on deals, the Club, and play...

My thread! Mine! Mine! Seriously, there are plenty of other threads running about with variants; I just want to shovel it all out separately so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle. So, on deals. Pat has "outed" me; I did, in fact, do an Evil Thing at DragonCon and offer a 3-2 (rollover) deal to my predator at about the 1:15 mark of the 3rd round. Though I was already in possession of 1VP (thou shalt not suffer the Lucian Mind-Rape deck to live), it was certainly justified as I was looking at a big zero otherwise, with intercept/combat in front of me and vote/combat behind me. Afraid that my Tzimisce voters were packing plenty of aggravated eye-poke to counter his Grapple Potence, he accepted the deal, and it pretty much went down as Pat described in his own message. Pat eventually transferred himself out to prevent one, I got my 2nd, then conceded the last 2 with five minutes remaining. Why? Because the only combat cards in my deck were 6 Meld with the Land, and while breaking the deal could possibly have resulted in a timeout, it seemed like a bad idea to risk it - I no longer had vote lock and it would have become rapidly obvious that I had been snowing him the entire game. So while that's an example of a suitable rollover (since you can't profitably break the deal, better keep it), I saw quite a few examples of unwise rollovers and table-splits throughout DragonCon... especially at the four-player tables, where a 2-2 isn't inherently "losing". People with excellent positions were backing off and dumping into 2-2 deals almost out of habit, it seemed; and that's something I don't like to see. While it does come with its own penalty (2 VP per round isn't always enough to make the finals), it very much strikes me as being bad for the game in general. It's one thing to look at a player cross-table and say "Let's get rid of the other 2/3 players and fight this out for the last 2"; it's another thing to automatically go tits-up without testing things, or worse, to sit and both withdraw (?!) even though there's plenty of time left in the round to fight it out. This sort of thing is just plain bad for anyone who's new; they won't be aware of what's happening until it's too late, and then how do you explain it other than "that's the way it's always been?" Plus, it really seems to me to be ducking the whole POINT of the game. Millenia- old enemies do not suddenly "make nice" without plenty of self-interest involve, and the idea of eventually 'winning.' I'm not going to keep ranting on that line. And I do agree that it's silly to try to ban roll-overs and dumping; it's just impossible to prove without someone sitting there the whole time watching. I believe that the new VP ideas that are filtering through the pipe are now absolutely MUCH more necessary than they were before, though. I don't object to the idea of making deals and splitting tables; what I do object to is the blithe rollover at the end of it all. Any new rules that reward table wins over simple VP gain should go a long way in that department; it's still QUITE possible to dice up a table and remain adversaries after the other 3 players are gone (Mike Ooi and I did it quite tidily in round 2 of the Dragon's Breath). With any luck, we'll see the new/proposed VP structure fairly soon. So, on to the Club. Gosh, everyone just loves this card, don't they? Rob Treasure (see .sig) had a good point that I had echoed privately for a couple weeks prior to DragonCon; what happens if the guy you give all your minions to just keeps them? I know that I personally had PLANNED on angling for, and then breaking any Club deal that involved someone giving me all their stuff, partly as a way to pick up a bunch of cheap VP (i'm greedy), and partly as a way to rattle some sense back into the game (see above rant). THAT sort of deal also begins shaking the foundations of the game, IMO; not so much in terms of "why would Methuselahs do this?" as opposed to just sheer power in the mechanics. Right now, most tournament decks are usually balanced on a very fine point (assuming the other 4 decks on the table are comparable in quality). The reason cross-table deals are so effective is that it doesn't often take a great deal of pressure to tip a deck's balance out of whack and get it ousted; sometimes just the extra point of damage from KRC's repeated a few times is enough, sometimes just a single cross-table Rush removing a key minion will do. Succubus Club enables the instant creation of an ENORMOUS imbalance in the game, one that no deck can properly prepare for. Someone else has already pointed this out, but to all the people saying "Just put Arsons in! Just put Sudden Reversal in!"... It doesn't work that way. When you resort to that line of argument, you're creating the old X and anti-X problem, where you either play with X (the Club), with anti-X (SR and location-hosers), or you are at a marked disadvantage (you can't stop the Club from being used against you). Nobody should be FORCED to play with any given subset of cards. Despite common sightings, it is possible to make a tournament-quality deck without Deflection or any "bounce" card (I made it to the final of the Eternal Vigilance tournament at D*C with one such deck). It is possible to make one without Sudden Reversal, or Minion Tap, or Blood Doll. It should be possible to make one without location-hosers. And, as someone else pointed out, many people's answer to Return to Innocence was "put Deflections in!", which is exactly the same X/anti-X situation. What should be done with the Club? I don't know for sure. I know I don't like banning cards; and I don't think the Club needs to be BANNED, because some clever lying and a couple good deal-breaks would really put the fear of God into routine Club-users. I would hope that the new VP rules would also affect the Club's usefulness as well... with it being less profitable to "automatically" make deals, focusing on the Club would be less usable. However, I also have no faith in people. I think people will try anything they can to win from their chair, as opposed to on the table; and as long as people let them get away with it, they'll keep doing it. SC probably deserves some errata and/or rulings; the most obvious is just to add a "counter" system to it, much like Palla Grande, Dreams, etc. have now. Every time the Club is used for a trade, put a counter on it; when the card has 3 counters, burn the card. This doesn't even remotely wallpaper SC, as it's a free card anyway; many decks could still make use of it, even given limited trades. But the back-and-forth trading with the Club (and wholesale shoveling of cards and minions across the table) would be sharply limited... is it REALLY profitable to give someone all your minions (1 counter), get them all back (2 counters), and then give them away again (3 counters)? -- Derek AGITATOR, n. A statesman who shakes the fruit trees of his neighbors -- to dislodge the worms.

Derek Ray wrote: > What should be done with the Club? I don't know for sure. I know I don't > like banning cards; and I don't think the Club needs to be BANNED, because > some clever lying and a couple good deal-breaks would really put the fear > of God into routine Club-users. That's an interesting theory. One would think it would have happened by now even if you weren't the one to do it - if it were really a viable strategy. Actually, somewhere, somehow I have to imagine it's been done and in a big way. For some reason, at the moment most all players seem to be playing their reputation rather than a couple extra victory points. Maybe most people figure that a good reputation will get them more chances at the finals in the long run. So rather than cash in on a sure one right now, they'd rather take their chances on not making it in this week but having the same shot next week and the week after. Then and again, maybe folks are just following the crowd, figuring that if they stick their neck out too far, it'll get lopped off. I don't know what keeps the double-crosses from balancing out the advantages of making victory point deals. I only know that it's not happening right now. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] Honestly, the whole time I was following these threads, I kept thinking that this would be a great solution to the problem. Betrayal and Lies. They're ugly, sure, but ultimately they're tools just as effective as table splits, intimidation and Jedi Mind Tricks. However, most people won't do this from what I can tell. I mean, personally, I value my reputation for honesty and integrity... *outside* the game. In the game, I suffer no moral quandaries about breaking deals or lying nor would I hold this against someone else *outside* the game... in fact, I'd probably appreciate it! I *like* the Machiavellian aspect of this game. As far as the Sucky Club goes, I would have no problem stealing the SC player's vampires and not returning them in order to help me win. I also wouldn't be offered this deal, no doubt, especially after this post :) But this type of deal-breaking is only possible for the person that is *offered* a deal and therefore it is likely that the deal will be offered to people who are a) trustworthy b) fools c) friends. It is (b) and (c) which should concern us. Without opening the collusion can'o'worms again, I have to say that I have seen this type of thing happen at a recent tournament and though I didn't end up complaining to the judge (well... publicly), I was mighty miffed about it. This was further complicated by the fact that one of the two players was obviously *not* colluding, simply taking advatage of the other player's (his best friend) lack of playiing skill (read: intellect). When someone offers you a win with no distingusihable downside, you take it, right? If that doesn't benefit the person who offered it, you don't care, right? Anyway... I would hate to see interesting strategies disappear with the banning of the Sucky Club, but I'd really rather not show up at tournaments where, regardless of the quality of my deck and my skill at playing this game, the players who take advantage of the SC win the game every time. I also don't want to have to wait for 20 minutes while other players decide on the nature of their deal. Ultimately, I'd like to play too. While I realize there is no democracy to this decision, my vote is for banning Sucky Club for competitive play if only to remove an obvious avenue of collusion. Failing that, an acceptable alternative would be modifying the card so that it is harder to abuse. And let me just state for the record that I hate that this is becoming necessary. And while I can appreciate a good back-stabbing in-game, I can't stand the fact that anyone who plays this game would actively *cheat* in order to win tournaments. It's just a fucking game. Cheers, WES

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:Xns9118BD48...@198.99.146.10... > My thread! Mine! Mine! > > However, I also have no faith in people. I think people will try anything > they can to win from their chair, as opposed to on the table; and as long > as people let them get away with it, they'll keep doing it. SC probably > deserves some errata and/or rulings; I very hope to see no more errata on cards (with the exception of mis-printed cards like Ur-Shulgi). If a card is too powerful, broken,unbalancing, let's BAN it, without any further damn correction, damn errata etc.. Simply print a different (balanced) card with a similar purpose but less troublesome effects. This would ease the pain for new players to get a card from older sets, and then realize (after months of games) that his beloved card has an entirely different text and fuctionings, without (maybe) the "actual" card still being printed. Just my thought Emiliano, prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote in message ... >My thread! Mine! Mine! > (snip variants stuff) >So, on to the Club. Gosh, everyone just loves this card, don't they? Rob >Treasure (see .sig) had a good point that I had echoed privately for a >couple weeks prior to DragonCon; what happens if the guy you give all your >minions to just keeps them? I know that I personally had PLANNED on >angling for, and then breaking any Club deal that involved someone giving >me all their stuff, partly as a way to pick up a bunch of cheap VP (i'm >greedy), and partly as a way to rattle some sense back into the game (see >above rant). THAT sort of deal also begins shaking the foundations of the >game, IMO; not so much in terms of "why would Methuselahs do this?" as >opposed to just sheer power in the mechanics. > >Right now, most tournament decks are usually balanced on a very fine point >(assuming the other 4 decks on the table are comparable in quality). The >reason cross-table deals are so effective is that it doesn't often take a >great deal of pressure to tip a deck's balance out of whack and get it >ousted; sometimes just the extra point of damage from KRC's repeated a few >times is enough, sometimes just a single cross-table Rush removing a key >minion will do. Succubus Club enables the instant creation of an ENORMOUS >imbalance in the game, one that no deck can properly prepare for. Very well said. This is my primary gripe with SC. You simply cannot make a deck designed to deal with the ENORMOUS imbalance it can create at a moments notice. I have gone from being in complete control of a game to being dead immediately after this card was played. That type of shift just is not right, especially in a tournament. >Someone else has already pointed this out, but to all the people saying >"Just put Arsons in! Just put Sudden Reversal in!"... It doesn't work that >way. When you resort to that line of argument, you're creating the old X >and anti-X problem, where you either play with X (the Club), with anti-X >(SR and location-hosers), or you are at a marked disadvantage (you can't >stop the Club from being used against you). Nobody should be FORCED to >play with any given subset of cards. Despite common sightings, it is >possible to make a tournament-quality deck without Deflection or any >"bounce" card (I made it to the final of the Eternal Vigilance tournament >at D*C with one such deck). It is possible to make one without Sudden >Reversal, or Minion Tap, or Blood Doll. It should be possible to make one >without location-hosers. Bingo. Why should I have to devote a bunch of card slots to Sudden Reversal, Arson, or Rampage just to kill SC. You can't even really count on having the Arson or Rampage either. If your predator is slick he can put out SC and make a deal to kill you before you even get a chance to use that Arson... >And, as someone else pointed out, many people's answer to Return to >Innocence was "put Deflections in!", which is exactly the same X/anti-X >situation. Yep. >What should be done with the Club? I don't know for sure. I know I don't >like banning cards; and I don't think the Club needs to be BANNED, because >some clever lying and a couple good deal-breaks would really put the fear >of God into routine Club-users. I would hope that the new VP rules would >also affect the Club's usefulness as well... with it being less profitable >to "automatically" make deals, focusing on the Club would be less usable. I'm not usually for banning cards either. I was not for changing or banning Return to Innocence. I never saw RTI destroy games the way SC has. SC is the only card I have ever pushed to see banned. If SC can be changed that is fine. If not, it needs to be banned. Something needs to be done with it. Steve Bucy, -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:<9nhrs...@enews3.newsguy.com>... > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > > Derek Ray wrote: > > > What should be done with the Club? I don't know for sure. I know I > don't > > > like banning cards; and I don't think the Club needs to be BANNED, > because > > > some clever lying and a couple good deal-breaks would really put the > fear > > > of God into routine Club-users. Here's an interesting theory. Contrary to current rulings and interpretations, deal-breaking should be mandatory in most instances. Let's say my prey is Potence CrushRush and I'm running a nasty Tzimisce Fry'em. Rather than play our rightful places in the jyhad, a table-split is the order of the day. I'll help my prey take 3 VP and then s/he'll roll over and I get the final 2 VP. OK, arguably we are making a deal that maximizes our VP expectation. Seating is an in-game consideration, and beating each other up is uncertain, a game of chance, a crapshoot, (a card game...) My prey starts working on their prey, and I also start working on their prey, Eagle's Sighting anywhere it's needed on the table to keep everyone else IN until "we" can roll over them. My prey gobbles up 1-2-3 victory points. Does s/he keep the Deal, roll over, and die regardless of relative position-strength at this moment? Let's reassess the Deal at this point. Dealkeeping pros: reputation (out-of-game, surely i'll never go for this deal with this person again if the deal is broken.) Dealkeeping cons: Failing to take 2 more (read maximizing) VP in the current game (the rule-stated and mandated GOAL of the tournament game.) When the deal was made it was allowable, but living up to the deal may no longer be allowed by the rules. Oh, and another con: this kind of dealmaking may become impossible in future games because of this shift in deal-dynamics. (Or is that a pro? Anyway, this consideration is also certainly out-of-game.) Vampires are and should be a treacherous lot, and methuselahs should be among the most treacherous. Alternately, a card like this could be printed: Smoochy-Smoochy Master. This Methuselah is allowed to roll over and die to keep an in-game deal, even if it costs them a VP or 2 in the current game. or Consanguinous Footsie-playing Political action. Called at +1 stealth, worth 1 vote. Successful referendum means this methuselah may name any terms for tablesplitting, and later live up to these terms. If this Methuselah also controls the succubus club, s/he may leave the table with a chosen methuselah for up to 10 minutes of safe sex in a back room or parked sport utility vehicle (only on their untap phase.) -spinney the unharmonious PS changing my tune slightly on Succuclub. Before its changing/banning, other rulings that facilitate its abuse should be re-examined. Time abuse (most important problem, imho) should be harder with or without it. Table-splitting as currently allowed is also a big prob. Don't know what to do about instantaneous free outlandish game imbalance; that might be an actual problem with the card. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns9118BD48...@198.99.146.10... > My thread! Mine! Mine! <snip> > So, on to the Club. Gosh, everyone just loves this card, don't they? Rob > Treasure (see .sig) had a good point that I had echoed privately for a > couple weeks prior to DragonCon; what happens if the guy you give all your > minions to just keeps them? I know that I personally had PLANNED on > angling for, and then breaking any Club deal that involved someone giving > me all their stuff, partly as a way to pick up a bunch of cheap VP (i'm > greedy), A suggestion for errata: "only players with an IQ below 95 may play the SC" This way it will remain fun for all :-) <anecdote> A couple of years ago, everybody here was playing with SC. As usual, the metagame adapted and almost everyone started packing Arsons, Rampages and suchlike. One evening, my Grandpredator and my Prey made the 'I give you the SC and you give me your minions and we'll do the same in your turn'-thingy. Now I had a almost minionless Prey with a SC, I sent Selma to Rampage the SC. Easiest VP I ever had. Almost nobody plays with SC here, nowadays. Unless the Assamite deck that sells contracts, but that's not really Tier 1 (not even Tier 3) </anecdote> Don't get worked up about SC. Just hope the player who controls it is a) Stupid or b)Gullible and hit him where it hurts. Jeroen

spore...@hotmail.com (spinney99) wrote in news:27f52a52.01091...@posting.google.com: > Here's an interesting theory. Contrary to current rulings and > interpretations, deal-breaking should be mandatory in most instances. Not possible to enforce. How can you stop me from transferring out minions until I am down to 1 pool, and taking zero-stealth "bleed for 1" actions each turn to tap out all my guys so I couldn't block the ousting bleed? ...while discarding my Wakes to look for "offensive cards"? You cannot legislate against poor play in any fashion, and that is what you'd have to do to keep someone from rolling over. To discourage rollovers, we need to reward outright winning more (most VP at the table). That should solve the problem rapidly. > also a big prob. Don't know what to do about instantaneous free > outlandish game imbalance; that might be an actual problem with the > card. That's the one that strikes me as the largest problem, currently. A four- minion swing (especially if all those minions have at least ONE discipline in common with your deck... say... Dominate or Presence) is simply far too much for most decks to deal with. Mid-cap decks have better discipline selections; weenie decks have the inherent advantage of a greater number of actions. (Anyone who believes that more actions ISN'T better is welcome to bow out of this debate now, before they look like a fool.) The Club permits someone to turn a mid-cap deck into a weenie deck in one untap phase, gaining the best of both worlds at little cost to himself. [ quoted text not captured ]

spinney99 wrote: > Here's an interesting theory. Contrary to current rulings and > interpretations, deal-breaking should be mandatory in most instances. It's been brought up before. The trouble is, if you make honoring a deal illegal, then no one would ever make any deals. And deal-making is a big part of the game. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns911886C0...@198.99.146.10... > spore...@hotmail.com (spinney99) wrote in > news:27f52a52.01091...@posting.google.com: > > also a big prob. Don't know what to do about instantaneous free > > outlandish game imbalance; that might be an actual problem with the > > card. > > That's the one that strikes me as the largest problem, currently. A four- > minion swing (especially if all those minions have at least ONE discipline > in common with your deck... say... Dominate or Presence) is simply far too > much for most decks to deal with. TOO MUCH GAME SWING Here is my biggest problem with the card. Deals have always existed but after players agree to do something they still have to be able to pull it off. The actions that are then taken toward fullfilling the deal are all subject to the same foils as before the deal was made. However, deals made with the SC can be, in the same instant, agreed to and completed. There are no cards to foil the trade and the swing in the balance is HUGE. One of the things that got RTI banned was the "instant death" aspect of the card. I believe Scott stated as much somewhere. In any event we can see that the errata he issued addressed the instant death aspect of the card by putting a sort of fuse on its instant death effect. This gives players a chance to react. The swings that can be brought about by SC deals are just as great and there is no fuse. NOT A NEW PROBLEM Our games were simply "not fun at all" about 4 years ago when SC was big in LA. After repeated tournaments ending with unhappy people (and yes, the SC did win tournaments!) a bunch of players made a pact not to deal with anyone who played the SC--at all costs. I was offered a deal once in a game by a SC player. I declined his offer. As punishment he gave all his minions (weenie horde) to my predator who ousted me immediately. We did send emails to LSJ asking that the card be banned. It was probably around the same time as our Madness of the Bard suggestion. We have had trouble--this is not new. I know its a bit out of character for the L.A. crowd to stop playing with a card that we all agreed was very very powerful but we did anyway. It had enough of a negative effect on the fun factor that we simply dropped it. Not until two of us slipped it into our Los Angeles qualifier decks did the card reappear. We both qualified. And the card had a big effect on many of the rounds we played in. UNDERCOSTED I'd also like to suggest that the card is tremendously undercosted. (originally Tatu's argument). There are only 10 unique masters in the game that don't have a clan requirement, a pool cost, or a built-in burn clause. I'm also going to exclude Metro Underground since it has a pool cost when used. The first 4 of these 10 can either be stolen of have their counters stolen as part of a built-in weakener. A. Location Stealable or Counters Stealable High Museum of Art, Atlanta (may be stolen) Powerbase: Montreal (stealable) Rack, The (may steal rack) Powerbase: Rome (may steal counters) If nothing else, the sheer utility of the Succubus Club should keep if from being lumped together with the other 5 cards in this group. Elysium: The Arboretum (ends some combats) Information Highway (speed of xfers) Police Department (press) Barrens, The (cycle) Storage Annex (store a useful card) Succubus Club (see the cards in a willing partner's hand, give pool to any player you want to, get pool from any player willing to give it, give negative controlled cards away during your untap to avoid their effects (Milicent Smith, Charnas, Famed or Society of Leopold vamp) and others), cycle your hand via a Capuchin Visit, give your minions to a willing partner to help them overwhelm someone, give useful cards from hand to someone who needs 'em, get cards from someone's hand willing to help you, share useful controlled cards with a willing partner (both use The Rack, Army of Rats, gain extra life on your regenrating allies,double the rate of Temptation counter accumulation, increase or decrease the Smiling Jack counter accumulation, )... I'd love to see the card hamstrung in the Camarilla reprint. Make it non-tradeable and reduce the number of trades that can be made. Maybe even make it burnable or temporary. -Robert rob...@vtesinla.org

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> ha scritto nel messaggio news:IR7n7.11475$5r.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:Xns911886C0...@198.99.146.10... > > spore...@hotmail.com (spinney99) wrote in > > news:27f52a52.01091...@posting.google.com: > <snip> > I'd love to see the card hamstrung in the Camarilla reprint. Make it > non-tradeable and reduce the number of trades that can be made. Maybe even make > it burnable or temporary. > Again, i hope to see no more errata or changes to previously printed card (apart for mis-printed card). Let's BAN the Succubus, and then create an entirely new card with similar, but less troublesome, effects. Just my thought Emiliano, rpince of Rome > > -Robert > rob...@vtesinla.org > > > >

Wes wrote: > Honestly, the whole time I was following these threads, I kept thinking that > this would be a great solution to the problem. Betrayal and Lies. They're > ugly, sure, but ultimately they're tools just as effective as table splits, > intimidation and Jedi Mind Tricks. ... > As far as the Sucky Club goes, I would have no problem stealing the SC > player's vampires and not returning them in order to help me win. I also ^^^^^^ > wouldn't be offered this deal, no doubt, especially after this post :) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Right. So it's not an issue with you. So it goes with all deal-breakers. Assuming their reputation perfectly precedes them - which is probably an imperfect concept but at least usually applies effectively enough, they can break a deal just once. Then people who want to make deals and give away minions temporarily will just not offer such deals to those guys in the future. In the long run, the deal breakers are weeded out and the use of Succubus Club goes on, unimpeded. With fewer participants but just as effectively as before. So I don't think a few people deliberately breaking deals is going to reign this thing in. Not unless they can recruit enough followers to make it seriously harder for the SC-users to find a partner. Fred

Robert Goudie wrote in message ... [ quoted text not captured ] WELCOME TO THE PARTY PAL! About time someone else from L.A. with Suckurbus experience chimed in. I again ditto the huge balance swing problem you state. [ quoted text not captured ] I have tried to bring this up. Unfornately nobody believes it. We are just going to have to go back to the vicious cuthroat SC days and prove what we already know. Got Suckurbus? >UNDERCOSTED > >I'd also like to suggest that the card is tremendously undercosted. (originally >Tatu's argument). There are only 10 unique masters in the game that don't have >a clan requirement, a pool cost, or a built-in burn clause. I'm also going to >exclude Metro Underground since it has a pool cost when used. The first 4 of >these 10 can either be stolen of have their counters stolen as part of a >built-in weakener. Another very good point. I hadn't thought about it. All the Suckurbus fun comes with a cost of zero. A card that can reap more havoc then the mighty RTI that has no cost. Hmmm... Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <8x9n7.26957$ul3.9...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >Again, i hope to see no more errata or changes to previously printed card >(apart for mis-printed card). Why? Would you ban every card that is worthy of errata for some notion of purity? >Let's BAN the Succubus, and then create an entirely new card with similar, >but less troublesome, effects. Why not, instead, just re-write it, along with a re-print in the Camarilla base set? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F They don't need to see you cry B457CA213D7E6 I can't promise I will heal you, but if you want to I will try 68C3695D623D5D

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > spinney99 wrote: > > Here's an interesting theory. Contrary to current rulings and > > interpretations, deal-breaking should be mandatory in most instances. > > It's been brought up before. > The trouble is, if you make honoring a deal illegal, then no one would > ever make any deals. And deal-making is a big part of the game. By tradition, facilitated by the current rules, and enforced by communication between the relatively small community of players. Does deal-making and table-splitting have any part in the game as originally designed? In any of the rulebooks included with the product? Quick questions: If, during my untap, I use the Succubus Club to trade for someone's The Rack, does my vampire get the two blood? Must my vampire get the two blood? How about equipment, can I trade equipment from one of my minions directly onto someone else's minion? - Jason Bell

On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Tetragrammaton wrote: > > I very hope to see no more errata on cards (with the exception > of mis-printed cards like Ur-Shulgi). > If a card is too powerful, broken,unbalancing, let's BAN it, without any > further damn correction, damn errata etc.. > Simply print a different (balanced) card with a similar purpose but less > troublesome > effects. > This would ease the pain for new players to get a card from older sets, > and then realize (after months of games) that his beloved card > has an entirely different text and fuctionings, without (maybe) the "actual" > card still > being printed. ooooh no. i much prefer errata to banning. imagine a case where a "new player" turns up to a tournament with a deck full of banned cards. he just plain can't play. and he probably won't know until he's in a game and plays a banned card, and then gets kicked out[0]. if the cards were merely erratad instead, at least he'd still be able to play in the tourney, even though his cards might not do exactly what he'd thought they did. salem. [0] or whatever the appropriate VEKN penalty is.

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > Right. So it's not an issue with you. So it goes with all deal-breakers. > Assuming their reputation perfectly precedes them - which is probably an > imperfect concept but at least usually applies effectively enough, they can > break a deal just once. Then people who want to make deals and give away > minions temporarily will just not offer such deals to those guys in the > future. In the long run, the deal breakers are weeded out and the use of > Succubus Club goes on, unimpeded. With fewer participants but just as > effectively as before. > > So I don't think a few people deliberately breaking deals is going to reign > this thing in. Not unless they can recruit enough followers to make it > seriously harder for the SC-users to find a partner. I agree... actually that was partly my point. Sucky Club deals automatically will include people who are known to be trustworthy (ie not me at this point :) Since these deals will be offered to those that have displayed trustworthy patterns in the past (an out-of-game consideration, n'est-ce pas?) they are most likely going to benefit people in the same playgroup or friends... That big 'C' word again. Let me clarify something though... I am willing to break a deal sometimes, yes. This does not mean that I regularly will or that I am not trustworthy in general. If a deal benefits me, I will follow it to the end. I often make deals and I think the local players will stand behind me and say that (most of the time) I keep to them. But if I don't, so what? It's one game and shouldn't impact any other game, right? I think we are mostly referring to tournament games with Sucky Club issue... in tournaments I am a different type of player than when I play locally. Probably more vicious, but also more conscious of my honour and integrity. I want to win, yes... but not if it means losing the respect of those I play with. Cheers, WES

On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, James Coupe wrote: > In message <8x9n7.26957$ul3.9...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton > <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes > >Let's BAN the Succubus, and then create an entirely new card with similar, > >but less troublesome, effects. > > Why not, instead, just re-write it, along with a re-print in the > Camarilla base set? that is so obviously the way to go, if indeed SC as it is proves itself too troublesome. salem.

> Let me clarify something though... I am willing to break a deal sometimes, > yes. This does not mean that I regularly will or that I am not trustworthy > in general. If a deal benefits me, I will follow it to the end. I often make > deals and I think the local players will stand behind me and say that (most > of the time) I keep to them. But if I don't, so what? It's one game and > shouldn't impact any other game, right? Spot on. It's this kind of thinking that needs to be more prevalent, though. Many players consider their "reputation," or even their "honor" (*snicker*) of utmost importance. That you should never, ever, break a deal. And that kind of immature dealmaking has got to go; time to grow up and play with the big boys and girls, people. On another point you also made, Wes: I've always played in a group where all deals were the "letter of the law," which was bent over backwards but never broken so long as the deal was kept. Well, except for cases when it was in your interests to lay off, or nuture some goodwill for future use, or when you just had to break the deal to have any chance of a VP. Holds for out-of-towners at tournaments, too. Conor Key agreed never to bleed me with Jost if I tossed the swing vote to oust his predator (who was about to take Jost via last turns Mind Rape and burn him for the Camarilla Segregation he had played =), and I took the deal[0]. A turn or two later, Jost Entranced my Shambling Hordes. Fair enough. Though, that one move kept me having to have a spare Shambling Hordes untapped for the rest of the game, slowing me down quite a bit, and probably costing me a VP. I know we've had LOTS of funny moments[1] where someone was about to take a deal, and then thought about it and asked a clarification and gets a "Well, I didn't say THAT..." I really find that to be half the fun of dealmaking: making sure you've covered all your bases. [0] Well, to be perfectly honest, he kind of shouted that offer out near the end, and I tossed the votes in pretty much of my own accord, but when he reminded me "You're going to hold to me to that thing about Jost, aren't you?" I hadn't really meant that as part of agreeing, but I wasn't born yesterday, so I said "You bet." [1] A personal favorite of mine was David Tatu telling his prey "If you don't vote that down, I'm going to bleed you!" which got it voted down. He promptly bled her next turn, of course. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

Robert Goudie wrote: > I'd love to see the card hamstrung in the Camarilla reprint. Make it > non-tradeable and reduce the number of trades that can be made. Maybe even > make it burnable or temporary. Or perhaps tighter restrictions on what and how much can be traded. As much as there's been a lot of hoopla over Succubus Club, I'm still not convinced that its abuse will win you a tournament. By dealing around, you may get the VP you need to get to the finals, but in the finals, nobody's interested in a table split unless they already know they're not going to win. However, I very much agree that it can have too much of a disruptive influence in the preliminary rounds, and as such, I think some changes are in order. The scale of the abilities of Succubus Club is only limited by the willingness of players to deal. I'd rather this be a game called V:TES rather than a game called Succubus Club. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

>> Here's an interesting theory. Contrary to current rulings and >> interpretations, deal-breaking should be mandatory in most instances. > > It's been brought up before. This is true. > The trouble is, if you make honoring a deal illegal, then no one would > ever make any deals. And deal-making is a big part of the game. ...but that's not a really good summarization of it. If you make a particular kind of deal (say, the "3-2 split where I roll over after I get 3 VP") illegal to honor, then no one would make any of THAT kind of deal. This leaves a HUGE area of "deal-space" left available for players interested in deal-making. <tangent> The most common counter-argument is dedicated rush decks that sit next to each other, whose players froth about how they're totally unfairly screwed if they can't make such a deal. Of course, a deck with no combat defense that sits as the prey of such a combat deck is "just a guy who didn't plan for the metagame" to the same people. Seems to me that the dedicated rush decks forgot to include defense against sitting next to another dedicated combat deck by their own logic. Playing pure bleed with no combat defense and sitting as a rush deck's prey is bad seating. Life sucks, and/or you should have accounted for that. Playing pure combat with no combat defense and sitting as a rush deck's prey is bad seathing. Life STILL sucks, and/or YOU should have accounted for that. That said, I think nobody will change their minds on this point, ever, so I've probably wasted your bandwidth. Sorry. </tangent> But, I still firmly believe that "maximizing your VPs" is easily interpretable as making illegal a player to "roll over" after getting 3 VPs, and *should* be interpreted as such. I recognize, however, that it is not, and find this to be a pity. Furthermore (as I've said before), this is nearly impossible to legislate, since you can make lots of transfers and just happen to tap out and discard your Wakes, etc. and die anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote > > Let me clarify something though... I am willing to break a deal sometimes, > > yes. This does not mean that I regularly will or that I am not trustworthy > > in general. If a deal benefits me, I will follow it to the end. I often make > > deals and I think the local players will stand behind me and say that (most > > of the time) I keep to them. But if I don't, so what? It's one game and > > shouldn't impact any other game, right? > > Spot on. It's this kind of thinking that needs to be more prevalent, > though. Many players consider their "reputation," or even their "honor" > (*snicker*) of utmost importance. That you should never, ever, break a > deal. And that kind of immature dealmaking has got to go; time to grow up > and play with the big boys and girls, people. Honour is like the hawk: sometimes it must go hooded. I don't consider breaking a deal to be any indication of someone's honour as a player; cheating however is a big thing with me. I will not play with anyone who cheats and I would never even *consider* cheating in a game. It just wouldn't cross my mind. I want to win this game based on skill and not have to rely on subterfuge. However, deals are a totally different animal. Honestly, part of me wishes deals in this game did not exist at all, as they often seem to result in two players taking the fun away from three players, at least some of the time. But they do exist, and the Predator-Prey dynamics facilitate them to some degree, with or without Sucky Club et al. There is an implicit 'deal' with anyone who sits across the table from you... you have no reason to harm them and they have no reason to harm you (in theory; in practice Detroit games are nothing like this :). I can count on half of one hand the number of times that I have actually broken a deal. I can however say that in every deal I have made, I have considered breaking that particular deal *every* time I take my turn. I always have to consider whether a deal is worth keeping (or making) based on my chances to win the game. I will always make a deal with my predator because I prefer fighting on one front to two. By contrast, I will (almost) never make a deal with my prey. They're just a sack of pool and a VP on my way to victory. And in Linc's case, I guess they're also a ride home... an out-of-game consideration, albeit an important one :) > On another point you also made, Wes: I've always played in a group > where all deals were the "letter of the law," which was bent over backwards > but never broken so long as the deal was kept. Well, except for cases when > it was in your interests to lay off, or nuture some goodwill for future use, > or when you just had to break the deal to have any chance of a VP. Although it is frustrating to have a deal broken on you (and I have had far more deals broken on me than *I* have broken), it is also usually pretty funny. I don't hold grudges for this. Any player that is not putting his or her self-interest before all other considerations is not playing at the top of their level. Selfishness is a virtue in this game, like it or not. I remember when we tried to get my friend Jason to play Jyhad back when it came out. Jason is highly intelligent, a fantastic chess player but *not* a 'gamer'. In this game, he had a strong position, though was still having trouble understanding the concepts. Everyone was trying to make deals with him, especially me (I was his prey). In the end, he made a deal with me and others and then promptly broke them all as soon as I was tapped and he could bleed me out. 'Fuck it! I can't keep track of any of these deals, so back to basics. Bleed. Bleed. Bleed'. I was ousted, but more importantly I was laughing my ass off. It still amuses me. It's just too bad he didn't keep up the game. We need people like him. > I know we've had LOTS of funny moments[1] where someone was about to > take a deal, and then thought about it and asked a clarification and gets a > "Well, I didn't say THAT..." I really find that to be half the fun of > dealmaking: making sure you've covered all your bases. It's cheesy, but it's oh so funny. I've fallen victim to this so often that I'd probably take the time to write out a contract stating all the terms if given the chance :) Of course, no contract would be binding and I'd be the first one to add loopholes. It's not my fault you didn't read the fine print! > [1] A personal favorite of mine was David Tatu telling his prey "If you > don't vote that down, I'm going to bleed you!" which got it voted down. He > promptly bled her next turn, of course. This kind of thing can be overdone. A player in the last Toronto tournament kept trying to make deals when he had nothing to offer aside from *not* rushing with his Assamites. It was pretty silly. If you bleed me I will rush you. If you assign a KRC point to me I will rush you. If you don't give me some of that Parity Shift, I'll rush you. THOSE are fair enough... but when he started to threaten *every* player on *every* action they made, it was retarded. If you (player across the table) are deflected and bleed me, I will rush you. If you (player across the table) don't play a 5th to fill my guys I will rush you. After a while, nobody gave a shit and just ignored him speaking as a serious waste of the allotted two hours. Some deals really don't need to be made. And sometimes, you just have to accept that your predator is going to try to oust you. It's their job. Cheers, WES

Jason Bell wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > spinney99 wrote: > > > Here's an interesting theory. Contrary to current rulings and > > > interpretations, deal-breaking should be mandatory in most instances. > > > > It's been brought up before. > > The trouble is, if you make honoring a deal illegal, then no one would > > ever make any deals. And deal-making is a big part of the game. > > By tradition, facilitated by the current rules, and > enforced by communication between the relatively small > community of players. > Does deal-making and table-splitting have any part in > the game as originally designed? Deal-making (not to exclude table-splitting): Yes. > In any of the > rulebooks included with the product? None of them prohibit deal-making, correct. Card text on SC indicates quite clearly that deal-making is and has always been a part of the game. > Quick questions: If, during my untap, I use the Succubus > Club to trade for someone's The Rack, does my vampire > get the two blood? Must my vampire get the two blood? Yes and yes. > How about equipment, can I trade equipment from one > of my minions directly onto someone else's minion? Yes. Retainers are the same way. Locquiment is the same as well. [ quoted text not captured ]

"....salem christ...." <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> ha scritto nel messaggio news:Pine.SOL.3.90.1010911144451.13397G-100000@bohm... [ quoted text not captured ] So, do you think that such a player would play the tournament anyway ? And how with return to innocence? The card got (a notable) errata, but it's still banned, so your example doesn't fit with the actual point. I'm simply pointing that a card (*name*) printed (free of mis-print) should be a card always to be *played* the way it was printed, much like the (unwritten) rule "card laid, card played". Card printed, card played. Again, with the exception of mis-printing. That would pretty semplify things, in a game enviroment where the majority of the cards used are still the cards played for years, and changing a card played for years makes the game community angry more than simply banning it form the field. At least here. Emiliano, prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:eaFXrWIr...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <8x9n7.26957$ul3.9...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton > <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes > >Again, i hope to see no more errata or changes to previously printed card > >(apart for mis-printed card). > > Why? Would you ban every card that is worthy of errata for some notion > of purity? Indeed <snip> > Why not, instead, just re-write it, along with a re-print in the > Camarilla base set? Isn't obvious? Because this damn errata-on-card-attitude makes players go mad, my friend. At least here. In my playing group, where few players have access to internet, many people tend get discouraged or frustrated in discovering, at some point, that this or that card got her text and fuctionings changed, without having the "real" card at hand or printed yet. I think that this attitude in rewriting (entirely or not) card's text, is one of the few weak point VTES has always suffered, and that,. somewhat, most of the "old" players like you has come to get used to. If a card is broken, unbalanced etc... lets' BAN it, and, if needed, let's create a different card with similar purpose. This can create a different attitude in card-making approach, much like the (unwritten) rule "card laid=card played". The same should be with "card printed = card created as it is PRINTED (text unchageable)" (apart for mis-printing). I think that the reason why VTES suffered so many errors, in the past, is just by this attitude in card-making: "ok, maybe this card will be wrong, broken, unbalanced, but oh, no problem, we can patch it, with an errata/calrification in a latter time......." And so we got Charming Lobby, Ruthor's Hand, Tremere Convocation, Mind Rape, Return to Innocence, Tomb of Ramses III, Zip Gun, Closed Session, Elder Impersonation, Golconda - Inner Peace, Goth Band, WwEF.....and many others. Sure, many of these are now fixed in reprintings, but, in the meantime, lots of players get used to play the way the cards were printed BEFORE, and i think you can figure out the inherent problem with that. And so, is pretty clear to me that we could avoid all of this, in the future, by abandoning this "errata patching" attitude about cards. Just my thought Emiliano, prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <zynn7.31163$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >> Why? Would you ban every card that is worthy of errata for some notion >> of purity? > >Indeed Crikey. So people spend money buying cards and then you just ban them rather than providing them with a workable alternative. >> Why not, instead, just re-write it, along with a re-print in the >> Camarilla base set? > >Isn't obvious? No. >Because this damn errata-on-card-attitude makes players go mad, my friend. where "players" = "some players". >At least here. >In my playing group, where few players have access to internet, many people >tend get >discouraged or frustrated in discovering, at some point, that this or that >card got >her text and fuctionings changed, without having the "real" card at hand or >printed yet. Then save out a copy of the card texts and rulings once a month and give it to your friends. Or print them out. Or just talk to people about them. Or whatever. >If a card is broken, unbalanced etc... lets' BAN it, and, if needed, let's >create a different card with similar purpose. So *any* card (barring misprints) that needs to be errata-ed should be banned, and people have to go out and spend even more money on new cards (WARNING: CASH COW). You do realise just how many cards this impacts, don't you? (Hint: lots.) Antediluvian Awakening Drawing Out the Beast Immortal Grapple Closed Session Deflection Form of Mist Kalinda Living Manse March Halcyon Redirection Reform Body Return to Innocence (natch) Ritual of the Bitter Rose Rutor's Hand Second Tradition Taste of Vitae Tereza Rostas Telepathic Misdirection Darius Styx Fame Goth Band Heidelberg Castle Major Boon Mind Rape Powerbase: Mexico City Thoughts Betrayed Tomb of Rameses III Wake with Evening's Freshness Zip Gun Powerbase: New York All Ammo cards (Manstopper, Glazer, Dragon's Breath) Parity Shift White Phosphorus Grenade Wooden Stake Cardinal Sin: Failure of Mission Obedience Malkavian Prank Undead Persistence Smiling Jack the Anarch Life Boon Acquired Ventrue Assets Alamut Banishment Blood Tears of Kephran Fata Morgana Kali's Fang Powerbase: Rome Purity of the Beast Ravnos Cache Ruins of the Villers Abbey Summon the Serpent Being conservative, you just banned all those cards. Thanks. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <B7C33049.70EA%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes >> The trouble is, if you make honoring a deal illegal, then no one would >> ever make any deals. And deal-making is a big part of the game. > > ...but that's not a really good summarization of it. > If you make a particular kind of deal (say, the "3-2 split where I roll >over after I get 3 VP") illegal to honor, then no one would make any of THAT >kind of deal. This leaves a HUGE area of "deal-space" left available for >players interested in deal-making. I deal with you during your go. "Quick Pat, could you call the vote to burn Elysium for me? My Lasombra vote and bash deck can't call it! I'll rush one of your predator's vampires for you, okay?" You go and call it. I am now compelled to maximise my VPs. Wasting an action on attacking your predator would not be maximising my chances to gain VPs. (This is extremely arguable - and would result in many cat-fights, no doubt - while the current system that if the deal is good for both of you when you *make* it, you're /allowed/ to honour it is far less problematic.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <bf72a12e.01091...@posting.google.com>, Ben Peal <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> writes >Robert Goudie wrote: >> I'd love to see the card hamstrung in the Camarilla reprint. Make it >> non-tradeable and reduce the number of trades that can be made. Maybe even >> make it burnable or temporary. > > Or perhaps tighter restrictions on what and how much can be traded. Indeed. Limiting the number of cards that can be traded per untap phase or per game or something would work really very well indeed. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:FL7BPtTR...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <zynn7.31163$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton > <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes <snip> > Crikey. So people spend money buying cards and then you just ban them > rather than providing them with a workable alternative. > So, to get the workable alternative, you makes a player to pay two times for a single *workable* card. I think that this is worse than banning a card, ain't it? <snip> > >Because this damn errata-on-card-attitude makes players go mad, my friend. > > where "players" = "some players". > Sure > >At least here. > >In my playing group, where few players have access to internet, many people > >tend get > >discouraged or frustrated in discovering, at some point, that this or that > >card got > >her text and fuctionings changed, without having the "real" card at hand or > >printed yet. > > Then save out a copy of the card texts and rulings once a month and give > it to your friends. Or print them out. Or just talk to people about > them. Or whatever. I think you can see the problem (i hope) anyway, since it happens to get players that have simply played for years with the cards just way they were printed. > >If a card is broken, unbalanced etc... lets' BAN it, and, if needed, let's > >create a different card with similar purpose. > > So *any* card (barring misprints) that needs to be errata-ed should be > banned, and people have to go out and spend even more money on new cards > (WARNING: CASH COW). You do realise just how many cards this impacts, > don't you? (Hint: lots.) > <snip your list> Anyway, do you think that there will be so many new cards (by errors or innacuracy) in need of an errata ? I don't hope so.. > Being conservative, you just banned all those cards. Thanks. > James, i'm saying a different thing and you simply won't get the point. As i previously said in my post, which you omitted in your response, many of the cards (as well those in your list, which include cards with clarification or fixing and not *errata* (Summon the serpent and the like) are now fixed in reprinting, and the problem is no longer in that. The problem was, you know, that many previously printed cards got errors, or mistakes in design, which is a thing we're not going to see anymore ( i hope). And, when we shall to deal again with an unbalanced card, let's ban it. And this is what i'm just saying: to adopt a different approach *by now*, in banning an unbalanced or abused card.and *not* make any further errata on it. Where's the problem ? Emiliano, prince of Rome > James Coupe <snip>

In message <mpwn7.36207$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes ><snip> >> Crikey. So people spend money buying cards and then you just ban them >> rather than providing them with a workable alternative. >> > >So, to get the workable alternative, you makes a player to pay two times for >a single *workable* card. No, you provide it via errata. End result: all their cards are still useful. New players, later on, will get a re-print. Old players, later on, can get the re-print if they want. >I think that this is worse than banning a card, ain't it? Yes. Good job I wasn't advocating it. >> >If a card is broken, unbalanced etc... lets' BAN it, and, if needed, >let's >> >create a different card with similar purpose. >> >> So *any* card (barring misprints) that needs to be errata-ed should be >> banned, and people have to go out and spend even more money on new cards >> (WARNING: CASH COW). You do realise just how many cards this impacts, >> don't you? (Hint: lots.) >> > ><snip your list> >Anyway, do you think that there will be so many new cards >(by errors or innacuracy) in need of an errata ? >I don't hope so.. Neither do I. In a perfect world, no card would ever need errata. This is not a perfect world. >> Being conservative, you just banned all those cards. Thanks. >> > >James, i'm saying a different thing and you simply won't get the point. You have argued that cards should be banned instead of being errata-ed. >As i previously said in my post, which you omitted in your response, >many of the cards (as well those in your list, which include cards with >clarification or fixing and not *errata* (Summon the serpent and the like) >are now fixed in reprinting, and the problem is no longer in that. Which is exactly what fixing Succubus Club and later reprinting it would do. Those *without* the reprint would be in exactly the same situation. >The problem was, you know, that many previously printed cards got errors For some value of "errors". The number of instances of a card being printed in a manner inconsistent with the card text that was supposed to be on it is very few. The number of instances of a card being printed with card text that didn't do what was intended is higher. >, or >mistakes in design Which is entirely different again from what you've said before. >And, when we shall to deal again with an unbalanced card, let's ban it. Being able to cycle Wake was considered unbalanced. So that's banned. Being able to cycle virtually all forms of bleed bounce to yourself was considered unbalanced. So that's banned. Without going any further at all, you've just wiped out huge chunks of the game. >And this is what i'm just saying: >to adopt a different approach *by now*, in banning an unbalanced or abused >card.and >*not* make any further errata on it. >Where's the problem ? That you're cutting off all our noses to spite our faces with hard and fast rules rather than viewing situations based on their merits. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:nxSpRHW2...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <mpwn7.36207$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton > <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes > ><snip> > > Without going any further at all, you've just wiped out huge chunks of > the game. > Going further? For what? This is just a GAME, and people are supposed to enjoy it, and not wasting their time ad infinitum following erratas on cards or discussions for errata. As long as the mechanics behind the rules are straight, logic and simple, i'm on your side, or on the side of people supporting this. I do not wipe anything, and if you think that i chunk something, that's only my personal invovement in an inherent-complicated-endless discussion on a *damn* card, that everyone perceived and will perceive anyway as balance or unbalanced only by personal standard, and not by a objective viewpoint (which is, impossible). > >And this is what i'm just saying: > >to adopt a different approach *by now*, in banning an unbalanced or abused > >card.and > >*not* make any further errata on it. > >Where's the problem ? > > That you're cutting off all our noses to spite our faces with hard and > fast rules rather than viewing situations based on their merits. > Spite with what ? I'm just expressing a *simpler* idea than you do. I don't want to spite anything. This is a place where both simpler and complex viewpoint can take place, and if you perceive that a straight-fast rule (but WIEVED by merits) spite in your face, that's your problem, not mine: i think to have expressed my opinion in a polite manner (as much as allowed by my english). Emiliano, Prince of Rome

In message <DFxn7.36717$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio >news:nxSpRHW2...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... >> In message <mpwn7.36207$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton >> <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >> ><snip> >> >> Without going any further at all, you've just wiped out huge chunks of >> the game. > >Going further? For what? Without examination any further facets which will continue to undermine large portions of the game. >I do not wipe anything, and if you think that i chunk something, If we banned everything that was too powerful, we'd have just lost Wake with Evening's Freshness and most forms of bleed bounce from the game. You would have wiped that out. Great. >> >And this is what i'm just saying: >> >to adopt a different approach *by now*, in banning an unbalanced or >abused >> >card.and >> >*not* make any further errata on it. >> >Where's the problem ? >> >> That you're cutting off all our noses to spite our faces with hard and >> fast rules rather than viewing situations based on their merits. >> > >Spite with what ? It's a phrase. >I'm just expressing a *simpler* idea than you do. >I don't want to spite anything. It's still a phrase. >This is a place where both simpler and complex viewpoint can take place, >and if you perceive that a straight-fast rule (but WIEVED by merits) spite >in your face, >that's your problem, not mine: *sigh* If you are having problems understanding what people's words mean, you would probably do better to ask. Setting up inflexible rules that cannot be varied to take into account the merits of a situation will almost inevitably lead to situations where things occur that are to the detriment of the game. If we followed your totally inflexible rule, Wake with Evening's Freshness would be banned. Deflection would be banned. Redirection would be banned. Telepathic Misdirection would be banned. And that's setting up a rule based on *merit*? No, that's setting up a rule based on foolishness for the sake of some notion of purity, rather than for the good of the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <zynn7.31163$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton > <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes > >> Why? Would you ban every card that is worthy of errata for some notion > >> of purity? > > > >Indeed > > Crikey. So people spend money buying cards and then you just ban them > rather than providing them with a workable alternative. Well, you gotta admit: it _is_ easier to remember. ("My Succubus Club does *what* now?" "Nothing. Just like your Return to Innocence...") Fred (No, I'm not really advocating banning over errata just for the simplicity.)

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio <snip> > If we banned everything that was too powerful, we'd have just lost Wake > with Evening's Freshness and most forms of bleed bounce from the game. Again, where's the problem if new cards had been introduced, in place of those banned ? None, i think, the only thing is that is not what *really* happened. > You would have wiped that out. Great. James, this is not the *reality* of things. You're pointing, i don't know why, that things about card X or Y would have been very different the way i'm suggesting just *for* and *by now*, and not for the past years. I just pointed that this attitude in "patching with errata", dictated in the past by necessity, is no longer a valid approach. And, about to never having an alternative for those would-be-banned card,. this is true just for how the thing worked for VTES under the WoC, that has almost abandoned the game for several years, and so banning the couple of unbalanced or erroneus cards from the field could never had been a valid solution. Actually, in the past, i never suggested nor i have ever think that a meritable solution about a COUPLE of innacurate,unbalanced, erronoeus cards would have been a "let's ban and wipe out all that don't work". In fact, sometimes ago (before the coming of SW), i had a long discussion, for example, about how WweF could have been errated (i think Derek remeber it...) <snip the spite and sighs> > If you are having problems understanding what people's words mean, you > would probably do better to ask. > > Setting up inflexible rules that cannot be varied to take into account > the merits of a situation will almost inevitably lead to situations > where things occur that are to the detriment of the game. > > If we followed your totally inflexible rule, Wake with Evening's > Freshness would be banned. Deflection would be banned. Redirection > would be banned. Telepathic Misdirection would be banned. > I never proposed such an inflexible rule. Rather, *i'm* suggesting a different *approach* with cards, whereas some people delight to consume thier minds here with "oh, this card doesn't work as i like, may we change it ?", i'm simply arguing that it would by simpler *by now*, that we don't have lots of card to be *errated* due errors or mistakes, to ban a card whereas is deemed too unbalancing for a tournament enviroment. What i'm try to say, too, is that a discussion about *banning* SC from tournament promptly jumped on the "let's patch it with an errata" adagio. And want to discuss this, since, simpy, i do not longer find valid such approach. Emiliano [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <qWFn7.37884$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio > ><snip> >> If we banned everything that was too powerful, we'd have just lost Wake >> with Evening's Freshness and most forms of bleed bounce from the game. > >Again, where's the problem if new cards had been introduced, in place of >those banned ? A six month period (at least, given current development cycles) where the game is utterly unplayable because the metagame is so fucked by your foolishness that no-one plays. And then everyone gets fucked off at having to buy new cards and being milked as a cash cow. (This is what the HINT: CASH COW in an earlier post was about.) Thanks very much. A sixth month period where Wake with Evening's Freshness and bleed bounce were utterly unplayable. Sounds like complete and utter foolishness to me. And you were crafting this rule with *merit*? No, you just aren't *thinking*. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:YZmmbmKl...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <qWFn7.37884$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton > <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes > >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio > > > ><snip> > >> If we banned everything that was too powerful, we'd have just lost Wake > >> with Evening's Freshness and most forms of bleed bounce from the game. > > > >Again, where's the problem if new cards had been introduced, in place of > >those banned ? > > A six month period Geee, how you can tell, if it is a thing that never happened ? > (at least, given current development cycles) where > the game is utterly unplayable because the metagame is so fucked by your > foolishness that no-one plays. And then everyone gets fucked off at > having to buy new cards and being milked as a cash cow. (This is what > the HINT: CASH COW in an earlier post was about.) > > Thanks very much. > > A sixth month period where Wake with Evening's Freshness and bleed > bounce were utterly unplayable. > What are you saying? UNplayabe? Had been not periods in which the errated cards got anyway to be re-considered in the metagame? To play just 1 form of mist per action rather than 5 ? To play a Return to Innocence, A mind Rape? How do you think, or how can you tell, that these were things so better than having a valid replacement for those cards, since there never has been a single case of an unbalanced card replaced with a different and workable alternative ? > Sounds like complete and utter foolishness to me. And you were crafting > this rule with *merit*? No, you just aren't *thinking*. If you like to adress this way, so be it. I was saying different things, but oh, you just focused all in this non-existent stuff about banning previous cards that have never been banned, and that i never pointed they should have been actually *banned*. Again, i'm thinking about how to *approach* NOW to a potential unbalanced card, and i don't care at all for *setting* a rule for banning cards. Since NOW the whole cards & sets availability thing in VTES is notably changed. But you keep on cut my real point of discussion which is: since we're not longer in lack of cards and set printings, nor we have to face any longer with many errors and mistakes in overpower card-making: when the starting point is " this card is probably unbalanced, what we have to do now? " My point of wiev is: let's ban, if deemed unbalanced, and if deemed anyway as an interesting card, let's work for the introduction of a new, similar, but more balanced card. IMHO, a discussion about *banning* a card should include just that. But soon, you see, follows the discussion-approach about how *errating* that card. Since that has been the common way since now. And don't think it's wrong, only that NOW is no longer necessary. Just my thought Emiliano > James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <oVNn7.42197$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >> A six month period > >Geee, how you can tell, if it is a thing that never happened ? It's called engaging your brain before posting. Work out the development cycles for current sets. It's not hard. Really. Now get a clue. It is not impossible or, indeed, unlikely for key cards to be found needing errata. Your fixed rule, based on no merit at all, to preserve some twisted notion of game purity, would do nothing but harm the game in such an instance. Inflexible rules almost always create situations where they act detrimentally. I've shown quite a few. Yet you somehow think those would be good for the game. Right. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F [ quoted text not captured ]

> But you keep on cut my real point of discussion which is: > since we're not longer in lack of cards and set printings, nor we have to > face > any longer with many errors and mistakes in overpower card-making: > when the starting point is " this card is probably unbalanced, what we > have to do now? " > My point of wiev is: let's ban, if deemed unbalanced, and > if deemed anyway as an interesting card, let's work for the introduction > of a new, similar, but more balanced card. > IMHO, a discussion about *banning* a card should include just that. > But soon, you see, follows the discussion-approach about how *errating* that > card. > Since that has been the common way since now. > And don't think it's wrong, only that NOW is no longer necessary. I think you're suffering from incoherence, here. While I don't agree with you (at least, I don't think I do), is *this* what you're basically trying to say?: Since (in the old days) no new V:TES cards were being printed, and it looked like no new cards were EVER going to be printed, the *only* solution to repairing broken cards was errata or ban. But now that we've got new sets coming out from White Wolf, we have a new option: We can ban problem cards, and then reprint a NEW card that does what the old one was supposed to, but without being broken? > Just my thought If I've read you right, I'm thinking it's going to stay that way as "just [YOUR] thought." (*I* sure disagree. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

Let's apply the argument. I'll take a card that was printed, then banned with a variant being printed that has since been errated: Stake/Wooden Stake. In the core set, we have the Stake: Stake: Melee Weapon. Inflicts strenth damage as a strike. If Stake does more than one damage in combat, opposive vampire is paralyzed. If opposing vampire is paralyzed, they gain control of the stake. Well, when we changed names, we also took rules for paralysis from the game, and the card got banned, and reprinted as the Wooden Stake. Wooden Stake: Melee Weapon. Inflicts strength damage as a strike. If two or more damage is done with the Wooden Stake in combat, the damage is treated as aggravated. If opposing vampire goes to torpor, they gain control of the Wooden Stake and do not untap while in torpor. Well, this implied that the Wooden Stake could burn vampires, so they found it necessary to errata the card. Now, if we follow the argument that it's better to ban the card and reprint the variant, we would see the Wooden Stake banned, and a new card printed: Sharp, Pointy Stick: Melee Weapon....(we all know what the Wooden Stake does now I hope, so i'll stop regurgitating card text). What happens if that new text is deemed unbalancing? A fourth card? How many useless cards do you want your collection to have? Fifteen variants of the same card, all of which are banned because, with each variant, someone found a way to screw the metagame with it? While it's frustrating to new players to pick up a copy of, say, Jyahd-Fame, and then find out the card does something else entirely -- it's more frustrating to have a significant portion of your card stock banned, only to have the next set make you start over with a card with nearly identical functionality. Under the current system, old cards are still playable, provided you've done a little bit of homework in advance. Under the other system, the cards are flat-out unplayable no matter how much homework you do. The Fanboy

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio news:B7C52ECB.71A7%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu... <snip> > I think you're suffering from incoherence, here. Maybe it's language matter, but, anyhow, why incoherence ? I'm just saying that, since some time, VTES is (at least!) almost a "normal" CCG, with scheduled releases, and a set of no-longer mis-printed-bad-designed-broken cards or inconsistent rules. And so players discussing about *banning* a card (the few times it happens) should not longer get the feeling that they will never get an opportunity to see a similar and more balanced card. Since that's can be done *now*. And so, apart for the love of discussion, why do you still feel the need for further erratas (on unbalanced cards)? > While I don't agree > with you (at least, I don't think I do), is *this* what you're basically > trying to say?: > > Since (in the old days) no new V:TES cards were being printed, and it > looked like no new cards were EVER going to be printed, the *only* solution > to repairing broken cards was errata or ban. I agree, but this is not entirely true. The solution has almost always been "errata", due the facts you say above. The banned list were, and is, very small (no problem, in that). > But now that we've got new sets coming out from White Wolf, we have a > new option: We can ban problem cards, and then reprint a NEW card that does > what the old one was supposed to, but without being broken? > I *do* think yes, if you're asking for a confirmation. But i'm speaking of a would-be different card, with a different name. Not just a fixed reprint. That's what i'm asking, for the few times this will be necessary. No errata on unbalanced cards, just a new card, and banning the previous one some time after the new one comes out. > > Just my thought > > If I've read you right, I'm thinking it's going to stay that way as > "just [YOUR] thought." (*I* sure disagree. =) > No, at all, i'm here to discuss, and *not* to just stay on my thought.....:-) Emiliano [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:cwg3xfc$26n7...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <oVNn7.42197$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton > <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes > >> A six month period > > > >Geee, how you can tell, if it is a thing that never happened ? > > It's called engaging your brain before posting. Work out the > development cycles for current sets. It's not hard. Really. > Use your imagination as well as your brain then, since is not hard to figure that, most of the times, a would-be-deemed-for-banning card is *banned* some time after the a new one comes out (printed). > Now get a clue. > > It is not impossible or, indeed, unlikely for key cards to be found > needing errata. Your fixed rule, based on no merit at all, to preserve Fixed *rule*, again.......... ...I'm not speaking of any *fixed rule*, but of a general *attitude* about "errating" cards, even when not needed. After a discussion(s) about banning SC, we got one more time, (imho, *now* no longer needed ) the "list of possible errata on SC" discussions. In the past, that's was out of necessity. But now ? This is my point, and i obviously don't want to say that people here should not *discuss* about new errata on cards, but only that i see no longer need for that.. > some twisted notion of game purity, would do nothing but harm the game > in such an instance. > > Inflexible rules almost always create situations where they act > detrimentally. I've shown quite a few. Yet you somehow think those > would be good for the game. I just told you again and again that i'm not speaking of *any* inflexible anything. Maybe it's a language matter, but we don't understand each other. So i think it's better to cut this, since it's no profitable to go on in a discussion where one says X and the other understands Y. See ya Emiliano [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <ErSn7.44953$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >Fixed *rule*, again.......... >...I'm not speaking of any *fixed rule*, but of a general *attitude* "If a card is broken, unbalanced etc... lets' BAN it" is not a general attitude. "And, when we shall to deal again with an unbalanced card, let's ban it." is not a general attitude. You refer to "a straight-fast rule (but WIEVED by merits)". You may care to check precisely what you were speaking of, now that you are so blatantly contradicting yourself between posts. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <JqSn7.44951$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >And so, apart for the love of discussion, why do you still feel the need for >further erratas (on unbalanced cards)? Because a number of potentially unbalanced card may represent key facets of the game. If you remove those, for however long, you can de-stabilise the game hugely. And then you milk the public for even more money, creating antipathy towards the brand. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Fanboy" <texas...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:f99d61c5.01091...@posting.google.com... > Let's apply the argument. I'll take a card that was printed, then > banned with a variant being printed that has since been errated: > Stake/Wooden Stake. > > In the core set, we have the Stake: > Stake: Melee Weapon. Inflicts strenth damage as a strike. If Stake > does more than one damage in combat, opposive vampire is paralyzed. > If opposing vampire is paralyzed, they gain control of the stake. > > Well, when we changed names, we also took rules for paralysis from the > game, and the card got banned, and reprinted as the Wooden Stake. > > Wooden Stake: Melee Weapon. Inflicts strength damage as a strike. If > two or more damage is done with the Wooden Stake in combat, the damage > is treated as aggravated. If opposing vampire goes to torpor, they > gain control of the Wooden Stake and do not untap while in torpor. > > Well, this implied that the Wooden Stake could burn vampires, so they > found it necessary to errata the card. Now, if we follow the argument > that it's better to ban the card and reprint the variant, we would see > the Wooden Stake banned, and a new card printed: > > Sharp, Pointy Stick: Melee Weapon....(we all know what the Wooden > Stake does now I hope, so i'll stop regurgitating card text). > > What happens if that new text is deemed unbalancing? A fourth card? Your analisys is both accurate and inaccurate for my point: the wooden stake or stake was not banned at all, and actually both represent the same card, and errated as it may be (after the wipe out of paralyze and the subsequent new errata), the "two" functioned exactly the same. And this is not the case i'm adressing to. I'm just discussing a general attitude, well present even now, of errating unbalanced cards. In the past, for all the stuff discussed until now, this was OK, and almost the only thing possible. Now, i feel this "errating" no longer necessary, apart for the love of discussion about how a unbalanced card could get balanced, that should be rather an occasion for suggesting a new card, and not an errata for an already printed one. Since we'll see so many new cards. > How many useless cards do you want your collection to have? Fifteen > variants of the same card, all of which are banned because, with each > variant, someone found a way to screw the metagame with it? Oh, come on, that's could be happened in the old Woc days, where we got so many mistake-cards, and the general feelings about a (un)possible new release was "let's hope they shall fix something, next time". (And after years of *nothing* "let's hope they shall *print* some new cards, in time" ;-). Now things are pretty changed, aren't they ? Eh, then, don't you have any hope in the present VTES game enviroment, where very,very, few cards will be able to get into the useless collection you figure above ? Rather, i see our game as very solid, and with so few would-be unbalanced cards to ban to come, that should be not a problem to ban a card, when this will be ever occour.. > While it's frustrating to new players to pick up a copy of, say, > Jyahd-Fame, and then find out the card does something else entirely -- > it's more frustrating to have a significant portion of your card stock > banned, > only to have the next set make you start over with a card with > nearly identical functionality. Eh, no, if a card is to be *banned*, then hardly you'll see a *nearly* identical functionality. Much like the "old" Tomb of Ramses III, and the "new" one. Much like the old Mind Rape and the "new" one. Imho, they are different cards, but, somehow, with the same name. Which is a thing that often confuses the vast majority of non-english game community here, as well me. Emiliano, prnce of Rome <snip> > > The Fanboy

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:XHWFcmWkT$n7E...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <ErSn7.44953$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton > <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes > >Fixed *rule*, again.......... > >...I'm not speaking of any *fixed rule*, but of a general *attitude* > > "If a card is broken, unbalanced etc... lets' BAN it" is not a general > attitude. > It's attitude.Like that of yours on errata-making. Good as yours, i think. It's not rule, since both of us, i think, don't settle any rule here. > "And, when we shall to deal again with an unbalanced card, let's ban > it." is not a general attitude. > > You refer to "a straight-fast rule (but WIEVED by merits)". I was para-phrasathing your straight-fast-rule-spited-in-our-faces stuff, my friend. > You may care to check precisely what you were speaking of, now that you > are so blatantly contradicting yourself between posts. I check always what i speak of. And please, check as well the way you speak of "fucked rules" in your post, since i never adressed to you that way. Ciao Emiliano > -- > James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <diTn7.45145$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >It's attitude.Like that of yours on errata-making. >Good as yours, i think. Not at all. This also again works to confirm that you are establishing hard and fast rules. My clearly stated position is to view each situation on its merits, allowing flexibility. If you believe I would establish any hard and fast rules regarding banning, You Are Wrong. 2/10 - Must try harder. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F They don't need to see you cry B457CA213D7E6 [ quoted text not captured ]

"Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:JqSn7.44951$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it: > And so players discussing about *banning* a card (the few times it > happens) should not longer get the feeling that they will never get an > opportunity to see a similar and more balanced card. Since that's can > be done *now*. And so, apart for the love of discussion, why do you > still feel the need for further erratas (on unbalanced cards)? Because it's a bad idea to tell people that the cards they bought are no longer playable and never will be. This pisses people off. > But i'm speaking of a would-be different card, with a different name. > Not just a fixed reprint. Right. Let me postulate a situation for you here. Say that for whatever reason, players suddenly find a way to break Disarm at inferior. The superior is fine, but the inferior just has to go. Currently, the most likely thing to happen is that errata would be put out correcting Disarm's inferior, and if/when it is reprinted in the future, it will be printed with the new text. No banning is required, but "older" cards may be a bit confusing. Your proposal is that we should immediately BAN Disarm forever and print a new card in the very next set called "Dismember" which has the new, corrected text. This sucks all kinds of smelly goat ass. Many people have spent an awful lot of time and money locating and acquiring Disarms. You would have VEKN tell them that sorry, their money was wasted, because the card is now totally worthless and banned. And, just to piss them off even more, you would reprint what is effectively the SAME card in a new set... except that nobody has ANY of the card, and now they have to go trading and getting multiples of it all over again. If this isn't the worst case of "screw the players" I've ever seen, I don't know what is. I know that Magic did something EXACTLY like this in the past, and got nailed to the wall for it; and they deserved it, too. > That's what i'm asking, for the few times this will be necessary. > No errata on unbalanced cards, just a new card, and banning the > previous one some time after the new one comes out. Ah. So for the nine months between sets, we have to put up with a broken card? This sounds like a really, REALLY poor idea. Not to mention that it could well be MORE than nine months, because you can't just rush in a month before the cards are in stores and decide to add "Dismember" to the set. There's quite a bit of lead time involved with that sort of thing, what with getting the artwork, printing the cards, and actually shipping them to the stores/distributors. No, I don't ever see outright banning cards as being a good thing, unless the entire concept of the card didn't need to exist in the first place (see: Return to Innocence). -- Derek AGITATOR, n. A statesman who shakes the fruit trees of his neighbors -- to dislodge the worms.

>>> The trouble is, if you make honoring a deal illegal, then no one would >>> ever make any deals. And deal-making is a big part of the game. >> >> ...but that's not a really good summarization of it. >> If you make a particular kind of deal (say, the "3-2 split where I roll >> over after I get 3 VP") illegal to honor, then no one would make any of THAT >> kind of deal. This leaves a HUGE area of "deal-space" left available for >> players interested in deal-making. > > I deal with you during your go. "Quick Pat, could you call the vote to > burn Elysium for me? My Lasombra vote and bash deck can't call it! > I'll rush one of your predator's vampires for you, okay?" > > You go and call it. > > I am now compelled to maximise my VPs. Wasting an action on attacking > your predator would not be maximising my chances to gain VPs. > > (This is extremely arguable - and would result in many cat-fights, no > doubt - while the current system that if the deal is good for both of > you when you *make* it, you're /allowed/ to honour it is far less > problematic.) No, it's not less problematic; it's just simpler to implement and judge. Instead of a bunch of little problems, we've got left open this great big huge one, where people are coming solely to wheel, deal, and get into the finals, not actually play the damn game. Don't you think that the difference between tournament and non-tournament play should be about the quality of the decks and the playing? But it's not; the difference is a completely different paradigm of goals and strategies and skills. In short, it's a totally different game. Furthermore, the "non-tournament" game is the one the cards were designed for, and the game where people have the most fun. Planning, offering, and/or accepting a 3-2 split-and-rollover deal certainly isn't fun for the 3 victims, and isn't actually fun to do for the splitters; it's done out of necessity. It's no fun to play out; 2 players beating up on one is a near-foregone conclusion, and is the WHOLE GODDAMN REASON for having the predator-prey relationship: so people didn't have to fight off the whole damn table playing King of the Hill. I'm totally aware of the impossibility of legislating fun. But the tournament scene is taking a turn for the worse, IMO. It's not the V:TES I learned to play, and it's not the V:TES that I enjoy playing each week. It's Tablesplit: The Eternal Deal. (or somesuch; both the topic and recent national events have me cranky, not witty). [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <B7C5C3FF.7204%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes > No, it's not less problematic; it's just simpler to implement and judge. >Instead of a bunch of little problems, we've got left open this great big >huge one, where people are coming solely to wheel, deal, and get into the >finals, not actually play the damn game. When the deal is made, you have to establish whether it's in the player's interests when the deal is made. With a re-write to something along the lines of "You must backstab", you have to establish at (virtually) *every* *single* *point* in the game whether or not someone is maximising their VPs. This results in the same problems as now increased by an arbitrary amount (I hesitate to say an order of magnitude, though it feels not dis-similar). >It's no >fun to play out; 2 players beating up on one is a near-foregone conclusion, >and is the WHOLE GODDAMN REASON for having the predator-prey relationship: Not entirely (though, of course, this is an important facet of the relationship). For instance, a political deck very specifically has far more leeway in this respect, clearly not an accident. The predator-prey relationship attempts to make it harder, with the Edge and pool for ousting being a carrot, to turn the entire game into a game of diplomacy and negotiation - each player has separate interests and separate abilities. I would be interested in any ways, with cards and the mechanisms they provide, that the ganging up/table splitting deals could be discouraged. Cards which mess around with the fringes of ousting and victory conditions - like Political Flux and Lextalionis - strike me as a potential option. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Tetragrammaton wrote: [snip] > > If a card is broken, unbalanced etc... lets' BAN it, and, if needed, let's > create a different card with similar purpose. but wouldn't this leave people with a whole bunch of cards that they just can't use, because they're banned. If they want to use a card that has a similar purpose but isn't "broken", they have to spend even more money, and/or trade away other cards they want, just so they can get this "new" fixed card, that is much like the old broken card. However, if there was simply errata/reprint, they get to use ALL of the cards they have spent their hanrd-earned money on, and not have a box full of true Wallpaper. > This can create a different attitude in card-making approach, much like the > (unwritten) rule "card laid=card played". > The same should be with "card printed = card created as it is PRINTED (text > unchageable)" (apart for mis-printing). > I think that the reason why VTES suffered so many errors, in the past, is > just by this attitude in card-making: > > "ok, maybe this card will be wrong, broken, unbalanced, but oh, no problem, > we can patch it, with an errata/calrification in a latter time......." my god. i don't think this has ever been a design attitude. i think the problem lies more in playtesting. in earlier WotC playtesting, i think it was insufficient[0]. But, even if they did do a lot more playtesting, it's just pretty damn near impossible to come up with all the tricky combos an entire gaming community could conceive. Individual cards themselves are/were rarely a problem. it was as soon as you put them together with other cards that suddenly things got out of hand[1]. > > And so we got Charming Lobby, Ruthor's Hand, Tremere Convocation, Mind Rape, > Return to Innocence, Tomb of Ramses III, Zip Gun, Closed Session, Elder > Impersonation, > Golconda - Inner Peace, Goth Band, WwEF.....and many others. A lot of that was just card text not being phrased in such a way as to make the card actually played the way the designers wanted it to be, not "oh well, if it turns out too powerful we'll just errata it". just my attitude towards reprints to fix cards, salem [0] Not that i actually have any idea how much (if any) playtesting WotC did..... [1] Pun intended.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:Xns911ADB44...@198.99.146.10... > "Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in > news:JqSn7.44951$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it: > > > And so players discussing about *banning* a card (the few times it > > happens) should not longer get the feeling that they will never get an > > opportunity to see a similar and more balanced card. Since that's can > > be done *now*. And so, apart for the love of discussion, why do you > > still feel the need for further erratas (on unbalanced cards)? > > Because it's a bad idea to tell people that the cards they bought are no > longer playable and never will be. This pisses people off. > Believe me, at least here, people get more pissed by an errata other than seeing the would-be card banned. Maybe it's a language matter, but non-english players here feel more confortable in clearing their minds about a card, knowing that it has been banned (again ,the very, very few time when this happens) other than with a text changed (in front of problem, and not mis-printed, cards). > > But i'm speaking of a would-be different card, with a different name. > > Not just a fixed reprint. > > Right. Let me postulate a situation for you here. > > Say that for whatever reason, players suddenly find a way to break Disarm > at inferior. The superior is fine, but the inferior just has to go. > > > Your proposal is that we should immediately BAN Disarm forever and print a > new card in the very next set called "Dismember" which has the new, > corrected text. > No immediately, as i said before, and alternative (differnt) card has to be introduced only when the previous (unbalanced) one was deemed anyway as a interesting card. Second, this would-be ban should apply *after* a new alternative card comes out. > This sucks all kinds of smelly goat ass. Many people have spent an awful > lot of time and money locating and acquiring Disarms. Oh, well, that's the inherent problem of any CCG, i think. Lot of people spent lots of money in finding Tomb of Ramses III, or Form of Mist, or Goth Band etc, but even if those cards were after simply "patched" with an errata (and not banned), they are no longer the cards those people spent lots of money for. The things about such cards "errated" are pretty the same you figuring above for would-be banning. The only difference lies in the good point of usage of a card. But, anyway, the point is that we can make examples only by previous errata-vs-banning situations, wheras now the whole thing in VTES card-availability enviroment is pretty changed. And that just with an SC banning thread started by Peter this new argument comes out (errata vs banning?...). > You would have VEKN > tell them that sorry, their money was wasted, because the card is now > totally worthless and banned. And, just to piss them off even more, you > would reprint what is effectively the SAME card in a new set... except that > nobody has ANY of the card, and now they have to go trading and getting > multiples of it all over again. If this isn't the worst case of "screw the > players" I've ever seen, I don't know what is. I know that Magic did > something EXACTLY like this in the past, and got nailed to the wall for it; > and they deserved it, too. I don't know this, however you'll admit the thing in VTES always been pretty different for MtG, since we never got kill-you-card, almost. > > > That's what i'm asking, for the few times this will be necessary. > > No errata on unbalanced cards, just a new card, and banning the > > previous one some time after the new one comes out. > > Ah. So for the nine months between sets, we have to put up with a broken > card? This sounds like a really, REALLY poor idea. Not to mention that it > could well be MORE than nine months, because you can't just rush in a month > before the cards are in stores and decide to add "Dismember" to the set. I think that unbalanced is distinct form broken (useless). For example, the recent Tortured Confession is really a suck card, but i don't think it will ever be put in consideration for an improving-errata (i hope). The card will be ever as it is now. Waste of money for those who have bought FN boosters. But it's just *a* card in a whole set. As, maybe, will be an unbalnced card in the future. Anyway, about the thing with a unbalanced card you raise an interesting point above: we should tell between cards that have a inferior/superior version (would-be disarm), and card that got just one effect (would-be Succubus Club). Maybe inferior it's ok, but superior is way too owevpowered. This can be later discussed. But Let's figure a pratical situation by now: Say, all the players discussing on the SC thread's agree: it's a problem card, it should be banned from tournament after the coming of new Camarilla set. Let's say that the RT, after sometimes, agree as well. . A) An alternative SC will not be reprinted: so the players interested at playing with it in their playing group simply buy or trade it from other "old-pro" players, that will gladly (most of the time) to trade/buy their copies of a card that in no longer in the field. B) An alternative to SC will printed, say The Blood Club, which allow just pools (no cards) trades during the untap: both new and old player will buy it, since the most of the *old-pro* players should agree by now the the previous SC was too a troublesome card. So, what's the focus point? That most of the "old" players (which are the majority, on this forum) here are a bit scared by this eventuality: oh my god, so i COULD get one-two of my cards banned and no-longer utilisable, noooo..... > There's quite a bit of lead time involved with that sort of thing, what > with getting the artwork, printing the cards, and actually shipping them to > the stores/distributors. > > No, I don't ever see outright banning cards as being a good thing, Nor errata is a goog thing, i think. I see both of them as necessary evil. Between the two, errating was the only solution in the past days, with no new cards ahead and with a big amount of errors, and mistake in card design. So, the banning approach has almost never considered (and that was good), but, by now, it should be an alternative to think of. Emiliano [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <qT0o7.47770$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >> Because it's a bad idea to tell people that the cards they bought are no >> longer playable and never will be. This pisses people off. >> > >Believe me, at least here, people get more pissed by an errata other than >seeing the would-be card banned. Find a card that they've fought long and hard to trade for. Disarm is one of the obvious ones. Tell them it's banned. It is also useful to note that errata is not made solely for your group or people around you. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:6lLuEZGt...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <qT0o7.47770$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton > <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes > >> Because it's a bad idea to tell people that the cards they bought are no > >> longer playable and never will be. This pisses people off. > >> > > > >Believe me, at least here, people get more pissed by an errata other than > >seeing the would-be card banned. > > Find a card that they've fought long and hard to trade for. Disarm is > one of the obvious ones. Tell them it's banned. > Would-be cases don't fit into the actual reality: a card doesn't get a ban (or errata) from *nothing*, there's must be a (consistent) period in which the card is pretty abused in her (potentially) overpowered aspect, and people playing a lot with it (and abusing) should be well aware of that. And prepared for their beloved abused thing to be removed from the field. Much like the dragon's breath/zip gun of the old days, or much like, ( who knows? ) , the minion tap/fifth tradition thing these days. . > It is also useful to note that errata is not made solely for your group > or people around you. > Ok, this it's pretty obvious to me, but since i can kick in argument just for what i get around me, in pratical the aspect, i can just say what *actually* it's my gaming experience about errata, ban or whatever. I don't pretend any errata to be made just for me, and if i give you this feeling, i apologize, i never intended such a thing.. Emiliano, prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <5Q1o7.48193$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >> Find a card that they've fought long and hard to trade for. Disarm is >> one of the obvious ones. Tell them it's banned. >> > >Would-be cases don't fit into the actual reality: >a card doesn't get a ban (or errata) from *nothing*, there's must be a >(consistent) period >in which the card is pretty abused in her (potentially) overpowered aspect, >and >people playing a lot with it (and abusing) should be well aware of that. Why? Loopholes can often be hard to find and will not necessarily be found in your groups. >Much like the dragon's breath/zip gun of the old days, Whilst there were groups of people who abused this to the hilt, there are a number of groups who were playing this perfectly happily with no ill-effects - because they hadn't seen it as a loophole to exploit. >> It is also useful to note that errata is not made solely for your group >> or people around you. > >Ok, this it's pretty obvious to me, It is useful to remind you of it given your insistence on how the people around you will react. The game is more than just the people around you. Do some research on the 7/7 thread, for example. In the 7/7, I agree with practically every ruling in design, certainly in spirit. (That is, I agree something needed to be done, though I might quibble over the minutiae of how it was executed.) This is because the *world* scene was showing that something needed to be done, even if large swathes of the globe had not yet been able to fully exploit the cards - either through not having them, having a metagame where such was not viable, having a play-style that didn't suit them or whatever. Plenty of people now play Disarm quite happily. Assuming someone were to break it, your assumption that *everyone* would break it - or, indeed, everyone would know - is unsupported. Again, look up the 7/7 posts. Now tell them that the cards they spent the last year buying, trading and fighting for - for perfectly sensible use, because they'd not seen the loopholes - have all just been banned. Indeed, this works to promote the game being ruled by Mr. Suitcase. Mr. Suitcase can go out and buy a crate load of Dismember to replace his Disarm (taking Derek's hypothetical cards). What do you propose for Ms. Handbag on a tight budget who can't afford to go and get all those cards again? -- [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio > writes > >> Find a card that they've fought long and hard to trade for. Disarm is > >> one of the obvious ones. Tell them it's banned. > >> > > > >Would-be cases don't fit into the actual reality: > >a card doesn't get a ban (or errata) from *nothing*, there's must be a > >(consistent) period > >in which the card is pretty abused in her (potentially) overpowered aspect, > >and > >people playing a lot with it (and abusing) should be well aware of that. > > Why? Loopholes can often be hard to find and will not necessarily be > found in your groups. > I don't understand well your sentence above. Anyway, i was trying to argue with your point about "take a beloved card and tell it's banned, and then you shall see how the reactions are worse than tellinng that the card got (just) an errata", if i catched well the sense of your previous post..... > >Much like the dragon's breath/zip gun of the old days, > > Whilst there were groups of people who abused this to the hilt, there > are a number of groups who were playing this perfectly happily with no > ill-effects - because they hadn't seen it as a loophole to exploit. Again, i'm not sure to understand. Abused or not, the combo loophole was very unbalancing anyway, much as, say, return to innocence (no loophole at all, here, just overpower). What's the difference if people played those cards with ill or not ill effects ? > >> It is also useful to note that errata is not made solely for your group > >> or people around you. > > > >Ok, this it's pretty obvious to me, > > It is useful to remind you of it given your insistence on how the people > around you will react. The game is more than just the people around > you. I know. Is no insistence, just sincerity in picturing from where i get merits for a discussions: from the gaming experiences around me. > Do some research on the 7/7 thread, for example. > > In the 7/7, I agree with practically every ruling in design, certainly > in spirit. (That is, I agree something needed to be done, though I > might quibble over the minutiae of how it was executed.) This is > because the *world* scene was showing that something needed to be done, > even if large swathes of the globe had not yet been able to fully > exploit the cards - either through not having them, having a metagame > where such was not viable, having a play-style that didn't suit them or > whatever. > > > Plenty of people now play Disarm quite happily. Assuming someone were > to break it, your assumption that *everyone* would break it - or, > indeed, everyone would know - is unsupported. How can you tell that is unsupported ? Almost every major city now has a Prince and an active VTES game community. Internet is everywhere, much more than in the time of 7/7 rulings (at least here in Europe). In fact, now we got the continental championships both in the America and in Europe, a thing that didn't exist (nor can ever be imagined) by the time of 7/7 rules. How can you tell that *now* an unbalanced card, or an abusable way of a particular card/cards combo, is not quickly domain of almost all the active game's community ? > Again, look up the 7/7 > posts. Now tell them that the cards they spent the last year buying, > trading and fighting for - for perfectly sensible use, because they'd > not seen the loopholes - have all just been banned. I think that the thing *now* it's pretty the same with errating. Whichever the loophole maybe, wheter the player is aware of it or not, the unbalancing loophole, once someone uncovers it, remains. And so, by that, we need errating or banning the card, but then the player no longer *has* anyway the card it strived to buy, trade, fight for, be it errated or banned. And, with the errata thing, a player has still at hand an *usable* card, but a potentially confusing *old* one as well. It may even play a tournament just with old copies of that card, and if any problem about text interpretation arises, then the judge could be forced to get the actual official text of the involved errated card(s) by some other source (official text and the like). This sound a bit troublesome to me, unless a particular VEKN tournament rule is made, about forcing a player who uses errated cards, to bring with him/her at least a copy of the current (official) card of the *old* card(s) he uses. But this sounds ridicolous to me. > Indeed, this works to promote the game being ruled by Mr. Suitcase. Mr. > Suitcase can go out and buy a crate load of Dismember to replace his > Disarm (taking Derek's hypothetical cards). What do you propose for Ms. > Handbag on a tight budget who can't afford to go and get all those cards > again? This is a point. And in that i agree. So, this errata approach (about unbalanced cards) is just by thinking about the less rich players. My ban approach (about future unbalanced cards) is about avoiding confusion in the game enviroment (above all, the non-english one). Emiliano, Prince of Rome > James Coupe PGP Key:

On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Tetragrammaton wrote: >> I very hope to see no more errata on cards (with the exception >> of mis-printed cards like Ur-Shulgi). >> If a card is too powerful, broken,unbalancing, let's BAN it, without any >> further damn correction, damn errata etc.. >> Simply print a different (balanced) card with a similar purpose but less >> troublesome >> effects. >> This would ease the pain for new players to get a card from older sets, >> and then realize (after months of games) that his beloved card >> has an entirely different text and fuctionings, without (maybe) the "actual" >> card still >> being printed. >ooooh no. i much prefer errata to banning. imagine a case where a >"new player" turns up to a tournament with a deck full of banned cards. >he just plain can't play. and he probably won't know until he's in a game >and plays a banned card, and then gets kicked out[0]. >if the cards were merely erratad instead, at least he'd still be able to >play in the tourney, even though his cards might not do exactly what he'd >thought they did. The paragraph above is one of the primary factors which resulted in The National Jyhad League being formed (plus 7/7) and did cause a lot of problems at DCI tournaments. Good errata should not force a players deck to entirely unplayable, which is what happened at Origins some years back.. I recall at least 2-3 players that dropped out for the above reason. Bernie >salem.

In message <Egao7.53071$ul3.1...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >> >Would-be cases don't fit into the actual reality: >> >a card doesn't get a ban (or errata) from *nothing*, there's must be a >> >(consistent) period >> >in which the card is pretty abused in her (potentially) overpowered >aspect, >> >and >> >people playing a lot with it (and abusing) should be well aware of that. >> >> Why? Loopholes can often be hard to find and will not necessarily be >> found in your groups. >> > >I don't understand well your sentence above. Taking the point: "a card doesn't get a ban from nothing" This is true. A card must be demonstrated (through whatever means) to be "worthy" of a ban - or errata, or whatever. That it may well come from nothing so far as your group is concerned, however, is quite possible. Look at Drawing out the Beast. This was a card where a number of people had thought "Oh, yes, well, maybe we could do something with that." However, when it actually came to being re-printed, very few people *had* done it, mostly LA Americans. > >> >Much like the dragon's breath/zip gun of the old days, >> >> Whilst there were groups of people who abused this to the hilt, there >> are a number of groups who were playing this perfectly happily with no >> ill-effects - because they hadn't seen it as a loophole to exploit. > >Again, i'm not sure to understand. >Abused or not, the combo loophole was very unbalancing anyway, With some groups using it sparingly - only dropping a couple of each in a deck - it was not seen to be unbalancing; people wouldn't necessarily know that it was even remotely powerful and/or up for discussion. Taking the Disarm situation again. A player in your group spends a lot of time, money and effort acquiring 8 copies of Disarm - something that's really very good for their deck. A group of players - say the Ithaca group, randomly - sit down, read the text and suddenly find this new, undiscovered way of playing it, through a close reading of card text. As a result, they end up writing to LSJ saying "We've done this, we think it's broken. What do you think?" LSJ could consult the Rules Team and ask them. They could recommend an errata that would restore it to its previous function. Under your system, it would be outright banned and reprinted. With some players having only very little Internet access, and other using different forums, not everyone will be aware of every single argument that is had in each. (I don't, for instance, religiously read the White Wolf forum. A debate that occurred there, and only there, would be missed, by me.) >> Plenty of people now play Disarm quite happily. Assuming someone were >> to break it, your assumption that *everyone* would break it - or, >> indeed, everyone would know - is unsupported. > >How can you tell that is unsupported ? The 7/7 show this, as do the re-prints of a number of cards recently with new card text. Some groups had broken those cards, but far from all. Many were surprised by them, even if in the end they thought "Not too bad actually." >How can you tell that *now* an unbalanced card, or an abusable way of a >particular card/cards combo, >is not quickly domain of almost all the active game's community ? I cite the LA DotB experience. >And so, by that, we need errating or banning the card, Indeed. But your hard and fast line of "If a card is broken, unbalanced etc... lets' BAN it" did not allow this flexibility. If you meant "If a card is broken or unbalanced, we should errata or ban it," you should have written that. >but then the player no longer *has* anyway the card it strived to buy, >trade, fight for, >be it errated or banned. Not necessarily true, given the fact that not all groups exploit all loopholes simultaneously. >And, with the errata thing, a player has still at hand an *usable* card, but >a potentially >confusing *old* one as well. >It may even play a tournament just with old copies of that card, and if any >problem >about text interpretation arises, then the judge could be forced to get the >actual official text >of the involved errated card(s) by some other source (official text and the >like). >This sound a bit troublesome to me, What sounds equally troublesome is "I'm sorry, I didn't know that card was banned." "You lose this game." >> Indeed, this works to promote the game being ruled by Mr. Suitcase. Mr. >> Suitcase can go out and buy a crate load of Dismember to replace his >> Disarm (taking Derek's hypothetical cards). What do you propose for Ms. >> Handbag on a tight budget who can't afford to go and get all those cards >> again? > >This is a point. And in that i agree. >So, this errata approach (about unbalanced cards) is just by thinking about >the less rich players. Not true. That is, however, an extremely important point to bear in mind. Far from the only point, of course. For every card you ban and replace, you milk players for again and again. >My ban approach (about future unbalanced cards) is about avoiding confusion >in the game enviroment (above all, the non-english one). A piece of errata is a piece of errata is a piece of errata. What language you speak matters very little. You play by the current card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20010913190829...@mb-mg.aol.com>, BernieTime <berni...@aol.com> writes >>ooooh no. i much prefer errata to banning. imagine a case where a >>"new player" turns up to a tournament with a deck full of banned cards. >>he just plain can't play. and he probably won't know until he's in a game >>and plays a banned card, and then gets kicked out[0]. >>if the cards were merely erratad instead, at least he'd still be able to >>play in the tourney, even though his cards might not do exactly what he'd >>thought they did. > >The paragraph above is one of the primary factors which resulted in >The National Jyhad League being formed (plus 7/7) and did cause a >lot of problems at DCI tournaments. > >Good errata should not force a players deck to entirely unplayable, >which is what happened at Origins some years back.. However, were a player to turn up with that deck (not knowing of the change) at a V:EKN tournament, they would lose their current game and remove all illegal cards from their deck. This may do exactly the same. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio <snip all previously debated stuff> > >How can you tell that *now* an unbalanced card, or an abusable way of a > >particular card/cards combo, > >is not quickly domain of almost all the active game's community ? > > I cite the LA DotB experience. > >And so, by that, we need errating or banning the card, > > Indeed. But your hard and fast line of "If a card is broken, unbalanced > etc... lets' BAN it" did not allow this flexibility. > > If you meant "If a card is broken or unbalanced, we should errata or ban > it," you should have written that. This is another point. As i said in some post here, broken is different from unbalanced, but, whatever the case, i agree in *fixing* the cards that got blatant (or less blatant) errors. An example is WwEF, which was one of the (many) mistakes the designers did with such a basic-for-play card in the old (dead) times. Errating that card was mandatory, due to the factors we have already discussed of. But, imho, an unbalanced card which (unbalancing) effects are blatant by the very beginning, doesn't need, nor deserve, any further effort to make an errata for it. My list for such ban (from tournament) cards has always be: Monocle of Clarity Return to Innocence Mind Rape Tomb of Ramses III Succubus Club Of five, just two got banned, and the other two were errated in almost different cards to a point that you need anyway a copy of the actual card ('s text) to play with the old one (can't just remeber an entirely different card, and that's the weak point of such erratas on blatantly unbalaced card). For SC i can see that all the people promptly jumped to discuss *now* from *banning* about how to *errating* it. That's the attitude i don't like. And, you see, i'm speaking again of attitude. > >but then the player no longer *has* anyway the card it strived to buy, > >trade, fight for, > >be it errated or banned. > > Not necessarily true, given the fact that not all groups exploit all > loopholes simultaneously. Don't think so. We were speaking of a player building a deck (and buying/trading for) using a particular card. Wheter that card is errated or banned, the ignorant-about-the-fact-player simply will not get into the tournament, and so your point about "with errata we can preserve playability in tournaments " is not a good one, i think. > >And, with the errata thing, a player has still at hand an *usable* card, but > >a potentially > >confusing *old* one as well. > >It may even play a tournament just with old copies of that card, and if any > >problem > >about text interpretation arises, then the judge could be forced to get the > >actual official text > >of the involved errated card(s) by some other source (official text and the > >like). > >This sound a bit troublesome to me, > > What sounds equally troublesome is "I'm sorry, I didn't know that card > was banned." "You lose this game." Come on, which V:TES player will *now* ever come to a tournament without knowing the list of *banned* cards ? Maybe one in a million. The list is so thin that can even be printed on the tournament banners. Which is not a so-easy-thing-to-do with a list of the current cards' errata. But i agree that the long list of erratas (not just on unbalanced cards) was a necessary evil due to the past (dead) "mistakes times" . But now? > >> Indeed, this works to promote the game being ruled by Mr. Suitcase. Mr. > >> Suitcase can go out and buy a crate load of Dismember to replace his > >> Disarm (taking Derek's hypothetical cards). What do you propose for Ms. > >> Handbag on a tight budget who can't afford to go and get all those cards > >> again? > > > >This is a point. And in that i agree. > >So, this errata approach (about unbalanced cards) is just by thinking about > >the less rich players. > > Not true. That is, however, an extremely important point to bear in > mind. Far from the only point, of course. Which are the others ? > For every card you ban and replace, you milk players for again and > again. How many times could happens, such a thing ? > >My ban approach (about future unbalanced cards) is about avoiding confusion > >in the game enviroment (above all, the non-english one). > > A piece of errata is a piece of errata is a piece of errata. > > What language you speak matters very little. No my englishman, you cannot understand this, it matters a *lot*. Believe me. > You play by the current > card text. Yes, but when it comes that for playing with current cards' text one's must get a pile of proxy cards and /or some papers full of erratas not written in your native-language, you'll get some attitude at banning cards. At least those blatantly unbalanced for tournaments. (and SC is in my list) Sincerely Emiliano, vekn Prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <BVOo7.72001$ul3.2...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >> >but then the player no longer *has* anyway the card it strived to buy, >> >trade, fight for, >> >be it errated or banned. >> >> Not necessarily true, given the fact that not all groups exploit all >> loopholes simultaneously. > >Don't think so. >We were speaking of a player building a deck (and buying/trading for) using >a >particular card. >Wheter that card is errated or banned, >the ignorant-about-the-fact-player simply will not >get into the tournament, Please explain what you mean. If you are saying that people who don't know the errata won't play, you are wrong. If you are saying that people will turn up at a tournament and ask extensive questions about potential card changes before starting, you are similarly wrong. Such things can happen; they do not always happen. Please clarify. >and so your point about >"with errata we can preserve playability in tournaments " is not a good one, >i think. Errata preserves some playability full-stop. People who have spent a long and hard time collecting such cards for the intended purpose now have a pile of coasters. Ban/replace-ing results in the cash-cow. >> What sounds equally troublesome is "I'm sorry, I didn't know that card >> was banned." "You lose this game." > >Come on, which V:TES player will *now* ever come to a tournament >without knowing the list of *banned* cards ? >Maybe one in a million. I would suggest that at the last two GenCon UK Nationals, I could probably recall at least 6-8 players who did not. Other tournaments sporadically get "brand new" tournament players turning up every so often. This is significantly more than one in a million. Indeed, I would rather not discourage new players by telling them "Sorry, you forfeit this game, sit out for 2 hours please. And thin those cards out of your deck," potentially followed up with, "That takes you below 60? Fill it up with Skill cards and Wake cards." (or similarly simple cards) "Sorry, this card is played slightly differently," (since extremely few cards have ever been *significantly* functionally changed) seems far less harsh than requiring them to sit out of their current game. Again, you are taking your environment and seem to be assuming it is representative of a global environment. >The list is so thin that can even be printed on the tournament banners. With the current implementation, sure. With yours? This is not clear. >But i agree that the long list of erratas (not just on unbalanced cards) was >a necessary evil due to the past (dead) "mistakes times" . >But now? The timing is not particularly relevant, even now, given that your ban can potentially destabilise the environment for a significant period of time, as both Derek and I have explained, repeatedly. <snip - the rich can replace, the poor cannot> >> >This is a point. And in that i agree. >> >So, this errata approach (about unbalanced cards) is just by thinking >about >> >the less rich players. >> >> Not true. That is, however, an extremely important point to bear in >> mind. Far from the only point, of course. > >Which are the others ? *sigh* If you are having to ask what other points there are to bear in mind regarding errata, I suggest you go and read the rest of the thread, including both my posts and Derek's. There are many points which have been made. I would have hoped you had read the rest of the thread and would not need to ask. I would also ask why you would want to bend the game towards the rich instead of the poor. Given this and your comments about 1 in a million, it seems you do not have much exposure to new players, or "new" players who come from previously isolated groups with small card pools. (There really are people still out there who, prior to Sabbat War, were just playing with their sets of Jyhad. No. Really.) >> For every card you ban and replace, you milk players for again and >> again. > >How many times could happens, such a thing ? This number is not fixed. The sets are, of course, designed such that hopefully such will not happen. No guarantees can be made. >> >My ban approach (about future unbalanced cards) is about avoiding >confusion >> >in the game enviroment (above all, the non-english one). >> >> A piece of errata is a piece of errata is a piece of errata. >> >> What language you speak matters very little. > >No my englishman, you cannot understand this, it matters a *lot*. >Believe me. How so? The errata is errata is errata. You either know about it or you don't. How does your native tongue affect this? If you do know about it, you play it. If you don't know about it, the judge informs you of it and you play it. The judge who will, almost certainly, have to be near fluent in English can explain the errata in your language for you, just as the judge can do so when you ask them any question. >> You play by the current >> card text. > >Yes, but when it comes that for playing with current cards' text >one's must get a pile of proxy cards and /or some papers full of erratas >not written in your native-language, The entire card stock is not written in your native language. If non- native language issues are a problem, they are more fundamental than errata. >> -- >> James Coupe PGP Key: >0x5D623D5D >> Close your eyes so you don't feel them >EBD690ECD7A1F >> They don't need to see you cry >B457CA213D7E6 >> I can't promise I will heal you, but if you want to I will try >68C3695D623D5D Please follow Usenet custom and don't quote sig files unless you are commenting on them. That is what the -- is for (dash, dash, space, return). [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio <snip> > Please explain what you mean. > > If you are saying that people who don't know the errata won't play, you > are wrong. > If you are saying that people will turn up at a tournament > and ask extensive questions about potential card changes before > starting, you are similarly wrong. Such things can happen; they do not > always happen. Which is, i think, the same pretty percent you speak some paragraphs below about players-coming-at-tournament without knowing the actual *banned* cards. > Please clarify. > > >and so your point about > >"with errata we can preserve playability in tournaments " is not a good one, > >i think. > > Errata preserves some playability full-stop. If you are speaking of playability of the card, i agree. But, if a card was (clearly) unbalanced, the banning of the card would prevent from the *game balance* full-stop. > People who have spent a > long and hard time collecting such cards for the intended purpose now > have a pile of coasters. > Ban/replace-ing results in the cash-cow. If a player strives for getting so much (unbalanced) cards, and therefore with a potential abusing - intent, and then that card is banned, well, that's the inherent problem and risk of any CCG with a (sanctioned rules) tournament enviroment. And so is V:TES. > >> What sounds equally troublesome is "I'm sorry, I didn't know that card > >> was banned." "You lose this game." > > > >Come on, which V:TES player will *now* ever come to a tournament > >without knowing the list of *banned* cards ? > >Maybe one in a million. > > I would suggest that at the last two GenCon UK Nationals, I could > probably recall at least 6-8 players who did not. Other tournaments > sporadically get "brand new" tournament players turning up every so > often. > > This is significantly more than one in a million. Indeed, I would > rather not discourage new players by telling them "Sorry, you forfeit > this game, sit out for 2 hours please. And thin those cards out of your > deck," potentially followed up with, "That takes you below 60? Fill it > up with Skill cards and Wake cards." (or similarly simple cards) "Sorry, > this card is played slightly differently," "Slightly" it's not the case with Tomb of Ramses III, Mind Rape, Wake With Evening Freshness and some others that i don't recall of. Say, such a player would get plenty of recalls from a Judge for "drawing extra cards" each time he's playing a WwEF (uh, sorry.... i always replaced this after combat, not until next untap....) with the pretty result of being ousted by the judge a not by his/her predators..... But you know, WwE it's just an example, it was ok for me to have an errata for it. > (since extremely few cards > have ever been *significantly* functionally changed) seems far less > harsh than requiring them to sit out of their current game. > > Again, you are taking your environment and seem to be assuming it is > representative of a global environment. Not at all. But as i previously said, i can get opinions just for what is around me. > >The list is so thin that can even be printed on the tournament banners. > > With the current implementation, sure. With yours? This is not clear. > > >But i agree that the long list of erratas (not just on unbalanced cards) was > >a necessary evil due to the past (dead) "mistakes times" . > >But now? > > The timing is not particularly relevant, even now, given that your ban > can potentially destabilise the environment for a significant period of > time, as both Derek and I have explained, repeatedly. Uhm, that sounds counter-logic. The destablisment comes from the unbalanced card, not from *banning* it. A notable amount of players (like you) seems utterly attached to single cards, even the to few unbalanced ones, and really concerned of never getting rid of them. But, a significant destablisment or better: confusion, comes from errating, whereas players are forced to figure out (and remember) a text that is not printed on the card. Until a reprint is made. > <snip - the rich can replace, the poor cannot> > >> >This is a point. And in that i agree. > >> >So, this errata approach (about unbalanced cards) is just by thinking > >about > >> >the less rich players. > >> > >> Not true. That is, however, an extremely important point to bear in > >> mind. Far from the only point, of course. > > > >Which are the others ? > > *sigh* <snip the sigh's explanation > > >> >My ban approach (about future unbalanced cards) is about avoiding > >confusion > >> >in the game enviroment (above all, the non-english one). > >> > >> A piece of errata is a piece of errata is a piece of errata. > >> > >> What language you speak matters very little. > > > >No my englishman, you cannot understand this, it matters a *lot*. > >Believe me. > > How so? The errata is errata is errata. You either know about it or > you don't. To know, is a thing. To remember specifics is another matter entirely. And to remember something written in a different language is harder. > How does your native tongue affect this? If you do know > about it, you play it. If you don't know about it, the judge informs > you of it and you play it. > > The judge who will, almost certainly, have to be near fluent in English > can explain the errata in your language for you, just as the judge can > do so when you ask them any question. > > > >> You play by the current > >> card text. > > > >Yes, but when it comes that for playing with current cards' text > >one's must get a pile of proxy cards and /or some papers full of erratas > >not written in your native-language, > > The entire card stock is not written in your native language. The card stock is, more or less, at hand. You play with it. The erratas (texts) stock is somewhat more ephemeral, almost (at last...) reprinted in new sets, but still with part of it on the internet. And more erratas will come if this attitude prevails: A clearly unbalanced card ? No problem, let's have an errata for it.... > If non- > native language issues are a problem, they are more fundamental than > errata. Why, then, an hit like Magic got translations in almost all languages ? And in Magic the rules are quite simple.... The language matters, i think. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <u_3p7.77237$ul3.2...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes > >> Please clarify. >> >> >and so your point about >> >"with errata we can preserve playability in tournaments " is not a good >one, >> >i think. >> >> Errata preserves some playability full-stop. > >If you are speaking of playability of the card, i agree. >But, if a card was (clearly) unbalanced, the banning of the card >would prevent from the *game balance* full-stop. Not true. Again, take the example of Wake. It was over-powered, this is true, because it could be abused. Simply banning it, however, would have *vastly* unbalanced the game. The idea that banning over-powered card will restore game balance is not a given. >> People who have spent a >> long and hard time collecting such cards for the intended purpose now >> have a pile of coasters. > >> Ban/replace-ing results in the cash-cow. > >If a player strives for getting so much (unbalanced) cards which he or she may not see as unbalanced, since he or she may not have found the unbalancing mechanism >, and therefore >with a potential abusing but this is far from a given >- intent, You cannot tell me that you *know* a specific player's intent. >and then that card is banned, >well, that's the inherent problem and risk of any >CCG with a (sanctioned rules) tournament enviroment. Not a given - since a CCG Rules Team may take one of many attitudes. >> >> What sounds equally troublesome is "I'm sorry, I didn't know that card >> >> was banned." "You lose this game." >> > >> >Come on, which V:TES player will *now* ever come to a tournament >> >without knowing the list of *banned* cards ? >> >Maybe one in a million. >> >> I would suggest that at the last two GenCon UK Nationals, I could >> probably recall at least 6-8 players who did not. Other tournaments >> sporadically get "brand new" tournament players turning up every so >> often. >> >> This is significantly more than one in a million. Indeed, I would >> rather not discourage new players by telling them "Sorry, you forfeit >> this game, sit out for 2 hours please. And thin those cards out of your >> deck," potentially followed up with, "That takes you below 60? Fill it >> up with Skill cards and Wake cards." (or similarly simple cards) "Sorry, >> this card is played slightly differently," > >"Slightly" it's not the case with Tomb of Ramses III, Mind Rape, >Wake With Evening Freshness and some others that i don't recall of. Do recall the rest of the sentence, regarding "extremely few". (Snipping at a comma is unlikely to be helpful.) Wake has not been significantly changed in functionality, but it's replace has been delayed. Mind Rape delays the steal and shortens it, but still allows the vampire to be stolen. Tomb of Rameses can no longer be used as a pool generator, but can still be used to speed influence. I would also note that 6-8 out of a field of 80 is *significantly* more than 1 in a million. >Say, such a player would get plenty of recalls from a Judge for "drawing >extra cards" A player could get precisely one, the first time they manage it. >each time he's playing a WwEF >(uh, sorry.... i always replaced this after combat, not until next >untap....) >with the pretty result of being ousted by the judge a not by his/her >predators..... 120 results in mandatory warnings. 103 results in mandatory game loss. The difference is quite clear. A player who does not pay attention to a ruling they are given will inevitably suffer, in any context in the game. >But you know, WwE it's just an example, it was ok for me to have an errata >for it. So we ban everything unless it's okay with you. >> Again, you are taking your environment and seem to be assuming it is >> representative of a global environment. > >Not at all. >But as i previously said, >i can get opinions just for what is around me. This is not true. With Internet access, you can find many other opinions. Google is your friend, as is the Yahoo club or the White Wolf web-site. >> >But i agree that the long list of erratas (not just on unbalanced cards) >was >> >a necessary evil due to the past (dead) "mistakes times" . >> >But now? >> >> The timing is not particularly relevant, even now, given that your ban >> can potentially destabilise the environment for a significant period of >> time, as both Derek and I have explained, repeatedly. > > >Uhm, that sounds counter-logic. >The destablisment comes from the unbalanced card, >not from *banning* it. Not true, as a number of examples in this thread have previous explained. A card which is perfectly balanced in casual play can be found to be over-powered through prolonged use - Drawing out the Beast, Wake with Evening's Freshness etc. They perform staple functions of the game, which balance the game significantly. Once broken, an errata would restore the balance. A ban would not only remove the broken element, it would remove the stabilising element. >A notable amount of players (like you) seems utterly attached to single >cards, I am not utterly attached to single cards. >even the to few unbalanced ones, and really concerned of never getting rid >of them. Do you believe that players should be forced to buy new cards regularly and repeatedly? A player with little money, or who plays numerous games, can find themselves with a competitive deck or decks with a small card pool. A ban/replace mechanism would undermine this. >But, a significant destablisment or better: confusion, >comes from errating, whereas players are forced to figure >out (and remember) a text that is not printed on the card. Some confusion can be caused - which is why errata usually acts to preserve the "intuitive" use of the card e.g. Hidden Lurker However, should they put the card in their deck, with a close errata mechanism, they can still get some use from their card. With a ban mechanism, they are ejected from that round. >> <snip - the rich can replace, the poor cannot> >> >> >This is a point. And in that i agree. >> >> >So, this errata approach (about unbalanced cards) is just by thinking >> >about >> >> >the less rich players. >> >> >> >> Not true. That is, however, an extremely important point to bear in >> >> mind. Far from the only point, of course. >> > >> >Which are the others ? >> >> *sigh* > ><snip the sigh's explanation > It would still be useful if you were reading the thread. There have been numerous different arguments put forward. >> >> >My ban approach (about future unbalanced cards) is about avoiding >> >confusion >> >> >in the game enviroment (above all, the non-english one). >> >> >> >> A piece of errata is a piece of errata is a piece of errata. >> >> >> >> What language you speak matters very little. >> > >> >No my englishman, you cannot understand this, it matters a *lot*. >> >Believe me. >> >> How so? The errata is errata is errata. You either know about it or >> you don't. > >To know, is a thing. To remember specifics is another matter entirely. >And to remember something written in a different language is harder. Then remember the functional difference in your own language. Do you remember how to play the game in verbatim English or in colloquial <insert language here>? >> How does your native tongue affect this? If you do know >> about it, you play it. If you don't know about it, the judge informs >> you of it and you play it. >> >> The judge who will, almost certainly, have to be near fluent in English >> can explain the errata in your language for you, just as the judge can >> do so when you ask them any question. I note you do not care to address this useful method of addressing the issue. (If you are not addressing a point in a post, it is also a good idea to snip it.) >> >> You play by the current >> >> card text. >> > >> >Yes, but when it comes that for playing with current cards' text >> >one's must get a pile of proxy cards and /or some papers full of erratas >> >not written in your native-language, >> >> The entire card stock is not written in your native language. > >The card stock is, more or less, at hand. A copy of the errata will also be at hand. This is a requirement of tournaments. >You play with it. >The erratas (texts) stock is somewhat more ephemeral, >almost (at last...) reprinted in new sets, >but still with part of it on the internet. >And more erratas will come if this attitude prevails: > >A clearly unbalanced card ? >No problem, let's have an errata for it.... If you are suggesting that an errata mechanism encourages the Design Team to produce unbalanced cards, I can only suggest you look closely at Sabbat War and Final Nights, both of which were produced with the errata mechanism firmly in place. Indeed, you could change your comment to "No problem, let's ban it...." >> If non- >> native language issues are a problem, they are more fundamental than >> errata. > >Why, then, an hit like Magic got translations in >almost all languages ? You miss the point. If players are having issues with a non-native language, this will occur whether in errata or card text. Printing cards in other languages would be a nice goal, were it possible to guarantee the sales. That Magic was printed in a number of foreign languages, however, has nothing to do with the problems, or otherwise, that foreign players face when playing it with English cards. >And in Magic the rules are quite simple.... This is an extremely subjective matter, especially given the huge number of revisions that have occurred over time. For instance, explaining the concept of the interrupt stack (from around Ice Age and similar periods, IIRC) is extremely complex in any language. >The language matters, i think. Only if you allow it to be. Explanations do not have to occur in English. (Or, indeed, in American English.) [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio <snip> > A player could get precisely one, the first time they manage it. > > >each time he's playing a WwEF > >(uh, sorry.... i always replaced this after combat, not until next > >untap....) > >with the pretty result of being ousted by the judge a not by his/her > >predators..... > > 120 results in mandatory warnings. > 103 results in mandatory game loss. > The difference is quite clear. > Ok, but anyway all of this very troublesome. > A player who does not pay attention to a ruling they are given will > inevitably suffer, in any context in the game. The point was about player-ignorant-about-card(s) in his deck (errated or banned) and coming to a tournament; i just pointed than even if you adressed to "errata" as to be the best thing for such a situation, i didn't agree with you, since if you used to play the said WwEF the old way, an then you know just before the event that WwEF is errated, you simply can't get accustomed to replace it *not* after the combat. And that will cause notable problems at your table. So it's not a mere problem of paying attention to a rule, but more to have the *time* to get accustomed to a different card's text (whereas on your card you still read "do not replace until after combat" ) Note that i'm trying to think about such situations with the mind of an average player, and not with that of a well experienced one like you. > >But you know, WwE it's just an example, it was ok for me to have an errata > >for it. > > So we ban everything unless it's okay with you. > No, no, this just a re-iterating italian form....not an attitude of mine like - for me is ok, so it's ok for all the world - or something like that- Never intended such a thing. > >> Again, you are taking your environment and seem to be assuming it is > >> representative of a global environment. > > > >Not at all. > >But as i previously said, > >i can get opinions just for what is around me. > > This is not true. With Internet access, you can find many other > opinions. James, an opinion is a opinion. It's a theorethical thing, and most of the times it is taken from the *real life* experience; and i can take a big *real* VTES game experience just for what i play here, and not only just from what i read somewhere on the net ......and i never played to Jyahd online... <snip> > > > >A notable amount of players (like you) seems utterly attached to single > >cards, > > I am not utterly attached to single cards. > > > >even the to few unbalanced ones, and really concerned of never getting rid > >of them. > > Do you believe that players should be forced to buy new cards regularly > and repeatedly? Why "regularly" ? Do you see any pattern in the coming of unbalanced cards ? And, do you think, given an actual example, that player will be forced to buy a substitute of the sucks card that is Tortured Confession ? Has been not TC a waste of money for such poor players (i'm among them...) ? However it's just a card in a whole sets, and it "ban" herself from the field just because it's a suck card. No one will complains it, however...... And i think that it should be pretty the same for a future unbalanced-to-be-banned card. > A player with little money, or who plays numerous > games, can find themselves with a competitive deck or decks with a small > card pool. A ban/replace mechanism would undermine this. > > > >But, a significant destablisment or better: confusion, > >comes from errating, whereas players are forced to figure > >out (and remember) a text that is not printed on the card. > > Some confusion can be caused - which is why errata usually acts to > preserve the "intuitive" use of the card e.g. Hidden Lurker Hmm, your HL example doesn't focus well on the point, i believe, since HL actually was changed from action in a.m., and i think it was never deemed as "unbalancing" *per se*, but rather as another mistake-designed card in need of some fixing. My point is only about overpowered-unbalancing card. > However, should they put the card in their deck, with a close errata > mechanism, they can still get some use from their card. > > With a ban mechanism, they are ejected from that round. > > <snip the language stuff, points taken> > >You play with it. > >The erratas (texts) stock is somewhat more ephemeral, > >almost (at last...) reprinted in new sets, > >but still with part of it on the internet. > >And more erratas will come if this attitude prevails: > > > >A clearly unbalanced card ? > >No problem, let's have an errata for it.... > > If you are suggesting that an errata mechanism encourages the Design > Team to produce unbalanced cards, I can only suggest you look closely at > Sabbat War and Final Nights, both of which were produced with the errata > mechanism firmly in place. I'm only suggesting that an errata-at-all-cost attitude produces many rewritten cards, which is a thing i don't like. The fixing of all the previous cards' errors was ok, for all the merits already discussed, but i think that should not be merged with an *actual* attitude toward clearly unbalanced cards. > Indeed, you could change your comment to "No problem, let's ban it...." > The discussion, indeed, would be on the banning aspect of a card, and not about rewriting it into a different card with the same name. > > Only if you allow it to be. Explanations do not have to occur in > English. (Or, indeed, in American English.) Tell me how i can explain, say, the "burn blood to play....." "burn blood when playing..." thing without going deeply into the nitpicks of English language. Pretty the same with the "Use a card" "Play a card" discussion we got in recent times. That's was a mere language matter, too. Emiliano > -- > James Coupe

If a player cannot keep up with ever-growing errata/most-recent-printings but could, in theory, keep up with an equally-growing list of banned cards, then a possible solution here is for that player to self-ban all of the cards whose errata/most-recent-printings present the problem. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: > > If a player cannot keep up with ever-growing errata/most-recent-printings but > could, in theory, keep up with an equally-growing list of banned cards, then a > possible solution here is for that player to self-ban all of the cards whose > errata/most-recent-printings present the problem. Does "self-banning" involve banning cards other players can use in official tournaments? If not, I would say you are trading a problem with staying abreast of the current cards with a fairness problem. And you still have the problem of uncertainty when your opponent plays one of the "bad" cards. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > > If a player cannot keep up with ever-growing errata/most-recent-printings but > > could, in theory, keep up with an equally-growing list of banned cards, then a > > possible solution here is for that player to self-ban all of the cards whose > > errata/most-recent-printings present the problem. > > Does "self-banning" involve banning cards other players can use in official > tournaments? ? No. That would be banning. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3BA63C1D...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >Does "self-banning" involve banning cards other players can use in official >tournaments? Of course not. >If not, I would say you are trading a problem with staying abreast >of the current cards with a fairness problem. Self-banning is something the player does of their own volition. >And you still have the problem of >uncertainty when your opponent plays one of the "bad" cards. Given that the player being referred to are obviously capable of learning a list of banned cards, they could simply ask the judge to provide them with current card text when they see one being played. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3BA63C1D...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes > >Does "self-banning" involve banning cards other players can use in official > >tournaments? > > Of course not. > > >If not, I would say you are trading a problem with staying abreast > >of the current cards with a fairness problem. > > Self-banning is something the player does of their own volition. Just pointing out that this is not much of answer, regardless of the merits of banning vs. errata. Like objecting to a tax on air, you always have the option to stop breathing, I suppose. > >And you still have the problem of > >uncertainty when your opponent plays one of the "bad" cards. > > Given that the player being referred to are obviously capable of > learning a list of banned cards, they could simply ask the judge to > provide them with current card text when they see one being played. You need to know this information when you build decks, as it's highly relevant to determining what kinds of things you may have to defend against and/or what cards may foil your strategies. Frankly, I think we're kind of scratching really hard here to try to justify this as an answer to Emiliano's objection. It's neither fair nor, in the end, does it even do the thing Scott seems to be implying it does: allow a player to completely ignore an errataed card. IMO, you'll make much better points by sticking to why his objections to memorizing errata aren't that serious. It's not very realistic to suggest that one needn't memorize errata to be able to play the tournament game. When Scott issues errata, we're stuck having to learn it or suffer for our failure to do that. And once in a while, I've been caught. Not often enough to mind it myself, but it should be no big deal for me - plugged in and aware of all the major resources as I am. I think there's arguments both ways, though. Fred

In message <3BA684D1...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >You need to know this information when you build decks, as it's highly >relevant to determining what kinds of things you may have to defend >against and/or what cards may foil your strategies. Frankly, I think >we're kind of scratching really hard here to try to justify this as an >answer to Emiliano's objection. I am not scratching for anything. I have provided Emiliano with a number of arguments. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:3BA5F7C7...@white-wolf.com... > If a player cannot keep up with ever-growing errata/most-recent-printings but > could, in theory, keep up with an equally-growing list of banned cards, then a > possible solution here is for that player to self-ban all of the cards whose > errata/most-recent-printings present the problem. This is just what players here mostly do on an "intuitive" basis. And this is *just* the thing the good arguments presented here to me by other players (mostly mr. Coupe) was trying to adress as the thing to *avoid* at all cost (let's do errata (on unbalanced cards) to let players keep use of their cards). Say, no-one plays often with Form of Myst, now. It was a complicated card already, and "now" one can't simply remember always the errated text clauses. So he simply give up to play with it. Again, we can speak only of past - mistaken cards, that was all-right to get fixed and then reprinted, and of the few ones waiting for a reprint. I'm concerned just for future unbalanced cards. And a current one that is Succubus Club. If such a card is deemed unbalanced after discussions and by the RT, i see no problem in banning it. Imo, is a less a troublesome thing to do than striving for having an errata to just re-inserting it in the tournament field. Emiliano > --

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:n7ZJjB5i...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3BA684D1...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes > >You need to know this information when you build decks, as it's highly > >relevant to determining what kinds of things you may have to defend > >against and/or what cards may foil your strategies. Frankly, I think > >we're kind of scratching really hard here to try to justify this as an > >answer to Emiliano's objection. > > I am not scratching for anything. I have provided Emiliano with a > number of arguments. Indeed...as i hope to have provided some to you.... Emiliano > --

In message <RTGp7.6482$Q25.2...@news.infostrada.it>, Tetragrammaton <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes >Say, no-one plays often with Form of Myst, now. 1) It's an action modifier - the "Can't use unless you need stealth" and so on follows exactly as normal from that. 2) If you interrupt it by continuing/re-starting combat or performing diablerie, the continue action effect is lost. 3) All of this only counts if you're the acting minion. The defending minion can play it as many times as they like. >It was a complicated card already, and "now" one can't simply remember > always the errated text clauses. So he simply give up to play with it. There is nothing stopping him writing down a copy of the full errata, or notes for him to refer to, if he's playing with it. The section of the rules which covers "notes" only refers to making notes about other players. There is nothing stopping you having a current piece of card text on you. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:13:37 GMT, "Tetragrammaton" <nospam_a...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Say, no-one plays often with Form of Myst, now. >It was a complicated card already, and "now" one can't simply remember > always the errated text clauses. So he simply give up to play with it. Whats wrong with FoM? T

In message <3ba7ef9d.693586785@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>Say, no-one plays often with Form of Myst, now. >>It was a complicated card already, and "now" one can't simply remember >> always the errated text clauses. So he simply give up to play with it. > >Whats wrong with FoM? If you look at the list of E/R/C on it, it's rather long. What you actually need to realise is that they're actually fairly trivial in nature, some of them being there somewhat redundantly, for extra explanation, in an attempt to provide everyone with a full understanding of a popular card. [ quoted text not captured ]

Okay Form of Mist q? As I see it, the Erratta stating that you cannot play superior FOM as the acting minion unless you need the stealth neuters the card. Think about it. Someone blocks you, you enter combat, during your strike phase you would like to play the card But normally you can only increase stealth when someone attempts to block you. If you are already blocked, and no further blockers can be declared until after you play the card, how can you play superior FOM in the first place?? T

<Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3ba9192d.769773620@news... > Okay Form of Mist q? > > As I see it, the Erratta stating that you cannot play superior FOM as > the acting minion unless you need the stealth neuters the card. > > Think about it. Someone blocks you, you enter combat, during your > strike phase you would like to play the card short answer: If you wouldn't need the stealth, you wouldn't be in combat. Long answer: search google, it comes along regularly

[ quoted text not captured ] If there's a blocking minion whose intercept is equal to or exceeds the acting minion's stealth, then the acting minion "needs stealth". If you've been blocked, then your opponent in combat is a blocking minion whose intercept is greater than or equal to your stealth (barring corner cases like a Raven Spy killed with Weather Control). => you need stealth. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 08:17:25 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >If there's a blocking minion whose intercept is equal to or exceeds the >acting minion's stealth, then the acting minion "needs stealth". > >If you've been blocked, then your opponent in combat is a blocking minion >whose intercept is greater than or equal to your stealth (barring >corner cases like a Raven Spy killed with Weather Control). >=> you need stealth. > So basically then, the stipulation that you cant play superior FOM if stealth is not needed is only in effect when that minion was not blocked on his action, like a bums rush or something? Because otherwise, that erratta is confusing. T

In message <3baa6fda.55729521@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >So basically then, the stipulation that you cant play superior FOM if >stealth is not needed is only in effect when that minion was not >blocked on his action, like a bums rush or something? No, like the situation that LSJ just gave. You need stealth when you have an opponent with intercept equal to (or greater than) your stealth. Situation: I bleed, you block. I can play Form of Mist because we're both on 0. Situation: I bleed at 1 stealth with Kine Dominance. You block with Raven Spy vampire. (Say, you played Wake and I wasn't expecting it, for reality.) I can play Form of Mist because we're both on 1. Situation: I bleed at 0 stealth. You block. I play Faceless Night (1 stealth). You have a Sport Bike. (I was trying to cycle to more stealth.) I play Blessing of Durga Syn. On an additional strike, I *cannot* play Form of Mist since you are now on 0 intercept and I am on 1 stealth, hence I don't need stealth. (Not to mention that obf/cel/chi/PRO or similar is annoying to get hold of.) Situation: We're both at 1 stealth/intercept. I play Weather Control, killing your Raven Spy, putting you at 0 intercept. (The situation LSJ gives.) You're at zero, I'm at one. I cannot play Form of Mist because I don't need the stealth. Situation: My Brujah goes unblocked, but you play Brujah Frenzy. Whilst we are in combat, there is no blocking minion - Brujah Frenzy itself blocks the action. So I cannot play Form of Mist, because there is no blocking minion. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 00:23:42 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3baa6fda.55729521@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>So basically then, the stipulation that you cant play superior FOM if >>stealth is not needed is only in effect when that minion was not >>blocked on his action, like a bums rush or something? > >No, like the situation that LSJ just gave. > >You need stealth when you have an opponent with intercept equal to (or >greater than) your stealth. > Yup. Thats sorta what I meant by the 'not usable if not blocked' comment above, but I neglected the possible situations that could reduce the blockers intercept during combat which you covered, thanks. T