home rules 'banned' list

Just completed our local storyline event and every deck at the final had bounce. 2 relied on minion tap/voter cap combos. Its getting old people... 1 idea to freshen the game was to play without bounce but anyone could play a cardless archon investigation. Another is to play with our own banned list (Im looking at you KRC, govern, deflection, awe, minion tap, etc.). I seem to recall someone toying with that very idea on this newsgroup a few years back, if so where is the list and did you playtest it?

talonz wrote: > Just completed our local storyline event and every deck at the final > had bounce. 2 relied on minion tap/voter cap combos. Its getting > old people... If there is that much bounce, why aren't people playing wall decks? If there is that much MT, why aren't people playing combat decks? If there is that much VC, why aren't people playing D.I./Intercept? Why are you interested in changing the fundamental game because you and the other non-winners are unwilling to address your problems with solutions which already exist and should've been implenented? If you really want to become a good player and don't want these kinds of issues to affect you, build and play a variety of decks with different strategies. This way, you'll minimize problems, begin to win a LOT more than you are now, and if the other members of your group have some intelligence you can educate them likewise. Problem solved. [snip solutions for non-existant problems] Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

talonz wrote: > Just completed our local storyline event and every deck at the final > had bounce. 2 relied on minion tap/voter cap combos. Its getting old > people... > > 1 idea to freshen the game was to play without bounce but anyone could > play a cardless archon investigation. > > Another is to play with our own banned list (Im looking at you KRC, > govern, deflection, awe, minion tap, etc.). ??? I could have understood talking about Parity Shift, but KRC ?! In other words you'd want to exclude all the good and efficient cards from your games ? Where will you stop ? Why ban Deflection and not Telepathic Misdirection ? Why ban KRC and not Parity Shift or Reckless Agitation ? Why ban Govern and not Kindred Spirit ? Why ban Awe and not Bewitching (few people use Awe anymore here...) ? Why not ban Majesty, Second Trad, Dreams of the Sphynx, Freak Drive, Palla Grande, Week of Nightmares, Parthenon, Anthelios, DI (both), Sudario Refraction... The list of cards "too good to be true" is long, and some of the above actually could be banned. But if you exclude all those cards you might actually play another game. If you want to trump MT play Villein. If votes are strong on your table include more Delaying Tactics, DI, or make the Camarilla Fall lol. Or play better votes yourself. Or Tupdog their faces. Or block their face. If everyone plays Dom bounce play Perfect Clarity or Touch of Clarity. Or Revelations, or Le Din Tho, or Spying Mission, or Two Wrongs, or Narrow Minds... Aternatively, rather than make some special rules, talk with your friends and tell them you're tired of seeing the same decks over and over again. Propose an "all-fight" night where everyone has to play fight, or a session with no votes, or no bounce, whatever. Find some storyline But don't try to make houserules just because some cards feel stronger than others. That is part of any collecting game. And very few are actually "broken". Orpheus

In my local playgroup, we've already banned the following cards : - all strike: combat ends (because they kill combat decks), with some few exceptions - Rötschreck (too easy to burn a vampire with it) - Guillaume Giovanni (he's too strong) - Dummy Corporation (because of Guillaume, but now we could unban it) - we adapted Target cards to match their description (target head : the vampire can't block nor act, target leg : has -1 stealth, target vitals : becomes sterile) - Archon Investigation - Left for Dead (too strong with allies) - we banned also the imbued

[ quoted text not captured ] I thought the current philosophy regarding bans was to ban whatever Orian is playing ;) //Alex

_angst_ wrote: > On 1 Juni, 12:32, v.rip...@gmail.com wrote: >> In my local playgroup, we've already banned the following cards : >> - all strike: combat ends (because they kill combat decks), with some >> few exceptions >> - R�tschreck (too easy to burn a vampire with it) >> - Guillaume Giovanni (he's too strong) >> - Dummy Corporation (because of Guillaume, but now we could unban it) >> - we adapted Target cards to match their description (target head : >> the vampire can't block nor act, target leg : has -1 stealth, target >> vitals : becomes sterile) >> - Archon Investigation >> - Left for Dead (too strong with allies) >> - we banned also the imbued You forgot Sudario. > I thought the current philosophy regarding bans was to ban whatever > Orian is playing ;) > > //Alex BAN ORIAN !!! That way Didier B. will have someone to play with ! B) ------- Orpheus

On 1 kesä, 08:58, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Why are you interested in changing the fundamental game because > you and the other non-winners are unwilling to address your problems > with solutions which already exist and should've been implenented? My guess is that he wants to change the fundamental game because they're unwilling to address their problems with solutions which already exist. Maybe they find those solutions inadequate or boring. Eliminating major bleed defenses would turn the meta into a Malkavian nightmare which is really not my cup of tea but hey, to each his own. If that's what you want then banning cards seems like the most effective way to skew the metagame. > If you really want to become a good player and don't want these > kinds of issues to affect you, build and play a variety of decks with > different strategies. Metagame preferences are not necessarily a matter of skill.

On Jun 1, 6:32 am, v.rip...@gmail.com wrote: > In my local playgroup, we've already banned the following cards : I mean, if this works for you, go nuts, but really? > - all strike: combat ends (because they kill combat decks), with some > few exceptions Then why isn't everyone just playing the Assamites and burning every vampire on the table? > - Rötschreck (too easy to burn a vampire with it) How? > - Guillaume Giovanni (he's too strong) Wha? I mean, he's good and all, but he is big and expensive and requires you to have a deck full of locations. And not that hard to kill. Especially if he can't play S:CE... > - Dummy Corporation (because of Guillaume, but now we could unban it) Dummy Corp? Really? It is unique, you know. And not much better than an Ascendance, really. Even with Guillaume Giovanni. > - we adapted Target cards to match their description (target head : > the vampire can't block nor act, target leg : has -1 stealth, target > vitals : becomes sterile) Uh, ok? > - Archon Investigation Really? Why aren't the Assamites bleeding for 7 when they aren't burning you? > - Left for Dead (too strong with allies) Wha? Really? What allies are so stong that Left for Dead has that big of an impact? And it is a MOOT, so the Ally has to be killed in combat out of your turn. And then it is tapped and has 1 life. This is making me think that there is some sort of significant rules misunderstanding happening somewhere... > - we banned also the imbued Well, ok. Not really necessary now that they have been tweaked down, but at least I can see an argument. Really. This game is, when people try to change and adapt to different circumstances, very balanced. Yeah, a few cards are over the top (and none of those are ones you mention above). And dominate is too good. But still. Left for Dead? Really? -Peter

On Jun 1, 12:59 am, talonz <talon...@yahoo.ca> wrote: > Just completed our local storyline event and every deck at the final > had bounce. 2 relied on minion tap/voter cap combos. Its getting old > people... Well, ya know, some things are strong. But as Kevin notes (well, in a less diplomatic tone than I'm going with :-), if things get stagnant, it isn't hard to shake things up with deck changes. If people are bouncing all the time, Rush them and beat them up. Or call votes. If people are Minion Tapping too much, play Wash. If people are Voter Capping, play Delaying Tactics (or all the new wacky cards that specifically hose Voter Cap...). I mean, yeah, if everyone is playing the same old jank, and no one is trying to foil the same old jank, the same old jank is going to win. > 1 idea to freshen the game was to play without bounce but anyone could > play a cardless archon investigation. That is kind of interesting, really. But it is the same as saying "You can't bleed for more than 3. Ever.", as no one will every bleed enough to let someone play the insta-AI. I know I have argued many times in the past the the game should have been designed that it was hard to bleed for more than 3 at all (make it so with an inferior discipline, you can bleed for 3 off of 2 cards; with a superior, you can bleed for 4 or 5 off of 2 cards max), but just a blanket "you can't do it" hinders a lot of reasonable decks. > Another is to play with our own banned list (Im looking at you KRC, > govern, deflection, awe, minion tap, etc.). Sure--I can see some of these (Govern, Deflection, Awe for example), but KRC? It is, like, a basic benchmark of action. And totally reasonable. > I seem to recall someone toying with that very idea on this newsgroup > a few years back, if so where is the list and did you playtest it? Not that I know of, but I was heavily involved in the discussion. I think the main precepts were along the lines of: -You should only be able to bleed for 3 with an inferior discipline, and it should take 2 cards. -You should only be able to bleed for 5 with a superior discipline (I think I was ok with +2 bleed on superior abilities) and 2 cards. -Deflection should not exist (Redirection is acceptable as inferior bounce; all other bounce takes a superior discipline, essentially). I think those were the main points of what I was looking at, in terms of slowing down the early game from serious killing. And going from there. But it was all just idle discussion and mostly of the "if we redid the game from the start now, here's what should happen" kinda way. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 1, 12:59 am, talonz <talon...@yahoo.ca> wrote: >> 1 idea to freshen the game was to play without bounce but anyone could >> play a cardless archon investigation. > > That is kind of interesting, really. But it is the same as saying "You > can't bleed for more than 3. Ever.", as no one will every bleed enough > to let someone play the insta-AI. Nah. You could bleed freely for 12 if your prey (or whichever Methuselah you choose to target with Kindred Spirits) has already played a Sudden (or send a chump in to bleed for 6 and get AI'ed, then follow with the bleed of 12).

On Jun 1, 9:38 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Nah. You could bleed freely for 12 if your prey (or whichever Methuselah you > choose to target with Kindred Spirits) has already played a Sudden (or send a > chump in to bleed for 6 and get AI'ed, then follow with the bleed of 12). Oh, heh, yeah, that's true. So as long as you bleed for 6, explode, and *then* bleed for 12, you are gold! -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Or just threaten the bleed of 12, so that your prey will be afraid to explode your 6-bleeder in the first place. All sorts of strategery available there.

> Another is to play with our own banned list (Im looking at you... > deflection... [conditioning] ). This is the only part of your post I can get behind. These cards are way too powerful. The rest of your post I have to respectfully disagree with.

[ quoted text not captured ] It all depends on what the poster means by "a" free Archon : once per game, per turn, each bleed action ? Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] a limit of (something less frequent than) per turn and per bleed action are inherent in "Archon Investigation", since it is an out-of-turn master. per game is possible, if unlikely given the original description, but if true, it does not reduce the validity of the statement above.

On Jun 1, 3:16 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > If people are Minion Tapping too much, play Wash Nonononono. Yuo play a caitiff deck with about 12 Villeins. Really really pisses off people addicted to the old tapncap. Have really gotten into the habit of molding my meta. Too many Malks? See them dementias. Votes going nuts? DT and CotE in every deck. Lots of prevent? Assamites LOVE fortitude. S:CE? Pot has ways of dealing with it. Honestly though, the 1 cap villein thing? Priceless.....

On Jun 1, 12:59 am, talonz <talon...@yahoo.ca> wrote: > I seem to recall someone toying with that very idea on this newsgroup > a few years back, if so where is the list and did you playtest it? Pretty sure that was Ben Swainbank. I know he's talked about something similar with me before. So far as I know, we didn't ever playtest it. John Eno

I played in the tournament yesterday, and I play regularly in local casual games. Our meta is normally very combat heavy, and people play a wide variety of builds; it's not like we've never successfully locked down bleed and vote decks before. But when it came time to build a deck for a tournament, nearly everyone built one around dominate (two Tremere, two Ventura, and one Eurobrujah in the final).

On Jun 1, 11:26 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nonononono. Yuo play a caitiff deck with about 12 Villeins. Really > really pisses off people addicted to the old tapncap. Can you Villein a 1 cap? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Sure. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread/7b6de64689f93d5e

On Jun 1, 12:59 am, talonz <talon...@yahoo.ca> wrote: > > 1 idea to freshen the game was to play without bounce but anyone could > play a cardless archon investigation. > > Another is to play with our own banned list (Im looking at you KRC, > govern, deflection, awe, minion tap, etc.). > > I seem to recall someone toying with that very idea on this newsgroup > a few years back, if so where is the list and did you playtest it? I advocated for banning/changing some staple cards in this post, a few years back: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread/33a9a1db5f9b388a/5fe34af6be25577c?hl=en&q= My interest then was, not in creating local banned list, but in the evolution of the game. Since then, we haven't seen core card banned or changed. But we have seen a number of new "silver bullet" type cards. Vessle and Villein have changed the roll of Blood Doll and Minion Tap. Scourge of the Enochians is a powerful counter to breed/boon strategies. Dark Influences vs Direct Intervention etc... The evolution is occurring, but via introduction of new cards that target the old ones rather than changing or banning existing cards. Overall, I think this is a clever strategy. Changing the dynamic via clever design and introduction is preferable to errata and banning. The trick is getting the "silver bullet" to hit the target just right. Make the new cards too weak (Dark Influences?) and the new card doesn't change anything. Make it too strong (Villein?) and you've just replaced one strong card with a stronger card (actually, I think Villein is quite well designed. I just wish it was easier to get.). So, no, I haven't played with a local banned list. Nor do I recommend one. But the changes I advocated for are occurring. Slowly. And by targeted design. -Ben Swainbank

On 1 Juni, 15:07, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > <- snip peters confusion -> > IIRC Mr Ripolls local playgroup is Paris, France. That might be worth considering ;) //Alex

v.ri...@gmail.com wrote: > In my local playgroup, we've already banned the following cards : > - all strike: combat ends (because they kill combat decks), with some > few exceptions > - R�tschreck (too easy to burn a vampire with it) > - Guillaume Giovanni (he's too strong) > - Dummy Corporation (because of Guillaume, but now we could unban it) > - we adapted Target cards to match their description (target head : > the vampire can't block nor act, target leg : has -1 stealth, target > vitals : becomes sterile) > - Archon Investigation > - Left for Dead (too strong with allies) > - we banned also the imbued Where is this, so I know never to play there? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 1, 2:24 pm, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote: > IIRC Mr Ripolls local playgroup is Paris, France. > That might be worth considering ;) Why would that be worth considering? Is Left for Dead much better in Paris? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't understand this. The complaint is that you keep seeing the same old cards, but clearly, people want to use those cards, or else they wouldn't do so. So what's the problem? You don't need to ban cards to keep people from playing them if they don't want to, and if they do want to, why should you ban cards that people want to play? John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] My point is that the post was a joke. But I might be wrong. Regards Alex

On Jun 1, 4:36 pm, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote: > My point is that the post was a joke. Ohhhh. Yeah, I didn't get that at all. Are, like, people in Paris extra funny or something? Still not getting it... -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote: >> My point is that the post was a joke. > > Ohhhh. Yeah, I didn't get that at all. Are, like, people in Paris > extra funny or something? > > Still not getting it... SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T USE EMOTICONS, PETER!! ;) =) :D :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 1, 12:58 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > talonz wrote: > > Just completed our local storyline event and every deck at the final > > had bounce. 2 relied on minion tap/voter cap combos. Its getting > > old people... > > If there is that much bounce, why aren't people playing wall decks? > > If there is that much MT, why aren't people playing combat decks? > > If there is that much VC, why aren't people playing D.I./Intercept? > > Why are you interested in changing the fundamental game because > you and the other non-winners are unwilling to address your problems > with solutions which already exist and should've been implenented? > > If you really want to become a good player and don't want these > kinds of issues to affect you, build and play a variety of decks with > different strategies. This way, you'll minimize problems, begin to win > a LOT more than you are now, and if the other members of your group > have some intelligence you can educate them likewise. Problem solved. > > [snip solutions for non-existant problems] > > Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas The problem is a little more complex than that. For your proposed solution via deckbuilding the following needs to happen: 1.You have to deckbuild against the right deck that you happen to sit down at a table with 2. You have to be generally seated predator/prey to have enough effect without tossing your own game out of the window Item 1 can be difficult. In many groups people change decks a fair bit. Sure this guy's main deck might be really easy to defeat when you know he is going to play it, but do you bring nothing but combat decks in the hopes of catching his minion tap/voter cap deck to the next three tournaments with no guarantee that you are going to see it? And when you do see the deck there's an equal chance you will end up cross table as there is predator prey. In trying to change my local meta I've often found myself across the table from the deck I'm trying to actively discourage. I can either divert resources (actions, cards, etc) from my goal (oust prey) or I can wait until I get through a person or two. If I wait they're generally going to get enough going (assuming no one else at the table is trying the same thing I am) that they can use momentum to carry themselves forward to victory. If I don't wait I risk tossing my game down the crapper. And its great if my IG/combat deck never get's ousted by voter cap/bloat, but if voter cap bloat still picks up the game win it does not really matter. The other problem of the really powerful cards is the effect they have on new players. New players who are victims of repetitive, powerful combos or cards often do not have the knowledge to figure out the appropriate strategy to defeat them. If they do figure it out they may not have the cards, and on top of that their "solution" is still subject to the 2 points above. And the most tragic effect of overpowered cards on newbies is that they tend to either imitate the deck (does not really address the issue) or give up on the game. Ideally they figure out a solution, but for new players when crushed by a deck that seems overpowered will not particularly enjoy the game making their continued participation less likely. I'm not saying that a banned list is the solution. All I'm saying, is that trying to shift a local meta game away from those cards is not easy, and it often does not work as a player would like it to. (unintended consequences). Having said that I'm glad WW seems to be trying to address some of the issues (Minion tap for example with villion). But more could be done. [And I would like to go on record saying left for dead is not broken]. Cheers, John P. Winnipeg

[ quoted text not captured ] Pa-risian. It's like meeting the man of your dreams, then meeting his beautiful... husband. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Jun 1, 5:47 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T USE EMOTICONS, PETER!! > > ;) =) :D :-) Bleah. I don't think a smiley would have made this made any more sense to me. There is clearly some joke here that revolves around knowing what people play like in Paris. As I don't know what people play like in Paris, no amount of smileys in the world will make the joke make sense. That, and he *did* use a smiley, now that I check back. It was clear that his comment was a joke of some type. But without knowing the ins and outs of the Paris VTES scene, I got nothing. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I wasn't saying that there's a problem, and I wasn't agreeing that those cards should be banned. I was providing context for the original comment.

[ quoted text not captured ] Don't read to much into it Peter. Perhaps it wasn't even a joke. I however did take it as one considering the rather funny list of cards and the fact the the playgroup that would use these rules would be Paris. But as I said, perhaps it's just me. I kinda did take the entire thread as a joke. Regards Alex

[ quoted text not captured ] In the email from v.ri...@gmail.com dated Monday, June 01, there was no smiley. I'm no longer sure what message you're talking about. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 2 Juni, 00:30, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > I'm no longer sure what message you're talking about. > Then, perhaps he wasnät kidding ;) //Alex

On Jun 1, 6:29 pm, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote: > Don't read to much into it Peter. I wasn't reading much into it from the get go--I was like "Huh. That is a strange bunch of cards to ban", and you were like "He is from Paris", and I was all like "Wha?" and here we are :-) -Peter

On Jun 1, 6:30 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > In the email from v.rip...@gmail.com dated Monday, June 01, there > was no smiley. > > I'm no longer sure what message you're talking about. Ah. So much confusion. I can't get no relief. Ok, so there is a theory that the post which was "We play with Left for Dead banned" was a joke? Because the guy writing it is from Paris. Is this what is going on here? Yeah, see, if *that* post had a smiley, that would have cleared something up. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] It's a really funny joke :) Mostly because it's ludacris... But no joke is funny if it has to be explained so it's probably best if we leave it at that. Regards Alex

On 1 juin, 15:07, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 6:32 am, v.rip...@gmail.com wrote: > > > In my local playgroup, we've already banned the following cards : > > I mean, if this works for you, go nuts, but really? > > > - all strike: combat ends (because they kill combat decks), with some > > few exceptions > > Then why isn't everyone just playing the Assamites and burning every > vampire on the table? > > > - Rötschreck (too easy to burn a vampire with it) > > How? > > > - Guillaume Giovanni (he's too strong) > > Wha? I mean, he's good and all, but he is big and expensive and > requires you to have a deck full of locations. And not that hard to > kill. Especially if he can't play S:CE... > > > - Dummy Corporation (because of Guillaume, but now we could unban it) > > Dummy Corp? Really? It is unique, you know. And not much better than > an Ascendance, really. Even with Guillaume Giovanni. > > -Peter Actually, we are considering banning Ascendance too. It has won tournaments : http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k8wonwednesday

On 2 Juni, 00:37, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 6:30 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > > In the email from v.rip...@gmail.com dated Monday, June 01, there > > was no smiley. > > > I'm no longer sure what message you're talking about. > > Ah. So much confusion. I can't get no relief. > > Ok, so there is a theory that the post which was "We play with Left > for Dead banned" was a joke? Because the guy writing it is from Paris. > Is this what is going on here? > Basically yes. But any group banning left for dead or dummy corp would be funny. > Yeah, see, if *that* post had a smiley, that would have cleared > something up. > Not really, part of the joke was the joke being obfuscated :) //Alex

On Jun 1, 6:47 pm, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote: > Not really, part of the joke was the joke being obfuscated :) Ah, the deep level humor. Check! -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] That deck is broken :oO

On Jun 1, 10:52 am, bswainb...@hotmail.com wrote: > > I advocated for banning/changing some staple cards in this post, a few > years back: > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_f... > Ah thanks ben! Thats the thread I was looking for. > My interest then was, not in creating local banned list, but in the > evolution of the game. > I think 'banned' list was a bit of a misnomer. What myself and a few top locals were discussing was a variant game to try for fun. They came up with the no bounce/always archon available idea. I always wanted to play a type II tourney where certain groups (1 and 2 most likely, maybe even 3) were not allowed, to encourage new crypt use. Then I recalled that thread you linked to and it piqued my interest, as too often the same old standbys are seen in deck after deck after deck. Its getting old. I'd like to see something I havnt seen before. Id like to see new cards selected over old ones. A variant game with the top 2-5% of cards not available could be really interesting. How does dom play if it cant bounce? How does the standard cam vote deck play if it cant krc? etc etc. Its an experiment Id like to try. And for Kevin etal, Im a 3 time qualifier and former prince who has played since the game first came out, even before it was on the market even. So my skill or my players skills are not the issue here. Staleness is. > Since then, we haven't seen core card banned or changed. But we have > seen a number of new "silver bullet" type cards. Believe me Ive noticed. The problem is they tend to just replace the old ones, or be so good that they are simply golden bullets. Note how some suggested sudden/wash or DI as the 'solution' to what they thought the problem was. Those golden bullets are not the answer and are boring as hell. Im all for more subtle changes in the game as well. How about a new victory mechanism perhaps? But I digress... Will look over that old thread again and see what kind of variant restricted list I can come up with. T

> I don't understand this. The complaint is that you keep seeing the > same old cards, but clearly, people want to use those cards, or else > they wouldn't do so. So what's the problem? You don't need to ban > cards to keep people from playing them if they don't want to, and if > they do want to, why should you ban cards that people want to play? Well said. If we're taking the opportunity to complain about seeing the same old thing over and over, then I'd like to point out that incessant whining about Dominate on this newsgroup is getting really old folks. jase

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 16:52:20 -0700 (PDT), talonz wrote: >I always >wanted to play a type II tourney where certain groups (1 and 2 most >likely, maybe even 3) were not allowed, to encourage new crypt use. You can do this. Choose perhaps Legacies of Blood + Ebony Kingdom + Third Edition Sabbat + Sword of Caine. Or something like that. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules 6.1.1. Set Restrictions The tournament organizer may limit players to the use of one or more card sets. For example, the tournament organizer may require players to restrict their decks to cards from the Dark Sovereigns and Final Nights card sets. The tournament organizer must advertise any card set restrictions prior to the event. All cards will be required to use the most recent card texts even if the revised card text appears in a set not allowed in the current event. Example: In an event restricted to the use of the V:TES base set, the Master card "Misdirection" would still tap only one minion.

[snips random stuff] Solutions to Vote Decks... "No Vote for You" = Scalpel Tongue or any "The Ventrue Anti-tribbu gently inform you that your opinion no longer matters" deck "Your cap Fails!" = Final Loosening (Anarch GOLD against vote decks...) "Fight your way to the Presidency" = Yawp Court + BIG PILE OF COMBAT "Voting requires ready minions right?" = Swarm Potence, Swarm Protean Solutions to Bleed Decks.... Bleed Reduce... !Salubri are possibly the best bleed reduce clan in the game, especially the Laibon ones. (Terra Incognita, For reduce, Auspex Reduce, Valeren Reduce...at least 1 reduce card for each clan discipline) Wall of Guns + Keep it Simple... "If you EVER get your bleed around me, I'm reducing it by 7 mo-fo." Protected Resources... "Hope you enjoy choking on your bleed mods dude... I'm going to Oust via Fame/Dragonbound/Tensions..." Solutions to Flick... Narrow Minds Flicking requires minions... Rush Combat anyone? Flicking requires Blood... Theft/Blood Denial See Solutions for Bleed (you stop caring about things being flicked at you) We see a fairly broad mix in our playgroup because there are at least a few players who have a handful of decks with very very different premises. However, there is no "be-all and end-all" deck in VTES... some run smoother than others sure... but some of the best decks out there don't even have Dominate.

On May 31, 9:59 pm, talonz <talon...@yahoo.ca> wrote: > Just completed our local storyline event and every deck at the final > had bounce. 2 relied on minion tap/voter cap combos. Its getting old > people... > > 1 idea to freshen the game was to play without bounce but anyone could > play a cardless archon investigation. > > Another is to play with our own banned list (Im looking at you KRC, > govern, deflection, awe, minion tap, etc.). > > I seem to recall someone toying with that very idea on this newsgroup > a few years back, if so where is the list and did you playtest it? As others have suggested, there is the concept of metagaming. Metagaming around here is a waste of time as there's no standard. But, if your environment is as stale as you suggest, I'm not clear on why someone wouldn't bring a weenie Obfuscate deck with a bunch of Delaying Tactics and Suddens or whatever other metagame breaking deck to the table. I do understand what you mean by a general staleness creeping into some CCG groups. But, that's what happens with CCGs that don't restrict/reboot their environments. Good stuff squeezes out bad and anything new that isn't good enough can get ignored. The brokenness of, say, Dominate has never been challenged in this game's history, which, while not preventing a decent level of variety, has warped things to where the game is more predictable than it could have been. Yet, there is a reason that other groups aren't seeing the staleness problem. For one thing, lack of metagame shifts created by card pool changes is more of a concern with two-player CCGs. Even if you take the approach to V:TES that winning is the only important thing, the multiplayer nature of the game enables ganging up on strong stuff to where jank can win (as we see with TW decks). Then, because multiplayer CCGs really aren't suited for more competitive people, you tend to get people who want to play stuff that's suboptimal, so many groups don't have a staleness problem just because people play any old jank. If you are out of step with your group on the competitiveness spectrum, there's always trying to find other players or encourage people to view the game differently.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 1, 4:36 pm, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote: >> My point is that the post was a joke. > > Ohhhh. Yeah, I didn't get that at all. Are, like, people in Paris > extra funny or something? Vincent is not funny. I am. And women prefer me too. But it was a joke. > Still not getting it... > > -Peter Vincent said in other words and with irony the same things you did : mass banning as houserules is just silly. Orpheus

James Coupe wrote: > Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> On Jun 1, 4:36 pm, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote: >>> My point is that the post was a joke. >> >> Ohhhh. Yeah, I didn't get that at all. Are, like, people in Paris >> extra funny or something? >> >> Still not getting it... > > Pa-risian. > > It's like meeting the man of your dreams, then meeting his > beautiful... husband. You must confuse us with brazilians.

>> Actually, we are considering banning Ascendance too. It has won >> tournaments :http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k8wonwednesday > > That deck is broken :oO Yes, and that has nothing to do with the 12 Nephandus, the 7 Ascendance are the thing that kills, really ! (Assamites just to play Obf and Haqim's Law ?? 7 Ascendance instead of a zillion better cards ? What the heck ???) Orpheus

Kevin M. wrote: > v.ri...@gmail.com wrote: >> In my local playgroup, we've already banned the following cards : >> - all strike: combat ends (because they kill combat decks), with >> some few exceptions >> - R�tschreck (too easy to burn a vampire with it) >> - Guillaume Giovanni (he's too strong) >> - Dummy Corporation (because of Guillaume, but now we could unban >> it) - we adapted Target cards to match their description (target head : >> the vampire can't block nor act, target leg : has -1 stealth, target >> vitals : becomes sterile) >> - Archon Investigation >> - Left for Dead (too strong with allies) >> - we banned also the imbued > > Where is this, so I know never to play there? Know that asking a location question is always a risky thing to do. In France we have a ready answer for that...

[ quoted text not captured ] Dude, anyone can win with good cards. Winning with ascendance, now that recuires skill ;) //alex

On Jun 2, 4:11 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > Vincent is not funny. I am. And women prefer me too. But it was a joke. Oh, ok. His comedy was *way* too subtle. Especially from someone who doesn't post here that often. Next time, he should ban Eyes of the Night. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] It was, of course, a joke. The point was to demonstrate that any card could be banned because someone thinks it's broken. In my imaginary playground, players were apparently frustrated not being able to play a Well-aimed Car and would rather ban cards than adapt they decks and strategies. (The Guillaume point was a nearly private joke though -- Guillaume has won some tournaments still). Ah, it's time to add a smiley :)

On Jun 2, 10:20 am, v.rip...@gmail.com wrote: > It was, of course, a joke. The point was to demonstrate that any card > could be banned because someone thinks it's broken. In my imaginary > playground, players were apparently frustrated not being able to play > a Well-aimed Car and would rather ban cards than adapt they decks and > strategies. (The Guillaume point was a nearly private joke though -- > Guillaume has won some tournaments still). Ah, I blame myself. I probably should have spent more time thinking "Huh. That is probably comedy..." Sorry for the madness that ensued :-) -Peter

On Jun 1, 6:28 pm, DeathInABottle <li...@uvic.ca> wrote: > I wasn't saying that there's a problem, and I wasn't agreeing that > those cards should be banned. I was providing context for the > original comment. Sure. The "you" in my comment was directed at the person who started the thread, then, not you in particular, DIaB. John Eno

On Jun 1, 4:04 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 4:36 pm, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote: > > > My point is that the post was a joke. > > Ohhhh. Yeah, I didn't get that at all. Are, like, people in Paris > extra funny or something? > > Still not getting it... > Peter, in the absence of smileys, you have to use clues from context... > In my local playgroup, we've already banned the following cards : > - all strike: combat ends (because they kill combat decks), with some > few exceptions > - Rötschreck (too easy to burn a vampire with it) > - Guillaume Giovanni (he's too strong) > - Dummy Corporation (because of Guillaume, but now we could unban it) There's your first clue. Who would ban Dummy Corp? > - we adapted Target cards to match their description (target head : > the vampire can't block nor act, target leg : has -1 stealth, target > vitals : becomes sterile) Come on now, that's pure comedy right there. Who would seriously house-rule-errata T:V to make the vamp sterile? It's funny though. > - Archon Investigation > - Left for Dead (too strong with allies) Left for Dead - not super funny, but still obviously not serious. Yes, saying "Eyes of the" instead of "Left for" would have hammered the point home a little more, but I suspect he was going more high- brow and less slapstick... =) > - we banned also the imbued I think you just had a broken sarcasm detector on this one. Or you were on crack.

On Jun 2, 10:52 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > Still not getting it... > > Peter, in the absence of smileys, you have to use clues from > context... No, no, the "still not getting it" was in the context of: A) Original post was serious. B) The follow up post was "It's 'cause he is from Paris". C) I was not getting what Paris had to do with it. See, I *totally* missed that the original "We Banned Left for Dead" was comedy. 'Cause I'm dumb. And where the further confusion came from was Angst saying "It's 'cause he is from Paris" as if pointing out that he was from Paris explained why he would ban those things (as I was still thinking it was a serious post), which resulted in me being confused by what Paris had to do with anything. See, if Angst had opened with "It was a joke", I wouldn't have been confused and lost my mind... -Peter

On Jun 2, 9:57 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 10:52 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > > A) Original post was serious. > > B) The follow up post was "It's 'cause he is from Paris". > > C) I was not getting what Paris had to do with it. > > See, I *totally* missed that the original "We Banned Left for Dead" > was comedy. 'Cause I'm dumb. And where the further confusion came from > was Angst saying "It's 'cause he is from Paris" as if pointing out > that he was from Paris explained why he would ban those things (as I > was still thinking it was a serious post), which resulted in me being > confused by what Paris had to do with anything. > My take was that "his local playgroup is Paris, France" was pointing out that it wasn't some backwater town where they might play crazy- style V:TES. Paris being a major city with (I assume) a large number of tournament players, would tend to make the house-rule-banning and errata of such cards, especially non-broken ones, especially ridiculous.

On Jun 2, 11:42 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > My take was that "his local playgroup is Paris, France" was pointing > out that it wasn't some backwater town where they might play crazy- > style V:TES. Ah, see, I read "He is from Paris" as if being from Paris had some inherrent meaning that I was unaware of (People from Paris are extra funny? People from Paris like to ban cards? People from Paris are the exact opposite of liking ban cards?). So I got confused. Really, the problem is that I'm dumb and didn't get the original gag, and then it spiraled out of control... -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Peter, I think what the He is from Paris quote meant that the "banning" of cards refers sometimes specifically to some of Orian Gissler (TTC; CoinCoin Master)'s favorite cards/playstyle etc: In my local playgroup, we've already banned the following cards : - all strike: combat ends (because they kill combat decks), with some few exceptions - R�tschreck (too easy to burn a vampire with it) - Guillaume Giovanni (he's too strong) TTC has been winning a lot with a deck based around Guillaume. http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k9nfeqparis - Dummy Corporation (because of Guillaume, but now we could unban it) - we adapted Target cards to match their description (target head : the vampire can't block nor act, target leg : has -1 stealth, target vitals : becomes sterile) This is just humor, esp Target vitals. - Archon Investigation - Left for Dead (too strong with allies) Shambling hordes decks; Khazar decks. http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k8eclcqpcr etc. - we banned also the imbued best - chris

On Jun 2, 12:55 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Peter, I think what the He is from Paris quote meant that the "banning" > of cards refers sometimes specifically to some of Orian Gissler (TTC; > CoinCoin Master)'s favorite cards/playstyle etc: Oh, ok. If I was closely following the career of Orian Gissler (and knew that he was from Paris), I'm sure I would have thought it was hi- sterical. :-) -Peter

talonz wrote: > I think 'banned' list was a bit of a misnomer. What myself and > a few top locals were discussing was a variant game to try for fun. and > Its getting old. I'd like to see something I havnt seen before. http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt Try this. I'm trying to get it made into a rated format. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

On Jun 1, 4:03 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 12:23 pm, DeathInABottle <li...@uvic.ca> wrote: > > > I played in the tournament yesterday, and I play regularly in local > > casual games. Our meta is normally very combat heavy, and people play > > a wide variety of builds; it's not like we've never successfully > > locked down bleed and vote decks before. But when it came time to > > build a deck for a tournament, nearly everyone built one around > > dominate (two Tremere, two Ventura, and one Eurobrujah in the final). > > I don't understand this. The complaint is that you keep seeing the > same old cards, but clearly, people want to use those cards, or else > they wouldn't do so. So what's the problem? You don't need to ban > cards to keep people from playing them if they don't want to, and if > they do want to, why should you ban cards that people want to play? > > John Eno It's not hard to understand. For the general sitting about playing the Jyhads, it seems they want to play something that doesn't involve chains and bouncing, because tons of bouncing and chain-usage leads to a game that basically blows. However, when it's time to get more serious, that is, to play in a tournament, they recognize the necessity of moving to strategies that are, for instance, successful. I understand this because my own play group is not far different. We play a lot of combat and weird-ass combo decks when we are just mucking about on a semi-regular basis - primarily because the game is more fun that way. When it's time to go win target Orgy of Mystery or whatnot, however, we make sure we are either packing bounce or can deal with it, have a means of dealing with Infi-Computer-Hacking-With- Weenies.dec, and can either out-vote others or stop other voting. This is the basic dichotomy of the game. Certain strategies have been developed as superior to others. Kevin Mergen's question about why combat as a strategy isn't employed is simply answered: maybe they'd like to win once in a while. And, as the TWDA illustrates, combat is not one of your more successful strategies. At the end of the day, if the original poster wants to make his local play group's games better, I don't see a reason why there should be a ton of hand wringing and talk of burning heretics. I may not agree with all of the specific cards, but I agree with the concept. And, Kevin Mergen, thank you for placing in your signature the location that you are prince of, such that I will never mistakenly play there. <3 -Kaiser

alei...@stny.rr.com wrote: > And, Kevin Mergen, thank you for placing in your signature the > location that you are prince of, such that I will never mistakenly > play there. As I've never heard of you before, you're no one to be avoided. I also play in L.A. and Columbus, Ohio, if you'd like to avoid ME. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 2, 8:13 pm, aleis...@stny.rr.com wrote: > It's not hard to understand. For the general sitting about playing > the Jyhads, it seems they want to play something that doesn't involve > chains and bouncing, because tons of bouncing and chain-usage leads to > a game that basically blows. However, when it's time to get more > serious, that is, to play in a tournament, they recognize the > necessity of moving to strategies that are, for instance, successful. This would make perfect sense if the only way to win was to employ the cards that the group doesn't normally like to play. Given that such isn't the case, though, I'm still not seeing how these statements make sense. > This is the basic dichotomy of the game. Certain strategies have been > developed as superior to others. Except when people win some of the most competitive events in the world without using the strategies and cards that are supposedly necessary to win. Like with Ahrimanes, say, or Assamites. John Eno

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 2, 10:52 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >>> Still not getting it... >> >> Peter, in the absence of smileys, you have to use clues from >> context... > > No, no, the "still not getting it" was in the context of: > > A) Original post was serious. > > B) The follow up post was "It's 'cause he is from Paris". > > C) I was not getting what Paris had to do with it. > > See, I *totally* missed that the original "We Banned Left for Dead" > was comedy. 'Cause I'm dumb. And where the further confusion came from > was Angst saying "It's 'cause he is from Paris" as if pointing out > that he was from Paris explained why he would ban those things (as I > was still thinking it was a serious post), which resulted in me being > confused by what Paris had to do with anything. All of this could have been serious if he'd said "I am from Lyon". Not kidding. Believe me, you just don't want to know how they play there...

[ quoted text not captured ] Ahrimanes play intercept. That is a valid winning strategy. They also can play stealth bleed, and that works too. The Assamites have won several tournies recently. But the decks weren't combat oriented. Winning with combat assamites stays exceptionnal, and even more so if we're not talking Tariq. Orpheus

> The Assamites have won several tournies recently. But the decks weren't > combat oriented. Winning with combat assamites stays exceptionnal, and even > more so if we're not talking Tariq. > > Orpheus- Hide quoted text - > This is what the problem with the game is. This game is paper,rock, and scissors. However right now rock (combat) is pretty far behind in the winning tournaments. Before anyone points out that combat has won. Yes I know it can win but it has a much harder time then Vote or stealth bleed. I think what Kaiser was trying to point out above is it fine to bring the Vote or stealth bleed when you want to win a tournament but at local play groups it's time to break out the fun things you want to try. If your play group is not into doing that fine. >As I've never heard of you before, you're no one to be avoided. I also play in L.A. and Columbus, Ohio, if you'd like to avoid ME. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas > I have to say these comments bother me coming from a Prince. I would thik you try to promote the game a little better. The comment you made does not suprise me. This is something I have seen at larger tournaments from known players from VTES. If you are not someone they know then you are not worth their time. I won't say it's from everyone but it happens more than it should. Since I have had this issue I do not travel to large torunaments anymore. I stick to my local playgroup and going to Ithaca is about as far as I travel. Peter hosts great events. Sean

invisi...@aol.com wrote: >> The Assamites have won several tournies recently. But the decks >> weren't combat oriented. Winning with combat assamites stays >> exceptionnal, and even more so if we're not talking Tariq. >> >> Orpheus- Hide quoted text - >> > > > This is what the problem with the game is. This game is paper,rock, > and scissors. However right now rock (combat) is pretty far behind in > the winning tournaments. Before anyone points out that combat has won. > Yes I know it can win but it has a much harder time then Vote or > stealth bleed. I think what Kaiser was trying to point out above is > it fine to bring the Vote or stealth bleed when you want to win a > tournament but at local play groups it's time to break out the fun > things you want to try. If your play group is not into doing that > fine. Oh, sure, most of the tournie decks deflect ! Or build walls. Or try to go very fast. We know the game is biased that way, and no matter the new cards or rules it stays biased. Sometimes it saddens me, but that's the way things are. Some weenie or midcap rush decks succeed without bounce. Some (including Assamites) bloat decks do, too. Oh, and BTW : fighting has never been a winning strategy in and by itself. You win by making your prey lose pool. So fight usually succeeds combined with another tactic : - bruise and bleed - bruise and vote - wall fight - rush and swarm and sometimes, pure rush, but at some point you have to bleed regularly with a few minions if you want to win... Orpheus

On Jun 3, 3:34 pm, invisible...@aol.com wrote: > >As I've never heard of you before, you're no one to be avoided. This comment actually screams with the amount of arrogance it displays. For someone who is purportedly supposed to try and increase the number of players in their area, this is IMO a very unfortunate way to view things. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 3, 10:11 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > - Show quoted text - I agree with what you have said that at some point you have to be able to bleed. The issue I have is that combat expends so many cards to deal with strike:combat ends that it make it more diffuclt to get bleed cards in the deck. When someone is playing potence you have an easier time because of grapple. It would be nice if they gave some of the other combat decks something as well. My thought there is something out there already that could be modified. First strike is terrible right now but if you changed it so it really was first strike that would help. Let it strike before combat ends and it will help the other decks out there that do not have potence. It would be just as easy to give first strike to the other combat discplines. I think celerity should be able to do it best but you adjust the cost for any non celerity discplines. Just my thoughts. Sean

[ quoted text not captured ] Save Third Strike!!! From CAFSES (Committee Against First Strike Ever Striking) And just for my good friend Peter ;)

On Jun 3, 7:21 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > Ahrimanes play intercept. That is a valid winning strategy. They also can > play stealth bleed, and that works too. You missed my point, which is that Anthony Coleman's deck doesn't play KRC, Govern, Deflection, Awe or Minion Tap, which are the cards that the OP was saying are overpowered/overused. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Ok, yes, I did miss your point because it wasn't stated as you just did (nor did you make any allusion to Anthony's deck). So it is obvious that there are many good cards and disciplines in this game, and therefore many ways to win. A "house ban list" would be a very bad idea, if only because it would be impossible to balance. Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] The original poster might want those cards banned because he thinks the only viable counters to them are boring as well.

suolir...@gmail.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] "only viable" ? The list is long. And when I find a game boring, I just stop playing it. Of course maybe that's just me...

On 3 kesä, 18:32, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > > The original poster might want those cards banned because he thinks > > the only viable counters to them are boring as well. > > "only viable" ? The list is long. That's debatable. The tournament trend seems to be either Balls-To-The- Wall or The-Wall. > And when I find a game boring, I just stop playing it. Of course maybe > that's just me... I'd try turning the metagame on it's head with a banned list before that. (Well, actually I think restricting the card list to a specific set would be more interesting.)

On Jun 3, 10:42 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > From CAFSES (Committee Against First Strike Ever Striking) > > And just for my good friend Peter > > ;)- Hide quoted text - I'm not the one that needs smileys! I (usually) get jokes! I'm a clever guy! -Peter

suolir...@gmail.com wrote: > On 3 kes�, 18:32, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: >> suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: >>> The original poster might want those cards banned because he thinks >>> the only viable counters to them are boring as well. >> >> "only viable" ? The list is long. > > That's debatable. The tournament trend seems to be either > Balls-To-The- Wall or The-Wall. Meaning ? >> And when I find a game boring, I just stop playing it. Of course >> maybe that's just me... > > I'd try turning the metagame on it's head with a banned list before > that. (Well, actually I think restricting the card list to a specific > set would be more interesting.) At some point I found the official Heroclix tournament rules boring, and stopped the game. Luckily it's a game where scenarios are easily implemented, and fun, and allow to renew the team composition with every game / event, so I took interest in it again when I found a playgroup doing that (a lot). You'll notice that it didn't mean changing any rule, just making scenarios, among which you can choose the criteria that will exclude the cheesiest figs / powers. In VTES this type of thinking isn't included in the rules, but then the game is much more balanced overall. It doesn't need mass banning (I really pretty much have only Anthelios left on my list). It might need better vards for the weakest strategies, but not allowing the (several) good cards doesn't cut it. You can make a tournie with set restrictions, but really this won't be worth the effort. I know I wouldn't make a special deck with only cards from some sets just for a tournie or two (it's way more complicated than many other themed tournies). Of course you could make a scenario that excludes Camarilla, but deciding that some cards don't work will just overpower some others, and it's a never-ending story. Not a very interesting one either. As would say Anhkur : play the game ! ;-) And I'll add : enjoy it. Orpheus

invisi...@aol.com wrote: > KevinM wrote: >> As I've never heard of you before, you're no one to be avoided. > >> I also play in L.A. and Columbus, Ohio, if you'd like to avoid ME. > > I have to say these comments bother me coming from a Prince. > I would thik you try to promote the game a little better. I promote the game when and where I can. When I replied to v.ri...@gmail.com, in his message which had no indication that it was a joke, "Where is this, so I know never to play there?", I was saying that I don't want to play in a "house" environment, since I believe the game to be terrible the way he was suggesting. (Yes, we all understand now it was a joke-post; I wouldn't have said anything if I knew it was a joke-post, obviously.) When alei...@stny.rr.com thanked me for letting him know where I play so he would never play here and I replied with the above comments, I think you see a couple of back-and-forth interwebs posts which don't really mean anything serious. Perhaps *I* should have used some emoticons! :) =) ;) :-) Kevin M., Bad Prince of Las Vegas [ quoted text not captured ]

>Blooded Sand wrote: >> invisible...@aol.com wrote: >>> KevinM wrote: >>> As I've never heard of you before, you're no one to be avoided. >>> I also play in L.A. and Columbus, Ohio, if you'd like to avoid ME. >> >> I have to say these comments bother me coming from a Prince. >> I would thik you try to promote the game a little better. > > This comment actually screams with the amount of arrogance it > displays. For someone who is purportedly supposed to try and > increase the number of players in their area, this is IMO a very > unfortunate way to view things. SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T USE EMOTICONS, PETER!! It's like these people have never posted on the interwebs before! :) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jun 3, 11:31 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > Ok, yes, I did miss your point because it wasn't stated as you just did (nor > did you make any allusion to Anthony's deck). I did allude to Anthony's deck when I mentioned Ahrimanes winning the most competitive tournaments, but obviously was too oblique. Sorry I wasn't more clear. > So it is obvious that there are many good cards and disciplines in this > game, and therefore many ways to win. A "house ban list" would be a very bad > idea, if only because it would be impossible to balance. It's also starting down a slippery slope, because some cards are always going to be more powerful than others. If you ban the most powerful, what's to stop you from then banning the next-most powerful, and so on and so on, until you end up with everyone playing decks that are nothing but Phobia and Eyes of the Dead? John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] I know, I know!!1! thats why its so funny...