Right. Then. Let's ban Succubus Club!

Fred wrote: >>You haven't been around for some of the threads in the past couple months. There's been some experimenting with changing the way people qualify for the finals to make victory points the first level tie- breaker and awards finals position based on games won. This would provide a very distinct disincentive for anyone to agree to accept only 2 VPs and voluntarily give an opponent 3 VPs as long as they have any reasonable chance of winning the game outright on their own. So something can and should be done.>> So we meet again. Only *this* time as allies! So yeah, the whole Succubus Club deal. I decided to start a thread with the appropriate title so it was obvious what we were talking about. Succubus Club. A card that should be banned from tournament play. Yes. Banned. Not because it is too powerful. Not because it is "broken". Not because it is the key to an abusive combo. Succubus Club should be banned simply because it allows for simply too much outside of game action to be imposed on the game--it makes deal making too seductive and often too lucrative, and gives way too concrete of a payoff to what in all other circumstances is a nebulous advantage at best--smack talk and deal making. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of table talk, intimidation, and deal making. When deals are made *without* the SC, however, the results of these deals are usually fairly open ended, have only limited immediate pay off, or deal in minor concrete results ("Do X now, I'll do Y later..." or "If I don't Rush you, you won't give me vote damage.") Succubus Club allows for a huge swing in pool, cards, and resources with limited cost--just the need for you to convince someone across the table that it is a good idea for them to give you all their stuff for a turn in exchange for the SC and the promise that you'll do the same on their turn. Very concrete deals providing a huge advantage to the folks who can pull it off. Such deals are often viewed with obvious suspicion, especially when made in a tournament between freinds--if I am sitting across the table from a pal of mine, and I use SC to borrow all of his vampires and locations for one turn I will suddenly get a huge power advantage for limited risk (as I'm borrowing the stuff from a friend of mine who I have reason to believe will live up to the deal), and outside viewers will be hard pressed to *not* think "Collusion! Collusion!". At a point in this game where rules are being implimented to lessen and prevent collusion, it seems sheer madness to keep a card in the play set that exists simply to *enable* collusion. Again, is it some sort of super overpowered card that is shattering play balance? No (well in a sense), but it does have a *huge* effect on the game, it never ceases to piss people off, it allows way too much of a concrete benefit to nebulous smack talk, and it seems likely that soon *all* competetive decks will contain a SC, if for no other reason than to contest the other one in play. Please kill this thing. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "The Ramones are more important than the Solar System." -Sean Finnerty

Howdy! "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:20010908092301...@mb-bg.aol.com... <snip> > [...] Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of table talk, intimidation, and deal making. > When deals are made *without* the SC, however, the results of these deals are > usually fairly open ended, have only limited immediate pay off, or deal in > minor concrete results ("Do X now, I'll do Y later..." or "If I don't Rush you, > you won't give me vote damage.") [...] > Such deals are often viewed with obvious suspicion, especially when made in a > tournament between freinds--if I am sitting across the table from a pal of > mine, and I use SC to borrow all of his vampires and locations for one turn I > will suddenly get a huge power advantage for limited risk (as I'm borrowing the > stuff from a friend of mine who I have reason to believe will live up to the > deal), and outside viewers will be hard pressed to *not* think "Collusion! > Collusion!". <snip> Well... now *this* way of presenting arguments should be the way discussions should run.... respect, Peter... With my limited knowledge of the english language as a non-native english speaker I nevertheless try to take the counter-position on this thread. All your points sound perfectly reasonable and persuable, so why should anyone be tempted to oppose your point of view? I don't know, but I try... ;-) Succubus Club - one of my most favored cards in this game - adds a dimension of strategic depth to the game which is AFAIK unmatched by any other CCG out there. Collusion, I often here this word when people start discussing this card. In my ears this word has such a.... negative attitude. I usually wouldn't call deal-making in the described manner "collusion", but simply a "gentlemens' agreement". People on the wrong side of the deal-making sometimes have a feeling of being treated in an unfair manner, but I have yet to spot this. Let me try to undermine this statement with arguments. I guess it is a legitimate move of every player in a tournament to arrange the playing environment in a way that allows him to collect as many victory points as possible. So deal making in general is not the problem, but largely enforced my the way the game-mechanics were developed (votes etc.). Deals are part of the game. But where do deals end and collusion begin? My interpretation here: Collusion would start when the rules are broken (please keep in mind: Rules can be bent by cards. That's the way CCGs go) in a way that player(s) can arrange the outcome of the game no matter what other involved players are doing. And Succubus Club does definitly not fit this description, because there are numerous ways players can prevent things. - They can play Sudden Reversal if someone tries to bring SC into play. - They can destroy the SC and even steal it. - Sun-Tzu once said something like: "The biggest error a general can make is to pretend to know more than his enemy." Deals involve risks. I've seen more than one player happily lending his partner his vampires only to have them clubbed into torpor or outright burned. Or - even worse - the Succubus Club is destroyed before the second part of the deal can take place. - As the card states: "Any additional terms can be established, but none are enfoced by the rules." If you've ever seen a deal bust by a player suddenly cross-dealing with the rest of the field is a pain for one of the partners, especially if something has gone wrong (see the point above). End even *if* this whole deal-making is accompanied by only "minimal risks" (I, for instance, have never busted a deal), I cannot see a major problem with this. After all, V:TES is a game, *a_game*. If you've ever played "The Great Dalmuti" (another R. Garfield game, btw) you know that not every aspect of a game is fair. ;-) Or to put it shortly: Of course Succubus Club can be something that is easily mistaken as unfair, but this is part of the game. Playing "Kindred Restructure" to change the seating order in a way to steal away a hard-earned victory point from another player is also unfair in a way, but nevertheless part of the game. 30 Earth Melds played in the face of a predator desperatly trying to bleed you is also frustrating for your predator, but part of the game. Again: If Succubus Club would change the playing environment in a way that noone can escape the consequences, no matter how hard he tries and what deck he plays, then I would agree with your points. But since SC can easily be "outmaneuvered", I cannot agree with the proposition of banning this card. Vampirically yours, Sascha

Anita wrote: > Again: If Succubus Club would change the playing environment in a way that > noone can escape the consequences, no matter how hard he tries and what deck > he plays, then I would agree with your points. But since SC can easily be > "outmaneuvered", I cannot agree with the proposition of banning this card. That is exactly true: in practical play, Succubus Club changes the playing environment in a way that no one can escape the consequences. "No matter how hard they try" is silly, since one can fill one's deck with Arsons and stealth and always prevent Succubus Club from staying on the table - yet always lose the game anyway. Turning Jyhad into a game of Succubus Club vs. Anti-Succubus Club makes Jyhad a bad game, too focused on the presence and absence of a single card. If you do not accept this point, these is nothing to argue about. I believe most experienced players accept that when a card becomes so important that the whole game revolves around it, it's time to ban or modify the card. Therefore, you need to convince people that this card is not that important. Not that it can be Sudden Reversed or stolen. Fred

> Please kill this thing. I don't know guys. Seems to me like people don't like the card, so they are trying real hard to break it. So far I am missing the big terrible SC killing the game. Did a check at Lasombra's page, looks like of the tournament winning decks that only 1 has ever had a SC in it. Why hasn't this card, that has been in print since JYHAD, been such a pain to the whole world before? Did everyone just read it and go, wow this card does exactly what it says on it. It basically seems to me, that those certain people trying to show how bad SC is, or how easy it is to win with, think they should be dictating what cards get banned. After the nations at GenCon several people remarked, "Whew, at least we'll never have to play with SC again" Why, just because someone had it in their deck, and didn't win? Maybe they just don't like deal making?(I know at least peter is exempt from that one!) If deal making is going to be allowed by the rules, what's with penalizing this card? As others have said before, there are many things that make it hard to run your deck(sudden reversal, direct intervention, canine horde..er you get the idea) but that doesn't mean they should all be banned. SC doesn't break the VTES mold of every strategy having a counter strategy(paper rock scissors) Strategy: convince other players to give me their pool/cards/VP Counter strategy: kill SC, kill player with SC, or make better deals Best strategy: as always, remove lame-O card(SC) and replace with something useful to killing prey and getting VP -- Aaron The Nosferatu Stuff

>> Please kill this thing. > >I don't know guys. Seems to me like people don't like the card, so they >are trying real hard to break it. So far I am missing the big terrible >SC killing the game. Did a check at Lasombra's page, looks like of the >tournament winning decks that only 1 has ever had a SC in it. Why >hasn't this card, that has been in print since JYHAD, been such a pain >to the whole world before? Did everyone just read it and go, wow this >card does exactly what it says on it. Maybe they should reprint Succubus Club with a burnable clause in it (so we don't need to whine about using Arsons and SR's). And in return, add some marginal benefit to the card? (Alternatively, why don't we just make it burnable as a (D) action but the controller gains a pool when this happens - only gains a pool when burned through this method of course? Makes it sort of like an Ascension then...). Halcyan 2

Howdy! "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:3B9ADDA7...@netcom.com... <snip> > Turning Jyhad into a game of Succubus Club vs. Anti-Succubus Club makes > Jyhad a bad game, too focused on the presence and absence of a single card. > If you do not accept this point, these is nothing to argue about. I believe most > experienced players accept that when a card becomes so important that the whole > game revolves around it, it's time to ban or modify the card. Therefore, you > need to convince people that this card is not that important. Not that it can > be Sudden Reversed or stolen. Seems like the old rethorical if-you're-not-for-us-you're-against-us thing... The stated point looks a bit too one-dimensional to me. Now, the criteria about a card being "so important that the whole game revolves around it" basically can be applied to more cards than the Succubus Club. Take Minion Tap/Fifth Tradition for example: Either you pack a way to disrupt it or chances are that you will never oust this player. I have seen very, *very* few games where play actually "revolved" around SC. The card is used as a tactical facette, one that can be disrupted easily and I don't need to "fill [my] deck with Arsons" to do so. Succubus Club vs. Anti-Succubus-club is too much of a polarisation of viewpoints to me. To undermine this I'd like to quote Aaron aka The Nosferatu Stuff here: "Did a check at Lasombra's page, looks like of the tournament winning decks that only 1 has ever had a SC in it." See what I mean? Vampirically yours, Sascha

Howdy! I guess that things that are mistaken as collusion could be dealt with with an errata stating that you can't trade control of the Succubus Club.... Vampirically yours, Sascha

Fellow Methusalehs; I agree that the Club can be make for very abusive situations, and fits in any deck, both of which make it ripe for banning. However, the fact that it is unique (and easily contested), is a location (can be burnt by Arson or any number of cards), and can even be stolen does limit its abusiveness. A simple proposal: everyone going to a tournament should put a Club into their deck. Let's see where this goes!! Madman

Aaron wrote: >>I don't know guys. Seems to me like people don't like the card, so they are trying real hard to break it. So far I am missing the big terrible SC killing the game. Did a check at Lasombra's page, looks like of the tournament winning decks that only 1 has ever had a SC in it. Why hasn't this card, that has been in print since JYHAD, been such a pain to the whole world before? Did everyone just read it and go, wow this card does exactly what it says on it.>> Apparently. Our group kind of always thought it *was* banned, and never used it--we only realised that it was legal for competetive play this past summer. Why did we think it was banned? 'Cause it never occured to us that such a card *would* be legal for tournament play. It is just rediculous that you can throw one in any deck and possible gain a huge, free advantage just 'cause you can talk the best smack. As I mentioned elsewhere, SC doesn't make a deck that is using it necessarily win. It just screws up the play environment deeply as it imposes *way* too much of the outside world on the previously closed environment of VTES. At Origins, I saw a lot of SC use, and I heard a lot of grumbling about collusion as a result. If no one had access to SC, the game would be just fine, nothing bad would happen, and this very questionable aspect of the game would just quietly go away. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sascha wrote: >>Again: If Succubus Club would change the playing environment in a way that noone can escape the consequences, no matter how hard he tries and what deck he plays, then I would agree with your points. But since SC can easily be "outmaneuvered", I cannot agree with the proposition of banning this card.>> The "it can be outmanuvered" argument is never one that really defends the existance of a card that is bad for the game environment. Yes, it is a unique location master card, and suffers from all the standard counters of all theother unique location master cards--it can be contested, stolen, Sudden Reversaled, or burned. This doesn't make it an acceptable card, however. If there was printed in the next expansion a unique location master called "Super Hunting Ground" that cost 1 pool and said "During your untap phase, all of your vampires are refilled to capacity" or something, that would not be balanced, nor would it be an acceptable card, even though it can be contested, stolen, SRed, or burned. Just like Succubus Club. That a card *can* be countered doesn't necessarily make it balanced. By that logic, *any* master card would be acceptable (even the dreaded "You Lose: Master, 0 cost. When you play this card, your prey is automatically ousted."), 'cause you can always Sudden Reversal it. Where you need to look is not "can this card be countered somehow" (they all can--SC can be burned; Return to Innocence could have been deflected; Madness of the bard can be foiled by speaking only in sign language; etc.). You need to look at "does this card have a deleterious effect on the play environment". I (and many others) feel that SC does. It does not ruin the game because it is too powerful, nor because it makes any deck that plays it automatically win. It compromises the game environment because: A) It is free, can go in any deck in the game, and any deck can benefit from it--there is no reason to not put one in *every* deck you ever build, as it is always going to be useful, it is always going to help, and it is never going to hurt having one (if for no other reason that to contest the other one at the table). B) Because it is free and fits in every deck, it has no actual interaction with your in game strategy--there is no deck that will benefit any more or less than another one from the Succubus Club. No strategy will suffer from loss of the Succubus Club. No strategy is specifically improved by the Succubus Club. It affects all decks equally. Thus, no reason not to include it in every deck. C) The advantages it provides are very concrete advantages based on very abstract concepts--deal making, that has nothing to do with your deck strategy as a whole. Again, any deck can benefit from SC deals, no deck will suffer from making SC deals, and no strategy won't work without SC deals. D) The effect of the card--trading pool and cards--greatly enables questionable game play and collusion. Yes, if you feel that SC deals are made due to collusion, you can always complain to the judge, but it strikes me as rather prudent to, in this time of trying to *reduce* collusiuon and "out of game considerations" in competetive play, remove a specific card that does nothing but encourage and reward collusion more so than any other card. I fully realize that Succubs Club is a fun card that has a lot to offer, entertainment wise. However, in competetive play, it greatly compromises the play environment. If someone has a SC in play, they become the focus of the entire game--what kind of deal can they make to win the game, who can they make it with, how can everyone else stop them. This turns VTES from a game of interaction between deck strategies into a game of Succubus Club. Which isn't good. Does SC make a deck always win? No. Is it overpowered for its cost? Possibly. Does it greatly compromise the play environment? Yes. Just kill the damned thing. No deck strategies are going to suffer, nothing bad will happen if it goes away, and the competetive environment will become *much* cleaner, easier to manage, and less vulnerable to "out of game considerations". [ quoted text not captured ]

Anita wrote: > > Howdy! > > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:3B9ADDA7...@netcom.com... > <snip> > > Turning Jyhad into a game of Succubus Club vs. Anti-Succubus Club makes > > Jyhad a bad game, too focused on the presence and absence of a single > > card. If you do not accept this point, these is nothing to argue about. I > > believe most experienced players accept that when a card becomes so > > important that the whole game revolves around it, it's time to ban or > > modify the card. Therefore, you need to convince people that this card > > is not that important. Not that it can be Sudden Reversed or stolen. > > Seems like the old rethorical if-you're-not-for-us-you're-against-us > thing... The stated point looks a bit too one-dimensional to me. (and later) > Succubus Club vs. Anti-Succubus-club is too much of a polarisation of > viewpoints to me. "Succubus Club vs. Anti-Succubus Club" is referring to play tactics. Not points of view. If one player plays a Succubus Club deck, the another must play an anti-Succubus Club deck to foil him according to your logic. If the first player plays some other kind of deck, then the player who played the anti-Succubus Club is himself foiled, and would have been better off to play the Succubus Club deck himself. If one little subgame around a single card gets blown up out of proportion, the game as a whole loses a lot of it's appeal. Sorry how it looks to you. But "it can be Sudden Reversed" can be said of any master card in the game. In Magic, they used to say, "You can always Counterspell it" - yet spell cards got banned from time to time anyway. Any permanent in either game can be removed. So what? "It can Sudden Reversed or stolen" is just not a sufficient argument. > Now, the criteria about a card being "so important that the whole game > revolves around it" basically can be applied to more cards than the Succubus > Club. Take Minion Tap/Fifth Tradition for example: Either you pack a way to > disrupt it or chances are that you will never oust this player. True. Yet Minion Tap/Fifth Tradition doesn't seem to be as easy to guarantee victory points with as Succubus Club - which is the important point. > I have seen very, *very* few games where play actually "revolved" around SC. > The card is used as a tactical facette, one that can be disrupted easily and > I don't need to "fill [my] deck with Arsons" to do so. Just a difference in experience, then. Players in our region are using them combine resources, guarantee a sweep of the table, and divide those victory points up between them. More than just a "tactical facette". And SC is not disrupted easily, no matter what you say. If you draw the right card at the right time, fine. But that's far from guaranteed. Fred

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Apparently. Our group kind of always thought it *was* banned, and never used > it--we only realised that it was legal for competetive play this past summer. > Why did we think it was banned? 'Cause it never occured to us that such a card > *would* be legal for tournament play. It is just rediculous that you can throw > one in any deck and possible gain a huge, free advantage just 'cause you can > talk the best smack. If it gives such a huge advantage, it would've been used (abused) much more by now than it has been. Again, if it ever actually becomes a real problem, then the problem will be addressed. Since it has not yet been a problem, there's no reason to ban it. > As I mentioned elsewhere, SC doesn't make a deck that is using it necessarily > win. It just screws up the play environment deeply as it imposes *way* too much > of the outside world on the previously closed environment of VTES. At Origins, > I saw a lot of SC use, and I heard a lot of grumbling about collusion as a > result. If no one had access to SC, the game would be just fine, nothing bad > would happen, and this very questionable aspect of the game would just quietly > go away. At NAC, I saw several decks use SC. No one complained. No one grumbled. No mention of collusion was made. Some people grumbled about Minion Tap, however. Perhaps that card should be banned. Then that grumbling would quietly go away. -- 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 it gives such a huge advantage, it would've been used (abused) much more by now than it has been.>> It can give a huge advantage, but again, that isn't the point. The problem with the card is that it introduces way too much of real life into the game--smack talk and deal making gives you very concrete, quantifiable benefits ("I'll trade you my SC for your 4 vampires and hunting ground, and on your turn we can switch..."), giving *so* much more incentive to bring out of game considerations into the game, and making collusion so much more lucrative. If two players, who have decided to collude for whatever reason, are sitting across the table from each other, there isn't really much they can do to help each other--sure, sometimes they can give each other vote support, or maybe they can Rush to the benifit of their ally in collusion, and rarely they can intercept to help each other out. On the other hand, if one of them has the Succubus Club, they can swap vampires and locations all day long--very quantifiable, very real help to both players. Players who know each other, even if they aren't necessarily colluding, gain more benefit out of the SC than others. I'm more likely to make a deal with a friend of mine, 'cause I know he'll live up to it. Thus, out of game considerations (I know my pal, and I know how my pal will react to a SC deal) become incredibly important with this card and the benefits (acess to trading vampires and other cards) are so very tangible, unlike most other deals in the game. >>Again, if it ever actually becomes a real problem, then the problem will be addressed. Since it has not yet been a problem, there's no reason to ban it.>> There are countless reports of this card being a problem. People get in fist fights because of the damned thing. People get accused of collusion becasue of the damned thing. It is a fun card, sure, but an inappropriate one for competetive play. >>At NAC, I saw several decks use SC. No one complained. No one grumbled. No mention of collusion was made.>> Just lucky, I guess. >>Some people grumbled about Minion Tap, however. Perhaps that card should be banned. Then that grumbling would quietly go away.>> Now that is just silly. Minion Tap (and any other number of powerful cards) is hardwired into the game and the strategies involved. Countless perfectly reasonable strategies depend on the card, and if it were removed, a large selection of perfectly balanced deck designs would crumble away. That, and Minion Tap does not introduce substantial out of game elements into the game environment. Minion Tap exists solely within the confines of the game design, and capitalizes upon the rules structure. Succubus Club, on the other hand exists outside of the rules structure, capitalizes upon smack talk, and rewards (very significantly--more so than any other diplomatic/political card) out of game considerations and collusion. Minion Tap does not do this. What deck strategy *needs* Succubus Club to exist? What deck design would cease to be viable without Succubus club? None. No decks would suffer. No strategies would suffer. Except those that are specifically built to capitalize upon collusion. The negative consequences of the banning of Succubus Club in competetive play (umm...you have a couple extra cards you can't play in a tournament?) would be *vastly* outweighed by the positive aspects of its removal. Madness of the Bard was banned because it introduced too much out of game reality into the game environment (if you aren't a native english speaker, or have a speach disability, you will be unfairly disadvantaged by MotB). Monocle of Clarity was banned because, as far as I can tell, it just 'caused problems (even after the "no questions about questions" errata/clarification). Neither of these cards were banned becasue they were too powerful or because they showed up in too many winning decks. Succubus Club should be sitting around having drinks with Madness of the Bard and the Monocle of Clarity. [ quoted text not captured ]

<Snip: Peter's justifications why Succubus Club should be banned> Peter, I couldn't have said it better myslelf.. You da man! Bernie Bresnahan Prince of Lansing, MI [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > LSJ wrote: > >>If it gives such a huge advantage, it would've been used (abused) much more > by now than it has been.>> > > It can give a huge advantage, but again, that isn't the point. The problem with > the card is that it introduces way too much of real life into the game--smack > talk and deal making gives you very concrete, quantifiable benefits ("I'll > trade you my SC for your 4 vampires and hunting ground, and on your turn we can > switch..."), giving *so* much more incentive to bring out of game > considerations into the game, and making collusion so much more lucrative. If > two players, who have decided to collude for whatever reason, are sitting > across the table from each other, there isn't really much they can do to help > each other--sure, sometimes they can give each other vote support, or maybe > they can Rush to the benifit of their ally in collusion, and rarely they can > intercept to help each other out. On the other hand, if one of them has the > Succubus Club, they can swap vampires and locations all day long--very > quantifiable, very real help to both players. Except that they don't seem to win doing so. Not much help, apparently. > Players who know each other, even if they aren't necessarily colluding, gain > more benefit out of the SC than others. I'm more likely to make a deal with a > friend of mine, 'cause I know he'll live up to it. Thus, out of game > considerations (I know my pal, and I know how my pal will react to a SC deal) > become incredibly important with this card and the benefits (acess to trading > vampires and other cards) are so very tangible, unlike most other deals in the > game. You don't need the SC to gain from knowing your opponents at a table. > >>Again, if it ever actually becomes a real problem, then the problem will be > addressed. Since it has not yet been a problem, there's no reason to ban it.>> > > There are countless reports of this card being a problem. People get in fist Countable, so far. Just under double-digits, by my tally. > fights because of the damned thing. People get accused of collusion becasue of > the damned thing. It is a fun card, sure, but an inappropriate one for > competetive play. > >>At NAC, I saw several decks use SC. No one complained. No one grumbled. No > mention of collusion was made.>> > > Just lucky, I guess. I would say the same of your experience. Too many tournaments are "lucky" in the same way I have been for it to be just luck. > >>Some people grumbled about Minion Tap, however. Perhaps that card should > be banned. Then that grumbling would quietly go away.>> > > Now that is just silly. Minion Tap (and any other number of powerful cards) is > hardwired into the game and the strategies involved. Countless perfectly > reasonable strategies depend on the card, and if it were removed, a large > selection of perfectly balanced deck designs would crumble away. That, and A selective dictionary - where a strategy that depends on SC is defined as unreasonable while a strategy that depends on MT is defined as reasonable. Using SC is a reasonable tactic and a strategy that uses SC is not "unreasonable" by default. If SC were removed, then these "perfectly balanced deck designs" (weaker even than most 5th-MT decks) would crumble away. > Minion Tap does not introduce substantial out of game elements into the game > environment. Minion Tap exists solely within the confines of the game design, Neither does SC. Those elements exist independent of SC. SC can allow players to use those out-of-game considerations (just as KRC, Kindred Spirits, etc. can). > and capitalizes upon the rules structure. Succubus Club, on the other hand > exists outside of the rules structure, capitalizes upon smack talk, and rewards SC exists well within the rules structure. > (very significantly--more so than any other diplomatic/political card) out of > game considerations and collusion. Minion Tap does not do this. > > What deck strategy *needs* Succubus Club to exist? What deck design would cease One that depends on "selling" favors. > to be viable without Succubus club? None. No decks would suffer. No strategies > would suffer. Except those that are specifically built to capitalize upon > collusion. The negative consequences of the banning of Succubus Club in > competetive play (umm...you have a couple extra cards you can't play in a > tournament?) would be *vastly* outweighed by the positive aspects of its > removal. If there's no reason to remove it (and there isn't so far), then the fact that no deck strategy would suffer from it's removal (if that were a fact) is immaterial. No deck strategy would suffer from the removal of, say, Powerbase: Chicago. But that's no argument for banning it. > Madness of the Bard was banned because it introduced too much out of game > reality into the game environment (if you aren't a native english speaker, or > have a speach disability, you will be unfairly disadvantaged by MotB). Monocle No. It was banned because it unfairly penalized non-native speakers and because "rhyme" is too ill-defined to be used in a competitive environment. > of Clarity was banned because, as far as I can tell, it just 'caused problems > (even after the "no questions about questions" errata/clarification). Neither It remains banned because it is still too powerful (indecent proposition) and because it is too complicated (bordering on ill-defined). > of these cards were banned becasue they were too powerful or because they Incorrect. Monocle was banned because it was/is too powerful. > showed up in too many winning decks. Succubus Club should be sitting around > having drinks with Madness of the Bard and the Monocle of Clarity. If the facts ever support that opinion, I'll be happy to buy the drinks. [ quoted text not captured ]

Imho, SC makes too much "talking&trading" in a game where these elements are already (and much) present. That's not a problem, however: in a tournament enviroment, where time *has* great importance, i think that SC makes players to stalling too much in the "trading" aspect, losing toooo much time for that. A this is an element that can be abused and that can make judges hard to tell when a player is stalling for time (in trading by the SC) or not. I have a general feeling attuned with Peter: SC should be banned from tournaments. Just my thought Emiliano, vekn prince of Rome "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> ha scritto nel messaggio news:20010909141850...@mb-cb.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] <snip> [ quoted text not captured ]

I do believe the most damaging effect that Succubus Club has on the game is that some players now think that the ENTIRE GAME is about table politics. Players will drone on and on, even when no one is interested in what they have to offer. It has a delaying effect on the game. I can understand politicing and trying to counter a powerful deck design by using gang tactics, but where do you stop? But what I heard was politicking that never ended regardless of whose turn it was. Succubus Club encourages this "diareaha of the mouth" strategy, and makes people think that they can win the game with a large helping of b.s. sitting on the table. I think that excessive politicing should almost be considered stalling and treated as such. It was funny to here at one of the finals at Dragon Con to hear David Davilia say," lets keep the politics political." I think that pretty much summed it up for me. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

In message <10000300...@lilznntp.liwest.at>, Anita <anita_hoerschl ae...@hotmail.com> writes >Howdy! > >I guess that things that are mistaken as collusion could be dealt with with >an errata stating that you can't trade control of the Succubus Club.... Legitimate trades can be enacted that are not "collusion". Collusion is a very specific term. Two players legitimately co- operating using Succubus Club is not collusion. If they are colluding, they can be prevented from doing that, Succubus Club or no Succubus Club, under the tournament rules and guidelines. -- 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

In message <20010909103732...@mb-fe.aol.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> writes >Apparently. Our group kind of always thought it *was* banned, and never used >it--we only realised that it was legal for competetive play this past summer. >Why did we think it was banned? 'Cause it never occured to us that such a card >*would* be legal for tournament play. It is just rediculous that you can throw >one in any deck and possible gain a huge, free advantage just 'cause you can >talk the best smack. Actually, for a while, it was *unofficially* banned in a set of tournament rules known as The Sensible Player's Tournament Rules. <URL:http://www.thelasombra.com/SPTR.htm> (These are now old and out of date, of course.) A number of the items in the SPTR formed the basis of some of the changes that were eventually brought into the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3B9B9CD5...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes >If [SC] gives such a huge advantage, it would've been used (abused) >much more by now than it has been. Whilst this is one element of a case that SC isn't abusable, this is not in and of itself complete proof. [ quoted text not captured ]

James wrote: >>Collusion is a very specific term. Two players legitimately co- operating using Succubus Club is not collusion. If they are colluding, they can be prevented from doing that, Succubus Club or no Succubus Club, under the tournament rules and guidelines.>> This is completely correct, but Succubus Club is a card that is just begging to be used for ill-purpose, and it is always very difficult to prove collusion. Leaving SC in a competetive environment where you are trying to reduce collusion and out of game considerations is very akin to leaving a gym bag full of guns in the middle of a cafeteria in a high school in Colorado. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: >>Except that they don't seem to win doing so. Not much help, apparently.>> Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. They do cause trouble and create an unplesant game environment, however. >>You don't need the SC to gain from knowing your opponents at a table.>> SC allows you to gain far more than any other situation where you gain anything from knowing your opponents. Without the SC, making a deal gives you limited, vague benefits. With the SC, you get very real, very tangible benefits. >>A selective dictionary - where a strategy that depends on SC is defined as unreasonable while a strategy that depends on MT is defined as reasonable.>> There are no strategies that need SC. The "selling favors" strategy is nebulous at best, and difficult to define, at best. And such a deck is just as likely to work without the SC as with, as there is nothing saying anyone is ever going to make a deal with you due to the SC--building a strategy around it is pointless. Adding one to a deck, any deck, however, is always going to be helpful. >>Neither does SC. Those elements exist independent of SC. SC can allow players to use those out-of-game considerations (just as KRC, Kindred Spirits, etc. can).>> But the benefits of these uses are limited--a few points of damage, a few points of pool. Nothing major, swing wise. SC, however, allows for gaining a *huge* amount of resources with limited effort. >>SC exists well within the rules structure.>> What makes SC work--smack talk and making deals with your friends, is fueled completely by non game related factors. >>One that depends on "selling" favors.>> Such a deck strategy is questionable, at best. >>No deck strategy would suffer from the removal of, say, Powerbase: Chicago. But that's no argument for banning it.>> Powerbase: Chicago doesn't 'cause any problems. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20010909221737...@mb-cp.aol.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> writes >James wrote: >>>Collusion is a very specific term. Two players legitimately co- >operating using Succubus Club is not collusion. If they are colluding, >they can be prevented from doing that, Succubus Club or no Succubus >Club, under the tournament rules and guidelines.>> > >This is completely correct, but Succubus Club is a card that is just begging to >be used for ill-purpose, and it is always very difficult to prove collusion. It is; my post was not, however, intended to defend Succubus Club or attack it. The post was merely there to stop another "Collusion" thread spinning out of control because people see the word and jump on it as a result of the recent rules arguments and so on, when legitimate close co-operation (as facilitated by Succubus Club) is distinct from "collusion". [ quoted text not captured ]

"Madman2001" <4fis...@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:7d8b1942.01090...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Sorry Madman, I for one don't have master slots to waste on prayer cards like SC. As I said before, if I had something in there that would help me kill my prey faster, I think I'd do alot better. (mmm...chimerstry discipline card) The one thing that I think does make a ton of sense is that you should not be able to give away your SC...with the SC. LSJ, most interested in your thoughts? Seems if you can give it away it is not in the spirit of the card(you own the SC, everyone wants to get on your good side/make deals with you) That also prevents someone from giving another person all their minions, then getting the whole thing back at the start of their turn. But still preserves the decks that need to 'sell their services' and use the card. Any ideas on this(useful idea) other then just, "i don't like this card, I want it banned" which doesn't seem to be getting anyone any where? [ quoted text not captured ]

<quibble> Now, Peter, I know you like to argue and argue and argue until your opponent is drowned in words, but don't make points you know aren't true: >> A selective dictionary - where a strategy that depends on SC is defined as >> unreasonable while a strategy that depends on MT is defined as reasonable. > > There are no strategies that need SC. The "selling favors" strategy is > nebulous > at best, and difficult to define, at best. And such a deck is just as likely > to > work without the SC as with, as there is nothing saying anyone is ever going > to > make a deal with you due to the SC--building a strategy around it is > pointless. [and] >> One that depends on "selling" favors.>> > > Such a deck strategy is questionable, at best. "Pay me 1 pool this turn and the 4th point of this KRC I'll be calling will go to your prey and not you." "I've got a Pentex Subversion here; highest bidder gets to pick the target." "I've got a Direct Intervention in hand. Pay me 2 pool and I'll play it anytime you need it." Or, for you Rush-mongers with trouble with pool gain: "Give me 2 pool or Jost Dies this turn." And these tricks work MUCH better people can actually give you POOL, which requires the Club. Hardly "ill-defined" or "questionable," Peter. You can argue "effective," "tournament-worthy," etc., but I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt that if YOU think a Succubus Club Favors deck can't be made effective, that it just CAN'T. The concept is simple and sound and well-defined, however. </quibble> -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > The one thing that I think does make a ton of sense is that you should > not be able to give away your SC...with the SC. LSJ, most interested in > your thoughts? Card text allows it. If you're proposing this (errata) as an alternative to banning the card, then OK. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3B9C95B6...@white-wolf.com... > The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > > The one thing that I think does make a ton of sense is that you should > > not be able to give away your SC...with the SC. LSJ, most interested in > > your thoughts? > > Card text allows it. If you're proposing this (errata) as an alternative to > banning the card, then OK. > That would be my suggestion. Some one had mentioned earlier how ready for abuse the idea of trading SC back and forth is, and that seems possible. Also, most of the time I have seen SC passed back and forth it was done incorrectly, and served to confuse players. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > C) The advantages it provides are very concrete advantages based on very > abstract concepts--deal making, that has nothing to do with your deck strategy > as a whole. Again, any deck can benefit from SC deals, no deck will suffer from > making SC deals, and no strategy won't work without SC deals. But the game is more than just deck strategy it was designed from the outset to have table interaction and social skills play major roles in the game outcome and the existence of SC only supports this. I'm not quite ready to join the lynch mob just because a card has come into vogue this month. I'm guessing that the metagame will deal with it quite nicely and next time around the arsons are going to be flying left and right and no SC will be able to stay on a table long enough to be used. after that both the arsons and SC will diminish and it will once again be a cute card that gets some use but doesn't dominate the game entirely if however this discussion is still going on a year from now then possibly action might need to be taken but for now I'm part of the wait and see camp. Eric

LSJ wrote in message <3B9B9CD5...@white-wolf.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Nobody complained or grumbled to you apparently. Robert Goudie posted on this group about 2 games in which SC was a factor. He certainly griped to me about one. I also remember someone else very ticked off about SC screwed game. Sadly I can't remember the details. It might have been Paul Johnson. I also know that Robert Goudie, Mike Courtois, and David Tatu purposely packed SC for the NAC. Robert and Tatu used them to great advantage. I can't remember if Mike really used his. I encountered SC in two games. Luckly it got reversed in both, one of them by me. Saying SC was not a factor and nothing really happened with SC at NAC is simply not true. Sadly I guess nobody informed you of the SC situations. 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.

All righty then. If it can't be fixed I'm 100% in agreement. 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. Peter D Bakija wrote in message <20010908092301...@mb-bg.aol.com>... >Fred wrote: >>>You haven't been around for some of the threads in the past couple >months. There's been some experimenting with changing the way people >qualify for the finals to make victory points the first level tie- >breaker and awards finals position based on games won. This would >provide a very distinct disincentive for anyone to agree to accept >only 2 VPs and voluntarily give an opponent 3 VPs as long as they >have any reasonable chance of winning the game outright on their own. >So something can and should be done.>> > >So we meet again. Only *this* time as allies! > >So yeah, the whole Succubus Club deal. I decided to start a thread with the >appropriate title so it was obvious what we were talking about. > >Succubus Club. A card that should be banned from tournament play. Yes. Banned. >Not because it is too powerful. Not because it is "broken". Not because it is >the key to an abusive combo. Succubus Club should be banned simply because it >allows for simply too much outside of game action to be imposed on the game--it >makes deal making too seductive and often too lucrative, and gives way too >concrete of a payoff to what in all other circumstances is a nebulous advantage >at best--smack talk and deal making. > >Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of table talk, intimidation, and deal making. >When deals are made *without* the SC, however, the results of these deals are >usually fairly open ended, have only limited immediate pay off, or deal in >minor concrete results ("Do X now, I'll do Y later..." or "If I don't Rush you, >you won't give me vote damage.") Succubus Club allows for a huge swing in pool, >cards, and resources with limited cost--just the need for you to convince >someone across the table that it is a good idea for them to give you all their >stuff for a turn in exchange for the SC and the promise that you'll do the same >on their turn. Very concrete deals providing a huge advantage to the folks who >can pull it off. > >Such deals are often viewed with obvious suspicion, especially when made in a >tournament between freinds--if I am sitting across the table from a pal of >mine, and I use SC to borrow all of his vampires and locations for one turn I >will suddenly get a huge power advantage for limited risk (as I'm borrowing the >stuff from a friend of mine who I have reason to believe will live up to the >deal), and outside viewers will be hard pressed to *not* think "Collusion! >Collusion!". > >At a point in this game where rules are being implimented to lessen and prevent >collusion, it seems sheer madness to keep a card in the play set that exists >simply to *enable* collusion. > >Again, is it some sort of super overpowered card that is shattering play >balance? No (well in a sense), but it does have a *huge* effect on the game, it >never ceases to piss people off, it allows way too much of a concrete benefit >to nebulous smack talk, and it seems likely that soon *all* competetive decks >will contain a SC, if for no other reason than to contest the other one in >play. > >Please kill this thing. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9nini...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Steve Bucy <tb...@lainet.com> writes >All righty then. If it can't be fixed I'm 100% in agreement. NB: Note I'm still unsure as to the need. I present the following as possible options for people to consider the merits of. There are a number of potential fixes, if deemed necessary, however you might choose to implement them: - Limitations on play (e.g. "A Methuselah may only play one copy of Succubus Club per game." I prefer this to a blanket ban on once per game.) - Limitations on use e.g. - a Pathos counter style use: "Put 3 beer tokens on the Club. Remove a beer token during each of your untap phases. Burn the card if it has no beer tokens." (which also works as a benefit to !Toreador Goth Band decks - woo!) - "If any trades are made or pool is given using Succubus Club, it cannot be used during its controller's next untap phase." (which means (is intended to mean) that if you, A, trade it away to B, B can't trade it back in their next untap phase, so you have to go round the table *another* time, as well as just scuppering you using it twice in a row.) - "Put <X e.g. 5> counters on this card. For each pool given, or each card traded, burn a counter. Burn this card when there are no more counters." (and remember that other Methuselahs can give you pool. I don't believe you would have to agree to such a donation.....) - "You may not trade with, receive pool from or give pool to a Methuselah with whom you have used these abilities in a previous untap phase." (such could be worded in such a manner as to prevent it across *any* copy of Succubus Club, maybe. But it would provide a strong dis-incentive for "I give you my minions, you give me yours" if you were planning on giving them back later.) - Random stuff e.g. - "Any minion may take a (D) action to burn this card." (the obvious one) - "Any minion may call a referendum to burn Succubus Club; this is a +1 stealth action." (another obvious variant) - "If this card leaves your controlled region, burn <X> pool." (providing a stronger penalty if it's burned, if it's traded away, if it's stolen etc., possibly including contesting) - "If the abilities of Succubus Club are used during its controllers untap phase, return it to its owner's hand at the end of its controller's transfer phase." (Again, the disincentive to use it for full trades, because of the delay. And you have to 'waste' another master phase on it. And you have to discard a card - which may be good or bad. If that's deemed good, add "; randomly choose which card is discarded from your hand to return you to your hand size, which may be this card.") [ quoted text not captured ]

Steve Bucy wrote: > LSJ wrote in message <3B9B9CD5...@white-wolf.com>... > >At NAC, I saw several decks use SC. No one complained. No one grumbled. No > >mention of collusion was made. > > Saying SC was not a factor and nothing really happened with SC at NAC is > simply not true. Good thing I didn't say it wasn't a factor, then. [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip stuff I agree with> > > >> One that depends on "selling" favors.>> > > > Or, for you Rush-mongers with trouble with pool gain: > "Give me 2 pool or Jost Dies this turn." As seen at Gencon: "Parnassus's Protection Service, one pool/minion not to have it die. Dave got like 7 pool out of that. Not quite trivial, IMHO Cameron

LSJ wrote in message <3B9CF47D...@white-wolf.com>... >Steve Bucy wrote: >> LSJ wrote in message <3B9B9CD5...@white-wolf.com>... >> >At NAC, I saw several decks use SC. No one complained. No one grumbled. No >> >mention of collusion was made. >> >> Saying SC was not a factor and nothing really happened with SC at NAC is >> simply not true. > >Good thing I didn't say it wasn't a factor, then. Ok. Then let me get this straight. Of course we all want perfect clarity... I assume from your posts the position you take is that SC was a "factor" in the NAC but not one that is to be considered a problem. Is that correct? If correct, why is someone that is about to be ousted giving another player all their remaining pool and minions not a problem? Doesn't that create a wee bit of an imbalance? It that is not a problem what exactly would be considered a problem? Would it be considered a problem if player A was about to get two VP on his turn when player B (A's predator) plays SC and works out a 3/2 split deal with player C (A's prey) who is about to be ousted so he gets his 4 minions and takes out player A before he can get the 2 VP? Would such a situation be considered a problem? [ quoted text not captured ]

Steve Bucy wrote: > > LSJ wrote in message <3B9CF47D...@white-wolf.com>... > >Steve Bucy wrote: > >> LSJ wrote in message <3B9B9CD5...@white-wolf.com>... > >> >At NAC, I saw several decks use SC. No one complained. No one grumbled. > No > >> >mention of collusion was made. > >> > >> Saying SC was not a factor and nothing really happened with SC at NAC is > >> simply not true. > > > >Good thing I didn't say it wasn't a factor, then. > > Ok. Then let me get this straight. Of course we all want perfect clarity... > > I assume from your posts the position you take is that SC was a "factor" in > the NAC but not one that is to be considered a problem. Is that correct? Not one that the players involved considered to be a problem, AFAIK. > If correct, why is someone that is about to be ousted giving another player > all their remaining pool and minions not a problem? Doesn't that create a > wee bit of an imbalance? Why is transferring out not a problem? Why is 5th'ing across the table not a problem? Why is Parity Shift not a problem? All of these shift the balance of the table. > It that is not a problem what exactly would be considered a problem? Would > it be considered a problem if player A was about to get two VP on his turn > when player B (A's predator) plays SC and works out a 3/2 split deal with > player C (A's prey) who is about to be ousted so he gets his 4 minions and > takes out player A before he can get the 2 VP? Would such a situation be > considered a problem? Would it be considered a problem if Eagle's Sight or Madness Network and KRC was used instead of SC to accomplish the same effect? Again, use and abuse it in VEKN tournaments and, if it actually turns out to be abuseable, then *that* would be a problem, and it would be addressed if so. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't think anyone has a real problem with the trades for pool aspect: > "Pay me 1 pool this turn and the 4th point of this KRC I'll be > calling will go to your prey and not you." > "I've got a Pentex Subversion here; highest bidder gets to > pick the target." > "I've got a Direct Intervention in hand. Pay me 2 pool and > I'll play it anytime you need it." > Or, for you Rush-mongers with trouble with pool gain: > "Give me 2 pool or Jost Dies this turn." This cited examples above have a limited impact on the game environment (short-term effect). It's that the SC is open for abuse to people that push it to the Nth. Trading all minions, card cycling (via Library), giving all pool away for a table split. These examples are directly abusable and have a greater impact on tearing down the predator/prey relationships (long-term effect). Not that I'm anti-Succubus Club by any means, what I am against is it's current/standard problems which has been well defined by Peter in another thread. For those that say, "Well it's never been a problem before" I submit that it HAS been a problem before, and playgroups have simply not used it much until recently. Why recently? Because with the resurgence of V:TES and an obvious increase in player turnouts for tournaments, cards like Succubus Club will be used in a format where they can be played with less consequence (meaning thier local group won't likely get pissed). Is there a fix? Seems like some ideas are being presented, and I don't like the idea of banning SC either. What I would like is for the powers that be to recognize that a problem with the card DOES EXIST in tournament play. Recognition that a problem exists, is halfway to achieving a solution. If a suitable errata could be determined which wouldn't wallpaper it for non-netizens, that would be the way to go (IMNSOH). Bernie Bresnahan Prince of Lansing, MI.

Aaron wrote: >>That would be my suggestion. Some one had mentioned earlier how ready for abuse the idea of trading SC back and forth is, and that seems possible. Also, most of the time I have seen SC passed back and forth it was done incorrectly, and served to confuse players.>> Maybe that is all that is needed to make the SC acceptable--perhaps if you couldn't trade SC away, then people would be less willing to give their stuff away, and situations where folks are trading all their posessions back and forth every turn would no longer be necessary (if I give you all of my vampires on your turn, then I don't have them on my turn, as you still have the SC). This might be all that is needed to be done. Don't get me wrong here--I'm not all het up about this or anything. If nothing ever gets done to SC, it isn't like I'm gonna quit playing or anything. It is just a troublesome card that could use either outright banning (the easy thing to do) or fixing (less easy, as it requires either errata or a reprint). [ quoted text not captured ]

Pat wrote: >>Now, Peter, I know you like to argue and argue and argue until your opponent is drowned in words, but don't make points you know aren't true:>> Heh heh :-) That is the nicest way I have heard that particular phrase put... >>Hardly "ill-defined" or "questionable," Peter. You can argue "effective," "tournament-worthy," etc., but I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt that if YOU think a Succubus Club Favors deck can't be made effective, that it just CAN'T. The concept is simple and sound and well-defined, however.>> Right. I misspoke. I suppose you *can* build a deck that specifically depends on SC should you be so inclined. Doing so, however, is certainly questionable--there is nothing saying that such a strategy is going to work, as you are completely dependant upon your opponents specifcially chosing to do what is in your best interest. [ quoted text not captured ]

James wrote: >>The post was merely there to stop another "Collusion" thread spinning out of control because people see the word and jump on it as a result of the recent rules arguments and so on, when legitimate close co-operation (as facilitated by Succubus Club) is distinct from "collusion".>> And I am right behind you on that one! :-) Y'all know how I feel about the misuse of the term "collusion", after all... [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote in news:20010910170035...@mb-co.aol.com: > Right. I misspoke. I suppose you *can* build a deck that specifically > depends on SC should you be so inclined. Doing so, however, is > certainly questionable--there is nothing saying that such a strategy > is going to work, as you are completely dependant upon your opponents > specifcially chosing to do what is in your best interest. Which is why you have Beast, Forgotten Labyrinth, and a handful of Potence thumpage handy. This way, opponents can specifically choose to do what is in THEIR best interest as well, while giving you stuff for it. "We will now be bidding pool on which vampire should be terminated. One vampire will be terminated this turn. Most pool bid gets to select the vampire." It even works if your prey bids, although you may wish to make him bid at least two for the privilege. On a totally unrelated note, I had a Malkavian Time Auction deck once that did fairly well; brought cheap/free permanents into play and sold them off. All you need are two people to bid, and you automatically gain 3 pool. This isn't so bad for, say, the Barrens.... and it also pointed out just how much gain 3 pool actually is. An SC/Rush deck that gains 2 pool per untap phase just for beating something up (or, alternatively, for NOT beating something up) is not doing too badly at all. -- Derek AGITATOR, n. A statesman who shakes the fruit trees of his neighbors -- to dislodge the worms.

BernieTime wrote: > It's that the SC is open for abuse to people that push it > to the Nth. Trading all minions, card cycling (via Library), card cycling is not allowed, by explicit card text on SC. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote in message <3B9D0DF4...@white-wolf.com>... >Steve Bucy wrote: >> >> LSJ wrote in message <3B9CF47D...@white-wolf.com>... >> >Steve Bucy wrote: >> >> LSJ wrote in message <3B9B9CD5...@white-wolf.com>... >> >> >At NAC, I saw several decks use SC. No one complained. No one grumbled. >> No >> >> >mention of collusion was made. >> >> >> >> Saying SC was not a factor and nothing really happened with SC at NAC is >> >> simply not true. >> > >> >Good thing I didn't say it wasn't a factor, then. >> >> Ok. Then let me get this straight. Of course we all want perfect clarity... >> >> I assume from your posts the position you take is that SC was a "factor" in >> the NAC but not one that is to be considered a problem. Is that correct? > >Not one that the players involved considered to be a problem, AFAIK. As I suspected. I guess nobody told you their SC sob stories. I should have directed the couple of people that gripped to me towards you and gave them a swift kick in your general direction. If Robert has not yet told you his story I can ask him to do so. >> If correct, why is someone that is about to be ousted giving another player >> all their remaining pool and minions not a problem? Doesn't that create a >> wee bit of an imbalance? > >Why is transferring out not a problem? It is. Unfortunately there is really nothing that can be done to stop it. There has been much discussion, especially here in L.A. about people "kingmaking". Stopping the bitter transfer out was at the top of list. However there was just no way to force someone to play when they didn't want to. The new tournament rule is supposed to discourage such behavior, is it not? Play for maxium VP's. But the simple truth is you can't force someone to play. We have to put up with the transfer out problem. We don't however have to put up SC in it's current form. SC can be changed without bringing handcuffs and a gun to every game in case you have to force someone to play. >Why is 5th'ing across the table not a problem? In comparison it has a much smaller effect. Refilling one vampire can hardly compare to getting 3, 4, 5 or however many untapped minions to hammer on your prey with. 5th across table also can't create the amount of disscussion SC can. Furthermore 5th across table can be blocked. Not just by one player but two. Simple intercept. A common and simple strategy. Once SC hits the table the only thing you can do is destroy or take it (that is unless you contest it). Even worse those actions can be blocked by a prepared SC player. To me this is a silly comparison. Maybe if you compared 5th'ing 3 or more empty vamps across table unblocked and somehow untapping them to the old SC vamp swap it would be more valid. >Why is Parity Shift not a problem? Simple. It can be blocked or voted down. How do you block a SC trade? How do you vote it down? You don't. You can attempt to offer a better deal and that is it. If you don't have the goods or are in the wrong seat you are 100% screwed. Furthermore in most situations Parity Shift is even more limited. You need a Prince or Justicar to call the vote. You can only gain so much pool before the Parity Shift won't work on your target of choice. Again this seems like a very poor comparison. Not even close. If there was an unblockable vote that allowed you to gain any players vamps (all of them) for a turn, or gain 8 pool from another player you might be closer. >All of these shift the balance of the table. Only if unblocked. The shift in balance is also nothing compared the SC crap I have seen in numerous tournaments. 5th across table, Parity Shift, and even in most situations the transfer out don't have such a huge effect. >> It that is not a problem what exactly would be considered a problem? Would >> it be considered a problem if player A was about to get two VP on his turn >> when player B (A's predator) plays SC and works out a 3/2 split deal with >> player C (A's prey) who is about to be ousted so he gets his 4 minions and >> takes out player A before he can get the 2 VP? Would such a situation be >> considered a problem? > >Would it be considered a problem if Eagle's Sight or Madness Network and KRC >was used instead of SC to accomplish the same effect? No. All of these cards require deck design, card slots, etc. to do so. Eagles Sight requires the untapped minion or wake, the ES, and probably more intercept or combat to stop someone. It will also most likely have to be repeated to stop an ousting. Madness Network can be burned, requires Malks, and will require other cards (stealth, etc.) to accomplish the goal. Again I don't see much comparison. SC can get the same results in almost any deck simply by making the deal. It doesn't require the card slots, design, etc. >Again, use and abuse it in VEKN tournaments and, if it actually turns out >to be abuseable, then *that* would be a problem, and it would be addressed >if so. You can count on it. I have been taking the high road and not playing it until now. At one point we shamed almost everyone in L.A. into not playing it. The arguments, anger, and general bad feelings it created kept us from abusing it. After being nuked out of several tournaments because of it I promised to kill anyone that played it, even across table. Several times I followed through with those threats. But now it's back. Now I must accomplish the mission. I will show how screwed up SC really is. Hopefully others will do the same. 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 ]

"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> wrote in message news:9njfh...@enews3.newsguy.com... > LSJ wrote in message <3B9D0DF4...@white-wolf.com>... > > If correct, why is someone that is about to be ousted giving another > > player all their remaining pool and minions not a problem? Doesn't that create a > > wee bit of an imbalance? > > > >Why is transferring out not a problem? A little bit of Kingmaking is acceptable in V:TES. In theory, the player who is about to die and who throws their final death blow at one player shouldn't have too great an effect on the game. He death blow can't be too powerful...if he had the ability to really stick it to someone then he probably wouldn't be about to die. Transfering out speeds someone along a bit and give a little pool to a predator. Giving away all pool and minions and then the predator also receives the 6 pool is a bigger swing. > It is. Unfortunately there is really nothing that can be done to stop it. > There has been much discussion, especially here in L.A. about people > "kingmaking". Stopping the bitter transfer out was at the top of list. > However there was just no way to force someone to play when they didn't want > to. The new tournament rule is supposed to discourage such behavior, is it > not? No. Its not. -Robert

> >Why is Parity Shift not a problem? > > > Simple. It can be blocked or voted down. How do you block a SC trade? How do > you vote it down? You don't. "SC is unstoppable, but these other cards are EASY to counter" Hello, there are just as many ways to drop the axe on SC then stop a Parity shift. Obviously not all decks have intercept or votes. The same way not all decks have whatever kills SC. Plain and simple you can counter anything in Jyhad. This seems like a relatively easy concept to grasp. I lost because I couldn't burn down his SC, I lost because I couldn't intercept his Parity shift....close enough. Also not at issue in getting rid of SC is whining. Maybe I should remind everyone that was/wasn't at the nationals how many people came to ME and complained about stupid 3/2 table splits. Or how about stealth bleed decks? I know you know who you are, that said: "see, stealth bleed wins again, it's just too strong!" while looking sideways at Ben. LSJ is not a baby sitter, cause if he was he's ban bribes for me! (possibly the most amazing mind control card of all time) If someone gives all their minions to their prey, well obviously those minions couldn't stop their predator. What makes you think that someone that doesn't have card support/disciplines matching those minions will be able to make great use of them? Think of your last game, your predator. If you had the last 2 minions he had out, what would that have done for you? Hmm...seems like those malkavians weenies really wouldn't have sped up my no stealth anti combat deck into my assamite wall of psyche/unpreventable damage. That person was losing for a reason. Some times it happens that you can make great use of those minions, but for the most part can people really say that getting those claness(to your deck) minions will be the deciding factor in your sweeping the rest of the table? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<PoYz3hqd...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <9nini...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Steve Bucy > <tb...@lainet.com> writes > >All righty then. If it can't be fixed I'm 100% in agreement. > > NB: Note I'm still unsure as to the need. I present the following as > possible options for people to consider the merits of. > {snip fixes} I'd prefer to fix it by adding a clause that says, "And don't try anything sneaky. Especially not giving a player this card for all of his minions, and then trading them back on his turn. And no unbalanced trades. And no giving anything that could be useful either. Oh yeah, and no trading Basilia for Smudge and a cold beer. Or else you get your ears boxed." Since SC *already* suffers from SLS, it would just be turning it into TLS (Ten Line Syndrome), a worsening of symptoms which will cause the card to be so unreadable that it will never again be placed in a deck. Personally, I still can't believe that Succubus Club hasn't *always* been banned in tournaments. The first tourney I went to (oh my, how many years ago was that?), I just assumed that SC and the Monocle were banned, and was surprised as hell when someone played it. I mean, it's a fun card, sure, but GOOD LORD, MAN! tournaments are a serious matter, meant to decide the winner's ultimate fate by ponderous Ventrue princes, and a final duel wherein it is shown which player can play the most Minion Taps on his Justicar in one game.

On 10 Sep 2001, Peter D Bakija wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > >>One that depends on "selling" favors.>> > > Such a deck strategy is questionable, at best. i have frequently played assamite decks that reply on selling "hits" to people for pool, using the succubus club. like "for one pool, i'll contract and attack that minion for you. if i torporize him, you give me an additional pool during my next untap phase, if i burn him you give me 2" i mean, sure, it doesn't work to well....yet. But why should i be prohibited from using it at all just because other people don't think it's a viable strategy? i'd hate for any card to be banned. i am far more in favour of errata, _if_ a card is found to be abusive. at the moment, there is insufficient evidence to suggest SC should be banned. if you want it banned, collect evidence to show why it should be, rather than hypothesise what terrible things _might_ happen with it the way it is. i am sure LSJ and the rules team will "fix" the SC problem, if it ever reaches a point where it can be shown to _need_ fixing. and on another topic, i thoroughly ggree with that other poster who said there needs to be more backstabbing. it's just that no one around here wants to be the first. the few people who have backstabbed in the past have found their names prefixed with "backstabber", and been unable to make any deals with anyone for quite a long while..... salem.

On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > > Card text allows it. If you're proposing this (errata) as an > alternative to > > banning the card, then OK. > > > > That would be my suggestion. Some one had mentioned earlier how ready > for abuse the idea of trading SC back and forth is, and that seems > possible. Also, most of the time I have seen SC passed back and forth > it was done incorrectly, and served to confuse players. it's quite funny, when you're not involved in the trading, to see SC itself as part of the trade, and then watch it get traded to some other player before a lot of the other stuff. and then when they go to move the other stuff you just say "hey, you don't have a SC, what are you doing?", but then they call you things like "anal retentive" and stuff so you have to buy them chocolate to make them your friends again. salem.

"....salem christ...." <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> wrote > > and on another topic, i thoroughly ggree with that other poster who said > there needs to be more backstabbing. > it's just that no one around here wants to be the first. > the few people who have backstabbed in the past have found their > names prefixed with "backstabber", and been unable to make any deals with > anyone for quite a long while..... Anyone who plays this game should think like Sun Tzu and scheme like Machiavelli (well... a Medici--you know what I mean). Cheers, WES

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote > James wrote: > > The post was merely there to stop another "Collusion" thread spinning > > out of control because people see the word and jump on it as a result of > > the recent rules arguments and so on, when legitimate close co-operation > > (as facilitated by Succubus Club) is distinct from "collusion". > > And I am right behind you on that one! :-) > > Y'all know how I feel about the misuse of the term "collusion", after all... And this is too bad. The insistence on the term "collusion" to regulate behavior in V:EKN tournaments will prevent any progress in advancing multi-player (as opposed to team) rules for this game. As long as "collusion" is the term of rule, the requirements for guarding against non-competitive play will be enormous. If "collusion" is retained, there must be evidence of all of the following: 1. A situation where two parties act in mutual benefit in a game 2. A prior relationship between the acting parties 3. Evidence that the mutual benefit violates the dynamic of the predator - prey relationship. 4. Evidence of a previous, surreptitious arrangement bewtween the two parties to act in such a mutual beneficial way 5. Evidence that this arrangement is fraudulent That's just too much of a burden to be a functional rule. Even if you discard the last requirement, it is still unlikely that any evidence could be found to rule for collusion, barring massive stupidity on the part of the acting parties. What's worse, all above-the-table non-competitive behavior is currently tolerated, given the most modest cover of "I might not otherwise be able to achieve X victory points," regardless of previous relationships, conversations, or play strategies between players (I have learned that a statement along the lines of "I will help this person sweep the table, since that will tie me for 2nd with 0 VP." is acceptable in a tournament final). In fact, the expectation that each game will yield an average of 1 VP or 0.5 VP (among competitors of equal skill), almost any table split will be defensible under current rules as a VP maximizing deal (the only requirement for any deal-making under current rules). Unless and until V:EKN can institute rules to better regulate the first requirement, team play will always be advantaged, and such play between those with previous relationships or play experience will be further advantaged. If it doesn't already, this will eventually limit the competitive environment, and create a barrier to those who wish to compete in tournaments, and will hurt the growth of this game. - Jason Bell

On 10 Sep 2001, Derek Ray wrote: > On a totally unrelated note, I had a Malkavian Time Auction deck once that > did fairly well; brought cheap/free permanents into play and sold them off. > All you need are two people to bid, and you automatically gain 3 pool. or one. one person could bid zero, followed by another bidder going 1. or, no one might bid for the thing, knowing how sucky malk time auction is for the second highest bidder. O:) > This isn't so bad for, say, the Barrens.... and it also pointed out just > how much gain 3 pool actually is. An SC/Rush deck that gains 2 pool per > untap phase just for beating something up (or, alternatively, for NOT > beating something up) is not doing too badly at all. it works best if you _don't beat someone up. you get the pool, and then have a spare action to use beating upsomeone you _want_ to beat up. salem.

"Wes-backstabber" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in news:9nk4l...@enews3.newsguy.com: >> with anyone for quite a long while..... > > Anyone who plays this game should think like Sun Tzu and scheme like > Machiavelli (well... a Medici--you know what I mean). ..."a Borgia." Legbiter has quoted _The Prince_ in the past, and been quite accurate with said quotes, too. Talleyrand (the hound? ;) has provided several excellent examples of knowing when to desert a sinking ship. I'm sure there are others out there who would be most appropriate. :) And there's always "how to make the best use of your momos" :)... an art form which has been sadly lacking lately among V:TES/Jyhad players. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

"....salem christ...." <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> wrote in news:Pine.SOL.3.90.1010911152120.13397L-100000@bohm: > On 10 Sep 2001, Derek Ray wrote: > >> On a totally unrelated note, I had a Malkavian Time Auction deck once >> that did fairly well; brought cheap/free permanents into play and >> sold them off. All you need are two people to bid, and you >> automatically gain 3 pool. > > or one. one person could bid zero, followed by another bidder going 1. Can't bid zero, it's not a bid. Don't ask me for a reference on that, I have no idea... but I'm certain it's correct; if you're going to bid, you have to bid at least one. > or, no one might bid for the thing, knowing how sucky malk time > auction is for the second highest bidder. O:) This has occasionally happened, for things like the Palatial Estate (although I don't recall EVER not getting at least 1 pool for something). But yes, sometimes the first bidder gets it for 1. Not perfect, but it could be worse. Pier 13 on Black Cat would help enormously, although it might be a bitch to wedge them all together and figure out a way to actually oust people. However, when one's predator wants to spend 1 pool for a Tasha Morgan, it is not difficult to convince oneself to spend 2 pool for that same Tasha. :) The trick is to sell USEFUL stuff... Laptops are always nice. The Ivory Bow is pretty cool. And so on. Remember, if you get a third bid for the item, you gain FIVE pool. And don't forget Grave Robbing! :) >> just how much gain 3 pool actually is. An SC/Rush deck that gains 2 >> pool per untap phase just for beating something up (or, >> alternatively, for NOT beating something up) is not doing too badly >> at all. > > it works best if you _don't beat someone up. you get the pool, and > then have a spare action to use beating upsomeone you _want_ to beat > up. Eventually people make you beat something up just to prove you can. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> wrote in message news:<9njfh...@enews3.newsguy.com>... [snip] > >Why is 5th'ing across the table not a problem? > > > In comparison it has a much smaller effect. Refilling one vampire can hardly > compare to getting 3, 4, 5 or however many untapped minions to hammer on > your prey with. 5th across table also can't create the amount of disscussion > SC can. Furthermore 5th across table can be blocked. Not just by one player > but two. Simple intercept. A common and simple strategy. Once SC hits the erm, no, only one meth may block. the meth who's minion is being filled up. by the definition of directed actions, and who may block them. and, you know, i have never seen someone block a cross table 5th on their own guy. O:) salem.

On 11 Sep 2001, Derek Ray wrote: > "....salem christ...." <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> wrote in > news:Pine.SOL.3.90.1010911152120.13397L-100000@bohm: > > > > it works best if you _don't beat someone up. you get the pool, and > > then have a spare action to use beating upsomeone you _want_ to beat > > up. > > Eventually people make you beat something up just to prove you can. :) and, my friend, that's the best bit of all.....watching the expression on their face as their minion leaves for the ash heap. although, if you choke up and they just slap down a S:CE, it's very very humiliating... i need more waves of lethargy...and psyche! salem.

Aaron wrote: > I don't know guys. Seems to me like people don't like the card, so they > are trying real hard to break it. So far I am missing the big terrible > SC killing the game. Did a check at Lasombra's page, looks like of the > tournament winning decks that only 1 has ever had a SC in it. Why > hasn't this card, that has been in print since JYHAD, been such a pain > to the whole world before? Did everyone just read it and go, wow this > card does exactly what it says on it. Y'know, that happens sometimes with this game. Because a game of V:TES takes an hour or two (or more), and because this game has a relatively small player base, far fewer games of V:TES get played than the major CCGs. As such, it takes longer for the cards in a given set to be thoroughly digested. It's happened several times over the years that a card from Jyhad has been overlooked and is then used to great effect by someone in a more recent tournament (Life Boon, Hostile Takeover, Temptation of Greater Power, Change of Target...). In some cases, the card isn't abuseable, but it still uncovers a new strategy in the game. In other cases, the card is found to be abuseable and changes are made. Speaking of Change of Target, lemme go on a rant here...For crying out loud, if you're gonna be a big bleed deck, use Change of Target!!! I'm sick of the bucket brigades of bleed bouncing that get created when some jagoff recklessly flings a stealthed Govern bleed around. Quit letting your prey use your own minions against you. Use Change of Target. Use Spying Mission. Use Meld With the Land. Use Red Herring. I'm sick of having to say to my cross-table buddy, "For god's sake, don't bleed!" Change of Target has been in the game since Day One, and it's there for a reason. Stop thinking that the only way to get a bleed to work is to bid on eBay for a dozen Perfect Clarities. (this rant wasn't directed at you personally...just a general rant about the state of the game...) At any rate, it doesn't surprise me when a card from Jyhad is overlooked. One of the big concerns raised regarding the release schedule of new V:TES expansions was giving players more time to digest all the cards in each new set. One of the arguments supporting that concern was that cards from Jyhad were overlooked and have recently been given new life. Players didn't want to have to keep playing catch-up. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

> and on another topic, i thoroughly ggree with that other poster who said > there needs to be more backstabbing. A couple did, but I think you might mean me. =) > it's just that no one around here wants to be the first. Well, you do need to pull it off right; you need to do it with such style that people DO respect you, not DISrespect you. Winning by being devious is good; just being a lying ass won't make you friends, no. (who wants to make friends among evil Methuselahs? Me! It's a game, and I'm here to have fun AND win. =) > the few people who have backstabbed in the past have found their > names prefixed with "backstabber", and been unable to make any deals with > anyone for quite a long while..... Depends on the deal, I'd say. Keeping to your simple, beneficial deals is fine. "Jumping off a sinking ship," however (a deal that's going to cost you a VP you deserve or oust you) should certainly be considered, and probably capitalized on more often. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

LSJ wrote: > > If correct, why is someone that is about to be ousted giving another player > > all their remaining pool and minions not a problem? Doesn't that create a > > wee bit of an imbalance? > > Why is transferring out not a problem? > Why is 5th'ing across the table not a problem? > Why is Parity Shift not a problem? > > All of these shift the balance of the table. True, but not to the same scale as the shift of balance that can be created by Succubus Club. That's like saying, "Govern the Unaligned lets you bleed for more than the usual, so why would Return to Innocence be a problem?" [ quoted text not captured ]

>> the few people who have backstabbed in the past have found their >> names prefixed with "backstabber", and been unable to make any deals with >> anyone for quite a long while..... > > Depends on the deal, I'd say. Keeping to your simple, beneficial deals > is fine. "Jumping off a sinking ship," however (a deal that's going to cost > you a VP you deserve or oust you) should certainly be considered, and > probably capitalized on more often. Dammit; missed the important thing that I meant to say. =) We have a "Player Emeritus," Stuart Pieloch, ("Stu," to his friends) whose since moved out West. He broke a deal ONCE in one tournament, and henceforth, breaking a deal was known locally as "pulling a Stu." Hardly anyone did ever break a deal after that, least of all Stu. (well, a few have been broken, of course, but not many) For the V:TES Atlanta Expansion, his card is/was: Stuart Pieloch, The Oathbreaker. 5-cap !Ventrue PRE DOM Sabbat Bishop: After the results of a referendum are tallied, Stu may burn one blood to change any votes that he cast during that referendum. This may change the outcome of the referendum. (The whole reason for the convoluted text and timing is to allow Stu to vote in favor, gain you a pool for someone else's Bribes, and then change his mind and vote against while keeping the pool. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > > Anyone who plays this game should think like Sun Tzu and scheme like > > Machiavelli (well... a Medici--you know what I mean). > > ..."a Borgia." Yeah... he was writing *for* the Medicis but writing *about* Cedare Borgia. Too lazy to look it up. Fascinating read though :) > Legbiter has quoted _The Prince_ in the past, and been quite accurate with > said quotes, too. Talleyrand (the hound? ;) has provided several excellent > examples of knowing when to desert a sinking ship. I'm sure there are > others out there who would be most appropriate. :) I'd like to read some of his stuff actually... thanks for the recommend. > And there's always "how to make the best use of your momos" :)... an art > form which has been sadly lacking lately among V:TES/Jyhad players. :) Ok, what the hell are 'momos'? Why do I always end up asking you to define words for me, Derek? Cheers, WES

Jason Bell wrote: > The insistence on the term "collusion" to regulate behavior in > V:EKN tournaments will prevent any progress in advancing > multi-player (as opposed to team) rules for this game. > As long as "collusion" is the term of rule, the requirements > for guarding against non-competitive play will be enormous. > If "collusion" is retained, there must be evidence of all > of the following: The VEKN has no such insistence. The VEKN prohibits collusion, but that doesn't mean that everything that is not collusion is legal. Many other things are also prohibited, like unsportsmanlike (incl. non-competitive) conduct. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] If you could just play SC and take someone's minion's, I'd agree. But SC depends on uncontrollable aspects, hence its power is greater. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <y9en7.64281$Hm.6...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>, The Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes >"SC is unstoppable, but these other cards are EASY to counter" Hello, >there are just as many ways to drop the axe on SC then stop a Parity >shift. Obviously not all decks have intercept or votes. Or combat to attack the vampires Or Delaying Tactics to cancel the vote Or vote cancellation (Dominate, !Ven) Or use of agitation to get someone *else* to intercept/vote against it Or Direct Intervention to cancel key cards Or use Pentex Subversion to knock out key vampires Or use Mind of a Child to kill Presence votes Or use Derange to change their clan, nullifying their title Or targeted their key vampires with Temptation of Greater Power Or targeted their key vampires with Hostile Takeover Or use the Edge to try and get a key vote Or use Bureaucratic Overload to discourage votes Or use Malkavian Seven Miseries to reduce vote stealth Or use Kendrick to make them discard it Or use Dr. Jest to make them discard it Or use Revelations to make them discard it Or use Imogen to make you discard it Or use Mind Rape to borrow the key vampires and, erm, "hurt" them Or use Temptation to borrow the key vampires and, erm, "hurt" them Or use Sensory Deprivation to target key vampires Or use Reality to target key vampires Or use Cryptic Mission/Shadow Twin/Society of Leopold to target key vampires Anyone else care to add a few non-intercept, non-vote-creation based ways of undermining Parity Shift? (If you're ignoring votes as something likely to affect your deck anyway, you're probably building the deck wrong.) -- 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

Steve Bucy wrote: > LSJ wrote in message <3B9D0DF4...@white-wolf.com>... > >Again, use and abuse it in VEKN tournaments and, if it actually turns out > >to be abuseable, then *that* would be a problem, and it would be addressed > >if so. > > You can count on it. I have been taking the high road and not playing it > until now. At one point we shamed almost everyone in L.A. into not playing > it. The arguments, anger, and general bad feelings it created kept us from > abusing it. After being nuked out of several tournaments because of it I > promised to kill anyone that played it, even across table. Several times I > followed through with those threats. But now it's back. Now I must > accomplish the mission. I will show how screwed up SC really is. Hopefully > others will do the same. I welcome the demonstration, just as I welcomed it for the NAC. Hopefully you'll have better luck with it than the ones who tried to demonstrate it (with similar fanfare) there. Tom Wylie even indicated that it was on the "watched" list (the prelude to banning) back in 1996 (when the "SC is abusable" thread first reared up its head), also noting that it had never developed into a problem that warranted banning. [TOM 16-JAN-1996] [ quoted text not captured ]

"Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in news:9nkh4...@enews3.newsguy.com: >> And there's always "how to make the best use of your momos" :)... an >> art form which has been sadly lacking lately among V:TES/Jyhad >> players. :) > > Ok, what the hell are 'momos'? Why do I always end up asking you to > define words for me, Derek? You could probably figure out what a momo is by reading any of my rants or flame-collections. =) often used in the phrase "man, what a momo", it's somewhat derogatory and implies someone who just plain doesn't get it, for one reason or another. For example, those S&B grandpredators who, when Deflected to you, add stealth and throw a Conditioning on top of it "to cycle cards, man!" :) Or any Malkavian player who justifies random actions with "I'm role-playing a mAlKAviAn! (giggle)" There are a lot of other situations, but it's good to know who your momos are at any given table; these players are also often the most easily manipulated. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In our playgroup we use the phrase "Doing a Sid" even though the player concerned rarely plays any more. [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip> > Anyone else care to add a few non-intercept, non-vote-creation based > ways of undermining Parity Shift? > yeah, always have less pool than your Prey and Predator. :-)

In message <jhun7.49983$6x5.10...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, jeroen rombouts <jeroen....@pandora.be> writes [ quoted text not captured ] Hmm... you could give pool away via Succubus Club, maybe? :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: >Succubus Club. A card that should be banned from tournament play. Yes. Banned. Totally agree.

LSJ wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > Why is transferring out not a problem? > > > Why is 5th'ing across the table not a problem? > > > Why is Parity Shift not a problem? > > > > > > All of these shift the balance of the table. > > > > True, but not to the same scale as the shift of balance that can be > > created by Succubus Club. That's like saying, "Govern the Unaligned > > lets you bleed for more than the usual, so why would Return to > > Innocence be a problem?" > > If you could just play SC and take someone's minion's, I'd agree. > But SC depends on uncontrollable aspects, hence its power is greater. You can't just play Return to Innocence and automatically inflict that much damage upon your prey. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <bf72a12e.0109...@posting.google.com>, Ben Peal <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> writes >> If you could just play SC and take someone's minion's, I'd agree. >> But SC depends on uncontrollable aspects, hence its power is greater. > > You can't just play Return to Innocence and automatically inflict that > much damage upon your prey. The situation is different, however, in that you need someone else to co-operate with you, whereas it would rarely[0] be in someone's interests to co-operate with you on a Return to Innocence. I'll try and sit down and formulate a post covering all the options, as I see them, later, because I do disagree with a number of LSJ's points but at a more fundamental level than providing counter examples will address. [0] Some bizarre Parity Shift episode where this takes you down sufficiently to pull off two in a row, or something. [ quoted text not captured ]