The day the combat decks died

Looking at the new tournament rules I can only see one thing: there won´t be any combat decks in the finals anymore. The rules make deals practically useless. How can a combat deck go to the final? Make deals. The finals will now be (even more than now) a boring mix of hardcore s&b and breed decks with some sprinkeled vote and intercept. Whoever (was it the obscure Inner Circle?) did these rules doesn´t have a very good idea of high level tournament play, in my opinion. -- johannes walch

I hate self replying, but just to undermine my point: Some time ago the seat-changing votes have been eliminated. I predicted a very similiar thing: the decrease of vote decks in finals. And exactly that happened, look at the largest tournament this year (EC LCQ), the finals consisted of : 2x S&B, 3x Breed.

Johannes Walch a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] I really don't see your point. Are you meaning that a rush deck can't win without dealing? Could you develop the idea a little bit?

[ quoted text not captured ] I strongly disagree. This makes deals for combt decks better, as they tend to shine in the 3 player enviroment. so deal yourself into a position where its a 3 player, and away you go. Plus the best kind of deal combat makes is not, "You do this, and I'll do his", I believe it's more the "Do this, or Hulk SMASH!!!" Heh.

Huruem schrieb: > I really don't see your point. Are you meaning that a rush deck can't > win without dealing? Could you develop the idea a little bit? The point is that you cannot deal with your prey or predator because you have to break in the end. That decreases your chances of getting a deal by 50% (on a 5 player table).

Johannes Walch schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] Combat decks were alive? You can still deal perfectly fine with your prey and predator, without having to have to break deals. Just make sure you go into the heads up when someone has GW. That's the usual way when dealing with prey/predator anyway. - you are then allowed to keep the deal, as PTW doesn't prevent conceding when you already have the GW. Secondly: Combat decks were alive?

Bram Vink schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] No they were not really alive. But putting new rules up that encourage S&B and Breed (to swipe) doesn´t make them come alive. That´s what I am saying: these rules fix nothing. The make it even worse IMHO (see my other posts). We need a completely different solution and we need time to think and discuss about it. This was a jump start imho. --- johannes walch

In message <eks94o$kgq$2...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >Bram Vink schrieb: >> Secondly: Combat decks were alive? > >No they were not really alive. But putting new rules up that encourage >S&B and Breed (to swipe) doesn愒 make them come alive. I think you're confusing several things here, and it's pretty unhelpful. The changes to the rules seem to be to address certain forms of deal- making that are considered unhelpful, distasteful, counter-productive, or which make players have less regard for the card-playing element of the game. Obviously, different people will have different views on the effectiveness, or whether such things should be addressed, but this certainly seems to be the intention. These deals occur in a wide number of circumstances, and most certainly do not require the involvement of combat decks. As I said in my report for the UK Nationals a couple of weeks ago, I felt that the strategically best option for the players on the table at the time was for a stealth-bleed deck and a weenie vote deck to gang up on other players. As it happens, they'd still be able to do something similar because they were predator and prey, but I could see the two decks doing it cross table. I don't see that these rules are in any way intended to enliven combat decks. I think you're also confusing "combat decks" with "mono rush decks." There are a lot of ways of going about making rush decks better, a number of which would involve giving combat decks better tools - making Assamite contract/rush combat more viable, for example. >That愀 what I am saying: these rules fix nothing. But that doesn't seem to be true. They don't fix everything, but I am unsure how they can fix *nothing*, when an active judge can intervene and prevent a roll-over (and issue appropriate penalties, if necessary). These are one of the scenarios the rules are intended to fix. How does it *not* fix those scenarios, when a judge has the latitude to intervene that they didn't have before? >The make it even worse IMHO (see my other posts). Your other points assume a number of questionable things. One is that combat appears to be rush. Which it isn't. Intercept walls that can go forward are capable of winning without massively intricate deals. Decks with a bruise component are similarly capable. Madness Network OOT decks have shown themselves able to win tournaments without significant dealing. Bruise-and-vote turns up in tournaments and does pretty fine. Peter Bakija has put forward a coherent strategy for a combat deck to win without dealing - demolish prey, oust backwards, 3VP, no deal. Why is a combat deck not capable of making short-term deals and doing well with them? If it is capable, it can do that. If it isn't, why is it the responsibility of the tournament rules to empower one strategy out of a large number? This isn't all combat, surely? If intercept decks were weak in tournaments, would it be the responsibility of the tournament rules to address that, or the responsibility of the printed cards to give those tools to deck designers? >We need a completely different solution and we need time to think and >discuss about it. This was a jump start imho. You seem to be discussing a solution to a different question. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> schreef in bericht news:eks7oi$jqk$1...@news01.versatel.de... [ quoted text not captured ] Hi Johannes, long time no see... I think you'r overreacting. :-) The only reason why combat decks have problems in the Western Europe tournement scene is that play is slow. The focus is too much on setting up for the table split than really playing all-out V:TES. One of the reasons I don't play a lot of tourneys anymore, BTW. Hopefully, these rules will make combat players realise that the only way to win, is to play pro-actively and fast. Instead of stabilising a table, they need to destabilise the table. And, even with the new rules, there are dealing options open for the rush deck. promise your grandprey 2VP, oust your own prey, win the end game.It's even better than gunning for the 3-2 split.

I have snipped your off-topic related comments on my other posts. If you want you can reply to them in the appropriate context. James Coupe schrieb: > I don't see that these rules are in any way intended to enliven combat > decks. I think you're also confusing "combat decks" with "mono rush > decks." There are a lot of ways of going about making rush decks > better, a number of which would involve giving combat decks better tools > - making Assamite contract/rush combat more viable, for example. I am aware of the fact that the were never intended to enliven combat decks. But I think they cause harm to the strategical options of combat decks. And I think that we should rather think about ways of helping certain strategies at getting to finals instead of fixing obscure problems with dealmaking (that only some people seem to have). > But that doesn't seem to be true. They don't fix everything, but I am > unsure how they can fix *nothing*, when an active judge can intervene > and prevent a roll-over (and issue appropriate penalties, if necessary). So you need a lot of judges at hand and more judge interaction with the game. I have been voting for less judge interaction because I think that it destracts from the fun. Look at the World Championship of Soccer. The Championship was in parts decided by the judges, that distracted from their fun. I can of course understand that you, as a regular judge, want to increase the interaction with judges in the game ;-) Ok, that was not really serious ... > Your other points assume a number of questionable things. One is that > combat appears to be rush. Which it isn't. Intercept walls that can go > forward are capable of winning without massively intricate deals. Decks > with a bruise component are similarly capable. Madness Network OOT > decks have shown themselves able to win tournaments without significant > dealing. Bruise-and-vote turns up in tournaments and does pretty fine. > Peter Bakija has put forward a coherent strategy for a combat deck to > win without dealing - demolish prey, oust backwards, 3VP, no deal. My fault. Should have written rush instead of combat. > Why is a combat deck not capable of making short-term deals and doing > well with them? If it is capable, it can do that. If it isn't, why is > it the responsibility of the tournament rules to empower one strategy > out of a large number? This isn't all combat, surely? If intercept > decks were weak in tournaments, would it be the responsibility of the > tournament rules to address that, or the responsibility of the printed > cards to give those tools to deck designers? Well, you are right that there should be other/different cards to help rush (combat). But you are still assuming that I want the tournament rules to help combat. That´s not the case I just want to keep the rules as they are to prevent rush (combat) from being harmed by the rules. Not a big difference, but still ... -- johannes walch

Jeroen Rombouts schrieb: > "Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> schreef in bericht > news:eks7oi$jqk$1...@news01.versatel.de... > > Looking at the new tournament rules I can only see one thing: there won´t > > be any combat decks in the finals anymore. > > > > The rules make deals practically useless. How can a combat deck go to the > > final? Make deals. > > > > The finals will now be (even more than now) a boring mix of hardcore s&b > > and breed decks with some sprinkeled vote and intercept. > > > > Whoever (was it the obscure Inner Circle?) did these rules doesn´t have a > > very good idea of high level tournament play, in my opinion. > > > Hi Johannes, long time no see... Yeah I noticed. Sad. > I think you'r overreacting. :-) > > The only reason why combat decks have problems in the Western Europe > tournement scene is that play is slow. The focus is too much on setting up > for the table split than really playing all-out V:TES. One of the reasons I > don't play a lot of tourneys anymore, BTW. Perhaps I am overreacting. In fact I chose this very subject to attract some people to my actual course of action: reaching a common consens that the rule change was a jump start and needs a rethinking. Unfortunately I had to take some desperate measures as we were presented with facts w/o any real chance of discussion. > Hopefully, these rules will make combat players realise that the only way to > win, is to play pro-actively and fast. Instead of stabilising a table, they > need to destabilise the table. Correct. But I think they are rather stabilising the table. Deals destabilize tables, because once they are made everything falls apart quickly (usually). > And, even with the new rules, there are dealing options open for the rush > deck. promise your grandprey 2VP, oust your own prey, win the end game.It's > even better than gunning for the 3-2 split. Except for the fact that you won´t probably get it as easy as the 3-2.

joha...@scram.de schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] Promise your prey 3, if you cant oust, pick up 2 in the endgame as he concedes. Promise your predator 2, if he cant oust, concede in the endgame. Legal. Regular practice as it is. ;) Cheers, B

In message <1165089348.4...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, joha...@scram.de writes: >I have snipped your off-topic related comments on my other posts. If >you want you can reply to them in the appropriate context. If you can make off-topic comments about seeing your other posts, I can make my own comments about them in my post. The point I was making was about the entirety of your position. Snipping it down into bite-sized chunks would almost entirely miss the point. The point is that your whole point of view on this issue is going off in such a totally different direction that you really are trying to find a solution to an entirely different problem. >James Coupe schrieb: > >> I don't see that these rules are in any way intended to enliven combat >> decks. I think you're also confusing "combat decks" with "mono rush >> decks." There are a lot of ways of going about making rush decks >> better, a number of which would involve giving combat decks better tools >> - making Assamite contract/rush combat more viable, for example. > >I am aware of the fact that the were never intended to enliven combat >decks. Then why are you raising this issue as though it was the problem that was intended to be fixed? It wasn't, it isn't, and your opinions on combat are mis-guided. >But I think they cause harm to the strategical options of combat >decks. And I think that we should rather think about ways of helping >certain strategies at getting to finals instead of fixing obscure >problems with dealmaking (that only some people seem to have). Why do you believe the problems are obscure? That you're not seeing them? That's a very parochial view. Do you believe that LSJ would be making substantial changes to the tournament rules based on obscure problems that aren't replicated worldwide? Have you not seen the many threads on this sort of behaviour over several years that indicate this sort of thing is going on and causing disruptions in many different playgroups and tournament environments? >> But that doesn't seem to be true. They don't fix everything, but I am >> unsure how they can fix *nothing*, when an active judge can intervene >> and prevent a roll-over (and issue appropriate penalties, if necessary). > >So you need a lot of judges at hand and more judge interaction with the >game. Not at all. This is simply untrue. I've run tournaments with 40 people where I'd have had no trouble handling this. 1) You point out the problem to start with. If you point them out in advance, many people will avoid them anyway. At tournaments I've run, I've often given a brief warning of the sort of things I find cause most trouble. One specific (non-deal) example is political actions. I've very often found it hard to satisfactorily untangle what went on when one player claims they were in the middle of the referendum and another player claims that they hadn't finished blocking. So one of the things I often ask players to do, at the start of the tournament, is to just be careful about making sure people know the difference between table talk before the block and discussion of terms after the block. The number of such problems I have to deal with when I've pointed this out in advance at a tournament goes down a LOT, leaving me mostly with card queries and legality questions to deal with. 2) You ask people to call you over early. You don't have to officially allow deals, or officially block anything. I just sometimes ask players to call me over when such deals are being made so that I have a better view of what the table state is, and whether players are (IMO) playing to win. Quite often, you'll happen upon them anyway. >I have been voting for less judge interaction because I think >that it destracts from the fun. So you don't like the proposed remedy. That's fine. It's good to know that you're quite happy to acknowledge that it does fix some problems, even if you don't like the way it fixes them. >Look at the World Championship of >Soccer. The Championship was in parts decided by the judges, that >distracted from their fun. And very often in football, the referee will intervene to adjudicate proper play, meaning that the team that was in the right will benefit. (For example, awkward penalty calls, overruling an assistant referee/linesman on an off-side call, or whatever.) Here, a third player (or fourth, or fifth) who isn't part of the deal may find their table much more fun if they're not excluded by a distasteful deal that means that they have two predators come to annihilate them. Comparisons with soccer fall down when you fail to realise that the fun for the other three teams in a "five-way soccer match" may well increase. >I can of course understand that you, as a regular judge, want to >increase the interaction with judges in the game ;-) Ok, that was not >really serious ... It's also shit. I have no particular wish to raise the level of judge interaction in the game at all. I would *love* all tournaments to run themselves. I would love being able to play in the Nationals instead of judging them. I would love to have tried to qualify for an EC spot instead of judging the English qualifier, whether I attended the EC in the end or not. However, the proposal at hand fixes some of the more significant issues that a number of groups are seeing worldwide. We don't have a better proposal yet. So let's just go with this one for now, because - as you've acknowledged - it will certainly fix some problems, even if you don't like the way it goes about fixing some of them. If, mid-season, someone has come up with a clever, subtle, and brilliant rules change that fixes everything, allows judges to spend a tournament making tea and eating biscuits, and brings about world peace, that's just great. We don't have that rules change, however. So why not go with something that stands a good chance of fixing a number of problems now, and try to work towards something perfect to be added mid-season, or for 2008, or to be added to the base rules (if appropriate), or whatever? >> Your other points assume a number of questionable things. One is that >> combat appears to be rush. Which it isn't. Intercept walls that can go >> forward are capable of winning without massively intricate deals. Decks >> with a bruise component are similarly capable. Madness Network OOT >> decks have shown themselves able to win tournaments without significant >> dealing. Bruise-and-vote turns up in tournaments and does pretty fine. >> Peter Bakija has put forward a coherent strategy for a combat deck to >> win without dealing - demolish prey, oust backwards, 3VP, no deal. > >My fault. Should have written rush instead of combat. So now you're only picking one strategy out of lots. Why should the tournament rules be rewritten to benefit rush combat, when a number of other combat strategies work well and a multiplicity of other non-combat (other than possible defence) strategies are working fine with the rules change, and a number of rush combat decks can try to as well? >> Why is a combat deck not capable of making short-term deals and doing >> well with them? If it is capable, it can do that. If it isn't, why is >> it the responsibility of the tournament rules to empower one strategy >> out of a large number? This isn't all combat, surely? If intercept >> decks were weak in tournaments, would it be the responsibility of the >> tournament rules to address that, or the responsibility of the printed >> cards to give those tools to deck designers? > >Well, you are right that there should be other/different cards to help >rush (combat). But you are still assuming that I want the tournament >rules to help combat. That´s not the case I just want to keep the >rules as they are to prevent rush (combat) from being harmed by the >rules. Not a big difference, but still ... You say potato... Like other decks that make 2/1 then roll-over deals, combat decks may have to change the deals they make. Players may well be more inclined to play differently to obviate the need for such deals. Peter's strategy of only demolishing your prey once, then taking out anyone who'll hurt you is a potentially very strong one. Once you oust your first prey, it has the great, great simplicity of only pitting you against one Methuselah - your predator. Instead of the usual problem of trying to balance one Methuselah against another, you demolish your predator. Your prey can do what he likes, so long as you're confident enough in your combat abilities that you'll win the show-down. (Of course, if it turns out you can oust your prey too, you can do that and get 4/1, but that's not necessary - it's a nice bonus.) Why is rush combat disproportionately affected by this rules change, when pretty much any other deck can also make the deal, and rush combat doesn't have to make the deal anyway? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe schrieb: > In message <1165089348.4...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, > joha...@scram.de writes: > >I have snipped your off-topic related comments on my other posts. If > >you want you can reply to them in the appropriate context. > > If you can make off-topic comments about seeing your other posts, I can > make my own comments about them in my post. > > The point I was making was about the entirety of your position. > Snipping it down into bite-sized chunks would almost entirely miss the > point. The point is that your whole point of view on this issue is > going off in such a totally different direction that you really are > trying to find a solution to an entirely different problem. I can´t really argue with you on the single points you make, because my language level in english is not good enough to be on par with the likes of you when it comes down to this kind of discussion. Your points are thought out pretty well (as always) and it would take me simply too much time to answer adequately. Let me make a summarized statement of my opinion on the matter to simplify further discussion: - I don´t want to help any type of strategy by changing the rules, I just wanted to point out that this change might be bad for some strategies. That was a rather weak point, I admit, but as we were presented with some facts I rushed to action (probably not a good idea). - I think the 0.5 for withdrawal is fine but I also think that the "you have to break in 1-1" is unenforceable, does not fix anything and encourages collusion (and collusion seems to be a problem too, at least people are also complaining about it). - And what bothers me most: this was hastily done (and a lot of people seem to agree on this) without the opportunity for real discussion. I think there is probably some need to fix things but there is really no need to try to fix something with a hastily established alpha solution. You propose that we should try and fix again afterwards, I think we should think and discuss more about it and the change it. -- johannes walch

On Dec 3, 3:06 am, "Blooded Sand" <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 2, 5:57 pm, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > > > Looking at the new tournament rules I can only see one thing: there > > won´t be any combat decks in the finals anymore. > > > The rules make deals practically useless. How can a combat deck go to > > the final? Make deals. > > > The finals will now be (even more than now) a boring mix of hardcore s&b > > and breed decks with some sprinkeled vote and intercept. > > > Whoever (was it the obscure Inner Circle?) did these rules doesn´t have > > a very good idea of high level tournament play, in my opinion. > > > -- > > johannes walchI strongly disagree. This makes deals for combt decks better, as they > tend to shine in the 3 player enviroment. so deal yourself into a > position where its a 3 player, and away you go. Plus the best kind of > deal combat makes is not, "You do this, and I'll do his", I believe > it's more the "Do this, or Hulk SMASH!!!" > Heh. A combat deck needs to shrink the table to 3 players, players I think need to be aggressive and pro-active and de-stabalize a table from 5 players to 3. I've never been able to completely sweep a 5 player table with a rush deck, but I have managed to take a 3 player table.

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > The only reason why combat decks have problems in the Western Europe > tournement scene is that play is slow. The focus is too much on setting up > for the table split than really playing all-out V:TES. One of the reasons > I don't play a lot of tourneys anymore, BTW. True, and based on what I saw at the EC a large part of that slowness is some people interrupting *every* *goddam* *action* with "do you really want to do that, can we make a deal?" :}. Less deals = less constant table talk that slows down the game. That said, combat decks have always been and probably will always be a more difficult way to win games, simply because you're usually attacking secondary resources instead of primary (pool). //Petri

Petri Wessman schreef: > Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > > Less deals = less constant table talk that slows down the game. > > That said, combat decks have always been and probably will always be a more > difficult way to win games, simply because you're usually attacking > secondary resources instead of primary (pool). > While I don't have anything against table talk, I don't like the time spent on it. Maybe in the rules for July, LSJ should include a 5-way chess timer. That means: in a 5 player game everyone gets 24 minutes, after an oust the remaining time is divided among the rest of the players. That way you can tell some-one to shut up until we're on his time. J/K of course, but it might make a nice variant. If you can find 5-way chess timers who take turns clockwise and are able to divide an ousted player's time among the rest.

> The only reason why combat decks have problems in the Western Europe > tournement scene is that play is slow. That is a preposterous statement, because : - it is not the "only" reason by far (many others have been cited in this thread alone) - "slow" or "fast" is only in relativity to something else, so you could have said "is slower in Western Europe than in my country" (I don't know where it is), or "too slow for my tastes". Only then would that part of your assesment be, err... correct. ;-) - Western Europe is a pretty big place, and I'm pretty sure not everyone plays the same way inside its borders. Hell, not even in western Paris do all players enjoy the game the same way or at the same pace !! All this to say that generalisation of the habits of a region, place, or type of playgroup is never good (not to mention grounds for latent racism, if bad come to worse). > The focus is too much on setting up > for the table split than really playing all-out V:TES. One of the reasons I > don't play a lot of tourneys anymore, BTW. To some players, table split is a more important part of playing the current VTES than "all-out" card pushing. Obviously those will have to change their habits, or maybe they will play less tournies too. Mileages can vary. > Hopefully, these rules will make combat players realise that the only way to > win, is to play pro-actively and fast. Instead of stabilising a table, they > need to destabilise the table. Sure. I've been there, and done that. And you know what happens when a rusher plays pro-actively and with some degree of efficiency on a table filled with voters and bleeders ? Well, it is killed by a common consensus of all the others, eventually even crosstable ("you were sooooo scary !!). And it doesn't happen only to me, I would do the same if I saw a good combat deck arriving on me and I didn't pack enough combat defense. So sometimes the best a combattant can do is wait for its moment, and not attack anyone too much until the time is right (or at least one player died). > And, even with the new rules, there are dealing options open for the rush > deck. promise your grandprey 2VP, oust your own prey, win the end game.It's > even better than gunning for the 3-2 split. Sure. Except that the rules now will force your grand-prey to break, and if he was in any position to oust the other 2 players you'll probably have trouble ousting HIM (well, with 12 more pool he might just contend with pooling a little and waiting for Time Limit, depending on his combat defense you have chances to be very much screwed...). Not saying I totally share Johannes' view on this, but certainly rush decks were handicaped before, and possibly that change in rules will hinder their dealing capacity, and therefore their winning capacity, more than the other decktypes. -- Orpheus Nearly made it to LSJ's Killfile !!

[ quoted text not captured ] I think it should also include a computer per table, with voice-recognition program. This would not only measure the speaking time of each player, but also if he speaks loud enough for everyone to hear, but not loud enough to be considered aggressive shouting. We could also measure the heartbeats of each player, therefore including a physical sportsmanship in VTES, because one shouldn't stress too much his mind and body while playing. Maybe the computer could be on batteries run by the players who would sit on bikes without wheels and keep on riding them while they're playing. Then the computer would calculate a proportion of VPs and of physical prowesses based on a cosinus of X factor, where X is the quantity of alcoholic beverages present in the player's blood in milligrams, converted according to a venusian algorythm well know of all space and time travellers. Or maybe we could just... forgive me Ankur, can I borrow something from you just a moment ? ...play the game ?! You know, the one we're supposed to like... -- Orpheus ----------------------- I'm dead serious ! Well, mostly dead...

> Or maybe we could just... forgive me Ankur, can I borrow something from > you just a moment ? ...play the game ?! You know, the one we're supposed > to like... No monopoly on the phrase, use it to your heart's content. :) Ankur Play. The. Game.

Jeroen wrote: > Maybe in the rules for July, LSJ should include a 5-way chess timer. > That means: in a 5 player game everyone gets 24 minutes, after an oust > the remaining time is divided among the rest of the players. That way > you can tell some-one to shut up until we're on his time. > > J/K of course, but it might make a nice variant. If you can find 5-way > chess timers who take turns clockwise and are able to divide an ousted > player's time among the rest. I have an N-way chess clock for N from 2 to 8. It wouldn't solve anything, of course, since a player's turn is not solely his own.

Johannes Walch wrote: > Looking at the new tournament rules I can only see one thing: there > won´t be any combat decks in the finals anymore. Realizing I'm coming into this conversation late, but uh, wha? Are you smoking crack? > The rules make deals practically useless. How can a combat deck go to > the final? Make deals. Or, yah, know, it could go to the finals like everyone else--oust your prey and get table wins. I get in the finals all the time with combat decks. I don't make deals (or at least I don't make significant deals--I'll make quid pro quo "rescue my guy and I'll vote for your political action" deals or whatever, but I don't make table split deals or anything of the sort). > The finals will now be (even more than now) a boring mix of hardcore s&b > and breed decks with some sprinkeled vote and intercept. Based on what, exactly? > Whoever (was it the obscure Inner Circle?) did these rules doesn´t have > a very good idea of high level tournament play, in my opinion. I can only assume you don't have a very good idea of combat deck play, myself. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] It's humorous that, Johannes has not only predicted the death of combat, but also anticipated the dirth of vote. Given that I have also seen members of this board proclaiming the death of S&B, it would seem that everything but weenies has been declared dead. The upside is that, with all these decks now declared dead, it greatly simplifies my deck construction tasks. Sincerely, Preston

Preston schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Playing weenie decks has always been a solid choice, so your construction task could have been simplified a few years ago. I, for myself, prefer my contruction task to remain complicated. I enjoy it this way. Even more humorous, by the way, is that I was absolutely right with my prediction for the future of certain vote decks. I still have the opinion that there was a better fix for the table changing votes than simply banning them (and for the Succubus Club as well). -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch wrote: > Preston schrieb: > > It's humorous that, Johannes has not only predicted the death of > > combat, but also anticipated the dirth of vote. Given that I have also > > seen members of this board proclaiming the death of S&B, it would seem > > that everything but weenies has been declared dead. The upside is that, > > with all these decks now declared dead, it greatly simplifies my deck > > construction tasks. > > Playing weenie decks has always been a solid choice, so your > construction task could have been simplified a few years ago. > > I, for myself, prefer my contruction task to remain complicated. I enjoy > it this way. > > Even more humorous, by the way, is that I was absolutely right with my > prediction for the future of certain vote decks. I still have the > opinion that there was a better fix for the table changing votes than > simply banning them (and for the Succubus Club as well). > > -- > johannes walch I'm sorry Johannes, but, as someone who has played more combat decks than decks of any other type, I must say I can't remember a single time I have made a deal to take a given player down in exchange for a withdrawl. From my experience, these sorts of deals are much more prevalent amongst the Kindred S&B/vote decks. So I would predict the opposite in terms of combat viability. But there's a larger issue here. And that's that the large tournaments themselves seem to have an amazing level of homogenity. From my own experience I can say that this is simply not because other decks don't work, but because people seem compelled to play an established deck in a large tournament. VTES has such a vast card pool and the multiplayer dynamics are such that a huge number of deck archetypes will be consistent winners. I believe the reason such homogenity is seen amongst the large tournaments has more to do with psychology than with the strength of such decks. All that being said, it seems rather absurd for you to claim the "death of combat decks" given that you are citing statistics that show there weren't any there to begin with. If next year is a repeat of this year are you going to pay yourself on the back for your predictive powers? Incidentally, I'm pretty happy with my VTES game play despite the fact that I play styles contrarian to established styles (i.e I rarely play weenies/hunting grounds/blood dolls/ or S&B). There are such powerful cards that work against the weenie dynamic available, that if weenie and S&B really become the standard tournament fare, that would make the standard Arika deflect/Ancilla Empowerment deck the new deck to beat. Which would defeat your first prediction of the effects of banning table switching votes. Sincerely, Preston

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> schreef in bericht news:4572f2c0$0$6818$426a...@news.free.fr... [ quoted text not captured ] LOL :-) really. New.Keyboard. Old one got coffee on it.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht news:szCch.18337$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] I know, hence, the just kidding. :-) Where do you get such a thing?

Preston schrieb: > I'm sorry Johannes, but, as someone who has played more combat decks > than decks of any other type, I must say I can't remember a single time > I have made a deal to take a given player down in exchange for a > withdrawl. From my experience, these sorts of deals are much more > prevalent amongst the Kindred S&B/vote decks. So I would predict the > opposite in terms of combat viability. I have had my share of combat deck experience, too, and I must say that I was relying on deals a big deal to have success with them. But then again they were dedicated mono-rush decks AND it may be tied to my playing style. > But there's a larger issue here. And that's that the large tournaments > themselves seem to have an amazing level of homogenity. From my own > experience I can say that this is simply not because other decks don't > work, but because people seem compelled to play an established deck in > a large tournament. VTES has such a vast card pool and the multiplayer > dynamics are such that a huge number of deck archetypes will be > consistent winners. I believe the reason such homogenity is seen > amongst the large tournaments has more to do with psychology than with > the strength of such decks. That愀 a really interesting point you make but I disagree. I think that (especially) weenie and also S&B decks are the most consistent of all the deck-types out there AND they tend to carve up VPs that you need to go in the final. > All that being said, it seems rather absurd for you to claim the "death > of combat decks" given that you are citing statistics that show there > weren't any there to begin with. If next year is a repeat of this year > are you going to pay yourself on the back for your predictive powers? > > Incidentally, I'm pretty happy with my VTES game play despite the fact > that I play styles contrarian to established styles (i.e I rarely play > weenies/hunting grounds/blood dolls/ or S&B). There are such powerful > cards that work against the weenie dynamic available, that if weenie > and S&B really become the standard tournament fare, that would make the > standard Arika deflect/Ancilla Empowerment deck the new deck to beat. > Which would defeat your first prediction of the effects of banning > table switching votes. Of course the "death of combat decks" is an absurd exageration I was using to point out the fact that the rules change might affect the meta-game more than it should. Combat decks will not die (too many lovers out there). What愀 exactly the meaning of "pay yourself back"? No irony here at the moment I simply don愒 get it? So for now the answer is: probably ;-) -- johannes walch

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:ekvf0r$t7i$1...@news01.versatel.de... > Preston schrieb: <snip> >> All that being said, it seems rather absurd for you to claim the "death >> of combat decks" given that you are citing statistics that show there >> weren't any there to begin with. If next year is a repeat of this year >> are you going to pay yourself on the back for your predictive powers? >> >> Incidentally, I'm pretty happy with my VTES game play despite the fact >> that I play styles contrarian to established styles (i.e I rarely play >> weenies/hunting grounds/blood dolls/ or S&B). There are such powerful >> cards that work against the weenie dynamic available, that if weenie >> and S&B really become the standard tournament fare, that would make the >> standard Arika deflect/Ancilla Empowerment deck the new deck to beat. >> Which would defeat your first prediction of the effects of banning >> table switching votes. > > Of course the "death of combat decks" is an absurd exageration I was using > to point out the fact that the rules change might affect the meta-game > more than it should. Combat decks will not die (too many lovers out > there). > > What´s exactly the meaning of "pay yourself back"? No irony here at the > moment I simply don´t get it? So for now the answer is: probably ;-) > The original comment was a typo... Preston meant to schreib "pat yourself on the back," which is English idiom for "congratulate yourself." - Pat

Johannes Walch wrote: > Preston schrieb: > > All that being said, it seems rather absurd for you to claim the "death > > of combat decks" given that you are citing statistics that show there > > weren't any there to begin with. If next year is a repeat of this year > > are you going to pay yourself on the back for your predictive powers? > > What´s exactly the meaning of "pay yourself back"? No irony here at the > moment I simply don´t get it? So for now the answer is: probably ;-) It's likely a typo. I think he meant "pat yourself on the back". The T and the Y keys are next to each other on my keyboard. Rob Grau rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu

Johannes Walch wrote: > I have had my share of combat deck experience, too, and I must say that > I was relying on deals a big deal to have success with them. But then > again they were dedicated mono-rush decks AND it may be tied to my > playing style. It is very likely that your view on this particular issue is directly tied to your perception of how combat decks work. As someone who plays an awful lot of combat decks in competition, and who has won both small and large tournaments with them, I can tell you that it is highly unlikely that the change to the withdraw rule, and the "all deals are null and void in the 1 on 1 endgame" rule will have any impact at all on the viability of combat decks. -Peter

Rob Grau schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Ah, yes. On a german keyboard the Z and the Y key are exchanged compared to a US keyboard ... Well of course I will pat myself on the back. Nothing sweeter than whole heartedly saying "I saw that coming" :-))) -- johannes walch

Peter D Bakija schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] We are both talking about combat decks in our respective hands. I tell you that my style of playing with them will be severly hampered you tell me it won´t have any effect on your game. So actually I think we both have a valid point. So the "goodness" of the rule change (regarding it´s effect on the performance of combat decks) actually depends on the "average" playing style with those decks. That will be tough to find out .... -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch wrote: > We are both talking about combat decks in our respective hands. I tell > you that my style of playing with them will be severly hampered you tell > me it won´t have any effect on your game. So actually I think we both > have a valid point. Well, if the point was "combat decks are never going to make the finals of a big tournament again, 'cause they can't rely on deal making anymore", which your original point seemed to be (me full well realizing that it was a hyperbolic one), then I don't actually think we both have a valid point. Just me :-) It seems very possible that your style of playing combat decks will be severely hampered by the new tournament rules. But Johannes's Experience does not equal The Universal Experience. > So the "goodness" of the rule change (regarding it´s effect on the > performance of combat decks) actually depends on the "average" playing > style with those decks. That will be tough to find out .... I'm really not seeing that it'll have that much of an impact at all. But then, I do pretty well in tournament play historically (although this last year was a pretty bleak one...) without relying on deals to get places. If someone can do well in competetive play without relying on deal making, I'm not seeing how these new tournament rules are going to make much difference to their performance one way or the other, combat decks or no. -Peter

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> schreef in bericht news:4572f0fe$0$18430$426a...@news.free.fr... >> The only reason why combat decks have problems in the Western Europe >> tournement scene is that play is slow. > > That is a preposterous statement, because : > > - it is not the "only" reason by far (many others have been cited in this > thread alone) > - "slow" or "fast" is only in relativity to something else, so you could > have said "is slower in Western Europe than in my country" (I don't know > where it is), or "too slow for my tastes". Only then would that part of > your > assesment be, err... correct. ;-) > - Western Europe is a pretty big place, and I'm pretty sure not everyone > plays the same way inside its borders. Hell, not even in western Paris do > all players enjoy the game the same way or at the same pace !! > > All this to say that generalisation of the habits of a region, place, or > type of playgroup is never good (not to mention grounds for latent racism, > if bad come to worse). 1. I'm from Belgium. That's Western Europe. I've played in a lot of countries. And it never used to be as bad as the last years. A couple of years ago I was advocating more deals, now not so. 2. With 'to0 slow' I don't mean, don't ever talk. I was just thinking about the number of time-outs the average tournament has. 2 hours should be enough to finish a game. Yet, a lot of tables time out. > > > The focus is too much on setting up >> for the table split than really playing all-out V:TES. One of the reasons > I >> don't play a lot of tourneys anymore, BTW. > > To some players, table split is a more important part of playing the > current > VTES than "all-out" card pushing. Obviously those will have to change > their > habits, or maybe they will play less tournies too. Mileages can vary. I'm not advocating all-out card pushing. I'm advocating a mixed style. And the trend is to give deals more importance than they should have. > >> Hopefully, these rules will make combat players realise that the only way > to >> win, is to play pro-actively and fast. Instead of stabilising a table, > they >> need to destabilise the table. > > Sure. I've been there, and done that. And you know what happens when a > rusher plays pro-actively and with some degree of efficiency on a table > filled with voters and bleeders ? Well, it is killed by a common consensus > of all the others, eventually even crosstable ("you were sooooo scary !!). > And it doesn't happen only to me, I would do the same if I saw a good > combat > deck arriving on me and I didn't pack enough combat defense. That's just bad luck. And an easy GW for the original grandpredator of the rush deck. > > So sometimes the best a combattant can do is wait for its moment, and not > attack anyone too much until the time is right (or at least one player > died). That was my point. NO YOU CAN'T. If you start waiting, the only way to get a GW is by dealing. The only situation you can wait, is if your predator or prey has combat that trumps yours. > >> And, even with the new rules, there are dealing options open for the rush >> deck. promise your grandprey 2VP, oust your own prey, win the end > game.It's >> even better than gunning for the 3-2 split. > > Sure. Except that the rules now will force your grand-prey to break, That's not breaking a deal, it's actually honoring it. In the above example no-one says anything about the 2-player game. Just 1 -2 split, play 1-1 for the win. >and if > he was in any position to oust the other 2 players you'll probably have > trouble ousting HIM >(well, with 12 more pool he might just contend with > pooling a little and waiting for Time Limit, depending on his combat > defense > you have chances to be very much screwed...). That's the point of these changes, isn't it. Complicating table splits, if only slightly. And reducing the certainty of table splits being honored is a big plus for me. > > Not saying I totally share Johannes' view on this, but certainly rush > decks > were handicaped before, and possibly that change in rules will hinder > their > dealing capacity, and therefore their winning capacity, more than the > other > decktypes. Rush decks were already more difficult to win with. That doesn't change. They don't become harder to win with either.

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht >> I have an N-way chess clock for N from 2 to 8. It wouldn't solve anything, >> of course, since a player's turn is not solely his own. > > I know, hence, the just kidding. :-) > > Where do you get such a thing? G8 Game Timer http://www.123oy.com/g8/Game%20Timer.html

That's it. I'm putting together a Henry Taylor and Hector !Bru deck with dawgs of war and just hammering everyone at a table into the ground... That or letting carmine giovanni drop a dead hand with claws of the dead on Arika's grappled ass... ~m

Peter D Bakija wrote: > It seems very possible that your style of playing combat decks will be > severely hampered by the new tournament rules. But Johannes's > Experience does not equal The Universal Experience. > I agree with Peter on this one. I am also a combat deck lover, and it has long been my favorite deck type. Altho I know Peter prefers his smaller-cap rushers and I prefer my "Team Captain / All Star" decks, my experience here has largely been the same. I don't do fantastically at tournaments because I feel that combat decks usually have a disadvantage, but also have never relied on these sorts of table deals to ensure victory. My personal opinion is that combat decks tend not to do so well for two reasons (primarily). 1) They attack a secondary source (as was mentioned before) 2) They need too many cards on hand at the right time to work (as opposed to S&B/vote decks). > > I'm really not seeing that it'll have that much of an impact at all. > But then, I do pretty well in tournament play historically (although > this last year was a pretty bleak one...) without relying on deals to > get places. If someone can do well in competetive play without relying > on deal making, I'm not seeing how these new tournament rules are going > to make much difference to their performance one way or the other, > combat decks or no. > I actually feel that the most deal-making usually happens with vote decks, as it is the most common time for people to affect someone across the table from them. Either because of damaging vote cards (like KRC), beneficial votes, or simple vote support or resistence. I usually find combat decks tend to do 1 of 2 things when it comes to good deal-making. 1) They stay out of deals, play down their deck, wait for the right moment to pounce on the table, then oust a whole bunch of people before they realise what just happened. 2) They bully the other players into submission. I've also seen the the trend depends on the kind of combat your deck relies on - playing with more transients (Bum's Rush, Torn Signpost etc.) tends to lend itself better to the first style, whereas playing with more permanents (Weapons, Archons etc.) tends to lend better to the second style. Of course, I'm not trying to say this as a universal comment - this is simply how I see things being played here in Cape Town. I imagine it is very different in other play-groups. I have lurked on these forums for a while and have noticed hugely different playing styles from place to place. It's one of the reasons I enjoy playing people from other parts of the world - there is always so much more to learn from other styles of play.

The Name Forgotten schrieb: > I've also seen the the trend depends on the kind of combat your deck > relies on - playing with more transients (Bum's Rush, Torn Signpost > etc.) tends to lend itself better to the first style, whereas playing > with more permanents (Weapons, Archons etc.) tends to lend better to > the second style. What excactly is "first" and "second" style referring to? Deal, No-Deal? Which one is "first"? -- johannes walch

The Name Forgotten wrote: > My personal opinion is that combat decks tend not to do so well for two > reasons (primarily). > 1) They attack a secondary source (as was mentioned before) > 2) They need too many cards on hand at the right time to work (as > opposed to S&B/vote decks). Combat decks are hard to win with. I think that is a given. But they are much less hard to win with than many folks seem to think (i.e. many voices in this thread seem to be under the impression that combat decks are a dead end to begin with, which is clearly not the case--heck, look at the first 6 or 7 decks at the top of the TWDA right now--they are mostly pretty fighty). And winning with them does not require making deals, as Johannes seemed to think. Mostly what it requires is killing your first prey quickly and brutally, and then angling to be last man standing at the table. Which isn't at all impossible given a favorable table (i.e. you don't end up between a Gangrel and an All Fortitude deck after killing your first prey). > I actually feel that the most deal-making usually happens with vote > decks, as it is the most common time for people to affect someone > across the table from them. Either because of damaging vote cards (like > KRC), beneficial votes, or simple vote support or resistence. Heh. I think you are misunderstanding the kind of deals we are talking about here :-) There are standard quid-pro-quo deals (i.e. do X for me and then I'll do Y for you), which isn't really what is at issue here. This is primarily a discussion of "I'll not oust you, my prey, if you kill two people and then roll over for me, so you get 2VPs and I get 3VPs..." > I usually find combat decks tend to do 1 of 2 things when it comes to > good deal-making. > 1) They stay out of deals, play down their deck, wait for the right > moment to pounce on the table, then oust a whole bunch of people before > they realise what just happened. That is generally how I like to play, although I rarely every oust a whole bunch of people :-) The best scenario for me, generally, is as mentioned above--kill your first prey quickly and ruthlessly, and then work backwards or forwards as necessary to remain alive as last man standing. > 2) They bully the other players into submission. This tends to not work so well, as it just makes people mad at you, anmd you end up getting too much crosstable KRC damage or whatever. It is too difficult to bully everyone at the table at the same time. -Peter

In message <el1eaa$gnq$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch [ quoted text not captured ] Maybe, just maybe, it refers to the previous paragraph, which had numbers right next to two different play-styles! >I usually find combat decks tend to do 1 of 2 things when it comes to >good deal-making. >1) They stay out of deals, play down their deck, wait for the right >moment to pounce on the table, then oust a whole bunch of people before >they realise what just happened. >2) They bully the other players into submission. > >I've also seen the the trend depends on the kind of combat your deck >relies on - playing with more transients (Bum's Rush, Torn Signpost >etc.) tends to lend itself better to the first style, whereas playing >with more permanents (Weapons, Archons etc.) tends to lend better to >the second style. It's pretty easy to work out what's being said when you read the whole thing! -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Johannes Walch wrote: > Looking at the new tournament rules I can only see one thing: there > won´t be any combat decks in the finals anymore. I wouldn't restrict that to combat decks. > The rules make deals practically useless. How can a combat deck go to > the final? Make deals. Currently, how do all decks make it to the finals? They make deals. I haven't see a finals at the NAC populated with anything other than deal makers, ever. > The finals will now be (even more than now) a boring mix of hardcore s&b > and breed decks with some sprinkeled vote and intercept. When players focus on S&B and breed decks then those players who are prepared for those archtypes will come out on top. > Whoever (was it the obscure Inner Circle?) did these rules doesn´t have > a very good idea of high level tournament play, in my opinion. I am pretty sure that "the obscure Inner Circel" saw what was happening at the high level of tournament play. It was so abstractly removed from what is printed in the rulebook that it may as well have been another game (i.e. Diplomacy). I don't know this for a fact, but having been there and seen that NAC thing. I would say that less long-term dealmaking is best for the game. Without ball-gagging all the players, I think that this is a good start. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

James Coupe schrieb: > Maybe, just maybe, it refers to the previous paragraph, which had > numbers right next to two different play-styles! First, I asked him, not you. Second I wanted to make sure first and second are indeed referring to 1) and 2). >> I usually find combat decks tend to do 1 of 2 things when it comes to >> good deal-making. >> 1) They stay out of deals, play down their deck, wait for the right >> moment to pounce on the table, then oust a whole bunch of people before >> they realise what just happened. >> 2) They bully the other players into submission. >> >> I've also seen the the trend depends on the kind of combat your deck >> relies on - playing with more transients (Bum's Rush, Torn Signpost >> etc.) tends to lend itself better to the first style, whereas playing >> with more permanents (Weapons, Archons etc.) tends to lend better to >> the second style. > > It's pretty easy to work out what's being said when you read the whole > thing! I have read the whole thing and I wanted to make a reply to it, but first I wanted to make sure that I got it right. Replying in a lengthy way and then finding out that the original poster had a different point than I was thinking is pretty un-productive. And your behaviour of patronizing people doesn´t help any discussion at all. In fact it´s so enerving that I was about to quit the discussion, only the possibility that this was your intention kept me from doing it. -- johannes walch

In message <el395u$aqc$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >And your behaviour of patronizing people doesn´t help any discussion at >all. As opposed to being unable to work out that the play style described first and labelled with a 1 is "first", and the play style described second and labelled with a 2 is "second"? That helps discussion loads. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1165287434....@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >Without ball-gagging all the players, I think that this is a >good start. Ooh, a mid-season solution with no downsides! They can still make deals through mime and grunts, but it'll be limited by how well they can breathe, and whether they choke on their own phlegm in the process. Winner. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Name Forgotten schrieb: > I usually find combat decks tend to do 1 of 2 things when it comes to > good deal-making. > 1) They stay out of deals, play down their deck, wait for the right > moment to pounce on the table, then oust a whole bunch of people before > they realise what just happened. > 2) They bully the other players into submission. > > I've also seen the the trend depends on the kind of combat your deck > relies on - playing with more transients (Bum's Rush, Torn Signpost > etc.) tends to lend itself better to the first style, whereas playing > with more permanents (Weapons, Archons etc.) tends to lend better to > the second style. Why do you think that is the case? Of course an Assault Rifle on an Archon IS scary (in a very obvious way) but so are 5 minions with just POT and no permanent at all (at least to me). If a player knows something about the game he will realize the threat anyway. Strategy number 2 doesn´t work so well from my experience, because tables seem to gang up on this kind of behaviour and/or players make silly moves against you just because they feel bullied. Strategy number 1 is good, when it´s possible to do it. If you have a stealth bleed as predator and grand-predator (=eating bleeds from 2 meths) there must be a course of immediate action or you will be ousted quickly. But crushing the predator w/o getting anything out of the grand-pred isn´t any good because then you just face the next S&B (in this example). -- johannes walch

James Coupe schrieb: > In message <el395u$aqc$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch > <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >> And your behaviour of patronizing people doesn´t help any discussion at >> all. > > As opposed to being unable to work out that the play style described > first and labelled with a 1 is "first", and the play style described > second and labelled with a 2 is "second"? > > That helps discussion loads. > I was thinking if probably first/second could also be related to the following statement he made earlier: "Altho I know Peter prefers his smaller-cap rushers and I prefer my "Team Captain / All Star" decks, my experience here has largely been the same." And knowing about this helps my discussion with him. You are not required to take part in it if you feel my questions are too stupid. -- johannes walch

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:AQ3 $eVWh1T...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > In message <1165287434....@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, > XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >>Without ball-gagging all the players, I think that this is a >>good start. > > Ooh, a mid-season solution with no downsides! They can still make deals > through mime and grunts, but it'll be limited by how well they can > breathe, and whether they choke on their own phlegm in the process. > > Winner. > NO fair!! Coupe has had _years_ of experience communicating past a ball- gag, and the rest of us will have only a half-year to catch up... ;P DaveZ Atom Weaver ...the safety word is 'Ecclesiastical'

On Dec 5, 5:48 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > Strategy number 1 is good, when it´s possible to do it. If you have a > stealth bleed as predator and grand-predator (=eating bleeds from 2 > meths) there must be a course of immediate action or you will be ousted > quickly. But crushing the predator w/o getting anything out of the > grand-pred isn´t any good because then you just face the next S&B (in > this example). Sure. Sometimes that happens. Sometimes, you end up sitting down into an unwinnable situation. Just like if you are a S+B deck and you sit between 2 Rush decks. You are just screwed from the get go. In situations like that, you do the best you can, and accept that you are probably going to get killed anyway. This problem is not the sole province of the Rush deck. -Peter

In message <Xns98905C12EF...@207.115.17.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> writes: >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:AQ3 >$eVWh1T...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: >> Ooh, a mid-season solution with no downsides! They can still make deals >> through mime and grunts, but it'll be limited by how well they can >> breathe, and whether they choke on their own phlegm in the process. >> >> Winner. > >NO fair!! Coupe has had _years_ of experience communicating past a ball- >gag, and the rest of us will have only a half-year to catch up... Judges get ceremonial gimp suits, obviously. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Not to mention those players skilled with flatulence..... Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp > [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1165358013.2...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >atomweaver wrote: >> NO fair!! Coupe has had _years_ of experience communicating past a ball- >> gag, and the rest of us will have only a half-year to catch up... > >Not to mention those players skilled with flatulence..... Ah, we'd probably have to ban bugles, in case players try to send messages to each other across the room. Or, at least, require that the bugles have mutes in them. [ quoted text not captured ]

atomweaver wrote: > NO fair!! Coupe has had _years_ of experience communicating past a ball- > gag, and the rest of us will have only a half-year to catch up... I LOL'd. > ...the safety word is 'Ecclesiastical' Ball gags and a safe word? No, no, stop when he drops the handkerchief. But you should ask Oscar, since he posted that pic of those people playing in the mud... -- Brian

On Dec 7, 3:22 am, islandofyia...@aol.com wrote: > atomweaver wrote: > > NO fair!! Coupe has had _years_ of experience communicating past a ball- > > gag, and the rest of us will have only a half-year to catch up...I LOL'd. > > > ...the safety word is 'Ecclesiastical'Ball gags and a safe word? No, no, stop when he drops the > handkerchief. Player 1: Mumble mumtter muble mmmph! Player 2: Ummph? Mumble *nod* mumble bwmph... Player 1: guh.... Yes well now. That's also not to mention all the drooling on cards that will be happening.

> Jeroen Rombouts wrote: >> "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht [ quoted text not captured ] And apparently, you can get software to do it for 2 - 10 players on your iPod as well: http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/PluginChessClock