The Breaking of a Game (was PF & VtES Agg...) (long)

In article <4ifhmc$d...@bert.compusmart.ab.ca>, Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote: [Re: Pulled Fangs and agro damage, spoilers and non-spoilers] [>Curt Adams wrote:] > >is a very bad situation. Even if WotC can successfully balance the > >Thoughts Betrayed and Majesty spoilers against this spoiler system (a > >really difficult task), what fun is a game where the only winning decks > >are built around a small set of spoiler cards? [snip] > >I agree that in and of themselves the new aggro rules are good. They are > >clearer, and eliminate a thicket of bizarre situations such a Basilia > >being helpless against Undead Persistence. But with pre-existing cards, > >they are a problem. > No offense Curt but is there any part of this game you can not find a > problem with;) As for suitcase players I am one and Rarity in these parts > basically has no effect because I can get any rare here for $1, because > the game has a small market here (Me basically) cards come really cheap > and with a new market (The Internet) It is not to hard to find cheap > Jyhad rares. I have 6 PF and could have traded or bought more for a > dollar but don't think the card is all that great. I guess I have to voice my side with where I think Curt is coming from (please correct me if I am wrong). Last night I was playing with some regulars. Two of us had been playing Jyhad since it was released in our towns. Just for some background, he is a partial CL proponent (non-specified numbers, he just feels repition is boring (I counter, a boring deck can be made in any CL)), and I am NL. We both love all kinds of various strategies, etc. The other players there ranged from very new (a month or two), to relatively experienced. @set me=rant On the whole, we are _extremely_ dismayed with the direction we see the game turning. Like Curt, I think that the _idea_ of making the aggravated damage do equivalent damage to the non-aggravated conterpart (i.e, 1 agg = 1 blood burnt), is simpler and caused less problems, BUT, the implementation with pre-existing cards DOES make aggavated alot more powerful than it was. In fact, the change is so different, that now pulled fangs, for example, can _destroy_ a vampire, something that makes almost _no_ sense from the standpoint of Vampire: the Masquerade. The other old-time player and I began to think about what has happened since this game has gotten out of Richard's hands. As he said, he "can't imagine how Richard Garfield could let them [the Design Team] do this to his game." The original game had a number of typos, etc., but only one that I am aware of had a significant impact on the game play (Blood Fury being Fortitude rather than Thaumaturgy). The others were errors of design. Anarch Troublemaker not having text saying it could only be used at untap, etc., but not errors of the magnitude of V:tES. Now we have multitudes of game effecting errors. Hunting Grounds cost the wrong amount, cards suddenly require clans that they shouldn't, this minion should have had superior this and that minion should have had inferior that. Now we have new cards that wear UNBELIEVABLY fast. Believe me, in the Madison Jyhad League, you can tell your VtES cards. They are the worn-backed, greasy feeling, flaking cards who are losing their art. @set me=rant_heavy Now we have Dark Sovereigns. There are a few good cards, but on the whole..., the set is a pile of garbage. Our group concluded a _day_ of playtesting with regular players would have fixed most of these. A number of card problems: Gwendolyn: The Inner Circle Member who is _nowhere_ near the others. She has an equivalent number of disciplines, and the ordinary IC stuff, but no special power. Arika: A special power (all prey's locations cost 1 pool/turn or must be destroyed), which is FAR too powerful on top of her other abilities. Chimerstry in general: Too expensive. I think to remain true to the RPG, the costs should remain the same, but either the Ravnos should have quick blood recovery, or the Chimerstry cards should do more. Locations: Far too many that can be too easily destroyed. Whatever happened to Arson, etc.? Blessings of Durga Syn: 2 Blood to steal equipment. Fix: Nice, but needs more effect or less cost. Dartmoor England: 2 Blood for +1 stealth on Animalism/Protean actions. This is too expensive for a power that for the most part will only come into play for getting minions. Eyes of the Dead: A _very_ limited power. I've tried putting this into decks, and it is only useful once very rarely, and not at times when you want to be in the situation where you need to use this card. A card like this is most often dropped rather than held onto. Fix: A better card: Normal: Only usable as a vampire attempts to diablorize. This minion may block with +1 intercept. Superior: As above, but with +2 intercept. Far Fatuus: 2 Blood to do 2R only at ranged? Fix: This card would become useful if it was usable at close as well. Goodnight, Sweet Prince: 2 Pool to cause someone to lose a vampire from their crypt. In most cases, this card is not too effective. At best, you stand to break even. Fix: This card would become useful if you gained 3 pool (or 4) if the card was a prince. Madness of the Bard: They blunder, you wonder? Nosferatu Hosting: 1 Pool. Now you can spend a master phase looking at a prey's uncontrolled card! And the card can be destroyed! Fix: This card would have been useful if you could either (A) Look at the whole uncontrolled region for a master phase, (B) Look at one uncontrolled card without spending a master phase action, or (C) Have it be free. Oxford University: 2 Pool so that you can spend 2X pool for X votes. Oh yes, it can be destroyed (and Ventrue get +1 stealth!). Fix: Get rid of the venture stealth, and make it cost 1 pool. Pere Lachaise, France: 3 Pool so that you can spend master phase actions to bring back vampires. Destroyable and destroys itself if it every succeeds. Fix: If it brings back a vampire, it is _NOT_ destroyed. Powerbase: Berlin: For 2 pool and stealable, it is too costly. Fix: Either (A) have it cost 1 pool and have the blood move to it every untap, or (B) have it tap to block _any_ political action with +x intercept. In any case, if a non-ventrue controls it, it should not be destroyed. Powerbase: Rome: For 2 pool, master phase actions and more pool, stealable, and augmented only by the Giovanni, it too is too costly. Fix: Have it cost 1 pool, and have the blood and pool moved to it be moved from the blood bank. The Ravnos Cache: Burnable despite the high cost of use. Fix: Don't allow it to be destroyed without other cards (Arson, etc.) Ruins of Villars Abbey, Belgium: 2 blood and have a minion spend X blood before combat to gain manuevers. As of right now, its only use is in a Fame deck. How often do you _know_ how many manuevers you are going to need? Fix: spend one blood for a manuever when you need it, not _before_ you know. Sacre Coure Cathedral, France: 2 blood to be unblockable by allies. Maybe if ally decks were easy to make or common, this might be useful, but 2 blood is too much. Fix: (A) Cost is free or (B) add that allies cannot take (D)-actions against the controller of Sacre Coure. Tara, The Hollow One (Mage): A Ravnos card that screws Ravnos. Fix: If this card could be used upon your own Ravnos, it would become usable. To do this, one either changes the text or changes (D)-actions to work by the definition. Thoughts Betrayed: The inferior is too weak, and the superior is, though only arguably _too_ powerful, unfair in that opponents cannot play _any_ cards. Fix: A better card: Normal: Only usable before combat begins. Opposing minion takes an additional 1 damage during the first strike resolution of every round. Superior: Only usable before combat begins. Opposing minion takes 1 damage for every combat card played during the combat. The Treatment: Another Ravnos card too expensive for its own good. Fix: Have it be free. Trick of the Danya: Ravnos cards don't do enough for their cost. This one is nice, but limited and (relatively) expensive for what it does. Fix: New text: Bold: +1 stealth action Normal: Steal 1 blood from a vampire in your prey's inactive region and move it either to your pool, a vampire you control, or to a vampire in your inactive region. Superior: as above, but usable upon _any_ Methuselah. Veiled Sight: 2 blood to reduce the stealth of an action to 0. Nice, in general, but expensive since you have to be blocking. Fix: New Text: Normal: he acting minion's stealth is reduced to 0. After this card is played, the acting minion may still increase his or her stealth. Superior: As above, and this reacting vampire may steal 1 blood from the acting minion as a strike each round if combat begins. Ventrue Directorate Assembly: 2 pool for votes for all Ventrue. And its Destroyable. Fix: If it must be destroyable, have it destroyable by a vote. Wasserschloss Anif, Austria: 2 Pool for a card that will drain your Tremere to bring out Tremere. In itself, good. But it is destroyable. This is not too bad, but giving Malkavians +1 stealth to do so is. Fix: Remove the Malkavians built in stealth to destroy it. Werewolf Pack: This one is _so_ bad. 4 pool for a 3 life, 3 damage ally. If only it had a decent special power. Who cares if it cannot be harmed by melee weapons? Fix: SO many. Pick one. (A) Reduce cost to 2 or 3 Pool. (B) Costs X pool, where X is the amount of life it has. Does X damage. (C) Bleed for 1 (D) Is not harmed by non-aggravated damage. (E) Is not harmed by weapons. (F) Is only harmed by non-melee weapons. (G) Built in Bum's Rush on Predator/Prey/whoever (H) Heals one damage during your untap or as an action. @set me=OK In short, since Richard Garfield has left the game, I must say, I have not been too pleased, and the _vast_ majority of players I have talked to have not been either. WotC, I hope that you change your treatment of this game. If this game does die, it will be because you drove them away. I hope Ancient Hearts changes my mind about how I guess you feel about Jyhad. (And, BTW, Don't even get me started on the Design Team's Rulings... ;) "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# @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960318120923.375C-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >I guess I have to voice my side with where I think Curt is coming from >(please correct me if I am wrong). You must have it right - I'd agree with almost everything as well. >Now we have Dark Sovereigns. There are a few good cards, but on the >whole..., the set is a pile of garbage. Our group concluded a _day_ of >playtesting with regular players would have fixed most of these. My reaction as well. (Details omitted) One basic problem with DS is that it has a lot of permanents with significant effects and a number of cards with "pay X for X effect". Part of the problem with these cards seeming like junk is that they often have much more value in "best situations" thanin typical situations. (Non-permanent but related example: Thoughts Betrayed - certainly vastly more powerful in any Tremere blood drain deck than any other) The costs must be set for the best use, making the card junk almost all the time. Some of this wallpaperishness probably results from reasonable caution on WotC's part. >The other old-time player and I began to think about what has happened >since this game has gotten out of Richard's hands. As he said, he "can't >imagine how Richard Garfield could let them [the Design Team] do this to >his game." As a computer programmer, I fully understand RG's preference for "fire and forget" game design. There's always the chance to do it better next time, and so many interesting things to do. But with CCGs, it seems to create problems. >I hope Ancient Hearts changes my mind about how I guess you feel >about Jyhad. AH, unfortunately, contains the Setites, who will create 2 potential problems - a) They combine OBF and PRE. The WotC fix to the S&B problem was to hose big bleeds (mostly). Unfortunately, that left the primary problem - the short combo length for S&B - intact. The Setites will exploit this to the max with stealthed Legal Manipulations/ Social Charms. b) They provide a voting use for OBF, which allows serious potential abuse of the rules change allowing multiple uses of the same action modifier with the Mask of 1000 Faces. So if WotC must prove itself with AH, it's got a tough job. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad: 18-Mar-96 The Breaking of a Game (was.. by The Corr...@cslab.uwla >Now we have Dark Sovereigns. There are a few good cards, but on the >whole..., the set is a pile of garbage. Our group concluded a _day_ of >playtesting with regular players would have fixed most of these. I have to agree with your assessment. I don't think that a location that cost 2+ pool should be able to easily be destroyed or stolen. It's like you're just throwing your blood away. In the main set, powerful locations either cost pool (KRCG, hunting grounds) or were able to be destroyed with a directed action or vote (Elysium: Arboretum, Mob Connections) but not both. I don't understand why they couldn't go by that rule in DS. Hopefully WotC will get a clue with Ancient Hearts. Chris Esko black...@CMU.EDU ce...@andrew.cmu.edu http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/usr/ce24/homepage.html ---------------------------------------- "It's just a flesh wound!" -The Black Knight

I have to agree with you here in that there is alot of cards in the DS set that are so situational that it is rarely that you see one pulled off and the cost of these IMO minor effects aren't worth even a card slot in a decent deck as far as AH expansion my guess now that I have heard that it has been pushed back will will be lucky if we even see it. I have basically given up on ctcg as a hole because they are to expensive and in my area Magic seems to be the only one played frequently. Its a shame because I have been playing Jyhad since its arrival and now I have a box full of dust collectors. Errol T.

In article <4is1uc$d...@news.utdallas.edu>, Benjamin D Matthews <matt...@utdallas.edu> wrote: >The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: >> Thoughts Betrayed: The inferior is too weak, and the superior is, though >> only arguably _too_ powerful, unfair in that opponents cannot play _any_ >> cards. >> Fix: A better card: >> Normal: Only usable before combat begins. Opposing minion takes an >> additional 1 damage during the first strike resolution of every round. >> Superior: Only usable before combat begins. Opposing minion takes 1 >> damage for every combat card played during the combat. > ><boggle> Maybe i misunderstood....but this would make me gag--much more so >than the way it is now! Imagine this: you play superior thoughts >betrayed, then aura reading (1), then torn signpost (2)...and if you >opponent tries to maneuvre outta the way (3), you maneuvre back (4) and >strike hands with a lucky blow (5) for a whopping 7 damage! And even if >the defending minion plays a strike combat ends card, they'd still take 6 >damage. What Corruptor meant was that the opposing minion takes 1 damage for every card "that he plays" during the combat - not for every card "that either minion" plays. -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text

The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: > Thoughts Betrayed: The inferior is too weak, and the superior is, though > only arguably _too_ powerful, unfair in that opponents cannot play _any_ > cards. > Fix: A better card: > Normal: Only usable before combat begins. Opposing minion takes an > additional 1 damage during the first strike resolution of every round. > Superior: Only usable before combat begins. Opposing minion takes 1 > damage for every combat card played during the combat. <boggle> Maybe i misunderstood....but this would make me gag--much more so than the way it is now! Imagine this: you play superior thoughts betrayed, then aura reading (1), then torn signpost (2)...and if you opponent tries to maneuvre outta the way (3), you maneuvre back (4) and strike hands with a lucky blow (5) for a whopping 7 damage! And even if the defending minion plays a strike combat ends card, they'd still take 6 damage. I don't understand how that's more balanced...I just shiver when thinking of what a trap+thoughts betrayed would do then. > In short, since Richard Garfield has left the game, I must say, I have > not been too pleased, and the _vast_ majority of players I have talked to > have not been either. WotC, I hope that you change your treatment of > this game. If this game does die, it will be because you drove them > away. I hope Ancient Hearts changes my mind about how I guess you feel > about Jyhad. I wasn't real happy with a lot of cards from dark sovereigns, but not just because some were underpowered, but because several were overpowered too. (castle heidelburg comes to mind) DIYD,DIYD. > (And, BTW, Don't even get me started on the Design Team's Rulings... ;) Umm...yeah.... :) I can't resist: Multiple Pulled Fangs in one round? <chuckle> -ben

Even if V:tES were to go out of print, I feel that I have ogt my moneys worth. For goodness sake, you pay $6 per person now a days to go out for a movie! Entertainment costs, and as far as entertainment goes V:tES is an excellent bargain. And now, if you don't want to spend the money on cards, play on-line with virtual cards which are free. If you really are discouraged and want to bail out you can get most of your money back by selling the cards here on the net. The net is an amazing boon for hobbyists like us. In the past you had to go to a dealer and sell your cards at 50-75% cost and buy them back at 100% or more of cost. I dread the day they start taxing sales over the internet (and don't put it past our government, particularly if Clinton stays in office).

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >Like Curt, I think that the _idea_ of making the aggravated damage do >equivalent damage to the non-aggravated conterpart (i.e, 1 agg = 1 blood >burnt), is simpler and caused less problems, BUT, the implementation with >pre-existing cards DOES make aggavated alot more powerful than it was. >In fact, the change is so different, that now pulled fangs, for example, >can _destroy_ a vampire, something that makes almost _no_ sense from the >standpoint of Vampire: the Masquerade. Aggravated damage being the same are regular makes it a lot easier to explain to people who haven't played. It took me forever to get the agg. damage stuff straight when I started. The problem, as is pointed out above, is that the older cards were designd with the old agg. damage rules, so are now better than they possibly should be. I have a problem with the "doesn't make sense from VtM standpoint" argument, just because if it makes the game better, I could care less whether it holds true to VtM. (Granted, PF is not on of those cases but.. ) >The original game had a number of typos, etc., but only one that I am >aware of had a significant impact on the game play (Blood Fury being >Fortitude rather than Thaumaturgy). The others were errors of design. >Anarch Troublemaker not having text saying it could only be used at >untap, etc., but not errors of the magnitude of V:tES. >Now we have multitudes of game effecting errors. Hunting Grounds cost >the wrong amount, cards suddenly require clans that they shouldn't, this >minion should have had superior this and that minion should have had >inferior that. I found this terrible. We wait _forever_ for the new cards, and they had more mistakes then the 1st set. How did this happen? Didn't they have someone proofread what they were sending to the printers? Same thing with DS. >Now we have new cards that wear UNBELIEVABLY fast. Believe me, in the >Madison Jyhad League, you can tell your VtES cards. They are the >worn-backed, greasy feeling, flaking cards who are losing their art. Some of my VTES cards were _noticebly_ warn after playing with them in one game. Part of this is probably due to me because I put a lot of wear on my cards while platying, but in a tourney, if people cared they could have easily called them marked. And that with only one game. >Now we have Dark Sovereigns. There are a few good cards, but on the >whole..., the set is a pile of garbage. Our group concluded a _day_ of >playtesting with regular players would have fixed most of these. >A number of card problems: <long list of bad cards from DS > A day of play testing? I doubt WotC does that for anything. Their playtesting is surprisingly poor, for both Jyhad and MtG. If when a set come out it takes 2/3 days for tons of people on the net to see broken cards, it should be easy for a group of playtesters to do the same, plus see any cards that obviously are bad. (Like say Eyes of the Dead... I've only seen around 3 vampires diablerized ever.) With the amount of time we've had to wait for these cards... I just don't understand it. The funny thing with DS is that just about every card seems to be either too powerful or too weak. Also, the new clans seem to be weak. None of our group has been able to use either the Giovanni or Ravnos well at all. >In short, since Richard Garfield has left the game, I must say, I have >not been too pleased, and the _vast_ majority of players I have talked to >have not been either. WotC, I hope that you change your treatment of >this game. If this game does die, it will be because you drove them >away. I hope Ancient Hearts changes my mind about how I guess you feel >about Jyhad. Well... no matter how bad AH is... I have a hard time seeing Jyhad not being the best CCG out there (unless NetRunner is as good as I hope). CT -- Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.

Charles T. Schwope wrote: > > A day of play testing? I doubt WotC does that for anything. Their > playtesting is surprisingly poor, for both Jyhad and MtG. If when a > set come out it takes 2/3 days for tons of people on the net to see > broken cards, it should be easy for a group of playtesters to do the > same, plus see any cards that obviously are bad. (Like say Eyes of > the Dead... I've only seen around 3 vampires diablerized ever.) With > the amount of time we've had to wait for these cards... I just don't > understand it. Well, around here, vampires go up in smoke all the time. I guess that's because combat decks are much less effective in general than vote or S&B decks that those of us who make combat decks tend to try to make them as potent as possible. WRT your other points, and those of most of the others, I agree. I really hope Ancient Hearts makes up for it, but I'm not holding my breath. <sigh> Oh, well... James -- James Hamblin | jham...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu -------------------------------------------------------------- "Don't worry; base 8 is just like base 10, if you're missing two fingers." -- Tom Lehrer, "New Math"