Okay, I've read the tournament rules for V:tES, and I'm kinda peeved.
The current version, with unlimited copies of anything except the cards
on the restricted list and the banned list, seems, well, kind of
excessively open to abuse? I mean, I could make a really dumb,(but
possibly very sucessful) gangrel deck made mainly of forces of will,
rapid healing, day operation, and movement of the slow body.
1-take a vamp w/ superior protean and fortitude.
2-Sit there, bleed, get blocked. Your vampire is tapped. Use force of
will to bleed at +2. Use day operation, action is unblockable. Bleed
for three or more. Use movement of the slow body to untap vamp in torpor
and gain a blood. Use rapid healing to leave torpor, tap, gain a blood.
Then bleed with force of will again and start over.
Yes, it can be blocked, yes, the idea is screwy. But it's legal. C'mon,
guys, there are worse abuses, like the brujah 12 blurs, 10 torn
signposts, 8 acrobatics, etc.. rush deck. They attack, they pummel into
torpor, and there's not that much one can do about it.
Or a tremere deck with half it's strikes being thefts of vitae(OW...).
I personally have found the 4 card limits to kill no decks at all, to
grant excessive power to no type of deck, and to keep the game much more
reasonable. We just knock the restricted cards down to 4 cards per deck
too, and it works rather well. Even with only four of each restricted
untap card, one of my friends has built an effective untap/bleed deck.
And personally, I think that being able to play 7 nimble feet in one
round of combat on someone with superior celerity is a little excessive,
don't you?
Alec Chang
Hi Alec,
On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Alec Chang wrote:
> Okay, I've read the tournament rules for V:tES, and I'm kinda peeved.
> The current version, with unlimited copies of anything except the cards
> on the restricted list and the banned list, seems, well, kind of
> excessively open to abuse? I mean, I could make a really dumb,(but
> possibly very sucessful) gangrel deck made mainly of forces of will,
> rapid healing, day operation, and movement of the slow body.
Actually, it's not that good of a deck....
>
> 1-take a vamp w/ superior protean and fortitude.
>
> 2-Sit there, bleed, get blocked. Your vampire is tapped. Use force
> of
The problem here is, that since you are playing a deck without
silly card limits, then so is everyone else. Anyone who will bother to
block you at this point will either put you in torpor, or burn you, since
you have all that junk in your hand and no combat cards....
> will to bleed at +2. Use day operation, action is unblockable. Bleed
> for three or more. Use movement of the slow body to untap vamp in torpor
> and gain a blood. Use rapid healing to leave torpor, tap, gain a blood.
> Then bleed with force of will again and start over.
>
So, you have a hand of seven cards, and you assume you are always
going to have one of the four you need for this combo? In our very
competitive no limit (NL) games you might pull this trick off once, maybe
twice. It takes the average bleed deck or vote deck about three or four
turns to take their prey out of the game, unless they run in to the
average combat deck, that takes three, maybe four turns to take out all
the active vampires in the average bleed deck or vote deck.
> Yes, it can be blocked, yes, the idea is screwy. But it's legal. C'mon,
> guys, there are worse abuses, like the brujah 12 blurs, 10 torn
> signposts, 8 acrobatics, etc.. rush deck. They attack, they pummel into
> torpor, and there's not that much one can do about it.
>
Yeh, the only thing you can do is build a NL deck and play the
game the way it was designed. Who knows, you might get in two or
three games a night instead of one very slow game...
> Or a tremere deck with half it's strikes being thefts of vitae(OW...).
>
> I personally have found the 4 card limits to kill no decks at all, to
I don't know, seems to kill the combat decks you where just
talking about.
> grant excessive power to no type of deck, and to keep the game much more
> reasonable. We just knock the restricted cards down to 4 cards per deck
> too, and it works rather well. Even with only four of each restricted
> untap card, one of my friends has built an effective untap/bleed deck.
>
Effective against a 4CL deck maybe, but not effective against a
NL deck. How long does a five player game take you guys? Probably at
least two or three hours. A NL game is often over in 30 minutes. We just
determine a new seating order and start a new game.
> And personally, I think that being able to play 7 nimble feet in one
> round of combat on someone with superior celerity is a little excessive,
> don't you?
>
Well, you could play seven nimble feet in one round only if your
opponent played at least five presses, since you can only play one card
for additional strikes each round.
> Alec Chang
>
In summary, I have no problem with those of you who choose to
play jyhad with 4CL, my friends and I often change the rules for games we
play, especially war games.
I will, however, point out the weaknesses in arguments aimed at
changing the "official" tournament rules.
Algustas
*****I was really too honest a man to be a politician and live.***** Socrates
In article <4k4osl$c...@mochi.lava.net>, te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) writes:
> Okay, I've read the tournament rules for V:tES, and I'm kinda peeved.
> The current version, with unlimited copies of anything except the cards
> on the restricted list and the banned list, seems, well, kind of
> excessively open to abuse? I mean, I could make a really dumb,(but
> possibly very sucessful) gangrel deck made mainly of forces of will,
> rapid healing, day operation, and movement of the slow body.
>
Not really, this is how the game is supposed to be played. It was
designed this way. Force of Will was not taken into account when the original
game was made, nor when the rules for tournaments were typed up. It should go
on the restricted list for the reason you mentioned: it is a silly card.
BTW, it isn't that hard to stop. If you can block the Rapid Healing,
you'll be fine.
[DELETED: the well known FoW, RH, MotSB combo]
> Yes, it can be blocked, yes, the idea is screwy. But it's legal. C'mon,
> guys, there are worse abuses, like the brujah 12 blurs, 10 torn
> signposts, 8 acrobatics, etc.. rush deck. They attack, they pummel into
> torpor, and there's not that much one can do about it.
>
Sure there is. Try Strike: Combat Ends. A Brujah deck based entirely
around combat (and, BTW, Torn Signposts are not cumulative, neither are
Blurs), is going to get hosed by a good Ventrue or Setite deck. I mean, come
on! When you have your entire strategy crushed by a couple of Majesties / Eyes
of the Serpent, you have NO chance against a deck that uses lots of those.
> Or a tremere deck with half it's strikes being thefts of vitae(OW...).
>
Try "Pulled Fangs". Stealing Blood doesn't count as `damage', so you
can have lots of fun sending the Tremere bastards into torpor city.
> I personally have found the 4 card limits to kill no decks at all, to> grant excessive power to no type of deck, and to keep the game much more
> reasonable. We just knock the restricted cards down to 4 cards per deck
> too, and it works rather well. Even with only four of each restricted
> untap card, one of my friends has built an effective untap/bleed deck.
>
Well, I notice that you are obviously not making balanced decks, or
these rather simple 1 card strategies to hose over specialization would have
occured to you.
> And personally, I think that being able to play 7 nimble feet in one
> round of combat on someone with superior celerity is a little excessive,
> don't you?
>
Well, that is one of the many reasons why you can't. You may only play
1 card to give you extra strikes per round. And anyway, I forgot to mention
Fortitude as a valid hoser for Celerity...
...or superior Necromancy...
...or the Elysium...
...etc...
> Alec Chang
>
Ritaxis
Setite
--
Everything is up to date in Atom City.
In Atom City, crime by individuals is against the law.
In article <4k4osl$c...@mochi.lava.net>, te...@lava.net (Alec Chang)
writes:
>Okay, I've read the tournament rules for V:tES, and I'm kinda peeved.
>The current version, with unlimited copies of anything except the cards
>on the restricted list and the banned list, seems, well, kind of
>excessively open to abuse? I mean, I could make a really dumb,(but
>possibly very sucessful) gangrel deck made mainly of forces of will,
>rapid healing, day operation, and movement of the slow body.>1-take a vamp w/ superior protean and fortitude.>
>2-Sit there, bleed, get blocked. Your vampire is tapped. Use force of>will to bleed at +2. Use day operation, action is unblockable. Bleed
>for three or more. Use movement of the slow body to untap vamp in torpor>and gain a blood. Use rapid healing to leave torpor, tap, gain a blood.
>Then bleed with force of will again and start over.
This is an abuse of untaps. There's a basic principle in any game that it
should not be possible to set up infinite loops.
>Yes, it can be blocked, yes, the idea is screwy. But it's legal. C'mon,>guys, there are worse abuses, like the brujah 12 blurs, 10 torn
>signposts, 8 acrobatics, etc.. rush deck. They attack, they pummel into
>torpor, and there's not that much one can do about it.
Not abusive at all. Yesterday someone played just such a deck at our
group, and won 1 out of 3 games. Our decks are mostly rather experimental
at that. (and hence somewhat weaker than a serious tournament deck)
>Or a tremere deck with half it's strikes being thefts of vitae(OW...).
How is a Tremere with a reliable supply of ToV significantly different
from a minion with an assault rifle, who is also able to cause a 4-point
shift every round? Nothing, except that the Tremere deck will be less
predictable, as its power will shift with its hand.
>I personally have found the 4 card limits to kill no decks at all, to
>grant excessive power to no type of deck, and to keep the game much more
>reasonable. We just knock the restricted cards down to 4 cards per deck
>too, and it works rather well. Even with only four of each restricted
>untap card, one of my friends has built an effective untap/bleed deck.
Well, that's part of the problem with trying to fix problem cards, such as
untaps, with cards limits. If someone figures out a way to stich enough
of them together, you can create a problem deck, limits or no.
>And personally, I think that being able to play 7 nimble feet in one
>round of combat on someone with superior celerity is a little excessive,
>don't you?
No. I find few things more exciting than a good fight between two
card-driven, high-level combat decks. The outcome is always intensely
unpredictable, even by the principals, unlike permanent driven combat
typical of strict card limits. It can also be very memorable - both Rory
and I remember an episode where a Tremere from my Under the Weather deck
barely escaped Wynn with 6 Movements of the Mind to his 6 Gleam of Red
Eyes/ Form of the Ghost, or the time his Fortitude/Thaumaturgy aggro
damage deck ran out my Ventrue Bruise&Bleed deck's damage prevention
ability (which is extensive). Another episode I remember fondly was when
I sent Dancin' Dana from by You need a Spanking deck (2 hand/ Celerity)
against Anvil. Combat went on for 3 or 4 rounds with an absolute blizzard
of dodges, plus damage, additional strikes, and presses before DD won by
the skin of her fangs. Even the principals were impressed by that -
neither of our decks could usually fight that well.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) writes:
>Okay, I've read the tournament rules for V:tES, and I'm kinda peeved.
>The current version, with unlimited copies of anything except the cards
>on the restricted list and the banned list, seems, well, kind of
>excessively open to abuse? I mean, I could make a really dumb,(but
>possibly very sucessful) gangrel deck made mainly of forces of will,
>rapid healing, day operation, and movement of the slow body.>Yes, it can be blocked, yes, the idea is screwy. But it's legal. C'mon,>guys, there are worse abuses, like the brujah 12 blurs, 10 torn
>signposts, 8 acrobatics, etc.. rush deck. They attack, they pummel into
>torpor, and there's not that much one can do about it.
Majesty, Elysium: Arboretum, Earth Meld, Secure Haven, Mariel Lady Thunder,
Thoughts Betrayed, Legacy of Power, Riposte, Form of Mist, Skin of Steel,
Flesh of Marble, and (in your example of Brujah having no maneuvers),
Fake Out, .44, Aid from Bats, Behind You, Deer Rifle, Flash, Form of Ghost,
Gleam of Red Eyes, IR Goggles, Jackie Therman, Movement of Mind,
Patagia kinda Wings, Saturday Night Special, Thrown Gate, Unflinching
Persistence, or block the rush with Spirit's Touch
Yep, not much one can do about it.
If you're not prepared to fight hand-to-hand, you'd better have a way of
getting out of it.
>Or a tremere deck with half it's strikes being thefts of vitae(OW...).
Dodge or End Combat (or don't block :-)
>I personally have found the 4 card limits to kill no decks at all, to
>grant excessive power to no type of deck, and to keep the game much more
>reasonable. We just knock the restricted cards down to 4 cards per deck
>too, and it works rather well. Even with only four of each restricted
>untap card, one of my friends has built an effective untap/bleed deck.
And Malk S&B doesn't feel 4CL at all, and will continue to mop up
the play when executed properly.
>And personally, I think that being able to play 7 nimble feet in one
>round of combat on someone with superior celerity is a little excessive,
>don't you?
Yes, fortunately that kind of abuse is denied in the rules.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Theater is life
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | Film is art
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | Television is furniture
Alec Chang wrote:
>
> Okay, I've read the tournament rules for V:tES, and I'm kinda peeved.
> The current version, with unlimited copies of anything except the cards
> on the restricted list and the banned list, seems, well, kind of
> excessively open to abuse? I mean, I could make a really dumb,(but
> possibly very sucessful) gangrel deck made mainly of forces of will,
> rapid healing, day operation, and movement of the slow body.
>> 1-take a vamp w/ superior protean and fortitude.
>
> 2-Sit there, bleed, get blocked. Your vampire is tapped. Use force of
> will to bleed at +2. Use day operation, action is unblockable. Bleed
> for three or more. Use movement of the slow body to untap vamp in torpor
> and gain a blood. Use rapid healing to leave torpor, tap, gain a blood.
> Then bleed with force of will again and start over.
>> Yes, it can be blocked, yes, the idea is screwy. But it's legal. [snip]
> Alec Chang
The only thing you need to add is Fame! I'll bet that I'll see a few
decks of exacly this sort of thing at the Los Angeles sanctioned tourney
during Memorial Day weekend. OTPs rarely win but they will certainly
ruin the game for their prey (which will likely be me).
Robert
......................................................................
:The opinions expressed here are strictly my own delusional ramblings:
:and do not reflect the opinions of The Walt Disney Company. :
: :
:Robert Goudie robert...@studio.disney.com:
:....................................................................:
:cigars * v:tes * car rallies * scotch * sega rally champion * spoon :
:....................................................................:
[NOTE: This thread brings back the dreaded CL debate. Ignore at will]
In article <4k4osl$c...@mochi.lava.net>, te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) wrote:
> Okay, I've read the tournament rules for V:tES, and I'm kinda peeved.
This seems to be the generally consensus of _nearly_ everyone (I've met
two people who claim to be happy with DC rules)
> The current version, with unlimited copies of anything except the cards
> on the restricted list and the banned list, seems, well, kind of
> excessively open to abuse? I mean, I could make a really dumb,(but
> possibly very sucessful) gangrel deck made mainly of forces of will,
> rapid healing, day operation, and movement of the slow body.
This combo is abusive only because it allows an infinite loop, which
should never happen. If you use one of the Golden Tenets, no minion can
attempt the same _type_ of action, regardless of subsuquent untaps, this
combo is not abusive, merely cool.
[Snip the Force of Will, Movement of the Slow Body, Rapid Healing Combo]
For more fun, add Fame.
> Yes, it can be blocked, yes, the idea is screwy. But it's legal.
Under the Golden Tenets, it's legal, and doesn't get out of hand as you
can only do it once per vampire.
>C'mon,
> guys, there are worse abuses, like the brujah 12 blurs, 10 torn
> signposts, 8 acrobatics, etc.. rush deck. They attack, they pummel
into
> torpor, and there's not that much one can do about it.
Brujah: Celerity/Potence combat to fight back. Majesty to Run away
Gangrel: Fortitude and Protean. Animalism for Drawing out the Beast.
Giovanni: Thoughts Betrayed or Obedience. Potence and Necromancy to
fight back.
Malkavian: Disguised Weapon, Thoughts Betrayed, Obedience. Not being much
of a combat clan anyway, these guys deserve to be beaten up.
Nosferatu: Disguised Weapon, Potence, fight back. Animalism for flavor.
Ravnos: Fortitude. Drawing out the Beast, Trap, Apparation, Undead
Persistence.
Toreador: Guns with celerity. Majesty. Fast Reaction.
Tremere: Thaumaturgy combat. Fast Reaction. Thoughts Betrayed, Obedience.
Ventrue: Fortitude. Majesty. Obedience, Thoughts Betrayed.
Caitiff: Expendable. Bring out more.
> Or a tremere deck with half it's strikes being thefts of vitae(OW...).
This only really hurts a damage prevention deck. Celerity combat can
slam it. Potence can. Protean can. Guns can. Anything combat ready can.
In the above two examples, the major weakness of your arguement is that
you seem to be assuming that there is no recourse for the deck. _ALL_
decks should have some form of defense for any common strategy: Combat,
Bleed, Vote. Without it, those decks _will_ be beaten by a deck good at
the others weakness.
> I personally have found the 4 card limits to kill no decks at all, to
> grant excessive power to no type of deck, and to keep the game much
more
> reasonable.
Malkavian counterexample.
The Malkavians couldn't care if they had a 3 CL. Your claim is that CL
lowers the power to all, to a reasonable level. The Malkavians work at
the same power level under NL as they do under 4CL. This gives them
_alot_ more power in the 4CL environment.
>We just knock the restricted cards down to 4 cards per deck
> too, and it works rather well. Even with only four of each restricted
> untap card, one of my friends has built an effective untap/bleed deck.
It's really not too difficult to do. But it kind of ignores the problems
that exist. Rather than correct Jyhad's two problems (vote push/repeat
actions), a 4CL is slapped down on your playgroup to solve them. The 4CL
does not solve the vote push problem. The 4CL solves the repeat actions
problem. The 4CL introduces more problems vs. Malk S&B, weenie vote
decks, and basicly eliminates the utility of Rush decks to become
Prince/Rush decks that don't work as well.
Numerous other things crop up (limits to deck design, overpower on
Carlotta Giovanni, etc...).
More problems are created than are solved.
> And personally, I think that being able to play 7 nimble feet in one
> round of combat on someone with superior celerity is a little
excessive,
> don't you?
It can't happen. Only one additional strike card can be used per round.
It would be abusive if it was legal.
---
Your bringing this up gives me the opportunity to advertise for another
option in tournament rules for Jyhad: The Sensible Player's Tournament
Rules (SPTR).
The SPTR is a player-written and supported set of tournament rules. You
can find them at <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad/SPTR.html>.
Read them and let us know what you think. If you e-mail as a supporter
of the SPTR, you will be given upcoming tournament information using the
SPTR, and a vote in all changes to the SPTR. Even if you don't support
them, let us know what you think should be changed. We are always
looking for improvements. Jyhad needs a standard. Help create one.
"I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
# Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) #
$ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @
# PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) y*+? 3.1#
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Shane Travis wrote:
> In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960409151742.1374A-100000@pentode> you wrote:> [...]
> : the same power level under NL as they do under 4CL. This gives them> : _alot_ more power in the 4CL environment.> ^^^^^^> Just thought I'd let you know; 'a lot' is two words and not one. I don't
> recall seeing you make this mistake before, so it may have been a typo;
> if so, then ignore me. :-)> (This is just one of those 'nails on a blackboard' things that a lot of
> people get wrong, and I try to correct wherever I can with whomever I
> think will listen to me. :-)
:)
I don't mind correction. Watch out though! Now I'll be after finding
your mistakes! ;)
Thanks, though.
[ quoted text not captured ]