DCI V:TES Torunament Rules

Hi Shawn, Actually, I was thinking about mailing you on this subject.... The 2 groups I regularly play with use DCI tournameent rules, and we have come up with several questions / problems. First, is Rotschreck legal for tournament play? It would be nice to have a Jyhad card actually worth something.... Second, we absolutely need a fix for taste of vitae. While I would prefere to have a ruling limiting taste of vitae's use (ie. once per combat round), a less agreeable solution would be to put it on the restricted list. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. More later. Algustas *****There ia always an easy solution to every human problem - neat, plausable, and wrong.***** H. L. Mencken

An update for those who are interested: We are currently re-working the V:TES tournament rules for the DCI, and **possibly** adding some variant tournaments. Now, I know the SPTR (Sensible Player's Tournament Rules), and there are thinks I like and dislike about it... (can you see the opinion hat being donned?) but for every one think I dislike about the SPTR, there are at least two or three things I like. It is player friendly, that much is for sure. I don't think, however, that a modified SPTR would work with the DCI, nor do I think the SPTR creators want that either. With this in mind, and if you care, what changes would *YOU* like to see in the current DCI tournament rules for V:TES? Please keep them to this thread. Thanks! -- ********************************************************************** * Shawn F. Carnes sw...@wizards.com * * Game Designer and Developer Wizards of the Coast, Inc. * ********************************************************************** * The opinions I express are probably not even mine... HELP! * ********************************************************************** * "We cannot rest, knowing that The Captain and Tennille are in good * * health!" --Milk and Cheese * **********************************************************************

Shawn F. Carnes <sw...@castle.wizards.com> wrote: >An update for those who are interested: > >We are currently re-working the V:TES tournament rules for the DCI, and >**possibly** adding some variant tournaments. > >Now, I know the SPTR (Sensible Player's Tournament Rules), and there are >thinks I like and dislike about it... (can you see the opinion hat being >donned?) but for every one think I dislike about the SPTR, there are at >least two or three things I like. It is player friendly, that much is >for sure. I don't think, however, that a modified SPTR would work with >the DCI, nor do I think the SPTR creators want that either. > >With this in mind, and if you care, what changes would *YOU* like to see >in the current DCI tournament rules for V:TES? Please keep them to this >thread. I'm not trying to argue or attack your judgement, but I would like to know why you prefer DC rules to SPTR. I, the people I know, and this group, much prefer SPTR. 2 big issues for DC: 1) The fix for weenie vote push (WVP) is not adequate. Weenie vote is still necessarily better than any other vote deck, as there are dozens of votes to dump into the deck and use to ram through the votes that count.. Single vote push (SVP) from the SPTR fixes it fine, and is the consensus "best fix" on this group. If you can't abide rules changes and must fix it with some kind of card limit, you need to switch from 6-card limits on certain vote cards to a percentage restriction on the total number of votes in the deck (I suggest 40%). 2) Jyhad/V:tES games are often long. The time limits should reflect this. I can't see a limit less than 1/2 hour per player; otherwise it's no longer Jyhad/V:tES. In addition the 6-card limit on certain untap cards is virtually guaranteed to be inadequate once Sabbat is out. Once a deck has 4 different untaps (24 total) it can already do endless bleed. Probably it would be a good idea to alter that fix now as well, rather than being forced into a change later. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

"Shawn F. Carnes" <sw...@castle.wizards.com> writes: >An update for those who are interested: >We are currently re-working the V:TES tournament rules for the DCI, and >**possibly** adding some variant tournaments. >Now, I know the SPTR (Sensible Player's Tournament Rules), and there are >thinks I like and dislike about it... (can you see the opinion hat being >donned?) but for every one think I dislike about the SPTR, there are at >least two or three things I like. It is player friendly, that much is >for sure. I don't think, however, that a modified SPTR would work with >the DCI, nor do I think the SPTR creators want that either. >With this in mind, and if you care, what changes would *YOU* like to see >in the current DCI tournament rules for V:TES? Please keep them to this >thread. Allow the crypt to be mixed (in terms of Jyhad, V:TES, DS, and AH). Given the current card back situation (i.e., Ancient Hearts), it seems pointless for this restriction to exist anymore.

On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Shawn F. Carnes wrote: > An update for those who are interested: > We are currently re-working the V:TES tournament rules for the DCI, and > **possibly** adding some variant tournaments. Hmm... What do you mean by variant tournaments? "Duels" (ug), different victory conditions? This is unclear. > Now, I know the SPTR (Sensible Player's Tournament Rules), and there are > thinks I like and dislike about it... (can you see the opinion hat being > donned?) but for every one think I dislike about the SPTR, there are at > least two or three things I like. As the original author of the SPTR, I invite you and anyone else to privately e-mail (or post on a different thread) me any concerns you have, what you like, and what you dislike. The rules are in constant revision and always looking to achieve fairness. (<http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad/SPTR,html) for those who don't know where it is) > It is player friendly, that much is > for sure. I don't think, however, that a modified SPTR would work with > the DCI, nor do I think the SPTR creators want that either. Well, actually, the SPTR was created in the hopes that it would wake up those in DCI to making a useful tournament rules set. Basicly, I want the SPTR to be a creation with planned obselesence(sp?). > With this in mind, and if you care, what changes would *YOU* like to see > in the current DCI tournament rules for V:TES? Please keep them to this > thread. QUITE a few: I know full well that many things the DCI cannot change with regards to V:tES. There is a large problem with the DCI rules as written: They require everyone to play "nice" or they break. Good rules for any system should not require someone to say, "Well, you can make whatever you want within the rules, but please don't do this or my game breaks". - For the current rules, Weenie Vote Push (WVP) is still unanswered. A 2CL are about all that hamstring WVP, or creating decks specifically designed to combat weenie vote push. Unfortunately, this hamstrings deck creation. You can't just get away with vote defense, bleed defense, and combat defense in DCI. Once Jyhad slips down that slope towards necessitating defenses to _specific_ decks, the balance has been lost. Without Vote pushing, there is no problem, decks can be decks without having to consider specific individual problems. Unfortunately, the DCI doesn't have the authority to change vote push rules (AFAIK). What then, can be done? A 2CL-Restricted list on damage votes ends the problem, but creates handfuls more. 3CL-Restricted list still allows the problem. Then there is the added damage of destroying totally viable decks in the "solving" of the problem. In order to combat one deck type, too many non-problem decks are then unmakeable. As far as I can tell, this problem is pervasive to the current rulings on vote push, and can't be solved unless these rulings are changed (outside DCI jurisdiction). - Time limit There is simply not enough time in DCI to finish games well. The rules encourage players to not build combat decks and other, slower decks, while giving a large advantage to those decks that should burn out. Solution: Increase the time limit by some X amount. - Paralyze Why ban it? - Things NOT to do - Sideboards. In a game like Jyhad, this is too horribly effective. Clan hosers are extremely powerful if used at the right times, and allowing sideboards would make the finals a competition of who can screw who more, rather than who has the best deck. - Card limits. The game becomes something else entirely in a CL environment. - Gimicky "alternative" rules. This will do nothing but make a standard in Jyhad even farther from reality. For the most part, the flaw in the current DCI tournament rules is that it uses an ineffective means (a Restricted-list CL) to fix some problems basic to Jyhad (solved by the Golden Tenets or variants of the GT). If only DCI could change those, there really wouldn't be a problem. Shawn, welcome aboard. Your opinions regarding the SPTR would be highly appreciated. @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?

In article <31FE73...@castle.wizards.com>, Shawn F. Carnes <sw...@castle.wizards.com> wrote: >An update for those who are interested: > >We are currently re-working the V:TES tournament rules for the DCI, and >**possibly** adding some variant tournaments. > >Now, I know the SPTR (Sensible Player's Tournament Rules), and there are >thinks I like and dislike about it... (can you see the opinion hat being >donned?) but for every one think I dislike about the SPTR, there are at >least two or three things I like. It is player friendly, that much is >for sure. I don't think, however, that a modified SPTR would work with >the DCI, nor do I think the SPTR creators want that either. > >With this in mind, and if you care, what changes would *YOU* like to see >in the current DCI tournament rules for V:TES? Please keep them to this >thread. 1) No card limits. Card limits are for broken games. 2) No restricted list. Ditto. 3) Banned list is fine - keep out the "friendly-play-only" cards like Monocle, et. al. With this in mind, however, the game itself will have to be fixed, so that it is not a broken game (otherwise, you need card limits of some kind as a crutch). Fixing vote pushing: 1) (Obvious): no vote pushing. or 2) ..?? Fix infinite combos: 1) (Obvious): no repeat actions. or 2) a. No self-directed 5th tradition b. Any "strike:combat ends and untap" effect will not untap an acting minion until the end of the current turn (or miniion phase). (this still allows pair of Princes to swap 5th traditions infinitely, and for a Restoration/Freak Drive loop, but these are at least a little more difficult to pull off than just packing a deck full of Majesties)

Shawn F. Carnes wrote: > > An update for those who are interested: > > We are currently re-working the V:TES tournament rules for the DCI, and > **possibly** adding some variant tournaments. > [CLIP] > With this in mind, and if you care, what changes would *YOU* like to see > in the current DCI tournament rules for V:TES? Please keep them to this > thread. > > Thanks! > -- > ********************************************************************** > * Shawn F. Carnes sw...@wizards.com * > * Game Designer and Developer Wizards of the Coast, Inc. * > ********************************************************************** > * The opinions I express are probably not even mine... HELP! * > ********************************************************************** > * "We cannot rest, knowing that The Captain and Tennille are in good * > * health!" --Milk and Cheese * > ********************************************************************** I would love to see the restrictions on card backings removed. Removing the restrictions on the crypt would be a welcome ruling to all of us who purchased tons of Jyhad cards. When you consider that VTES, Dark Sov. and AH (Sabbat too, probably) have backings that are distinguishable you see that it really isn't that important if Jyhad backs are added to the list. If player X marks their library by playing certain card backs, this pattern could be recognized by other players who may pick up on the pattern and know what player X's next library card is. It really doesn't matter that much. If you can't go with any of this, the least you should do is allow cards (library and/or crypt) to be double-packed into sleeves so that its not an issue. Also, I'd love to see the No Repeat Actions portion of the SPTR included in the DCI rules. The SPTR uses this as a way of eliminating the need for card limits on cards like Majesty and Earth Meld. I, however, would like to see the limit on these cards remain in effect so that we dont see anymore decks load with S:CE cards. The truth is, I'm one of the sickos who actually _like_ the DCI rules. My playgroup has been playing with them for months and have even attended some Los Angeles area tournaments run with them. NOTE: Make sure the *%&^#$%'s at the DC put the new rules on the Web page and in their sanctioning packets this time. As of 2 weeks ago, the sanctioning packet was still using the Nov'95 DCI rules! Robert Goudie ...................................................................... :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 : :....................................................................:

Shawn F. Carnes wrote: > > An update for those who are interested: > > We are currently re-working the V:TES tournament rules for the DCI, and > **possibly** adding some variant tournaments. > > Now, I know the SPTR (Sensible Player's Tournament Rules), and there are > thinks I like and dislike about it... (can you see the opinion hat being > donned?) but for every one think I dislike about the SPTR, there are at > least two or three things I like. It is player friendly, that much is > for sure. I don't think, however, that a modified SPTR would work with > the DCI, nor do I think the SPTR creators want that either. > > With this in mind, and if you care, what changes would *YOU* like to see > in the current DCI tournament rules for V:TES? Please keep them to this > thread. 1) Lose the restrictions on the card backs that players can use in their crypts. All the expansions are differentiable just at a glance, so it really doesn't matter anyway. 2) Reduce the restricted list to as few cards as possible. Jyhad was made for NL. The only cards that I'd want to see stay on it would be Freak Drive and Hospitality. 3) Do not adopt the "No Repeat Actions" part of the SPTR unless absolutely necessary. Deal with Fortitude Infinite loops(with Freak Drive) another way, please. S:CE untaps are not nearly as ridiculous, and in my experience do not unbalance the game and can be dealt with in multiple ways. 4) Ban Archon Investigation. This one card provides bleed defense for any deck, requires no skill to play, is excessively harsh on the affected bleeder(burning is way too much...), and hoses an entire strategy. As such, it should not be allowed in tournaments unless errated or altered. 5)Take the cards from Jyhad which use "Paralyze" off of the banned list. Good luck with your time as Netrep, and keep practicing your fortitude... Alec Chang

"Shawn F. Carnes" <sw...@castle.wizards.com> wrote: >Now, I know the SPTR (Sensible Player's Tournament Rules), and there are >thinks I like and dislike about it... (can you see the opinion hat being >donned?) but for every one think I dislike about the SPTR, there are at >least two or three things I like. It is player friendly, that much is >for sure. I don't think, however, that a modified SPTR would work with >the DCI, nor do I think the SPTR creators want that either. I think many players find the SPTR the best set of rules out there. Personally I would like to see that in place as the official rule set. >With this in mind, and if you care, what changes would *YOU* like to see >in the current DCI tournament rules for V:TES? Please keep them to this >thread. There are a couple of problems with the current DC rules (IMHO). 1. Vote push. This is a serious problem. I look at the DCI rules and know that a weenie vote push deck will win at any table that does not have another WVP at it. A WVP that I put together under the DCI rules for use in 10%CL enviro swept a table relatively easily. Vote push is broken, and does not make any sense in an "real world" reality. (How exactly are my 3 catiff's out voting 3 princes?) 2. Repeat actions. This I am not as sure about b/c no one in our group has made an ugly repeat action deck. But I have seen glimpses of this problem from time to time, and any deck dedicated to doing just that will be nasty nasty nasty. Without vote push, I can see the gangrel untap and bleed decks being too dominant. 3. Time limits. I have no idea how to fix this, but the current limit is way to short. I can count on my hands the number of times I've seen a VTES game end in less then 2 hours. At the very least make it so you have a full 2 hours of play time, if not 2 1/2 hours at the least. It may not make much of a difference, but it may make some difference. 4. Table set up. I would like to see it set up in a semi-swiss style. You end up at a table with other people who are doing as well as you are. I think this is more fair for more players, and if it is a 3 round minimum before the finals, it should work out ok. I could also see just a pure 4 round system with no finals if you do it in a swiss style. I haven't looked at how points jump in VTES tourneys, but fixing the scoring system so that it would work well with swiss would be ideal. I think it already works well with swiss, and being as I'm a huge swiss style fan (from playing in MtG tourneys) I would like to see it done for VTES as well. Charles -- 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.

Hi Shawn, Oh yes, one other burning problem: Wake With Evenings Freshness. This card can be terribly abused, not because of what it does, but because there is really no penalty for overstaking your deck with them. Other cards, (vote pushing aside), are self-limiting in numbers, because if you put too many in you jam your hand with them when you don't want them. As it stands with WWEF, you can through away one per tapped minion anytime anyone other than yourself takes an action. Almost any serious Jyhad group has some sort of house rule for this card. PLEASE do not restrict it to six per deck, as you will ruin many viable, non-abusive strategies. The groups I play with use a house rule allowing you to play a WWEF only when you actually attempt to block or when you are playing a reaction card. Algustas *****A military man can scarcely pride himself on having "smitten a sleeping enemy"; in fact, to have it pointed out is more a matter of shame.***** Isoroku Yamamoto, letter to Ogata Taketora, Jan. 9, 1942

> CurtAdams wrote: > In addition the 6-card limit on certain untap cards is virtually > guaranteed to be inadequate once Sabbat is out. Once a deck has 4 > different untaps (24 total) it can already do endless bleed. Probably it > would be a good idea to alter that fix now as well, rather than being > forced into a change later. In my view, at least, untap-bleed and repeat actions are not so much of a problem as to make them restricted. Freak Drive and Infinite Loop are abusive, but penalizing all repeat actions for the power of one or two cards seems way too harsh. The conditions set making all bleeds different actions prevent the use of one major bleed strategy that _isn't_ stealth. There are three main bleed strategies-Stealth, Tap, and Intimidation. Intimidation is the most unreliable, and relies on Combat as well, i.e. Tremere/Brujah Bruise-Bleed. Tap is slightly more reliable, and the typical Ventrue bleed uses Misdirections and Consanguineous Condemnations to disable blockers. Stealth is the most reliable, usually using Obfuscate. Anyone say Malks? No repeat actions takes a great deal of power away from Tap. I like SPTR: NL is fine. However, the GT's restrict moderate players as well as the abusive ones. This is my deck below, built for 4CL (but the proportions would be the same in NL). Call it degenerate all you want, but it works on a solid and valid strategy. Prozac Crypt: Andreas, Bard of Crete 9 Pre, pro. Primogen, may burn 1 blood for +1 intercept per turn. Anson 8 Pre. Prince of Seattle, when Anson is ready you may play an additional master card during your master phase. Kallista, Master Sculptor x2 6 pre, pro. Bear Paw x2 5 pre, pro. Ramiel Dupre 5 Pre. Violette Prentiss 4 Pre. Daliyah 4 Pro. Gideon Fontaine 3 Pre. Chandler Hungerford 3 Pro. +1 intercept vs. other Gangrel. Igo the Hungry 1 pre, pro. Igo does not get +1 stealth when hunting. Masters: Presence 4 Protean 4 Aching Beauty 2 Information Highway 2 Blood Doll 2 Sudden Reversal Fame Zoo Hunting Ground Society Hunting Ground Parthenon Presence: Legal Manipulations 4 Enchant Kindred 4 Social Charm 4 Aire of Elation 4 Majesty 4 Protean: Earth Control 4 Earth Meld 4 Form of Mist 4 Horrific Countenance 2 Claws of the Dead 2 Retainers: Marijava Ghoul 2 Tasha Morgan J.S. Simmons, Esq. Action Modifiers: Change of Target 2 Actions: Revelation of the Sire (for Igo the Toreador) 63 cards total.

On Thu, 01 Aug 1996 14:35:23 GMT, c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) said: Charles> I think many players find the SPTR the best set of Charles> rules out there. Charles> Personally I would like to see that in place as the official rule set. Agreed. I'm running a Jyhad/VTES tournament here in Helsinki (Ropecon96) tomorrow, and I'm using the SPTR because in my opinion it best fixes the two bad possibilities for abuse (weenie vote push and endless untap). The only thing I changed was the deck size limit, I'm allowing 40-100 cards in a deck (90 seems a bit too small). I'm overjoyed to hear that there is talk of revising the official tournament rules! Actually, I'd love to see "no vote push" and "no repeat actions" become part of the VTES ruleset, but anything in that direction is good. //Petri

Alec Chang <te...@lava.net> wrote: > Shawn F. Carnes wrote: > > > > An update for those who are interested: > > > > We are currently re-working the V:TES tournament rules for the DCI... [snip] > > > > With this in mind, and if you care, what changes would *YOU* like to see > > in the current DCI tournament rules for V:TES? Please keep them to this > > thread. I wanted to express my concurrence with most of Alex's opinions... > > 1) Lose the restrictions on the card backs that players can use in their > crypts. All the expansions are differentiable just at a glance, so it > really doesn't matter anyway. This is probably the most crippling restriction for long time players with lots of Jyhad, DS, and AH but little VTES. They either have to play a crypt of all expansion clans, or a crypt of all original Camarilla vamps; no ICs or new clan members. If considered essential, you could have crypt draws come off the bottom (the first four could still come off the top, since they are right after the cut). Cards that applied to the top of the crypt (e.g. Grendel) would then apply to the bottom instead and vice versa. The only possible problem card I can think of is Illusions of the Kindred, since you would be able to see the card back of the upcoming illusionary Kindred. You could ignore that or put in a special rule. Unlike the library, drawing from the crypt is infrequent enough that drawing off the bottom is acceptable. The library restriction could probably also be loosened to 30/70 or 25/75. > > 2) Reduce the restricted list to as few cards as possible. Jyhad was > made for NL. The only cards that I'd want to see stay on it would be > Freak Drive and Hospitality. > > 3) Do not adopt the "No Repeat Actions" part of the SPTR unless > absolutely necessary. Deal with Fortitude Infinite loops(with Freak > Drive) another way, please. S:CE untaps are not nearly as ridiculous, > and in my experience do not unbalance the game and can be dealt with in > multiple ways. Other possibilities: Restrict offensive untaps to 10 total, rather than 6 of each (and consider Rutor's Hand an offensive untap). Settites need access to more than 6 Majesties. Restrict votes to 40% of a deck in total and have no restrictions on individual vote cards. The pros/cons of this vs. single Vote Push are being discussed in another thread. It's a deck composition restriction rather than a rule change, which the DCI may be more amenable to. > > 4) Ban Archon Investigation. This one card provides bleed defense for > any deck, requires no skill to play, is excessively harsh on the affected > bleeder(burning is way too much...), and hoses an entire strategy. As > such, it should not be allowed in tournaments unless errated or altered. Amen. > > 5)Take the cards from Jyhad which use "Paralyze" off of the banned list. Yes, why not? > > Good luck with your time as Netrep, and keep practicing your fortitude... > I hope you're not limited to 6 Skin of Steel. :-) > Alec Chang --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

Alec Chang wrote: > 3) Do not adopt the "No Repeat Actions" part of the SPTR unless > absolutely necessary. Deal with Fortitude Infinite loops(with Freak > Drive) another way, please. S:CE untaps are not nearly as ridiculous, > and in my experience do not unbalance the game and can be dealt with in > multiple ways. How should they deal with Infinite bleed loops then? On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Nathan Harada wrote: > In my view, at least, untap-bleed and repeat actions are not so much of > a problem as to make them restricted. Freak Drive and Infinite Loop are > abusive, but penalizing all repeat actions for the power of one or two cards > seems way too harsh. > The conditions set making all bleeds different actions prevent the > use of one major bleed strategy that _isn't_ stealth. There are three > main bleed strategies-Stealth, Tap, and Intimidation. Intimidation is > the most unreliable, and relies on Combat as well, i.e. Tremere/Brujah > Bruise-Bleed. Tap is slightly more reliable, and the typical Ventrue > bleed uses Misdirections and Consanguineous Condemnations to disable > blockers. Tap is still highly effective in GT. Misdirection, Cons. Condemnation are still usable. S:CE or Freaky Untaps can be used after other threatening actions (attempt to equip or use an Ivenrary Scotland...). The problem lies in what can be done with repeat actions, not what can not be done. While a "tap and bleed deck" will not be as effective, I can personally attest to the power of a "tap and bleed/vote deck". My Gangrel version sweeps most tables that aren't ready for it. > Stealth is the most reliable, usually using Obfuscate. > Anyone say Malks? No repeat actions takes a great deal of power away > from Tap. The question becomes this: are you willing to trade in an abusive game environment for a minimal loss of some focus in a few non-degenerate decks? Losing repeat actions is not much of a blow in most decks, and causes creation of decks that generally do a slightly more broad range of things in order to offensively reuse their untap, or decks that are more defensive with their S:CE. Keeping repeat actions, however, allows abusive combos to be introduced. > I like SPTR: NL is fine. However, the GT's restrict moderate players as > well as the abusive ones. This is my deck below, built for 4CL (but the > proportions would be the same in NL). Call it degenerate all you want, but > it works on a solid and valid strategy. I wouldn't call it degenerate. The amount of untappers you include are not enough to be consistent and nowhere near enough to be considered abusive. Here is the deck I would not want to see (under current DCI): Masters: Information Highway 3 Fame 4 Blood Doll 3 Anarch Revolt 4 Zoo Hunting Ground 1 Misdirection 8 Earth Meld 6 Form of Mist 6 Freak Drive 6 Horrific Countenance 3 Inverary Scotland 2 Palatial Estate 1 Change of Target 3 Earth Control 7 Force of Will 8 Movement of the Slow Body 7 Rapid Healing 8 80 Cards. Crypt Badger(x2) 6 PRO FOR Basilia 10 PRO FOR -- Primogen, Aggravated Hand Damage Camille Devereux 5(x3) PRO FOR Gitane St. Clair 7 PRO FOR -- Primogen Ingrid Rossler 9(x2) FOR PRO -- Prince of Geneva, two extra transfers Iliana 7 FOR PRO -- No contracts on Iliana Chandler Hungerford(x2) 3 PRO -- +1 int. vs. GAN 6.25 Average. (High, but other than chandler, only two-ish minions are needed) This deck doesn't take long to set up, and once going, it ousts quickly. Alec's response will likely be that intercept decks can and will be able to stop this. However, the Misdirections are a real necessity, and the one critical action to stop (Rapid Healing) comes at a base +1 stealth. Smart players will save their Earth Controls (total +3 stealth) their Change of Targets and their Horrific Countenance for these actions. Given that Misdirection will be involved, a typically 3 to 4 card combo will be needed to have much of a chance to block, coming from a deck playing against this deck on it's own terms. A worst case scenario: Anarch revolts, Fame, and Inverary Scotland out early. Repeat actions are not fit in a balanced environment. Even though non-degenerate repeat actions exist, outright disallowing them is not crippling to most non-degenerate decks. One would be hard-pressed to find a non-degenerate deck that was affected badly. After untapping, minions can still always perform other actions or stand back for defense. If decks are made with this premise in mind, they can easily take advantage of offensive untapping, though they have to do so with thought, and not mindless repeated constant bleeds. Another advantage is that defensive S:CE can once again be a consistent part of the game. As it stands, certain decks (currently most notable: Setites) have little recourse to combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter wrote: > > Alec Chang wrote: > > > 3) Do not adopt the "No Repeat Actions" part of the SPTR unless > > absolutely necessary. Deal with Fortitude Infinite loops(with Freak > > Drive) another way, please. S:CE untaps are not nearly as ridiculous, > > and in my experience do not unbalance the game and can be dealt with in > > multiple ways. > > How should they deal with Infinite bleed loops then?If you're referring to multiple successful bleeds by one vampire in a single turn (as the deck you posted with this suggests), then Freak drive could be erratated(a pain, I admit) to make it's actions non-repeat, like change of target/obedience do. Force of will could be changed to be only playable once per round. I admit that these changes are not likely, but they would make the other S:CE untaps still viable while reducing the degeneracy of certain deck types. Or there's my other suggestion below; just a slightly definition of "repeat actions". [ quoted text not captured ] > abusive combos to be introduced.Abusive as in the Fortitude "infinite" bleed, I assume? Are there any other instances in which repeat actions become particularly abusive? > > I like SPTR: NL is fine. However, the GT's restrict moderate players as > > well as the abusive ones. This is my deck below, built for 4CL (but the > > proportions would be the same in NL). Call it degenerate all you want, but > > it works on a solid and valid strategy. > > I wouldn't call it degenerate. Most wouldn't. >The amount of untappers you include are > not enough to be consistent and nowhere near enough to be considered > abusive. Here is the deck I would not want to see (under current DCI):Mmm... I'm not so sure about that. I've played with and against the deck in question, and it is consistent. Not abusive, certainly. But consistent in getting it's actions through, via tap, stealth, or whatever other means are needed. (deck description snipped for brevity) > This deck doesn't take long to set up, and once going, it ousts quickly. > > Alec's response will likely be that intercept decks can and will be able > to stop this. However did you guess? :) >However, the Misdirections are a real necessity, and the > one critical action to stop (Rapid Healing) comes at a base +1 stealth. > Smart players will save their Earth Controls (total +3 stealth) their > Change of Targets and their Horrific Countenance for these actions. > Given that Misdirection will be involved, a typically 3 to 4 card combo > will be needed to have much of a chance to block, coming from a deck > playing against this deck on it's own terms.Mmmm... Combat defense seems to be limited to the untap cards; and most determined combat decks will have ways around S:CE. Misdirections being vital will make it even more expensive to itself in pool than it already is. Political decks would be able to make hash out of it. (I will admit, however, that I would not want to see it, much less play against it.) > A worst case scenario: Anarch revolts, Fame, and Inverary Scotland out early. > > Repeat actions are not fit in a balanced environment. Hem. Depends on your definition of "repeat actions". In one of your earlier posts(I'm afraid that I don't have it on hand right now), I recall you saying that all bleed actions, regardless of with card or without were considered to be "repeat actions", whereas no "enter combat" effects were considered to be repeat actions. The reasoning that I remember(my memory has been deteriorating recently) was that classing all combat actions into one group would be difficult and overly restrictive. Doesn't the same kind of logic apply to bleed actions? As long as a vampire is prohibited from taking the exact same action over and over again in a turn{same action being defined as the same basic action (which requires no card) or action card of the same name}, doesn't that take most of the bite out of infinite bleed decks, including the one listed above? Unless they are using a very large selection of bleed action cards, which most do not(and generally cannot without comprimising their 'infinite' bleed status), vampires wille be restrained to taking one or two bleed actions per turn under normal circumstances. Or, in short, I don't have as much of a problem with "no repeat actions" as long as the vampire is only prohibited from taking the exact same action again that turn. I'm not absolutely sure if this suggestion will alleviate the problems you've found in infinite bleed decks(It seems to make the deck listed above less insane and more vulnerable; perhaps not totally disabled, but I doubt even the ordinary GT rules totally disable it), which, I will admit, I have not witnessed, but I don't think that it would allow any real degeneracy. Would people complain? Yes, but people still complain about S&B. Anyway, that's my best shot at suggesting anything which would leave the options of offensive untap decks mainly open while dealing with Infinite loop decks. I'd need to see one in action before being able to think of much more. > Even though > non-degenerate repeat actions exist, outright disallowing them is not > crippling to most non-degenerate decks. True; it's not totally crippling. Is it a pain for decks which use unconventional strategies for getting actions through? Yes. > One would be hard-pressed to > find a non-degenerate deck that was affected badly. Nathan Harada's deck, as posted. I can think of my Brujah/Toredor/Ventrue bleed deck, and my Protean/Dominate bleed decks as well. That doesn't strike me as particularly "hard pressed", I'm afraid. > After untapping, > minions can still always perform other actions or stand back for > defense. But in a deck which is designed to be ruthlessly offensive to survive(all the decks I mentioned above), bleeding is one of the most effective strategies. Introducing votes or other actions into a bleed deck thins out the focus, especially if those cards cannot be passed easily when played(most of my bleed decks would be hard pressed to mix politics in with a mind to have even temporary dominance and still retain their functionality). > If decks are made with this premise in mind, they can easily > take advantage of offensive untapping, though they have to do so with > thought, and not mindless repeated constant bleeds. If the S:CE untaps are not the only ways that actions are gotten through, especially if other effects like Mind numb, Mummy's tongue, and stealth are being used, it is hardly mindless repeated constant bleeds. Admittedly, this does come up occasionally. But my suggestion above would make it at least a little less on the "mindless" end of things. > Another advantage is > that defensive S:CE can once again be a consistent part of the game. As > it stands, certain decks (currently most notable: Setites) have little > recourse to combat.Since when was defensive S:CE not a reasonably consistent part of the game? I see it fairly often in my own decks and those of my friends. Often, in my non-combat decks, it is the primary way of avoiding combat, along with Elysiums. Hoping he wasn't too incoherent due to lack of sleep, Alec Chang

Hi Corrupter, On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, The Corrupter wrote: > How should they deal with Infinite bleed loops then? > The most obvious solution would be to ban the Jyhad only card Movement of the Slow Body, this doesn't stop the tricky bleed actions, just breaks the Infinite cycle. Algustas *****Funny story. Sounds Unbelievable. Probably true.***** Rorschach, the Watch Men

c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) wrote: <my 1st four comments deleted> Forgot one thing. 5. Make sleeves allowable, so we can sleeve, at the very least, our crypt. I would like to see sleeves allowed on library cards as well. But the crypt thing would be a step in the right direction. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: : Alec Chang wrote: : > 3) Do not adopt the "No Repeat Actions" part of the SPTR unless : > absolutely necessary. Deal with Fortitude Infinite loops(with Freak : > Drive) another way, please. S:CE untaps are not nearly as ridiculous, : > and in my experience do not unbalance the game and can be dealt with in : > multiple ways. : How should they deal with Infinite bleed loops then? Pummel the bleeder. Potence has the nice Immortal Grapple which allows potence combat decks to smash would-be untappers into a delicious pulp. Get a nice big strike in, and hey, maybe you can burn him with pulled fangs. Then there is the somewhat overposerful Thoughts Betrayed which allows the larger Tremere to basically hose a minion of their choice. It is difficult to keep a bleed loop going with no vampires or no blood on the vampires (freak drive is costly, after all). The GT restriction, imo, damages the Gangrel too much, making it exceedingly difficult to oust their prey, especially with all the pool factories my play group always uses. The limit is a step in the right direction, perhaps, but goes as far to the other side as it started. Wallpaper Paste for all those useless cards

On Wed, 7 Aug 1996, Wallpaper Paste wrote: > The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: > : Alec Chang wrote: > : > 3) Do not adopt the "No Repeat Actions" part of the SPTR unless > : > absolutely necessary. Deal with Fortitude Infinite loops(with Freak > : > Drive) another way, please. S:CE untaps are not nearly as ridiculous, > : > and in my experience do not unbalance the game and can be dealt with in > : > multiple ways. > : How should they deal with Infinite bleed loops then? > Pummel the bleeder. Potence has the nice Immortal Grapple > which allows potence combat decks to smash would-be untappers > into a delicious pulp. Get a nice big strike in, and hey, maybe > you can burn him with pulled fangs. Then there is the somewhat > overposerful Thoughts Betrayed which allows the larger Tremere > to basically hose a minion of their choice. It is difficult to > keep a bleed loop going with no vampires or no blood on the > vampires (freak drive is costly, after all). What about non-combat decks? Your suggestion only allows for combat decks to have a shot. Vote decks and other bleed decks are screwed. Even with deflection, their vampires run out of blood. > The GT restriction, imo, damages the Gangrel too much, making it > exceedingly difficult to oust their prey, especially with all > the pool factories my play group always uses. The limit is a > step in the right direction, perhaps, but goes as far to the > other side as it started. Pool factories are usually slow to build or fragile, or both. Arson (and other location-hosers) destroys many of these, speed decks supercede them, etc. Gangrel are barely hurt at all. The only strategy they lose is a repeated bleed for (typically) 1, or the broken Force of Will combo. Ventrue Freaky Bleed is extremely hurt (as it should be). Gangrel decks regularly win everywhere I've heard SPTR or NL/GT being used. [ quoted text not captured ]