Face Up Uncontrolled Region

As a result of the lengthy contestation thread, I have come to the following conclusion. The game of Vampire: The Eternal Struggle would be improved if cards in players' uncontrolled regions were face up for all to see. Advantages of this change: 1) Reduce accidental contestation. If I see that another player has the same vampire as me in their uncontrolled region, I can choose whether or not transfer to that vampire. 2) Increase transparency of rules adherence when an uncontrolled vampire's capacity is relevant, such as playing Zillah's Valley, Govern the Unaligned, or simply bringing the vampire out when its capacity is reached. Disadvantages 1) Making secret information public can decrease strategic depth -- I no longer have to try to deduce which guys are in someone's uncontrolled region (if it matters) or play around the various possibilities. My assertion is that the advantages outweigh the disadvantage, ergo we should push for this change. Who's with me? -Steve Wampler

[ quoted text not captured ] Not I! The disadvantage of knowing what your opponents can bring out (and are transferring to) is HUGE. Transferring to Arika? I'll get out my two three-caps and bleed you really bad before she shows up to the party. Not only will it matter to the choice of what minion you bring out, but your overall strategy without them even playing a card. Decks to get off the table right off the bat- weenie bleed, Una, powerbleeding, etc. Why not just fix contestation? That would be so much easier. Brandon

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, at least it's easier to test on JOL... best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] "I'm sorry Dave, I can't allow you to do that" Not with you on this Steve. Your advantages #1: I believe this to be a cornercase event, far lower in occurrance than "idiot play", "spiteful play" and "I'm a rush deck so I have to rush then bitch about being neutered like a cat and then revert to idiot/spiteful play" #2: Most people play honestly. I haven't really had issues with people trying to jerk you around on Zillah's, GtU@DOM, Enchant Kindred @PRE, Founders of the Ebony Kingdom, Fourth Trad, etc. If you've got doubts, get a judge over. If it's social play, help your playgroup do better and play the card better. If they're a cheating jackass then very little will probably change it even if there is transparency (the cheating jackass will develop a new cheating method). I am dead against "Open Crypt". Reasons follow. #1 Mistaken Crypt I make fairly balanced crypts in general (a few exceptions but meh). If I draw my "smaller minions" in a non-weenie deck (say, 3cap, 4cap, 5cap, 6cap out of a crypt containing a balanced 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 10, 10 spread crypt) I could be quickly labelled a "weenie horde" and smashed off the table when I would have a hard position to play from already. Similar Idea if you get the "Support Cast" but no Superstar, or if you get "All the fringe guys" and not the "Core Vamps". #2 Crypt/Library Surprise Many trick decks use vampires "out of character". By revealing the 'other vamps' you remove the Crypt Surprises and that bit of confusion about what the deck does. #3 Why Open Crypt and not Open Hand too? All the reasons you want a hand to be closed are similar reasons for wanting your crypt to be closed. #4 Tactical Contesting I can't surprise contest as a TACTICAL measure if you can see my crypt. You'll just never bring that vampire out or I better hope like CRAZY I can bloat fast and draw the vamp I want with "Pay 1 pool to See 1 Vamp"...

On Aug 18, 8:16 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am dead against "Open Crypt". Reasons follow. > > #1 Mistaken Crypt > I make fairly balanced crypts in general (a few exceptions but meh). > If I draw my "smaller minions" in a non-weenie deck (say, 3cap, 4cap, > 5cap, 6cap out of a crypt containing a balanced 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 7, > 8, 8, 8, 10, 10 spread crypt) I could be quickly labelled a "weenie > horde" and smashed off the table when I would have a hard position to > play from already. > Similar Idea if you get the "Support Cast" but no Superstar, or if you > get "All the fringe guys" and not the "Core Vamps". A bad crypt draw is a bad crypt draw, whether your opponents get to see it or not. Bad play is bad play, and there is no reason to suspect that any particular set of information will cause bad play rather than any other. To expand on this a little, your objection seems to be that you might draw all little guys in a deck that isn't designed to take advantage of such a draw and the table will gang up on you when you are hampered anyway. That is bad play on the part of the table. Your predator kicking you when you are down is part of the game. Anyone else is making a mistake. I strongly suspect that giving people more information will not, on average and in the long run, cause more players to make more mistakes. > #2 Crypt/Library Surprise > Many trick decks use vampires "out of character". By revealing the > 'other vamps' you remove the Crypt Surprises and that bit of confusion > about what the deck does. True enough, additional information makes it easier to figure out what is going on. On the whole, though, I think that's good for the game. Sure, it is fun sometimes to see someone pull off some elaborate combo or gimmick, but for the most part in serious play people have a pretty good idea of the general bounds of what someone else's deck is likely to do. And I think that's a good thing: games where someone gets caught dramatically off guard tend to result in wild swings that do little to reward skillful play. "If I had known he was gonna Amaranth me, I wouldn't have blocked the bleed." > #3 Why Open Crypt and not Open Hand too? > All the reasons you want a hand to be closed are similar reasons for > wanting your crypt to be closed. As far as I can tell, the main reason to keep your hand closed is to add an element of uncertainty to the game. If I take an action you can react in any number of ways, depending on the cards in your hand. For the most part, the contents of your uncontrolled region do not affect the ways you can react. If I am contemplating bleeding you, it is relevant if you have bounce and/or intercept and/or untap cards in your hand. It is not relevant if you have Bear Paw in your uncontrolled region. > #4 Tactical Contesting > I can't surprise contest as a TACTICAL measure if you can see my > crypt. You'll just never bring that vampire out or I better hope like > CRAZY I can bloat fast and draw the vamp I want with "Pay 1 pool to > See 1 Vamp"... Sure, it is slightly less surprising if you do it from a face-up uncontrolled region, but it can still be a legitimate tactical play. Yes, a player can avoid contests by not bringing out guys others have, but that's a feature, not a bug. -Steve Wampler

I also think that it would be a decent idea to play with an open crypt. Of all the solutions to "fix" unwitting vampire contestation, it is the easiest to implement. It would require one simple rules change. Very few existing cards would be affected, namely a couple of Group 1 & 2 Nosferatu. Those vampires would need to be errataed in order to justify their costs. Another plus is that it would be mechanically easier to bring an uncontrolled vampire into the controlled region. You would not have to remove and replace the blood counters from the card when it is flipped over. Admittedly, the strategy of the first few rounds of the game would change. However, people usually know by turn three what everyone else is playing. Would knowing on the first turn drastically change the game environment?

On Aug 19, 2:26 pm, swamplor <steve_and_ama...@verizon.net> wrote: > On Aug 18, 8:16 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I am dead against "Open Crypt". Reasons follow. > > > #1 Mistaken Crypt > > I make fairly balanced crypts in general (a few exceptions but meh). > > If I draw my "smaller minions" in a non-weenie deck (say, 3cap, 4cap, > > 5cap, 6cap out of a crypt containing a balanced 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 7, > > 8, 8, 8, 10, 10 spread crypt) I could be quickly labelled a "weenie > > horde" and smashed off the table when I would have a hard position to > > play from already. > > Similar Idea if you get the "Support Cast" but no Superstar, or if you > > get "All the fringe guys" and not the "Core Vamps". > > A bad crypt draw is a bad crypt draw, whether your opponents get to > see it or not. > Bad play is bad play, and there is no reason to suspect that any > particular set of information will cause bad play rather than any > other. To expand on this a little, your objection seems to be that > you might draw all little guys in a deck that isn't designed to take > advantage of such a draw and the table will gang up on you when you > are hampered anyway. That is bad play on the part of the table. Your > predator kicking you when you are down is part of the game. Anyone > else is making a mistake. I strongly suspect that giving people more > information will not, on average and in the long run, cause more > players to make more mistakes. Table-talk and manipulating the table verbally is a valid and I'd say encouraged aspect of the game. My objection is that my ability to influence the table's decisions will be hampered based on what they know. VTES is what it is because all players are deliberately armed with IMPERFECT knowledge. A Perfect Knowledge tactical game is Chess; VTES is NOT Chess. Do I have an issue with my predator ousting me? Generally nope. Do I want to give ammunition to my Predator to use against me to manipulate the table against me (say to let my predator have an unrestrained assault on me)? Always NO. The more "perfect" the knowledge of players, the less table-talk and verbal manipulation can happen. If I get boned by my Crypt, I'd like to be able to sit there and fake it "of course this deck runs on those minions... *discards cards specifically for key vamps to use*" I might have a Saulot deck, and not get Saulot at all. Problems = many, but revealing the support cast for my Saulot deck probably makes it look like something entirely different. (I'm sure you can think of other cases of "key vampire + support cast"). People would play combat differently with a Martin Frankel if they could see two more in my crypt and an Arcane Library on the table... they would maybe try to avoid hurting him when what I'd desperately love is Martin to explode so I can get a new one. See closed hand. > > > #2 Crypt/Library Surprise > > Many trick decks use vampires "out of character". By revealing the > > 'other vamps' you remove the Crypt Surprises and that bit of confusion > > about what the deck does. > > True enough, additional information makes it easier to figure out what > is going on. On the whole, though, I think that's good for the game. > Sure, it is fun sometimes to see someone pull off some elaborate combo > or gimmick, but for the most part in serious play people have a pretty > good idea of the general bounds of what someone else's deck is likely > to do. And I think that's a good thing: games where someone gets > caught dramatically off guard tend to result in wild swings that do > little to reward skillful play. "If I had known he was gonna Amaranth > me, I wouldn't have blocked the bleed." "If I'd known he had Command the Beast, Foreshadowing Destruction and Conditioning in hand I'd have blocked it or flicked it"... same issue, different stripes. What is wrong with rewarding the skilful play of operating a deck that is "out of left field" and ousts using a combination people haven't really thought about or used or perfected before? Tournaments will always have a certain contingent of MalkS&B Cheese, Ven w/Obf, Tor Vote, Kiyasid S&B, Ravnos Swarm Bleed, etc, etc, etc. You go into a tournament knowing those are coming... But a deck such as Nick Miller's "Mummies of the Inner Circle" would be easily misconstrued if you saw the crypt (G2 ICs + FoS to make Spell of Life Mummies of the IC vamps) and the way individuals and the table as a whole would play would be very different. I would want to PROMOTE those decks and stop tournaments being "Race of the Speed Bleeders". > > > #3 Why Open Crypt and not Open Hand too? > > All the reasons you want a hand to be closed are similar reasons for > > wanting your crypt to be closed. > > As far as I can tell, the main reason to keep your hand closed is to > add an element of uncertainty to the game. If I take an action you > can react in any number of ways, depending on the cards in your hand. > For the most part, the contents of your uncontrolled region do not > affect the ways you can react. If I am contemplating bleeding you, it > is relevant if you have bounce and/or intercept and/or untap cards in > your hand. It is not relevant if you have Bear Paw in your > uncontrolled region. Of course they can affect the way I can react; just rarely how I can react during this action. It will be how I can react to the table in 2-3 turns. You don't show your hand because a part of this game is the threats that are contained in those cards in hand. Without those being a mystery, is it anywhere near as easy to threaten/blackmail someone into doing an action differently? Also, would you like me to be playing Gisela Harden while you have an open crypt??? I'll be able to tell VERY quickly just which vampire deserves nuking by Gisela. I would also know just which vampires would be worth Brainwashing... or The Name Forgotten... or... > > > #4 Tactical Contesting > > I can't surprise contest as a TACTICAL measure if you can see my > > crypt. You'll just never bring that vampire out or I better hope like > > CRAZY I can bloat fast and draw the vamp I want with "Pay 1 pool to > > See 1 Vamp"... > > Sure, it is slightly less surprising if you do it from a face-up > uncontrolled region, but it can still be a legitimate tactical play. > Yes, a player can avoid contests by not bringing out guys others have, > but that's a feature, not a bug. There have been other proposals to fix that bug without adding that feature. For example "If a unique card in your uncontrolled region is already Controlled by another Meth, you may spend 4 transfers to remove that card from the game and move the blood to another card in your uncontrolled region". Fixes the bug, doesn't negate the tactical value of Contesting as a strategic play. I don't think the advantages you seek from an Open Crypt, using the method you're describing, come with acceptable side-effects.

I still have a hard time reading all this. Really all these proposed changes for the scarce event of being fubar'ed out of the game when a first-round (read first-minion) contesting occurs? Really? And now it hase come to playing with an open crypt? Please explain to me how that would do the game any good. In my opinion, the whole concept of TCG's is playing with a personalized deck of cards, kept hidden from the folks you play them against. The thousands of option that you have by now in V:tes makes for endless possibilities. For me, part of the fun in playing V:tes (or TCG's in particular) is the surprise of not knowing what you're up against. And then hope to be able to anticipate on whatever your opponents may throw at you. Since you cannot make a deck of a thousand cards, you are destined to be more vulnerable to certain types of decks then others, but hey, that's part of the game. Remember M:tG? In that game you also had to make choices. I remember a tournament in a time when playing blue was a 'flavor-of-the-month' thing. So I included CoP:Blue. And guess what. I never played against a blue deck the whole tournament. Bummer. I made a choice, I had bad luck. It wasn't a bad choice, because based on logics, it was smart including the card. In the end, fate decided that it was obsolete in the deck. Same goes for V:tes. You make a deck based on choices. You choose to play certain cards (crypt or library). You do your best to prepare for the worst. Sometimes it works out fine, sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't, it's not a matter of bad choices (based on the assumption that you DO know how to make a decent deck), but more a matter of bad luck. The bad luck case that a majority of the latest threads seem to address is contesting. Not even contesting in general, but the random and rare case that someone messes up your game by contesting a big vampire that would have been your first (correct me if I see this the wrong way, but I assume your game is less fucked up when the contesting concerns a low-capacity vampire - pool loss will then be more containable). I then understood that the issue in this case was that, how transferring back works right now, the disadvantage (or even punishment) is a bit too harsh, and needs some fixing. I fail to see how playing with an open crypt fixes the problem. Best option I have read so far is the immediate redistribution of influenced pool to other crypt cards. That is, when a contesting minion occurs (preventing abuse of cards like GtU and younger minions, you get the point). Still I'm perfectly fine with being Fubar'ed if a contest ever shows up as described in many threads. Bad luck happens. Suck it up; better luck next game. Never happened to me, and in all my years of play, I had ONE of these events on a table I joined. Really, too rare for all this fuzz. Also, I couldn't resist commenting on this: > Another plus is that it would be mechanically easier to bring an > uncontrolled vampire into the controlled region. You would not have > to remove and replace the blood counters from the card when it is > flipped over. Is that really a problem for you? Try putting the influenced pool right under the card you're influencing, indicating which minion is intended to receive your pool. Then you just have to flip the card and move the counters to the card, instead of first having to move the counters off...

On Aug 19, 6:19 am, Mark <markangel1...@gmail.com> wrote: > I still have a hard time reading all this. Really all these proposed > changes for the scarce event of being fubar'ed out of the game when a > first-round (read first-minion) contesting occurs? Really? And now it > hase come to playing with an open crypt? Please explain to me how that > would do the game any good. [...] > I fail to see how playing with an open crypt fixes the problem. Perhaps if you read the original post, in which I spell out how it would fix the problem, and how that would be good for the game. > > Also, I couldn't resist commenting on this: > > > Another plus is that it would be mechanically easier to bring an > > uncontrolled vampire into the controlled region. You would not have > > to remove and replace the blood counters from the card when it is > > flipped over. > > Is that really a problem for you? Try putting the influenced pool > right under the card you're influencing, indicating which minion is > intended to receive your pool. Then you just have to flip the card and > move the counters to the card, instead of first having to move the > counters off... I didn't come up with this particular support, though I do agree with it. It isn't a *problem* to bring guys into play, nor is it often a problem with people accidentally Governing to guys who are too big or forgetting to bring guys out when they've reached capacity. However, this rules change would take these too elements, which work just fine currently, and make them *even better* and *even more* convenient. If these were the only benefits, I wouldn't think this was a good rules change. As it is, they are mere gravy on the addressing contestation issue. -Steve

On Aug 18, 7:14 pm, swamplor <steve_and_ama...@verizon.net> wrote: > My assertion is that the advantages outweigh the disadvantage, ergo we > should push for this change. Let me throw in another disadvantage, before you decide. Aside from your crypt, and your ash heap, there are 3 regions of vampires: (1) the face down vampires; (2) the face up vampires alongside the face-down vampires; and (3) the face-up vampires above the face-down vampires. See diagram in rulebook. The face-down vampires are the uncontrolled region The face-up vampires alongside them are the torpor region The face-up vampires above them are the ready region. If we turn the uncontrolled vampires face up, how will we tell, visually, which are which?

[ quoted text not captured ] Ideas: Rotate them 180 degrees. Use three rows: (player side) uncontrolled, torpor, ready (bank side). Put them on one side of your pool (with the torpor region on the other side). Put them on one side of the library (with the torpor region on the other side).

On Aug 19, 3:19 am, Mark <markangel1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also, I couldn't resist commenting on this: > > > Another plus is that it would be mechanically easier to bring an > > uncontrolled vampire into the controlled region. You would not have > > to remove and replace the blood counters from the card when it is > > flipped over. > > Is that really a problem for you? Try putting the influenced pool > right under the card you're influencing, indicating which minion is > intended to receive your pool. Then you just have to flip the card and > move the counters to the card, instead of first having to move the > counters off... No, it's not a problem for me, I'm just throwing out an advantage of this proposed rules change. It's not a huge advantage, but it is an advantage. I don't usually sleeve my cards, so anything that reduces wear and tear is welcome. Removing 10 counters from Anneke, flipping her, then replacing the tokens is awkward, though not difficult. Swamplor mentioned forgetting to bring out vampires from the uncontrolled region when they're at full capacity. I hadn't thought about it, but it happened to me recently. I had 5 blood on Blythe Candelaria, when I thought she was Justine, Elder of Dallas. (Yes, I was tired and lost track.) When I realized my mistake, I brought her out and lost the 2 blood. However, she should have been influenced out the previous turn, regardless of whether I remembered or not. Playing with an open uncontrolled region cleans up a lot of potential messiness.

On 19 aug, 20:38, swamplor <steve_and_ama...@verizon.net> wrote: > On Aug 19, 6:19 am, Mark <markangel1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I still have a hard time reading all this. Really all these proposed > > changes for the scarce event of being fubar'ed out of the game when a > > first-round (read first-minion) contesting occurs? Really? And now it > > hase come to playing with an open crypt? Please explain to me how that > > would do the game any good. > > [...] > > > I fail to see how playing with an open crypt fixes the problem. > > Perhaps if you read the original post, in which I spell out how it > would fix the problem, and how that would be good for the game. Sigh. I did read your original post. Not much use to comment on it if I hadn't. Also: see at what point in my own post I state "I fail to see how playing with an open crypt fixes the problem". Right above that part are a couple of lines in which I explain why I think it's not fixing anything; it's just taking away a major part of the fun playing a TCG. So let me rephrase, just to be clear: I disagree that playing with an open crypt will improve the game. I think it takes away some of the essence of a TCG, and in this particular case a part that I have always liked about TGC's. I think there are better solutions addressing this problem; see other post.

[ quoted text not captured ] Okay, I see what you mean there. But in my experience, the biggest issue when playing with unsleeved cards is having to use your fingernails to try and pick 'em up from the table. Nothing more damaging for your cards than that. So playing with sleeves would solve that problem as well (I always advice new players to buy sleeves to keep their cards in optimal shape). And although I understand the fact that an open crypt would not only potentially help against contesting, but also prevent some sloppyness or maybe even some cheating, I still think it takes too much away from the TGC concept of not knowing what you're up against. I'd take the "ufo melting my rock/paper/scissor with a laser beam"-occasional and rare contesting as an 'ah, crap...' moment, and count on better luck for the next game I'll play.

On Aug 19, 3:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > John Whelan wrote: > > On Aug 18, 7:14 pm, swamplor <steve_and_ama...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> My assertion is that the advantages outweigh the disadvantage, ergo we > >> should push for this change. > > > Let me throw in another disadvantage, before you decide. > > > Aside from your crypt, and your ash heap, there are 3 regions of > > vampires: (1) the face down vampires; (2) the face up vampires > > alongside the face-down vampires; and (3) the face-up vampires above > > the face-down vampires. See diagram in rulebook. > > > The face-down vampires are the uncontrolled region > > The face-up vampires alongside them are the torpor region > > The face-up vampires above them are the ready region. > > > If we turn the uncontrolled vampires face up, how will we tell, > > visually, which are which? > > Ideas: > > Rotate them 180 degrees. That's the best option, I think. Except ... I've seen people turn cards upside-down to indicate torpor: It's not a perfect practice, since one must remember whether the card is tapped, but for whatever reason, it is usually not a problem when I've seen it used; and it can be helpful. I'd rather not lose that option. Also, the time when a player is most likely to read a card is when he is deciding whether to bring it into play. Seems unnatural for it to be turned the wrong way -- to have to twirl them to read them and then twirl back. I suppose someone will argue it is even more inconvenient to be face down, but somehow, it does not seem so to me. > Use three rows: (player side) uncontrolled, torpor, ready (bank side). Except I frequently end up with three rows (or even 4 rows) anyway, in order to find space for ready minions. And then you have the locations and stuff above that. Here in NYC, we rarely get to play on large tables, and our cards are always fighting for space. > Put them on one side of your pool (with the torpor region on the other side). > Put them on one side of the library (with the torpor region on the other side). I can't see these solutions working in a space-starved environment. The other side of my pool, or library, is where my predator's cards go. I'm sure it can be done, but, in the final analysis, having them be face down just seems easier.

John Whelan wrote: >> Put them on one side of your pool (with the torpor region on the other side). >> Put them on one side of the library (with the torpor region on the other side). > > I can't see these solutions working in a space-starved environment. > The other side of my pool, or library, is where my predator's cards > go. Um. This uses no more space than the current. Facedown and all to the right (or left) of the library (or pool) uses no more or less space -- it's just a rearrangement.

[ quoted text not captured ] Maybe, but the most convenient place for my library is next to my right hand, since I'm going to be doing alot of drawing. The most convenient place for my pool is next to my predator, since he's the most interested. I need space for my crypt, and 4 cards that I draw from it. Seems natural to put the 4 cards either to the right or the left of the crypt, not in the center (with 2 on each side). I typically place the library just forward of the crypt, which seems the convenient place for it, since there is where it is out of the way of the uncontrolled cards moving forward into the ready region (or ready cards moving backwards into torpor). My pool the right goes of the library, next to my predator, (if there is space) or just above it (if there isn't) also out of the way of cards moving back and forth. When I move one of the 4 uncontrolled cards into the ready region, a space is left behind for a torpor region, without having to make rearrangements. Moving cards sideways into a torpor region, past other cards that may be in the way, doesn't seem too convenient.

John Whelan wrote: > On Aug 19, 6:37 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> John Whelan wrote: >>>> Put them on one side of your pool (with the torpor region on the other side). >>>> Put them on one side of the library (with the torpor region on the other side). >>> I can't see these solutions working in a space-starved environment. >>> The other side of my pool, or library, is where my predator's cards >>> go. >> Um. This uses no more space than the current. >> >> Facedown and all to the right (or left) of the library (or pool) uses no more or >> less space -- it's just a rearrangement. > > Maybe, but the most convenient place for my library is next to my > right hand, since I'm going to be doing alot of drawing. The most > convenient place for my pool is next to my predator, since he's the > most interested. Heh. OK. Yes. Every change involves a change. As problems go, this one is too tiny to haggle over.