Voting Questions

In article <44h4gm$t...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> biom...@aol.com (Biomech8) writes: >I was told that the only way you can use votes during a blood hunt is with >votes provided by titles or by giving up the edge. This is this true? >And >if so what about the Ventrue Headquarters? The V:TES rulebook only states >that you cannot block the vote or play reaction or action modifiers. That's not true. You can use Ventrue HQ, and you can play PA's for votes. >Can someone please explain "vote pushing" to me? I see this term used >quite often, yet I am unsure about it's meaning. Please take the time to >enlighten me. It concerns the suspected mis-rule on voting. There are three possible interpretations of the voting rules in the rules booklet: (1) Anybody can play any number of Political Action cards for extra votes. This is called "vote pushing", and reportedly distorts game balance. (Selfish vote decks become much powerful.) (2) Only the non-calling Meth's can use PA cards for extra votes. (3) Each Meth can get (or play) at most one vote, including the PA card used to call the vote, so the acting Meth. can't play any more PA's and the others can play at most 1 PA each for a vote. (I discovered this one.) I recommend using either (2) or (3). Otherwise selfish vote decks become way too annoying. (2) or (3) also encourages negotiated vote decks, which makes the game more fun. -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

In article <44h8kj$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >"Vote pushing" refers to calling a vote, and then passing it by dropping >additional political actions from your hand. It seems very natural to >allow it, but permitting allows a certain class of weenie vote decks which >can normally pass anything they call until they run out of cards. Since >weenie decks have so many actions early on, this can make for a really >lethal, and pretty much unstoppable (stopped only by very unusual decks), >deck. Besides unstoppable weenie vote decks, the official ruling also makes Surprise Influence wallpaper. Let's compare: _any_ Political action card Surprise Influence can call vote cannot call vote can use for your vote reaction only can use for Bloodhunt vote cannot use for Bloodhunt vote no vampires needed need untapped ready vampire fireproof vote subject to Pulling Strings, etc. play any number play 1 per untapped vampire 1 vote 2 votes I don't think the benefit of Surprise Influence (an extra vote) outweights the numerous restrictions and drawbacks. Considering especially that if it is another Meth's vote, he's going to push it pass no matter what. >Literally read, the Jyhad rulebook forbids vote pushing (only *other* >Meths can drop extra political actions). The DT has said that is an error >and that you can push your own votes. I maintain that if it was a >mistake, it was an unusually fortuitous one. Remembering that it is the same DT that gave us (D) bleeds ... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 29, 1995 15:35:32 in article <Re: Voting Questions>, [ quoted text not captured ] -- You replace your first vote card, but no others. This keeps the "vote pushing" from getting out of hand. Wolfgang

I was told that the only way you can use votes during a blood hunt is with votes provided by titles or by giving up the edge. This is this true? And if so what about the Ventrue Headquarters? The V:TES rulebook only states that you cannot block the vote or play reaction or action modifiers. Can someone please explain "vote pushing" to me? I see this term used [ quoted text not captured ]

biom...@aol.com (Biomech8) writes: >I was told that the only way you can use votes during a blood hunt is with >votes provided by titles or by giving up the edge. This is this true? >And >if so what about the Ventrue Headquarters? The V:TES rulebook only states >that you cannot block the vote or play reaction or action modifiers. VH is okay. You may also throw down political action cards for votes. >Can someone please explain "vote pushing" to me? I see this term used >quite often, yet I am unsure about it's meaning. Please take the time to >enlighten me. "Vote pushing" refers to calling a vote, and then passing it by dropping additional political actions from your hand. It seems very natural to allow it, but permitting allows a certain class of weenie vote decks which can normally pass anything they call until they run out of cards. Since weenie decks have so many actions early on, this can make for a really lethal, and pretty much unstoppable (stopped only by very unusual decks), deck. Literally read, the Jyhad rulebook forbids vote pushing (only *other* Meths can drop extra political actions). The DT has said that is an error and that you can push your own votes. I maintain that if it was a mistake, it was an unusually fortuitous one. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <44imj4$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> dlsh...@aol.com (DLSHADOW) writes: >How about this ruling to make vote pushing alittle less powerful. A Meth >can only play one of each PA card to add to his/her votes, including the >PA card played to cast the vote. For example, minion plays Conservative >Agitation. The Meth has two other CA's in their hand and one Kine >Resources Contested. They could only play Kine Resources Contested to add >to their vote. > >This ruling is true for Action Modifiers and Reaction Cards. WOTC should >make this a ruling for Political Action cards as well! This "fix" is simply inadequate. There are so many different PA cards, you just ditch a variety of them to push whatever vote you want to pass. The political player is not hurt much by this rule. The various PA cards are each quite powerful in its own respect. Varying the mix of PA cards in his deck doesn't reduce much its power over non-voting decks, as long as he can push the votes pass. One vote per Meth! [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <44hn0b$c...@pipe1.nyc.pipeline.com> kri...@nyc.pipeline.com (Scott Alex) writes: >You replace your first vote card, but no others. This keeps the "vote >pushing" from getting out of hand. "Do not replace" is in general not a significant drawback, except for combat cards. A player can put a disturbingly high proportion of PA cards in his deck and doesn't have any worry of hand jamming. It isn't hard to get 3 or 4 PA cards into the hand with a 50% PA deck. (The rest of the deck is mostly S:CE, of course.) It is very hard for a non-voting deck to match that number of votes, so all the votes pass and great cheese-time everybody. Do you know about the weenie vote deck? [ quoted text not captured ]

"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> writes: >If a deck has an unusually high percentage of vote cards, it is >vulnerable to: > 1. Bleed decks, because it would have little intercept; and > 2. Combat decks, due to lack of combat/protection cards; and > 3. Intercept decks, owing to lack of stealth. > After playing against a wide variety of opponents since the game's >inception, I am convinced the game balances itself. You're assuming that mostly-vote decks are still controlled by standard mechanisms. The problem is that a weenie vote deck can often get around all of the obstacles you mention. A weenie vote deck can cough up enough votes to oust several Meths in the first vew turns. Combat deck (rush or intercept) can generally get only vampire per turn until well into the game and generally waits a turn or two before starting; the weenie voter deck has 4-5 vampires out by turn two and pops out another almost every turn (Effective Management). It beats a bleed deck because it's so fast that it ousts faster than the bleeder. If you don't think it works, you really should try one. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <44o8gb$5...@alaska.nwlink.com> "T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> writes: >If a deck has an unusually high percentage of vote cards, it is >vulnerable to: > > 1. Bleed decks, because it would have little intercept; and You don't need too many cards for bleed bounce. High percentage of vote cards doesn't mean that you'll have few other cards in your hand, since the vote cards cycle quickly. Bleeding him just helps him oust his prey and cycle his hand. > 2. Combat decks, due to lack of combat/protection cards; and It doesn't take too many cards to S:CE either. > 3. Intercept decks, owing to lack of stealth. You intercept him, he S:CE with Majesty and untaps. Now you're tapped, and he calls another vote. A weenie vote deck can vote you out even without S:CE. > After playing against a wide variety of opponents since the game's >inception, I am convinced the game balances itself. But a degenerate weenie vote deck did win a tournament. Almost any deck has weaknesses; a deck having a "normal" degree of weakness isn't an excuse for an overwhelming degree of power. If the vote-pushing rules are `fixed', then a deck with a high percentage of vote cards would really be weak, because he has trouble getting the vote cards out of his hand. Now it's too easy. One called vote and any number of vote cards can drop. Almost no other cards are like that in Jyhad, except for of course the mis-ruled Nimble Feet. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <44p6l5$s...@acmex.gatech.edu> dsa...@prism.gatech.edu (Stuart J. Pieloch) writes: >I have found that an intercept deck to either side of the weenie vote deck >tends to destroy it rather completely. >Aside from the fact that my group plays with the one vote per Meth >(including the one you play as an action) rule, I have both been destroyed >by a intercept prey with my weenie vote deck and >have with great pleasure torporized 8 weenie vamps of my predators weenie vote >deck. That house rule (my proposition, wasn't it) plays a significant part in torching weenie vote decks. They cannot push pass their votes easily; the weenies have a serious hand jam with vote cards, leaving them defenseless in other aspects (can't pull a Dodge from their deck); especially, if the first few Prince votes get voted down (because of no pushing), once the other players have their Princes and even Promigons out, the weenie deck is completely garbage. Weenine vote isn't that almighty under reasonable (house, alas) rules. >All in all a weenie vote deck can chew through a meth or maybe two, >but it's no more or less unbalanced than a FreakyBleed deck Under one-vote-per-Meth or caller-no-push house rules, a weenie vote deck is definitely /less/ unbalancing than a Freaky Bleed deck. You can't toste a Freaky Bleed deck in combat; he's got S:CE. [ quoted text not captured ]

dsa...@prism.gatech.edu (Stuart J. Pieloch) writes: >I have found that an intercept deck to either side of the weenie vote deck >tends to destroy it rather completely. >Aside from the fact that my group plays with the one vote per Meth >(including the one you play as an action) rule, That's a house rule that's VERY important here. Giving each Meth an extra vote is hard on any selfish vote deck, and would certainly impair weenie vote decks. >Justine tends to completely hose such a deck esp. with a sport bike Of course, but multiple Justines shouldn't be obligatory in all intercept decks, and that's what you'd need for a reliable defense. >All in all a weenie vote deck can chew through a meth or maybe two, >but it's no more or less unbalanced than a FreakyBleed deck <blink> <blink> Uh - I think I'd agree with that one. Hiroshima wasn't much worse than Nagasaki, either. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >You can routinely block 5 minions on your third turn? When do you find >time to equip? (If the weenie deck doesn't have 5 minions by its fourth >minion phase - usually its Prey's third turn, then there's something wrong >with it.) If I'm playing intercept, I can routinely block 100 minion actions at +1 stealth after my first turn. Animalism and Wakes and Auspex aren't that hard to come by If my predator shows a really fast developing deck I make sacrifices that may allow me to get out a good blocker fast who can block and maybe not do too much damage but at least I can stall a while while I get a blocker from hell out >1st turn - weenie brings out 1-2 vamps (depending on turn order) First turn I should be able to bring out a small intercept vamp 3-4 blood If I'm going second, I have only two transfers and I plan ahead for a 6 blood and my predator should only have one caitif. >2nd turn - weenie calls 1-2 votes and brings out 2 more vamps I better be able to intercept one-two +1 stealth actions and send them to torpor If he can S:CE fine I'll kill it later. Then Cat's guidance and be ready If he doesn't have S:CE now would be a bad time to try and call votes. The guy now has a +1 Stealth weenie vamp vote deck and I have obviously shown that I can intercept hurt and untap. >3rd turn - weenie calls 3-4 votes and brings out 2-1 more vamps >4th turn - weenie calls 5 votes All you need to do is start sending them to torpor and he's screwed. If he's got S;ce then he's gotta have vamps with Protean and or presence. and that limits the number of vamps he can have. I'm not saying that this is easy or that I'll survive but I should be able to hurt him and let him know that I can intercept and kill his minion Stu -- Stu Pieloch TLTT Players-Lord High And Mighty Potentate of the Known Universe DramaTech Theatre Improv Troupe http://photobooks.gatech.edu/~zync/lttp.html GE/T/S d++(--) H(-) s++:- g+(-) p2 au++ a- w+++(--) v++ C++ U N++ W---() M+ V-- po+++(---) t--- 5+++ G+++ B--- e++ u++ f+ r++ n--- y*

dsa...@prism.gatech.edu (Stuart J. Pieloch) writes: >sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >>You can routinely block 5 minions on your third turn? When do you find >>time to equip? (If the weenie deck doesn't have 5 minions by its fourth >>minion phase - usually its Prey's third turn, then there's something wrong >>with it.) >If I'm playing intercept, I can routinely block 100 minion actions at +1 stealth >after my first turn. Animalism and Wakes and Auspex aren't that hard to come by >If my predator shows a really fast developing deck I make >sacrifices that may allow me to get out a good blocker fast who can >block and maybe not do too much damage >but at least I can stall a while while I get a blocker from hell out Oh, sorry. I thought you had said something about bring Justine out with a sport bike. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

In article <44rpru$1...@crl.crl.com> lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >If only one (dubiously workable) strategy is effective against a deck, then >there just *might* be a problem with > >a) the rulings on the cards in that deck. > >b) the rulings on the mechanism that makes that deck work. Scott, don't forget that there is c) the brains of the people who conceived the card ideas in that deck Remember the Indecent Proposition? (Yes, now I see the *might*.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <44rc63$c...@acmex.gatech.edu>, Stuart J. Pieloch <dsa...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote: >Weenie vote decks > >Justine - Elder of Dallas >That's why I play with her. >I've completely nutralized two weenie vote decks with her. >and she never tapped the entire game/. > >Sucked to be my predator. I *love* putting 6 copies of a single vampire into my crypt just so I can have a chance of not being demolished by a given deck. :-) Then what do I do when that given deck is not my predator? (lose comes to mind) If only one (dubiously workable) strategy is effective against a deck, then there just *might* be a problem with a) the rulings on the cards in that deck. b) the rulings on the mechanism that makes that deck work. -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text

Hi Alan & T. J., Just couldn't keep my thoughts to myself.... On 2 Oct 1995, Alan wrote: > In article <44o8gb$5...@alaska.nwlink.com> "T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> writes: > > > After playing against a wide variety of opponents since the game's > >inception, I am convinced the game balances itself. > > But a degenerate weenie vote deck did win a tournament. > > Well, the tournament rules favor fast starting decks like weenie bleed decks and sneak and bleeders, so it really is a problem in the tournament format, but we haven't had a weenie deck actually win a full Jyhad game in our group. I would, however, like to see the rules ammended to only allow one political action card of a given type per vote per methuselah. Actually, a weenie bleed deck is almost as bad.... What I would really like to see is a master card that does, say, three damage to all vampires in play.... Algustas *****The best reformers the world has ever seen are those who commence on themselves.***** George Bernard Shaw

On Sep 30, 1995 14:19:46 in article <Re: Voting Questions>, [ quoted text not captured ] >-- >"Live Life with Heart." > >Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu -- Yeah, you can have a high proportion of political cards in your deck. But all your opponent needs is intercept to stop the vote. Wolfgang

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.951003171753.29759A-100000@ccserver> Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes: >Hi Alan & T. J., > Just couldn't keep my thoughts to myself.... > >On 2 Oct 1995, Alan wrote: > >> In article <44o8gb$5...@alaska.nwlink.com> "T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> writes: >> >> > After playing against a wide variety of opponents since the game's >> >inception, I am convinced the game balances itself. >> >> But a degenerate weenie vote deck did win a tournament. >> > > Well, the tournament rules favor fast starting decks like weenie >bleed decks and sneak and bleeders, so it really is a problem in the >tournament format, but we haven't had a weenie deck actually win a full >Jyhad game in our group. What do you define as "winning"? I personally consider getting 2VP in a game as a "win" (3 VP would be 2 wins, etc.). I think weenie vote decks are quite capable in that aspect. > I would, however, like to see the rules ammended to only allow >one political action card of a given type per vote per methuselah. >Actually, a weenie bleed deck is almost as bad.... What I would really >like to see is a master card that does, say, three damage to all vampires >in play.... A weenie bleed deck is much lamer than a weenie vote deck. Weenie bleed typically bleeds 2 pool per action (with Computer Hacking), while weenie vote does 3 to prey and 1 to either predator or grand-prey. Weenie bleed can also be countered by the (always helpful) Telepathic Counter, or even by Deflection; there is virtually nothing in the game to defend specifically against hostile votes, except by grabbing a few votes yourself; hence there is nothing in the game to defend against pushed votes. I'd bet that your fix is /inadequate/. My proposal, of a max. of 1 Political Action card (regardless of type) per Meth. per vote (and the caller has played his already, hasn't he), would be more like it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >A weenie bleed deck is much lamer than a weenie vote deck. Weenie >bleed typically bleeds 2 pool per action (with Computer Hacking), >while weenie vote does 3 to prey and 1 to either predator or >grand-prey. Weenie bleed can also be countered by the (always >helpful) Telepathic Counter, or even by Deflection; there is virtually >nothing in the game to defend specifically against hostile votes, >except by grabbing a few votes yourself; hence there is nothing in >the game to defend against pushed votes. Another option to defending against hostile vote decks is Delaying Tactics. While this isn't a particularly efficient option, you might be ok if you could get down a Ventrue Headquarters and/or a couple of titles before the vote deck gets to you. With that kind of preparation, the fact that they can't take the Delayed political action again that turn would probably slow a degenerate vote deck down enough for people to take it out, and could force it out of cards if it needs too many cards to push the vote through. Never experimented with this, though, and it'd be tricky to make the deck general enough to take on non-political decks reliably. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: >>A weenie bleed deck is much lamer than a weenie vote deck. >> there is virtually >>nothing in the game to defend specifically against hostile votes, >>except by grabbing a few votes yourself; hence there is nothing in >>the game to defend against pushed votes. >Another option to defending against hostile vote decks is Delaying Tactics. >While this isn't a particularly efficient option, you might be ok if you >could get down a Ventrue Headquarters and/or a couple of titles before >the vote deck gets to you. With that kind of preparation, the fact that they >can't take the Delayed political action again that turn would probably slow a >degenerate vote deck down enough for people to take it out, and could force >it out of cards if it needs too many cards to push the vote through. >Never experimented with this, though, and it'd be tricky to make the deck >general enough to take on non-political decks reliably. Aye, there's the rub. You need a lot of DT, and that's a nasty hand jam card (at least in my group) as voting can not be relied on to occur (combat and bleed largely can, so you can typically dispose of at least some of those hosers). And, again, such a deck is far nastier to a healthy vote deck than a weenie all-voters, as is true of any anti-weenie vote strategy other than Justine. Still, DT is definitely the best available defense to weenie voters. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> writes: >kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: >>You intercept him, he S:CE with Majesty and untaps. Now you're >>tapped, and he calls another vote. A weenie vote deck can vote >>you out even without S:CE. > There is only one vampire aged 3 or under with superior Presence. You >want to add skill cards too? :) I've seen it done. It won Manafest, day 2. However, it couldn't pass votes just by vote pushing and needed a number of Bewitching Orations too. Still, vote pushing made a big difference. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <45bkdn$c...@texas.nwlink.com>, T.J. Hull <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: >curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: >>You're assuming that mostly-vote decks are still controlled by standard >>mechanisms. The problem is that a weenie vote deck can often get around >>all of the obstacles you mention. A weenie vote deck can cough up enough >>votes to oust several Meths in the first vew turns. Combat deck (rush or >>intercept) can generally get only vampire per turn until well into the >>game and generally waits a turn or two before starting; the weenie voter >>deck has 4-5 vampires out by turn two and pops out another almost every >>turn (Effective Management). It beats a bleed deck because it's so fast >>that it ousts faster than the bleeder. >> >>If you don't think it works, you really should try one. >> >>Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) > > I have. I've played them since before you learned how to sharpen your >fangs. Burned, torporized vampires can't vote, period. I was not >talking merely blocking the vampires, but destroying them. You should >really try it. ;) I highly doubt that you have played them half as much as you think, nor nearly as much as Curt has. Weenie vote decks don't care about burning, because torpor is as good as burned when you have weenies. They just get replaced when they die. > You also did not address their inability to defend themselves against >bleeds from the predator. If you are truly worried about game balance, >stop whining and play with a four-card limit. WE do. And throw those >icky tourney rules out too. I'll leave the card-limit thing alone for now (more on that later), and concentrate on this weenie thing: weenie decks don't care about being bled. They're spending 2-3 blood (maybe) a turn on vampires, and that's it. They have a lot left, and get the 6 pool oust bonus often. A S&B can keep up with them, but most other types of decks can't. > Hey, and have you noticed the difficulties two voting decks have if >they aren't allies? Sort of kills them both, doesn't it? Another game >balancing mechanism here? *If* the other voting deck can get online in time. *If* there is another voting deck. | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "There. That should do nicely. After all, we don't want the locals to see grannies clipped to trash bins by their teeth, do we?" -- Mr. Gone

"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> writes: >curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: >>It beats a bleed deck because it's so fast >>that it ousts faster than the bleeder. > You also did not address their inability to defend themselves against >bleeds from the predator. Yes, he did. Reading a whole post tends to lend more weight to a reply. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes: >In article <45bkdn$c...@texas.nwlink.com>, T.J. Hull <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: >> Hey, and have you noticed the difficulties two voting decks have if >>they aren't allies? Sort of kills them both, doesn't it? Another game >>balancing mechanism here? > *If* the other voting deck can get online in time. *If* there is >another voting deck. What does one need to run a normal (limited vote-pushing) voting deck? Stealth, Bewitching Oration, Titled Vampires, and Combat suppressors (S:CE or Fortitude). A combination that is varied and not easy to do well. What do you need to run a weenie vote deck? Weenies and a deck full of votes. A combination that is easy, un-varied (monotonous) and works every time. [ quoted text not captured ]

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: >You're assuming that mostly-vote decks are still controlled by standard >mechanisms. The problem is that a weenie vote deck can often get around >all of the obstacles you mention. A weenie vote deck can cough up enough >votes to oust several Meths in the first vew turns. Combat deck (rush or >intercept) can generally get only vampire per turn until well into the >game and generally waits a turn or two before starting; the weenie voter >deck has 4-5 vampires out by turn two and pops out another almost every >turn (Effective Management). It beats a bleed deck because it's so fast >that it ousts faster than the bleeder. > >If you don't think it works, you really should try one. > >Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) I have. I've played them since before you learned how to sharpen your fangs. Burned, torporized vampires can't vote, period. I was not talking merely blocking the vampires, but destroying them. You should really try it. ;) You also did not address their inability to defend themselves against bleeds from the predator. If you are truly worried about game balance, stop whining and play with a four-card limit. WE do. And throw those icky tourney rules out too. (rant off) Hey, and have you noticed the difficulties two voting decks have if they aren't allies? Sort of kills them both, doesn't it? Another game balancing mechanism here? TJH >>>>>>>>>>>>

On 9 Oct 1995, T.J. Hull wrote: > Set this up with a friend. You play one of these voting decks in a > game with four or more players. He plays a straight Malkavian bleed > deck as your predator (you may add Freak Drives if you like). You may > get the first kill, but he will invariably get the second. Next, each > of you play voting decks, as predator and prey (same large enviroment). > You will both get hosed. This kind of deck may kill quickly, but it is > not the way to win. You also may try playing with a four card limit in > your games; we do. And throw out your tournament rules! > > Thanks for reading > > TJH > > Hi T. J., I don't know, I find voting much more effective, especially since bleeds are easy to bounce, and you can always trade places with the malkavians or rearange the entire table with the right vote cards.... Algustas *****All the things I like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.***** Alexander Wollcott

Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes: >On 9 Oct 1995, CurtAdams wrote: >> Still, DT is definitely the best available defense to weenie voters. >Hi Curt, > By DT do you mean Delaying Tactics or Design Team? Well, I meant Delaying Tactics, but your alternative of Design Team is funnier, since they put in vote pushing. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)