I have seen a number of posts recently where reference is made (whether
knowingly or not) to a suppossed dichotomy between tournament style of
play and playing for fun. It comes up in debates about card rarity
being an excuse for cards being overpowered. It is mentioned often in
debates about whether certain styles of play are "cheap" when compared
to _playing_for_fun_.
There didn't use to be such a dichotomy, though one is beginning to take
shape now. If the game is balanced (as it should be) this dichotomy
will not exist. We should all be able to _play_to_win_ and have it be
_fun_. We should be able to play any damn deck we choose. Whether we
are at a tournament or a friendly game in a game store should be
irrelevant. There should be no need to ban anything in our playgroups
that isn't banned in tournament play. This all seems very obvious to
me. It all seems rather important to the health of the game! Go ahead,
someone tell me I'm wrong; I dare you. :)
Robert
--
......................................................................
:The opinions expressed here are strictly my own delusional ramblings:
:and do not reflect the opinions of The Walt Disney Company. :
: :
:Robert Goudie robert...@studio.disney.com:
:....................................................................:
:cigars * v:tes * car rallies * scotch * sega rally champion * spoon :
:....................................................................:
Robert Goudie (robert...@studio.disney.com) wrote:
: I have seen a number of posts recently where reference is made (whether: knowingly or not) to a suppossed dichotomy between tournament style of
: play and playing for fun. It comes up in debates about card rarity
: being an excuse for cards being overpowered. It is mentioned often in
: debates about whether certain styles of play are "cheap" when compared
: to _playing_for_fun_.: There didn't use to be such a dichotomy, though one is beginning to take
: shape now. If the game is balanced (as it should be) this dichotomy
: will not exist. We should all be able to _play_to_win_ and have it be
: _fun_. We should be able to play any damn deck we choose. Whether we
: are at a tournament or a friendly game in a game store should be
: irrelevant. There should be no need to ban anything in our playgroups
: that isn't banned in tournament play. This all seems very obvious to
: me. It all seems rather important to the health of the game! Go ahead,
: someone tell me I'm wrong; I dare you. :)
Actually, I do disagree with you slightly. I think there will always be
somewhat of a dichotomy between tournament play and play for fun,
regardless of how balanced the cards are. This is because in tournament
play, people will be trying out decks that are proven, whereas those
playing for fun will be experimenting with new ideas. It is the
experimentation, variety and "anything goes" atmosphere that generates a
sense of fun.
One effect that tournament play often has is too eliminate slow decks. In
the last tournament I played in my (lotsa-fun) "Wynn Rush" deck never made
it to the final round because the time expired before I could oust anyone.
No-one was ousted and all players got half a victory point. This is
partly because all the combat slowed the game down, but also because the
deck (which depends on getting Wynn out), must disable my predator in
order to survive before turning to my prey. By the time the tournament
round ended, I had torporized all the vampires of both my predator and my
prey, and both were helpless. It was a great deck, but even outside of
tournaments I rarely oust anyone. They usually just resign after all
their vampires are torporized.
Obviously I would have done better with the fast "Tap & Bleed" deck that
had won me the previous tournament. ...except that one is SOOO boring.
I do agree though that unbalanced cards will be used more often in
tournament play, which will create less variety and a greater
dichotomy. So far, however, the tournaments I have played in have been
rather informal, relaxed and fun. The Magic tournaments at the same
gaming club are, by comparison, extremely tense, hostile affairs.
John Whelan
jbwh...@dorsai.org (John Whelan) writes:
>It was a great deck, but even outside of
>tournaments I rarely oust anyone. They usually just resign after all
>their vampires are torporized.
There is no provision for resigning in Jyhad/VtES.
Resigning is the same as being ousted, if allowed at all.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | * - Tribble
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | (-*-) - Darth Tribble in his
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | TIE Fighter
Hi Robert,
On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Robert Goudie wrote:
> I have seen a number of posts recently where reference is made (whether
> knowingly or not) to a suppossed dichotomy between tournament style of
> play and playing for fun. It comes up in debates about card rarity
> being an excuse for cards being overpowered. It is mentioned often in
> debates about whether certain styles of play are "cheap" when compared
> to _playing_for_fun_.
>
> There didn't use to be such a dichotomy, though one is beginning to take
> shape now. If the game is balanced (as it should be) this dichotomy
> will not exist. We should all be able to _play_to_win_ and have it be
> _fun_. We should be able to play any damn deck we choose. Whether we
> are at a tournament or a friendly game in a game store should be
> irrelevant. There should be no need to ban anything in our playgroups
> that isn't banned in tournament play. This all seems very obvious to
> me. It all seems rather important to the health of the game! Go ahead,
> someone tell me I'm wrong; I dare you. :)
>
In my playgroup, there is no such dichotomy. On the other hand,
many strategies that people often refer to on this group (blood gain, for
example) are virtually non-existent. I guess the argument here boils down
to what you consider "fun."
In a recent post, Steffan (sp?) recomended I try playing less
agressive and more "fun" decks. It seemed pretty off topic, so I didn't
respond to it there, but it's pretty appropriate for this thread. So....
*****Ramble mode know engaged*****
The references to fast, aggressive decks and play style as not
being "fun" are quite erroneous. Playing with slower theme decks is like
boxing with one hand tied behind your back. You will develop strategies
and tactics that are rediculously out of place in a two handed boxing
match. While this might make for some interesting "one-handed" matches,
it isn't really the same thing as boxing. You basically need to convince
your opponent to box with only one arm, or else you are going to have a
pretty miserable time. Also, a boxer who crawls into the ring with a
"one-handed" boxer is going to have a pretty easy time, leaving everyone
able to say "two handed boxing is booring. Sure you win a lot, but why
don't you try boxing for fun instead?" The thing is, I find two handed
boxing to be a lot more fun and challenging than one-handed, often we
don't have to wait for a long judges decision, but have a quick knockout,
and get on to another match. As long as everyone you are boxing with
boxes two-handed, then the "sure you win a lot, but it's booring"
argument doesn't mean crap. You don't win a lot, unless you are a darned
good boxer. As long as box with opponents of equal skill, your bouts are
fun and challenging.
*****End ramble mode*****
Algustas
*****He can run, but he can't hide***** Joe Louis, 1946
jbwh...@dorsai.org (John Whelan) writes:
>Robert Goudie (robert...@studio.disney.com) wrote:
>: I have seen a number of posts recently where reference is made (whether
>: knowingly or not) to a suppossed dichotomy between tournament style of
>: play and playing for fun. I>: There didn't use to be such a dichotomy, though one is beginning to
take
>: shape now. If the game is balanced (as it should be) this dichotomy
>: will not exist.>Actually, I do disagree with you slightly. I think there will always be>somewhat of a dichotomy between tournament play and play for fun,
>regardless of how balanced the cards are. This is because in tournament
>play, people will be trying out decks that are proven, whereas those
>playing for fun will be experimenting with new ideas. It is the
>experimentation, variety and "anything goes" atmosphere that generates a
>sense of fun.
Well, if you consider that old standby, chess, brand-new things often
*are* tried in tournaments first. "Proven" is great, but also means most
of your opponents will be geared up to deal with it. If somebody has a
bright new idea, they don't want people to have the opportunity to study
it. I find that genuinely new ideas often do well in both Jyhad groups
and tournaments, although new decks often need a few games of tweaking
bofre they really go.
You never have an "anything goes" environment. Most Jyhad decks are
hopelessly unworkable in any environment (try a random sample of your card
collection and you'lll see what I mean).
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <5athao$5...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L.
Scott Johnson) writes:
>There is no provision for resigning in Jyhad/VtES.
>Resigning is the same as being ousted, if allowed at all.
I recently played a couple of games where one of my normally sensible and
subdued friend was so annoyed with his 'shuffling luck' (maybe it was just
a crap deck but let's give him the benefit of the doubt!) and the
inability of his deck to compete because of the other types of deck in the
game that he resigned and therw in his cards. This caused some bad
feeling (although not voiced) as it basically stopped the game for the
remaining 3 players. This raises two points about Jyhad:
1. There is no scope for resigning / withdrawing if you are fed up and
want to go home! (without spoiling or unbalancing the game for the
others.)
2. Sometimes however good your deck is it will be totally outclassed by
the other decks around the table because the combination of the other
decks basically stymies yours. This happens on a totally random basis and
more often than I would like! It can be very annoying to make a new deck
which you anticipate will be loads of fun to play and which you've
carefully figured out some varied defences. Then it all goes to pot
because of what the others play. (I am tempted to think of some examples
but that might lead the thread off at a tangent!)
Anyway ...
1. Maybe some (house) rules for resigning are in existence or could be
written?
2. How does one deal with this random deck factor? Build a couple of
decks so that if you get a second game in you can change? (Not always
possible for those with limited cards.)
Ian
I am the KING of of counter deck screw!! I don't feel I'm a bad deck
builder but it is so classic for my preditor and prey to be my Anti deck.I
like to build well rounding decks. I'm sick of getting my ass kicked by
cheap gimmick decks that
you have to bulid the "Anti" deck of too stop.And these decks rarelly take
out more than there first prey execpt those few occasions where no one at
the table
is prepared for that perticular deck. I ALWAYS seem to be that first prey.
I also
understand gimmick decks are viable and part of the game, but I don't have
to like them.
Anyway, all that to say some times I get so frustrated I just transfer
my self out of the game (altought very rarely), but some times you just
see the writing on the
wall after the first transfer stage. Sucks but sometimes you just want to
start the next game.
Mike C
Prince of Athens
ianb...@aol.com wrote:
: In article <5athao$5...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L.
: Scott Johnson) writes:: >There is no provision for resigning in Jyhad/VtES.
: >Resigning is the same as being ousted, if allowed at all.: I recently played a couple of games where one of my normally sensible and
: subdued friend was so annoyed with his 'shuffling luck' (maybe it was just
: a crap deck but let's give him the benefit of the doubt!) and the
: inability of his deck to compete because of the other types of deck in the
: game that he resigned and therw in his cards. This caused some bad
: feeling (although not voiced) as it basically stopped the game for the
: remaining 3 players. This raises two points about Jyhad:: 1. There is no scope for resigning / withdrawing if you are fed up and
: want to go home! (without spoiling or unbalancing the game for the
: others.): 2. Sometimes however good your deck is it will be totally outclassed by
: the other decks around the table because the combination of the other
: decks basically stymies yours. This happens on a totally random basis and
: more often than I would like! It can be very annoying to make a new deck
: which you anticipate will be loads of fun to play and which you've
: carefully figured out some varied defences. Then it all goes to pot
: because of what the others play. (I am tempted to think of some examples
: but that might lead the thread off at a tangent!): Anyway ...: 1. Maybe some (house) rules for resigning are in existence or could be
: written?
We've always played that if a player has to leave for any reason, (such as
the lateness of the hour) and simply packs up his cards and goes, he is
treated as though he were never in the game. No-one gets victory points
or pool for ousting him. As long as the player leaves the game for
reasons independent of how well he is doing in it, I see no problem with
this.
Chucking down your cards because you are losing, or simply fed up, is
definitely bad form. It is bad sportsmanship to thus deprive your
predator from the victory point he might eventually get from ousting you.
Giving the predator the victory point is not an ideal solution. That
victory point is one that the other methuselahs are still competing for.
Had he not received the point and the pool, he himself might have been
ousted before he could oust his prey.
There is really no excuse for it either, since there's another option.
You can oust yourself by spending/transfering all your pool away. If you
are losing anyway, this is hardly going to take that long.
: 2. How does one deal with this random deck factor? Build a couple of[ quoted text not captured ]
Robert Goudie wrote:
>
> I have seen a number of posts recently where reference is made (whether
> knowingly or not) to a suppossed dichotomy between tournament style of> play and playing for fun. It comes up in debates about card rarity
> being an excuse for cards being overpowered. It is mentioned often in
> debates about whether certain styles of play are "cheap" when compared
> to _playing_for_fun_.
>> There didn't use to be such a dichotomy, though one is beginning to take
> shape now. If the game is balanced (as it should be) this dichotomy> will not exist. We should all be able to _play_to_win_ and have it be
> _fun_. We should be able to play any damn deck we choose. Whether we
> are at a tournament or a friendly game in a game store should be
> irrelevant. There should be no need to ban anything in our playgroups
> that isn't banned in tournament play. This all seems very obvious to
> me. It all seems rather important to the health of the game! Go ahead,
> someone tell me I'm wrong; I dare you. :)
>> Robert
> --
> ......................................................................
> :The opinions expressed here are strictly my own delusional ramblings:
> :and do not reflect the opinions of The Walt Disney Company. :
> : :
> :Robert Goudie robert...@studio.disney.com:
> :....................................................................:
> :cigars * v:tes * car rallies * scotch * sega rally champion * spoon :
> :....................................................................:
Maybe we should ask Brett Favre when he goes to the park with his
kids on a Sunday afternoon in July, how different and boring it his for
him not to have the whole Packer's offensive line with him so he can
crush his neighbour's team 763-0 :)
ianb...@aol.com writ5es:
Two points about Jyhad:
>1. There is no scope for resigning / withdrawing if you are fed up and
>want to go home! (without spoiling or unbalancing the game for the
>others.)
We often put the departing player's pool on the deck and say the predator
gets the pool as soon as they can bleed out that pool. It's better than
nothing.
>2. Sometimes however good your deck is it will be totally outclassed by
>the other decks around the table because the combination of the other
>decks basically stymies yours. This happens on a totally random basis
and
>more often than I would like! It can be very annoying to make a new deck
>which you anticipate will be loads of fun to play and which you've
>carefully figured out some varied defences. Then it all goes to pot
>because of what the others play.
This does happen, but should be rare enough to not be a big problem. When
I get into that situation, I play it out. It helps the other players
enjoy the game more; I can stand a little frustration. Besides, every now
and again I win anyway and, boy, is that satisfying.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Michel Rivard wrote:
>
> Robert Goudie wrote:
> >
> > I have seen a number of posts recently where reference is made (whether
> > knowingly or not) to a suppossed dichotomy between tournament style of
> > play and playing for fun. It comes up in debates about card rarity
> > being an excuse for cards being overpowered. It is mentioned often in
> > debates about whether certain styles of play are "cheap" when compared
> > to _playing_for_fun_.
> >
> > There didn't use to be such a dichotomy, though one is beginning to take
> > shape now. If the game is balanced (as it should be) this dichotomy
> > will not exist. We should all be able to _play_to_win_ and have it be
> > _fun_. We should be able to play any damn deck we choose. Whether we
> > are at a tournament or a friendly game in a game store should be
> > irrelevant. There should be no need to ban anything in our playgroups
> > that isn't banned in tournament play. This all seems very obvious to
> > me. It all seems rather important to the health of the game! Go ahead,
> > someone tell me I'm wrong; I dare you. :)
> >
> > Robert
> > --
[sig snipped (sorry Robert)]
>
> Maybe we should ask Brett Favre when he goes to the park with his
> kids on a Sunday afternoon in July, how different and boring it his for
> him not to have the whole Packer's offensive line with him so he can
> crush his neighbour's team 763-0 :)
Hey, if I got paid one tenth of what Brett Favre gets paid to play V:TES,
I might disagree with Robert. Until that time, I will play some pure
nasty ouster decks as well as more wacky decks, with only one goal in
mind - winning.
As a side note, I do not want to make a living off of playing V:TES,
unlike some are trying to do playing M:t$. However if tournament level
play became more popular among current players of Jyhad, and perhaps more
people were brought in, then maybe we might start seeing things like 50$
purses at tournaments. That would be cool (I think - money has strange
effects...)
Chris