Vote Push? Newbie question

In article <766531d39...@anton.infoserv.com>, "Anton Dovydaitis" <an...@infoserv.com> wrote: > My thoughts on vote pushing. First, I think that V:TES is correct, > that as many vote cards can be played by each Metheselah as are in > their hands. This makes voting very dynamic, and Dark Sovereigns has > increased this tendency with its variety of vote manipulating cards. > In particular, Kindred Coercion: cancel or change the votes of X > vampires younger than the reacting minion. This not only increases > the uncertainty of votes generally, but diminishes weenie princes, > whom I think are over-rated anyway. Another would be Conflict of > Interest: cancel the votes of a vampire who belongs to the same clan > as the reacting vampire. Both of these make votes more interesting > and allow non-titled vampires to participate in politics to great effect. Vote pushing is not effected by any of those cards. > The only problem I've encountered in practice are the vote decks dominated > by one or two vote cards (BORING), especially Kine Resources Contested. > Anyway, it is my opinion that Dark Sovereigns mostly solves the political > problem. Now, on to vote push itself: With vote pushing as the rules stand, both game dynamics are hurt and deck construction is hurt. A simple counterexample to allowing vote pushing is the Weenie Vote Push deck. This deck is hugely destructive under 4CL and even more so in NL. Unless specifically prepared for the damage even a 4CL Weenie Vote Push deck can do, even NL decks can be swept off the table in spite of their best efforts. Why? In the first turn minions act, WVP can have a prince merely by throwing down X votes. In the next, they can throw down X-2 votes to win that turns votes. The 4CL WVP deck can easily have 8 votes on the first vote, 10 votes on the second, and by the third turn, only have to push occasionally. The rest is typically the downfall of the table. The only other way for most decks to compete is to be able to push as many votes as the WVP deck can. In a 4 player game, this means an average of 2.666 votes per player. If they can't reliably get out 8 votes in the second turn, they can't compete. This kind of necessity shuts down game dynamic. Deck construction is tied to this. If one _must_ throw in enough Political Actions to reliably get out your share of the votes early, your choices become severely cramped. No deck should have to do this in case another type of deck arrives. Strategies need to be accounted for (how will I defend bleed? vote? combat?), but not specific necessities (I _need_ 10% votes in my deck, I _need_ 10% X-type). Once one needs to throw in the same certain cards in every deck to defend against that strategy, you know you have a problem. Deck construction is also hurt by the ease in which the vote deck can cycle effortlessly. Got a useless vote (maybe a duplicate Praxis Seizure), throw it in for one vote along with 6 others until you redraw for you KRC/Sabbat Threat). Combat decks cannot just dump manuever after manuever. Vote decks should have the same problem of hand jam as any other deck. With some (somewhat strict) form of vote push restriction, these problems go away, The WVP deck can no longer "insta-win". Instead, for an aggressive vote deck to win, it must figure out ways to keep the aggressive votes in hand _and_ have political power on the board. Other players are no longer forced to have turn 2 defense or else. They can choose to handle vote defense in any number of ways. Vote decks are brought to an equal status with every other deck: They must work to get cards out of their hands. Oftentimes, people respond by saying that Methuselahs, being ancient vampires of power and influence, have some kind of innate control over politics. What is missed by this idea is that there are _many_ Methuselahs, and the players at the table only represent _some_ of these Methuselahs. As one of many, these Methuselahs do have some impact, but that other Methuselahs' ambitions are thrown into the mix as well. Maybe an unnamed Methuselah doesn't want it to happen. As a result, the Methuselah's actual physical influence is typically very small. They only influence Camarilla politics through the actually people involved in them that they control. As an aside, since many vampires doubt the existence of Methuselahs, why should they change their vote because there are rumors that a Methuselah wants something done and another Methuselah disagrees. As always, I welcome any commentary... "I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ # Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) # $ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @ # PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) y*+? 3.1# @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$

Jonathan G. Sushinsky <jona...@cesar.umd.edu> wrote: >I have mentioned before that I personally do not see a problem with vote >pushing. The Weenie Vote Deck counter to that just does not seem to be a >good enough reason to disallow vote pushing. It may seem kind of wierd >when you see Nik becoming the Prince of Houston on the second round and >all, but I don't think that this is that much of a threat. so what if >the WVD gets 2 new vampires out every turn. Voting is a one stealth deal >(in general). All the prey of the WVD has to do is intercept the >important ones (KRC's CA's etc...), and most decks should have some >limited intecept skill. Ok. Let's look at this differently. "What if a player was playing a deck using all size 1-3 vampires, each of whom could bleed at 3 or 4 each turn? Heck, bleeding actions are at ZERO stealth, anyone can block that. Who cares if he can get out two more vamps each turn?" A harmful vote is the same as a large bleed that starts with plus one stealth, that any schmuckola wimp of a Nik can do. Ideally, this should be balanced by the fact that it's a vote, and people could use politics to stop it. However, the fact that the player who call the vote can drop a handful of cards every time to support it eliminates this balancing factor. On the other hand, if the vote pushing is restricted, the player can't simply load up his deck with dual purpose political action cards. If he wants his votes passed, he'll have to resort to all those neato vote fiddling cards. Suddenly, he's got to make the same deck design choices as everyone else. How many PA cards to put in, vs how many vote modifier cards so that they'll actually pass? -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://www.astro.indiana.edu/home/ahabig/ Ban the Bomb: Make the world safe for conventional warfare!

I have mentioned before that I personally do not see a problem with vote pushing. The Weenie Vote Deck counter to that just does not seem to be a good enough reason to disallow vote pushing. It may seem kind of wierd when you see Nik becoming the Prince of Houston on the second round and all, but I don't think that this is that much of a threat. so what if the WVD gets 2 new vampires out every turn. Voting is a one stealth deal (in general). All the prey of the WVD has to do is intercept the important ones (KRC's CA's etc...), and most decks should have some limited intecept skill. All the predator need's to do is get an action blocked. Anytime a weenie gets into combat _anyone_ should be able to put them in torpor. So 1 intercepted vote and doing one thing to make the weenies block per turn will negate the fact that they are getting a couple of new (titleless) vampires out. Soon they have more princes in torpor than they do ready vampires and that hardly seems to be too threatening.

Jonathan G. Sushinsky <jona...@cesar.umd.edu> wrote: >I have mentioned before that I personally do not see a problem with vote >pushing. The Weenie Vote Deck counter to that just does not seem to be a >good enough reason to disallow vote pushing. It may seem kind of wierd >when you see Nik becoming the Prince of Houston on the second round and >all, but I don't think that this is that much of a threat. so what if >the WVD gets 2 new vampires out every turn. Voting is a one stealth deal >(in general). All the prey of the WVD has to do is intercept the >important ones (KRC's CA's etc...), and most decks should have some >limited intecept skill. If you would like me to mail you the WVP Deck, try it out for yourself. Ask your friends if you can use proxies, and don't substitute for any other cards. The rules: Just don't tell your friends what you are playing. I.e., the game should _begin_ with natural prey/predator relationships. Your ideas: Nik becoming a prince not a threat: It allows the WVP deck to have to push less votes. On the second turn, unless one can reliably supply 8 votes, Nik will be prince. Also highly likely is that their will be 2 princes on turn 2. So what about en masse: Calling offensive votes each turn will be blockable (+1 intercept needed), and blocking one should destroy (or nearly so) the caller. So what? For 1 more pool, I can bring him back out, and drop contesting the weak one. Meanwhile, 2 to 5+ offensive votes can be called, and if they aren't called, more princes are coming out. By this time, the WVP deck couldn't care if Half its vampires died in the next turn. The vote deck will block: It shouldn't. Take the bleed, even if it is a conditioning on Govern teh Unaligned. By the time they are able to consistently hurt you, you have likely finished off a prey or two. Intercept the important votes: Which ones? Even in 4CL, thats 24 votes, plus the 8 others that are damaging in round about ways (First Tradition, etc...) And how many minions do _you_ have to block them all. Things you forgot to mention: Bum's Rush decks: Can't take out enough of em. Swarm effect. Problems for the WVP: Contesting another WVP. Playing another VP. Justine with a Sport Bike. Other than that, there is not much likelihood of loosing. From a game standpoint, why should politics get special treatment? Every other deck has to work to get the appropriate cards in hand, not just drop them in a de facto Deal with the Devil. Without VP, the WVP deck can be made, but it must have contingencies for how to pass early votes. It must begin to make choices like "How many votes? How many reactions/modifiers?" It becomes an excercise in deck _design_, not a no-brainer, [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jonathan G. Sushinsky" <jona...@cesar.umd.edu> wrote: >I have mentioned before that I personally do not see a problem with vote >pushing. The Weenie Vote Deck counter to that just does not seem to be a >good enough reason to disallow vote pushing. It may seem kind of wierd >when you see Nik becoming the Prince of Houston on the second round and >all, but I don't think that this is that much of a threat. so what if >the WVD gets 2 new vampires out every turn. Voting is a one stealth deal >(in general). All the prey of the WVD has to do is intercept the >important ones (KRC's CA's etc...), and most decks should have some >limited intecept skill. All the predator need's to do is get an action >blocked. Anytime a weenie gets into combat _anyone_ should be able to >put them in torpor. So 1 intercepted vote and doing one thing to make >the weenies block per turn will negate the fact that they are getting a >couple of new (titleless) vampires out. Soon they have more princes in >torpor than they do ready vampires and that hardly seems to be too >threatening. See the corrupters comments. I would have posted similar (though with perhaps less flair and detail) but knew someone had to comment them already. The swarm effect is very powerful. the last game I was in was 4 player and 2 of us had combat decks against a weenie with fortitude deck. He ousted 2 people although he was stuck when he ran up to the last deck. We had worn him down a bit, the new prey was a gain pool and heavy bleeder. And even then his problem was the cards weren't coming up that he needed. REF

Jonathan G. Sushinsky <jona...@cesar.umd.edu> wrote: >Then this is exacly the vote that should be targeted for intercept. >Chooseing when and what to block becomes the strategy involved. Most of >us love strategical challenges (I would think that is why most of us >would rather play Jyhad than M:tg) and in my opinion restricting vote >pushing eliminates a very strategic portion of the game. > >Choosing your battles is a very important concept of playing the game >well IMO.Relating this to your big bleed argument. if you only have two >blocking minions and your predator has four vampires to bleed with you >had better block the malks with DOM rather than worrying about the two >who have a laptop who can only bleed for 2. The problem being that a WVP deck has very few political actions that are NOT dangerous. I'm not going have have my horde of weenies calling "Regaining the Upper Hand". They're going to be calling one of the damaging votes (plus Autarkus Persecution - if you can call me gaining 5-6 more pool than everyone else not dangerous). And they're going to be a lot of them calling these votes. The bleed defense comparison breaks down here, because any caitiff can call a 5 point CA vote - but the smallest vamp with Sup. Dom. is a 4. So, of the four Caitiffs I brought out at the same time as your 4pt Malk, you block a couple of their damage votes, the other two get passed, whammo, 6-8 pool gone. Oh, and unless you're an Auspex player, you aren't even blocking those, because the permanent based intercept is comparatively slow to get out. As you stated, one has to make choices when defending against a bleed, too. Fine. This is a strategic game. But let's look at what you're up against, before you even get to make a defensive choice : A bleed action : zero stealth. 1 Damage. Can be modified upwards for big vamps, or by equip actions down stream. Can be intercepted. A vote action : 1 stealth. micro vamps do as much damage as a big vamp does bleeding. Always passes under Vote Push. Can be intercepted. The defense against both is the same - intercept. However, votes come with extra stealth. Votes are being played by smaller, and thus more numerous vampires. Ergo, votes are much harder to defend against, on a per-unit damage basis. So, of the two fundamental ways of hurting your opponent that exist in the game, one is clearly more effective than the other. There's something wrong. If you restrict Vote Push, then it evens out. While the bleeder has to have bigger vamps and play extra cards to get plus bleed, the voter has to have bigger vamps (for titles/presence), play cards, and finagle to get his vote passed. We all like to choose our battles, and make strategic choices. But for weenie vote push, there are no choices. Vamp after vamp plays the same class of cards, discarding happily to pass it if he's not blocked. If he's blocked, the next vamp in line tries the same thing. Repeat until not blocked. Yawn. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jonathan G. Sushinsky" <jona...@cesar.umd.edu> writes: >aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) wrote: >>Jonathan G. Sushinsky <jona...@cesar.umd.edu> wrote: >>>I have mentioned before that I personally do not see a problem with vote >>>pushing. The Weenie Vote Deck counter to that just does not seem to be a >>>good enough reason to disallow vote pushing. It may seem kind of wierd >>>when you see Nik becoming the Prince of Houston on the second round and >>>all, but I don't think that this is that much of a threat. so what if >>>the WVD gets 2 new vampires out every turn. Voting is a one stealth deal >>>(in general). All the prey of the WVD has to do is intercept the >>>important ones (KRC's CA's etc...), and most decks should have some >>>limited intecept skill. >> >>Ok. Let's look at this differently. >> >>"What if a player was playing a deck using all size 1-3 vampires, each of whom >>could bleed at 3 or 4 each turn? Heck, bleeding actions are at ZERO stealth, >>anyone can block that. Who cares if he can get out two more vamps each turn?" >> >>A harmful vote is the same as a large bleed that starts with plus one stealth, >>that any schmuckola wimp of a Nik can do. >Then this is exacly the vote that should be targeted for intercept. >Chooseing when and what to block becomes the strategy involved. Most of >us love strategical challenges (I would think that is why most of us >would rather play Jyhad than M:tg) and in my opinion restricting vote >pushing eliminates a very strategic portion of the game. >Choosing your battles is a very important concept of playing the game >well IMO.Relating this to your big bleed argument. if you only have two >blocking minions and your predator has four vampires to bleed with you >had better block the malks with DOM rather than worrying about the two >who have a laptop who can only bleed for 2. They *all* call KRC (or have a bleed of 3) - you can't choose a better time to block because all the actions are the same. You block the first two or the last two - it won't matter. The other two get though and you lose 6 pool. (Typically there are more than four vampires - usu. 5 or 6 - so you'll be losing 9 or 12 pool each turn you block only two - even when you block the best two). Yes, choosing your battles is a key concept in a non-degenerate game. Vote-push makes a degenerate game possible - and choosing your battles is a meaningless concept in that case. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Smith & Wesson: the original http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | "point and click" interface. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

[ quoted text not captured ] > >Ideally, this should be balanced by the fact that it's a vote, and people could >use politics to stop it. However, the fact that the player who call the vote >can drop a handful of cards every time to support it eliminates this balancing >factor. > >On the other hand, if the vote pushing is restricted, the player can't simply >load up his deck with dual purpose political action cards. If he wants his >votes passed, he'll have to resort to all those neato vote fiddling cards. >Suddenly, he's got to make the same deck design choices as everyone else. How >many PA cards to put in, vs how many vote modifier cards so that they'll >actually pass? jon

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: I guess I should respond to this since it is my argument that vote pushing should not be restricted :) >If you would like me to mail you the WVP Deck, try it out for yourself. >Ask your friends if you can use proxies, and don't substitute for any >other cards. The rules: Just don't tell your friends what you are >playing. I.e., the game should _begin_ with natural prey/predator >relationships. If you want to, go ahead and send it to me. I will try it out although it may wait until I see how my new Malk annoyance deck is going to work. It also may be a while since my work schedule has been compounded by returning to school this semester (in other words I don't have much free time, though I agree that jyhad should be a priority :). I'll see how your deck does. > >Your ideas: > Nik becoming a prince not a threat: > It allows the WVP deck to have to push less votes. On the second >turn, unless one can reliably supply 8 votes, Nik will be prince. Also >highly likely is that their will be 2 princes on turn 2. I would still argue that these votes are relatively harmless. So less votes need to be pushed through. Elaborate on the problem here and I'll get back to you then. I still feel that two princes will likely go to torpor each turn meaning WVP needs to keep bringing out new vamps (which gets to be a problem in itself that I will go into in the next section). > > So what about en masse: > Calling offensive votes each turn will be blockable (+1 intercept >needed), and blocking one should destroy (or nearly so) the caller. So >what? For 1 more pool, I can bring him back out, and drop contesting the >weak one. Meanwhile, 2 to 5+ offensive votes can be called, and if they >aren't called, more princes are coming out. By this time, the WVP deck >couldn't care if Half its vampires died in the next turn. En masse is not a problem if vampires die each round also. Lets assume that WVD has information highway out also (6 transfers each turn) and his crypt is filled with 1-2 capacity vampires. After the first four come out there is still a shortage of new vampires available. Four of the six transfers need to be spent in order to bring a vamp out of the crypt allowing only one to get out each turn. Ok maybe there are a few Effective Managements as well and so every four turns he brings out 5 vampires. If 1-2 of his vampires are dying each turn he breaks even or comes out losing vampires. > > The vote deck will block: > It shouldn't. Take the bleed, even if it is a conditioning on >Govern teh Unaligned. By the time they are able to consistently hurt >you, you have likely finished off a prey or two. > The vote deck will have to block big bleeds if they are consistant as any bleed deck should be and combat decks will have other ways to get into battle or it wouldn't be a good combat deck. And it should use cards up battling another vote deck. So I feel most realistic deck should be able to put some pressure on a WVD from the predator standpoint. Also the predator is going to want to stop the WVD from getting blood so it should also intercept some of the votes for it's own purposes and not just to help out his ally across the table. > Intercept the important votes: > Which ones? Even in 4CL, thats 24 votes, plus the 8 others that >are damaging in round about ways (First Tradition, etc...) And how many >minions do _you_ have to block them all. > I responded to this earlier today in another post. Basically you need to choose what is harmful and what is simply an annoyance and strategically pick what you want to take issue with. >Things you forgot to mention: > Bum's Rush decks: > Can't take out enough of em. Swarm effect. Combined with other things you can take out enough of them IMO. One other thing I forgot to mention is that WV decks are very card intensive. Play by the library maximum rules and it is highly likely that they will lose by a lack of cards at the end, even if they were able to gain an easy victory point or two. Easy being a totaly unprepared prey. Always be prepared for anything (and no i don't mean that you need to build a deck focused to beat a WVD only that it should have some defense against all possible strategies). Yes it is hard to do, but not totally impossible. > > >Problems for the WVP: > Contesting another WVP. Playing another VP. Justine with a Sport >Bike. Other than that, there is not much likelihood of loosing. running out of cards > >From a game standpoint, why should politics get special treatment? Every >other deck has to work to get the appropriate cards in hand, not just >drop them in a de facto Deal with the Devil. Without VP, the WVP deck >can be made, but it must have contingencies for how to pass early votes. Politics is a very important part of human and vampire culture. Why should the president of the United States not have to testify at Whitewater in person (or a million and a half other examples of special political examples)? Not that it is right but politics are not often about fairness or right and wrong, but I digress and this is not an issue for this newsgroup (yet... :). >It must begin to make choices like "How many votes? How many >reactions/modifiers?" It becomes an excercise in deck _design_, not a >no-brainer, I agree that it should never be a no-brainer, defending should also get this type of attention though. If you rule out vote pushing, defenses against vote decks become much simpler and it is easy to pack a few Dread Gazes rather than worry about how many votes might be thrown in each turn. In conclusion it is my opinion that without vote pushing you can rather effectively know if a PA is going to pass or fail-based on what is already on the table. This makes a very important aspect of the game rather dry and meaningless (to use yet another contoversial phrase :) In any case carry on. Our differing beliefs are not likely to persuade any one to change sides on this issue and we can argue until our fingers fall off, but I probably will lurk back into the shadows of the discussion for awhile and let someone else take up the "vote pushing is an essential part of the game" debate for a while. I'll jump back in after doing some experiments with your deck, but don't hold your breath waiting :). jon

Mike Kelly <kelly_...@mm.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com> wrote: > >I have mentioned before that I personally do not see a problem with vote >pushing. The Weenie Vote Deck counter to that just does not seem to be a >good enough reason to disallow vote pushing. It may seem kind of wierd >when you see Nik becoming the Prince of Houston on the second round and >all, but I don't think that this is that much of a threat. so what if >the WVD gets 2 new vampires out every turn. Voting is a one stealth deal >(in general). All the prey of the WVD has to do is intercept the >important ones (KRC's CA's etc...), and most decks should have some >limited intecept skill. All the predator need's to do is get an action >blocked. Anytime a weenie gets into combat _anyone_ should be able to >put them in torpor. So 1 intercepted vote and doing one thing to make >the weenies block per turn will negate the fact that they are getting a >couple of new (titleless) vampires out. Soon they have more princes in >torpor than they do ready vampires and that hardly seems to be too >threatening. >---------------------------------1133245751191-- I don't consider it a broken deck but you don't seem to consider it even viable. Try it, I think you'll be surprised. REF

aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) wrote: >On the other hand, if the vote pushing is restricted, the player can't simply >load up his deck with dual purpose political action cards. If he wants his >votes passed, he'll have to resort to all those neato vote fiddling cards. >Suddenly, he's got to make the same deck design choices as everyone else. How >many PA cards to put in, vs how many vote modifier cards so that they'll >actually pass? > >-- > Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics > aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu > http://www.astro.indiana.edu/home/ahabig/ > Ban the Bomb: Make the world safe for conventional warfare! I don't understand what you mean that he'll "suddenly have to make the same deck design choices as every one else". No first off, I'm not entirely certain what is meant by a Weenie Vote Deck, but I play a Ventrue vote deck, and have been working hard on tuning it and getting a good balance: votes to do damage (it's my primary weapon), blockers to avoid getting hit by too many bleeds, and some vamps with Obfuscate to call the tricky votes which the combat decks could intercept and ruin. And yes, unlike Magic, Jyhad is a strategy game. If my oponant can't figure out when to block one of my votes and when not to waste the effort, then I guess he's technically as good a player.

In article <1996021113...@onechip.demon.co.uk> Simon Richardson <si...@onechip.co.uk> writes: >One House Rule that we adopted was "anyone can block a political action". >That kills WVD stone dead, since someone can put the princes into torpor. >Also don't forget that the bloodhunt vote that follows the destruction of a >weenie prince does not permit vote pushing. It's done using old-fashioned >"count the vampires" method. That's two house rules that substitute for one. If someone played a weenie vote around here we would limit pushing to 3, making a dread gaze defeat a vote pusher. Since no one has ever used more than 4 votes at once, (3 push) we haven't had to make the rule official. If you house rule against vote pushing for bloodhunts why not for all votes? >The other thing that torpors weenie princes is contested titles. The blood >to pay for the contest comes from them, not from the player. And a vampire >in torpor cannot contest a title, and so must yield. Some juvenile >strategies can be built around that one, too. Not to mention around >"Justine with a submachinegun", which kills any weenie deck. This point has been mentioned over and over. Justine has a cool power. Not everyone has Justine. Now if in Ancient hearts there were more vampires with helpful powers...

In article <4fcugi$n...@hecate.umd.edu>, "Jonathan G. Sushinsky" <jona...@cesar.umd.edu> wrote: > I have mentioned before that I personally do not see a problem with vote > pushing. The Weenie Vote Deck counter to that just does not seem to be a > good enough reason to disallow vote pushing. It may seem kind of wierd > when you see Nik becoming the Prince of Houston on the second round and > all, but I don't think that this is that much of a threat. so what if > the WVD gets 2 new vampires out every turn. Voting is a one stealth deal > (in general). All the prey of the WVD has to do is intercept the > important ones (KRC's CA's etc...), and most decks should have some > limited intecept skill. All the predator need's to do is get an action > blocked. Anytime a weenie gets into combat _anyone_ should be able to > put them in torpor. So 1 intercepted vote and doing one thing to make > the weenies block per turn will negate the fact that they are getting a > couple of new (titleless) vampires out. Soon they have more princes in > torpor than they do ready vampires and that hardly seems to be too > threatening. One House Rule that we adopted was "anyone can block a political action". That kills WVD stone dead, since someone can put the princes into torpor. Also don't forget that the bloodhunt vote that follows the destruction of a weenie prince does not permit vote pushing. It's done using old-fashioned "count the vampires" method. The other thing that torpors weenie princes is contested titles. The blood to pay for the contest comes from them, not from the player. And a vampire in torpor cannot contest a title, and so must yield. Some juvenile strategies can be built around that one, too. Not to mention around "Justine with a submachinegun", which kills any weenie deck. Simon --- "This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16 si...@onechip.co.uk | Not affiliated to any religion | Not affiliated to any politics H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me? "I have been asked to point out, as if you couldn't guess, that my rantings are not the opinions of One Chip Solutions. So now you know, don't you..?"

refp...@best.com (REF) wrote: >>---------------------------------1133245751191-- >I don't consider it a broken deck but you don't seem to consider it >even viable. Try it, I think you'll be surprised. >REF Actually I (jon) wrote this. I also have played with a weenie deck once and I did not win, but I didn't get trashed either. It seemed a viable yet not broken deck so I agree with you there. Someone (the Corrupter I believe) offered to send me his WVD to try out but I haven't recieved it yet, but I've also been busy of late and I haven't played at all in a couple of weeks (I do hope to remedy that soon). Sorry if I seemed too harsh on the subject I just happen to like the options available with vote pushing and have seen a lot of opposition to it on account of WVD's. It is never anything personal, after all it is just a game (admittedly one of my favorite games). jon

Simon Richardson (si...@onechip.co.uk) wrote: : Also don't forget that the bloodhunt vote that follows the destruction of a : weenie prince does not permit vote pushing. It's done using old-fashioned : "count the vampires" method. While you may play this as a house rule, this is not actually the case. In a Bloodhunt, anyone may play Political Action cards to gain additional vots, at 1 per PA. Also, titled vampires may use their titles to vote. Finally, the Ventrue Headquarters may be tapped for 3 additional votes. There are no votes given for merely 'existing': votes in a bloodhunt may only be gained in one of the above three ways. Action Modifiers and Reaction cards which add/manipulate votes may _not_ be used during a Bloodhunt. Shane H.W. Travis | Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced with the tra...@duke.usask.ca | choice between changing one's mind and proving Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | that there is no need to do so, almost everybody | gets busy on the proof.

In article <4fo36t$5...@tribune.usask.ca>, tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis) wrote: : Simon Richardson (si...@onechip.co.uk) wrote: : : : Also don't forget that the bloodhunt vote that follows the destruction of a : : weenie prince does not permit vote pushing. It's done using old-fashioned : : "count the vampires" method. : : While you may play this as a house rule, this is not actually the case. : : In a Bloodhunt, anyone may play Political Action cards to gain additional : vots, at 1 per PA. Also, titled vampires may use their titles to vote. : Finally, the Ventrue Headquarters may be tapped for 3 additional votes. : : There are no votes given for merely 'existing': votes in a bloodhunt may : only be gained in one of the above three ways. Well, to be honest Shane, with the Advent of DS there are other ways to generate votes useable in a bloodhunt. The Mausoleum, Venice will give 2 votes, unless the VHQ is out, and I believe that Oxford University can be used (although it might be restricted to political actions. Don't have the card in front of me so if I am wrong, mea culpa..) : Action Modifiers and Reaction cards which add/manipulate votes may _not_ : be used during a Bloodhunt. Still, your point is valid. The only official restrictions for voting during a bloodhunt are that action modifiers and reaction cards cannot be played. Just trying to keep you on your toes ;^) stephen beaulieu hi...@mail.utexas.edu

"Jonathan G. Sushinsky" <jona...@cesar.umd.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] >jon Hey, I wasn't offended or anything. This is my favorite game as well. Hope you can play soon. I think vote pushing is powerful as well but I still don't see why people are so concerned with pushing. I've seen it but in a larger game and with at least some people playing a little vote defense it just doesn't strike me as stronger then say a Malk bleed deck.

Robert Rodger <robert...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >I don't understand what you mean that he'll "suddenly have to make the >same deck design choices as every one else". No first off, I'm not >entirely certain what is meant by a Weenie Vote Deck, but I play a >Ventrue vote deck, and have been working hard on tuning it and getting a >good balance: votes to do damage (it's my primary weapon), blockers to >avoid getting hit by too many bleeds, and some vamps with Obfuscate to >call the tricky votes which the combat decks could intercept and ruin. Great! IMHO, that's what a vote deck should be. I'm not griping at that. Someone else just posted deck designs for WVP under both NL and 4CL. But the gist of it is : lots of votes to do damage. lots of small vampires. ....and that's it! This deck doesn't need to worry about combat defense. Just bring out another vampire! It doesn't need to worry about passing the vote - just burn your whole hand for a bunch more votes! This deck doesn't worry about bleed defense. It can kill its prey faster than you can bleed it. This deck doesn't need to worry about stealth - votes come with stealth already, and with so many small vampires, you won't be able to intercept all the votes. >And yes, unlike Magic, Jyhad is a strategy game. If my oponant can't >figure out when to block one of my votes and when not to waste the >effort, then I guess he's technically as good a player. There are no votes in a "weenie vote push" deck that are safe to let pass. FWIW, here's the comparison between a Vote action to damage and a Bleed action. These two actions are the two most direct ways to damage your prey, which is what the game's all about : Bleed: 0 stealth. Does 1 damage. More damage with larger vamps (and plus bleed cards) and equipment. Vote : 1 stealth. Does 3-4 damage. Vamp size irrelevant. Can be voted down. The problem - if you allow people to discard whole hands of PA cards to get extra votes, the last limitation of a Vote - "can be voted down" - becomes irrelevant, making voting clearly better than bleeding. [ quoted text not captured ]