A Horrible Combo for the Monocle!

With all the recent discussion about the Monocle of Clarity, I just had a really wild thought -- Monocle of Clarity + Madness of the Bard! Yeah, both of them are now banned, but wouldn't it be really weird to play with both of them? And I guess there was indeed a time when you could play with both of them. While it wouldn't be too hard for the owner to come up with a rhyming question, how about the person who needs to answer? Monocle says you can only answer 'yes' or 'no'. So does that mean that he/she loses a pool to Madness of the Bard every turn? Halcyan 2

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: > While it wouldn't be too hard for the owner to come up with a > rhyming question, how about the person who needs to answer? Monocle > says you can only answer 'yes' or 'no'. So does that mean that he/she > loses a pool to Madness of the Bard every turn? That depends on what your group considers a "rhyme". He/she could simply make her next statement rhyme with the answer: "Yes. I confess." "No. I'm sure it's not so." -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: > With all the recent discussion about the Monocle of Clarity, > I just had a really wild thought -- Monocle of Clarity + > Madness of the Bard! > > Yeah, both of them are now banned, but wouldn't it be really > weird to play with both of them? And I guess there was indeed > a time when you could play with both of them. There was a time when you could play with both of them. However, in these parts, as soon as you tried to put Madness of the Bard on the table, a Louisville Slugger, or at least a fist, came out of nowhere and reminded you why that was a really bad idea. Regards, Noal -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

> There was a time when you could play with both of them. However, in > these parts, as soon as you tried to put Madness of the Bard on the > table, a Louisville Slugger, or at least a fist, came out of nowhere and > reminded you why that was a really bad idea. This sounds very much like my philosophy in my playgroup. It's a standing joke around here because I almost went over the table one time when it was played by one of the most annoying players in the area... :p Sorrow --- "No, you're insane." -Tyler Durden

In article <zWN96.3349$C2.9...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] I saw the Bard for the first time in my playgroup last night (Andrew's Bard but the deck was played by another). Next time I will certainly dispense with minion D actions to remove it (what a pain the combat steps become) and go straight to a poke in the Methuselah's eye. Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote: > I saw the Bard for the first time in my playgroup last night (Andrew's > Bard but the deck was played by another). Next time I will certainly > dispense with minion D actions to remove it (what a pain the combat > steps become) and go straight to a poke in the Methuselah's eye. The card worked better than I expected but it would take a bit more practise for players to become comfortable with it. As it was, I didn't notice you losing any blood to the card while the rest of us lost at least one. The main practical problem seems to be what to make of a muttered sub-vocalisation. The honour system seems best - where players volunteer their blood when they fail to rhyme in their own eyes. Daniel didn't make it easy for you by keeping all his minions untapped. I'm not sure if this was a deliberate defense of the card or whether he didn't want to take any initiative himself while still adjusting to the card's effect. Anyway, I trust that all these threats of violence are just in jest. If you really want to spoil the fun then just carry a Sudden Reversal instead of a big stick. This would be useful to deal with other nasty master cards like the Vulnerability that I burnt Volker with. Madness of the Bard was pussy-footing by comparison. Andrew [ quoted text not captured ]

Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote: > I saw the Bard for the first time in my playgroup last night (Andrew's > Bard but the deck was played by another). Next time I will certainly > dispense with minion D actions to remove it (what a pain the combat > steps become) and go straight to a poke in the Methuselah's eye. The card worked better than I expected but it would take a bit more practise for players to become comfortable with it. As it was, I didn't notice you losing any blood to the card while the rest of us lost at least one. The main practical problem seems to be what to make of a muttered sub-vocalisation. The honour system seems best - where players volunteer their blood when they fail to rhyme in their own eyes. Daniel didn't make it easy for you by keeping all his minions untapped. I'm not sure if this was a deliberate defense of the card or whether he didn't want to take any initiative himself while still adjusting to the card's effect. Anyway, I trust that all these threats of violence are just in jest. If you really want to spoil the fun then just carry a Sudden Reversal instead of a big stick. This would be useful to deal with other nasty master cards like the Vulnerability that I burnt Volker with. Madness of the Bard was pussy-footing by comparison. Andrew [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <949fuv$b1q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Andrew Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: > Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > > I saw the Bard for the first time in my playgroup last night (Andrew's > > Bard but the deck was played by another). Next time I will certainly > > dispense with minion D actions to remove it (what a pain the combat > > steps become) and go straight to a poke in the Methuselah's eye. > > The card worked better than I expected but it would take a bit more > practise for players to become comfortable with it. As it was, I > didn't notice you losing any blood to the card while the rest of us > lost at least one. The main practical problem seems to be what to make > of a muttered sub-vocalisation. The honour system seems best - where > players volunteer their blood when they fail to rhyme in their own eyes. > > Daniel didn't make it easy for you by keeping all his minions > untapped. I'm not sure if this was a deliberate defense of the card or > whether he didn't want to take any initiative himself while still > adjusting to the card's effect. > > Anyway, I trust that all these threats of violence are just in jest. I wouldn't bet on it. My defence in court would be justifiable homicide. I think I may have an old Louisville Slugger in a cupboard at home to keep my hands clean. > If you really want to spoil the fun then just carry a Sudden Reversal > instead of a big stick. This would be useful to deal with other nasty > master cards like the Vulnerability that I burnt Volker with. I generally choose not to fill up my hand with Suddens on the off chance but that's a decision to keep under review. > Madness > of the Bard was pussy-footing by comparison. > I deeply loathe the Bard because it subverts important game features which are interesting rather than merely silly. The state of the game required a deal between Dave and myself whereby I rushed some of Daniel's minions in return for some good behaviour. The Bard made the necessary discussions too tedious to undertake. Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

> > I deeply loathe the Bard because it subverts important game features > which are interesting rather than merely silly. The state of the game > required a deal between Dave and myself whereby I rushed some of > Daniel's minions in return for some good behaviour. The Bard made the > necessary discussions too tedious to undertake. > > Thats exactly the point! Madness is a great card, I used to have it in my decks all the time back when I actually could find people to play with. The whole point of the card is to make it more difficult to create complicated deals. And yes, that does hinder one style of playing the game, but it does not hinder all styles of the game. And it no more "subverts important game features" than cards that make it harder for you to bleed, fight, do political actions, etc etc etc. Making deals is one way to play the game, and not the only way, and making it harder for your opponent to play the want is definately an "important game feature." Vanda

>> Anyway, I trust that all these threats of violence are just in jest. > > I wouldn't bet on it. My defence in court would be justifiable > homicide. I think I may have an old Louisville Slugger in a cupboard > at home to keep my hands clean. The Madness of the Bard is a really bad, bad card and should never, under any circumstance, be played without a violent response. Same with that damn Kindred Restructure that changes where everyone sits. > I deeply loathe the Bard because it subverts important game features > which are interesting rather than merely silly. One of the most important aspects of the game is the social interactions. It is among the things that distinguishes VTES and other multi-player games from M:tCH wherein most games are only two player. Madness of the Bard interferes with that. In any case, because we play all local games by standard tournament rules, MotB is banned from play in all games in Michigan. Kindred Restructure is another "punch in the head" card because it's a pain in the ass to pick up all your stuff and move to another seat. People that play decks that do that multiple times find themselves on a little social outing with Joey and Guido. Regards, Noal -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <949k8c$f4k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > >> Anyway, I trust that all these threats of violence are just in jest. > > > > I wouldn't bet on it. My defence in court would be justifiable > > homicide. I think I may have an old Louisville Slugger in a cupboard > > at home to keep my hands clean. > > The Madness of the Bard is a really bad, bad card and should never, > under any circumstance, be played without a violent response. Same with > that damn Kindred Restructure that changes where everyone sits. > > > I deeply loathe the Bard because it subverts important game features > > which are interesting rather than merely silly. > > One of the most important aspects of the game is the social > interactions. It is among the things that distinguishes VTES and other > multi-player games from M:tCH wherein most games are only two player. > Madness of the Bard interferes with that. In any case, because we play > all local games by standard tournament rules, MotB is banned from play > in all games in Michigan. > > Kindred Restructure is another "punch in the head" card because it's a > pain in the ass to pick up all your stuff and move to another seat. > People that play decks that do that multiple times find themselves on a > little social outing with Joey and Guido. I can appreciate the nuisance of this (and the smaller cousin Dramatic Upheaval) but at least they have some potentially useful strategic effect. When done correctly, the new prey gets ousted promptly or you put some distance between yourself and an unpleasant deck. VTES doesn't have an excessive number of permanents compared to some other CCGs (admittedly keeping blood tidy while shifting is fiddly). Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3A6853BF...@attglobal.net>, Wynde <wy...@attglobal.net> wrote: > > > > I deeply loathe the Bard because it subverts important game features > > which are interesting rather than merely silly. The state of the game > > required a deal between Dave and myself whereby I rushed some of > > Daniel's minions in return for some good behaviour. The Bard made the > > necessary discussions too tedious to undertake. > > > > > > Thats exactly the point! Madness is a great card, I used to have it in my > decks all the time back when I actually could find people to play with. Perhaps playing the Bard and failing to find people with which to play are connected. [ quoted text not captured ]

Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote: > I can appreciate the nuisance of this (and the smaller cousin > Dramatic Upheaval) but at least they have some potentially useful > strategic effect. When done correctly, the new prey gets ousted > promptly or you put some distance between yourself and an unpleasant > deck. True, it does have a strategic value. However, that doesn't make it any less of a nuisance. > VTES doesn't have an excessive number of permanents compared to > some other CCGs Ever play a weenies and allies horde? *grin* > (admittedly keeping blood tidy while shifting is fiddly). That's why I started using red poker chips. They stack well and don't roll all over the table and onto the floor. Regards, Noal -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Thats exactly the point! Madness is a great card, I used to have >> it in my decks all the time back when I actually could find people >> to play with. > > Perhaps playing the Bard and failing to find people with which to > play are connected. Certainly would be in these parts. Partly because how damned annoying it is and partly because it's a banned card. Because we like consistency in how we play, most local games in Michigan use standard VEKN tournament rules. The move from NJL to VEKN was painful enough (and we're mostly there now) without dealing with RtI, MotB and the Monocle of Annoyance. Regards, Noal -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

Wynde <wy...@attglobal.net> writes: > decks all the time back when I actually could find people to play with. The > whole point of the card is to make it more difficult to create complicated > deals. No it's not. The whole point of the card was to have a kooky Malkavian rhyming shit thing. If you think the designers at WotC were that clever, can you explain all the crap that came out in the expansions too? -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D

> > > > > Thats exactly the point! Madness is a great card, I used to have it > in my > > decks all the time back when I actually could find people to play > with. > > Perhaps playing the Bard and failing to find people with which to play > are connected. > Gee and here I thought it was the fact that I graduate from college and the game went out of print.... Someone needs to let me in on this Vampire players spy network that lets people know that five years ago when I lived halfway across the country I had a deck with Madness of the Bard in it. Vanda

In article <949k8c$f4k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > I deeply loathe the Bard because it subverts important game features > > which are interesting rather than merely silly. > > One of the most important aspects of the game is the social > interactions. It is among the things that distinguishes VTES and other > multi-player games from M:tCH wherein most games are only two player. > Madness of the Bard interferes with that. In any case, because we play > all local games by standard tournament rules, MotB is banned from play > in all games in Michigan. > > Kindred Restructure is another "punch in the head" card because it's a > pain in the ass to pick up all your stuff and move to another seat. > People that play decks that do that multiple times find themselves on a > little social outing with Joey and Guido. I think you guys are just a bunch of boring fuddy duddies, that don't know how to have a good time! :P Course this is coming from a guy that plays Arcadia and the Monty Python CCGs... -- ~Screaming Vermillian "We don't live, we just scratch on, day to day, with Nothing but math books and sarcasm in our pockets and all we're waiting for is Something worth waiting for." KMFDM 'Dogma' [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:13:22 GMT, Tom Kassel wrote: >I deeply loathe the Bard because it subverts important game features >which are interesting rather than merely silly. The state of the game >required a deal between Dave and myself whereby I rushed some of >Daniel's minions in return for some good behaviour. The Bard made the >necessary discussions too tedious to undertake. You made three attempts to take out the Bard which Daniel blocked each time - what's the difference? But you didn't make much impression on him in the resulting combats. I didn't notice why, being too busy thinking of rhymes. What was the problem? Andrew

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:37:43 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Well, frankly, your previous sentence more or less states the real problem with Madness of the Bard. Instead of enjoying the game and paying attention to someone else's strategy (to figure out what they were capable of), you were forced to spend your time thinking of rhymes. Have you realized yet what a stupid-ass card MotB is, and how it actually DETRACTS from the game instead of adding to it? -- Derek "I reduce that bleed by one." -- M. Bell, 4x in a @#$*ing row

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:37:43 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:13:22 GMT, Tom Kassel wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] My hand was jammed up with Rushes and Ambushes. I had one additional strike I could have used but missed - I blame it on going through the combat steps in mime. Probably an IG too - unplayed (obviously only needed for card flow) due to the Bard induced clumsiness. If I face a Bard again and manage to resist splitting the head of its player (very hypothetical situation), I'll just throw my combat cards on the table as I want and to hell with what the defender wants to do. Tom

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:44:41 -0500, Derek Ray wrote: >Well, frankly, your previous sentence more or less states the real >problem with Madness of the Bard. Instead of enjoying the game and >paying attention to someone else's strategy (to figure out what they >were capable of), you were forced to spend your time thinking of >rhymes. I _was_ enjoying the game. And judging from the amount of laughter from all the players, so was everyone else, even Tom. >Have you realized yet what a stupid-ass card MotB is, and how it >actually DETRACTS from the game instead of adding to it? It's a weak card when measured by pool loss - the person who plays it is likely to lose more pool than anyone else because of its cost. It's good as light relief and as a way of damping down deal-making and combat. It's certainly staying in that Malkvaian deck. I just need to decide whether to put the other one that Dave traded me into my Buffy deck. It seems to fit the theme and is a good way of taunting vampires so that they come at you and get staked. Andrew

thomas...@ntlworld.com (Tom Kassel) writes: > My hand was jammed up with Rushes and Ambushes. I had one additional > strike I could have used but missed - I blame it on going through the > combat steps in mime. Probably an IG too - unplayed (obviously only > needed for card flow) due to the Bard induced clumsiness. In other matters, how many rush cards are you packing? Common wisdom is 12 rushes (normally Bum's Rush) and 4 Havens in a 90 card tournament style deck. Having more than that generally ups hand-jam problems. Not that there aren't scenarios where more are useful, of course, but in a "standard" mono-rush deck, it's a useful figure to work with. It's also a useful yard-stick even when *not* playing such a deck e.g. if you diversify your options. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "A bit of urine here and there, perhaps. It adds charm and character." - Marck Carroll, ucam.chat

How hard can it be to rhyme? I can do it all the time. If you're in a game the Bard is played in, Just pretend that you're Canadian! "Masika attempts to bleed you, eh? Do you want to try to block it, eh?" It's a silly way to beat the Bard, But then again, it's a silly card. -- Tim Olivas ("I'm so vital!"). . "I ain't no hell of a man...but listen, tol...@megsinet.net. . . . . . I'm going on a hell of a trip." http://www.megsinet.com/tolivas/ . . . . . . . . . . --Ernest Hemingway

On 20 Jan 2001 17:18:38 +0000, James Coupe <jr...@srcf.ucam.org> wrote: >thomas...@ntlworld.com (Tom Kassel) writes: > >> My hand was jammed up with Rushes and Ambushes. I had one additional >> strike I could have used but missed - I blame it on going through the >> combat steps in mime. Probably an IG too - unplayed (obviously only >> needed for card flow) due to the Bard induced clumsiness. > >In other matters, how many rush cards are you packing? > >Common wisdom is 12 rushes (normally Bum's Rush) and 4 Havens in a 90 >card tournament style deck. Having more than that generally ups >hand-jam problems. Not that there aren't scenarios where more are >useful, of course, but in a "standard" mono-rush deck, it's a useful >figure to work with. It's also a useful yard-stick even when *not* >playing such a deck e.g. if you diversify your options. > I have adopted the common wisdom and use precisely that number. It usually works out ok but not quite this time. Due to the Bard, I wasn't using rush cards to initiate combat with the Malkies so couldn't cycle as I would have liked. In retrospect I should have just rushed him anyway and dealt with the Bard later. Not thinking that clearly while worrying about fucking ryhmes. Tom

On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:28:35 -0600, Tim Olivas <tol...@megsinet.net> wrote: >How hard can it be to rhyme? >I can do it all the time. So can I. The objection is that it's a parlor game, and doesn't belong in V:TES, for a number of legitimate reasons; first and foremost, that it requires subjective judgement on what a "rhyme" is, which nobody can agree on. And there's the real reason, which is that it's just stupid. >If you're in a game the Bard is played in, >Just pretend that you're Canadian! > > "Masika attempts to bleed you, eh? > Do you want to try to block it, eh?" > >It's a silly way to beat the Bard, >But then again, it's a silly card. Not to drag the whole Bard thing up again, but it really just doesn't add anything to the game to have everyone postscripting their statements with "eh?", or some similar random crud. =/ [ quoted text not captured ]

Just thought I'd add throw in some additional wording my play group has added to both the Monacle and Madness. "The person who puts this card into play is subject to getting punched by his predator or prey at any time."