Oh no! Not the Succubus Club!

MY GOD! The whining.... Look, if you think that your prey is going to use Succubus Club in a snit to give all his stuff and pool to /his/ prey (or your predator), well then you've got to make sure he <b>doesn't do that</b>. "Gee Mike... how do we do that?" Well, you can start by not backing your prey into a corner, not giving him a reason to screw you over. Ease up. Give him some breathing room and a chance to live. Don't drop the hammer until you're ready to finish him. Hope is a dangerous weapon. Use it. Adapt. Smile. Be subtle. Or, if you prefer the brute force approach, you could try one of my favourite cards: Political Flux. Give yourself twelve pool and LET him give away all his stuff. "But Mike... Succubus Club allows the boogeyman [kingmaking!] into our games!" Fer christ's sake, go ahead and let someone be the "kingmaker"... then kill their f***ing king. Get allies of your own. What? No one wants to be your friend because you're playing a stealth bleed deck that doesn't do anything but kill people? Well isn't that too f***ing bad. Play a more flexible deck next time, you lop! You're supposed to be JYHAD PLAYERS, ancient bad-ass vampires, not some pansy-a** network of Mary Kay marketers worrying about infringing on each other's customers and territories. What's that? You don't like any of these ideas? Well how about trying to take control of the Succubus Club yourself? Someone mentioned packing a few to contest it... or maybe including some disputed territories or arsons. You don't like the effect the Succubus Club is having on your game? You don't like your prey having leverage on you? BURN THE F***ING THING TO THE GROUND. That's the spirit! That's a Methuselah who comes ready to fight. That's a player I can respect. -Michael

Legendre wrote: > MY GOD! The whining.... My god. The complete lack of understanding the discussion at hand... > Look, if you think that your prey is going to use Succubus Club in a > snit to give all his stuff and pool to /his/ prey (or your predator), > well then you've got to make sure he <b>doesn't do that</b>. All the clever trying to make sure he doesn't do that has zero bearing at all on collusion. > Well, you can start by not backing your prey into a corner, not giving > him a reason to screw you over. Dude. He is your prey. Your job is to kill him. He always has a reason to screw you over. But not really the issue. > That's the spirit! That's a Methuselah who comes ready to fight. > That's a player I can respect. Yu-huuh. The issue here is that Succubus Club allows for preposterous table swings and rediculously facilitates outright collusion (i.e. cheating), and the amount of effort it takes to arbitrate whether or not this is what is going on seems fruitless. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "The gun is good! The penis is bad!" -Zardoz

In message <fb4469c.03112...@posting.google.com>, mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) mumbled something about: >MY GOD! The whining.... I want you in a game sometime with the Succubus Club in play. I do not believe that you have ever been exposed to abuse of it at close range, much less when you had any hopes of winning, and even LESS in a major tournament. At a key point in the game, I will give all my pool and minions to your prey, or your predator, whoever can use it more effectively. We will see who talks about "whining" then, because you will either be ousted or neutered. How does it feel that your whole game is gone? All that time and skilled play wasted for nothing? >Look, if you think that your prey is going to use Succubus Club in a >snit to give all his stuff and pool to /his/ prey (or your predator), >well then you've got to make sure he <b>doesn't do that</b>. You can only do this by playing Sudden Reversal on the Club, or taking the action to Arson it, even though Arsoning a Club cross-table is an action which doesn't remotely help you win, and instead alienates someone who might have been inclined to help you. >Well, you can start by not backing your prey into a corner, not giving >him a reason to screw you over. Ease up. Give him some breathing >room and a chance to live. Don't drop the hammer until you're ready >to finish him. Hope is a dangerous weapon. Use it. The screw will probably not come from your prey. He expects you to be a predator to him, after all. Even so, just because you THINK you're "ready to finish him" doesn't mean that you'll have the time to stall, or the ability to finish him; and leaving him at 1 pool is all he needs. The action to screw you over will come from your predator, who will throw ALL his pool and minions to your prey because you blocked his Govern-superior action. Or it will come cross-table, from someone who believes you should've voted with him on what he perceived as a critical vote. It will not be something you can just shrug off, it will not be something you can expect, and it will SURELY not be something that you can prepare for -- it will be an irrational, spite-based decision. As someone else mentioned, the early work in game theory was flawed because it mistakenly assumed that players would always act rationally. The rationale you present here is flawed for that same reason. >That's the spirit! That's a Methuselah who comes ready to fight. >That's a player I can respect. Again, it is painfully obvious that you have NEVER been exposed to this sort of thing, much less been the victim of it. And until you have, you should not be opening your flap and talking about "players you can respect". Succubus Club trades can generate a RIDICULOUS balance shift, worse than any other card in the entire game. Assuming that people will not abuse it is painfully naive. -- Derek "From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of idiots." - unknown

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:njnisvkb369q1frar...@4ax.com... > In message <fb4469c.03112...@posting.google.com>, > mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) mumbled something about: > > >MY GOD! The whining.... > > I want you in a game sometime with the Succubus Club in play. I do not > believe that you have ever been exposed to abuse of it at close range, > much less when you had any hopes of winning, and even LESS in a major > tournament. i still thank jo, that he didn´t unbalance the finals by giving away all his minions, because i srewed his game. succubus club is nasty and should not be tourney legal in a multiplayer game with already has to deal with kingmaking stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950...@nospammmunet.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<3fca6010$0$33210$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:njnisvkb369q1frar...@4ax.com... > > In message <fb4469c.03112...@posting.google.com>, > > mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) mumbled something about: > > > > >MY GOD! The whining.... > > > > I want you in a game sometime with the Succubus Club in play. I do not > > believe that you have ever been exposed to abuse of it at close range, > > much less when you had any hopes of winning, and even LESS in a major > > tournament. > > i still thank jo, that he didn´t unbalance the finals by giving away all his > minions, because i srewed his game. > succubus club is nasty and should not be tourney legal in a multiplayer game > with already has to deal with kingmaking > stefan Succubus club can be nasty, I certainly agree. However, in effect it's (merely?) an amplifier of the possible ways of dealing that exist between methuselahs. I've been in plenty of games (and recently, the amount has grown) where deals take place - they can be disturbing enough even without the succubus club. I'm just saying this to illustrate that even without succubus club, the behaviour we dislike would take place anyway. However, probably in a less-disturbing manner than is possible with the succubus club. With the succubus club, much broader deal-making becomes possible, so much more profound deals are possible. And since it's very likely only one part of a deal-making alliance will be having access to the effects of the SC, this further decreases the natural balance between competing alliances. So, I wouldn't mind it if the SC were disallowed in V:EKN tournaments. But I'm not raving for it either, since the disturbing nature of the deals might better be tackled at the 'root' than at the SC. -- Tobias Deventer

Tobias wrote: > However, in effect it's (merely?) an amplifier of the possible ways of > dealing that exist between methuselahs. The amplification is what makes the card so disruptive. Without the Succubus Club, deals are generally vague, as there is only so much you can do that is concrete--help out with a vote in exchange for some favorible KRC damage; call a Con Boon for my clan in exchange for a Rush; block that action and I'll let you steal the Powerbase; whatever. It is difficult to make a very significant deal, as the rules lack an inherrent mechanism to make them concrete. Thus, in most cases, deals in VTES are going to be fairly vague. Throw in the SC, and suddenly, you have the capability of making very significant concrete deals, and when these deals turn out to be one sided for whatever reason, they tend to throw the game. Yeah, a mundane, balanced trade with the SC isn't going to be that damaging to anything, but having your prey suddenly inherrit 3 vampires, 6 pool, a VP, and then 6 more pool 'cause his prey decided he wanted out of the game and wanted to spite you for not voting in favor of a vote of his earlier in the game is just ass. > I'm just saying > this to illustrate that even without succubus club, the behaviour we > dislike would take place anyway. Yes. But it would be much less concrete. And wouldn't include giving all of your stuff and pool to your predator 'cause you are in a losing position and filled with spite. Or 'cause you are in a losing position, and your predator is a pal who you'd be happy to win the tournament if you can't. > So, I wouldn't mind it if the SC were disallowed in V:EKN tournaments. > But I'm not raving for it either, since the disturbing nature of the > deals might better be tackled at the 'root' than at the SC. You can't really fix the root problem (deal making), except in the most vague sense--and they already have done so for what it is worth (VEKN tournament rules 5.1 and 5.2), but these rules simply call for too much taxation on the judges to arbitrate every possible deal situation. Succubus Club aggrivates the "deal making" problem (which is enough of a problem to have called for the VEKN rules as well as the move towards "table wins" as opposed to just VPs so as to dis-incentive table splits) to a great deal. Yeah, it can be used for mundane, reasonable trades, but as LSJ pointed out, you can't really invent strict limits that will prevent unreasonable trades (yeah, I can only give you a maximum of 2 pool, but then I can give you 1 pool for your Arika with a Flamethrower...). Leading back to the need to have a judge arbitrate every deal made with the Succubus Club. Which is a pain in the ass. The reasonable uses of the Succubus Club simply do not justfy the huge amounts of damage the card can cause. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >I want you in a game sometime with the Succubus Club in play. I do not >believe that you have ever been exposed to abuse of it at close range, >much less when you had any hopes of winning, and even LESS in a major >tournament. You know what? Bring it. >At a key point in the game, I will give all my pool and minions to your >prey, or your predator, whoever can use it more effectively. That would, of course, be your perogative. >We will see who talks about "whining" then, because you will either be >ousted or neutered. How does it feel that your whole game is gone? All >that time and skilled play wasted for nothing? It feels like you're *dead*, and now I have to work that much harder now to defeat my opponents. My "whole game" is *never* gone until I'm ousted. That's how it feels. -Michael

In message <fb4469c.03120...@posting.google.com>, mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >>I want you in a game sometime with the Succubus Club in play. I do >not >>believe that you have ever been exposed to abuse of it at close >range, >>much less when you had any hopes of winning, and even LESS in a major >>tournament. > >You know what? Bring it. I accept your admission that you have never been there. Until you have, you can't possibly understand, and I'm not surprised to hear such a clueless point of view coming from you in that case. >>We will see who talks about "whining" then, because you will either >be >>ousted or neutered. How does it feel that your whole game is gone? >All >>that time and skilled play wasted for nothing? > >It feels like you're *dead*, and now I have to work that much harder >now to defeat my opponents. My "whole game" is *never* gone until >I'm ousted. I will have been dead anyway -- why else would I be giving all my stuff away unless I had no hope of winning? Your game WILL be gone, however, because you will likely be OUSTED before ever getting to take another turn if I have given all my minions to your predator. Or if I have given everything to your prey, what will you do then as he suddenly races away from you, in position to completely ignore you and finish cleaning up the Game Win? How do you like it now? I can't hear you. Speak up. >That's how it feels. Yeah, that's right. Chew on that futility, that complete waste of time. Chew on it and taste it ... Oh, that's right. You've NEVER BEEN THERE. Until you've been there, you're just blowing macho-flavoured smoke out of your ass, and talkin' up a big storm of nothin'. [ quoted text not captured ]

A simple rule would fix the S.C. : We change the name of the game to Vampire: The Eternal Silence (no need for logo change!) and disallow talking (except to a judge) during rounds. Problem solved. And the problem of using different languages than Englisch in international tourneys is also solved. Isn´t it a wonderfull idea ? :-) -- johannes walch v:ekn germany - http://www.vekn.de/

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Johannes Walch wrote: > A simple rule would fix the S.C. : > > We change the name of the game to Vampire: The Eternal Silence (no need for > logo change!) and disallow talking (except to a judge) during rounds. > Problem solved. And the problem of using different languages than Englisch > in international tourneys is also solved. > > Isn´t it a wonderfull idea ? I think Madness of the Bard already covers that plan well enough. Anyway, I'd probably have to talk to trade a pool for a Deflection, but if I'm close to being ousted, I could just tap the Succubus Club and push all my cards and pool across the table. People would get the idea. :) Matt Morgan

Johannes Walch wrote: > We change the name of the game to Vampire: The Eternal Silence (no need for > logo change!) and disallow talking (except to a judge) during rounds. > Problem solved. And the problem of using different languages than Englisch > in international tourneys is also solved. > > Isn´t it a wonderfull idea ? Cool! And we could unban the Madness of the Bard, too! Andrew! Come back! [ quoted text not captured ]

For some reason I cannot reply to Derek's insightful post below, so I link it to my own. Derek wrote: "Yeah, that's right. Chew on that futility, that complete waste of time. Chew on it and taste it ... Oh, that's right. You've NEVER BEEN THERE. Until you've been there, you're just blowing macho-flavoured smoke out of your ass, and talkin' up a big storm of nothin'." To which I reply: Your angst, your futility, the absolute *HORROR* of what has happened to you in being /raped/ of all your effort by that accursed card and all that it engenders, which I shall never understand or comprehend because in all my VTES playing years I've only participated in three lousy tournaments and only seen the succubus club played in a tournament twice and once by *me* filthy little collusive Jyhad Slut that I am, does nonetheless and despite my obvious flaws reveal one, or perhaps three, things which I believe I can state with near certainty: 1) You have forgotten that this is a game. 2) You think this VTES thing really matters. 3) You have forgotten that it is supposed to be *FUN*. I myself do not claim to be "macho" or anything. I simply know that when I'm playing VTES I play to win, even if the whole table is arrayed against me. I /despise/ the tournament rules on "having" to play to maximize VPs. What else is there? And who cares if someone else decides to collude or kingmake or wear plaid with paisley? So long as they've got a deck and are ready to roll. If you don't think that you can subvert or evade the effects of the Succubus Club, then take it as flattery that your prey felt he had no option but to suicide and take you with him. Think of it like a "poison pill" in Mergers & Acquisitions. It's a fact of life. Accept it. Play as hard and fast as you can. Adapt and overcome your enemies, or be crushed underfoot. Those are really the only two options in a game like this. But if you must pass beyond the veil of ouster, do try to transubstantiate with style and grace. When the tournament is over, when your cards lay burned and your pool expended, enjoy the satisfaction of knowing that you gave it your best, that you built a good deck and it just wasn't good enough to take everyone out. You had fun playing a game. Hell, you might even have gotten a victory point from your prey's actions if you put any defense in your deck whatsoever! And then you go back to your job, your house, your wife or husband or fiancee or girlfriend or boyfriend or children, your other hobbies, your books, your music, your favourite movies, and life is *good* because you had fun playing a game and even though you lost, the Succubus Club made things more interesting. Maybe next time you'll try something insane like offering to help your prey kill your grandprey in order to keep him from going postal. Or maybe next time you'll play something that makes it so your prey has no minions to give away. Whatever. It's a game. Life is good, wine is good, and writing poetry is good. Whatever floats your particular little private boat is *good*, and you went out and gave it your best. Or, or more likely it seems, you sit around whining about how that bastard gave all his minions away and he shouldn't be allowed to do that because it's collusion and they might be friend and and how a perfectly wonderful game needs to ban one of the most interesting, useful cards in the set and how the game needs yet more restrictive rules to prevent players from playing their games how they want to because even though the rules say you can earn your zero VPs any way you want they can't really mean it and someone should do something there ought to be a LAW! As I said before, it's your perogative. -Michael

In article <fb4469c.03120...@posting.google.com>, mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu says... > I /despise/ the tournament rules on "having" to play to maximize VPs. So you feel you should be allowed to play as you see fit? The point of the game is to acquire VPs. What else do you want to do during the game? <snip macho babble> > Or, or more likely it seems, you sit around whining about how that > bastard gave all his minions away and he shouldn't be allowed to do > that because it's collusion and they might be friend and and how a > perfectly wonderful game needs to ban one of the most interesting, > useful cards in the set The point is, some of us actually want to play the game based on its strategy merits instead of having to worry about dealing with the fact that not everyone can play/win/die like an adult. Succubus Club is a vehicle for kingmaking/spite/whatever as much as it's an "interesting and useful card". Do you consider kingmaking and spite "good things"? I couldn't tell one way or the other through your macho bit above. > and how the game needs yet more restrictive > rules to prevent players from playing their games how they want to > because even though the rules say you can earn your zero VPs any way > you want they can't really mean it and someone should do something > there ought to be a LAW! So do you actually want to play the game or just play cards and screw around? It seems you'd be happier if there were no rules, and players can do whatever they want. I can suggest several other card games that have no predator/prey rules then. -- -Snapcase

Legendre wrote: > Your angst, your futility, the absolute *HORROR* of what has happened > to you in being /raped/ of all your effort by that accursed card and > all that it engenders, which I shall never understand or comprehend > because in all my VTES playing years I've only participated in three > lousy tournaments and only seen the succubus club played in a > tournament twice and once by *me* filthy little collusive Jyhad Slut > that I am, does nonetheless and despite my obvious flaws reveal one, > or perhaps three, things which I believe I can state with near > certainty: You so seem to be missing the point here. Yes. VTES is a game that is supposed to be fun. This being said, games have rules. Games have rules that are adjusted and changed, such that it will remain a fun game. Rules get changed all the time in every game, such that said game will remain a fun game. Every game in the world has rules changed and tweaked as it evolves such that it will remain a fun game. The point about Succubus Club (that most people seem to be making here--certainly Derek and myself) is that it makes the game less fun. It might not make the game less fun in casual play (it doesn't, really--in casual play, it can be very entertaining), but in competetive play, it can be very disruptive and unbalancing. The thing about competetive play that most people find fun is the balance and challenge (otherwise, you might as well play casual games). When this balance is disrupted and compromised, people like to see it get fixed. Back in the day, one of the biggest problems with Jyhad was repeat actions ("I go to bleed you. You block. I Majesty, untap, and go to bleed you. You block. I Majesty, untap, and go to bleed you. Out of blockers? Ok. I Freak Drive and go and bleed you. I Freak Drive and go and bleed you. I Freak Drive and go and bleed you..."). This was both unbalancing and disruptive to the play environment. So people complained about it and discussed it. And eventually, it was fixed (with the No Repeat Actions rule, which is now in the rulebook). Right. Many people feel that Succubus Club is disruptive and unbalancing. Sure. Not everyone. Bt enough people to make a significant argument. This has nothing to do with forgetting that VTES is a game that is supposed to be fun. It has to do with keeping competetive VTES a fun game. > I /despise/ the tournament rules on "having" to > play to maximize VPs. What else is there? Which is odd, as the whole point of the game is to get VPs. Otherwise, you might as well be playing an RPG. > And who cares if someone > else decides to collude or kingmake or wear plaid with paisley? People who play the game 'cause they like the strategy and challenge inherrent to the game--if Iwanted to play Diplomacy, I'd play Diplomacy. > Or, or more likely it seems, you sit around whining about how that > bastard gave all his minions away and he shouldn't be allowed to do > that because it's collusion and they might be friend and and how a > perfectly wonderful game needs to ban one of the most interesting, > useful cards in the set and how the game needs yet more restrictive > rules to prevent players from playing their games how they want to > because even though the rules say you can earn your zero VPs any way > you want they can't really mean it and someone should do something > there ought to be a LAW! A) Have you never been on the internet before? B) Games *always* have rules changed to make the environment more entertaining and less abusable. Every game. Chess. Football. Pool. VTES. Succubus Club is just one more rule that needs tweaking. [ quoted text not captured ]

mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) wrote in message news:<fb4469c.03120...@posting.google.com>... [replying to Derek] > that I am, does nonetheless and despite my obvious flaws reveal one, > or perhaps three, things which I believe I can state with near > certainty: > > 1) You have forgotten that this is a game. > > 2) You think this VTES thing really matters. Whoa whoa whoa. I assume that since I am google-posting, this will already have been addressed, but I can assure you, as someone who knows Derek, neither of the above is true. Not that Derek needs me (or anyone) defending him. I'm sure that a perfectly reasonable, flame-ridden post will show up before mine does. > 3) You have forgotten that it is supposed to be *FUN*. Nah. Some of the tournament-level players have forgotten this, but not Derek. > I myself do not claim to be "macho" or anything. I simply know that "Bring it on" sounds incredibly macho. Derek was spot-on with that comment. If you haven't seen Succubus Club abused in a tournament situation, especially by someone using it to spite you, then you can't talk about it. > when I'm playing VTES I play to win, even if the whole table is > arrayed against me. I /despise/ the tournament rules on "having" to > play to maximize VPs. What else is there? And who cares if someone > else decides to collude or kingmake or wear plaid with paisley? So > long as they've got a deck and are ready to roll. If you don't think > that you can subvert or evade the effects of the Succubus Club, then > take it as flattery that your prey felt he had no option but to > suicide and take you with him. Many people do think that way, and yes, it's flattering, but it's also a pain in the ass when it happens time and time again. At the tournament level, it's also incredibly stupid. Maybe it's a flaw inherent in multiplayer games, but a player in a losing position should not have the ability to *easily* swing the advantage (or the whole game) to the player of his choosing. > And then you go back to your job, your house, your wife or husband or > fiancee or girlfriend or boyfriend or children, your other hobbies, > your books, your music, your favourite movies, and life is *good* > because you had fun playing a game and even though you lost, the > Succubus Club made things more interesting. Succubus Club tends to make things less interesting. It reduces the variance in the outcome of the game. > Maybe next time you'll > try something insane like offering to help your prey kill your > grandprey in order to keep him from going postal. Or maybe next time > you'll play something that makes it so your prey has no minions to > give away. Yeah, that's not so bright. There appears to be a contradiction between your advice of playing as hard and as fast as you can and your advice to help your prey. Additionally, if you're specifically metagaming against *one* card, there's a good chance that the card is broken, at least in the environment you're considering. > Or, or more likely it seems, you sit around whining about how that > bastard gave all his minions away and he shouldn't be allowed to do > that because it's collusion and they might be friend and and how a > perfectly wonderful game needs to ban one of the most interesting, > useful cards in the set Succubus Club might be "interesting" but it's not inherently useful in and of itself, obviously. The problem with it is that it specifically allows a wide variety of activity that is impossible (or nearly so) to achieve with any other mechanism in the game. Trading minions is, for all intents and purposes, unavailable as a tactic. Trading cards in hand or on the table is next to impossible. (Note that in both cases, "stealing" is not to be construed as "trading".) >and how the game needs yet more restrictive > rules to prevent players from playing their games how they want to > because even though the rules say you can earn your zero VPs any way > you want they can't really mean it and someone should do something > there ought to be a LAW! If everyone you play with plays to the end of the game, and plays in a style you like, hey, that's great for you. I see people frequently get upset and either throw their games (HI GALEN! :) or self-oust out of spite. Whether or not this is against the rules is questionable, but (anecdotatlly) I have seen people do this from positions from where they reasonably had a chance to gain more VPs. Unfortunately, we cannot legislate good gameplay (or position assessment), as far as I can see. Xian i blew george and harvey's brains out with my...six gun!

> The point is, some of us actually want to play the game based on its > strategy merits instead of having to worry about dealing with the fact > that not everyone can play/win/die like an adult. Succubus Club is a > vehicle for kingmaking/spite/whatever as much as it's an "interesting > and useful card". Do you consider kingmaking and spite "good things"? > I couldn't tell one way or the other through your macho bit above. Then the logical recourse would be to pack one (or more) of the following in your deck. Kine Dominance Arson Unnatural Disaster Rampage Smash & Grab Haunt Disputed Territory I'm sure there are others, those are just the ones that come to mind. Steal it, or destroy it, the instant you see it. Given the large number of useful lcoations that are out there, it's not like SC is the ONLY target for those cards. No SC? I'm sure there's another target on the table that will help you, or whose absence hurts your predator or prey. Or is it that you can't be bothered to adjust to cards that derail your game. Card giving you a problem? Easier to scream "ban it" than to modify your deck a bit to defend against it. Yes, it's destabilizing. So is Protect Thine Own in the right situation. Both card have counters -- and I'm not talking OOT masters. Torch the IC member before PTO is called. Torch the location before it destabilizes play. You talk about about appreciating the strategy in the game? Then incorporate defense against SC into your strategy. Fanboy

The Fanboy wrote: > You talk about about appreciating the strategy in the game? Then > incorporate defense against SC into your strategy. This goes way back to the ever popular "Red Hot Iron Arms of Death" analogy. Which I always liked. Yes. Succubus Club can be burned down. So can any location. That doesn't mean that Succubus Club is an acceptible card. That a counter exists for a specific card does not mean that it is ok that it exists. If there were a card called "Red Hot Iron Arms of Death", that was a potence card that cost 1 blood, and at inferior, did 7 ranged aggrivated damage, as a hand strike. At superior, it did 10 ranged aggrivated damage, as a hand strike. Is this a reasonable card to exist? Even if you can counter it by including Skin of Steel in your deck? Why complain about such a card when you can simply adjust your strategy? What about a master card called "I Win!", that reads "Play this master card. Your current prey is immediately ousted." Is this card ok? I mean, it must be, you can just play with Sudden Reversal. Yes, this is a strategy game and adjusting strategy to deal with various threats is just part of the game. But adjusting strategy is not the answer to significant problems. Specifically addressing the problems is. Succubus Club is not too powerful. It is simply inappropriate for a compettetive environment. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:21:40 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled: [snip] >> I /despise/ the tournament rules on "having" to >> play to maximize VPs. What else is there? > >Which is odd, as the whole point of the game is to get VPs. Otherwise, you >might as well be playing an RPG. I think his point here was trying to say: why make a rule to enforce what is so obvious it shouldn't need a rule? i think we have Andrew to thank for the fact that it appears some people _do_ need it explicitly written out. (and if it wasn't you, Andrew, my apologies :) salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

In article <f99d61c5.03120...@posting.google.com>, texas...@yahoo.com says... > Or is it that you can't be bothered to adjust to cards that derail > your game. Card giving you a problem? Easier to scream "ban it" than > to modify your deck a bit to defend against it. I guess we should unban Return to Innocence then, eh? Succubus Club doesn't "derail" any given deck's game. It has the potential to derail the entire table. Deck composition is irrelevant. -- -Snapcase

In message <fb4469c.03120...@posting.google.com>, mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) mumbled something about: >Your angst, your futility, the absolute *HORROR* of what has happened >to you in being /raped/ of all your effort by that accursed card and >all that it engenders, which I shall never understand or comprehend >because in all my VTES playing years I've only participated in three >lousy tournaments and only seen the succubus club played in a >tournament twice and once by *me* filthy little collusive Jyhad Slut >that I am, does nonetheless and despite my obvious flaws reveal one, >or perhaps three, things which I believe I can state with near >certainty: > >1) You have forgotten that this is a game. I play the game to win; I expect that others will also do the same. I have not forgotten that it is a game. However, it is also a not-insignificant time and money investment to travel several hundred miles to a tournament, in order to play the game with a larger group of people, newer people, and enjoy the company of those interesting people whom I have met through the game. You should take this into consideration, as you cannot speak from experience here. >2) You think this VTES thing really matters. It matters while I'm playing the game. >3) You have forgotten that it is supposed to be *FUN*. No, I am quite well aware of what "fun" is. Fun, for me, is getting to play the game with a reasonable chance (20%) of winning. Fun is NOT having someone spoil the game out of spite. There are other parts of traveling those hundreds of miles that are also fun. And I would never let a non-fun episode in the game itself spoil the rest of those weekends. However, that makes it no more pleasant to have "no fun" in the purposed primary reason for the trip. Are you incapable of comprehending this? Do I need to use words of only one syllable to make it through that bone you call your head? >I myself do not claim to be "macho" or anything. I simply know that >when I'm playing VTES I play to win, even if the whole table is >arrayed against me. I /despise/ the tournament rules on "having" to >play to maximize VPs. What else is there? And who cares if someone A statement which demonstrates your lack of understanding more eloquently than I could ever manage, frankly. I'm glad your world is filled with fluffy kittens, shiny rainbows, and players who ALWAYS play to win, 100% of the time, no matter what. >When the tournament is over, when your cards lay burned and your pool >expended, enjoy the satisfaction of knowing that you gave it your >best, that you built a good deck and it just wasn't good enough to >take everyone out. You had fun playing a game. Hell, you might even "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game." -- a sentiment invariably echoed by the losers of those games. >As I said before, it's your perogative. And it's your prerogative to remain in your fluffy kitten, shiny rainbow world, where nobody plays spitefully and everyone hugs each other after they get ousted. The rest of us out here under the blue sky, though, are concerned about Succubus Club and what it does when people, as they are WONT to do, get a little bit spiteful when they're losing. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <f99d61c5.03120...@posting.google.com>, texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) mumbled something about: >Then the logical recourse would be to pack one (or more) of the >following in your deck. > >Kine Dominance Requires Dominate. >Arson Requires stealth. >Unnatural Disaster Robs you of precious Master slots/actions, and is expensive. >Rampage Requires Potence. >Smash & Grab Requires an Anarch. >Haunt Requires Necromancy. >Disputed Territory Requires the ability to pass a vote. >I'm sure there are others, those are just the ones that come to mind. So now it comes down to whether or not I draw the anti-SC card before the owner uses it in some wack fashion? Let's just flip coins; that's at least honestly random. >Steal it, or destroy it, the instant you see it. Given the large Almost invariably a poor play, as it creates ill-feeling when done cross-table to a person who is supposedly peacefully inclined towards you for awhile. >destabilizing. So is Protect Thine Own in the right situation. Both >card have counters -- and I'm not talking OOT masters. Torch the IC >member before PTO is called. Torch the location before it >destabilizes play. > >You talk about about appreciating the strategy in the game? Then >incorporate defense against SC into your strategy. I refer you to the myriad arguments regarding "X and anti-X" that can be easily found on Google. It has long ago been shown that when the game starts to be reduced to playing X, or anti-X, or losing, then there's a problem. With Protect Thine Own, either I play Camarilla (X), or I put enough combat in my deck to burn the first IC member on the table I see (again, whether or not it is a good play to deprive your grandpredator of Arika on turn 4 is a totally different subject), or I risk having key minions burned cross-table in 'anticipatory' moves which turn out to be horrible mistakes. Or just in random spite, who knows? With Succubus Club, either I play the SC itself to contest, or I play with enough location-hosers and stealth that I can kill the SC when it hits the table, or I risk some bozo shaking things up completely on a whim. The response that "X isn't broken because there's anti-X" is simply no good, really -- especially if the cost of anti-X is excessive. [ quoted text not captured ]

mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) wrote in message news:<fb4469c.03112...@posting.google.com>... I'm going to have to agree with you, if onyl because everyone else does seem to be bitching a bit much... A game has goals and rules around which people PLAY and interact with other people. This is a social game. As long as you're playing the game, not cheating, and having fun, then alls fair. If you don't like how some people play the game, then you'll have to join a group with their own unspoken house rules, that being, that they can't trade all their minions to someone else with SUccubus, something that is normally allowed by the rules of the game, but you're too finicky, or something, about it to be able to have it exist in your metagame. ~SV

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BBF20A24.1238F%pd...@lightlink.com>... > The point about Succubus Club (that most people seem to be making > here--certainly Derek and myself) is that it makes the game less fun. It > might not make the game less fun in casual play (it doesn't, really--in > casual play, it can be very entertaining), but in competetive play, it can > be very disruptive and unbalancing. The thing about competetive play that > most people find fun is the balance and challenge (otherwise, you might as > well play casual games). When this balance is disrupted and compromised, > people like to see it get fixed. Going by the rule of thumb that I see used in this newsgroup often, will the Succubus Club's omission from the scene make more strategies viable or will it make less strategies viable? I fail to see how it will do anything other than restrict the number of strategies that are viable. Currently a number of social engineering vectors allow for some (rather poor) strategies. AFAIK, lemme see what objections I can raise against SC: Succubus Club adds a more random element to the game (people, OMG!) than some are comfortable with. It is more blatant than the temporary alliances that often form in games, but is of the same nature. The game was designed to include a certain amount of player collusion (as evidenced by the Succubus Club). Will removing SC reduce the amount of collusive intentions? No. Will games be more predictable? Yes. (which is really what Derek and Peter are trying to highlight) SC is a way to codify collusion. Will removing SC make collusion less accepted? Maybe. At that point you'd have to look at the entire game and start making judgements about certain cards or even MECHANICS and how they contribute to collusion. So saying that is a bit insane. Many decks (including the generic wall) can be beaten with collusion. Will removing SC fix this? No. Maybe other people object to having to relate to people when playing as a gameplay element. That sounds like a social disfunction rather than a concrete reason to remove SC. Will removing SC remove the need to have players? No. Lemme know where I misstepped.

"VTES2004" <vtes...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:ce255bc1.03120...@posting.google.com... > Will games be more predictable? Yes. (which is really what Derek and > Peter are trying to highlight) I enjoy the randomness novadays more than the predictability. 3-5 turns to the game, most of the time I can guess with somewhat reliable accuracy what people are playing, what to expect of them, and so on. With SC, things take a turn which I cant see from the cards. I like it.

vermillian wrote: > This is a social game. As long as you're playing the > game, not cheating Ah. There is the rub. Often trades made with the Succubus Club are indistinguishable from "cheating". And other times, they are deeply unbalancing, and only legal by virtue of interpretation of the concept of "abillity to gain more VPs". >, and having fun, then alls fair. If you don't like > how some people play the game, then you'll have to join a group with > their own unspoken house rules, that being, that they can't trade all > their minions to someone else with SUccubus, something that is > normally allowed by the rules of the game, but you're too finicky, or > something, about it to be able to have it exist in your metagame. Or, ya know, you could agitate for specific problems getting fixed. Specific problems fixed in the past, that have improved the game: -No Repeat Actions, -No Vote Pushing, -Banning RTI, -Giving Wake a cost, -Making Banishment only useable on a younger vampire, -Reducing IG to "only that round", -Making Temptation of Greater Power only usable once per game, -Making DoTB and Weather Control only one per combat, -Disguised Weapon is now disciplinless. And so on. Unless, however, you have only recently joined the game, and didn't realize that all these things were fixed. Well, they were, and you are now reaping the benefits of a world where people advocate to fix problems of the game, rather than simply joing a group with their own unspoken house rules. At this point in time, the game is pretty solid (due, mostly, to people agitating to fix problems, rather than simply joining a group with their own unspoken house rules). The only significant problems that currently seem to be in need of addressing, as far as I can tell from discussion and experience, are Succubus Club and PTO. [ quoted text not captured ]

VTES2004 wrote: > Going by the rule of thumb that I see used in this newsgroup often, > will the Succubus Club's omission from the scene make more strategies > viable or will it make less strategies viable? I fail to see how it > will do anything other than restrict the number of strategies that are > viable. Currently a number of social engineering vectors allow for > some (rather poor) strategies. The number of viable strategies that *rely* on Succubus Club are minimal to the point of not worrying about it. And the ones that do are probably better off being forced to look for another enabling force. But that is me. > Succubus Club adds a more random element to the game (people, OMG!) > than some are comfortable with. That element (people) is already a factor, which the basic rules go out of their way to limit the interaction of (see: predator/prey relationship; blocking of (D) actions; default bleed actions; blocking of non (D) actions; etc.). The game benefits greatly by this inherrent limit. Succubus Club circumvents this limit. Too much. > It is more blatant than the temporary > alliances that often form in games, but is of the same nature. The > game was designed to include a certain amount of player collusion (as > evidenced by the Succubus Club). The amount of effort included to limit player interaction is much more significant than the effort included to encourage it. SC is clearly an anomaly, rather than a hallmark of the game. > Will removing SC reduce the amount of > collusive intentions? No. No, it will not. But it will greatly reduce the ability of collusive intentions to impact the game. > Will games be more predictable? Yes. (which is really what Derek and > Peter are trying to highlight) No, they won't be any more predictible. They will just be less likely to be completely thrown by random spite. Or intentional cheating. > SC is a way to codify collusion. Which the VEKN rules specifically are designed to prohibit--collusion is specifically named as cheating. > Will removing SC make collusion less > accepted? Collusion is already completely unacceptable. By virtue of the rules. > Maybe. At that point you'd have to look at the entire game > and start making judgements about certain cards or even MECHANICS and > how they contribute to collusion. So saying that is a bit insane. You could do that. Or you could just take the specific card that enables the most collusion, and gives collusion the most concrete effect, and remove it as a factor. > Many decks (including the generic wall) can be beaten with collusion. > Will removing SC fix this? No. You clearly misunderstand what "collusion" means in this context. Collusion is cheating--two or more players working together to alter the results of a given game for some reason other than the stated goal of the game (getting the most VPs at the table). > Maybe other people object to having to relate to people when playing > as a gameplay element. Possibly. But I know me, and I know Derek. And this is clearly not a factor in either of our arguments (or personalities). Yet here we are. [ quoted text not captured ]

Oko wrote: > I enjoy the randomness novadays more than the predictability. > 3-5 turns to the game, most of the time I can guess with somewhat reliable > accuracy what people are playing, what to expect of them, and so on. > > With SC, things take a turn which I cant see from the cards. I like it. And you like it when that turn is "Oh. I'm losing now. No more VPs for me. Hey guy who is Oko's prey--here is 7 more pool, 3 new vampires, a couple permanent locations, and all these cool cards in my hand that I'm not gonna use anymore. Why? 'Cause Oko voted down a vote of mine an hour and 45 minutes ago." Ah, yes. A fun turn, that. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:BBF3C54B.1245F%pd...@lightlink.com... > Oko wrote: > > > I enjoy the randomness novadays more than the predictability. > > 3-5 turns to the game, most of the time I can guess with somewhat reliable > > accuracy what people are playing, what to expect of them, and so on. > > > > With SC, things take a turn which I cant see from the cards. I like it. > > And you like it when that turn is "Oh. I'm losing now. No more VPs for me. > Hey guy who is Oko's prey--here is 7 more pool, 3 new vampires, a couple > permanent locations, and all these cool cards in my hand that I'm not gonna > use anymore. Why? 'Cause Oko voted down a vote of mine an hour and 45 > minutes ago." Let's not jump into hasty assumptions here. A play like that is what I dont like, who would? Do you have point, though? > > Ah, yes. A fun turn, that. Any way you like it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Oko wrote: > Let's not jump into hasty assumptions here. > A play like that is what I dont like, who would? No one. Which is why many people think that Succubus Club should be fixed (unlikely, as it is too difficult to fix) or removed from competetive play. As the hasty assumption that I provide is a common enough occurance of someone using the Succubus Club. > Do you have point, though? That the situation I describe is both a possible and not unlikely outcome of a Succubus Club being on the table. Yes. Succubus Club can be an entertaining card that adds interesting elements to game play. No one is debating that. But it also can be incredibly unbalancing and destructive. And the entertaining/reasonable uses of the Succubus Club simply do not justify the abuse it enables. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BBF3BD2E.12456%pd...@lightlink.com... > -Disguised Weapon is now disciplinless. Concealed not disguised... doesn't change your point though > At this point in time, the game is pretty solid (due, mostly, to people > agitating to fix problems, rather than simply joining a group with their own > unspoken house rules). The only significant problems that currently seem to > be in need of addressing, as far as I can tell from discussion and > experience, are Succubus Club and PTO. Up here (Winnipeg) we've not been subjected to succubus abuse (at least not since I've rejoined the tournament scene). However as a judge I would really like to see it dissappear before someone does make it a problem here (and no... if you live here and are reading this I am not asking you to abuse succubus so I can see it first hand - thanks). Primarily no one has abused it recently because we're a pretty friendly group. This has not however stopped the rampant use of PTO... but that's another rant. -JTP

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:17:51 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled: >vermillian wrote: > >> This is a social game. As long as you're playing the >> game, not cheating > >Ah. There is the rub. Often trades made with the Succubus Club are >indistinguishable from "cheating". And other times, they are deeply >unbalancing, and only legal by virtue of interpretation of the concept of >"abillity to gain more VPs". what i am curious to know is: assume: someone cannot reasonably expect to get more vps assume: they're giving all their crap to someone via succubusclub. now, the question i have: if the first assumption is correct, jut how much stuff do they have, to give to someone? surely if they have enough items to make a LARGE swing in the balance of the game, then they'd not actually be in a 'losing position'? and thus the judge could deny the trade on the grounds of 'not playing to win'. admittedly, tis means more judge arbitration, but then, that's what judges are for. if you point out that you think the deal your prey and grandprey are about to do with the succubus club is probably in violation of the play to win rule, the players might agree to not do it, so you won't even have to call the judge over. if they disagree, then call the judge, and they'll judge. >>, and having fun, then alls fair. If you don't like >> how some people play the game, then you'll have to join a group with >> their own unspoken house rules, that being, that they can't trade all >> their minions to someone else with SUccubus, something that is >> normally allowed by the rules of the game, but you're too finicky, or >> something, about it to be able to have it exist in your metagame. > >Or, ya know, you could agitate for specific problems getting fixed. Specific >problems fixed in the past, that have improved the game: > >-No Repeat Actions, >-No Vote Pushing, >-Banning RTI, >-Giving Wake a cost, >-Making Banishment only useable on a younger vampire, >-Reducing IG to "only that round", >-Making Temptation of Greater Power only usable once per game, >-Making DoTB and Weather Control only one per combat, >-Disguised Weapon is now disciplinless. *cough*concelaed weapon*cough* oh, and a cost for majesty and Form of Mist should also be on that list, iirc. >And so on. oh, ok. that'd cover the rest then. :) >At this point in time, the game is pretty solid (due, mostly, to people >agitating to fix problems, rather than simply joining a group with their own >unspoken house rules). The only significant problems that currently seem to >be in need of addressing, as far as I can tell from discussion and >experience, are Succubus Club and PTO. and Hungry Coyote. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > And you like it when that turn is "Oh. I'm losing now. No more VPs for me. > Hey guy who is Oko's prey--here is 7 more pool, 3 new vampires, a couple > permanent locations, and all these cool cards in my hand that I'm not gonna > use anymore. Why? 'Cause Oko voted down a vote of mine an hour and 45 > minutes ago." > > Ah, yes. A fun turn, that. Very difficult to be in a lost position with 7 pool, 3 vampires, a couple of permanent locations, and cool cards in hand. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: > Very difficult to be in a lost position with 7 pool, 3 vampires, a couple > of permanent locations, and cool cards in hand. Yet certainly possible. [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: > now, the question i have: if the first assumption is correct, jut how > much stuff do they have, to give to someone? surely if they have > enough items to make a LARGE swing in the balance of the game, then > they'd not actually be in a 'losing position'? and thus the judge > could deny the trade on the grounds of 'not playing to win'. A few vampires in torpor, maybe one ready, 5 or 6 pool, a hunting ground, with a significantly stronger prey? That strikes me as a reasonably losing position If all of that suddenly got moved to my prey, I'd say that was a pretty large swing. Especially if the losing position guy was the prey of my prey (who now has 11 or 12 more pool, a VP, more vampires, more stuff, without expending any resources or actions). > admittedly, tis means more judge arbitration, but then, that's what > judges are for. Not for my money, primarily. Judges are there to make the game run smothly and settle rules disputes. Making arbitrary decisions about the obscure motivations in obscure situations is like, the last thing I'd want to do as a judge. Or want a judge to have to do. Why encourage this? > if you point out that you think the deal your prey and > grandprey are about to do with the succubus club is probably in > violation of the play to win rule, the players might agree to not do > it, so you won't even have to call the judge over. if they disagree, > then call the judge, and they'll judge. Which is a pain for everyone involved. Why put judges through more of a pain than they need? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:06:18 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled: >salem wrote: > >> now, the question i have: if the first assumption is correct, jut how >> much stuff do they have, to give to someone? surely if they have >> enough items to make a LARGE swing in the balance of the game, then >> they'd not actually be in a 'losing position'? and thus the judge >> could deny the trade on the grounds of 'not playing to win'. > >A few vampires in torpor, maybe one ready, 5 or 6 pool, a hunting ground, >with a significantly stronger prey? That strikes me as a reasonably losing >position. could they not make deals with the person who would be screwed by their kingmaking instead then? to try and get them out of this losing position? ie: to try and get more vps, maybe win? > If all of that suddenly got moved to my prey, I'd say that was a >pretty large swing. Especially if the losing position guy was the prey of my >prey (who now has 11 or 12 more pool, a VP, more vampires, more stuff, >without expending any resources or actions). i'd say it was a large swing too. i'd also say it would require judge arbitration to make sure it wasn't in violation of the rules. >> admittedly, tis means more judge arbitration, but then, that's what >> judges are for. > >Not for my money, primarily. Judges are there to make the game run smothly >and settle rules disputes. Making arbitrary decisions about the obscure >motivations in obscure situations is like, the last thing I'd want to do as >a judge. Or want a judge to have to do. Why encourage this? it's already there. asking a judge to do what a judge should expect to have to do anyway is...well, reasonable, surely? sure, a judge might not like to have to do it, but it's part of the job. that's why they're called Judges an not 'Archon Data Entry Monkeys'. >> if you point out that you think the deal your prey and >> grandprey are about to do with the succubus club is probably in >> violation of the play to win rule, the players might agree to not do >> it, so you won't even have to call the judge over. if they disagree, >> then call the judge, and they'll judge. > >Which is a pain for everyone involved. Why put judges through more of a pain >than they need? because they need to? i assert that most rules questions could be adequately answered by some sort of quick poll of players at the table, and entering data into the archon is stupidly easy. hell, recording tournament scores manually on paper only adds a few extra minutes, depending on ability to divide 12,24,36,48,60 among people. it's the motivations and cheating/collusion type things that make it important to actually HAVE judges, imo. succubus club has been petitioned to be downpowered before. and it has been, to it's current state. i'll add in i haven't seen it abused in it's current printing personally, so you can all go and dismiss my opinions on the need to change succ club. (explicitly: i don't think it currently needs changing). however, having judged many a tourney, and been at tourneys judged by others, i don't think you can dimiss my opinions on what a judge should expect to do. (explicitly: judge). [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: >>>now, the question i have: if the first assumption is correct, jut how >>>much stuff do they have, to give to someone? surely if they have >>>enough items to make a LARGE swing in the balance of the game, then >>>they'd not actually be in a 'losing position'? and thus the judge >>>could deny the trade on the grounds of 'not playing to win'. Well, just to take a casual game I was in: I was playing Toreador vote/bloat with some guns thrown in. My prey was Tzimisce wall. I couldn't get my votes off, because he had permanent intercept up the wazoo; I had no guns in play, but, even if I did, getting involved in combat with him would've meant eating some agg damage. I had enough 4-6 pool at any given point; enough not to fear being ousted indiscriminately, but I wasn't going anywhere. I did, however, have Alexandra and Francois out. Tried and failed to Kindred Restructure my way out. I wasn't able to go forward because my prey's deck was the paper that covered my rock...but I did have resources. And my grandprey was also playing a vote deck of sorts, with Cloak of the Gathering and other assorted stealth. He might've appreciated an extra six votes plus three actions per turn with two fatties. > could they not make deals with the person who would be screwed by > their kingmaking instead then? to try and get them out of this losing > position? ie: to try and get more vps, maybe win? If the person screwed would be your prey, exactly what deal could they make you? > i'd say it was a large swing too. i'd also say it would require judge > arbitration to make sure it wasn't in violation of the rules. Sure. But what if the person can make the case they can't gain any more VPs? Do you think there's not a problem with it, because that's the way it is? --Colin McGuigan

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Very difficult to be in a lost position with 7 pool, 3 vampires, a >> couple of permanent locations, and cool cards in hand. > > Yet certainly possible. I'm tempted to light the candles, draw the pentagram, and invoke The Duffin. But then I'd have to pay a pool to untap, and that doesn't seem worth it. Even though I'd like to believe you, the idea of being in a "lost position" with 7 pool, 3 vampires, a couple of permanent locations, and cool cards in hand seems unimaginable at best. Could you elaborate on what this position and table might look like? > Peter D Bakija > pd...@lightlink.com > http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "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

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Yes. Succubus Club can be an entertaining card that adds interesting > elements to game play. No one is debating that. But it also can be > incredibly unbalancing and destructive. And the > entertaining/reasonable uses of the Succubus Club simply do not > justify the abuse it enables. Is it unreasonable to eat fried food? Is it unreasonable to use knives to cut that food? Is it unreasonable to learn martial arts? Is it unreasonable to use one of the deadliest toxins in the world to stop wrinkles? > Peter D Bakija > pd...@lightlink.com > http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 > > "The gun is good! The penis is bad!" > -Zardoz Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > >>Very difficult to be in a lost position with 7 pool, 3 vampires, a couple >>of permanent locations, and cool cards in hand. > > > Yet certainly possible. Yes. Almost anything is possible. Banning the Club won't change that. Just pointing out that the situation you describe is so corner case as not to warrant change. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BBF3BD2E.12456%pd...@lightlink.com>... > vermillian wrote: > > > This is a social game. As long as you're playing the > > game, not cheating > > Ah. There is the rub. Often trades made with the Succubus Club are > indistinguishable from "cheating". And other times, they are deeply > unbalancing, and only legal by virtue of interpretation of the concept of > "abillity to gain more VPs". > > >, and having fun, then alls fair. If you don't like > > how some people play the game, then you'll have to join a group with > > their own unspoken house rules, that being, that they can't trade all > > their minions to someone else with SUccubus, something that is > > normally allowed by the rules of the game, but you're too finicky, or > > something, about it to be able to have it exist in your metagame. > > Or, ya know, you could agitate for specific problems getting fixed. Specific > problems fixed in the past, that have improved the game: SC is not a problem. The player who uses it (the way you've suggested) has no way now of winning, and any player just playing the game and not concerning himself about kingmaking and anyone who doesn't have a good deal of Vegeance in his blood won't be playing with SC the way you've described it. If someone were to be Kingmaking with it, as a judge there's nothing you could do. Dem's da' breaks, time to start packing more arson. If this tournament were to switch to playing for money or something like then, then yeah... this cards a problem. Till then, its just a GAME. A FUCKING GAME!!! > And so on. Unless, however, you have only recently joined the game, and > didn't realize that all these things were fixed. Well, they were, and you > are now reaping the benefits of a world where people advocate to fix > problems of the game, rather than simply joing a group with their own > unspoken house rules. No, I'm not new to the game. I've been posting and reading messages here, with light intensity, since just after final nights. > At this point in time, the game is pretty solid (due, mostly, to people > agitating to fix problems, rather than simply joining a group with their own > unspoken house rules). The only significant problems that currently seem to > be in need of addressing, as far as I can tell from discussion and > experience, are Succubus Club and PTO. I agree on the latter. Calling PTO and using it in the broken way does not quarentee that the person who played it is going to lose. ~SV

salem wrote: > could they not make deals with the person who would be screwed by > their kingmaking instead then? to try and get them out of this losing > position? ie: to try and get more vps, maybe win? Sure--but then if everyone always acted in a reasonable fashion, none of this would be an issue. According to the rules, if you have no chance of getting more VPs, you can die in any way you deem fit. As "having no chance of getting more VPs" is certainly a nebulous position, this is where half the problem lies. > it's already there. asking a judge to do what a judge should expect to > have to do anyway is...well, reasonable, surely? > sure, a judge might not like to have to do it, but it's part of the > job. that's why they're called Judges an not 'Archon Data Entry > Monkeys'. Yes, judging requires, occasionally, judging. But this particular kind of judging is the stickiest kind--second guessing someone's motivations and determining their position better than they are determining it, especially considering how the game has gone on for an hour or so already without the judge being involved. Anything that can be done to reduce the need for such arbitration strikes me as only a good thing. > succubus club has been petitioned to be downpowered before. and it has > been, to it's current state. And the downpowering was not sufficient to fix the problems that it actually causes. > however, having judged many a tourney, and been at tourneys judged by > others, i don't think you can dimiss my opinions on what a judge > should expect to do. (explicitly: judge). Oh, you are certainly correct that if judging needs to be done, the judge is the one to do it. But this particular kind of judgement is the stickiest and most difficult--and considering the amount of damage that the SC can cause, and the amount of agita it can cause a judge, it should just be whacked. -Peter

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BBF3DB37.12465%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Oko wrote: > > > Let's not jump into hasty assumptions here. > > A play like that is what I dont like, who would? > > No one. I actually thought up one who would like it: That guy with Madness Network + untapped Malkavian who vote-push through a Dramatic Upheaval and takes the table by that SC action :D /Alex

Kevin M. wrote: > Even though I'd like to believe you, the idea of being in a "lost position" > with 7 pool, 3 vampires, a couple of permanent locations, and cool cards in > hand seems unimaginable at best. Could you elaborate on what this position > and table might look like? I'm a Toredaor vote deck. I have 7 pool. 3 vampires. One or two might be in torpor. I have a hunting ground. My prey is a Tzimiscee intercept wall with permanent intercept in play. I have run out of Alacrities. My prey has, say, 10 pool and 3 or 4 vampires. I'm not getting any more VPs. I might not get ousted any time soon, but I'm certainly not ousting my prey any time soon either. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "The gun is good! The penis is bad!" -Zardoz

Kevin M. wrote: > Is it unreasonable to eat fried food? Yup. > > Is it unreasonable to use knives to cut that food? > > Is it unreasonable to learn martial arts? Martial Arts and Knives cause *far* more good than not. Not so for Succubus Club. > Is it unreasonable to use one of the deadliest toxins in the world to stop > wrinkles? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

vermillian wrote: > SC is not a problem. The player who uses it (the way you've suggested) > has no way now of winning, and any player just playing the game and > not concerning himself about kingmaking and anyone who doesn't have a > good deal of Vegeance in his blood won't be playing with SC the way > you've described it. People use it in exactly the way I describe all the time out of no other reason than spite. Which is what people want to not happen. > If someone were to be Kingmaking with it, as a judge there's nothing > you could do. Well, yes, there are plenty of things the judge can do. Just most of them are a huge pain in the ass. > Dem's da' breaks, time to start packing more arson. "Return to Innocence isn't a broken card. If you get ousted by it, dem's da' breaks. Time to start packing more deflection." Oh, wait. RTI was banned. > Till then, its just a GAME. A > FUCKING GAME!!! Yes it is. A game that has rules. That get adjusted when there are problems with them. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Peter D Bakija wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: > > > Even though I'd like to believe you, the idea of being in a "lost position" > > with 7 pool, 3 vampires, a couple of permanent locations, and cool cards in > > hand seems unimaginable at best. Could you elaborate on what this position > > and table might look like? > > I'm a Toredaor vote deck. I have 7 pool. 3 vampires. One or two might be in > torpor. I have a hunting ground. My prey is a Tzimiscee intercept wall with > permanent intercept in play. I have run out of Alacrities. My prey has, say, > 10 pool and 3 or 4 vampires. > > I'm not getting any more VPs. I might not get ousted any time soon, but I'm > certainly not ousting my prey any time soon either. .5 is more than 0. If I were in that position (absolutely sure I couldn't get any damaging votes through the wall), I'd deal with my prey to let me pass pool-gaining votes, rescue my guys, etc. and then either go for a withdrawal or hope the game times out (as they often do in games involving intercept walls).* My philosophy is that it sucks when somebody else transfers out or suicides, so I won't do it either. Plus, you never know what might happen. Ever seen an intercept wall get so overconfident it can block everything that it taps out with no wakes? I've seen it more than once. I think a judge should rule the above situation illegal. Matt Morgan * Assuming a tournament game. In casual play I'd probably do whatever got everybody into the next game fastest or go buy more beer or something.

LSJ wrote: > Yes. Almost anything is possible. Banning the Club won't change that. > Just pointing out that the situation you describe is so corner case > as not to warrant change. I don't believe it is as corner case as you seem to think it is. It is certainly reasonable to be considered in a losing position when one has the wrong deck for their position, for instance, a Toreador vote deck with 6 or 7 pool sitting behind a Tzimiscee intercept wall. The Toreador deck is never getting any VPs out of that. [ quoted text not captured ]

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > .5 is more than 0. If I were in that position (absolutely sure I couldn't > get any damaging votes through the wall), I'd deal with my prey to let me > pass pool-gaining votes, rescue my guys, etc. and then either go for a > withdrawal or hope the game times out (as they often do in games involving > intercept walls).* By that logic, how can *any* position be deemed legal for ousting ones-self? I mean, in any situation, it could be argued that you *could* stay alive longer and get .5 VPs for simply still being in the game when time runs out. If I have 4 vampires in torpor with zero blood and 6 pool, I'd say I'm in a pretty losing position. But then it could be argued that I have a chance at .5 VPs, and my predator might not oust me, and someone might save my vampires from torpor for me. And in that case, even if I can't oust my pey ever, I can still get .5 VPs for being alive when time runs out. Don't get me wrong--this strikes me as a fantastic thing, as if there is no way to argue that you are in a losing position, any one sided Succubus Club trade is completely illegal, which works for me. But as there is some sort of situation that obviously qualifies as "unable to gain more VPs", thereby releasing the player fom the "must play to win" clause of the tournament rules, I'm just not seeing this as a viable argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:09:50 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >Kevin M. wrote: > >> Is it unreasonable to eat fried food? > >Yup. Fried falafel? So sad. Xian just call them crunch-patties!

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Peter D Bakija wrote: > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > > .5 is more than 0. If I were in that position (absolutely sure I couldn't > > get any damaging votes through the wall), I'd deal with my prey to let me > > pass pool-gaining votes, rescue my guys, etc. and then either go for a > > withdrawal or hope the game times out (as they often do in games involving > > intercept walls).* > > By that logic, how can *any* position be deemed legal for ousting ones-self? Dunno. I'm hardly an expert on this kind of thing. Maybe someone who is will chime in. > I mean, in any situation, it could be argued that you *could* stay alive > longer and get .5 VPs for simply still being in the game when time runs out. > If I have 4 vampires in torpor with zero blood and 6 pool, I'd say I'm in a > pretty losing position. But then it could be argued that I have a chance at > .5 VPs, and my predator might not oust me, and someone might save my > vampires from torpor for me. And in that case, even if I can't oust my pey > ever, I can still get .5 VPs for being alive when time runs out. Well, if your predator had half a deck left and had shown lots of +bleed cards so far and there were some 30 minutes left on the clock, then I'd say you're probably not going to get .5. That's very different from the other example where you still had vampires and a hunting ground in play. > Don't get me wrong--this strikes me as a fantastic thing, as if there is no > way to argue that you are in a losing position, any one sided Succubus Club > trade is completely illegal, which works for me. Works for me too. Sadly, I don't have the authority to impose such a rule. > But as there is some sort of situation that obviously qualifies as "unable > to gain more VPs", thereby releasing the player fom the "must play to win" > clause of the tournament rules, I'm just not seeing this as a viable > argument. Yeah, okay. It doesn't mean the Succubus Club isn't broken. It's just that your example seemed kind of wrong and I wondered if someone with experience or authority could indicate one way or another whether that would be legal play. I would certainly call a judge if someone tried to do that at my table. Matt Morgan

Xian wrote: > Fried falafel? > > So sad. Nah. I love fried falafel. One of my favorite places in the world is Mamouns Felafel on right down the street from Washington Square Park. But in reality, much like knives and kung-fu, fried food does much less damage compared to its non problematic aspects than Succubus Club does. That, and eating fried food does no damage to anyone but me. Playing Succubus Club usually does damage to others. Me eating a Felafel hurts no one at all, even if it does hurt me (which, in reality, it does not. Unless I eat 50 of them in one sitting). [ quoted text not captured ]

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > Well, if your predator had half a deck left and had shown lots of +bleed > cards so far and there were some 30 minutes left on the clock, then I'd > say you're probably not going to get .5. That's very different from the > other example where you still had vampires and a hunting ground in play. All I said was vampires. I didn't specify in the example "torporized" or not. And the difference is mostly irrelevant. There is some level of existance that is deemed "no longer capable of gaining VPs". What this level is is completely nebulous. And completely subjective. If I think I can no longer gain VPs, who is to say I am wrong? The answer, obviously, is the Judge, but who is to say that the Judge is correct? Yet this completely subjective state of being is clearly an importnat state of being. > Yeah, okay. It doesn't mean the Succubus Club isn't broken. It's just > that your example seemed kind of wrong and I wondered if someone with > experience or authority could indicate one way or another whether that > would be legal play. It is completely subjective. I know what is in my deck. I know what my deck does. Neither my opponents or the Judge have the information I do. Nor the particular experience I do. I'm the one most likely to be able to judge whether or not I am in an unwinnable position. Arguing over whether or not someone is in an "unwinnable" position or not strikes me as kind of fruitless. Yet clearly very important, as if someone is in state (A), making a completely one sided, self ousting Succubus Club deal is perfectly legal. In state (B), it is cheating. And the line that seperates (A) from (B) is blurry, at best. > I would certainly call a judge if someone tried to do that at my table. At which point the game grinds to a halt. And debate and arbitration begins. Which is never good for any game. As *every* deal made by the Succubus Club is potentially one that requires Judgement and arbitration, I can't possibly see how it is to anyone's benefit that it stays in circulation. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > LSJ wrote: >>Yes. Almost anything is possible. Banning the Club won't change that. >>Just pointing out that the situation you describe is so corner case >>as not to warrant change. > > I don't believe it is as corner case as you seem to think it is. It is > certainly reasonable to be considered in a losing position when one has the > wrong deck for their position, for instance, a Toreador vote deck with 6 or > 7 pool sitting behind a Tzimiscee intercept wall. The Toreador deck is never > getting any VPs out of that. Not "never". Sometimes he will. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 19:47:42 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled: >Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > >> I would certainly call a judge if someone tried to do that at my table. > >At which point the game grinds to a halt. And debate and arbitration begins. which shouldn't take too long, if the judge is particularly savvy. and if it does take a while, the judge is free to award extra time to the table. >Which is never good for any game. As *every* deal made by the Succubus Club >is potentially one that requires Judgement and arbitration, I can't possibly >see how it is to anyone's benefit that it stays in circulation. '*every* deal...is potentially'. so you're saying _some_ deals made with the succ club require arbitration. fair enough. some deals made without the succ club require arbitration, too. deals, with or without the succ club, can require arbitration. someone has to be playing the succ club, and then they have to propose/be propsed AND agree to some sort of 'spite' deal. and then you call a judge. and if the person wasn't paying with succ club and just wanted to transfer out to help his predator, you'd probably call a judge, just to check. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:55:07 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> scrawled: >Peter D Bakija wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>>Yes. Almost anything is possible. Banning the Club won't change that. >>>Just pointing out that the situation you describe is so corner case >>>as not to warrant change. >> >> I don't believe it is as corner case as you seem to think it is. It is >> certainly reasonable to be considered in a losing position when one has the >> wrong deck for their position, for instance, a Toreador vote deck with 6 or >> 7 pool sitting behind a Tzimiscee intercept wall. The Toreador deck is never >> getting any VPs out of that. > >Not "never". Sometimes he will. sometimes SHE will. "* Throughout this rulebook, references to players (Methuselahs) will be feminine (“she” and “her”), while references to minions (characters represented in the game) will be masculine (“he” and “his”)." :D [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > That, and eating fried food does no damage to anyone but me. Under certain conditions, you are correct. > Me eating a Felafel hurts no one at all, even if it does hurt me (which, > in reality, it does not. Unless I eat 50 of them in one sitting). When someone's undisciplined, fat fried food ass has a heart attack, do THEY pay for the hospital care, or does their insurance? And do MY insurance premiums then go up because their undisciplined fat fried food ass couldn't eat just a few fried falafel? Ya gotta qualify these broad-based statements, Peter. :) > Peter D Bakija > pd...@lightlink.com > http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 > > "The gun is good! The penis is bad!" > -Zardoz Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.03120...@fnord.io.com>... > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > > > > .5 is more than 0. If I were in that position (absolutely sure I couldn't > > > get any damaging votes through the wall), I'd deal with my prey to let me > > > pass pool-gaining votes, rescue my guys, etc. and then either go for a > > > withdrawal or hope the game times out (as they often do in games involving > > > intercept walls).* > > > > By that logic, how can *any* position be deemed legal for ousting ones-self? > > Dunno. I'm hardly an expert on this kind of thing. Maybe someone who is > will chime in. > I did it once. I was at 2 pool, 2 vampires in torpor no more vamps then that. My prey cost me the game just because of the deck he played (7-caps with intercept against Matthias-signet-things) I was going to loose this game no matter how, and i was not going to time out. I asked if anyone was willing to deal me a VP/ get my vampires out of torpor, no-one was. I ousted myself in that way giving my predator chances to oust my prey... I didn't hope to see my prey's deck again if i were going to the final. If i had a Succlub, i would have given him what he needed of me... > > I mean, in any situation, it could be argued that you *could* stay alive > > longer and get .5 VPs for simply still being in the game when time runs out. > > If I have 4 vampires in torpor with zero blood and 6 pool, I'd say I'm in a > > pretty losing position. But then it could be argued that I have a chance at > > .5 VPs, and my predator might not oust me, and someone might save my > > vampires from torpor for me. And in that case, even if I can't oust my pey > > ever, I can still get .5 VPs for being alive when time runs out. true,...then ask them and if they refuse i would say you are free to go however you wish. > > Well, if your predator had half a deck left and had shown lots of +bleed > cards so far and there were some 30 minutes left on the clock, then I'd > say you're probably not going to get .5. That's very different from the > other example where you still had vampires and a hunting ground in play. > > > Don't get me wrong--this strikes me as a fantastic thing, as if there is no > > way to argue that you are in a losing position, any one sided Succubus Club > > trade is completely illegal, which works for me. > > Works for me too. Sadly, I don't have the authority to impose such a > rule. > Doesn't work for me. W

LSJ wrote: > Not "never". Sometimes he will. Sometimes. Sure. Sometimes does not corner case make. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] No, the improbability of the set up makes the corner case. I was just correcting your use of "never" above. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > When someone's undisciplined, fat fried food ass has a heart attack, do THEY > pay for the hospital care, or does their insurance? And do MY insurance > premiums then go up because their undisciplined fat fried food ass couldn't > eat just a few fried falafel? > > Ya gotta qualify these broad-based statements, Peter. :) Damn those falafel! But they are sooooo tasty! [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > I was just correcting your use of "never" above. Thank you. It was clearly wildly inappropriate. I also have some hyperbolic statements about falafel that need correcting too, if you have the time handy. [ quoted text not captured ]

Apart from the near-flaming in the beginning, this has been a very nice read! I have never seen Succubus Club abused in the way described in earlier posts and its easy for me to imagine what frustration it causes. Out of curiositys sake, a question from a new guy to the veterans: When you see succubus club slapped on to the table, can you picture what the player of the deck was thinking to do with his club? Surely, no one puts it in a deck to satiate the need for vengeance or whatever when (s)he starts losing, or atleast thats what I'd like to believe! Does it appear primarily in vote decks, to help negotiate votes through, or rush decks for extortion methods? Why does it get included?! Ive only played for a year, and the only times succubus club has been mentioned was with a rush deck for "protection-money business", and with a salubri deck to make deals for renewed vigor assistance. But these were just concepts getting thrown around in discussion AFAIK. Ive even had the club in a deck of mine for a while, two games I think.. But it is a theme deck! please dont lynch me! its a !toreador "partynight" deck, it had the fetish club, succubus club, the rack and hungry coyote, for the anti-toreadors to party in. Patronages are the taxis to take them from one partyheaven to another, coolers are there to store the champagne, lol. deck still exists and is in sleeves, but the succubus club got replaced by an in-base discotek when I wanted to make the deck a little more serious :)

In message <7c1cf791.03120...@posting.google.com>, ihme...@hotmail.com (Saaristo) mumbled something about: >Out of curiositys sake, a question from a new guy to the veterans: >When you see succubus club slapped on to the table, can you picture >what the player of the deck was thinking to do with his club? Surely, Well, it depends on who's on the table at the time and what I've seen the deck do so far. Sometimes it's obvious; combat decks will typically use it for extortion or bounty purposes. >no one puts it in a deck to satiate the need for vengeance or whatever >when (s)he starts losing, or atleast thats what I'd like to believe! Oh, no. I have included it in several tournament decks, and my reasons were far, far less benign. It was there to allow me to negotiate, if necessary, a huge shift in the game in my favor through the outright sale of VPs in some fashion. For example, it allows me to gratuitously hand pool to my grandprey if necessary; very nasty if you have the bloat to support it -- it also allows me to make outrageous threats about what I can and/or will do if people don't behave in a manner I find coinciding with my best interests. The negotiations are not intended to be straight-up. It's totally there to provide a vehicle for bamboozlement, and of course, the spite option IS always available if things go poorly. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

Saaristo wrote: > Out of curiositys sake, a question from a new guy to the veterans: > When you see succubus club slapped on to the table, can you picture > what the player of the deck was thinking to do with his club? Usually. Or at least some times. If a Rush deck drops the Succubus Club, clearly they were thinking that they could use it for shake-down and hired hits (which I have seen attempted many times, but I'm yet to see such a plan actually pay off significantly; usually it just leads to the Rush deck going rogue and making someone else win...). Vote decks might include them for deal making to get votes passed--trading stuff/pay off is a much more concrete way to pass votes with table help than simply talking smack. A lot of times, people just toss them in any deck for grins, 'cause the card is certainly entertaining and can be very fun in casual play with friends. > Surely, > no one puts it in a deck to satiate the need for vengeance or whatever > when (s)he starts losing, or atleast thats what I'd like to believe! I'm sure someone has somewhere. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Saaristo wrote: >> Out of curiositys sake, a question from a new guy to the veterans: >> When you see succubus club slapped on to the table, can you picture >> what the player of the deck was thinking to do with his club? > > Usually. Or at least some times. If a Rush deck drops the Succubus > Club, clearly they were thinking that they could use it for > shake-down and hired hits (which I have seen attempted many times, > but I'm yet to see such a plan actually pay off significantly; > usually it just leads to the Rush deck going rogue and making someone > else win...). http://www.thepathofblood.com/displaydeck.php?deckid=14 This deck racked up 8.5 VPs at the GenCon 2001 NA Championship qualifier. http://www.thepathofblood.com/displaydeck.php?deckid=54 This is the Tournament Winning Deck from the Eye of Hazimel Storyline event in Grand Rapids Michigan on 11/2/02. I'm not sure how much more significant you want. > Peter D Bakija > pd...@lightlink.com > http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 > > "The gun is good! The penis is bad!" > -Zardoz Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

Just a minor note on whether or not Succubus club makes decks viable. Lots of cards have been banned or changed that had viable decktypes built around them. This only makes sense, if a card is overpowered, its most likely going to have decks built around them heh. Succubus Club reminds me of the old Return to Innocence in alot of ways. Can cause HUGE swings in a game, could be put in virtually any deck, and often would lead to random wins as often as not, and was sometimes defended by people as being "fun, and its only a game"(deflected RTI was always amusing, wasnt it?).

Kevin M. wrote: > http://www.thepathofblood.com/displaydeck.php?deckid=14 > This deck racked up 8.5 VPs at the GenCon 2001 NA Championship qualifier. > > http://www.thepathofblood.com/displaydeck.php?deckid=54 > This is the Tournament Winning Deck from the Eye of Hazimel Storyline event > in Grand Rapids Michigan on 11/2/02. > > I'm not sure how much more significant you want. Not being there, I have no idea how the Succubus Club effected either of these decks. Thus, I'm still yet to see the Succubus Club significantly help a Rush deck do anything. [ quoted text not captured ]

omgm...@aol.com (MarkandJosie) wrote in message news:<8de27bad.03120...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Well put. The imbalancing power that SC gives is unlike the RTI in that SC has a reasonable "Unique" control. I believe that everyone is pointing to SC as "abuseable" now as part of the natural tendency for personalities to engage in 'newsgroup propoganda' along with a fair bit of bandwagoning. The examples of SC wins I have seen can be attributed to a combination of luck, timing, interpersonal skills, experience, and deck construction while examples of SC losing have been highlighting the changes SC can make to a game after the SC's controller has apparently lost. The 'Unique' control does not protect against the latter, only against the former, which is backwards I would think. If there were a vote card that said "name a player, you automatically lose and that player doubles their pool", even with the selfless-political restrictions of the card, it would be broken. The concept itself is good and in line with VTES mechanics (collusion). If SC was only useable if the controller also controlled the edge, you would have a reasonable control (along with Unique).

In message <ce255bc1.0312...@posting.google.com>, vtes...@yahoo.com (VTES2004) mumbled something about: >omgm...@aol.com (MarkandJosie) wrote in message news:<8de27bad.03120...@posting.google.com>... >> >> Succubus Club reminds me of the old Return to Innocence in alot of >> ways. Can cause HUGE swings in a game, could be put in virtually any >> deck, and often would lead to random wins as often as not, and was >> sometimes defended by people as being "fun, and its only a >> game"(deflected RTI was always amusing, wasnt it?). <snip> >construction while examples of SC losing have been highlighting the >changes SC can make to a game after the SC's controller has apparently >lost. The 'Unique' control does not protect against the latter, only Correction: the changes SC can make to a game after the SC's controller BELIEVES he has lost. >If SC was only useable if the controller also controlled the edge, you >would have a reasonable control (along with Unique). No, you would have a worthless card. I would never play with the SC, as it is near-impossible to guarantee that you will have the Edge except in a two-player game -- at which point the SC is meaningless. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<4747tv4mquhm87ve7...@4ax.com>... > >If SC was only useable if the controller also controlled the edge, you > >would have a reasonable control (along with Unique). > > No, you would have a worthless card. I would never play with the SC, as > it is near-impossible to guarantee that you will have the Edge except in > a two-player game -- at which point the SC is meaningless. Your comment, about it being worthless if you restrict when it can be used, is demonstrably wrong. In the presented cases, it may have better served balance while preserving the power (of unlimited trade). While your opinion is noted (that you believe it would neuter the card), whether you would play with it in such an altered form is irrelevant. We're talking about game mechanics, not personal style. The imbalance highlighted has little to do with it's use during every turn, but rather it's use at a critical time to trade everything in a king-making fashion regardless of player skill (to paraphrase you). The edge restriction would make corner cases (those which have been posed) even more unlikely to occur, to the point of making such cases seemingly rare AND random in frequency. Random events are tolerated in V:tES to this extent, making the card more palatteable. If you wish to attack the suggestion I made, please present some evidentiary or logical support other than a 2 player game, for which it is useless, in its current form.

In message <ce255bc1.03120...@posting.google.com>, vtes...@yahoo.com (VTES2004) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<4747tv4mquhm87ve7...@4ax.com>... >> >If SC was only useable if the controller also controlled the edge, you >> >would have a reasonable control (along with Unique). >> >> No, you would have a worthless card. I would never play with the SC, as >> it is near-impossible to guarantee that you will have the Edge except in >> a two-player game -- at which point the SC is meaningless. > >Your comment, about it being worthless if you restrict when it can be >used, is demonstrably wrong. In the presented cases, it may have Yet you fail to even attempt to demonstrate why. >better served balance while preserving the power (of unlimited trade). >While your opinion is noted (that you believe it would neuter the >card), whether you would play with it in such an altered form is >irrelevant. We're talking about game mechanics, not personal style. It is a turn of phrase used to emphasize the point. Personal style has nothing to do with it. >The imbalance highlighted has little to do with it's use during every >turn, but rather it's use at a critical time to trade everything in a >king-making fashion regardless of player skill (to paraphrase you). Correct. Someone using it to trade one pool for a particular combat card from another's hand every turn, for example, would be very unlikely to be imbalanced. >The edge restriction would make corner cases (those which have been >posed) even more unlikely to occur, to the point of making such cases >seemingly rare AND random in frequency. Random events are tolerated in And also making the card's utility rare and random in frequency. Wallpapering a card with errata is not preferred. >V:tES to this extent, making the card more palatteable. If you wish to >attack the suggestion I made, please present some evidentiary or >logical support other than a 2 player game, for which it is useless, >in its current form. Oh, wait... I did! Please read more closely in the future, Jack. Allow me to restate it for you: You can't guarantee having the Edge. Let me do it one more time: You can't guarantee having the Edge. And for those who missed it: You can't guarantee having the Edge. How often does one see Using the Advantage played? Not at all. Why? Because even though the !Nossies are a high-stealth clan and can easily take the Edge on their turn, they cannot guarantee KEEPING the Edge, and as such there are far, far better Masters to include: say, Ascendance. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Peter D Bakija wrote: > Not being there, I have no idea how the Succubus Club effected either of > these decks. Thus, I'm still yet to see the Succubus Club significantly help > a Rush deck do anything. This past weekend at Free States: Texas, I got the Succubus Club in play in only one round out of three, playing Fatima. It sat there a lot, because I believe I can identify "a huge, fat waste of time" when I see it, but I did extract 2 pool from my prey, David Tatu, to not rush his freshly acquired Gloria Giovanni. I started out asking for three pool, he said "no way, I'll give you one", and we met in the middle. At first, he was virtually quoting the Peter Bakija playbook, though. His initial response was "no way, you are going to rush my vampires anyway", to which I responded "yeah, but for three pool, I won't rush them *right now*." That comment changed *something* in his head, because he then agreed, and went on to place an Ex Nihilo on Gloria on his next turn. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

vtes...@yahoo.com (VTES2004) wrote > Your comment, about it being worthless if you restrict when it can be > used, is demonstrably wrong. Well, given that the suggestion was "you can use the Succubus Club only if you control the edge", I don't think that Derek's point was wrong. Currently, you can only use the SC during the start of your turn (i.e. before you take actions, and thus before you can get the edge). Thus, given the suggestion, to use the SC, you'd need to have the edge at the start of your turn. As the control of the edge is passed by virtue of the actions of the other 4 players at the table, most of which you have zero control over, the ability to have the edge at the start of a given turn (so as to facilitate the use of the Succubus Club)is essentially random (unless you are playing a Madness Network deck or a "20 Eagle's Sight" deck...). Thus, the SC becomes mostly worthless. If the suggestion had included something along the lines of "you can tap the SC whenever you want, but you must have the edge", that'd be a different discussion all together. -Peter

Howdy, > Out of curiositys sake, a question from a new guy to the veterans: > When you see succubus club slapped on to the table, can you picture > what the player of the deck was thinking to do with his club? Well, I'm not sure _exactly_ why Vince had a Succubus Club in his Create-A-Clan deck at the Seattle Create-A-Clan tourney Saturday, but I can hazard some guesses and attest to what it did accomplish (at least in the game I played with him). Vince was playing a synthetic clan with obf, pre, & pro in-clan, which was also (no surprises here) Camarilla and loaded with titles. (The surprise was how many maneuvers he had to supplement the combat ends. Of course, he had seen and approved all of the clan submissions... But I'm sure that had nothing to do with his clan or deck design. <insert smiley thing here>) I surmise that the Club was in to assist his already prodigious ability to make deals and manage the table, 'prodigious' both due to the political nature of his deck and also Vince's personal negotiating prowess. In the game I played it sort of did that, and also sort of serviced spite. I'm not sure how great an 'abuse' his use was, but it certainly sucked wazoo to be on the receiving end of it, and there was little I could do about it at the point it became an issue. The table was Vince preying on Chuck (ani, pot, vic, Sabbat toolboxy guys with significant combat, some intercept, some rush, some bleed) preying on me (pot, tha, vic, Sabbat rush-monkeys) preying on Kai (ani, chi, pro, Camarilla chi/Prince intercepty stuff? - Man did he regret putting Tension down...). The dynamic pretty much broke down to me wiping the floor with Kai (and rescuing a fair amount when poked) while Chuck tried vainly to fend off Vince's ever increasing horde. Early on I drew my Rampage and used it to burn down Kai's Heidelberg Castle so he'd stop rearraging all his blood. Later, Vince played the Succubus Club; I pointed out that we should all now try to kill him. Unfortunately I didn't take my own advice. (As Kai was his predator and Chuck his prey was already trying to kill him, it was really just me who should have started going cross-table.) Soon thereafter I was the recipient of a cross-table Parity Shift for 4 (My first of two cross-table Parity Shifts on the day - one per game!); this was good play on Vince's part, as it made it that more imperative that I oust my prey quickly and not mess around with him cross-table. It still sucked. At this point the Succubus Club started to factor in. Kai was on the ropes, with me repeatedly putting his vampires down, so he started dealing with Vince, trading cards (Judgement: Camarilla Segregation to Vince, the Millicent on Vince to Kai) for pool. This didn't help Kai to win, but did maintain him as a meat shield. Without Fame dunkage they probably could have kept it up for quite some time, to say nothing of the potential for Kai to dump his (torped) minions, pro cards, and remaining pool to Vince had they really wanted to go the total sleaze route. A Fame dunk and a bleed or two got Kai anyway, but between the Parity Shift and the extra actions I was too weak for Vince as he plowed through Chuck and then finished me off in a couple turns. Like I say, it was all solid play on Vince's part, and not really 'abuse' per se of Succubus Club, but a) a little more spite would've probably have pushed it into the 'abuse' category in my mind, and there was nothing to stop that, and b) even without 'abuse' it still had an awfully powerful effect on the game, and could potentially have had an even greater one. My only potential for response was to go cross-table early and often, so the whole predator/prey dynamic was (or should have been) thrown out the window. Anyway, I guess my main point, other than to just contribute an example from real life, is that... Parity Shift should be banned. Dammit. (And that I should consider going cross-table more often.) Hope that helps, Alex PS - I don't know if Vince is going to post a link or report, but he put our Create-A-Clans up here: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Seattle_VTES/lst You probably have to be a member of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Seattle_VTES/ to look at them? (And, once again, any resemblance is purely coincidental...)

David Cherryholmes wrote: > At first, he was virtually quoting the Peter Bakija playbook, though. His > initial response was "no way, you are going to rush my vampires anyway", > to which I responded "yeah, but for three pool, I won't rush them *right > now*." That comment changed *something* in his head, because he then > agreed, and went on to place an Ex Nihilo on Gloria on his next turn. Heh heh. That's 'cause Tatu is a genius... [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.03120...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > Not being there, I have no idea how the Succubus Club effected either of > > these decks. Thus, I'm still yet to see the Succubus Club significantly help > > a Rush deck do anything. > > This past weekend at Free States: Texas, I got the Succubus Club in play > in only one round out of three, playing Fatima. It sat there a lot, > because I believe I can identify "a huge, fat waste of time" when I see > it, but I did extract 2 pool from my prey, David Tatu, to not rush his > freshly acquired Gloria Giovanni. I started out asking for three pool, he > said "no way, I'll give you one", and we met in the middle. Thrice Damned Fatima! > At first, he was virtually quoting the Peter Bakija playbook, though. His > initial response was "no way, you are going to rush my vampires anyway", > to which I responded "yeah, but for three pool, I won't rush them *right > now*." That comment changed *something* in his head, because he then > agreed, and went on to place an Ex Nihilo on Gloria on his next turn. I witnessed it. Fatima w/ Assault Rifle and Ghoul Retainer vs Basilia = Bad News for Basilia. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message news:607fd93.03120...@posting.google.com... > I witnessed it. > Fatima w/ Assault Rifle and Ghoul Retainer vs Basilia = Bad News for Basilia. Fatima w/ Assault Rifle and Ghoul Retainer vs. Clan Tremere = Bad News for Tremere Okay, so I did manage to soul burn her once and kill off her ghoul retainer with a theft, but she still rocked my world. Albert Chang

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<dnv8tvkcpivc1vfu9...@4ax.com>... > >The imbalance highlighted has little to do with it's use during every > >turn, but rather it's use at a critical time to trade everything in a > >king-making fashion regardless of player skill (to paraphrase you). > > Correct. Someone using it to trade one pool for a particular combat > card from another's hand every turn, for example, would be very unlikely > to be imbalanced. > Wallpapering a card with errata is not preferred. Then you would prefer a ban on SC then a suitable similarly themed replacement to flat elimination? > >The edge restriction would make corner cases (those which have been > >posed) even more unlikely to occur, to the point of making such cases > >seemingly rare AND random in frequency. Random events are tolerated in > > And also making the card's utility rare and random in frequency. Hence the balancing effect. Once SC is in play in its current form, its controller tends to influence (even passively) every event with very little direct control. This is my personal problem with the power of the card. > >Your comment, about it being worthless if you restrict when it can be > >used, is demonstrably wrong. In the presented cases, it may have > > Yet you fail to even attempt to demonstrate why. You're right, I did not attempt. > No, you would have a worthless card. I would never play with the SC, You made a subjective statement. Your opinion does solely determine the cards worth. You may believe Malkavian Prank is strategically worthless (or more likely so weak as to be inconsiderable) in "serious" competition. It's personal playstyle. A gradient scale of power to predictability is a classic design. > How often does one see Using the Advantage played? Not at all. Why? > as such there are far, far better Masters to include: say, Ascendance. I observe that you have a tendency to evaluate the position of predictability (or even high probability) for a moderate reward/result much higher than a similar method that has a low probability that can possibly yield a greater reward. That's personal playstyle. That would also be the playstyle that performs best in competition (AFAIK).

VTES2004 wrote: > You made a subjective statement. That the Succubus Club, with its current wording, would be almost completely useless if you also needed the Edge to use it isn't a subjective statement. It is mostly fact, as the likelyhood of having the Edge at the start of the turn when you would need it to use said SC is highly unlikely--which was likely what Derek was basing his statement on. > You may believe Malkavian Prank is strategically > worthless (or more likely so weak as to be inconsiderable) in > "serious" competition. That is a completely different issue than the one that Derek was commenting on. If you needed the Edge to use the SC, you would likely never be able to use the SC, as you need to use the SC at the start of your turn, and the likelyhood of having the edge at the strat of your turn is very low, and is something you have almost zero control over. [ quoted text not captured ]

I'd also like to chime in with this: the issue people have is the big swing Succubus Club can do (as far as i can see). This doesn't happen very often, but when it does it's unacceptable. requiring the edge to use....reduces the frequency of it occuring, but still allows just as big a swing as before. You could STILL have a prey give his predator a whole bunch of stuff and screw the balance. (assuming it was a problem before this proposed change). The issue with SC is how big a swing it can make, not how often it can make such a swing, and the proposed edge requirement will not change how big the swing is. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:44:42 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >Heh heh. That's 'cause Tatu is a genius... Yeah, but I could (and did) whip out an Ivory Bow at any given time, and she's a 5 cap, and Ex Nihilo only lasts a little while, and it left every other one of his vampires still vulnerable. So it wasn't like a trump move or anything. But still clearly better for him than her getting chumped on the spot. David Cherryholmes VEKN Prince of Durham, NC

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Yeah, but I could (and did) whip out an Ivory Bow at any given time, > and she's a 5 cap, and Ex Nihilo only lasts a little while, and it > left every other one of his vampires still vulnerable. So it wasn't > like a trump move or anything. But still clearly better for him than > her getting chumped on the spot. Did she get whacked eventually? Did Tatu oust you? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Saaristo" <ihme...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:7c1cf791.03120...@posting.google.com... > Apart from the near-flaming in the beginning, this has been a very > nice read! I have never seen Succubus Club abused in the way described > in earlier posts and its easy for me to imagine what frustration it > causes. > > Out of curiositys sake, a question from a new guy to the veterans: > When you see succubus club slapped on to the table, can you picture > what the player of the deck was thinking to do with his club? Surely, > no one puts it in a deck to satiate the need for vengeance or whatever > when (s)he starts losing, or atleast thats what I'd like to believe! Dude, I have a player in my "group" who悲 be perfectly capable of bringing the SC on the table just for *that*, or to try to blackmail other players into doing everything he wants them to. Magnus

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Peter D Bakija wrote: > Did she get whacked eventually? Yes. I got the Bow and torpored her, but it was a few turns down the road. > Did Tatu oust you? He was my prey, no. I got ousted by Norm, after I had dunked Basilla. All he had left was an empty Ingrid Russo and a hunting ground. I had a tapped Fatima and an untapped empty Basil that my grandprey rescued, instead of the other weenie with one blood still on her, and 3 pool. Norm Fames Basil, then declares a bleed. Certain death for me if I block, so I don't and he has the Conditioning. Brilliant move on Norm's part and it got him a VP before he died, too. That round also had a *really* excellent negotiation between Ethan and myself over a Dramatic Upheaval that I'll use as an example of rush decks using the carrot or the stick someday, but that's enough war stories for one night. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <ce255bc1.03120...@posting.google.com>, vtes...@yahoo.com (VTES2004) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<dnv8tvkcpivc1vfu9...@4ax.com>... > >> >The imbalance highlighted has little to do with it's use during every >> >turn, but rather it's use at a critical time to trade everything in a >> >king-making fashion regardless of player skill (to paraphrase you). >> >> Correct. Someone using it to trade one pool for a particular combat >> card from another's hand every turn, for example, would be very unlikely >> to be imbalanced. >> Wallpapering a card with errata is not preferred. > >Then you would prefer a ban on SC then a suitable similarly themed >replacement to flat elimination? Yes, frankly. Just because a broken thing happens once per game does not make it any less broken. The Succubus Club adds a parlor-game element to V:TES which I find singularly unappealing; see also "Madness of the Bard" for a much more extreme example. >Hence the balancing effect. Once SC is in play in its current form, >its controller tends to influence (even passively) every event with >very little direct control. This is my personal problem with the power >of the card. Again, making a broken thing happen less often makes it no less broken. If there were a 4CL for Return to Innocence only, that would not help the situation. >> >Your comment, about it being worthless if you restrict when it can be >> >used, is demonstrably wrong. In the presented cases, it may have >> >> Yet you fail to even attempt to demonstrate why. > >You're right, I did not attempt. Then you may not make the statement that it is wrong. >> No, you would have a worthless card. I would never play with the SC, > >You made a subjective statement. Your opinion does solely determine No. I made an objective analysis based on the probability of retaining the Edge. I also factored in the modifications to that probability that occur when one's predator is aware that a significant edge may accrue to you if you DO retain the Edge -- thus making him far more likely to make a point of taking the Edge away from you. To a smaller degree, this holds true of the rest of the table, and I would not be surprised to see a predator accept a bleed for 1 or 2 just to prevent you from protecting your Edge (assuming of course he did not believe he could successfully bleed). >the cards worth. You may believe Malkavian Prank is strategically >worthless (or more likely so weak as to be inconsiderable) in >"serious" competition. It's personal playstyle. A gradient scale of >power to predictability is a classic design. That 'classic design' has resulted in many broken, random, unfun games. It is not personal playstyle. It is experience and knowledge. The Edge is almost impossible to retain as long as there are more than 2 players left in the game. The Edge is even more difficult to retain if there is a significant advantage available to you from possessing it, as people will then arrange for you to be dispossessed of it. >> How often does one see Using the Advantage played? Not at all. Why? >> as such there are far, far better Masters to include: say, Ascendance. > >I observe that you have a tendency to evaluate the position of >predictability (or even high probability) for a moderate reward/result >much higher than a similar method that has a low probability that can >possibly yield a greater reward. That's personal playstyle. That would >also be the playstyle that performs best in competition (AFAIK). Well, now if you're going to evaluate whether or not a card is good, then you need to determine its chances of helping you win. The playstyle that performs best in competition would clearly be the only suitable choice to do this evaluation under. However, I'd like to say that this is NOT my personal playstyle. My personal playstyle favors one-shot, one-per-deck cards such as Daemonic Possession significantly more, because I feel that I am capable of making the forward-looking judgements necessary to decide whether to hang onto the card when drawn, or ditch it as likely unusable. If I were to solely base my decisions on probability, I would play weenie Dominate tap-and-bleed. That deck still, EASILY, has the highest probability of gaining multiple VPs and Game Wins in the current environment, because far too many people disregard its existence when building their deck, or rely on the table being able to turn on it and push it down in a 4-on-1. This isn't true, of course, but I also would like to have some fun in my games, and as such my personal playstyle differs significantly. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news: <oftctvo6bol3lfkec...@4ax.com>... > That 'classic design' has resulted in many broken, random, unfun games. Broken is another way to say "unfun" to an extreme degree. Many games that are "unfun" because the random element is too powerful (ex: http://www.x-hex.com/). It's not a classic design because it's terrible, but because it's one of the methods that has worked to produce "fun" games. Random elements are characteristic of traditional popular games, while a lack thereof results in a puzzle. If you would like to continue to debate the design, I will ask you if Poker variations utilizing wildcards (extraordinarily powerful and relatively rare) make the game less fun? > Just because a broken thing happens once per game does > not make it any less broken. The 'Once per game' restriction is used as a balance to power for a number of VTES cards. Tajdid comes to mind. Are these cards broken or balanced? > No, you would have a worthless card >> worthless if you restrict when it can be used, is demonstrably wrong. > Yet you fail to even attempt to demonstrate why. > Then you may not make the statement that it is wrong. You evaluated a card in terms of absolute worth when limited via timing because it does not appeal to you as a game mechanic. Your criteria is subjective and your conclusion logically flawed from that. VTES uses frequency and probability to balance card strength, and will continue to, because it's good design. The suggestion I made was in line with past design. You believe you are right in your method of determining relative power, but still retain the burden of proof. Although you are an intelligent, informed, and experienced individual, your private analysis is flawed due to personal bias. You believe that the viability in tournament play is the best way to evaluate cards. Your goals are not necessarily the goals of the designers. If they wanted to design a theme-less (abstract) card game, we would probably see a consistent move toward that. Madness of the Bard would never have made it past the first review. Abstract games are much harder to make because additional content potentially kills balance resulting in abstract rules having simple mechanics. If you make game with constant content infusion AND a complex ruleset, your goals are never purely balance. Stability, variation, consistency, progression, and creativity (et al) are necessary to keep it "fun". We are back to the reason you would make a card near-unplayable. Variety, balance, creativity, and perhaps theme or some other paradigm I am not privy to, due to my lack of progressive historical perspective. Basically, I'm noob. > The Edge is almost impossible to retain as long as there are more than 2 > players left in the game. Perhaps this discussion could be narrowed down to the following question. When discussing removal of the pent-ultimate card for kingmaking, wouldn't it be appropriate to make is near-impossible to use rather than removing an original mechanic? Your answer: IMNSHO, no (> Yes, frankly). I'm ok with that. I understand that you will probably disagree with much of this, but I am not one to suggest what you may and may not say. It's a free forum and you get what you pay for.

In message <ce255bc1.03121...@posting.google.com>, vtes...@yahoo.com (VTES2004) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news: ><oftctvo6bol3lfkec...@4ax.com>... > >> That 'classic design' has resulted in many broken, random, unfun games. > >Broken is another way to say "unfun" to an extreme degree. Many games >that are "unfun" because the random element is too powerful (ex: >http://www.x-hex.com/). It's not a classic design because it's >terrible, but because it's one of the methods that has worked to >produce "fun" games. Random elements are characteristic of traditional >popular games, while a lack thereof results in a puzzle. If you would >like to continue to debate the design, I will ask you if Poker >variations utilizing wildcards (extraordinarily powerful and >relatively rare) make the game less fun? Yes, actually -- the more skilled one is as a player, the less one prefers wild cards. They significantly increase the random element of an already extraordinarily-difficult game, making it even more difficult to determine who holds the best hand and what that hand is, such that one may make the correct plays and not lose one's wallet betting two pair into a full house. Not surprisingly, novices prefer 'deuces wild' and the like, because it gives them what they PERCEIVE is the best chance to win... the random factor. But it also provides a way for them to lose -huge- when they do lose, and they won't find THAT fun at all. >> Just because a broken thing happens once per game does >> not make it any less broken. > >The 'Once per game' restriction is used as a balance to power for a >number of VTES cards. Tajdid comes to mind. Are these cards broken or >balanced? You are throwing up a straw-man here. Please respond to my actual statements, not what you would like to believe I am saying. If the effect is not broken UNLESS it could occur multiple times per game, then the effect is not broken if it only occurs once per game -- hence the once-per-game restriction on cards like Ancient Influence. A thing which is broken EVEN IF it only occurs once per game is not "fixed" by merely restricting it to once per game. Do you comprehend the difference here? >> Yet you fail to even attempt to demonstrate why. > >> Then you may not make the statement that it is wrong. > >You evaluated a card in terms of absolute worth when limited via >timing because it does not appeal to you as a game mechanic. Your First incorrect statement. Again, please read what I am saying. >criteria is subjective and your conclusion logically flawed from that. Second incorrect statement. Again, please read what I am saying. >VTES uses frequency and probability to balance card strength, and will >continue to, because it's good design. The suggestion I made was in >line with past design. Third incorrect statement. Again, please read what I am saying. >You believe you are right in your method of determining relative >power, but still retain the burden of proof. Although you are an And I am, in fact, correct, because I am using an objective analysis based (in this instance) on the probability of retaining the Edge... something which has no personal bias. AGAIN, please read what I am saying. >intelligent, informed, and experienced individual, your private >analysis is flawed due to personal bias. You believe that the Fourth incorrect statement. Again, please read what I am saying. >viability in tournament play is the best way to evaluate cards. Your The goal of the game is winning. The best way to evaluate how "good" a card may be is to determine how much it can/will help you win. The less able a card is to help you win (even if it is by stopping you from losing, such as Deflection), then the more worthless it is. Illegal Search and Seizure is generally going to have 0% chance of helping you win, because it is very rare to sit next to someone playing a deck with the cards that it affects. Three flaws: 1) You're dependent on what another player is playing 2) You're dependent on that deck being actively hostile towards you 3) You have to draw the card in time for it to be useful The combination of these factors means that Illegal Search and Seizure is going to be totally worthless in a typical environment. NOW, if you have someone who insists on playing his Assault Rifle deck once per play-night, Illegal Search and Seizure becomes far more useful as factors 1) and 2) vanish or become mitigated; however, its usefulness is entirely dependent on that person. If he doesn't show up, the card goes back to worthless again. As some LSJ or other pointed out some time ago, when it is impossible to design a specific case, the general case must be used. The general case here should obviously consist of all those decks who are built primarily to win; the best way to find a listing of those decks is first, to check the tournament-winning deck archive, and second, play in a lot of tournaments and obtain empirical evidence. >goals are not necessarily the goals of the designers. If they wanted >to design a theme-less (abstract) card game, we would probably see a >consistent move toward that. Madness of the Bard would never have made Madness of the Bard was NOT created by the current design team. Fifth incorrect statement -- PLEASE research your subject prior to posting, Jack. Oh, and you guessed it: read what I'm saying. >> The Edge is almost impossible to retain as long as there are more than 2 >> players left in the game. > >Perhaps this discussion could be narrowed down to the following >question. When discussing removal of the pent-ultimate card for >kingmaking, wouldn't it be appropriate to make is near-impossible to >use rather than removing an original mechanic? Your answer: IMNSHO, no >(> Yes, frankly). I'm ok with that. No, it would not be appropriate to make it near-impossible to use. Doing so simply reduces the game to random chance. Say WW prints a political action card costing 5 blood which must be called by a !Salubri. The text reads: "Name a Methuselah. If this referendum passes, that Methuselah gains 5 Victory Points and the game ends. During this referendum, all other players' minions' titles are worth one additional vote, and your minions' titles are worth one fewer vote. You may not play action modifiers requiring Presence for the remainder of this action." Is the effect broken? Yes. Is the near-impossibility of the card to use enough to mitigate that effect? Absolutely not. Would it be enough simply to say "Only one _cardname_ may be played per game"? Again, absolutely not. It only HAS to be played once to break the game, in fact. >I understand that you will probably disagree with much of this, but I >am not one to suggest what you may and may not say. It's a free forum >and you get what you pay for. I would appreciate it if you simply bothered to READ what I said, instead of suggesting that you know what I'm thinking. Unless, of course, you are telepathic and simply haven't informed us of this previously. [ quoted text not captured ]

VTES2004 wrote: > You evaluated a card in terms of absolute worth when limited via > timing because it does not appeal to you as a game mechanic. The card was evaluated as worthless 'cause if it required you to have the Edge at the start of the turn to use it, it would be mostly worthless (as you can't guarantee having the Edge at the start of your turn by any stretch of the imagination, unless you are playing some sort of Madness Network deck). If not completely worthless, as the likelyhood of having the Edge at the start of your turn coincide with a situation where you want to and are capable of making a deal, is very, very small. Thus, the card would be virtually worthless. And not worth using (excapt maybe in a Madness Network deck, in which case the propsed limit would not be a limit at all). So why not simply ban it? > Your > criteria is subjective and your conclusion logically flawed from that. You keep saying that. Where is the subjectivity here? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <ce255bc1.03121...@posting.google.com>, vtes2004 @yahoo.com says... > You evaluated a card in terms of absolute worth when limited via > timing because it does not appeal to you as a game mechanic. Your > criteria is subjective and your conclusion logically flawed from that. > VTES uses frequency and probability to balance card strength, and will > continue to, because it's good design. The suggestion I made was in > line with past design. Not so. Cards that rely on your having the edge at the start of your turn are generally accepted as "not good" or "not reliable" by the competitive community. Nobody uses them, because the opportunity is too difficult to ensure (Madness Network aside, as that card completely nullifies your restriction). You picked a bad restriction for the card. Accept it, brainstorm for another one. > You believe that the > viability in tournament play is the best way to evaluate cards. When we're talking about banning/altering a card for tournament play, why is it wrong to evaluate a card based on its viability in tournament play? Nobody said they can't play Succubus Club in a casual game. Just get rid of it for tournaments. > If they wanted to design a theme-less (abstract) card game, we would > probably see a consistent move toward that. > Madness of the Bard would never have made it past the first review. Madness of the Bard's novelty wears off real quick. > Perhaps this discussion could be narrowed down to the following > question. When discussing removal of the pent-ultimate card for > kingmaking, wouldn't it be appropriate to make is near-impossible to > use rather than removing an original mechanic? Your answer: IMNSHO, no > (> Yes, frankly). I'm ok with that. What's the point of making it near-impossible to use? To add a more random element to kingmaking? How does that improve the game? To make it so someone can only occasionally ruin the game? It also would destroy the card's use in casual play, since the opportunity cost is enormous. -- -Snapcase

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<jihftvg691nnk3ffd...@4ax.com>... <snip> > Doing so simply reduces the game to random chance. Say WW prints a > political action card costing 5 blood which must be called by a > !Salubri. The text reads: "Name a Methuselah. If this referendum > passes, that Methuselah gains 5 Victory Points and the game ends. > During this referendum, all other players' minions' titles are worth one > additional vote, and your minions' titles are worth one fewer vote. You > may not play action modifiers requiring Presence for the remainder of > this action." > > Is the effect broken? Yes. Is the near-impossibility of the card to > use enough to mitigate that effect? Absolutely not. Would it be enough > simply to say "Only one _cardname_ may be played per game"? Again, > absolutely not. It only HAS to be played once to break the game, in > fact. Actually, given the existence of Dia de los Muertos, passing this vote would be easy (barring being blocked/DI, of course). But we get your drift, or at least, I did. -- Tobias Deventer

Snapcase <capta...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a41b6a0d...@news.optonline.net>... > In article <ce255bc1.03121...@posting.google.com>, vtes2004 > @yahoo.com says... > > > You evaluated a card in terms of absolute worth when limited via > > timing because it does not appeal to you as a game mechanic. Your > > criteria is subjective and your conclusion logically flawed from that. > > VTES uses frequency and probability to balance card strength, and will > > continue to, because it's good design. The suggestion I made was in > > line with past design. > > Not so. Cards that rely on your having the edge at the start of your > turn are generally accepted as "not good" or "not reliable" by the > competitive community. Nobody uses them, because the opportunity is too > difficult to ensure (Madness Network aside, as that card completely > nullifies your restriction). You picked a bad restriction for the card. > Accept it, brainstorm for another one. What about making it only useable for trading cards in hand, not cards in play ?

"Angus, the Unruled" <athosg...@gmx.at> wrote in message news:690c2085.03121...@posting.google.com... > Snapcase <capta...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a41b6a0d...@news.optonline.net>... > > Not so. Cards that rely on your having the edge at the start of your > > turn are generally accepted as "not good" or "not reliable" by the > > competitive community. Nobody uses them, because the opportunity is too > > difficult to ensure (Madness Network aside, as that card completely > > nullifies your restriction). You picked a bad restriction for the card. > > Accept it, brainstorm for another one. > > What about making it only useable for trading cards in hand, not cards in play ? LSJ actually mentioned that as a possible "fix" that would be simply worded and still prevent everything that Peter (and I) think of as "abusive" in currently-possible Succubus Club use. (He wasn't necessarily advocating it, he just mentioned it as the kind of thing you would have to do to prevent all possibly abusive cases without having tons of card text.) I think it would be a pretty good solution, personally. :-) Josh taking a few minutes to post (don't worry, i'll be gone again soon)

"VTES2004" <vtes...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ce255bc1.03121...@posting.google.com... > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news: > <oftctvo6bol3lfkec...@4ax.com>... > > > Just because a broken thing happens once per game does > > not make it any less broken. > > The 'Once per game' restriction is used as a balance to power for a > number of VTES cards. Tajdid comes to mind. Are these cards broken or > balanced? Tajdid is probably not a good analogy, since it's not even all that powerful an effect. I think it's a "once per game" card because (a) once one is played, another wouldn't do anything useful anyway, (b) for backstory/flavor reasons, and (c) so that an Assamite deck can't pack *too* many of them to make sure of drawing them early (without risking hand-jamming on them later). Giant's Blood is a better example, because it's a very powerful card even with the "once per game" restriction. I would say that Giant's Blood actually is in the "close to overpowered" zone even though it's only playable once per game. It would be absurdly powerful if playable again and again. It may actually have been a poor design choice to make it as is, because there *is* quite a bit of luck involved in who gets to draw their Giant's Blood first and gain the benefit of refilling a large vampire for free, when multiple people have Giant's Blood in their deck (as is fairly common around DC these days). Ancient Influence, Political Stranglehold, Reins of Power, and Dia de los Muertos all use the same mechanic, and are also pretty powerful effects even at "once per game". They don't provide *quite* as much of a swing as Giant's Blood, though (except for DdlMuertos, which might sometimes), so they're probably more or less OK. On the whole, the "once per game" limitation is a dangerous tool in my opinion. It can be used to "balance" cards, but you still have to be pretty careful that the effect doesn't remain "broken" even if it only happens once. It is very possible for that to be the case. As such, I don't think even a "trade once per game" limitation on Succubus Club would be an especially appropriate way to "fix" it, since it would still be possible for games to be "thrown" via SC that way. If you're going to neuter or nearly neuter a card, it may be that you might as well just ban it instead (see Return to Innocence for an example of a card that this happened to). Josh droppin' the 'b' words (both of 'em!)

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Joshua Duffin wrote: > LSJ actually mentioned that as a possible "fix" that would be simply > worded and still prevent everything that Peter (and I) think of as > "abusive" in currently-possible Succubus Club use. (He wasn't > necessarily advocating it, he just mentioned it as the kind of thing you > would have to do to prevent all possibly abusive cases without having > tons of card text.) > > I think it would be a pretty good solution, personally. :-) That solution doesn't strike me as being much different than banning the card. Why would anyone include it if you could only trade cards from hand? Maybe I figure you put better cards in your decks so maybe with Succubus Club I can trick you into trading my bad cards for your good ones? Matt Morgan How about two Blood Bonds and a Phobia for a Blood Doll, a Conditioning and a Deflection?

athosg...@gmx.at (Angus, the Unruled) wrote in message news:<690c2085.03121...@posting.google.com>... > What about making [succubus club] only useable for > trading cards in hand, not cards in play ? I think that this modification would severely screw legitimate use of the Succubus Club. Personally, I don't have a huge problem with the Succubus Club as it stands. I think that most of the bad deals people seem to complain about with the Succubus Club are already illegal under the "play to win" provisions. There is no need to modify the Succubus Club, just properly enforce "play to win". If there is seen to be a need to modify Succubus Club, however, then my preference would be for something like (modification in {}): "The trade cannot result in either Methuselah have fewer cards in hand than his or her hand size {and also cannot result in either Methuselah controlling fewer cards than they did prior to the trade}." This would prevent effective "here is all my stuff" type trades, as an equivalent number of controlled cards need to be returned. It doesn't prevent "here is lots of my pool" type trades, but I think that is less of a problem. * lehrbuch

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > Why would anyone include it if you could only trade cards from > hand? Trade up as part of a deal: "Hey--I'll give you a Deflection for some crap in your hand if you vote for my next vote..." Seems reasonable. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:56:26 -0500, "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] i don't. :) i mean, sure, it'd fix the problems, but then as other people noted it'd be almost the same as banning it. i almost never see cards in hand traded. oh, they get discussed a lot, but barely ever actually traded. personally, i'd rather play Frenzy. seriously. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:07:01 -0500, "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> scrawled: > >"VTES2004" <vtes...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:ce255bc1.03121...@posting.google.com... >> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news: >> <oftctvo6bol3lfkec...@4ax.com>... >> >> > Just because a broken thing happens once per game does >> > not make it any less broken. >> >> The 'Once per game' restriction is used as a balance to power for a >> number of VTES cards. Tajdid comes to mind. Are these cards broken or >> balanced? > >Tajdid is probably not a good analogy, since it's not even all that >powerful an effect. I'd even be tempted to label Tajdid as 'pants', but then i'm a cynic. >Giant's Blood is a better example, because it's a very powerful card >even with the "once per game" restriction. I would say that Giant's >Blood actually is in the "close to overpowered" zone even though it's >only playable once per game. It would be absurdly powerful if playable Temptation of Greater Power springs to mind right about here. >Josh > >droppin' the 'b' words >(both of 'em!) boobies? does that count as two 'b' words? ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Peter D Bakija wrote: > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > > Why would anyone include it if you could only trade cards from > > hand? > > Trade up as part of a deal: > > "Hey--I'll give you a Deflection for some crap in your hand if you vote for > my next vote..." > > Seems reasonable. If you mean "reasonable" as in "not disruptive to play" then I agree. If you mean "reasonable" as in "will help me win" then I still don't see it being worth the card slot to assume you'll need help passing a vote from someone who wants a Deflection but doesn't have one. Wouldn't Bribes be more reliable? Matt Morgan

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > If you mean "reasonable" as in "not disruptive to play" then I agree. Pretty much. > If > you mean "reasonable" as in "will help me win" then I still don't see it > being worth the card slot to assume you'll need help passing a vote from > someone who wants a Deflection but doesn't have one. Wouldn't Bribes be > more reliable? Bribes is more reliable, but the theoretical Succubus Club would be far more flexible. Trading cards out of hand is a mechanic that there is zero way to do otherwise. Sure, it might not be all that useful on a regular basis, but it would still be a unique, flexible effect that someone would build a deck around. Trading cards in hand could be very helpful in many situations and is something that all deck types could, theoretically, benefit from. And it could still be used for deal making/bribery/hired hits if someone wanted too. Heck. Play some sort of kooky Ian Forrestal multi-rush deck. Trade hits for stuff you want out of your hand in exchange for good bleed modifiers ("I'll kill Arika if you give me a Conditioning or something in exchange for this third Bum's Rush card..."). Play a vote deck with a bunch of random weird but valuable cards that you can't necessarily use that you plan on trading off for favors. There are plenty of kooky tricks you could pull off with the theoretically restricted Succubus Club if you put your mind to it. Would it be an auto include in any deck, just to have significant leverage? No, but it would be clever and kinda fun. And possibly fairly useful in the right circumstances. Sure, only being able to trade cards in hand is much less useful, in an absolute sense, that being able to trade anything and everything, but if Succubus Club was restricted to only trading cards in hand from day one, I'm sure it would have shown up occasionally, and still would have been used for clever game winning manuvers sometimes. It just seems super sucky compared to what Succubus Club is now. Which it is, but that's ok. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<jihftvg691nnk3ffd...@4ax.com>... >If you would like to continue to debate the design, I will ask you if Poker >variations utilizing wildcards (extraordinarily powerful and >relatively rare) make the game less fun? >> Yes, actually -- the more skilled one is as a player, the less one >> prefers wild cards. Reality contradicts you. It's common knowledge that wildcards are a popular variation among players of varying skill. You're actually believe that it's better without wildcards based on what? the overhead required on the ability to do card counting? In poker, the more skilled player chooses to play with less skilled players who have money. Players typically do not leave a game simply because they lost 3 hands and there are wildcards, but because they lost 3 hands and fall to their own insecurities. The number of wildcards the "theoretical" skilled player is willing to play with, falls under the certainty equivalent function and is subject to personal playstyle. Sound familiar? > >> Just because a broken thing happens once per game does > >> not make it any less broken. > > > >The 'Once per game' restriction is used as a balance to power for a > >number of VTES cards. Tajdid comes to mind. Are these cards broken or > >balanced? > > You are throwing up a straw-man here. Please respond to my actual > statements, not what you would like to believe I am saying. It applies directly. It is a demonstration of the premise that decreasing frequency balances power in VTES (see bottom of post). Is SC still tournament legal because you have failed to come up with any sort of understanding or insight that would justify it's removal or because the majority of the VTES playing populace is just too dumb? As you have strived so hard to educate me, perhaps we both might learn something from the card remaining tournament legal without restriction. > >You evaluated a card in terms of absolute worth when limited via > >timing because it does not appeal to you as a game mechanic. Your > > First incorrect statement. Again, please read what I am saying. I got it right the first time. You object to the edge being used to regulate SC availability in tournaments and would rather see SC banned in tournament play because you prefer the (tourney) environment to have fewer wildcards. You also believe that the edge is a poor control mechanism because it is not subject to a signifigant amount of control and believe it would restrict SC to being useed too infrequently, while not addressing the power balance issue directly. Sounds pretty grim. So you say the card would be useless if it was used too rarely based on objective analysis. > I also factored in the modifications to that probability that occur when > one's predator is aware that a significant edge may accrue to you if you > DO retain the Edge -- thus making him far more likely to make a point of > taking the Edge away from you. While this all sounds very technical, what I read is "I thought about it". So what? That means it is? No. This is basic reading comprehension. You made a subjective statement. SC would be drastically hobbled while retaining it's feared power. > If the effect is not broken UNLESS it could occur multiple times per > game, then the effect is not broken if it only occurs once per game -- > hence the once-per-game restriction on cards like Ancient Influence. > > A thing which is broken EVEN IF it only occurs once per game is not > "fixed" by merely restricting it to once per game. > > Do you comprehend the difference here? I didn't say it would be fixed. I suggested a method of control that is common in VTES to simulate an effect that showed preference for. I did not say that Tajdid is an equivalent, but an example of the premise of power to frequency. When talking about something that's broken, it's always with a measure of degree. You staunchly believe it is too broken to be fixed in any case as you have thought of everything (of course), so there's little I can do to help you understand a valid position. Your problems with SC go beyond frequency of use. Mine do not. I know what you WOULD probably accept as an access restriction...(previous suggestion modified) Tap SC every time you use it, burn the edge to untap. This allows it to be used more frequently, to which you will object to it's seemingly unmitigated power to change the sway of the game. So what have we gained? Nothing. Maybe the fact that you think it's relegated to wallpaper is precisely the amount of control necessary. Maybe what is necessary is also a modification to your criteria. > It would make the card worthless. Don't make blanket statements when evaluating on personal preference and I won't correct you. > The goal of the game is winning. > > The best way to evaluate how "good" a card may be is to determine how > much it can/will help you win. > Second incorrect statement. Again, please read what I am saying. The goal of the game is also commercial viability. Game design is not that cut and dry. Your criteria is also questionable because it's YOUR goal to be able to determine card value in a tournament environment according to some nebulous and undocumented variation on Nash's Equilibrium (I assume). > >goals are not necessarily the goals of the designers. If they wanted > >to design a theme-less (abstract) card game, we would probably see a > >consistent move toward that. Madness of the Bard would never have made > Madness of the Bard was NOT created by the current design team. Fifth > incorrect statement -- PLEASE research your subject prior to posting, Where would one go to track the status of the design team? That's not exactly common knowledge. I assumed that the design team was simply toning down their thematic ideas after (the rather large) number of complaints. My mistake. Malkavian Game was released with BH, indicating that the "parlor element" is still there. To address the original point, can you answer why? You have already stated that your evaluation method should be the method of choice when determining what should be banned. I can only assume you would argue against MG as well "for the good of the tournament environment". Feel free to attempt to educate the design team, but you haven't convinced me. > Jack. Oh, and you guessed it: read what I'm saying. My name is Jeff. If you are going to speciously bring up past threads, for goodness sake get that right. I read everything you have said in this thread. I do not choose to mock you, ignore you, nor give you the luxury of making faulty claims. > No, it would not be appropriate to make it near-impossible to use. > > Doing so simply reduces the game to random chance. ...if the game existed in a vacuum. The game would not be reduced to random chance if SC was left unaltered or limited. > VTES uses frequency and probability to balance card strength, and will > continue to, because it's good design. The suggestion I made was in > line with past design. > Third incorrect statement. I don't see why either statement is incorrect. Nothing is restricted as badly as my suggestion, but nothing is as powerful either. There will always be extremes to balance.

In message <ce255bc1.03121...@posting.google.com>, vtes...@yahoo.com (VTES2004) mumbled something about: (a bunch of worthless horseshit, snipped) Read what I say. Then think about it. Finally, respond. I am not wasting any more time on you until you do this. I really can't figure out why you AREN'T reading -- you seem literate enough -- other than you want to repeatedly pursue the "you're being subjective" crap and argue from that, instead of from facts and analysis of game mechanics... and you also seem to want to divert the discussion into pointless irrelevancies. I am perfectly willing to hold a discussion on possible fixes for the Succubus Club based on rewrites of its text and how those rewrites would interact with existing game mechanics. However, you are going to need to accept a few things first: 1) The object of the game is to win. 2) Effectiveness of cards is ranked in the game based directly on their ability to achieve #1. It's that simple. There's no subjective about it. Oh, and if you want me to call you by your right name, you should perhaps post under it, shouldn't you, Jackie-boy? In the meantime, you may continue with your pointless irrelevancies. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<281ltvg9j9q82un03...@4ax.com>... I have been responding. You have remained staunchly in your "I am right no matter what, 'cause I know better", that you oft assume with weak assumptions and poor attempts at logic that don't hold up to any reasonable scrutiny. Sorry I can't lay down at your feet. You don't know best and would do well to do some more reading regarding complex subjects before wading into them with words like "worthless" which is a dead giveaway that you're just speaking off the cuff. > I am not wasting any more time on you until you do this. I really can't > figure out why you AREN'T reading -- you seem literate enough -- other > than you want to repeatedly pursue the "you're being subjective" crap > and argue from that, instead of from facts and analysis of game > mechanics... and you also seem to want to divert the discussion into > pointless irrelevancies. I address your arguments, point by point, by addressing the basis for your conclusions which are flawed. This is typically the preferred method of logical discussion, especially when dealing with abstracts. > I am perfectly willing to hold a discussion on possible fixes for the > Succubus Club based on rewrites of its text and how those rewrites would > interact with existing game mechanics. That's what the threads about, but you have remained on this branch because? ego? > However, you are going to need to accept a few things first: > 1) The object of the game is to win. > 2) Effectiveness of cards is ranked in the game based directly on their > ability to achieve #1. I accept that that is what you believe. Good for you. > It's that simple. There's no subjective about it. Unfortunately, that's not the original point of contention. Your assessment that the card is worthless when a certain mechanic is applied because it is distasteful to you. Let me know when you can accept your owns "objective" views showing bias. > Oh, and if you want > me to call you by your right name, you should perhaps post under it, > shouldn't you, Jackie-boy? In the meantime, you may continue with your > pointless irrelevancies. There is no need for names. Maybe the fact that you have to resort to personal attacks points to a lack of any reasonable argument. That's usually your line, isn't it?

VTES2004 wrote: > Reality contradicts you. It's common knowledge that wildcards are a > popular variation among players of varying skill. Umm, wha? Wild Cards in poker are a popular variation among players of generaly low skill. People who actually play poker and are actually good at poker and play poker for actual stakes generally do not use wild cards for the very reasons Derek mentioned. Sure, playing with wild cards can be entertaining, but you aren't going to go to a casino and play with crazy wild cards. >You're actually > believe that it's better without wildcards based on what? Poker is a game designed to be played without wild cards. The game works as intended without wild cards. Wild cards simply add extra randomness to a game that is already very random, and most of the skill involved revolves around reducing the effect of randomness. (back to Succubus Club requiring edge) >> It would make the card worthless. > > Don't make blanket statements when evaluating on personal preference > and I won't correct you. Dude. The card would be worthless if you needed the edge to use it. There is no personal preference involved. Ok. A little. If by personal preference you are refering to the personal preference of prefering cards to actually do something. If you need the edge to use *any* card at the start of your turn, it is essentially worthless. Thus, Using the Advantage is worthless. Which it is. As would Succubus Club be if it required the edge. This doesn't strike me as a problem, 'cause I think the card *should* be worthless, but that is me. But to claim the the card would not be worthless is just silly. This has nothing to do with what one thinks is or is not bad card design. It has to do with the fact that you have no control over keeping the edge. And so you have no, even remotely, reliable ability to use the hypothetical Succubus Club. Which makes it worthless. Because while the frequency of use is reduced considerably, you have no control of even the few times you can use it. The cards that are limited by "once per game" or whatever, are still under your control--you play it first or you discard it, and while limited, is still a force you control. SC needing the edge? Just bad. But again, I'm all for it. 'Cause then it would be effectively banned. 'Cause it would be completely unplayable. In casual play as well as competetive play. > The goal of the game is also commercial viability. And this has what at all to do with Succubus Club? I mean, yeah, commercial viability is certainly a factor in the game, but whther or not Succubus Club is useful has, I'd gander, exactly zero impact on the comercial viability of the game. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "The gun is good! The penis is bad!" -Zardoz

VTES2004 wrote: > Unfortunately, that's not the original point of contention. Your > assessment that the card is worthless when a certain mechanic is > applied because it is distasteful to you. And I have been repeatedly explaining how the change you suggest would make the card worthless for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with it being distasteful. In a completely objective sense. Because it would be if you needed the edge to use it. This has *nothing* to do with personal taste or distaste. It has to do with the probability of ever getting to actually use the card combined with the probability of getting to use the card while in a position that it would benefit you. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <ce255bc1.0312...@posting.google.com>, vtes...@yahoo.com (VTES2004) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<281ltvg9j9q82un03...@4ax.com>... > >> However, you are going to need to accept a few things first: >> 1) The object of the game is to win. >> 2) Effectiveness of cards is ranked in the game based directly on their >> ability to achieve #1. > >I accept that that is what you believe. Good for you. Either you can believe it as well, or you will never be able to have a rational, reasonable discussion about this. It is the base assumption from which most of us derive all our conclusions and arguments. While other base assumptions can be started from (for example, one player is playing Malkavians and only wants to get all the allies out and beat each player in a Malkavian Game at least once, and then he will be happy), those others do not make much sense. Clearly, you do NOT currently believe this. Answer me these questions: 1) What do you believe the object of the game is? 2) Based on #1, how do you determine relative effectiveness of cards? The rest of what you posted is more horseshit and beating around the bush, and so as with most of your previous message, I'll ignore it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<5hlntv030mikvg2vv...@4ax.com>... > Either you can believe it as well, or you will never be able to have a > rational, reasonable discussion about this. It is the base assumption > from which most of us derive all our conclusions and arguments. "We" and "us" being? The people who like what you like. Of course, you consider yes-men rational and reasonable. Raw charisma has its social benefits. > Answer me these questions: > > 1) What do you believe the object of the game is? Entertainment. > 2) Based on #1, how do you determine relative effectiveness of cards? The ability of card to promote #1 RI was banned because the perceived power, was a signifigant barrier to entertainment for players. MotB/MoC/etc were all so open to interpretation that they were a barrier to entertainment. I'm not against your view that SC should be banned. I'm not for it either. I'm definitely not going to support your analysis as a sole methodology when determining card value, when there are other criteria to consider. You don't want to recognize any other criteria? Your perogative. Get ~25 people to register to play in a sanctioned tournament (more than 1 tourney? arbitrary numbers all around...but you get the idea) and then opt not to play if anyone is playing with a specific card (Tarbaby for example). No analysis necessary. That card is probably going to change. > The rest of what you posted is more horseshit and beating around the > bush, and so as with most of your previous message, I'll ignore it. ...and that's your response to an inability to consider or even follow other points of view, so it's not suprising you choose to ignore it. --- 1. You want SC banned because it's too powerful. - I don't. 2. You think restricting SC to edge control is ridiculous because it would not be available for any appreciable period during a game. - I like it. 3. You think that any goal other than winning, is patently insane. - Go play tic tac toe. You can't design a game with that mentality, nor can you discuss design changes rationally.

In message <ce255bc1.03121...@posting.google.com>, vtes...@yahoo.com (VTES2004) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<5hlntv030mikvg2vv...@4ax.com>... >> Either you can believe it as well, or you will never be able to have a >> rational, reasonable discussion about this. It is the base assumption >> from which most of us derive all our conclusions and arguments. > >"We" and "us" being? The people who like what you like. Of course, you >consider yes-men rational and reasonable. Raw charisma has its social >benefits. Congratulations; you've now successfully insulted most of the rest of the players reading this by calling them "yes-men", when I'm dead certain they all are actually forming their OWN opinions. Having your head up your ass has its social detriments. It is obvious that "the people who like what I like" is not the real answer here: you are simply putting up another straw-man. >> Answer me these questions: >> >> 1) What do you believe the object of the game is? > >Entertainment. Incorrect. The object of the game is to win by getting the most VPs. The process of doing so is intended to provide entertainment, WHETHER OR NOT one wins; however, the object of the game is to win. It is a poor game where only the winner is entertained, therefore entertainment is surely second on the list. But the object of any game is to win. >> 2) Based on #1, how do you determine relative effectiveness of cards? > >The ability of card to promote #1 Which, as we have seen, is to win the game. >I'm not against your view that SC should be banned. I'm not for it Yet ANOTHER straw-man. This entire thread began when you offered a worthless "fix" to SC as an alternative to banning. I criticized your fix with an accurate analysis of how this excessively reduced the effectiveness of the card, and you got a nail up your ass about it. I would prefer that the SC be banned as opposed to any of the "fixes" I've seen; if someone can come up with a fix that solves the problem without neutering the card, I'll support it. I do not personally believe such a solution is available, given the nature of the card; however, I'm willing to hear fixes. >either. I'm definitely not going to support your analysis as a sole >methodology when determining card value, when there are other criteria >to consider. You don't want to recognize any other criteria? Your >perogative. "Entertainment" is a nebulous concept which cannot be effectively defined. One person's fun is another person's misery. Madness of the Bard is entertaining if you can rhyme well off-the-cuff. PTO is pretty entertaining too, don't you think? At least if you played it... Given this truth, we must discard "entertainment" as a valid criteria from which to calculate card effectiveness, and this is also why we must discard it as a potential "object" of the game -- because it cannot be defined in a matter that is equal to all players. >Get ~25 people to register to play in a sanctioned tournament (more >than 1 tourney? arbitrary numbers all around...but you get the idea) >and then opt not to play if anyone is playing with a specific card >(Tarbaby for example). No analysis necessary. That card is probably >going to change. Do you really believe this? If I tried to walk out of a tournament just because someone was playing with (for example) the Succubus Club in his deck, all 24 other people would wave "goodbye" to me and shrug. Same with any other player who posts here. It certainly wouldn't CHANGE just because I had a hissy fit. >> The rest of what you posted is more horseshit and beating around the >> bush, and so as with most of your previous message, I'll ignore it. > >...and that's your response to an inability to consider or even follow >other points of view, so it's not suprising you choose to ignore it. I've been around long enough to recognize a troll when I see one. Your insistence on hiding behind a pseudonym, your deliberate contrariness in the face of hard evidence, your consistent evasion of rational discussion in favor of emotionally-based appeals, and your snide implications about my mindset all indicate one thing: You're just here to stir up trouble. It amuses me to respond, but don't expect me to waste time chasing the meaningless portions of your messages. >1. You want SC banned because it's too powerful. - I don't. No. I want SC banned because it is too DISRUPTIVE. >2. You think restricting SC to edge control is ridiculous because it >would not be available for any appreciable period during a game. - I >like it. Oh, and what a great justification it is, that YOU LIKE IT. Again, the hallmark of a troll -- inability to back up statements with actual reasoning. Let's have a look from your perspective for a moment. What is entertainment to you? Is it putting a card in your deck that you will likely never be able to use? Putting it in play and then never using it? Realizing after this happens a few times that the card is a wasted slot, and you should replace it with something you CAN use? Watching the card sit on the shelf, not contributing to your entertainment? I believe that NO cards should sit on the shelf, if at all possible. However, a card which can't contribute in at least some small fashion to winning the game is doomed to shelf-life for eternity, as only players who are making up their own rules will play with the card. Right now, Succubus Club can contribute in a significant fashion to winning the game. It can also be an extremely disruptive influence on the game, causing another player to suddenly not-win at the drop of a hat. As such, it should be changed; the card "I Win" should never be printed, and neither should the card "You Lose". Presently, Succubus Club can be used as the "You Lose" card -- a bad thing. Your fix removes the frequency with which the disruptive influence can occur, but does NOT remove the size of the effect when it does happen. This is a problem; note that Russian Roulette is not a popular game. Your fix ALSO removes the ability of the card to contribute in any significant fashion to winning the game. As such, the card will never make it into most players' decks, and you've put yet another card on the shelf while claiming to have fixed it. That's bad. If cards are going to go on the shelf, let's at least be honest about our intentions, eh? >3. You think that any goal other than winning, is patently insane. - >Go play tic tac toe. You can't design a game with that mentality, nor >can you discuss design changes rationally. This statement is just an open laugher, and indicates a certain lack of experience on your part. It also would lead me to believe that you were one of the RPG "mALk4v1an!!11" types, who derive all their "fun" from going against the grain and disrupting play for others by pursuing their own goals, even though the expectation at the outset was that all players would be striving towards the same goal. Yeah, I'm not surprised. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9qsstvss0nsrn7qmd...@4ax.com>... *mostly garbage* Lemme know when you wanna respond.

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9qsstvss0nsrn7qmd...@4ax.com>... > In message <ce255bc1.03121...@posting.google.com>, > vtes...@yahoo.com (VTES2004) mumbled something about: > Congratulations; you've now successfully insulted most of the rest of > the players reading this by calling them "yes-men", when I'm dead > certain they all are actually forming their OWN opinions. I had no reference to the players reading this thread. > Incorrect. On what basis. > It is a poor game where only the winner is entertained, therefore > entertainment is surely second on the list. But the object of any game > is to win. Wrong. Try reading about game theory. > Given this truth, Sorry. This is where you have failed to even consider a point of view again, arbitrarily. You haven't made a point much less stated a truth. > >Get ~25 people to register to play in a sanctioned tournament (more > >than 1 tourney? arbitrary numbers all around...but you get the idea) > >and then opt not to play if anyone is playing with a specific card > >(Tarbaby for example). No analysis necessary. That card is probably > >going to change. > > Do you really believe this? you obviously dont accept entertainment as the game's purpose. > I've been around long enough to recognize a troll when I see one. More "I said so" and your own straw man. > No. I want SC banned because it is too DISRUPTIVE. I know. I stated that last post, sans the "why" because I didn't know. > >2. You think restricting SC to edge control is ridiculous because it > >would not be available for any appreciable period during a game. - I > >like it. > > Oh, and what a great justification it is, that YOU LIKE IT. Again, the > hallmark of a troll -- inability to back up statements with actual > reasoning. I already reasoned them. A lower chance of effect to balance the power. I must be a troll because I have an opinion and question you. > Let's have a look from your perspective for a moment. What is > entertainment to you? Is it putting a card in your deck that you will > likely never be able to use? Putting it in play and then never using > it? Realizing after this happens a few times that the card is a wasted > slot, and you should replace it with something you CAN use? Watching > the card sit on the shelf, not contributing to your entertainment? > > I believe that NO cards should sit on the shelf, if at all possible. > However, a card which can't contribute in at least some small fashion to > winning the game is doomed to shelf-life for eternity, as only players > who are making up their own rules will play with the card. > > Right now, Succubus Club can contribute in a significant fashion to > winning the game. It can also be an extremely disruptive influence on > the game, causing another player to suddenly not-win at the drop of a > hat. As such, it should be changed; the card "I Win" should never be > printed, and neither should the card "You Lose". Presently, Succubus > Club can be used as the "You Lose" card -- a bad thing. > > Your fix removes the frequency with which the disruptive influence can > occur, but does NOT remove the size of the effect when it does happen. > This is a problem; note that Russian Roulette is not a popular game. But everyone knows the game because it's a popular concept. > Your fix ALSO removes the ability of the card to contribute in any > significant fashion to winning the game. As such, the card will never > make it into most players' decks, and you've put yet another card on the > shelf while claiming to have fixed it. That's bad. If cards are going > to go on the shelf, let's at least be honest about our intentions, eh? It's better not to ban than to fix, if the fix is small. > >3. You think that any goal other than winning, is patently insane. - > >Go play tic tac toe. You can't design a game with that mentality, nor > >can you discuss design changes rationally. > > This statement is just an open laugher, and indicates a certain lack of > experience on your part. It also would lead me to believe that you were > one of the RPG "mALk4v1an!!11" types, who derive all their "fun" from > going against the grain and disrupting play for others by pursuing their > own goals, even though the expectation at the outset was that all > players would be striving towards the same goal. Sorry, but you are still viewing the situation as a player, rather than a player and designer. Some of your views are just as laughable to me. So what.

In article <ce255bc1.03121...@posting.google.com>, vtes2004 @yahoo.com says... > "We" and "us" being? The people who like what you like. Of course, you > consider yes-men rational and reasonable. Raw charisma has its social > benefits. By the same argument, everyone who has agreed with you are "yes-men". I'm sure they're pleased to hear that. > > 1) What do you believe the object of the game is? > > Entertainment. > > > 2) Based on #1, how do you determine relative effectiveness of cards? > > The ability of card to promote #1 To further clarify- What do you believe the object of _Tournament Play_ to be? > I'm definitely not going to support your analysis as a sole > methodology when determining card value, when there are other criteria > to consider. You don't want to recognize any other criteria? Your > perogative. When examining a card's value in tournament play, it's best to consider (I know this is a stretch here) its use in a tournament game. This is so trivially obvious, I can't fathom why you're still arguing about it. > Get ~25 people to register to play in a sanctioned tournament (more > than 1 tourney? arbitrary numbers all around...but you get the idea) > and then opt not to play if anyone is playing with a specific card > (Tarbaby for example). No analysis necessary. That card is probably > going to change. I'll bet you 10 bucks that one person refusing to play because of the existence of a card isn't going to change a damn thing. Seriously. 10 bucks. Easy money, right? > 3. You think that any goal other than winning, is patently insane. - > Go play tic tac toe. You can't design a game with that mentality, nor > can you discuss design changes rationally. The goal of the game according to the rulebook is to win. It's pretty clear what the game was designed for, no? -- -Snapcase

In message <ce255bc1.03121...@posting.google.com>, vtes...@yahoo.com (VTES2004) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9qsstvss0nsrn7qmd...@4ax.com>... > >*mostly garbage* > >Lemme know when you wanna respond. Same to you, buddy. Oh, and nice troll post with no arguments whatsoever, but a few ad hominem attacks and some cute one-liners that bore no relation to what I said, much less a response. I accept your resignation. Let me reiterate the way this went: 1) You posted a proposed fix for the SC. 2) Your fix sucked. 3) I told you so. 4) You cried about it. Thanks! Bye. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 15 Dec 2003 22:17:39 -0800, vtes...@yahoo.com (VTES2004) scrawled: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9qsstvss0nsrn7qmd...@4ax.com>... [snip] >> It is a poor game where only the winner is entertained, therefore >> entertainment is surely second on the list. But the object of any game >> is to win. > >Wrong. Try reading about game theory. Ok. restated a bit more correctly: the object of a game is to acheive the highest number of expected 'winnings'. In this case, the thing you 'win' is vps. at the end of the game, you want to have maximised your expected number of those. essentially, you want to win in a given game. entertainment value is what helps you to decide between various different games that you could be playing. >> Given this truth, > >Sorry. This is where you have failed to even consider a point of view >again, arbitrarily. You haven't made a point much less stated a truth. > >> >Get ~25 people to register to play in a sanctioned tournament (more >> >than 1 tourney? arbitrary numbers all around...but you get the idea) >> >and then opt not to play if anyone is playing with a specific card >> >(Tarbaby for example). No analysis necessary. That card is probably >> >going to change. >> >> Do you really believe this? > >you obviously dont accept entertainment as the game's purpose. people choose to play because it's entertaining. once they are playing, the objective is to win. there's two processes going on here. >> Oh, and what a great justification it is, that YOU LIKE IT. Again, the >> hallmark of a troll -- inability to back up statements with actual >> reasoning. > >I already reasoned them. A lower chance of effect to balance the >power. I must be a troll because I have an opinion and question you. the lower chance of effect to balance the power is not a good fix. take that to the extreme and you get a whole bunch of effects that will almost never happen, but when they do you win. for example, have a master card: talbot is best. cost 10 pool. During your untap phase, if you control Jeremy Talbot, and he is equipped with Talbot's chainsaw, and you control the edge but no other minions, and you have exactly 7 pool, your prey is ousted. then your new prey is ousted. then your new prey is ousted. this continues until you are the last methuselah in the game. is that ok because the chance of effect is so low it balances it's power? it might be 'balanced', but it doesn't mean it's effect should be allowed in the game. >> Your fix removes the frequency with which the disruptive influence can >> occur, but does NOT remove the size of the effect when it does happen. >> This is a problem; note that Russian Roulette is not a popular game. > >But everyone knows the game because it's a popular concept. knowing about it doesn't mean you'd want to play it. sure, you'd not die very often, but when you do you will probably be a bit unhappy about it. >> Your fix ALSO removes the ability of the card to contribute in any >> significant fashion to winning the game. As such, the card will never >> make it into most players' decks, and you've put yet another card on the >> shelf while claiming to have fixed it. That's bad. If cards are going >> to go on the shelf, let's at least be honest about our intentions, eh? > >It's better not to ban than to fix, if the fix is small. your fix isn't small. it's not many words, but it's effect is huge. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

salem expounded: > On 15 Dec 2003 22:17:39 -0800, vtes...@yahoo.com (VTES2004) scrawled: > > >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9qsstvss0nsrn7qmd...@4ax.com>... > [snip] > >> It is a poor game where only the winner is entertained, therefore > >> entertainment is surely second on the list. But the object of any game > >> is to win. > > > >Wrong. Try reading about game theory. > > Ok. restated a bit more correctly: > the object of a game is to acheive the highest number of expected > 'winnings'. In this case, the thing you 'win' is vps. at the end of > the game, you want to have maximised your expected number of those. > > essentially, you want to win in a given game. entertainment value is > what helps you to decide between various different games that you > could be playing. I would choose an interesting game over a victory every time. I think the number of 'kooky' decks and low proportion of decks like "the friendmaker" (and other nastyness) at tournaments confirms that most people are more interested in spending their 6 hours enjoyably than in winning the ("non-negligible") prize-support. I am certainly in VTES2004's camp on this issue. [I don't like the idea of limitting the SC to 'when you have the edge at the begininning of your turn': I'd much rather see the content of deals limitted]

VTES2004 wrote: > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9qsstvss0nsrn7qmd...@4ax.com>... >>Incorrect. > On what basis. (Note: context snipped by VTES2004, not by me.) The rulebook. "Object of the Game". Page 4. The object of the game is to get the most VPs. The object of playing the game is, for the typical player (or, at least, for the target audience) entertainment. That object is met, again for the typical player, only when all players involved are playing the game for the stated goal of the game: namely, to accumulate the most VPs. If someone is playing for a different goal (collusion, Malkavian role-playing, etc.), then the entertainment that the players who play the game according to its rules (including the goal) receive will be lessened. You seem to be confusing the one (object of the game) for the other (the reason why most players choose to play the game). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Timlagor wrote: > I would choose an interesting game over a victory every time. I think > the number of 'kooky' decks and low proportion of decks like "the > friendmaker" (and other nastyness) at tournaments confirms that most > people are more interested in spending their 6 hours enjoyably than in > winning the ("non-negligible") prize-support. Yes, we'd all rather have an interesting game than a boring game. That's why we play VTES and not Monopoly. One of my roommates plays with the regular DC playgroup sometimes and he...uh...well...I know for certain the last two sessions he played his prey won the table every game. He's like that. I've tried to offer suggestions on how to improve his playing and decks, but he always responds with "I just play for fun." That's really irritating. We all just play for fun obviously. It's less fun when we can tell who's going to win the game by initial seating. Play to win and have fun doing so. Matt Morgan

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.44.031216...@hagbard.io.com... > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Timlagor wrote: > > > I would choose an interesting game over a victory every time. I think > > the number of 'kooky' decks and low proportion of decks like "the > > friendmaker" (and other nastyness) at tournaments confirms that most > > people are more interested in spending their 6 hours enjoyably than in > > winning the ("non-negligible") prize-support. > > Yes, we'd all rather have an interesting game than a boring game. That's > why we play VTES and not Monopoly. Colin likes Monopoly... It's definitely why we play VTES and not tic-tac-toe, though. :-) I agree with Matt's point that an "interesting" game and a "competitive" game aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. People can choose "boring" decks to try to win. But they can also choose interesting decks. A lot of tournament players go with the "interesting" ones, yeah. I think up to a point, they would continue to do that with larger prizes. Beyond some point, yeah, the single-minded pursuit of winning might encourage them to play with "more boring" decks. But boring decks aren't always even more effective at winning than the interesting ones. For one, a choice of deck that appears "a priori" strong or weak seems (in my experience) to have a lot less influence on who wins a tournament than we might expect. This seems to be due not only to the effect of interaction dynamics between deck types on each table but also due to both the randomness of the game and the influence of "table politics" in terms of the inter-player interactions within each game. Josh for further reading on this topic, see the newsgroup (okay, so it doesn't come up all *that* often relative to random flamewars. ;-)

Timlagor wrote: > salem expounded: > > (VTES2004) scrawled: > > >Derek Ray wrote: > > >> It is a poor game where only the winner is entertained, therefore > > >> entertainment is surely second on the list. But the object of any game > > >> is to win. > > > > > >Wrong. Try reading about game theory. > > > > Ok. restated a bit more correctly: > > the object of a game is to acheive the highest number of expected > > 'winnings'. In this case, the thing you 'win' is vps. at the end of > > the game, you want to have maximised your expected number of those. > > I would choose an interesting game over a victory every time. Oh, for the love of god. You're all being blithering idiots. Further, the definition of Game Theory is defined as follows (see: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GameTheory.html): A branch of mathematics and logic which deals with the analysis of games (i.e., situations involving parties with conflicting interests). In addition to the mathematical elegance and complete "solution" which is possible for simple games, the principles of game theory also find applications to complicated games such as cards, checkers, and chess, as well as real-world problems as diverse as economics, property division, politics, and warfare. While there are things called "games" wherein the object is not a victory condition over other players, such as RPGs and The Sims, Game Theory does not address them. Let's play a variation of "Where's Waldo." Find the word, "entertainment," in there. However, I don't need to delve into Game Theory to tell me what the object of VTES, the game in question, is. From the rules: Object of the Game Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points by destroying the influence held by rival Methuselahs. Pretty simple. It's not quite a Zero Sum Game because of the total number of counters in the game does not remain constant. It's not quite a Normal-Form Game because it's not an Impartial Game and the last man standing isn't necessarily the winner. It's more of a variation on both, probably best called an Attrition Game, wherein the total amount of "money" (overall) and players approaches zero as the game continues. In any event, it doesn't say, "Your goal is to have a good time and socialize." You can do that, sure. But that is not the object of the game being played. If you're not attempting to reach that goal, you're not playing VTES, pure and simple. For the record, I believe the Succubus Club to be at least as dangerous and disruptive to the game of VTES as Return to Innocence ever was. The damned thing should either be neutered or banned, my preference being for the latter. Regards, Noal

Noal McDonald wrote: > It's not quite a Zero Sum Game because of the total number of counters > in the game does not remain constant. If you count VPs (not pool) as the tracked resources (each player antes a VP when she sits down and collects VPs as she ousts her prey or withdraws), it is a Zero Sum game (barring time limit adjustements), at least to my understanding. > For the record, I believe the Succubus Club to be at least as > dangerous and disruptive to the game of VTES as Return to Innocence > ever was. The damned thing should either be neutered or banned, my > preference being for the latter. I don't think Succubus Club is as disruptive as Kindred Restructure or Dramatic Upheaval. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ebbttvc9qe069bjj6...@4ax.com>... > In message <ce255bc1.03121...@posting.google.com>, > vtes...@yahoo.com (VTES2004) mumbled something about: > > >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9qsstvss0nsrn7qmd...@4ax.com>... > > > >*mostly garbage* > > > >Lemme know when you wanna respond. > > Same to you, buddy. Oh, and nice troll post with no arguments > whatsoever, but a few ad hominem attacks and some cute one-liners that > bore no relation to what I said, much less a response. I accept your > resignation. > > Let me reiterate the way this went: > > 1) You posted a proposed fix for the SC. > > 2) Your fix sucked. > 3) Derek makes outlandish attempts to dictate reality. > > 4) You cried about it. > > Thanks! Bye. Giving up already?

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3FDF3A31...@white-wolf.com... > Noal McDonald wrote: > > It's not quite a Zero Sum Game because of the total number of counters > > in the game does not remain constant. > > If you count VPs (not pool) as the tracked resources (each player antes a > VP when she sits down and collects VPs as she ousts her prey or withdraws), > it is a Zero Sum game (barring time limit adjustements), at least to my > understanding. Nitpicking, Gambit Accepted can make it a "negative-sum" game if the Gambit Accepted player withdraws. > > For the record, I believe the Succubus Club to be at least as > > dangerous and disruptive to the game of VTES as Return to Innocence > > ever was. The damned thing should either be neutered or banned, my > > preference being for the latter. > > I don't think Succubus Club is as disruptive as Kindred Restructure or > Dramatic Upheaval. I would say the Succubus Club is in general slightly more disruptive, because the Succubus Club has its full disruptive potential available every time it is played, whereas Kindred Restructure and Dramatic Upheaval require (a) not getting blocked attempting to call the vote, (b) passing the vote and (c) not having Delaying Tactics played (or Vox Domini) to achieve their disruptive effects. (Taking the possibility of Sudden Reversal on the Succubus Club and Direct Intervention on the Kindred Restructure/Dramatic Upheaval as equivalent.) That said, you're right that KR and DU are also liable to be problematic cards if/when VTES is played very seriously. And they have showed up with significantly strong game effects probably more often than Succubus Club, so far. But I think the reason that people see them as less of a problem is that Kindred Restructure and Dramatic Upheaval are almost always played by people trying to gain VPs to win the game. Succubus Club seems far more liable to get used by people no longer trying (if they ever were) to win the game. Josh apologist for seat-switching? it is undeniably a very large effect...

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Nitpicking, Gambit Accepted can make it a "negative-sum" game if the > Gambit Accepted player withdraws. Correct. [LSJ 31-MAY-2003] [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ebbttvc9qe069bjj6...@4ax.com>... > Let me reiterate the way this went: > > 1) You posted a proposed fix for the SC. > > 2) Your fix sucked. How's this for a fix: 1) Ban Succubus Club. I'm not of the opinion it needs banning, but I do believe it is problematic because of the *potential* for game-imbalancing shifts it can cause. Therefore, I offer the following card text change proposal (changes in {}'s): Succubus Club Type: Master Master: Unique Location During your {master} phase, you may tap this card to trade with a Methuselah who agrees to trade. You may trade pool and cards from your hand and cards you control. The trade cannot result in either Methuselah have fewer cards in hand than his or her hand size. {The Succubus Club may not be traded.} Any additional terms can be established, but none are enforced by the rules. {At the end of your turn, control of the Succubus Club passes to your predator.} With this SC, you can now trade during your Master phase only so you can't get out from under things like Anarch Revolts. Mainly this change was introduced so you can use it the turn you play it. If you fail to make a trade, then your predator gets the next shot at trading, and so on. The Succubus Club would cease to be a "time bomb" sitting on the table waiting to be abused by *only* it's controller. If you're the type of person who wants to play Succubus Club, you've got one free shot to use it, otherwise you face the wrath of everyone else. This card could also be a Trifle, a la The Coven, but SC is probably powerful enough as it is.

Hello LSJ, > If you count VPs (not pool) as the tracked resources (each player antes a > VP when she sits down and collects VPs as she ousts her prey or withdraws), > it is a Zero Sum game (barring time limit adjustements), at least to my > understanding. What about Gambit Accepted followed by a withdrawl? > I don't think Succubus Club is as disruptive as Kindred Restructure or > Dramatic Upheaval. This is an excellent comparison. I have greater dislike for Succubus Club because it slows the game down regularly, every turn it's in play. And because it can lead to abuses. Seating changes slow the game down once, and are really annoying, but they lead to abuses much less frequently. My belief about deck construction is that if you can't deal with votes/bleeds/combat, then you shouldn't complain about getting beaten by it. I feel the same way about Master: Location cards, but less so. On a personal note, I choose not to build decks that have Kindred Restructure or Dramatic Upheaval specifically because they disrupt the game so much. It's a little personal handicap, kinda like putting Mummify in a deck. Mummify makes me sad. Ira

Ira wrote: >>If you count VPs (not pool) as the tracked resources (each player antes a >>VP when she sits down and collects VPs as she ousts her prey or withdraws), >>it is a Zero Sum game (barring time limit adjustements), at least to my >>understanding. > > What about Gambit Accepted followed by a withdrawl? Events that happen with a fequency of zero do not factor into the calculation of zero sum. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <621dd332.03121...@posting.google.com>, jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) mumbled something about: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ebbttvc9qe069bjj6...@4ax.com>... >> Let me reiterate the way this went: >> >> 1) You posted a proposed fix for the SC. >> >> 2) Your fix sucked. > >How's this for a fix: >1) Ban Succubus Club. As I posted in one of my prior messages, that's the best fix I've been able to come up with so far regarding the Club. >I'm not of the opinion it needs banning, but I do believe it is >problematic because of the *potential* for game-imbalancing shifts it >can cause. Therefore, I offer the following card text change proposal >(changes in {}'s): I agree; I would prefer not to ban it, but neutering the card is also a poor option. The Succubus Club is not a problem in casual play, only in tournaments. Banning it from tournaments leaves it unchanged for casual play -- MRPing it with a crummy errata nukes it for everything. >Succubus Club >Type: Master >Master: Unique Location >During your {master} phase, you may tap this card to trade with a So I play the card, then immediately use it before anyone has a chance to Arson it? This bothers me, as the card coming as a surprise makes it more powerful. >Methuselah who agrees to trade. You may trade pool and cards from your >hand and cards you control. The trade cannot result in either >Methuselah have fewer cards in hand than his or her hand size. {The >Succubus Club may not be traded.} Any additional terms can be >established, but none are enforced by the rules. {At the end of your >turn, control of the Succubus Club passes to your predator.} This unfortunately doesn't reduce the potential game-swing of the Club itself -- you just wait for it to get back around to you, a la the Coven, and make your move then. >trading, and so on. The Succubus Club would cease to be a "time bomb" >sitting on the table waiting to be abused by *only* it's controller. Unfortunately, it ends up sitting in the owner's hand waiting to be abused THERE. =/ >If you're the type of person who wants to play Succubus Club, you've >got one free shot to use it, otherwise you face the wrath of everyone >else. This card could also be a Trifle, a la The Coven, but SC is >probably powerful enough as it is. And that's also a problem, IMO -- you put the opportunity out there for someone ELSE to use it against you in spite, especially if your move with the Club swings things heavily in your favor. The problem I see with the Club is that it simply is too powerful of an effect. However, there isn't a good way to limit the effect without making the card useless, IMO. You can trade three things with the Club, right now: 1) Pool 2) Cards in play 3) Cards in your hand 1) and 2) are the prime offenders. Cards in hand are nice, but they have to actually be in your HAND to be used in this fashion, leaving you at the mercy of your shuffle. Removing the ability to trade pool means that the Succubus Club can no longer be used as an "extortion" or "bounty" tactic, both of which are clever, innovative uses. So I don't like touching that. Reducing the amount of pool traded to "no more than 2" sounds good at first, but what about a bloat deck that wants to buy its way to victory, and would like to spend 4-6 pool for a minion with a bunch of equipment? ... buying, of course, from a person who is close to being ousted and has plenty of minions? Removing the ability to trade cards in play removes the ability to hand over Hunting Grounds, ANY location, you name it. It also removes the ability to pass guns or laptops around for, say, pool cost +1? Again, it excessively restricts "good" uses of the Club. So I don't see what can properly be restricted without just making the card pointless to play. Ideas welcome, but... [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > So I don't like touching that. Reducing the > amount of pool traded to "no more than 2" sounds good at first, but what > about a bloat deck that wants to buy its way to victory, and would like > to spend 4-6 pool for a minion with a bunch of equipment? ... buying, > of course, from a person who is close to being ousted and has plenty of > minions? That, and as previously pointed out, a limit of, say, 2 pool doesn't prevent completely 1 sided trades, which are, in effect, exctly what we would like to see go away (i.e. a winning player trading 2 pool for a huge vampire from a player in a losing position who wishes to spite someone). [ quoted text not captured ]

>I would choose an interesting game over a victory every time. I think >the number of 'kooky' decks and low proportion of decks like "the >friendmaker" (and other nastyness) at tournaments confirms that most >people are more interested in spending their 6 hours enjoyably than in >winning the ("non-negligible") prize-support. > >I am certainly in VTES2004's camp on this issue. Already addressed to a degree by others, but I'd like to point out/stress that people do *not* agree as to what is fun or interesting or whatever. What they can agree to is what the official rules of victory are. Some people like smashing their opponents into the ground. On the other end of the spectrum is people who ignore the victory conditions of games and play to tell a story, annoy their opponents as much as possible, or whatever. Lot of people in between. As long as everyone you play with agrees as to what's fun, you can do anything you want with the game. But, you won't always play with people on the same page or, even if you do, any analysis based on nonwinning play styles is useless to everyone else. At the point where you aren't playing to the objective goals of the game, then you aren't really playing the game anymore. Don't want to put words in your mouth or exaggerate what you are saying, but I've had significant problems with another multiplayer CCG and a ridiculous tournament format where winning had nothing to do with trying to win for a lot of the people who played it.

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote > > Don't want to put words in your mouth or exaggerate what you are saying, but > I've had significant problems with another multiplayer CCG and a ridiculous > tournament format where winning had nothing to do with trying to win for a lot > of the people who played it. Care to expand on this? What game? What format? What happened? Cheers, WES

>> I've had significant problems with another multiplayer CCG and a >ridiculous >> tournament format where winning had nothing to do with trying to win >for a lot >> of the people who played it. > >Care to expand on this? What game? What format? What happened? Babylon 5 had as one of its official formats, actually pretty much second to constructed, "social tournaments". You got points for telling the best story and making the game the most fun. For quite a few people, the proper way to play this format was to let people do whatever inane things they wanted to do with the cards in the name of playing a "fun" game, such things as spelling words with card titles and the like. In fact, because winning ended the game before people could do whatever they wanted, winning was antifun and would likely cause you to score worse. One might find it hard to believe how much resistance there was to my point that if you don't try to stop someone from doing something then it doesn't matter what that someone does. I offered as a hypothetical social goal successfully passing 1000 times in a row before the game ended (i.e. doing nothing all game). In what way was allowing someone to do what that person wanted any more valid than letting someone spend the entire game doing nothing? Lot of people I dealt with never seemed to grasp the point. This was extreme(ly stupid). More subtle, though rather common in CCGdom, is peer pressuring out certain archetypes because they are considered unfun, e.g. weenie decks in V:TES. Not a problem when everyone plays by the unwritten rules. What if you don't know what the unwritten rules are? What if you don't care? The reality is that you will produce more unpleasantness by trying to have people conform to unwritten rules than by having people play to achieve the goals set out by the game. If the game has glaring flaws in terms of fundamentals, card base, card combinations, then it's better that everyone know about them and get the game changed than to try to work around them. The flaws only become obvious when people analyze what wins in a crossregional environment or an environment that simulates such.

mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) wrote in message > MY GOD! The whining.... Running end-around this whole pustulous thread at my peril, what do folks think about placing card and pool constraints on succubus club? (examples: 1 card or 3 pool per turn, up to 2 cards and 2 pool per turn). A steal clause may also add some more fun. As far as the current printing, I'm still not that antagonistic towards the card, mainly because it fits in with the whole "predator-prey mechanic is overrated" theme. BTW Legendre, which Wesleyan are you at, anyway?

Curevei wrote: > Babylon 5 had as one of its official formats, actually pretty much second to > constructed, "social tournaments". Yeah. We had B5 tournaments all the time back in the day, and thankfully, we never had a "social tournament". That sounded like a complete and utter nightmare. I mean, yeah, we had a good amount of stupid/trick decks, but if they didn't win, they didn't win. Thank goodness for victory conditions! [ quoted text not captured ]

evil_poot_cat wrote: > Running end-around this whole pustulous thread at my peril, what do > folks think about placing card and pool constraints on succubus club? > (examples: 1 card or 3 pool per turn, up to 2 cards and 2 pool per > turn). A steal clause may also add some more fun. I don't think that there is any viable wording that would keep the card similar to its current use without it still being usable for nefarious purposes. Restricting the trades to, like, 2 pool and/or 1 card in play seems like it might be a good idea, but it does nothing to stop stupid suicide trades (I'm losing. I'm filled with spite. I trade you my Arika for 1 pool so you'll extra screw the guy I am spitefull at). I actually kinda like the "only tade cards in hand" idea, but most people think that would make the card just too useless. But I think it would still be pretty handy, and almost completely abuse free. But then, in all likelyhood, the best thing to do is simply to ban it from competetive play--any rewording/neutering will make the card less playable in casual games, where it can be highly entertaining and fun--I don't think anyone has a problem with the card in casual play, but in competetive games where stakes are high, people are actually concerened about winning,and collusion is not out of the realm of possibility, the card has way too much potential for wackness. So if it were banned from competetive play, it would still be perfectly playable in casual games, and wouldn't infect competetive games. [ quoted text not captured ]