player game? Strikes me as kind of unnecessary. You can't compel your opponents to actually fight, even if you put them in combat. Una: Fair enough. How about: The Imbued? >Would anyone want to play such a format, if it were able to be rated? Oh, absolutely. I'm unconcerned with it being rated. But If there was a tournament at, say Origins like this? I'd be all over it. -Peter

On Apr 13, 6:14 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Apr 13, 7:48 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > >http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt > > Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion. > > >Tournament Setup > > a. 3-player tables *only*, minimum 9 players Makes sense, but unfortunate if you have a non-multiple-of-3 number of players. Is there a workaround? > >Special rules > > a. LIBRARY = 40-90 cards > > Why 40 card minimum? Like, sure, it might be handy in such a format, > but I can't see a real compelling reason to change the 60 card minimum > rule. Since the time limit is shorter, players will get through less of their decks. Smaller decks are also more consistent, and might go faster. The original rules had a 70 card max size, perhaps to give Brinksmanship a chance to work? Perhaps LSJ can comment on his reasoning behind the original 40-70 card limit. I'd just leave it at 40-70, unless there's a reason to change it. > > b. CRYPT = 6 cards minimum I'd leave it at 12, as the original design was fine. > >c. BANNED CARDS > > Vampire: Una Yes. > > Minion: Blood Doll > > Consanguineous Boon > > Gran Madre di Dio, Italy > > Kindred Spirits > > Minion Tap > > Reckless Agitation > > Shared Nightmare > > Taunt the Caged Beast > > Tribute to the Master > > Vessel > > Villein The non-master cards are weird. How did you pick those, Kevin? Shared Nightmare is especially strange to me. I would keep this list as short as possible for design elegance and logistical convenience. These 5 seem sufficient: Blood Doll, Minion Tap, Tribute, Vessel, Villein. If you're going to ban Con Boon, perhaps Exclusion Principle as well? Any action like Gran Madre, Con Boon, Kindred Spirits, etc. can be blocked, voted down, etc. So I would let those be. Combat is going to be king, so if someone is bold enough to bring a Boon deck, I wish them luck. :) > How about: The Imbued? They are pretty squishy. I suspect they're OK to stay, but they do slow down the game. Ira

On Apr 13, 9:47 pm, Ira Fay <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > Since the time limit is shorter, players will get through less of > their decks. Smaller decks are also more consistent, and might go > faster. The original rules had a 70 card max size, perhaps to give > Brinksmanship a chance to work? Perhaps LSJ can comment on his > reasoning behind the original 40-70 card limit. I'd just leave it at > 40-70, unless there's a reason to change it. Oh, yeah, huh. The LSJ rules have a 40-70 deck. I'd rather just see the deck sizes left the same, 'cause I'm not convinced there is a good reason to change them. > They are pretty squishy. I suspect they're OK to stay, but they do > slow down the game. Yeah, my comment on the Imbued was specifically 'cause they tend to be pretty slow; if Una is out for onanism, I'd think the Imbued would be as well. -Peter

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:48:34 -0700, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt >Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion. > >Would anyone want to play such a format, if it were able to be rated? It looks like an interesting option. Just a couple of queries for someone like me who doesn't play in a heavily competitive metagame. The reason for the single Crypt (Una) restriction is fairly obvious. I'm curious why the addition of the other Minion cards to the list? The one that spring to mind so quickly is Taunt the Caged Beast (and not Blissful Agony), but some of the others I'd like to know why. Is it just because it affects 'all opponents' rather than 'half of the opponents' in a 5 player game? Is there a power issue I'm not familiar with? Also, is it played as normal otherwise? So still 4 Crypt Draws, 7 card hands, etc? How do starting Transfers work? Morgan Vening

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt >> Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion. [snip] >>c. BANNED CARDS >> Vampire: Una >> Minion: Blood Doll >> Consanguineous Boon >> Gran Madre di Dio, Italy >> Kindred Spirits >> Minion Tap >> Reckless Agitation >> Shared Nightmare >> Taunt the Caged Beast >> Tribute to the Master >> Vessel >> Villein > > Pool gain removal: Check. Perfect sense to me. But if you are going > to kill Kindred Spirits and all those other pool gain cards, why not > also kill Govern, et al? Peter, I can't believe you'd compare KS to any other card! :) Kindred Spirits is unlike all other actions in that : - you potentially gain pool at INFERIOR - it can be directed backwards, which has been shown to be abusive >> Would anyone want to play such a format, if it were able to be rated? > > Oh, absolutely. I'm unconcerned with it being rated. I'm concerned with it being rated, since being rated legitimizes the format, and if it isn't rated then some players will whine, bitch, moan, and complain. All other answers in my reply to Ira. [ quoted text not captured ]

Morgan Vening wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt >> Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion. >> >> Would anyone want to play such a format, if it were able to be rated? > > It looks like an interesting option. Just a couple of queries for > someone like me who doesn't play in a heavily competitive metagame. > > The reason for the single Crypt (Una) restriction is fairly obvious. > I'm curious why the addition of the other Minion cards to the list? > > The one that spring to mind so quickly is Taunt the Caged Beast > (and not Blissful Agony), but some of the others I'd like to know why. Blood Doll, Consanguineous Boon, Minion Tap, Tribute to the Master, Vessel and Villein are for pool gain reasons, yes. I considered putting Blissful Agony on the list, but you must have a big fattie vampire and spend lots and lots of blood to (in theory) abuse it, but by doing that *even once* you severely deplete your resources for just *one* turn of gain. Much like other powerful cards that already exist in the game which have similar power levels, I'm willing to leave it in. Given all the small PRE vamps, vote push, and Reckless Agitation's ability to still do 5/1 damage (not KRC's 3/1 or ConAg's 2/1), I thought it appropriate to get rid of it in the spirit of fairness and fun. Kindred Spirits has already demonstrated itself in this environment to be abusive and inappropriate. > Is it just because it affects 'all opponents' rather than > 'half of the opponents' in a 5 player game? Gran Madre di Dio, Italy, Shared Nightmare and Taunt the Caged Beast are due to this issue, yes. Other cards affect the game like this, but these three are *particularly* powerful in this environment. > Also, is it played as normal otherwise? So still 4 Crypt Draws, > 7 card hands, etc? How do starting Transfers work? "All other V:EKN rules are in effect." [ quoted text not captured ]

Ira Fay wrote: > Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt >>> Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion. >> >>> Tournament Setup >>> a. 3-player tables *only*, minimum 9 players > > Makes sense, but unfortunate if you have a non-multiple-of-3 > number of players. Is there a workaround? Well, no, I don't see one. Perhaps that alone makes it unworthy? :( >>> Special rules >>> a. LIBRARY = 40-90 cards >> >> Why 40 card minimum? Like, sure, it might be handy in such >> a format, but I can't see a real compelling reason to change >> the 60 card minimum rule. > > Since the time limit is shorter, players will get through less of > their decks. Smaller decks are also more consistent, and might go > faster. The original rules had a 70 card max size, perhaps to give > Brinksmanship a chance to work? Perhaps LSJ can comment on > his reasoning behind the original 40-70 card limit. I'd just leave it > at 40-70, unless there's a reason to change it. The reason to have the maximum at 90 is so that players can bring their current decks to the format with a bare minimum of tweaking. Enabling easy player participation in the format seems to be an *excellent* reason to have it at 90. >>> b. CRYPT = 6 cards minimum > > I'd leave it at 12, as the original design was fine. Huh. You may be right. I might have mis-thought that. >>> c. BANNED CARDS >>> Vampire: Una > > Yes. > >>> Minion: Blood Doll >>> Consanguineous Boon >>> Gran Madre di Dio, Italy >>> Kindred Spirits >>> Minion Tap >>> Reckless Agitation >>> Shared Nightmare >>> Taunt the Caged Beast >>> Tribute to the Master >>> Vessel >>> Villein > > The non-master cards are weird. How did you pick those, Kevin? > Shared Nightmare is especially strange to me. I would keep this list > as short as possible for design elegance and logistical convenience. > These 5 seem sufficient: Blood Doll, Minion Tap, Tribute, Vessel, > Villein. > > If you're going to ban Con Boon, perhaps Exclusion Principle as well? I don't see the abuse inherent in Exclusion Principle as I do in Con Boon, but you may have a point in them being banned or kept together in the format. > Any action like Gran Madre, Con Boon, Kindred Spirits, etc., > can be blocked, voted down, etc. So I would let those be. True, but given all the small PRE vamps, vote push, and Reckless Agitation's ability to still do 5/1 damage (not KRC's 3/1 or ConAg's 2/1), I thought it appropriate to get rid of it in the spirit of fairness and fun. Kindred Spirits has already demonstrated itself in this environment to be abusive and inappropriate. Gran Madre di Dio, Italy, Shared Nightmare and Taunt the Caged Beast are due to the 'it affects all the opponents, not just half the table' issue. Other cards affect the game like this, but these three are *particularly* powerful in this environment. > Combat is going to be king, so if someone is bold enough to bring > a Boon deck, I wish them luck. :) > >> How about: The Imbued? > > They are pretty squishy. I suspect they're OK to stay, > but they do slow down the game. It is possible that the Imbued could break the format. I'd like to hear from Lasombra, Darby, and the other pro-Imbued players to see what their opinions are. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt >> Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion. [snip] >>c. BANNED CARDS >> Vampire: Una >> Minion: Blood Doll >> Consanguineous Boon >> Gran Madre di Dio, Italy >> Kindred Spirits >> Minion Tap >> Reckless Agitation >> Shared Nightmare >> Taunt the Caged Beast >> Tribute to the Master >> Vessel >> Villein > > Pool gain removal: Check. Perfect sense to me. But if you are going > to kill Kindred Spirits and all those other pool gain cards, why not > also kill Govern, et al? Peter, I can't believe you'd compare KS to any other card! :) Kindred Spirits is unlike all other actions in that : - you potentially gain pool at INFERIOR - it can be directed backwards, which has been shown to be abusive >> Would anyone want to play such a format, if it were able to be rated? > > Oh, absolutely. I'm unconcerned with it being rated. I'm concerned with it being rated, since being rated legitimizes the format, and if it isn't rated then some players will whine, bitch, moan, and complain. All other answers in my reply to Ira. [ quoted text not captured ]

>>True, but given all the small PRE vamps, vote push, and Reckless >>Agitation's ability to still do 5/1 damage (not KRC's 3/1 or >>ConAg's 2/1), Reckless gets you 1 VP, KRC gets you a game win. Why ban all the pool gain? And why not get rid of Autarkis Persecution, Ancient Influence, and Political Stranglehold that will cause 45 minute games to time out?

Obtenebration wrote: > KevinM wrote: >> True, but given all the small PRE vamps, vote push, >> and Reckless Agitation's ability to still do 5/1 damage >> (not KRC's 3/1 or ConAg's 2/1), > > Reckless gets you 1 VP, KRC gets you a game win. Yes, but it gets you the GW v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, (and by 'slowly' I mean fucking slow), whereas I see RA totally overwhelming your prey. > Why ban all the pool gain? And why not get rid of Autarkis > Persecution, Ancient Influence, and Political Stranglehold that > will cause 45 minute games to time out? The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time out. AI and PS, et.al., are one-shot cards which don't have the massive impact of the other pool gain cards which are not limited. I really didn't want to make a restricted list. AP I had thought of, but since it gains everyone pool, I don't consider it much of an issue. I figure it's not a very good card in the first place and if something thinks it is good in this environment, feel free to use it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: >> Special rules >> a. LIBRARY = 40-90 cards > > Why 40 card minimum? Like, sure, it might be handy in such a format, > but I can't see a real compelling reason to change the 60 card minimum > rule. Actually, it's a case of not having a compelling reason to change the 40 card minimum rule. At least, in the original Rapid Thought version.

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:50:51 -0700, "Kevin M." wrote: Re: Rapid Thought Revised - 3 player tournament rules >>> How about: The Imbued? >> They are pretty squishy. I suspect they're OK to stay, >> but they do slow down the game. >It is possible that the Imbued could break the format. >I'd like to hear from Lasombra, Darby, and the other pro-Imbued players >to see what their opinions are. With 100% of the players at the table directly interacting with the Imbued, I don't think they would be overpowered at all. They would also have less time to build up, as there are no other players to pressure on your predator and prey while you build. I wouldn't mind playing it out once, but it would have to be a Flash Grenade variant of the Imbued for sure. Carpe noctem. The Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com Your best source of V:TES information. Now also selling boxes and individual cards.

In article <Y6WEl.16898$FR3....@newsfe04.iad>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Peter, I can't believe you'd compare KS to any other card! :) Well, ya know, I was figuring that if KS was getting whacked for the pool gain aspect, then, say, Social Charm (which does the same thing, but yeah, ok, at superior) and Govern ("strike: gain 3 pool") and whatever would get whacked too. Which would be a big pain. But if the main objection to the KS is that it can go backwards, ok, that makes some sense. > I'm concerned with it being rated, since being rated legitimizes the format, > and if it isn't rated then some players will whine, bitch, moan, and > complain. Oh, sure. I wasn't saying that you *shouldn't* try and get it sanctioned if you want. I was just pointing out that, me, personally, wouldn't care one way or the other. 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

In article <6%ZEl.23919$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Actually, it's a case of not having a compelling reason to change the 40 card > minimum rule. At least, in the original Rapid Thought version. But then you still apparently had a compelling reason to change the "40 cards +10 per player" rule. Why not just leave the tournament deck sizes the same across the tournaments? There is a good reason to not have a 40 card deck minimum (minimize the ability to make recursive or preposterously consistent decks). I'm unclear why this doesn't hold for a fast tournament. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <88s8u4trmvc52hm3k...@4ax.com>, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > With 100% of the players at the table directly interacting with the > Imbued, I don't think they would be overpowered at all. They would > also have less time to build up, as there are no other players to > pressure on your predator and prey while you build. My hypothetical objection to the Imbued was not that they would be overpowered, but that they would be slow. Which even with the most seasoned Imbued player, playing an Imbued deck takes more time than usual, if for no other reason that you spend so much time fishing through your deck, shuffling, fishing through your deck, shuffling, fishing through your ash heap, moving cards around the table, and having to answer questions like "So what is that 5th card under those other 3 cards on that guy over there?". Which isn't veiled negative criticism of the Imbued, but a realistic concern that they would have a significant impact on the ability to finish a game in 45 minutes. Just like Una. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <88s8u4trmvc52hm3k...@4ax.com>, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > With 100% of the players at the table directly interacting with the > Imbued, I don't think they would be overpowered at all. They would > also have less time to build up, as there are no other players to > pressure on your predator and prey while you build. My hypothetical objection to the Imbued was not that they would be [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <6%ZEl.23919$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>, > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Actually, it's a case of not having a compelling reason to change the 40 card >> minimum rule. At least, in the original Rapid Thought version. > > But then you still apparently had a compelling reason to change the "40 > cards +10 per player" rule. Well, someone felt that they did, perhaps. But that was the DCI, not me. > Why not just leave the tournament deck sizes > the same across the tournaments? There is a good reason to not have a 40 > card deck minimum (minimize the ability to make recursive or > preposterously consistent decks). I'm unclear why this doesn't hold for > a fast tournament. ... or for a "normal" game, then?

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-F64360.1...@feeder.motzarella.org... > In article <6%ZEl.23919$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>, > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Actually, it's a case of not having a compelling reason to change the 40 card >> minimum rule. At least, in the original Rapid Thought version. > > But then you still apparently had a compelling reason to change the "40 > cards +10 per player" rule. Why not just leave the tournament deck sizes > the same across the tournaments? There is a good reason to not have a 40 > card deck minimum (minimize the ability to make recursive or > preposterously consistent decks). I'm unclear why this doesn't hold for > a fast tournament. Just to play Devil's Advocate here, maybe because the three-player game is different from the 4-5 player game? Allowing 90 cards in a three-player game removes one of the drawbacks to a card-intensive combat deck (think heavy use of stuff like Infernal Pursuit). Perhaps it's more reasonable to think of allowing only 40 cards in such a game to better facilitate decks relying on card combinations? I'm not saying I believe any of this but it's worth thinking through. Given the circumstances that the three-player games have a distinctly different character to them (shorter; no allies, you can intercept all of your opponents' undirected actions at all times; probably others I'm not thinking of), "because it's traditional" is probably a poor basis for setting the deck size limits. Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-31EA41.1...@feeder.motzarella.org... > In article <88s8u4trmvc52hm3k...@4ax.com>, > The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> With 100% of the players at the table directly interacting with the >> Imbued, I don't think they would be overpowered at all. They would >> also have less time to build up, as there are no other players to >> pressure on your predator and prey while you build. > > My hypothetical objection to the Imbued was not that they would be > overpowered, but that they would be slow. Which even with the most > seasoned Imbued player, playing an Imbued deck takes more time than > usual, if for no other reason that you spend so much time fishing > through your deck, shuffling, fishing through your deck, shuffling, > fishing through your ash heap, moving cards around the table, and having > to answer questions like "So what is that 5th card under those other 3 > cards on that guy over there?". Which isn't veiled negative criticism of > the Imbued, but a realistic concern that they would have a significant > impact on the ability to finish a game in 45 minutes. Just like Una. Eh? What exactly is the objection to Una? Seems to me decks being slow in Rapid Thought would have the same self- correction penalty they have in other tournaments. Sure, you might screw everybody at the table's shot at a GW - but if your deck has no ousting ability, you'll ultimately screw your own chances of winning the tournament most of all - because _you're_ always in the game that has your deck in it. The other players only have to suffer your deck for that game. Over time, that matters. Fred

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:UOWEl.16903$FR3....@newsfe04.iad... > Obtenebration wrote: >> KevinM wrote: >>> True, but given all the small PRE vamps, vote push, >>> and Reckless Agitation's ability to still do 5/1 damage >>> (not KRC's 3/1 or ConAg's 2/1), >> >> Reckless gets you 1 VP, KRC gets you a game win. > > Yes, but it gets you the GW v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, > (and by 'slowly' I mean fucking slow), whereas I see > RA totally overwhelming your prey. > >> Why ban all the pool gain? And why not get rid of Autarkis >> Persecution, Ancient Influence, and Political Stranglehold that >> will cause 45 minute games to time out? > > The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time out. I don't understand this concept at all. Can you manage to ban _every_ kind of effect in the game that slows it down? That strikes me as kind of a fool's errand. Again, see my reply to Peter: building decks that time out ultimately punishes the deck builder more than anyone else in the tournament. Just as it does in regular tournaments. Fred

On Apr 14, 10:30 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Well, someone felt that they did, perhaps. But that was the DCI, not me. Ok. I said "I see no compelling reason to change the 60-90 deck size." You said "No, actually I saw no compelling reason to change the actual rules of 40 card minimum." Ok. Then I said (not word for word, but this was my point) "But you changed the 40+10 cards per player [in your Rapid Thought rules], so you saw a compelling reason to change that, but not a compelling reason to change the 40 card minimum." And you replied, "That was the DCI." I'm confused. -Peter

On Apr 14, 10:39 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I'm not saying I believe any of this but it's worth thinking through. > Given the circumstances that the three-player games have a distinctly > different character to them (shorter; no allies, you can intercept all > of your opponents' undirected actions at all times; probably others I'm > not thinking of), "because it's traditional" is probably a poor basis > for setting the deck size limits. Oh, sure. I'm not saying "because it is traditional" is my basis for objecting for changes to deck sizes. I was just looking for the reason as to why someone *would* change the deck sizes, and barring good reasons to do so, it strikes me as reasonable to leave them alone. But if there are good reasons for such a change, go for it. I just hadn't seen any (especially in regards to the 6 card crypt). -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Perhaps, yes, since it seems you think I changed the 40+10 cards per player [in my Rapid Thought rules] when I did not. And the reason I did not is that I saw no compelling reason to. The bit to which I replied "That was the DCI" was the bit that claimed a change to the "40+10" rules. Since there is no change to that in the Rapid Thought rules, I was left to infer that you meant the only change that has been made to that rule: namely, the DCI's change (from 40 to 60 minimum and, for 4p tables, from 80 to 90 maximum).

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1d769eb9-d97c-4155...@v34g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 14, 10:39 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > I'm not saying I believe any of this but it's worth thinking through. > > Given the circumstances that the three-player games have a distinctly > > different character to them (shorter; no allies, you can intercept all > > of your opponents' undirected actions at all times; probably others I'm > > not thinking of), "because it's traditional" is probably a poor basis > > for setting the deck size limits. > > Oh, sure. I'm not saying "because it is traditional" is my basis for > objecting for changes to deck sizes. I was just looking for the reason > as to why someone *would* change the deck sizes, and barring good > reasons to do so, it strikes me as reasonable to leave them alone. Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by "because it's traditional". But that reasoning you just gave is precisely what *I* mean by "because it's traditional". That is, "We do it this way because this is the way it's been done in the past." Bad idea. I'm saying that I think people need to start from ground zero as opposed to requiring justification for changing from what it was in a different kind of a game, which may not be the least bit valid for this game. I mean, if comes down to it, why not assume it should be 52 cards because that's how many cards there are in a Poker deck? If you can find a reason for having it change from 52 cards then OK. Otherwise, why not stick with the 52 cards in a deck of Poker cards? Makes just as much sense to me... Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1d769eb9-d97c-4155...@v34g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 14, 10:39 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > I'm not saying I believe any of this but it's worth thinking through. > > Given the circumstances that the three-player games have a distinctly > > different character to them (shorter; no allies, you can intercept all > > of your opponents' undirected actions at all times; probably others I'm > > not thinking of), "because it's traditional" is probably a poor basis > > for setting the deck size limits. > > Oh, sure. I'm not saying "because it is traditional" is my basis for > objecting for changes to deck sizes. I was just looking for the reason > as to why someone *would* change the deck sizes, and barring good > reasons to do so, it strikes me as reasonable to leave them alone. Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by "because it's traditional". But [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 14, 11:42 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Perhaps, yes, since it seems you think I changed the 40+10 cards per player [in > my Rapid Thought rules] when I did not. And the reason I did not is that I saw > no compelling reason to. Ah. So in the Rapid Thought rules you were using, there were 3 player tables, and as such, players got to use decks that were minimum 40 and maximum 70 (40+10 per player). Check. No longer confused. Moving on. -Peter

On Apr 14, 12:19 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:> Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by "because it's traditional". But > that reasoning you just gave is precisely what *I* mean by "because > it's traditional". That is, "We do it this way because this is the way > it's been done in the past." Well, no, it is "we do it that way because it is the already established rules set." There might be very compelling reasons to change the established rules set, in which case, change the established rules set. But no one has explained any of those yet. > Bad idea. I'm saying that I think people > need to start from ground zero as opposed to requiring justification for > changing from what it was in a different kind of a game, which may not > be the least bit valid for this game. It might not be remotely valid in this game. But then articulate that when proposing the rules. I look at "6 card crypt minimum" and think "Why is that possibly necessary?" Maybe there is a very good reason. But it wasn't articulated. > I mean, if comes down to it, why not assume it should be 52 cards because > that's how many cards there are in a Poker deck? If you can find a reason > for having it change from 52 cards then OK. Otherwise, why not stick with > the 52 cards in a deck of Poker cards? Makes just as much sense to me... Using rules from poker in VTES is silly, as VTES doesn't use poker rules. Using rules for tournament VTES in tournament VTES, on the other hand, is not silly... In the case of the 6 card crypt, that makes no sense at all to me. In the case of the 40 card library minimum, there are good reasons to make decks not that small, even in 3 player games (i.e. to minimize the effect of recursive decks or degenerate combos). But maybe this is something that Kevin wasn't worried about. In which case, say "Yeah, I'm not worried about that", and my question is answered. -Peter

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:a0952d84-4f4b-4215...@v4g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 14, 12:19 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> > wrote: > > Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by "because it's traditional". But > > that reasoning you just gave is precisely what *I* mean by "because > > it's traditional". That is, "We do it this way because this is the way > > it's been done in the past." > > Well, no, it is "we do it that way because it is the already > established rules set." I don't care about the distinction. The point is, if the original rules were never thought through as to the differences between the standard game and the new one, I wouldn't want to use them as the default. > There might be very compelling reasons to change the established rules > set, in which case, change the established rules set. But no one has > explained any of those yet. From this thread, I'd gathered no one has explained why the existing rules are as they are yet, either. If that's factually wrong, then I retract the suggestion. .... > > I mean, if comes down to it, why not assume it should be 52 cards because > > that's how many cards there are in a Poker deck? If you can find a reason > > for having it change from 52 cards then OK. Otherwise, why not stick with > > the 52 cards in a deck of Poker cards? Makes just as much sense to me... > > Using rules from poker in VTES is silly, as VTES doesn't use poker > rules. Using rules for tournament VTES in tournament VTES, on the > other hand, is not silly... I would suggest it's less silly. But it's still wrong on some level to just assume the deck size limitations meet the need of such a game. Ergo, I disagree that you need to start with these as a baseline and just assume they work well "unless proven otherwise". Has anyone yet proved they work well to date? Fred

Only one crypt card should be banned: Una. At least that is the opinion of the majority of the people posting here. But what about Cardano and Gerald Windham? With an Ankara Citadel they can do the same trick as Una. And talking about time consuming. All kinds of turbo decks are still possible. Maybe the cause of this all should be banned in Rapid Thought. Not Una, but Freak Drive!

Chl...@xs4all.nl wrote: > Only one crypt card should be banned: Una. At least that is the > opinion of the majority of the people posting here. 5 of 9 (counting you among the 5). Not exactly statistically significant.

On 14 apr, 19:41, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] With 5 out of every 9 votes one can become president. But you are right, I should have said, "All the other persons who said anything about Una agreed with banning her". H

[ quoted text not captured ] That would be in contrast to the facts. (Practicing for a presidential campaign?)

<Chl...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:761a45c6-6f88-43a3...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Did you count my "vote"? Wherein, I questioned Kevin how he came to the conclusion that Una needs to be banned? I don't necessarily agree or disagree. I just never saw any justification for it at all so I can't figure out why anyone would want to ban Una, specifically, in Rapid Thought. I have to see what the reason is before I can say I agree or disagree. In the meantime, take it that I see the ban as unjustified. Fred

On Apr 14, 1:24 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I don't care about the distinction. The point is, if the original rules > were never thought through as to the differences between the standard > game and the new one, I wouldn't want to use them as the default. Well, a 3 player, 45 minute competitive game of VTES is still a competitive game of VTES. I don't know that the new format being discussed is different enough from regular competitive VTES such that it warrants changing those particular rules. I mean, yeah, maybe 40 card library/6 card crypt is more optimal for the format. But so might 10 card card library/4 card crypt. Why not start there? > From this thread, I'd gathered no one has explained why the existing > rules are as they are yet, either. If that's factually wrong, then > I retract the suggestion. I suspect the current rules (regular VEKN tournament rules) are what they are 'cause they are a viable adaptation of the deck building rules as presented in the rulebook--40 cards plus 10 per player results in 60 card minimum decks (40+10 for each of 2 players, as you can't play a game with less than 2 players) and 90 card maximum (40+10 for each of 5 players maximum). By removing the need to adjust cards between games, time is saved. If the rules under discussion follw the same logic, then decks should be exactly 70 cards (40+10 per each of 3 players) as all games will be (in theory) 3 players. > I would suggest it's less silly. But it's still wrong on some level to > just assume the deck size limitations meet the need of such a game. > Ergo, I disagree that you need to start with these as a baseline and > just assume they work well "unless proven otherwise". Has anyone yet > proved they work well to date? You have to have a baseline to start at. Which in this case, is the rulebook of the game (40+10 per player). At no point in that rules set (i.e. the basic rules of the game) are 40 card minimum decks/6 card crypts something that the game endorses. There might be a very good reason that Kevin suggested 40 card minimum/6 card crypts. I don't know what that might be, however. Without having access to said possible very good reason? I can't see a good reason to change the rules that significantly. -Peter

Chl...@xs4all.nl wrote: > Only one crypt card should be banned: Una. At least that is the > opinion of the majority of the people posting here. > > But what about Cardano and Gerald Windham? > With an Ankara Citadel they can do the same trick as Una. I would say that this is a spurious argument, since people don't play these decks -- they play the Una deck. If you feel that Cardano/GW+AC is a good deck, feel free to play it and win with it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > Eh? What exactly is the objection to Una? My objection to Una is: if you can play the deck quickly then you will win the table almost 100% of the time, since the main weakness of the Una deck (a limited amount of rush actions) has been removed. I didn't think for one second about the fact that Una (or the Imbued) would take too much time to play. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time out. > > I don't understand this concept at all. Can you manage to ban _every_ > kind of effect in the game that slows it down? That strikes me as > kind of a fool's errand. Which is why I didn't try to do such a thing. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I had thought of changing the crypt size so that the format would be unique enough to a)get rated and b)make people who want to build something different (i.e. 40 cards and a 6-card crypt) want to play the format. I chose 6 since it is half of 12 and the time limit is about half of normal. Seems reasonable, aside from your objection for objections sake. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Apr 14, 1:24 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> I don't care about the distinction. The point is, if the original rules >> were never thought through as to the differences between the standard >> game and the new one, I wouldn't want to use them as the default. > > Well, a 3 player, 45 minute competitive game of VTES is still a > competitive game of VTES. I don't know that the new format being > discussed is different enough from regular competitive VTES such that > it warrants changing those particular rules. I mean, yeah, maybe 40 > card library/6 card crypt is more optimal for the format. But so might > 10 card card library/4 card crypt. Why not start there? > >> From this thread, I'd gathered no one has explained why the existing >> rules are as they are yet, either. If that's factually wrong, then >> I retract the suggestion. > > I suspect the current rules (regular VEKN tournament rules) are what > they are 'cause they are a viable adaptation of the deck building > rules as presented in the rulebook--40 cards plus 10 per player > results in 60 card minimum decks (40+10 for each of 2 players, as you > can't play a game with less than 2 players) and 90 card maximum (40+10 > for each of 5 players maximum). Not quite. The rulebook rules result in 40 card minimum (that minimum is always 40 -- it is not tied to the number of players) and a 90 card maximum. The 60 card minimum was used in the DCI rules, I'd guess, because it was used in the DCI rules for Magic (whose basic rulebook also used to say "40 card minimum"). > By removing the need to adjust cards > between games, time is saved. If the rules under discussion follw the > same logic, then decks should be exactly 70 cards (40+10 per each of 3 > players) as all games will be (in theory) 3 players. "The same logic" would either be 40-70 (the basic rules) or 60-70 (the modified-minimum rules).

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:55c18485-d532-460e...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com... On Apr 14, 1:24 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > I don't care about the distinction. The point is, if the original rules > > were never thought through as to the differences between the standard > > game and the new one, I wouldn't want to use them as the default. > > Well, a 3 player, 45 minute competitive game of VTES is still a > competitive game of VTES. I don't know that the new format being > discussed is different enough from regular competitive VTES such that > it warrants changing those particular rules. I mean, yeah, maybe 40 > card library/6 card crypt is more optimal for the format. But so might > 10 card card library/4 card crypt. Why not start there? I don't know, myself. I can't recall if I've played any RT tournaments or not. When I've played 3-player (using standard 60-90 decks built for standard constructed tournaments), I've had some fun games but I've noticed distinct difference in which stuff is how powerful. I'm not sure if competitiveness is the question, exactly, as much as not warping the value of different kinds of cards in 3-player vs. other games. I suspect, for instance, that a Tupdog deck could be over-the-top abusive. But I don't think many people really make a habit of studying of 3-player games, so it's not currently seen as a problem - whatever rules Kevin chooses. It may actually _be_ a problem, but who really knows? > > From this thread, I'd gathered no one has explained why the existing > > rules are as they are yet, either. If that's factually wrong, then > > I retract the suggestion. > > I suspect the current rules (regular VEKN tournament rules) are what > they are 'cause they are a viable adaptation of the deck building > rules as presented in the rulebook--40 cards plus 10 per player > results in 60 card minimum decks (40+10 for each of 2 players, as you > can't play a game with less than 2 players) and 90 card maximum (40+10 > for each of 5 players maximum). By removing the need to adjust cards > between games, time is saved. If the rules under discussion follw the > same logic, then decks should be exactly 70 cards (40+10 per each of 3 > players) as all games will be (in theory) 3 players. I though the rulebook rules were minimum 40 cards to a maximum of 40 cards plus 10 per player. Were we to use that in standard tournaments, the deck sizes would be 40-90 in 5-player games and 40-80 in 4 player games. Perhaps the 90 card maximum all-the-time rule is, as you say, to remove the need to alter decks between games as you shift between the four and five player tables. There was never a reason given for the increase in the minimum to 60 that I ever heard. 60 cards was the minimum size of a Magic deck (despite ITS rulebook saying that 40 cards was the minimum) so I'd guess that's why they set it at 60. Rapid Thought being 40-70 is the correct reflection of the current rulebook rules for a 3-player game. For what it's worth. > > I would suggest it's less silly. But it's still wrong on some level to > > just assume the deck size limitations meet the need of such a game. > > Ergo, I disagree that you need to start with these as a baseline and > > just assume they work well "unless proven otherwise". Has anyone yet > > proved they work well to date? > > You have to have a baseline to start at. Why? You just make that statement flat out, like it was already proved. Quite the opposite, I think it's a little bit dangerous. It assumes that something's already been demonstrated to work well (or reasonably well). If you're proposing a baseline because player have experience with it and it isn't working too bad, then fine. If you have no real experience with any set of rules then nothing should be a baseline. I prefer to look at rules that way, because it reminds you to accept the status quo only as far as the status quo has been shown to work to date. Fred

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:0q8Fl.42228$ua7....@newsfe17.iad... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time out. >> >> I don't understand this concept at all. Can you manage to ban _every_ >> kind of effect in the game that slows it down? That strikes me as >> kind of a fool's errand. > > Which is why I didn't try to do such a thing. Well...so noted. But the obvious question is, why ban _some_ kinds of effects that do that and not _all_ of them? Do you believe are the most egregious ones or..why choose the ones you did? I'm confused. I'm seeing a 'slippery slope' effect here, big time! Plus, I'm also not seeing why the original tournament drawback of using non-ousting decks isn't good enough for Rapid Thought? Fred

On Apr 15, 8:49 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] If Exclusion Principle is hitting the list of "Pool Gain Votes that slow the game" also consider Diversity and maybe Honor the Elders... although HtE would probably just be a "faff" card in this format... Diversity would probably be a nasty little pool gainer for a weenie PRE voter. I would stick that in weenie PRE voters probably before ConBoon... So what we're talking about in principle is this: 45min, 3play, high-speed VTES. Decks with lots of "static stuff" will probably win the format, making any of those "untap after equipping" or "cheap equipment" options fairly powerful. An Aus-Cel Gun-Wall will probably flog a table in this format unceremoniously if combined with classic "combat ousters" such as Tensions, Dragonbound, Fame. Other deck formats that will excel will be PRE voters, Dem-Obf speed- bleed and DOM powerbleed at mild stealth (probably DOM-Obt Las/Kiy)... Unless you're going to put up an Osebo Wall of Fists or a Tor Wall of Guns, this format is going to be full of S&B cheese and weenie votes... I'd probably only build a deck specifically for this format and tweak the bejeebuz out of it. Library: 40-70 Crypt: 12+ Banned Card Suggestions: [VEKN list] plus [Kevin's List] plus Exclusion Principle Diversity Honor the Elders Freak Drive (leave in Forced March since 1 per minion per turn)

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Frederick Scott wrote: >>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>>> The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time out. >>> >>> I don't understand this concept at all. Can you manage to ban >>> _every_ kind of effect in the game that slows it down? That >>> strikes me as kind of a fool's errand. >> >> Which is why I didn't try to do such a thing. > > Well...so noted. But the obvious question is, why ban _some_ kinds > of effects that do that and not _all_ of them? HINT: Do you have a list of "all of them"? ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 14, 6:58 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Not quite. The rulebook rules result in 40 card minimum (that minimum is always > 40 -- it is not tied to the number of players) and a 90 card maximum. Ah. I stand corrected. Ok then. > "The same logic" would either be 40-70 (the basic rules) or 60-70 (the > modified-minimum rules). Fair. -Peter

On Apr 14, 7:11 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I don't know, myself. I can't recall if I've played any RT tournaments > or not. When I've played 3-player (using standard 60-90 decks built for > standard constructed tournaments), I've had some fun games but I've noticed > distinct difference in which stuff is how powerful. Oh, sure. 3 player works differently. So if you were specifically going into a 3 player tournament, it would make sense to make a deck that is specifically good 3 player (a super reactive wall deck, for example, suddenly becomes worth playing; as 2VP wins the game). > I though the rulebook rules were minimum 40 cards to a maximum of 40 cards > plus 10 per player. Yeah, I was on crack all this time. So having the decks be min 40, max 70 is just following the rulebook. Never mind on that point then :-) > Why? You just make that statement flat out, like it was already proved. What, that you need to start somewhere? That just strikes me as obvious. You start with some baseline of X and adjust as needed. Luckily, we are presented with a baseline (the rulebook or the tournament rules. Pick one and go with it). I mean, you could just pick random numbers and try them ("How about, uh, 600 card minimum crypt and 13 card minimum library!"). Or start from a recognized baseline and adjust accordingly. > Quite the opposite, I think it's a little bit dangerous. It assumes > that something's already been demonstrated to work well (or reasonably > well). If you're proposing a baseline because player have experience > with it and it isn't working too bad, then fine. If you have no real > experience with any set of rules then nothing should be a baseline. If there is no baseline, where do you start from? I'm not saying that the baseline is something you need to be stapled to for anything other than a starting point. But it is good to have somewhere to start from. -Peter

On Apr 14, 6:54 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I had thought of changing the crypt size so that the format would be > unique enough to a)get rated and b)make people who want to build > something different (i.e. 40 cards and a 6-card crypt) want to play > the format. I chose 6 since it is half of 12 and the time limit is about > half of normal. > > Seems reasonable, aside from your objection for objections sake. ;) Fair enough. But I can't really see how a 6 card crypt is so exciting as to make the deck building seem different. But ok :-) -Peter

Frederick Scott wrote: > I suspect, for instance, that a Tupdog deck could be over-the-top > abusive...It may actually _be_ a problem, but who really knows? What possible Tupdog abuse do you suspect? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I would suggest that you don't play enough non-constructed, e.g. Draft, to see how non-12/90 decks can be great fun, and even introduce new ideas and playstyles. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:Lc9Fl.47124$_R4....@newsfe11.iad... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Frederick Scott wrote: >>>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>>>> The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time out. >>>> >>>> I don't understand this concept at all. Can you manage to ban >>>> _every_ kind of effect in the game that slows it down? That >>>> strikes me as kind of a fool's errand. >>> >>> Which is why I didn't try to do such a thing. >> >> Well...so noted. But the obvious question is, why ban _some_ kinds >> of effects that do that and not _all_ of them? > > HINT: Do you have a list of "all of them"? ;) How is this a hint? Kevin, I don't have the remotest idea what you're getting at. I know this can't be a reference to the fact that the list is endless because that wouldn't address my question. So, WTF?!? Fred

Juggernaut1981 wrote: > If Exclusion Principle is hitting the list of "Pool Gain Votes that > slow the game" also consider Diversity and maybe Honor the Elders... > although HtE would probably just be a "faff" card in this format... > Diversity would probably be a nasty little pool gainer for a weenie > PRE voter. I would stick that in weenie PRE voters probably before > ConBoon... I'm always in favor of more simplicity, so, based on what some have said I'm leaning towards *removing* ConBoon from the list, and then *not* including the other pool-gaining votes. The reason is: Whereas the five pool-gaining masters can only be stopped with a very few cards, ConBoon, et.al., can be stopped with intercept and/or votes, and are defensive in nature, i.e. they don't directly contribute to you gaining VPs, and are therefore less of a concern. Also, I think that the fact that here, *none* of the players will be in favor of you ConBoon'n will contribute to them ganging-up on you in a way that will balance it. RecklessAg can also be stopped in these ways, but it is an offensive swing, and potentially so great (5 pool) as to warrant its removal. GMdDI, SN, and TtCB affect 'all other methuselahs in the game' and are very powerful and strong, and they seem to be valid removals. KS we won't even discuss. ;) > Freak Drive (leave in Forced March since 1 per minion per turn) No need to ban FD since it doesn't directly contribute to gaining VPs. Feel free to take lots and lots of actions. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:9693f7f4-363f-451b...@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 14, 7:11 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > I don't know, myself. I can't recall if I've played any RT tournaments > > or not. When I've played 3-player (using standard 60-90 decks built for > > standard constructed tournaments), I've had some fun games but I've noticed > > distinct difference in which stuff is how powerful. > > Oh, sure. 3 player works differently. So if you were specifically > going into a 3 player tournament, it would make sense to make a deck > that is specifically good 3 player (a super reactive wall deck, for > example, suddenly becomes worth playing; as 2VP wins the game). It would. But it would much better if you didn't have to do that. OK, that's a pipe dream, I suppose. But the closer the two games are, the better. > > Why? You just make that statement flat out, like it was already proved. > > What, that you need to start somewhere? That just strikes me as > obvious. You start with some baseline of X and adjust as needed. Garfield didn't. How was that possible? No, I don't think that's obvious. I do think it may be easier to start with the familiar and look at how different changes to the familiar would affect the end result. But I see no point whatsoever in taking the attitude that the one is somehow better than the other - except to the extent that you know what the results are in advance. So again, if we have experience with something and we like the experience, that would be reason to give it a leg up. If not, screw it. > > Quite the opposite, I think it's a little bit dangerous. It assumes > > that something's already been demonstrated to work well (or reasonably > > well). If you're proposing a baseline because player have experience > > with it and it isn't working too bad, then fine. If you have no real > > experience with any set of rules then nothing should be a baseline. > > If there is no baseline, where do you start from? I don't know. Anywhere that seems reasonable, I guess. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Frederick Scott wrote: >>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>>> Frederick Scott wrote: >>>>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>>>>> The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time >>>>>> out. >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand this concept at all. Can you manage to ban >>>>> _every_ kind of effect in the game that slows it down? That >>>>> strikes me as kind of a fool's errand. >>>> >>>> Which is why I didn't try to do such a thing. >>> >>> Well...so noted. But the obvious question is, why ban _some_ kinds >>> of effects that do that and not _all_ of them? >> >> HINT: Do you have a list of "all of them"? ;) > > How is this a hint? Kevin, I don't have the remotest idea what you're > getting at. > > I know this can't be a reference to the fact that the list is > endless because that wouldn't address my question. So, WTF?!? I'm suggesting that you post the non-endless list, during which your question will be answered. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 14, 8:43 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I would suggest that you don't play enough non-constructed, e.g. Draft, > to see how non-12/90 decks can be great fun, and even introduce new > ideas and playstyles. Oh, no, I play draft all the time--I'm a big fan (heck, a few of us even mocked up a way to play a draft tournament on JOL. Man. Drafting was sloooooow). But the weird deck/crypt sizes don't strike me as anything other than a way to make the game work better (i.e. small crypts and small decks in, say, draft are good when you have a small pool of cards to work with, as you aren't then stuck padding out your deck and crypt with unuseable jank, and you have a better chance of drawing into the small number of good cards you managed to snag). Like, I don't look at my 7 card crypt and 35 card library and say "Woo! This 7 card crypt opens up unexpected advantages to my game!" or anything. If there was a specific game advantage, in some direction, to having 6 card crypts, then that makes sense. But if the hope is just "Ooh! 6 card crypts! That is different from 12 card crypts! Shiny!", I'm not really seeing it :-) -Peter

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:I2aFl.39152$qO1....@newsfe13.iad... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> I suspect, for instance, that a Tupdog deck could be over-the-top >> abusive...It may actually _be_ a problem, but who really knows? > > What possible Tupdog abuse do you suspect? Remember Dennis's Tupdog deck? (Maybe you weren't at that tournament, I don't recall.) It had 12 Tupdogs, 4 !Tremere weenies and seemed to devour anything in its path. Dennis stated it was much more vulnerable in 5-player games than 4-player games and caused everyone on the table to automatically gang up against it, it was combaty-vicious. From that experience, it's easy to surmise that a 3-player game would make it a nice tasty snack. It's posted here: http://www.gamehourz.com/Dennis-Tupdogs-ftopict133879.html Fred

On Apr 14, 8:53 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > It would. But it would much better if you didn't have to do that. > OK, that's a pipe dream, I suppose. But the closer the two games are, > the better. Ok, so one one hand, you say "the closer the two games are, the better" and then on the other, you are saying "don't use the one as a basis for the other". I'm confused even more now :-) > Garfield didn't. How was that possible? He started with something. And when he made VTES, he started with Magic (note the many similarities). So he did have a starting point. > No, I don't think that's obvious. I do think it may be easier to > start with the familiar and look at how different changes to the > familiar would affect the end result. But I see no point whatsoever > in taking the attitude that the one is somehow better than the > other - except to the extent that you know what the results are > in advance. I'm not making a value judgement. I'm not claiming one is better than anything. I'm saying "If you know something works, there is no need to change it, unless you have a reason for it." Just looking at the 12 card vs 6 card crypts--you could start with the baseline of "The game works with 12 card crypts. Even 3 player games." and leave it at that, unless you have a specific reason not to (which is where I stand). Or you you arbitrarily pick a number and see what happens. Is that what you are advocating? > I don't know. Anywhere that seems reasonable, I guess. And the pre-existing rules don't seem reasonable as a place to start? -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> I would suggest that you don't play enough non-constructed, e.g. >> Draft, to see how non-12/90 decks can be great fun, and even >> introduce new ideas and playstyles. > > Oh, no, I play draft all the time--I'm a big fan (heck, a few of us > even mocked up a way to play a draft tournament on JOL. Man. > Drafting was sloooooow). But the weird deck/crypt sizes don't > strike me as anything other than a way to make the game work better > (i.e. small crypts and small decks in, say, draft are good when you have > a small pool of cards to work with, as you aren't then stuck padding out > your deck and crypt with unuseable jank, and you have a better chance > of drawing into the small number of good cards you managed to snag). > Like, I don't look at my 7 card crypt and 35 card library and say > "Woo! This 7 card crypt opens up unexpected advantages to my game!" > or anything. But it does give you an advantage, over 12/90 decks. If you play draft as much as you say, I'm suprised to hear you say that. > If there was a specific game advantage, in some direction, to having > 6 card crypts, then that makes sense. But if the hope is just "Ooh! > 6 card crypts! That is different from 12 card crypts! Shiny!", I'm not > really seeing it :-) I'm not sure what else I can say to get you to see it. Sorry. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 14, 9:03 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I'm not sure what else I can say to get you to see it. Sorry. Well, maybe you can. Who knows? Really--what are you seeing in 6 card crypts that makes them different enough from 12 card crypts that makes them an interesting difference? I'm not trying to be argumentative here--maybe there is something I'm missing. I mean, yeah, 6 is different than 12, in that they are different numbers. And there is a small difference in the combinational math involving a crypt of 2 each of 3 vampires as opposed to 4 each of 3 vampires (but not enough that I'd worry about it so much). Something else? -Peter

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:ceaFl.39297$qO1....@newsfe13.iad... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Frederick Scott wrote: >>>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>>>> Frederick Scott wrote: >>>>>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>>>>>> The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time >>>>>>> out. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't understand this concept at all. Can you manage to ban >>>>>> _every_ kind of effect in the game that slows it down? That >>>>>> strikes me as kind of a fool's errand. >>>>> >>>>> Which is why I didn't try to do such a thing. >>>> >>>> Well...so noted. But the obvious question is, why ban _some_ kinds >>>> of effects that do that and not _all_ of them? >>> >>> HINT: Do you have a list of "all of them"? ;) >> >> How is this a hint? Kevin, I don't have the remotest idea what you're >> getting at. >> >> I know this can't be a reference to the fact that the list is >> endless because that wouldn't address my question. So, WTF?!? > > I'm suggesting that you post the non-endless list, during which your > question will be answered. I still have no idea where you're going with this. Especially since it's obviously not my position that there _is_ a "non-endless list" - and thus you wouldn't be seeing one authored by me. I've got an idea. How about you just answer my question in English? Beginner's review: my position is that since you clearly can't ban them all, why does it make sense to ban any? Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Frederick Scott wrote: >>> I suspect, for instance, that a Tupdog deck could be over-the-top >>> abusive...It may actually _be_ a problem, but who really knows? >> >> What possible Tupdog abuse do you suspect? > > Remember Dennis's Tupdog deck? (Maybe you weren't at that > tournament, I don't recall.) It had 12 Tupdogs, 4 !Tremere weenies > and seemed to devour anything in its path. Dennis stated it was much > more vulnerable in 5-player games than 4-player games and caused > everyone on the table to automatically gang up against it, it was > combaty-vicious. From that experience, it's easy to surmise that a > 3-player game would make it a nice tasty snack. > > It's posted here: > http://www.gamehourz.com/Dennis-Tupdogs-ftopict133879.html It is possible that Tupdog would need to be banned in this environment, and it was (and is) on my watch list, but I didn't feel that it would necessarily be a game-changer. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] As to your "since you can't ban all of them, why ban any of them" quandry, I suggest you go back and reread those posts if you didn't understand why I banned any of them, since I have already answered, multiple times, why the cards I chose to be banned were banned. Unless it's that you are trying to get me to answer your "since you can't ban all of them, why ban any of them" quandry, which doesn't seem to be a reasonable argument in the first place. Can you help me understand why it is a reasonable part of the discussion? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:9655551a-65bd-484e...@l1g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 14, 8:53 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > It would. But it would much better if you didn't have to do that. > > OK, that's a pipe dream, I suppose. But the closer the two games are, > > the better. > > Ok, so one one hand, you say "the closer the two games are, the > better" and then on the other, you are saying "don't use the one as a > basis for the other". I'm confused even more now :-) I think you're conflating the concept that the two games should play as similarly as possible with the idea that the two games need to have rules that are similar. But, since the number of players has such profound effects on so much else, it's a canard to suggest that keeping the deck limits, crypt limits, and all the other things exactly the same would produce a game that plays the same for a different number of players. When you backed it down to three players, you hit the thing over the head with a sledge hammer. Now you likely have to fix it in a number of ways to get the same game back. > > Garfield didn't. How was that possible? > > He started with something. And when he made VTES, he started with > Magic (note the many similarities). So he did have a starting point. Oh, COME NOW Peter! I don't think that's actually a valid answer but it doesn't matter. You KNOW what question is coming next: Where did he start with Magic? > > No, I don't think that's obvious. I do think it may be easier to > > start with the familiar and look at how different changes to the > > familiar would affect the end result. But I see no point whatsoever > > in taking the attitude that the one is somehow better than the > > other - except to the extent that you know what the results are > > in advance. > > I'm not making a value judgement. I'm not claiming one is better than > anything. I'm saying "If you know something works, there is no need to > change it, unless you have a reason for it." Sorry, that's a value judgement. It puts one way of doing things on top, as the "king" and requires that some other potential choice come along and knock it off. But why shouldn't it just as easily be the other way around? If the "something" truly works, you should have no problem justifying why we should _not_ change it. > Just looking at the 12 > card vs 6 card crypts--you could start with the baseline of "The game > works with 12 card crypts. Even 3 player games." and leave it at that, > unless you have a specific reason not to (which is where I stand). Or > you you arbitrarily pick a number and see what happens. Is that what > you are advocating? Yea. So my answer to the minimum crypt size would be 12. Because people are already familiar with 12 and so it makes the problem of choosing crypts about the same as the standard constructed game. I think the choice of crypt size seems to be independent of the number of players unless there's something in Kevin's rules, like starting pool or transfer rules or something that would make a difference. In this case, I suppose we'd come to the same conclusion and maybe roughly for the same reasons, but applied in a different order. I still think your way is kind of dangerous where something like library size is concerned. It requires people to articulate an exact reason to "change" the rules even though it may be difficult to do that. I'd rather go through the process of thinking through why the two games are the same to justify using the same rule. > > I don't know. Anywhere that seems reasonable, I guess. > > And the pre-existing rules don't seem reasonable as a place to start? Sorry. You're presupposing that we need "a place to start". It's a self-justifying question, IMHO. Fred

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:JMaFl.39798$qO1....@newsfe13.iad... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> I still have no idea where you're going with this. Especially since >> it's obviously not my position that there _is_ a "non-endless list" - >> and thus you wouldn't be seeing one authored by me. >> >> I've got an idea. How about you just answer my question in English? >> >> Beginner's review: my position is that since you clearly can't ban >> them all, why does it make sense to ban any? > > As to your "since you can't ban all of them, why ban any of them" quandry, > I suggest you go back and reread those posts if you didn't understand why > I banned any of them, since I have already answered, multiple times, why > the cards I chose to be banned were banned. Perhaps I missed the post you're talking about. I did read the first one I responded to, and it said: "The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time out." Obviously, this doesn't answer my objection - which is that it doesn't help to ban ONLY SOME means of preventing games from timing out. So why ban any? Clearly, banning these cards doesn't fix anything. So why do it? > Unless it's that you are trying to get me to answer your "since you can't ban > all of them, why ban any of them" quandry, which doesn't seem to be a > reasonable argument in the first place. Can you help me understand why > it is a reasonable part of the discussion? Why do you think that's not reasonable? It seems totally reasonable to me. It's like, you're constructing half a dike while the water can just as easily flood into the huge gap where the other half of the dike should should be. I find it difficult to imagine you can't understand what's wrong with this picture. Plus, as I pointed out in at least a few other places including at least one response to you: pool gain is in the regular game. Many other effects that - when overused - cause games to time out exist in the regular game. The time limit doesn't matter. If you use defense too much and offense not enough in your deck, you can cause exactly the same problem. In view of that, why the special need to ban anything here? One inference is that standard tournament games contain *OTHER* incentives that are effective in preventing players from building non- ousting, overly defensive decks. Why would these other incentives not work just as well in Rapid Thought? Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm thinking more like, players who might not have bought as many cards as you and I do, or who only buy a box of starters and nothing else, and who might only have 2 or 3 of a vampire they really like. This way they can get the percentages those of us with a lot of cards get, and although it would perhaps have to be explained and/or publicized as an advantage, I thought it was interesting. That, and the fact that all players would be able to, in theory, make more decks for this format than they would be able to make decks for the standard format. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 14, 9:30 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I think you're conflating the concept that the two games should play > as similarly as possible with the idea that the two games need to > have rules that are similar. But, since the number of players has such > profound effects on so much else, it's a canard to suggest that keeping > the deck limits, crypt limits, and all the other things exactly the > same would produce a game that plays the same for a different number > of players. I don't think it is necessarily going to star the same if you use the same rules. Which is why you start there and adjust as necessary. I can't see how it makes sense to reinvent the wheel when you can just tweak the wheel you already know works. > Oh, COME NOW Peter! I don't think that's actually a valid answer but > it doesn't matter. You KNOW what question is coming next: Where did > he start with Magic? IIRC, Cosmic Encounter. It was a starting point. You can't make something without a starting point. > Sorry, that's a value judgement. It puts one way of doing things on > top, as the "king" and requires that some other potential choice come > along and knock it off. If you say so. I don't see starting from something that you know works, and adjusting as warranted, as opposed to inventing an arbitrary new starting point out of thin air as a value judgement of the starting point. But ok. -Peter

On Apr 14, 9:47 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I'm thinking more like, players who might not have bought as many cards > as you and I do, or who only buy a box of starters and nothing else, and > who might only have 2 or 3 of a vampire they really like. This way they > can get the percentages those of us with a lot of cards get, and although it > would perhaps have to be explained and/or publicized as an advantage, > I thought it was interesting. Oh, ok. That seems reasonable. That was all I was looking for :-) -Peter

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Frederick Scott wrote: >>> I still have no idea where you're going with this. Especially since >>> it's obviously not my position that there _is_ a "non-endless list" >>> - and thus you wouldn't be seeing one authored by me. >>> >>> I've got an idea. How about you just answer my question in English? >>> >>> Beginner's review: my position is that since you clearly can't ban >>> them all, why does it make sense to ban any? >> >> As to your "since you can't ban all of them, why ban any of them" >> quandry, I suggest you go back and reread those posts if you didn't >> understand why I banned any of them, since I have already answered, >> multiple times, why the cards I chose to be banned were banned. > > Perhaps I missed the post you're talking about. I did read the first > one I responded to, and it said: > "The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time out." > > Obviously, this doesn't answer my objection - which is that it doesn't > help to ban ONLY SOME means of preventing games from timing out. > So why ban any? Clearly, banning these cards doesn't fix anything. > So why do it? I later discussed Master cards and the cards that cancel them vs. library cards, and also one-shot cards vs. non-one-shot cards. >> Unless it's that you are trying to get me to answer your "since you >> can't ban all of them, why ban any of them" quandry, which doesn't >> seem to be a reasonable argument in the first place. Can you help me >> understand why it is a reasonable part of the discussion? > > Why do you think that's not reasonable? It seems totally reasonable > to me. It's like, you're constructing half a dike while the water can > just as easily flood into the huge gap where the other half of the dike > should should be. I find it difficult to imagine you can't understand > what's wrong with this picture. Your assumtion is that all the pool-gain cards in the game are equal. They are not, which is why I don't suggest banning all or none of them, just the ones which occur to me (or I become convinced) that are the problem ones. I really would love it if this became a new rated format, in which case LSJ and not me would become the rules-arbiter. But it seems to be a good assumption that the format has a better chance of becoming rated if it is presented in as complete, coherent, and reasonable a form as I can make it. > Plus, as I pointed out in at least a few other places including at > least one response to you: pool gain is in the regular game. Many > other effects that - when overused - cause games to time out exist > in the regular game. The time limit doesn't matter. If you use > defense too much and offense not enough in your deck, you can > cause exactly the same problem. In view of that, why the special > need to ban anything here? My thought is that a format which has a greater general chance of games finishing within the time limit than the standard format provides just another reason to allow it to become rated. > One inference is that standard tournament games contain *OTHER* > incentives that are effective in preventing players from building non- > ousting, overly defensive decks. Why would these other incentives > not work just as well in Rapid Thought? I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Hopefully the fact that you always have two enemies and zero allies will provide an incentive not to build those non-ousting, overly defensive decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:VvbFl.6319$gC1....@newsfe19.iad... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> Obviously, this doesn't answer my objection - which is that it doesn't >> help to ban ONLY SOME means of preventing games from timing out. >> So why ban any? Clearly, banning these cards doesn't fix anything. >> So why do it? ... >>> Unless it's that you are trying to get me to answer your "since you >>> can't ban all of them, why ban any of them" quandry, which doesn't >>> seem to be a reasonable argument in the first place. Can you help me >>> understand why it is a reasonable part of the discussion? >> >> Why do you think that's not reasonable? It seems totally reasonable >> to me. It's like, you're constructing half a dike while the water can >> just as easily flood into the huge gap where the other half of the dike >> should should be. I find it difficult to imagine you can't understand >> what's wrong with this picture. > > Your assumtion is that all the pool-gain cards in the game are equal. > They are not, which is why I don't suggest banning all or none of them, > just the ones which occur to me (or I become convinced) that are the > problem ones. Well, that's at least an answer - which gives me some insight into your thinking (finally). I don't think it answers my objection for a couple of good reasons: 1) Stopping timeouts is not a matter of identifying the most effective cards that cause timeouts. There are so many ways of causing a timeout, it doesn't matter that some pool gain cards are better and some are worse. What about intercept? If I intercept everything my predator (or his eventual replacement, if applicable does), chances are I can cause a timeout. 2) Stopping timeouts is a matter incentizing players to not cause them. The standard tournament does this perfectly well by penalizing all players involved in a timeout, thus penalizing the player who causes them the most. The amount of time you have to play a game doesn't matter. Players who must finish their games in 45 minutes will build decks that will avoid timing out in 45 minutes because they have an incentive to. Not because they're banned from using pool gain. ... > I really would love it if this became a new rated format, in which case > LSJ and not me would become the rules-arbiter. But it seems to be > a good assumption that the format has a better chance of becoming > rated if it is presented in as complete, coherent, and reasonable a form > as I can make it. Sure. Makes sense to me. ... > My thought is that a format which has a greater general chance of > games finishing within the time limit than the standard format provides > just another reason to allow it to become rated. Absolutely! I'm with you there. >> One inference is that standard tournament games contain *OTHER* >> incentives that are effective in preventing players from building non- >> ousting, overly defensive decks. Why would these other incentives >> not work just as well in Rapid Thought? > > I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Hopefully the fact that you always > have two enemies and zero allies will provide an incentive not to build > those non-ousting, overly defensive decks. Well, that wasn't what I was thinking of. What I was thinking of is above: game win and victory point awards penalize players who are involved in timeouts. The player who is involved in the most timeouts will be penalized the most - which is the player who is most directly involved in causing them. In short, you can't make the finals getting 1/2 victory point every game. Or if you can, you sure can't *win* the finals doing that. If this isn't sufficient protection against timeouts for you, may I suggest that you jigger with the victory point awards until it is instead of trying to fix the problem by banning cards. I just don't think the latter thing works. I don't think you can ban enough cards to have an appreciable effect if someone wants to cause a game to timeout. If players have incentives _not_ to allow a game to timeout, then I'd posit that you won't need to ban any cards for that reason. Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:90f09dfe-4f8e-4b60...@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com... > > Oh, COME NOW Peter! I don't think that's actually a valid answer but > > it doesn't matter. You KNOW what question is coming next: Where did > > he start with Magic? > > IIRC, Cosmic Encounter. It was a starting point. You can't make > something without a starting point. I don't really think Cosmic Encounter qualifies as a "starting point" for Magic any more than Magic qualifies as a "starting point" for Jyhad. But even so, where did the Future Pastimes crew start when inventing Cosmic Encounter? Bleh. I know this is all useless by now. Let me just give Peter's answer and beat everyone to the punch: "You're very clever, young man - but it's TURTLES all the way down!" :-P

Kevin M. wrote: > http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt > Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion. > > Would anyone want to play such a format, if it were able to be rated? > You know what? I think it would be better to play this with as few deviations from regular tournament rules, except for 3 players/45 mins. See what causes issues, and then tweak them from there. I could see banning Una, but probably nothing else. Really. And then let's play. It seems like lots of folks here are making predictions, but without ever really playing a game. Let's bring the evidence, and then make changes. Just like how things get changed in the standard game. best - chris

Peter D Bakija wrote: > I'm not saying that > the baseline is something you need to be stapled to Why did the chicken cross the road? It was stapled to the face of the punk rocker... best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, if we are reducing the library size by say 20 cards (40-70), that's a reduction of between 33% - 22%. We should reduce the crypt size by a similar amount, say by 3-4 cards. So, I could see a crypt size of 8-9 cards minimum. That would allow for higher levels of crypt optimization, which in turn might help lead to more rapid games. Maybe. We should test it - on JOL! best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] As I read my post, I remember in another thread Kevin you had said that Kindred spirits in your *experience* had led to broken RT games. That seems to be enough evidence to put it on a watch list. Then put the format in the wild worldwide, and let's see what the larger community says about it - if it's a problem in other regions, then ban it from the format. Same with most of the other cards on your list. Getting rid of BD, MT, TTM, and the 2 V's seems like enough of a start to make the format different enough, but not too much different. bes t- chris

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >>> Oh, COME NOW Peter! I don't think that's actually a valid answer but >>> it doesn't matter. You KNOW what question is coming next: Where did >>> he start with Magic? >> >> IIRC, Cosmic Encounter. It was a starting point. You can't make >> something without a starting point. > > I don't really think Cosmic Encounter qualifies as a "starting point" > for Magic any more than Magic qualifies as a "starting point" for > Jyhad. But even so, where did the Future Pastimes crew start when > inventing Cosmic Encounter? Now you're pulling a JwJb on us. Please stop. And if you do a bit of searching, you'll find that Richard Garfield has stated that Cosmic Encounter was the major influence on Magic. [ quoted text not captured ]

librarian wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I'd suggest that you should instead test the format given (6+/40-90) and not all the possible variants. The parallel development is unconstructive. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:PLeFl.6332$gC1....@newsfe19.iad... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >>>> Oh, COME NOW Peter! I don't think that's actually a valid answer but >>>> it doesn't matter. You KNOW what question is coming next: Where did >>>> he start with Magic? >>> >>> IIRC, Cosmic Encounter. It was a starting point. You can't make >>> something without a starting point. >> >> I don't really think Cosmic Encounter qualifies as a "starting point" >> for Magic any more than Magic qualifies as a "starting point" for >> Jyhad. But even so, where did the Future Pastimes crew start when >> inventing Cosmic Encounter? > > Now you're pulling a JwJb on us. Please stop. Not really. I just don't think creative endeavors need "starting points", per se. Saying that one game inspired or influenced another is not the same thing as making it a "starting point" that Peter seems bent on having. Let me suggest something (*GASP*) radical: that games come out of THIN AIR! Somebody made it up by having...an...original...thought! ("OH MY GOD, SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!") > And if you do a bit of searching, you'll find that Richard Garfield has > stated that Cosmic Encounter was the major influence on Magic. Of course. I never doubted it. But if you trace back games influencing other games, eventually you get back to something that wasn't really influenced by any other game in existence, I would assume. That was my point. You can't keep insisting each game in succession has some other game as its starting point because someone had to make up the first game. I suppose most every creative effort had some inspiration of some sort in the real world. But I think the whole "starting point" thing is silly. Fred

Kevin M. wrote: > librarian wrote: >> Peter D Bakija wrote: >>> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>>> I'm not sure what else I can say to get you to see it. Sorry. >>> Well, maybe you can. Who knows? Really--what are you seeing in >>> 6 card crypts that makes them different enough from 12 card crypts >>> that makes them an interesting difference? I'm not trying to be >>> argumentative here--maybe there is something I'm missing. I mean, >>> yeah, 6 is different than 12, in that they are different numbers. >>> And there is a small difference in the combinational math involving >>> a crypt of 2 each of 3 vampires as opposed to 4 each of 3 vampires >>> (but not enough that I'd worry about it so much). Something else? >> Well, if we are reducing the library size by say 20 cards (40-70), >> that's a reduction of between 33% - 22%. We should reduce the >> crypt size by a similar amount, say by 3-4 cards. >> >> So, I could see a crypt size of 8-9 cards minimum. That would allow >> for higher levels of crypt optimization, which in turn might help >> lead to more rapid games. Maybe. We should test it - on JOL! > > I'd suggest that you should instead test the format given (6+/40-90) and > not all the possible variants. The parallel development is unconstructive. > I guess I'm at the same point as Peter - what was the rationale for 6 card crypt instead of 8-9 (or 12)? It seems arbitrary. I'm suggesting numbers that seem to me less arbitrary, based on library size. I'm developing nothing - I am trying to give you constructive criticism. best - chris

librarian wrote: > Well, if we are reducing the library size by say 20 cards (40-70), > that's a reduction of between 33% - 22%. We should reduce the crypt > size by a similar amount, say by 3-4 cards. You aren't reducing the library size by 20 cards. You're leaving the library size alone (i.e., using the sizes specified in the rules). 5p = 90 card max. 4p = 80 card max. 3p = 70 card max. 2p = 60 card max. Those same rules specify a crypt size as well. 2p - Np = 12 card min.

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, maybe. But you are reducing it by 20 according to the standard constructed tourney rules, right? Are you arguing with me just to argue? best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] No. I'm pointing out a failing in your argument. Re: maximums: The rules specify 90 card library for 5p and 80 card for 4p. The VEKN rules allow only 4 and 5 player tables and do not permit changing decks between rounds, so they have to choose either a 90 or 80 card maximum. Choosing 80 would satisfy the rules for both, but the formula exists exactly to make more cards available for more preys, and the VEKN rules favor 5p tables, so the maximum was chosen to be 90. Based on table size and the basic formula for the preferred table size. Re: minimums: The rules specify a minimum of 40 cards. The Rapid Thought rules do not change that. The VEKN rules change the minimum to 60 in the library for whatever reason, but without a corresponding increase in the minimum crypt size. For a good reason: there is no correspondence there. The crypt size is not tied to table size because table size doesn't affect the level to which you mill your crypt. So its size doesn't change.

On Apr 14, 11:12 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Bleh. I know this is all useless by now. Let me just give Peter's answer > and beat everyone to the punch: > > "You're very clever, young man - but it's TURTLES all the way down!" > > :-P I stand defeated :-) -Peter

On Apr 15, 12:19 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > So, I could see a crypt size of 8-9 cards minimum. That would allow for > higher levels of crypt optimization, which in turn might help lead to > more rapid games. Maybe. We should test it - on JOL! Heh. Except how do you check to see if games are done in 45 minutes on JOL? :-) -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Only you would have known all that LSJ - why didn't you just say that in the first place. Now it becomes clear. Ok, with that info, I would go for no change in crypt size, leave it at 12. 6 still seems arbitrary to me. best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't know, make it a 9-turn limit game? best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] Or how about this: the upcoming JOL tournament is 5 months long. If 5 months = 120 minutes, then a Rapid Thought game would be 1.875 months, or 1 month 26 days 6 hours. How does 2 months sound? best - chris

librarian wrote: > librarian wrote: >> Kevin M. wrote: >>> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt >>> Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion. >>> >>> Would anyone want to play such a format, if it were able >>> to be rated? >> >> You know what? I think it would be better to play this with as few >> deviations from regular tournament rules, except for 3 players/45 >> mins. See what causes issues, and then tweak them from there. >> >> I could see banning Una, but probably nothing else. Really. >> And then let's play. It seems like lots of folks here are making >> predictions, but without ever really playing a game. Let's bring the >> evidence, and then make changes. Just like how things get changed >> in the standard game. That is a totally valid way to go, assuming we could get some of those 3-person playgroups (HELLO NAT AND DAVID!) to test out a non- valid format instead of playing something else. Wow, I didn't realize until RIGHT NOW that I was creating a format for my own playgroup. bwahaa:) > As I read my post, I remember in another thread Kevin you had said > that Kindred spirits in your *experience* had led to broken RT games. Josh Duffin won the only RT tournament ever with a backwards-bleeding KS deck, yes. And he said he did it *easily*. > That seems to be enough evidence to put it on a watch list. Then put > the format in the wild worldwide, and let's see what the larger > community says about it - if it's a problem in other regions, then > ban it from the format. Same with most of the other cards on your > list. > Getting rid of BD, MT, TTM, and the 2 V's seems like enough of > a start to make the format different enough, but not too much different. As I said, that is a totally valid way to go ASSUMING that you disagree with my choices, which you may. Let's remove the 6 cards you mentioned above and assume they're on the banned list. The rest, with my reasons for bannination, since this is how we'd go about it anyway. Do you agree, or not? ConBoon: Based on what others have said, this, along with the other non-offensive votes, can probably be allowed, given the 45 minute timeframe and the long setup time needed to exploit pool-gaining votes. Gran Madre di Dio: I felt like its effect, which affects *all* other players, was against the spirit of the game. I admit I am on the fence on this one, but I just don't want to see it. Reckless Agitation: The offensive nature of RA, along with its 5 pool damage (or even 3/3) and the existence of so many small PRE vamps make it too deadly. If it is allowed in, it will be played in EVERY DECK that can possibly call it, and I think it is broken in the format, e.g. without it, I can imagine playing a deck without anti-vote. Shared Nightmare: Action, Chimeristry, 3 blood. "Choose three allies or younger players controlled by any other players in the game. The chosen minions cannot block or cast votes *for*the*rest*of*the*current*minion*phase*." Totally sick and wrong. And again, I felt like its effect, which affects *all* other players, was against the spirit of the game. Taunt the Caged Beast: Action, Animalism, no cost. "Choose two ready vampires, one each controlled by the other two players in the game. The chosen vampires enter combat, with no detriment to you and no benefit to them." And yet again, I felt like its effect was against the spirit of the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Just as arbitrary as 12, sure. I did reply to Peter with the answer to this question, which I'll repeat: -~-~-~- I'm thinking more like, players who might not have bought as many cards as you and I do, or who only buy a box of starters and nothing else, and who might only have 2 or 3 of a vampire they really like. This way they can get the percentages those of us with a lot of cards get, and although it would perhaps have to be explained and/or publicized as an advantage, I thought it was interesting. That, and the fact that all players would be able to, in theory, make more decks for this format than they would be able to make decks for the standard format. -~-~-~- In addition, I'm not suggesting that we reduce the library size, something else which you seem to want, so your reduction in crypt size is even more arbitrary than mine. > I'm suggesting numbers that seem to me less arbitrary, based on library > size. I'm developing nothing - I am trying to give you constructive > criticism. It sure sounded like you were going to go play JOL with a format that you believe is better than the format given rather than trying the format as-is. Not that I'm bitter that you'd be ignoring the work I put into this, or anything. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 15, 5:22 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > the upcoming JOL tournament is 5 months long. If 5 months = 120 > minutes, then a Rapid Thought game would be 1.875 months, or 1 month 26 > days 6 hours. How does 2 months sound? Hmm. That seems pretty reasonable. Although the vagaries of JOL play makes even that kind of time limit questionable. But if you got, like, you, me, and Ira or Pallando or someone, it could totally work. I'm in! -Peter

librarian wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Re: maximums: >> >> The rules specify 90 card library for 5p and 80 card for 4p. >> The VEKN rules allow only 4 and 5 player tables and do not permit >> changing decks between rounds, so they have to choose either a 90 or >> 80 card maximum. >> Choosing 80 would satisfy the rules for both, but the formula exists >> exactly to make more cards available for more preys, and the VEKN >> rules favor 5p tables, so the maximum was chosen to be 90. >> >> Based on table size and the basic formula for the preferred table size. >> >> Re: minimums: >> >> The rules specify a minimum of 40 cards. The Rapid Thought rules do >> not change that. >> >> The VEKN rules change the minimum to 60 in the library for whatever >> reason, but without a corresponding increase in the minimum crypt >> size. For a good reason: there is no correspondence there. >> >> The crypt size is not tied to table size because table size doesn't >> affect the level to which you mill your crypt. So its size doesn't >> change. > > Only you would have known all that LSJ - why didn't you just say that in > the first place. Um, no. I wasn't privy to any inside information on any of that. The DCI made its rules without consulting me and without informing me of any discussion that went on in deciding them. All of the above comes only from reading the rules (40 min - 40+10N max for lib and 12 min and no max for crypt) and the tournament rules (60 min - 90 max for the lib and 12 min and no max for the crypt). And I said so in the first place. Albeit without as much seemingly superfluous detail.

[ quoted text not captured ] Doesn't hurt that he doesn't suck as a player. (love those double negatives, or is it a triple negative?) > >> That seems to be enough evidence to put it on a watch list. Then put >> the format in the wild worldwide, and let's see what the larger >> community says about it - if it's a problem in other regions, then >> ban it from the format. Same with most of the other cards on your >> list. >> Getting rid of BD, MT, TTM, and the 2 V's seems like enough of >> a start to make the format different enough, but not too much different. > > As I said, that is a totally valid way to go ASSUMING that you disagree > with my choices, which you may. > > Let's remove the 6 cards you mentioned above and assume they're on the > banned list. The rest, with my reasons for bannination, since this is how > we'd go about it anyway. Do you agree, or not? > First off, I am usually in the camp that wants to avoid banning cards, regardless of format, so take my response with that point of view in mind. > ConBoon: > Based on what others have said, this, along with the other non-offensive > votes, can probably be allowed, given the 45 minute timeframe and the > long setup time needed to exploit pool-gaining votes. This one I would like to see in practice make games suck. > > Gran Madre di Dio: > I felt like its effect, which affects *all* other players, was against the > spirit of the game. I admit I am on the fence on this one, but I just > don't want to see it. > Agree with this I think. > Reckless Agitation: > The offensive nature of RA, along with its 5 pool damage (or even 3/3) > and the existence of so many small PRE vamps make it too deadly. > If it is allowed in, it will be played in EVERY DECK that can possibly > call it, and I think it is broken in the format, e.g. without it, I can > imagine > playing a deck without anti-vote. The thing about RA is that it is no good when you get down to 2 players. So you oust your first prey, but then they clog your hand. I'm not sure it's so bad. > > Shared Nightmare: > Action, Chimeristry, 3 blood. > "Choose three allies or younger players controlled by any other players > in the game. The chosen minions cannot block or cast votes > *for*the*rest*of*the*current*minion*phase*." Totally sick and wrong. > And again, I felt like its effect, which affects *all* other players, was > against the spirit of the game. > But this card sounds good even in a 4-5 player game. Yet no one plays it. I wouldn't ban this out of hand yet. > Taunt the Caged Beast: > Action, Animalism, no cost. > "Choose two ready vampires, one each controlled by the other two > players in the game. The chosen vampires enter combat, with no > detriment to you and no benefit to them." And yet again, I felt like its > effect was against the spirit of the game. I see how you can see this. Of course, those two players have Pred/Prey relationship also, so it may actually help one or the other of them. I would like to see evidence that it causes a big problem. If someone makes the RT TtCB deck and it tears things up, then yes, it's a problem. But have to see it first. best - chris

On Apr 15, 3:52 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Reckless Agitation: I can't understand why RA should be banned. > The offensive nature of RA, along with its 5 pool damage (or even 3/3) Every RA in the deck becomes a totally dead card as soon as someone gets ousted, so packing your deck with them doesn't seem like a great way to actually get any GWs. > and the existence of so many small PRE vamps make it too deadly. These small PRE vampires you're talking about, you know that they can't actually be any smaller than 5-caps, right? And they need to be independent to boot? I don't really see very many vamps who qualify for those three criteria (5-cap, independent, PRE). > If it is allowed in, it will be played in EVERY DECK that can possibly > call it, and I think it is broken in the format, e.g. without it, I can > imagine > playing a deck without anti-vote. I honestly can't think of a deck that I'd play in this format that would use the card. Can you give a example sketch of a deck that would abuse RA to the point that it needs to be banned? John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] I went to try to find the message of Peter's you were replying to to respond in thread, but I'll just do it here. I never really thought about the purpose of this format. For me (and you and many other long time players), it's just a new format, like a highlander format, or anything else. And it's a format for 3 player playgroups, or when 7 guys show up, or for a special type of tournament for kicks for us jaded types. I hadn't thought too much about it being a format for new players or players without too many cards. I'm not sure in fact that it would appeal to new players - the regular game has so much going on, it will take someone a long time to master that, and why have them split their focus to play what is a pretty different game (3 player VTES). Being able to make more decks I get. Why not make it a full half game? 6-crypt, 45 card max, 1 hr long? And ban nothing until found abusive (just spinning here). > >> I'm suggesting numbers that seem to me less arbitrary, based on library >> size. I'm developing nothing - I am trying to give you constructive >> criticism. > > It sure sounded like you were going to go play JOL with a format that > you believe is better than the format given rather than trying the format > as-is. Not that I'm bitter that you'd be ignoring the work I put into this, > or anything. ;) Well, I'll play it on JOL if I can get anyone to play, in any format. All in the interest of helping *you* out, my eastern brother. And again, as I answered in another post, I come from a position of banning as few cards as possible. How about trying it with very few cards banned on JOL (or in the Vegas playgroup, or Origins, or wherever), and then banning them as results come in? best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] No, you made the original Rapid Thought rules from which the 40-70 and 12 minimum crypt came from. best - chris

Johann von Doom wrote: > On Apr 15, 3:52 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Reckless Agitation: > > I can't understand why RA should be banned. > >> The offensive nature of RA, along with its 5 pool damage (or even 3/3) > > Every RA in the deck becomes a totally dead card as soon as someone > gets ousted, so packing your deck with them doesn't seem like a great > way to actually get any GWs. > >> and the existence of so many small PRE vamps make it too deadly. > > These small PRE vampires you're talking about, you know that they > can't actually be any smaller than 5-caps, right? And they need to be > independent to boot? I don't really see very many vamps who qualify > for those three criteria (5-cap, independent, PRE). > >> Deck Name: Created By: Description: Crypt: (7 cards, Min: 21, Max: 24, Avg: 5.57) --------------------------------------------- 1 Sir Marriot D`Urban aus obf ser PRE 5 Followers of Set 1 Sonja Blue dom pot CEL FOR PRE5 Ventrue 1 Renenet ser OBF PRE 5 Followers of Set 1 Aisha ani aus ser PRE 6 Followers of Set 1 Ankh-sen-Sutekh obf PRE SER 6 Followers of Set 1 Elihu dai for POT PRE 6 Baali 1 Maureen dom obf DAI PRE 6 Baali Library: (1 cards) ------------------ Political Action (1 cards) 1 Reckless Agitation This deck was last saved at 3:42:41 PM on 4/15/2009 best - chris

On Apr 15, 6:34 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > I never really thought about the purpose of this format. For me (and > you and many other long time players), it's just a new format, like a > highlander format, or anything else. And it's a format for 3 player > playgroups, or when 7 guys show up, or for a special type of tournament > for kicks for us jaded types. I hadn't thought too much about it being > a format for new players or players without too many cards. Ah, see, I'm not necessarily seeing this as a format for new players, but I *do* think there is an awful lot to recommend a 3R+F tournament that you can play in 4 hours. I mean, yeah, a weird kind of tournament (although I do play 3 player games of VTES all the time), but a 4 hour event? Awesome. -Peter

librarian wrote: > No, you made the original Rapid Thought rules from which the 40-70 and > 12 minimum crypt came from. I'm hardly the only one who would've known where those figures came from. That's even more true after the explanations that had gone before, including the ones earlier in this thread.

On Apr 15, 3:52 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Josh Duffin won the only RT tournament ever with a backwards-bleeding > KS deck, yes. And he said he did it *easily*. Ah, yeah, ok, that makes sense then. The KS isn't killed for the pool gain; it is the ability to just bleed upstream. You think a crazy weenie obf/All Night Moves deck would do the same thing? Yeah, ok, probably not. > ConBoon: > Based on what others have said, this, along with the other non-offensive > votes, can probably be allowed, given the 45 minute timeframe and the > long setup time needed to exploit pool-gaining votes. Yeah, I don't think this needs to go anywhere--it requires significant set up. And if you leave this alone, no one questions the other similar votes. > Gran Madre di Dio: > I felt like its effect, which affects *all* other players, was against the > spirit of the game. I admit I am on the fence on this one, but I just > don't want to see it. Meh. Yeah, it effects the other two players, but is still a real crap shoot, and doesn't actually do all that much. Unless they are playing Tupdog... > Reckless Agitation: > The offensive nature of RA, along with its 5 pool damage (or even 3/3) > and the existence of so many small PRE vamps make it too deadly. > If it is allowed in, it will be played in EVERY DECK that can possibly > call it, and I think it is broken in the format, e.g. without it, I can > imagine playing a deck without anti-vote. Meh. It is a dead card when one guy is dead, and you need to be independent. Which means more setup or All Settites All The Time. And they'd probably be more effective just S+Bing. I mean, yeah, the 5 damage bazooka is rough. But 5 damage bleed bazookas are easier to pull off and more consistent. And even if you get bounced, who cares? It is just like bleeding your predator with KS. > Shared Nightmare: > Action, Chimeristry, 3 blood. > "Choose three allies or younger players controlled by any other players > in the game. The chosen minions cannot block or cast votes > *for*the*rest*of*the*current*minion*phase*." Totally sick and wrong. > And again, I felt like its effect, which affects *all* other players, was > against the spirit of the game. Yeah, maybe. I'm not seeing it as all that grim, or even all that effective. Especially as I'll go out on a limb and guess that weenie decks are probably going to be the meat and drink of this format. > Taunt the Caged Beast: > Action, Animalism, no cost. > "Choose two ready vampires, one each controlled by the other two > players in the game. The chosen vampires enter combat, with no > detriment to you and no benefit to them." And yet again, I felt like its > effect was against the spirit of the game. Well, yeah, but as noted earlier, it isn't going to do much to anyone. You tap, might get blocked, and your opponents get in a fight. If they don't feel like playing your reindeer games, they just each H1 (or maneuver or dodge or S:CE or prevent or whatever). And if someone wants to fight and torp the other guy, there *is* a benefit to them (they gain 4 blood). This one strikes me as just not worrying about; I really doubt that anyone is going to tear up the Rapid Thought scene with Taunt the Caged Beast. -Peter

On Apr 15, 6:43 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Crypt: (7 cards, Min: 21, Max: 24, Avg: 5.57) > --------------------------------------------- > 1 Sir Marriot D`Urban aus obf ser PRE 5 Followers of Set > 1 Sonja Blue dom pot CEL FOR PRE5 Ventrue > 1 Renenet ser OBF PRE 5 Followers of Set > 1 Aisha ani aus ser PRE 6 Followers of Set > 1 Ankh-sen-Sutekh obf PRE SER 6 Followers of Set > 1 Elihu dai for POT PRE 6 Baali > 1 Maureen dom obf DAI PRE 6 Baali I didn't see any mention of the grouping rule being ignored for this format...? John Eno

librarian wrote: > Being able to make more decks I get. Why not make it a full > half game? 6-crypt, 45 card max, 1 hr long? And ban nothing > until found abusive (just spinning here). See, I *did* try to model it after a half-game, as well as looking at what Scott already did with it. I have thought about this a lot. :) You have about half the time limit, although I like 45 minutes so you can run a 3R+F in 3 hours. I could run THREE of these tournaments at Origins each day! You have a 6-card crypt, since most decks can be easily modified from 12 to 6 crypt cards, and I wanted to make the format as unique as possible, and this seemed possible. I realize that this is using a bit of force upon the players, to make them embrace change, but I really want to see this format become something new, not just a sub-format. You have 90 cards and not 45 since most decks CANNOT be easily modified from 90 to 45, so you keep it at 90 but have an interesting, unusual lower-limit for those who want to create anew. You ban some cards -- some of which I may be incorrect on, which is why I presented it here -- since some of them NEED TO BE BANNED. See my later message on why I believe those cards should be banned. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Nope, just giving you a list of all independent vamps capacity 5 or 6 that have PRE. best - chris

On Apr 16, 12:37 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Nope, just giving you a list of all independent vamps capacity 5 or 6 > that have PRE. Oh, gotcha. I thought you might have been submitting the deck sketch I asked Kevin for (well, the crypt of such a deck, anyway). But yeah, looking at the list you made definitely strengthens my guess that Reckless Agitation would be far from broken in the RT format. John Eno

librarian wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> Let's remove the 6 cards you mentioned above and assume they're >> on the banned list. The rest, with my reasons for bannination, since >> this is how we'd go about it anyway. Do you agree, or not? > > First off, I am usually in the camp that wants to avoid banning cards, > regardless of format, so take my response with that point of view in > mind. I am in that camp as well, but these seemed to me to be heinous. >> ConBoon: >> Based on what others have said, this, along with the other >> non-offensive votes, can probably be allowed, given the 45 minute >> timeframe and the long setup time needed to exploit pool-gaining >> votes. > > This one I would like to see in practice make games suck. As I said, I am leaning towards *not* banning the non-offensive pool-gaining vote cards. So, you are probably right. >> Gran Madre di Dio: >> I felt like its effect, which affects *all* other players, was >> against the spirit of the game. I admit I am on the fence >> on this one, but I just don't want to see it. > > Agree with this I think. > >> Reckless Agitation: >> The offensive nature of RA, along with its 5 pool damage (or even >> 3/3) and the existence of so many small PRE vamps make it too >> deadly. If it is allowed in, it will be played in EVERY DECK that >> can possibly call it, and I think it is broken in the format, e.g. >> without it, I can imagine playing a deck without anti-vote. > > The thing about RA is that it is no good when you get down to > 2 players. So you oust your first prey, but then they clog your > hand. I'm not sure it's so bad. I thought of a couple of decks with vote push that have a bunch of RA and it just seemed too good in this format. Having them clog at the end is no real impediment after you have gotten one of the only three VPs. See Deflection as an example of this. >> Shared Nightmare: >> Action, Chimeristry, 3 blood. >> "Choose three allies or younger players controlled by any other >> players in the game. The chosen minions cannot block or cast >> votes *for*the*rest*of*the*current*minion*phase*." Totally sick >> and wrong. And again, I felt like its effect, which affects *all* other >> players, was against the spirit of the game. > > But this card sounds good even in a 4-5 player game. > Yet no one plays it. I wouldn't ban this out of hand yet. It *is* a good card, but it's just too expensive for most player's tastes, so they don't use it. But just think what it does in a three-player game! Wrong, wrong, wrong. Icky! >:( >> Taunt the Caged Beast: >> Action, Animalism, no cost. >> "Choose two ready vampires, one each controlled by the other >> two players in the game. The chosen vampires enter combat, with >> no detriment to you and no benefit to them." And yet again, I felt >> like its effect was against the spirit of the game. > > I see how you can see this. Of course, those two players have > Pred/Prey relationship also, so it may actually help one or the other > of them. I would like to see evidence that it causes a big problem. If > someone makes the RT TtCB deck and it tears things up, then yes, > it's a problem. But have to see it first. I will concede that: Since combat will be very heavy in this format, one could assume that there will be enough prevention that TtCB won't work. In addition, they may manipulate it such that it won't help you and therefore it probably isn't what I thought it was (or could be). You win. We'll put it on the Watch List instead. Yay Christopher! ;) 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 Apr 16, 2:55 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > librarian wrote: > > Kevin M. wrote: > >> Shared Nightmare: > >> Action, Chimeristry, 3 blood. > >> "Choose three allies or younger players controlled by any other > >> players in the game. The chosen minions cannot block or cast > >> votes *for*the*rest*of*the*current*minion*phase*." Totally sick > >> and wrong. And again, I felt like its effect, which affects *all* other > >> players, was against the spirit of the game. > > > But this card sounds good even in a 4-5 player game. > > Yet no one plays it. I wouldn't ban this out of hand yet. > > It *is* a good card, but it's just too expensive for most player's tastes, > so they don't use it. But just think what it does in a three-player game! > Wrong, wrong, wrong. Icky! >:( What does it do in a three-player game that it doesn't do in a 4 or 5? -witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] uhhh I stated it, above: Make it so NO ONE can block or cast votes. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 17, 3:28 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > uhhh I stated it, above: > Make it so NO ONE can block or cast votes. Only if there are exactly 3 other younger vampires on the table. Yeah, more likely in an only 3 player game, but still, pretty unlikely. -Peter

On Apr 16, 1:55 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > librarian wrote: > > > >> Shared Nightmare: > >> Action, Chimeristry, 3 blood. > >> "Choose three allies or younger players controlled by any other > >> players in the game. The chosen minions cannot block or cast > >> votes *for*the*rest*of*the*current*minion*phase*." Totally sick > >> and wrong. And again, I felt like its effect, which affects *all* other > >> players, was against the spirit of the game. > > > But this card sounds good even in a 4-5 player game. > > Yet no one plays it. I wouldn't ban this out of hand yet. > > It *is* a good card, but it's just too expensive for most player's tastes, > so they don't use it. But just think what it does in a three-player game! > Wrong, wrong, wrong. Icky! >:( > I still don't understand what this card does differently in a 3 player game that it doesn't do in a 5 player game. It can still affect up to 3 vampires controlled by the only players allowed to block you, for one minion phase. So it takes 3 blood and one of your minion's actions, to keep up to 3 minions from blocking the rest of your minions' actions this turn... So??? It's not even at stealth - I'd rather play Sens Dep.... And how is it any stronger in 3 player games?

[ quoted text not captured ] It also affects their votes. That seems to be about it, to me. - D.J.

On Apr 18, 10:49 pm, "D.J." <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > It also affects their votes. That seems to be about it, to me. Yeah, I suppose if you are in a 3 player game (which is the basic assumption here) and your opponents only have a total of 3 voting vampires, and you can make them not vote, you get a solid vote lock off of the one card. But still, seems unlikely to ever work the way you want it (as either your opponents will have no voting vampires anyway, and you already have vote lock, or your opponents will have a bevy of voting vampires, and this might help, but so might an Awe). -Peter

On Apr 17, 3:28 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net wrote: > > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >> librarian wrote: > >>> Kevin M. wrote: > >>>> Shared Nightmare: > >>>> Action, Chimeristry, 3 blood. > >>>> "Choose three allies or younger players controlled by any other > >>>> players in the game. The chosen minions cannot block or cast > >>>> votes *for*the*rest*of*the*current*minion*phase*." Totally sick > >>>> and wrong. And again, I felt like its effect, which affects *all* > >>>> other players, was against the spirit of the game. > > >>> But this card sounds good even in a 4-5 player game. > >>> Yet no one plays it. I wouldn't ban this out of hand yet. > > >> It *is* a good card, but it's just too expensive for most player's > >> tastes, so they don't use it. But just think what it does in a > >> three-player game! Wrong, wrong, wrong. Icky! >:( > > > What does it do in a three-player game that it doesn't do in a 4 or 5? > > uhhh I stated it, above: > Make it so NO ONE can block or cast votes. It makes three younger vampires controlled by your predator and/or prey unable to block or cast votes. Who else was going to block you? Casting votes could be meaningful, I guess, but it doesn't seem like it should be significantly better than, say, Awe. At the very least, let someone try it out. -witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] > -witness1- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The "cannot block" ability is much more powerful than the "no votes". There are cards that stop votes without requiring a block, as well as the actual block. There aren't that many "action fails" cards that can stop a card-less action... so for example making two prey vampires and one other predator vampire unable to block you (say followed by a nice Seduction or something) you effective have a no-downside unblockable action or two (unlike the Grandest Trick, Day/Dawn Op).

On Apr 20, 3:08 am, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > The "cannot block" ability is much more powerful than the "no votes". > There are cards that stop votes without requiring a block, as well as > the actual block. There aren't that many "action fails" cards that > can stop a card-less action... so for example making two prey vampires > and one other predator vampire unable to block you (say followed by a > nice Seduction or something) you effective have a no-downside > unblockable action or two (unlike the Grandest Trick, Day/Dawn Op). I agree that the no-block ability is stronger than the no-vote ability, but the no-block part is as powerful in a 4- or 5- player game as it is in a 3. There's no special reason to ban it in Rapid Thought. -witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] Easily disproved through one example. 5 player game, Methuselah A,B,C,D,E. All 5 have 3 minions out, except for A who only has 2. A's vampire 1 plays Shared Nightmare, freak drives, vampire 2 repeats. All of prey and preds vamps are now unable to block. If A now bleeds B, B can at least bounce to C or D who can still block. If it was a 3 player, the only way you do not get bled now, is simply if you have more deflections.

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm not sure why that's more benefit than drawback, but at least I see why it matters. Thanks. -witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] > -witness1- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - 3-player If you bleed either your Predator or Prey (as your ONLY possible targets) there is almost no "downside". Bleed prey = kill prey, bleed pred = reduce pressure. 5-player If you bleed prey and it gets flicked then it lands on your grand-prey and only helps your prey (barring chains of flicking until you bleed your predator).

[ quoted text not captured ] If they get the SN stopped, you still have BO/Awe, et.al., to fall back on. If they get the BO/Awe stopped, you're f'ed. 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 [ quoted text not captured ]