We do not want more erratas

Last year the staple cards KR and DU were banned and not changed because "we do not want more erratas". This year another staple card AR is wallpaperized with an errata. Somebody care to explain? Has the "we do not want more errata" strategy been abandoned? Or are we just given random reasons for the changes just to keep us shut up? -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch wrote: > Last year the staple cards KR and DU were banned and not changed because > "we do not want more erratas". > > This year another staple card AR is wallpaperized with an errata. Sure, if you can explain how AR is wallpapered. You first. -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@gmail.com "OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)" -- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:cv5763$jjm$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net... [ quoted text not captured ] AR is much better off, but the "keep us shut up" is an unexpected benifit. :P I just made a deck with AR and theoretically it should work well. -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"Johannes Walch" < wrote [ quoted text not captured ] Even I admit it's not wallpapered. Agree with the rest though :o) Rob

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Johannes Walch wrote: > >> Last year the staple cards KR and DU were banned and not changed >> because "we do not want more erratas". >> >> This year another staple card AR is wallpaperized with an errata. > > > Sure, if you can explain how AR is wallpapered. You first. > Maybe you missed the post below. Now everybody goes anarch with a little vampire and your AR strategy is well, screwed, I would say. " Some existing cards are changed in Kindred Most Wanted. The changes go into effect (for all printings of the cards) when the set is legal for play. Anarch Revolt: Only Methuselahs who do not control ready Anarchs are affected. Heart of Darkness: Changes the way the vampire treat the aggravated damage, rather than changing the damage itself. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu "

XZealot wrote: > I just made a deck with AR and theoretically it should work well. Do you want access to my huge collection of decks "that should have worked well" but in the end never did? LOL ;-) -- johannes walch

"Johannes Walch" wrote >>> Last year the staple cards KR and DU were banned and not changed because >>> "we do not want more erratas". >>> >>> This year another staple card AR is wallpaperized with an errata. >> >> >> Sure, if you can explain how AR is wallpapered. You first. >> > > Maybe you missed the post below. Now everybody goes anarch with a little > vampire and your AR strategy is well, screwed, I would say. Sure enough the 'old' strategy is up the wazoo but there does appear to be others springing up from the flames. Don't get me wrong I am against this change, I don't think it was needed but it does present a few new options. Rob TRYING to look on the bright side.

Johannes Walch wrote: > Maybe you missed the post below. Now everybody goes anarch with a > little vampire and your AR strategy is well, screwed, I would say. No I got the memo. What you really mean is "that Anson deck I liked to play with all the AR's in it doesn't work anymore." Not "AR is wallpaper." -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@gmail.com "OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)" -- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

Johannes Walch wrote: > David Cherryholmes wrote: > > Johannes Walch wrote: > > > >> Last year the staple cards KR and DU were banned and not changed > >> because "we do not want more erratas". > >> > >> This year another staple card AR is wallpaperized with an errata. > > > > > > Sure, if you can explain how AR is wallpapered. You first. > > > > Maybe you missed the post below. Now everybody goes anarch with a little > vampire and your AR strategy is well, screwed, I would say. Find a way to work in Alexandra and PTO. You'll still have your fun. Jeff

Johannes wrote: >This year another staple card AR is wallpaperized with an errata. A. Anarch Revolt was only a "staple" card for completely demolishing table balance situations, and arbitrarily making other people win. B. AR being errataed makes Antedeluvian Awakening a *much* more useful card. C. AR is now, rather than a carpet bombing strategy, a card that is really useful for hosing political decks that are pretty powerful in and of themselves but can't reliably go Anarch. D. It is a good card for wall decks to use to oust their prey--play multiple ARs, block your prey's actions to go Anarch so they keep taking damage, but leave everyone else alone so they can go Anarch and avoid the damage--AR becomes a viable targeted oust mechanism, rather than a monkey with a machine gun. -Peter

Johannes Walch wrote: > Last year the staple cards KR and DU were banned and not changed because > "we do not want more erratas". No. They were banned because, among other reasons, no alternative text was found to be acceptable. If an acceptable text could have been found, KR and DU would probably have been reprinted with alternative text. > This year another staple card AR is wallpaperized with an errata. Whether a card is or is not a "staple" card has nothing to do with whether a card is appropriate and balanced. Return to Innocence was a "staple" at one time as well. > Somebody care to explain? I'm just guessing here, but I imagine that the lead designer witnessed on his own or otherwise heard about alleged problems with Anarch Revolt. He became convinced that AR was unacceptable in its current form (whether that be "overpowered" or whatever). He found new text that he believed would fix the card. He created the new card with the new text. For the record, repriting cards with new text is not errata. > Has the "we do not want more errata" strategy > been abandoned? The AR change isn't errata. > Or are we just given random reasons for the changes just > to keep us shut up? If it'd shut you up, I'd give you a random reason. :) But seriously folks... Are you really that perplexed about the AR change? Aren't most people's reactions something more along the lines of "it is about time!" -Robert

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:cv58ij$m2n$2...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net... [ quoted text not captured ] This one bases itself on blood denial. So even if you take the 2 blood action then you are still losing blood off of your minions, which works in the decks favor. [ quoted text not captured ]

jeffk...@pacbell.net wrote: > Find a way to work in Alexandra and PTO. You'll still have your fun. That's it! Arika or Leandro deck with plenty of ARs and PTOs. You can think also in playing Judgement:Camarilla Segregation. I think this errata is one more incentive to play with big vampires. They're good and interesting but not really competitive in tournament IMO. But, hey, that's another thread. .- Luis Duarte

"Robert Goudie" wrote in message > Are you really that perplexed about the AR change? Aren't most people's > reactions something more along the lines of "it is about time!" No.

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Johannes Walch wrote: > >> Maybe you missed the post below. Now everybody goes anarch with a >> little vampire and your AR strategy is well, screwed, I would say. > > > No I got the memo. What you really mean is "that Anson deck I liked to > play with all the AR's in it doesn't work anymore." Not "AR is > wallpaper." > Aeh you mean the Anson deck I borrowed from Stéphane and played once in my life leading to a royally pissed off you? ;-) Well the bleed decks and weenie vote decks relying on the AR forward pressure are also hosed, as well as the wall decks relying on AR as their ousting mechanism. -- johannes walch

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Johannes Walch wrote: > > > Maybe you missed the post below. Now everybody goes anarch with a > > little vampire and your AR strategy is well, screwed, I would say. > > No I got the memo. What you really mean is "that Anson deck I liked to > play with all the AR's in it doesn't work anymore." Not "AR is wallpaper." Right. I usually think of these changes in another way. When errata or new card text nerfs one of my pet decks I recognize that the reason I made the deck in the first place was because I found some loophole or unbalanced combo to exploit. The closing of the loophole or fixing of the unbalanced card just reaffirms my own high opinion of the power of the card/loophole/combo. -Robert

Johannes wrote: >Well the bleed decks and weenie vote decks relying on the AR forward pressure are also hosed, How is this a *bad* thing? > as well as the wall decks relying on AR as their ousting mechanism. Umm, no. It just makes it work better. Now the wall deck can intercept it's prey's attempts to go Anarch so they keep taking damage, but everyone else at the table don't get plowed under by the ARs. This change makes AR *much* better as an ousting mechanism for a wall deck than it used to be. It doesn't do collaterall damage to the rest of the table. -Peter

> No. They were banned because, among other reasons, no alternative text > was found to be acceptable. If an acceptable text could have been > found, KR and DU would probably have been reprinted with alternative > text. They were plenty of acceptable suggestions on the newsgroup. And the argument I cited was given, that愀 100% sure. >>This year another staple card AR is wallpaperized with an errata. > > > Whether a card is or is not a "staple" card has nothing to do with > whether a card is appropriate and balanced. Return to Innocence was a > "staple" at one time as well. Yes, but if a card is staple an errate should be even more well-considered. > I'm just guessing here, but I imagine that the lead designer witnessed > on his own or otherwise heard about alleged problems with Anarch > Revolt. He became convinced that AR was unacceptable in its current > form (whether that be "overpowered" or whatever). He found new text > that he believed would fix the card. He created the new card with the > new text. Sometimes I wish Richard Garfield was back into V:TES. > For the record, repriting cards with new text is not errata. But has about the same effect, doesn愒 it? > If it'd shut you up, I'd give you a random reason. :) > > But seriously folks... > > Are you really that perplexed about the AR change? Aren't most people's > reactions something more along the lines of "it is about time!" Yes I am. KR,DU,SC,AR. What愀 next? Kine Resources? Kindred Spirits? Parity Shift? Immortal Grapple? Looks 2much like Magic in my books ... -- johannes walch

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:cv5a6r$prf$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net... > KR,DU,SC,AR. What´s next? Kine Resources? Kindred Spirits? Parity Shift? > Immortal Grapple? Looks 2much like Magic in my books ... IG and PS have already been changed. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote in message news:cv5afv$qu1$1...@domitilla.aioe.org... > "Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message > news:cv5a6r$prf$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net... > > KR,DU,SC,AR. What´s next? Kine Resources? Kindred Spirits? Parity Shift? > > Immortal Grapple? Looks 2much like Magic in my books ... > > IG and PS have already been changed. KRC, too, if you count the change in the vote pushing rule. [ quoted text not captured ]

Johannes Walch wrote: > Aeh you mean the Anson deck I borrowed from Stéphane and played once > in my life leading to a royally pissed off you? ;-) Yeah, that one. ;) > Well the bleed decks and weenie vote decks relying on the AR forward > pressure are also hosed, as well as the wall decks relying on AR as > their ousting mechanism. You mean those turbo speed death decks that oust their first prey in about 5 minutes flat? And then probably don't get another VP? Those decks? Yeah, I guess they got "hosed" too. Your point? If you think about it, you'll see that the AR change has made wall decks even *more* playable. It's really my only reservation about the change. Personally I'm usually trying to beat the crap out of someone and don't care so much about intercept, but I'm not sure it's an archetype that should be encouraged further than it already is. [ quoted text not captured ]

Johannes Walch wrote: > > No. They were banned because, among other reasons, no alternative text > > was found to be acceptable. If an acceptable text could have been > > found, KR and DU would probably have been reprinted with alternative > > text. > > They were plenty of acceptable suggestions on the newsgroup. Acceptable to you isn't the same as acceptable to the person who actually makes the design decisions. > And the > argument I cited was given, that´s 100% sure. I'd like to see that message. The only way Scott or I would have said that KR and DU were banned because "we don't want errata" would have been in the context of someone asking us why we didn't just errata the card. Also, since you don't recognize that there is a difference between errata and reprinting with new text, you are likely to misinterpret what was actually said. Errata and "Reprinting with new text" are two different tools in the designer's toolbelt. Both have their appropriate uses. > >>This year another staple card AR is wallpaperized with an errata. > > > > > > Whether a card is or is not a "staple" card has nothing to do with > > whether a card is appropriate and balanced. Return to Innocence was a > > "staple" at one time as well. > > Yes, but if a card is staple an errate should be even more well-considered. I would think so, yes. However, I have no reason to believe it wasn't "even more well-considered". > > For the record, repriting cards with new text is not errata. > > But has about the same effect, doesn´t it? Depends on your point of view. Changing text during reprinting is a convenient time to fix cards that need fixing. Errata could have been issued to AR a long time ago but then you have the sticky issue of the cards not doing what they say they do--certainly a negative when you are a new player. -Robert

"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:1108748431....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Johannes Walch wrote: >> This year another staple card AR is wallpaperized with an errata. > > Whether a card is or is not a "staple" card has nothing to do with > whether a card is appropriate and balanced. Return to Innocence was a > "staple" at one time as well. A quibble about terminology: Return to Innocence was simply overpowered, as opposed to being a staple. It got used a lot _because_ it was overpowered, but I think it's confusing to refer to as a "stable" due to point. A card is a "staple" when it is heavily used for a common purpose and was so intended by the designers. This can be perceived by players by things like being issued as a common, especially in a base set and by having relatively low usage requirements or none at all. I realize Return to Innocence didn't have any formal requirement but the remove-from-game effect can be thought of as an extreme requirement since players have to be very careful about their timing, for instance. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message > news:1108748431....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Johannes Walch wrote: > >> This year another staple card AR is wallpaperized with an errata. > > > > Whether a card is or is not a "staple" card has nothing to do with > > whether a card is appropriate and balanced. Return to Innocence was a > > "staple" at one time as well. > > A quibble about terminology: Return to Innocence was simply overpowered, > as opposed to being a staple. It got used a lot _because_ it was > overpowered, but I think it's confusing to refer to as a "stable" due > to point. Fair enough. I think terminology is important enough to quibble about. RTI was a bad example. Please remove the statement, 'Return to Innocence was a 'staple' at one time as well,' from the official record and let the previous sentence stand on its own. :) -Robert

"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:1108750844....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... Johannes Walch wrote: > > > For the record, repriting cards with new text is not errata. > > > > But has about the same effect, doesn´t it? > > Depends on your point of view. Changing text during reprinting is a > convenient time to fix cards that need fixing. Errata could have been > issued to AR a long time ago but then you have the sticky issue of the > cards not doing what they say they do--certainly a negative when you > are a new player. Apart from the issue of whether changing AR was a good or bad thing, whether this particular change was appropriate, I have to say I agree with Johannes's point about this for the most part. There's not too much difference between errata and reprinting, especially at first and when the reprinting is issued on a single copy of reprint card in a single precon deck. Some times you gotta do it, I suppose, just like some times you have to issue errata when the change is needed in very short order. But a few copies of Anarch Revolt with the correct wording floating around is not going to do much over just plain errata in terms of preventing new player (or older player) confusion. It's a cost that should be taken into account whenever changes are considered. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes. cheers, Luiz Mello

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:cv5a6r$prf$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net... >> No. They were banned because, among other reasons, no alternative text >> was found to be acceptable. If an acceptable text could have been >> found, KR and DU would probably have been reprinted with alternative >> text. > > They were plenty of acceptable suggestions on the newsgroup. And the > argument I cited was given, that´s 100% sure. > >>>This year another staple card AR is wallpaperized with an errata. >> >> >> Whether a card is or is not a "staple" card has nothing to do with >> whether a card is appropriate and balanced. Return to Innocence was a >> "staple" at one time as well. > > Yes, but if a card is staple an errate should be even more > well-considered. Are you saying that Anarch Revolt is a staple, and that this "staple" status puts it above errata or banning? Perhaps we should create an entire elite class of cards that should simple be above review. You could lead a campaign. "Just Say, No LSJ" could be your slogan. Are you saying that Anarch Revolt did not have an effect disproportionate to its cost? Are you saying that Return to Innocence caused a loss of pool that was disproportionalte to the effect of Anarch Revolt? >> I'm just guessing here, but I imagine that the lead designer witnessed >> on his own or otherwise heard about alleged problems with Anarch >> Revolt. He became convinced that AR was unacceptable in its current >> form (whether that be "overpowered" or whatever). He found new text >> that he believed would fix the card. He created the new card with the >> new text. > > Sometimes I wish Richard Garfield was back into V:TES. And what would that do for the game? Another player is always good, but there is quite a difference between a creative mind and a judicious mind. Richard Garfield created the game, but there were many problems with it. Beyond that he really doesn't care about its existance. I have never seen him at a tournament ever. I have never heard him say anything about it other than "(he) is glad that people are still playing". An apathetic rules team is a bad rules team. It smacks of saying something like "I wish Ryan Dancey was back into VTES". LSJ has judged the game and found it lacking in many ways. He has worked to repair those flaws. >> For the record, repriting cards with new text is not errata. > > But has about the same effect, doesn´t it? Is the effect good or bad? >> If it'd shut you up, I'd give you a random reason. :) >> >> But seriously folks... >> >> Are you really that perplexed about the AR change? Aren't most people's >> reactions something more along the lines of "it is about time!" > > Yes I am. Interesting, why? > KR,DU,SC,AR. What´s next? Kine Resources? Kindred Spirits? Parity Shift? > Immortal Grapple? Looks 2much like Magic in my books ... The list is far longer than that. There are something like 900 functional card changes since 1994, but this one piques your interest. As for looking like Magic they are similar in many respects (cards, pictures, rules, values, numbers, etc...) so unless you are more specific you are stating something that is a given fact. [ quoted text not captured ]

Robert Goudie wrote: >I usually think of these changes in another way. When >errata or new card text nerfs one of my pet decks I >recognize that the reason I made the deck in the first >place was because I found some loophole or unbalanced >combo to exploit. The closing of the loophole or fixing of >the unbalanced card just reaffirms my own high opinion of >the power of the card/loophole/combo. Robert, I love this! Why get mad? The change only proves that I am smart! rock on! Jay

<pd...@lightlink.com> schreef in bericht news:1108749405.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > >> as well as the wall decks relying on AR as their ousting mechanism. > > Umm, no. It just makes it work better. Now the wall deck can intercept > it's prey's attempts to go Anarch so they keep taking damage, but > everyone else at the table don't get plowed under by the ARs. This > change makes AR *much* better as an ousting mechanism for a wall deck > than it used to be. It doesn't do collaterall damage to the rest of the > table. > still can screw with the table if your cross-table "buddy" plays with a deck in wich every vamp has a title, if he plays without Anarch Secession.

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message > news:1108750844....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Johannes Walch wrote: > > > > For the record, repriting cards with new text is not errata. > > > > > > But has about the same effect, doesn´t it? > > > > Depends on your point of view. Changing text during reprinting is a > > convenient time to fix cards that need fixing. Errata could have been > > issued to AR a long time ago but then you have the sticky issue of the > > cards not doing what they say they do--certainly a negative when you > > are a new player. > > Apart from the issue of whether changing AR was a good or bad thing, > whether this particular change was appropriate, I have to say I agree > with Johannes's point about this for the most part. Either way, though, when speaking in the context of someone claiming that Scott or I said we don't want anymore errata, it is only important to know whether or not Scott or I thinks of them as two distinct options having distinct reasons to apply one solution or the other. Since you know that I think of errata as one tool that is used in some instances and not others and that repriting with errata is a different tool that is used in different situations, you would understand my meaning more clearly if I were to claim to be trying to avoid "errata". You wouldn't take that statement to mean that a text migration was somehow less likely to occur and you certainly wouldn't feel as though you'd been deceived if I were to issue migrated text. -Robert (who makes no errata or migration decisions anyway)

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, but sometimes I take it too far and think that weather changes or clothing changes prove I am smart. :) -Robert

"Clément" wrote >> >> No. > > Yes. > > cheers, No yes or plain old yes yes? Not clear enough :o)

"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:1108753185.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Either way, though, when speaking in the context of someone claiming > that Scott or I said we don't want anymore errata, it is only important > to know whether or not Scott or I thinks of them as two distinct > options having distinct reasons to apply one solution or the other. > > Since you know that I think of errata as one tool that is used in some > instances and not others and that repriting with errata is a different > tool that is used in different situations, you would understand my > meaning more clearly if I were to claim to be trying to avoid "errata". > You wouldn't take that statement to mean that a text migration was > somehow less likely to occur and you certainly wouldn't feel as though > you'd been deceived if I were to issue migrated text. I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at but if you mean might do things in a certain way with respect a certain card because, for instance, there was not the sort of urgency required to merit outright errata and therefore you were "avoiding errata" in such a case, then I agree. Taking such a statement and proferring it here as evidence that you were contradicting yourselves (I hope no one is suggesting outright deceit - just maybe something about waffling about priorities was more what I got out of what Johannes wrote) would be a misunderstanding of your intent. One way or another, I'm pretty sure Johannes was wrong to imply what he did. I read a bunch of stuff posted by LSJ and yourself about the DU/KR/SC bannings and I never saw any promises to avoid errata OR reprinting with changed text in the future when an approrpiate change can be identified. (Need to pay attention to those all-important caveats...) Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message > One way or another, I'm pretty sure Johannes was wrong to imply what he > did. I read a bunch of stuff posted by LSJ and yourself about the DU/KR/SC > bannings and I never saw any promises to avoid errata OR reprinting with > changed text in the future when an approrpiate change can be identified. If anything, I probably hinted too openly that the AR change was imminent. :) http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e00f6f6578dc1824 > (Need to pay attention to those all-important caveats...) There's always a caveat. :) -Robert

[ quoted text not captured ] oops! sorry for that! =) I mean yes yes. I thought it was about time AR was fixed and liked very much the way they did it. regards, Luiz Mello

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > <pd...@lightlink.com> schreef in bericht > news:1108749405.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > > still can screw with the table if your cross-table "buddy" plays with a deck > in wich every vamp has a title, if he plays without Anarch Secession. true. but the way it was before the fix it would screw your cross-table buddy almost for sure. and the entire table too. cheers, Luiz Mello

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > D. It is a good card for wall decks to use to oust their prey--play > multiple ARs, block your prey's actions to go Anarch so they keep > taking damage, but leave everyone else alone so they can go Anarch and > avoid the damage--AR becomes a viable targeted oust mechanism, rather > than a monkey with a machine gun. > > -Peter That's a great point. All of a sudden AR becomes a really nice tool for a wall deck (or a rush deck). Too often the prey of a good wall or rush deck will turle, taking no actions (or even bringing out any minions) and wait for her predator to be ousted. I think I like the new AR more. :-)

[ quoted text not captured ] To follow on this even more... For a Wall deck, there are at most 2 players who can call votes to burn off the AR without Eagle's Sight. One of those, your grand-prey, is not likely to want light pressure off of their predator. Your grand-predator might be happy to see you block your own predator's attempts at going Anarch to avoid the pain as well. It seems to be in their best interests to let your mutual enemies fend for themselves. ;) Jeff

> A. Anarch Revolt was only a "staple" card for completely demolishing > table balance situations, and arbitrarily making other people win. > > B. AR being errataed makes Antedeluvian Awakening a *much* more useful > card. > > C. AR is now, rather than a carpet bombing strategy, a card that is > really useful for hosing political decks that are pretty powerful in > and of themselves but can't reliably go Anarch. Totally agree with all the above. > D. It is a good card for wall decks to use to oust their prey--play > multiple ARs, block your prey's actions to go Anarch so they keep > taking damage, but leave everyone else alone so they can go Anarch and > avoid the damage--AR becomes a viable targeted oust mechanism, rather > than a monkey with a machine gun. "Monkey with a machine gun"... best description of AR *ever* :) Yep I see this as a great change. Slaps around those awful Anson-AR decks some, stops them from ruining a table... and lets wall decks actually oust people :)

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > still can screw with the table if your cross-table "buddy" plays with a deck > in wich every vamp has a title, if he plays without Anarch Secession. Sure. But no more so than AR was already screwing them. Old AR: Everyone gets screwed. Playing AR was most likely to make someone else random win as not. New AR: Most likely only your prey gets screwed, as you can control if they become Anarchs or not (assuming you build your deck to do so,and in all likelyhood, decks that use AR will be built to do so). "Only your prey gets screwed" is *good* for the game, and good for you, as it makes it far more likely that you will oust your prey and the card is now much less likely to randomly oust someone across the table and make someone else win. And it doesn't hurt you either, as if you are playing AR, you likely have ways to become Anarch in your deck. Yeah, ok. Sometimes, your prey will have Galaricks Legacy in their deck. You are hosed. Sometimes someone across the table will have all titled vampires and no way to go Anarch and they are hosed. Sometimes you get hosed. That happens. In the grand scheme, though, AR is now a card that has limits and controls--it doesn't hurt you (good!); it doesn't have to oust people across the table (good!); you can control, in most situations, if your prey can become an Anarch so you can control them taking damage (good!). All of this makes AR a *much* better card in all directions, for the people playing and for the people being hit by it. Intercept Wall decks are now *much* more viable, which is likely handy--they can get that 1 important VP early by ousting their prey with ARs (by keeping them from going Anarch with intercept), and then sit on themselves and win with 3VPs (1 from early oust, 2 from being last man standing), but without randomly killing people all over the table. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

Warpath wrote: > That's a great point. All of a sudden AR becomes a really nice tool > for a wall deck (or a rush deck). Too often the prey of a good wall or > rush deck will turle, taking no actions (or even bringing out any > minions) and wait for her predator to be ousted. I think I like the > new AR more. :-) I think it is a *much* better card now, in both a "useful" sense and in a "not destroying the table randomly" sense. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > C. AR is now, rather than a carpet bombing strategy, a card that is > > really useful for hosing political decks that are pretty powerful in > > and of themselves but can't reliably go Anarch. > > Totally agree with all the above. > > > D. It is a good card for wall decks to use to oust their prey--play > > multiple ARs, block your prey's actions to go Anarch so they keep > > taking damage, but leave everyone else alone so they can go Anarch > and > > avoid the damage--AR becomes a viable targeted oust mechanism, rather > > than a monkey with a machine gun. Better yet, it gives an edge to Anarch vote decks as opposed to Camarilla and Sabbat : these will have to choose between losing potential perm votes (no Anarch will go Prince if it's not planned at deckbuilding...) or losing pool. While the others at the table will just have to spend an action. And this is so fitting to the theme : - the Anarchs Revolt ; there will be damage - if you prevent anyone from joining their ranks, everyone will suffer equally - if some factions include an Anarch, they won't suffer ; getting a mole (!) in their faction can do just that - and of course, the ones suffering the most are the Titled. They'll have to use their Pool Gain Machine, yes they will. Gotta love it. --------- Orpheus

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Johannes Walch wrote: |> |>> Last year the staple cards KR and DU were banned and not changed |>> because "we do not want more erratas". |>> |>> This year another staple card AR is wallpaperized with an errata. | | Maybe you missed the post below. Now everybody goes anarch with a little | vampire and your AR strategy is well, screwed, I would say. Consider making a bruise/bleed deck (Ignore the "B&B fails" crowd, I've been playing them for many years and mine _do_ win; but I build 'em differently than that argument thinks they should be built) and slap a bunch of Galaric's and Anarch Revolts into it. Turn 2-3: Galaric's your first minion and start dropping ARs. The table responds "ACCCCK!" and immediately everyone goes Anarch. Turn 4-6: Bleed for small amounts, make more minions Galaric's, drop more Anarchs. Turn 7: Rush and kill your prey's Anarch. Bleed with everyone else. He gets nailed for 3-4 pool on his untap, before he can make another -- and you're going to kill THAT one next turn too. Everyone else is fine. ~ Now admittedly, you have just become the table threat, but to what degree? Do they waste time voting away your Anarchs? (+++ for you) Do they make ALL their guys Anarchs? (+++ for you) Sure, it won't be the new Stealth/Bleed or anything. But do NOT make the mistake of thinking it's wallpaper. It's an excellent offensive boost for Anarch decks, who will be able to selectively control who gets hit and who doesn't. Multiple MPAs will probably be necessary, but Parthenon works as well as it ever did. If you really want to sleaze your way to success, pick big guys, make a vote deck, and Banish your prey's Anarch after you get the Big Kaboom set up. | Anarch Revolt: Only Methuselahs who do not control ready Anarchs are | affected. Key word... ready. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCFnXYtQZlu3o7QpERAhvaAKCrdD1EYeFLW7R/3fImjEj96IzDbwCeKTNZ ZR1XBc50KzDp4kHqqBaK5cE= =Tevz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article <hCpRd.1314$FO....@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, robtreasure'remove'@ntlworld.com says... > Sure enough the 'old' strategy is up the wazoo but there does appear to be > others springing up from the flames. > Don't get me wrong I am against this change, I don't think it was needed but > it does present a few new options. Let's be fair, man. The "old strategy" was shit to play against crosstable. All I've got to add is "it's about goddamn time". -- -Snapcase

> Old AR: Everyone gets screwed. Playing AR was most likely to make someone > else random win as not. Strange play in your environment, I guess. In my environment I experienced the old AR as a precise instrument for ousting the prey of the AR player more than often. -- johannes walch

[ quoted text not captured ] I guess the main issue is that the way it were, it required too much careful planning on part of the AR's player to not completely screw the game for those who would be otherwise his crosstable allies. I've seen it used twice. One player knew the dangers of playing it and made the usual Anson Masters deck with its key card - Life Boon. He made the finals at SAC 2004. Note that he didn't won, even drawing a Protected Resources early that hose completely his sneaky bleed predator. Unfortunately for him, his next predator was a Free States Rant/Form of Corruption Setite deck. The other made a Pander vote deck with a few Consanguinous Boon but no Life Boon. No amount of careful dealing to give Con Boons to crosstable players guaranteed his success in playing ARs. More often than not, I've seen it die horribly without ousting more than one player and screwing the rest in the proccess. The table gangs up on him and the better poolgain module gets a sweep or at least 4 VPs. The few times I've seen it win it seemed that was completely by chance - other died in an order that favored him. I'm on the "way past due" camp. And particularly happy that the card has been changed in time before too many local players could get their hands on the necessary number of Golcondas to play Anson this way. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor ----------------------------------------------------- V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now) http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/

As far as I can see, the decision has been made to make the Predator/Prey relationship the staple of the game. Since this seems to be at the philosophical basis of the game, dating back to Garfield's creation of the game, I don't see the problem. To follow the Magic example for a moment, the ban and delete cards frequently. The nature of this type of game allows for new combinations and synergies to emerge, and game balance is going to require a tweak now and then to keep the majority of the game playable and not degenerative.If one were to make decisons to maintain game playability and balance without reference to the underlying concept of the game, then I could understand being upset by the changes, but as I see it the recent bannings and errata have only reinforced the idea of "I attack to the left and defend to the right". Johannes Walch wrote: > > No. They were banned because, among other reasons, no alternative text > > was found to be acceptable. If an acceptable text could have been > > found, KR and DU would probably have been reprinted with alternative > > text. > > They were plenty of acceptable suggestions on the newsgroup. And the > argument I cited was given, that´s 100% sure. > > >>This year another staple card AR is wallpaperized with an errata. > > > > > > Whether a card is or is not a "staple" card has nothing to do with > > whether a card is appropriate and balanced. Return to Innocence was a > > "staple" at one time as well. > > Yes, but if a card is staple an errate should be even more well-considered. > > > I'm just guessing here, but I imagine that the lead designer witnessed > > on his own or otherwise heard about alleged problems with Anarch > > Revolt. He became convinced that AR was unacceptable in its current > > form (whether that be "overpowered" or whatever). He found new text > > that he believed would fix the card. He created the new card with the > > new text. > > Sometimes I wish Richard Garfield was back into V:TES. > > > For the record, repriting cards with new text is not errata. > > But has about the same effect, doesn´t it? > > > If it'd shut you up, I'd give you a random reason. :) > > > > But seriously folks... > > > > Are you really that perplexed about the AR change? Aren't most people's > > reactions something more along the lines of "it is about time!" > > Yes I am. > > KR,DU,SC,AR. What´s next? Kine Resources? Kindred Spirits? Parity Shift? > Immortal Grapple? Looks 2much like Magic in my books ... > > -- > johannes walch

"Snapcase" wrote in message > >> Sure enough the 'old' strategy is up the wazoo but there does appear to >> be >> others springing up from the flames. >> Don't get me wrong I am against this change, I don't think it was needed >> but >> it does present a few new options. > > Let's be fair, man. The "old strategy" was shit to play against > crosstable. But what about the.... oh and errrm with the thing that does.... OK I give up, it was a steaming heap crosstable :o) For all I dislike errata and banning this is pretty much the best possible change (can. not. say. fix.) for the card. Anyone can argue what they like but there has obviously been a lot of thought gone into the function of the new card. Rob

Loughman wrote: > As far as I can see, the decision has been made to make the > Predator/Prey relationship the staple of the game. Since this seems to > be at the philosophical basis of the game, dating back to Garfield's > creation of the game, I don't see the problem. To follow the Magic > example for a moment, the ban and delete cards frequently. The nature > of this type of game allows for new combinations and synergies to > emerge, and game balance is going to require a tweak now and then to > keep the majority of the game playable and not degenerative.If one were > to make decisons to maintain game playability and balance without > reference to the underlying concept of the game, then I could > understand being upset by the changes, but as I see it the recent > bannings and errata have only reinforced the idea of "I attack to the > left and defend to the right". And I always found that a few possibilities to disrupt the static pred/prey relationships made the game so special and good. If the pred/prey relationship gets more important I suppose that the importance of "table playing" will get less and less and we will end up in a dumb combating left to win and combating right to survive struggle. I suppose the general problem is that there is a bunch of people that separate the game in 2 groups of decks, the "honorable decks" (mostly combat, probably wall, bruise and bleed and some trick decks) and the "sleazy dirty decks" (stealth&bleed, anson ar (now dead), arika&friends etc..). There is no aparent logic for me to do so, I have always loved to play with and against any type of deck no matter what. If I lost against Anson AR, well then my deck wasn´t well prepared enough against the Eternal Struggle I would say. It can be as frustrating to get all of your minions beat up by a weenie POT deck (esp. if it is crosstable and the result of a 1 VP deal for the weenie POT player, harming the all so important pred/prey relationship) as it can be frustrating to play against Anson AR, that is the nature of the game. But instead of trying to build balanced decks AND learn to play tables those people just whine so loud and long until their most hated arche-types get destroyed by erratas. Unfortunately the design team seems to be influenced by constant whining, so I probably start to do so myself ... (haven´t I allready? hopefully I find more people jumping on the "sleazy is good" train). -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch wrote: > Sometimes I wish Richard Garfield was back into V:TES. > > johannes walch 1) the game richard garfield designed was seriously flawed (no NRA, vote push, card issues DBR+ zip gun, fame, pulled fangs etc) LSJ, Robert goudie and others paved the way for the success vtes enjoys now. 2) you often complained that vtes is quite static (and i agreed) but currently LSJ is sprinting like carl lewis in his best times and tackling problems that have existed way to long. i think that both major changes (DU/KR+AR) will in the long run benefit the game. Many players cried out when the 7/7 rulings were announced, but they turned out to be beneficial. so your ar deck won´t work anymore same with your price kr deck, get over it and build new decks. and don´t cry for change and then cry again because you don´t like the changes a lot of stuff LSJ does maybe could be done better, but i think he deserves a little respect and appreciation for what he already did for vtes stefan

Robert Goudie wrote: > But seriously folks... > > Are you really that perplexed about the AR change? Aren't most people's > reactions something more along the lines of "it is about time!" > Yes! G

If I may ask, cos I'm quite puzzled, why was Anarch Revolt errata'd? -- Colin "Eryx" Goodman Samedi Primogen Cambridge UK http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.html

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:41:46 GMT, "Colin Goodman" <colin.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >If I may ask, No, you may not ask. Start here: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Type in "Anarch Revolt" in the Search This Group box. Choose Sort by date when the results are displayed. Start reading. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com Your best online source for information about V:TES. Now also featuring individual card sales and sales of booster and starter box displays.

Ok, I think I've found what I'm after but... is it just me or was this done simply to replace one set of strategies with another? Its late so brain probably not working all that well. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 04:22:00 GMT, "Colin Goodman" <colin.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >Ok, I think I've found what I'm after but... is it just me or was this done >simply to replace one set of strategies with another? Its late so brain >probably not working all that well. It was done to replace an absence of interaction with interaction. Dropping 3 Anarch Revolts per turn isn't good for a strategy game unless there is some interaction with the rest of the table. The new card text will cause interaction. [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5g0g11lkknbsrtrmq...@4ax.com... > On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:41:46 GMT, "Colin Goodman" > <colin.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > >>If I may ask, > > No, you may not ask. Ok.... *Puzzled* > Start here: > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > A hint where to start? I've found plenty on the change to Rotschrek, but I can't find anything on the reason for the errata to AR. [ quoted text not captured ]

Colin Goodman wrote: > A hint where to start? I've found plenty on the change to Rotschrek, but I > can't find anything on the reason for the errata to AR. It was changed because (among a fair share of people) the lead (and sole) designer of the game thought it was about time to change it. More pecific reasons* : - The card is overpowered - The card requires no brain to play - The card destroys the table *Please note that I am a no-supporter of this reasons, I just state them to clarify things for you. -- johannes walch

In message <BE3BD52F.1D83F%pd...@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >New AR: Most likely only your prey gets screwed, as you can control if they >become Anarchs or not (assuming you build your deck to do so,and in all >likelyhood, decks that use AR will be built to do so). "Only your prey gets >screwed" is *good* for the game, and good for you, as it makes it far more >likely that you will oust your prey and the card is now much less likely to >randomly oust someone across the table and make someone else win. And it >doesn't hurt you either, as if you are playing AR, you likely have ways to >become Anarch in your deck. You are also, IMO, much more likely to find cross-table interaction/assistance more achievable. Since - chances are - at least a couple of people aren't being affected, if you do find yourself taking a few Anarch Revolts from hell, you may well find a cross-table ally with a teeny-weeny anarch who's much more likely to be able to help you than in the previous incarnation, where everyone had to scramble hard to avoid death if they couldn't pass the burn votes reliably. -- James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?" 13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

In message <cv7071$62h$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >And I always found that a few possibilities to disrupt the static >pred/prey relationships made the game so special and good. If the >pred/prey relationship gets more important I suppose that the >importance of "table playing" will get less and less and we will end up >in a dumb combating left to win and combating right to survive >struggle. No, the importance of table playing is still high. However, your wishes for Richard Garfield to be back in the game are at odds with this. Richard is specifically against games where interaction is too free (his writings about the creation of Jyhad confirm this) and wanted a game where players might have incentives to attack other players but which were not rewarded with pool or VPs. During creation, a number of people suggested that the pool and/or VP should go to the Methuselah performing the oust (not the predator). This was specifically denied. The existence of table-switching mechanics undermines this, in that it makes the death blow give the XP/pool to a "cross-table" Methuselah. It's just that you have to pass a Dramatic Upheaval first. Bearing in mind that, for instance, one anecdote he brings forward involves two players at the same table playing Political Backlash on the same vote, it is plausible (though by no means certain) that playtesting underestimated how easy vote push could be. The need to fix the rules so that only one PA card could be used for a vote by a Methuselah per action suggests that some 'power vote' strategies didn't come up in playtesting much, and that the power of Dramatic Upheaval (say) was perceived to be much lower than it was in reality because it was much harder to pass (relative to the game as she is played now). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:39:27 +0100, Stefan Ferenci <nos...@thankyou.com> wrote: > Johannes Walch wrote: > >> Sometimes I wish Richard Garfield was back into V:TES. >> > >> johannes walch > > 1) the game richard garfield designed was seriously flawed (no NRA, vote > push, card issues DBR+ zip gun, fame, pulled fangs etc) LSJ, Robert > goudie and others paved the way for the success vtes enjoys now. I disagree. The foundation of the game - the backbone, if you wish - has been established back then. The fleshing out - well, that is another issue. The game was originally unbalanced (as if it was not playtested enough, at least for its complexity), but the basics were good enough to keep this game rolling despite the unbalances. > 2) you often complained that vtes is quite static (and i agreed) but > currently LSJ is sprinting like carl lewis in his best times and > tackling problems that have existed way to long. i think that both major > changes (DU/KR+AR) will in the long run benefit the game. Many players > cried out when the 7/7 rulings were announced, but they turned out to be > beneficial. so your ar deck won´t work anymore same with your price kr > deck, get over it and build new decks. and don´t cry for change and > then cry again because you don´t like the changes Actuall, I kind of agree. I didn't see any reason to change AR, because I did not think it was overpowered. But as much as it wasn't overpowered in my book, neither was it interesting. Now it is still not overpowered, but at least quite interesting. So I see the change as an ultimately beneficial one. > a lot of stuff LSJ does maybe could be done better, but i think he > deserves a little respect and appreciation for what he already did for > vtes Yeah, true. Give him all the credit that is due, but don't give him the credit that isn't his. Does his job well, probably could do it better (provision 1: better obviously equals more along the lines of what I'd like to see; provision 2: I'm glad that I don't have to do what he does, I would have probably slain a number of fans, myself included, in his shoes). -- Bye, Daneel

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:34:21 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <Z7iSd.65$Bw...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, Rob Treasure > <robtreasure'remove'@ntlworld.com> writes: >> "James Coupe" wrote >>> No, the importance of table playing is still high. >> >> Personally I think this element of the game is slowly on the wane. > > Probably, yes. But then, I think that in certain areas it probably was > too high - particularly, the potential for spectacular social abuse[0] > with Succubus Club. Indeed. I'm all for people learning to play the game, instead of playing other players. But that might just be me... -- Bye, Daneel

"James Coupe" wrote [snip] > No, the importance of table playing is still high. Personally I think this element of the game is slowly on the wane. Many games I have played and watched have a greatly reduced amount of this and even if it is present, the value and fruitfulness of it is much lower. Focus decks are all powerful now imo and it is all about (maybe quite rightly?) head down left and defend right. Desirable to some (most?) maybe but as you know 'table playing' as you put it is one of my favourite aspects. Will be a funny old day indeed when V:TES is more like a sit down boardgame. Hmmmm hmmmm and hmmmm Rob

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:23:58 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <opsmipcg...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> I disagree. The foundation of the game - the backbone, if you wish - >> has >> been established back then. The fleshing out - well, that is another >> issue. The game was originally unbalanced (as if it was not playtested >> enough, at least for its complexity), but the basics were good enough >> to keep this game rolling despite the unbalances. > > IMO, this is slightly rose tinted glasses. > > Gangrel infinite loops (with or without Fame), 90 KRC vote push weenie > decks, bleed/Majesty if blocked/bleed again, and a few other deck styles > were sufficiently wrong that without some heavy intervention, either > official or wildly adopted unofficial rules-sets (e.g. Golden Tenets), > the game wouldn't have been able to keep rolling. > > Similar problems happened with Tomb, Thoughts Betrayed and Return to > Innocence - though by then Garfield was gone. What you mention are specific flaws. What I'm talking about is a game about ingeniously limited basic resources, a novel predator-prey circular relationship, and excellent source material. Initially most card games have huge flaws. But flaws with particular cards or specific fine print rules are one thing; a flawed game concept is another. I'm just calling a spade a spade. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" wrote > What you mention are specific flaws. What I'm talking about is a game > about ingeniously limited basic resources, a novel predator-prey > circular relationship, and excellent source material. > > Initially most card games have huge flaws. But flaws with particular > cards or specific fine print rules are one thing; a flawed game > concept is another. I'm just calling a spade a spade. ;) That's a fair point. I think the fact that there is a lot of messing with the fundamental mechanics now is a slippy slope that might end in a bit of a bucket of shit. Time will tell I guess. Rob

In message <Z7iSd.65$Bw...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, Rob Treasure <robtreasure'remove'@ntlworld.com> writes: >"James Coupe" wrote >> No, the importance of table playing is still high. > >Personally I think this element of the game is slowly on the wane. Probably, yes. But then, I think that in certain areas it probably was too high - particularly, the potential for spectacular social abuse[0] with Succubus Club. >Many >games I have played and watched have a greatly reduced amount of this and >even if it is present, the value and fruitfulness of it is much lower. Matt Green, when refraining from making me spit coke all over my keyboard at work with his suggestion of Reinforcements/Sybil's Tongue (a combination that had never occurred to me) mentioned the possibility of Life Boon as the most powerful card in V:TES, post changes, on the WW forums. (Pre-KMW, obviously.) Now, I think that might be overstating the mark somewhat, but I know what he's getting at. The possibility for some very careful table manipulation followed by Life Boon to replace some of the functionality lost with the loss of Dramatic Upheaval (and Kindred Restructure, but I can't remember the last time I saw someone play that[1]) is plausible, if risky. >Focus >decks are all powerful now imo and it is all about (maybe quite rightly?) >head down left and defend right. Desirable to some (most?) maybe but as you >know 'table playing' as you put it is one of my favourite aspects. Depends on what you mean by "focus". I think that toolbox decks still have a lot of potential, and I think that decks that include "bribes" of whatever form still have potential i.e. things you can 'reward' people with, or bribe them with, to do things you can't, or simply to hold off for a little while. One point LSJ has raised is the use of the Trophy mechanism to do that, and it'll be interesting to see how (if at all) any of the powerful Trophies lead to table agitation. A titled deck with a few Red List creation cards as a throw-away inclusion might be fun. Anathema (the vote card) is still an interesting throw-away inclusion, too. Anyone fancy bringing down, oh... Arika? >Will be a funny old day indeed when V:TES is more like a sit down boardgame. >Hmmmm hmmmm and hmmmm Well, in some areas of the world, this does seem to happen rather more than others. At least, over the last ten years or so. e.g. bits of Europe headed at some point for fairly vanilla stealth bleed, bits of America did a lot with highly focused rush, the UK (and David Tatu) had some of the scarier uses of Jedi mind tricks to control the table. And this all moved around a bit at times. I remember the language from a couple of Southampton players - you, or possibly Steve, I forget - the day they tried a Peter Bakija-style rush deck (12 IG, 8 Bums Rush, 4 Havens, Potence, Celerity, Potence, Celerity and, uh, more Potence etc.), as it left them with absolutely no versatility beyond combat which they really, really wanted. So, some wane of one popular set of tactics isn't too troubling, so long as the potential for them to come back is there. Is the potential still there? Succubus Club's banning doesn't bother me too much. A mild card trading mechanism might be interesting, if something could be concocted. Of course, the more important cards for this are DR and KU, as they tend to involve rather more table play instead of just finding an ally who's willing to bend over for you. I would like to see some significant table agitation abilities brought back in to compensate for the loss of DU. For instance, I think that Political Flux had the potential to be an interesting card for that - partly hampered ironically by the potential for a KR to come in and swoop down on the last few pool you needed to get rid of, and partly because it's not that strong a card. But it's the sort of thing that, if better executed, could get a table thinking "Hmmm", and negotiating and counter-negotiating. But I'd definitely like to see some new curve balls for politics, that are significantly playable whilst being a step away from the "create votes, create pool, remove pool" triumvirate (e.g. Praxis Seizure, Parity Shift, KRC). Which isn't to say there aren't useful cards outside that triumvirate - of course there are (e.g. Archon) - but that, IMO, the potential for table agitation is lower. And, IMO, it was the curveball aspect of politics that Garfield liked (from my reading of his article on the creation of Jyhad), and I'd like to see some more of that re-worked into the game, to allow political decks to throw a table into a spin every now and then. Cards possibly with in-built potential for weirdness (e.g. I like the mechanism in Blood Siege for gaining votes by burning blood, even though I'm not a big fan of the card) and powerful but offbeat abilities, that sort of thing. Of course, there might be something neat in KMW - I haven't seen many cards yet other than the few partial spoilers out there. [0] i.e. the possibility for simply ganging up on someone with a friend on the table. [1] Largely because DU was better. You didn't need a Prince or Justicar, so it worked fine in non-Camarilla decks, and you were far more likely to be able to convince people not to block, if you could find a plausible situation that might be in their interests. Whereas KR meant that anything was possible, which seemed to make people want to block it more, even if you claimed you were just going to swap seats with <X>. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Rob Treasure" <robtreasure'remove'@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:2MjSd.192$Bw5...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net... [ quoted text not captured ] > slope that might end in a bit [of a mess]. AR is a card, not a fundamental mechanic. "a lot"? The "slippery slope" of changing cards that are out of line (instead of just merely the "most powerful" at a given time) is not much of a slope but rather a line in the sand (a wide, fuzzy, gray line, but still :-). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

In message <opsmipcg...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >I disagree. The foundation of the game - the backbone, if you wish - >has > been established back then. The fleshing out - well, that is another > issue. The game was originally unbalanced (as if it was not playtested > enough, at least for its complexity), but the basics were good enough > to keep this game rolling despite the unbalances. IMO, this is slightly rose tinted glasses. Gangrel infinite loops (with or without Fame), 90 KRC vote push weenie decks, bleed/Majesty if blocked/bleed again, and a few other deck styles were sufficiently wrong that without some heavy intervention, either official or wildly adopted unofficial rules-sets (e.g. Golden Tenets), the game wouldn't have been able to keep rolling. Similar problems happened with Tomb, Thoughts Betrayed and Return to Innocence - though by then Garfield was gone. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:08:42 -0500, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: >> That's a fair point. I think the fact that there is a lot of messing >> with >> the fundamental mechanics now is a slippy >> slope that might end in a bit [of a mess]. > > AR is a card, not a fundamental mechanic. > > "a lot"? > > The "slippery slope" of changing cards that are out of line (instead > of just merely the "most powerful" at a given time) is not much > of a slope but rather a line in the sand (a wide, fuzzy, gray line, > but still :-). I thought... Never mind. I originally wanted to say that the game, as originally designed, was not a flawed game - it was a good game with many flaws. So giving all the credit for where the game stands now to the new lead developer is missing about half the truth. The game had a good backbone, which was (mostly) left intact. (Well, except for the new looks of the cards, but I doubt that was LSJ's doing.) -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsmj11p...@news.chello.hu... > I originally wanted to say that the game, as originally designed, was > not a flawed game - it was a good game with many flaws. So giving all > the credit for where the game stands now to the new lead developer is > missing about half the truth. The game had a good backbone, which was > (mostly) left intact. (Note that my reply wasn't contesting this point.) Sprinkle IMOs liberally below: Quite right. Maybe more than half. The game has to be good at its foundation to support expansions. As a general rule, anyway. Not to say that expansions cannot improve on a base game on a fundamental level (Seafarers of Catan, for example[0]) or that a game cannot be made worse by expansions (pick your poison). Caveats notwithstanding in this case -- the game Garfield designed is indeed a good game and a good backbone for expansion. It's much easier to design expansions for a game when the game has a solid foundation. Designing a game with a solid foundation from scratch takes more work. [0] OK, Settlers was initially designed as what turned out to be the base game and the Seafarers expansion, but the point would still hold if that were not the case. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <opsmjpiy...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:34:21 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >wrote: >> Probably, yes. But then, I think that in certain areas it probably was >> too high - particularly, the potential for spectacular social abuse[0] >> with Succubus Club. > >Indeed. I'm all for people learning to play the game, instead of playing > other players. But that might just be me... Playing other players is part of the game as it was conceived. Garfield is strictly against games like Diplomacy, where interaction is too free and too arbitary[0], but appears to be in favour of the possibilities of manipulation, bribery and other forms of social play[1]. Cherry-picking "playing the game" to exclude playing other players misses what the game set out to achieve - representing a strategic war in which personalities and grudges are also factors, not just strict calculation of odds. Missing out the personal factor would have missed a lot of the appeal of the World of Darkness. [0] Hence things like the selection of who can block what, each player having specific (and different) goals in terms of who to oust etc. [1] That is, the play comes from aspects generated between personalities, rather than strictly because of cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:cv9n3f$kfp$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net... > Colin Goodman wrote: >> A hint where to start? I've found plenty on the change to Rotschrek, but I can't find anything on the reason for the errata to >> AR. > > It was changed because (among a fair share of people) the lead (and sole) designer of the game thought it was about time to change > it. > > More pecific reasons* : > > - The card is overpowered > - The card requires no brain to play > - The card destroys the table To clarify, not everyone who complains about this card complains about it for all of these reasons. Many choose only one or two of them, some have other angles about what is "bad" about AR in it's current (that is, pre-KMW) form. To clarify the third reason (and different people will say this in different ways), the complaint was that it would frequently have a hugely random effect shortening the game and producing results that had no particular relevance to player skill - both because of the game shortening effect and because players often feel compelled to gang up on the AR player in order to get rid of the ARs and this breakage of the predator-prey dynamic also tends to produce random results. Of course, the AR players certainly do win some of the games so in theory one can attribute their wins to player skill. But often they do not so many people hold the opinion that the card was "bad". Caveat: not defending the opinion, just filling Colin Goodman in on the argument as I understand it. Fred

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:12:00 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <opsmjpiy...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:34:21 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >> wrote: >>> Probably, yes. But then, I think that in certain areas it probably was >>> too high - particularly, the potential for spectacular social abuse[0] >>> with Succubus Club. >> >> Indeed. I'm all for people learning to play the game, instead of playing >> other players. But that might just be me... > > Playing other players is part of the game as it was conceived. [snip] Well, I see a distinct line between "playing" the other players by creating a hard to predict or apparently weak deck (good) and bullshiting the 2-hour time limit away with things like what you'll do under the table if the other guy saves you with DI or LB or whatnot (not good). I welcome the changes that make the game more linear (as in enforcing the "Prey is to the Left" mantra). The game is balanced to be played like that; too much tabletalk turns it away from being a card game. There are still many options (cross-table rescues or rushes, etc.), but the game is based on the predator-prey relationship - so it should be preserved. -- Bye, Daneel

Frederick Scott wrote: > To clarify, not everyone who complains about this card complains about it > for all of these reasons. Many choose only one or two of them, some have > other angles about what is "bad" about AR in it's current (that is, pre-KMW) > form. To clarify the third reason (and different people will say this in > different ways), the complaint was that it would frequently have a hugely > random effect shortening the game and producing results that had no particular > relevance to player skill - both because of the game shortening effect and > because players often feel compelled to gang up on the AR player in order to > get rid of the ARs and this breakage of the predator-prey dynamic also tends > to produce random results. Of course, the AR players certainly do win some > of the games so in theory one can attribute their wins to player skill. But > often they do not so many people hold the opinion that the card was "bad". > > Caveat: not defending the opinion, just filling Colin Goodman in on the > argument as I understand it. Exactly what I meant, couldn´t have said it better (esp. with my lack of english skills :-/ ) -- johannes walch

In message <opsmkez4...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >Well, I see a distinct line between "playing" the other players by creating > a hard to predict or apparently weak deck (good) and bullshiting the >2-hour > time limit away with things like what you'll do under the table if the >other > guy saves you with DI or LB or whatnot (not good). Bullshitting the time limit away is stalling. Please don't confuse legitimate table and people manipulation tactics with stalling. It does nothing to further any argument, and undermines your credibility. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:43:01 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <opsmkez4...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> Well, I see a distinct line between "playing" the other players by >> creating >> a hard to predict or apparently weak deck (good) and bullshiting the >> 2-hour >> time limit away with things like what you'll do under the table if the >> other >> guy saves you with DI or LB or whatnot (not good). > > Bullshitting the time limit away is stalling. Is it so? Theoretically, maybe. Still, I've never really seen any instance of such behaviour carrying any real repercussions. Because, it usually all goes into the "Well, he's a verbal player" hat. Taking away just a minute or two during each of your predator's and prey's turn by trying to bullshit them adds up to about 20-45 minutes lost to your tabletalk. > Please don't confuse legitimate table and people manipulation tactics > with stalling. It does nothing to further any argument, and undermines > your credibility. Sorry for not basing my arguments solely on theory. I realize the folly of my ways, and my sole defence is my international tournament experience (which shows that what is black and white in writing is often only so with hindsight). So I advise you to stick to the practice and forget the theory (or you may stick to the practice of successfully *implementing* the theory - which is something I haven't really seen done well in such a sensitive case). Until then, the thin line between the technically illegal play of bullshiting away the 2-hour time limit and the technically legal play of obfuscating your actions in a subtle veil of subterfuge are going to remain basically one practically contiguous category. On a sidenote, I'm a big fan of "silent" play. People whom I admire greatly in VTES are people who win with their decks (and their attitude, undoubtedly, but without the chitchat). The folks I admire most are 1) always going left towards the prey, and 2) not chatting or dealing at all (realizing how pointless deals are). This does not mean that the above (that is, the practical inseparability of meaningful and pointless chatter) do not hold. I would probably still be somewhat against overtly verbal play if the time limit issue wouldn't be real, but it's the actual destructiveness of stalling the game that makes me an absolutely no-chat fan. Actually, I've been pondering the idea of introducing persoanal timers into VTES tournaments. When your turn starts or you start talking, you start your clock, and only stop it when you are done. Kind of like pro chess. Highly unimplementable at first glance, but we'll see. -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> schreef in bericht news:opsmlbc0...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] you must be playing another game than me... IMO, good players are: a/ more concerned about getting the Table Win than going to their prey. b/ players who can still get a VP (or 2) out of a lost situation. c/ make the best win-win deals possible. And if you believe that deals are pointless, you just proven yourself unable to grasp the intricacies (sp?) of this game. about your suggestion: you cannot talk against yourself. So if someone is really bullshitting, stop listening and play. If he does it in his own turn: call a judge.

In message <opsmlbc0...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:43:01 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >wrote: >> Bullshitting the time limit away is stalling. > >Is it so? Yes. If you are intentionally bullshitting the time limit away, that's text-book stalling. What's hard about that? >Theoretically, maybe. Read the rules. >Still, I've never really seen any instance > of such behaviour carrying any real repercussions. Because, it usually > all goes into the "Well, he's a verbal player" hat. It is quite plausible that the player is being highly verbal, and not stalling. You seem to have trouble telling the two apart. >Until then, the thin line between the technically illegal play of > bullshiting away the 2-hour time limit and the technically legal play of > obfuscating your actions in a subtle veil of subterfuge are going to > remain basically one practically contiguous category. You call over a judge, and ask him to rule. If necessary, ask the judge to keep note. As a judge with a lot of experience, I can state that this is not difficult. You use your judgement, and possibly issue a low level warning (whichever category fits) to a player. Certainly, if a player is continually attempting to negotiate with people who are saying "Shut up and play", there's a strong argument for stalling. However, if two players are negotiating cross-table, your perceptions of it as bullshitting the time away may be clouded by your prejudice on the issue. >On a sidenote, I'm a big fan of "silent" play. People whom I admire > greatly in VTES are people who win with their decks (and their attitude, > undoubtedly, but without the chitchat). The folks I admire most are > 1) always going left towards the prey, and 2) not chatting or dealing > at all (realizing how pointless deals are). These are perfectly legitimate tactics, and perfect for the right decks. I remember a particularly entertaining stealth-bleed deck winner at a Watford tournament which just ignored all the negotiating on the table and bled. And bled. And bled. Absolutely the right strategy on the day, because he couldn't do shit in a deal-making situation. But what do you expect to happen when three [1/2] Nosferatu decks sit down on the same four player table, using mid-large cap vampires? (I was once part of that table - pre grouping rules, so it was all [1/2], with Legbiter and Pierre in Portsmouth.) Or when two vote decks sit down cross-table, both wanting vote-lock and denying it to the other? Say nothing? That rules out huge amounts of entirely legal, sensible, NECESSARY play. However, a point of view of "how pointless deals are" is highly likely to cloud your view, in that it seems likely you regard lots (potentially all) of legal deal making as bullshitting the time limit away. This may cloud your judgement as to when action has been taken appropriately and when it hasn't. >This does not mean that the > above (that is, the practical inseparability of meaningful and pointless > chatter) do not hold. I would probably still be somewhat against overtly > verbal play if the time limit issue wouldn't be real, It is legal play, however. Confusing issues of negotiations, deal-making and stalling, based on the fact that you like silent play, is unhelpful. >but it's the actual > destructiveness of stalling the game that makes me an absolutely no-chat > fan. You're still confusing stalling and table talk*. Chat is not stalling. Stalling is stalling. Table talk is *part of the game*. It's not stalling the game. It's *supposed to be there*. If you want a game where people sit down, turn over cards and never negotiate, talk, deal, double deal, double cross or one of a plethora of social actions, you are playing the wrong game. This game is supposed to have all those elements - it's representing a war of personalities, not just foot soldiers. The game is not just about moving counters and pieces of card around. It's a multiplayer political game, with a lot of potential for deal making and breaking - that's how it was designed. You don't have to play that angle, sure, just like you don't have to play stealth-bleed or the Toreador. Attempting to effect changes to the game based on your personal appraisal of whether you like such tactics or not is, however, foolhardy. >Actually, I've been pondering the idea of introducing persoanal > timers into VTES tournaments. When your turn starts or you start talking, > you start your clock, and only stop it when you are done. Kind of like > pro chess. Highly unimplementable at first glance, but we'll see. The archive of the group has many points on this. You may find it instructive to do research before repeating the arguments. However, the length of your turn is not under your control[0], and I am unsure why a player who is happy to say "That's me done, your turn" but is slow at pressing a button, for one of a plethora of reasons[1], should be penalised. [0] People trying to intercept you. People considering what cards to play on a vote action. People negotiating a block. Madness Network. And so on. [1] Consider: has just been handed a drink in a pub; has one of many arthritic conditions; is simply slower than someone else; puts their hand down to press the button and knocks their cards onto the floor. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:40:54 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <opsmlbc0...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:43:01 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >> wrote: >>> Bullshitting the time limit away is stalling. >> >> Is it so? > > Yes. If you are intentionally bullshitting the time limit away, that's > text-book stalling. What's hard about that? 1) Detecting, 2) Proving and 3) Preventing. Not much else. ;P >> Theoretically, maybe. > > Read the rules. The rules (tournament rules in this case, to be more specific) do refer to stalling. However, in real life (or real tournament play, whatever) there are few text-book cases. Chatting just enough not to get a game loss / disqualification is still stalling. >> Still, I've never really seen any instance >> of such behaviour carrying any real repercussions. Because, it usually >> all goes into the "Well, he's a verbal player" hat. > > It is quite plausible that the player is being highly verbal, and not > stalling. > > You seem to have trouble telling the two apart. Indeed I do. Because it is impossible to tell apart. At least for the borderline cases which still contribute to time outs. Highly verbal players should IMHO play responsibly and limit the time their verbal activity takes away from the game if a time limit is used. I have no trouble with being verbal (or chatting, bullshitting, etc.) in a friendly game, because it can add to the fun value. Also, I've no problems with tables timing out in general. The time limit is one of the resources you need to carefully spend. But it is also the only resource other players may spend in your stead. >> Until then, the thin line between the technically illegal play of >> bullshiting away the 2-hour time limit and the technically legal play of >> obfuscating your actions in a subtle veil of subterfuge are going to >> remain basically one practically contiguous category. > > You call over a judge, and ask him to rule. If necessary, ask the judge > to keep note. > > As a judge with a lot of experience, I can state that this is not > difficult. You use your judgement, and possibly issue a low level > warning (whichever category fits) to a player. > > Certainly, if a player is continually attempting to negotiate with > people who are saying "Shut up and play", there's a strong argument for > stalling. However, if two players are negotiating cross-table, your > perceptions of it as bullshitting the time away may be clouded by your > prejudice on the issue. Also, they may just be accurate perceptions based on the game state. >> On a sidenote, I'm a big fan of "silent" play. People whom I admire >> greatly in VTES are people who win with their decks (and their attitude, >> undoubtedly, but without the chitchat). The folks I admire most are >> 1) always going left towards the prey, and 2) not chatting or dealing >> at all (realizing how pointless deals are). > > These are perfectly legitimate tactics, and perfect for the right decks. > I remember a particularly entertaining stealth-bleed deck winner at a > Watford tournament which just ignored all the negotiating on the table > and bled. And bled. And bled. Absolutely the right strategy on the > day, because he couldn't do shit in a deal-making situation. > > But what do you expect to happen when three [1/2] Nosferatu decks sit > down on the same four player table, using mid-large cap vampires? (I > was once part of that table - pre grouping rules, so it was all [1/2], > with Legbiter and Pierre in Portsmouth.) Or when two vote decks sit > down cross-table, both wanting vote-lock and denying it to the other? > Say nothing? That rules out huge amounts of entirely legal, sensible, > NECESSARY play. I've been playing vote decks. Most of the games boiled down to either me having vote lock or my predator, prey, etc. having vote lock. In the few games where the table votes were balanced I've found that the game can be won without too much talk. Mature players will vote as is best for them. Even a vote deck can be played with aboslutely NO negotiation, even without a vote lock. That's my experience. I'm not saying it should be played in such a way, or that it is most fun when played in such a way, but it is certainly possible to play in such a way and still be effective. > However, a point of view of "how pointless deals are" is highly likely > to cloud your view, in that it seems likely you regard lots (potentially > all) of legal deal making as bullshitting the time limit away. > > This may cloud your judgement as to when action has been taken > appropriately and when it hasn't. I'm curious whether (for example) your avid love of chatter or your assumed high-horse position in this discussion clouds your judgement and makes you unable (or unwilling) to understand what I'm saying. ;) Deals are pointless is a tangential line I do not wish to go into. You may consider searching the newsgroup archives for prior references to the subject. ;D >> This does not mean that the >> above (that is, the practical inseparability of meaningful and pointless >> chatter) do not hold. I would probably still be somewhat against overtly >> verbal play if the time limit issue wouldn't be real, > > It is legal play, however. > > Confusing issues of negotiations, deal-making and stalling, based on the > fact that you like silent play, is unhelpful. Is this what they call straw-man? I've never been to good at this sort of verbal fencing. I like silent play - yeah, in tournaments I mostly do. Helps with the clock. May I be biased? Sure. To a degree, I probably am (if for nothing else, than having an opinion means being biased). Is my opinion founded on actual international tournament experience? It is. So now what? ;) >> but it's the actual >> destructiveness of stalling the game that makes me an absolutely no-chat >> fan. > > You're still confusing stalling and table talk*. Chat is not stalling. > Stalling is stalling. Table talk is *part of the game*. It's not > stalling the game. It's *supposed to be there*. [snip] > Attempting to effect changes to the game based on your personal > appraisal of whether you like such tactics or not is, however, > foolhardy. If table talk would be a part of the game, it would be mentioned in the rulebook... Nope. Guess they left it out... Maybe the game is really about playing a strategic card game, with an optional (and not necessarily dominant) aspect of verbal table manipulation? That if used excessively, turns the game into something completely different from what it was intended to be like? Guess that must be the case... >> Actually, I've been pondering the idea of introducing persoanal >> timers into VTES tournaments. When your turn starts or you start >> talking, >> you start your clock, and only stop it when you are done. Kind of like >> pro chess. Highly unimplementable at first glance, but we'll see. > > The archive of the group has many points on this. You may find it > instructive to do research before repeating the arguments. Please learn to read the posts you reply to. I heared they teach you ("you" as in general reference) to read in elementary shcools; you may wish to consider locating one and partaking in basic education. To save you some time in this particular issue - "Highly unimplementable" refers to something that - with simpler words - is pretty darn hard to do (if possible at all). Which is a less than optimistic assessment of the prospects for the feasibility of the matter. [snip good points about why it really is highly unimplementable at first glance] Exactly. These were good points about why it really is highly unimplementable at first glance. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:47:11 GMT, Jeroen Rombouts <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> wrote: > you must be playing another game than me... > > IMO, good players are: > a/ more concerned about getting the Table Win than going to their prey. > b/ players who can still get a VP (or 2) out of a lost situation. > c/ make the best win-win deals possible. And if you believe that deals > are > pointless, you just proven yourself unable to grasp the intricacies > (sp?) of > this game. Maybe. I was referring to the play style I like, not overall performance, ratings or whatnot. I know players who play the way I like to and are also good players. > about your suggestion: you cannot talk against yourself. So if someone > is > really bullshitting, stop listening and play. If he does it in his own > turn: call a judge. I've no trouble doing that. Still, I can only do this if someone is talking to me. -- Bye, Daneel

Rob Treasure wrote: > Personally I think this element of the game is slowly on the wane. > Many games I have played and watched have a greatly reduced amount of > this and even if it is present, the value and fruitfulness of it is > much lower. Focus decks are all powerful now imo and it is all about > (maybe quite rightly?) head down left and defend right. Desirable to > some (most?) maybe but as you know 'table playing' as you put it is > one of my favourite aspects. I don't know what percentage of this observation you are doing on deckbot (I see you a lot there), but if that is the case then I think you have to make some allowances. Bot is, while a fantastic boon to the community, very slow play. This tends to make players not want to wheel and deal as much. And beyond that, all the wheeling and dealing requires typing, a further disincentive towards such activity. It's a fun, but skewed, environment. Just thought I'd throw that out there. -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@gmail.com "OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)" -- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

"David Cherryholmes" wrote: > >> Personally I think this element of the game is slowly on the wane. >> Many games I have played and watched have a greatly reduced amount of >> this and even if it is present, the value and fruitfulness of it is >> much lower. Focus decks are all powerful now imo and it is all about >> (maybe quite rightly?) head down left and defend right. Desirable to >> some (most?) maybe but as you know 'table playing' as you put it is >> one of my favourite aspects. > > I don't know what percentage of this observation you are doing on > deckbot (I see you a lot there), but if that is the case then I think > you have to make some allowances. Bot is, while a fantastic boon to the > community, very slow play. This tends to make players not want to wheel > and deal as much. And beyond that, all the wheeling and dealing > requires typing, a further disincentive towards such activity. It's a > fun, but skewed, environment. > > Just thought I'd throw that out there. 0, none, nada, nil. Bot is a game unto itself as you know. Only talking real life old buddy :o)

Daneel wrote: > I like silent play - yeah, in tournaments I mostly do. Helps with the > clock. I am also a very clock-conscious player. There's nothing I hate more than a timed-out table (worse yet, a final). And yet, anyone who's played with me will tell you that I talk a lot. I like that aspect of the game. In fact, I'd say it's the lack of the clock that really distinguishes tournament play from casual play (there's certainly no distinction between decks, at least in my group). A few years ago I got a few people together and tried out a variant of Jyhad. At the time I was very focused on the weeny problem (still a problem IMO). Actually, now that I think about it, the whole idea came out of a conversation with James Coupe where I was arguing that the only solution to the problem was a change in the transfer rules themselves. So I proposed throwing out the limits all together. Transfer 29 pool on your first turn, if you think that will make you win, with the proviso that as soon as you've payed a pool to see a new uncontrolled minion your influence phase was over. FWIW, we tried to break it with various things like weenie dominate, arika sleaze, ezmerelda popping out over and over, etc. Didn't seem to break for us. One side benefit we noticed was that it effectively moved the midgame up to almost the very beginning. I know there are good things to be said for the slow build up in the early game, but there are just as many bad things to be said about the small percentage of decks who can bypass that slowness and start dropping 5 pool to the dome on turn 2. And the problem with the two hour time limit is very, very real..... a much more pervasive problem than this or that speed deck. It strikes me as a workable solution, and I don't see any real loss from adopting it. Any opinions on this? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> schreef in bericht news:opsmlg8w...@news.chello.hu... > > If table talk would be a part of the game, it would be mentioned in > the rulebook... Nope. Guess they left it out... or alternatively: it's not prohibited by the rules so it's allowed. eg rules for Whist or Bridge explicitly state that everyone has to shut up in the game. BTW, I don't know if you've been here long enough to remember our in-group troll Andrew S. Davidson? *cast Summon Troll* >Maybe the game is > really about playing a strategic card game, with an optional (and > not necessarily dominant) aspect of verbal table manipulation? a good strategist uses all strategies available. >That > if used excessively, turns the game into something completely > different from what it was intended to be like? Guess that must be > the case... nope. that's what the predator - prey relationship is for.

Daneel wrote: > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:40:54 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > wrote: > > > In message <opsmlbc0...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > > writes: > >> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:43:01 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > >> wrote: > >>> Bullshitting the time limit away is stalling. > >> > >> Is it so? > > > > Yes. If you are intentionally bullshitting the time limit away, that's > > text-book stalling. What's hard about that? > > 1) Detecting, 2) Proving and 3) Preventing. Not much else. ;P The *judge* makes the decision as to whether something is stalling or slow play, etc. The judge need not *prove* stalling. *Prevention* is not needed since the judge can act when he or she chooses to. The judge can add time to the clock to remedy any actual stalling. Seems that you are able to detect stalling but your judges are unable to. I think we can all agree that different judges will draw the line in a different place. However, you might consider that you draw the line in a place that few other players (and apparently no judges you've encountered) agree with. -Robert

In message <opsmlg9g...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:47:11 GMT, Jeroen Rombouts <jeroen.rombouts@NOS >PAMpandora.be> wrote: >> about your suggestion: you cannot talk against yourself. So if >>someone is >> really bullshitting, stop listening and play. If he does it in his own >> turn: call a judge. > >I've no trouble doing that. Still, I can only do this if someone is > talking to me. Not true. If a player is bullshitting the time away and intentionally stalling thereby, you can call a judge over whilst playing even if they're not talking directly to you. You can even call a judge over whilst spectating, if you think you have viewed a rules infraction - which stalling is - per 2.4 of the V:EKN tournament rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <opsmlg8w...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:40:54 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >wrote: >> In message <opsmlbc0...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> >> writes: <snip - some discussion about stalling> >>> Theoretically, maybe. >> >> Read the rules. > >The rules (tournament rules in this case, to be more specific) do refer > to stalling. However, in real life (or real tournament play, whatever) > there are few text-book cases. Chatting just enough not to get a game > loss / disqualification is still stalling. This is why a judge is there to use their judgement. Clearly, it is useful to be able to present cast iron proof (like over- hearing two players talking about their collusive deal), but at the end of all that, the judge acts on their judgement. If a judge is unwilling to act on problems which do not have 100% cast iron proof in front of him, write it off to experience and ask the organiser to appoint a better judge next time. >>> Still, I've never really seen any instance >>> of such behaviour carrying any real repercussions. Because, it usually >>> all goes into the "Well, he's a verbal player" hat. >> >> It is quite plausible that the player is being highly verbal, and not >> stalling. >> >> You seem to have trouble telling the two apart. > >Indeed I do. Because it is impossible to tell apart. Rubbish. >At least for the > borderline cases which still contribute to time outs. Highly verbal > players should IMHO play responsibly and limit the time their verbal > activity takes away from the game if a time limit is used. If they're being unreasonably slow, call a judge across and ask for a ruling of Slow Play, instead of Stalling. I would imagine that many judges will be generally happier to award a ruling of Slow Play, since it sidesteps some issues of intentionality, whilst still having a material effect. It is also useful to note that the Slow Play guidelines, should a Judge consult them directly as s/he rules, explicitly mention the possibility of awarding time back to the table. (Which a judge has the option of anyway, but it's a useful reminder.) If you could not get a judge to rule Slow Play even, it is highly likely that, for the purposes of that tournament, the player is not breaking any rules. >> Certainly, if a player is continually attempting to negotiate with >> people who are saying "Shut up and play", there's a strong argument for >> stalling. However, if two players are negotiating cross-table, your >> perceptions of it as bullshitting the time away may be clouded by your >> prejudice on the issue. > >Also, they may just be accurate perceptions based on the game state. How? You've said you can't tell the two apart. On one hand, you can't tell the two apart - you've told us that. Now, you can accurately perceive the game state and determine that players are bullshitting the time limit away Which is it? You can't have this both ways, kiddo. >> But what do you expect to happen when three [1/2] Nosferatu decks sit >> down on the same four player table, using mid-large cap vampires? (I >> was once part of that table - pre grouping rules, so it was all [1/2], >> with Legbiter and Pierre in Portsmouth.) Or when two vote decks sit >> down cross-table, both wanting vote-lock and denying it to the other? >> Say nothing? That rules out huge amounts of entirely legal, sensible, >> NECESSARY play. > >I've been playing vote decks. Most of the games boiled down to either > me having vote lock or my predator, prey, etc. having vote lock. In > the few games where the table votes were balanced I've found that the > game can be won without too much talk. Mature players will vote as is > best for them. The game is played by a large number of players, not all "mature". Certainly, an inexperienced player may well benefit from having the intricacies explained, when trying to establish or deny vote lock. The game is not just played by good players, nor even average ones - if everyone is above average, you've got a problem with statistics. However, if I start calling Praxis Seizures, it is potentially "best" for you to vote them down - because otherwise you can't do what's best later (when we're pred/prey, say), as I control everything short of vote-changers/cancellers. Ditto me when you start calling Crusades (say). However, if we keep voting each other down, it's possible for us to spend so much time killing each others' ability to play that someone else storms the table. Similarly, combat decks can have similar issues when they sit next to each other - they mutually annihilate each other, and let the stealth bleeder (or whoever) roll on by. >Even a vote deck can be played with aboslutely NO negotiation, even > without a vote lock. That's my experience. I'm not saying it should be > played in such a way, or that it is most fun when played in such a way, > but it is certainly possible to play in such a way and still be effective. It can, yes - if you have significant transient vote-push/cancellation that you can effect temporary vote lock on a given action, say, or if you throw down enough Bribes that other people relent on voting against, or whatever. However, it can also be the case that a bad shuffle causes you to have sucky card draws. Legitimate diplomatic negotiations can potentially overcome all but the worst experiences of the Random Number God. Since bad situations can happen (all your votes shuffle to the bottom, all your vote push to the top), many players will do their damnedest to dig their way out of them. >> However, a point of view of "how pointless deals are" is highly likely >> to cloud your view, in that it seems likely you regard lots (potentially >> all) of legal deal making as bullshitting the time limit away. >> >> This may cloud your judgement as to when action has been taken >> appropriately and when it hasn't. > >I'm curious whether (for example) your avid love of chatter or your assumed > high-horse position in this discussion clouds your judgement and makes you > unable (or unwilling) to understand what I'm saying. ;) Since I have no "avid love of chatter", you'll have trouble on that point. I have an avid love of the many and varied strategies the game affords, card based and otherwise. I am generally unwilling, however, to "understand" people making non- sensical statements. For instance, in a parallel thread, you have told us that you can't call the judge over if a player is stalling unless he's talking to you, which is pure drivel. Why should I "understand" that? >Deals are pointless is a tangential line It's also complete bollocks. >I do not wish to go into. You may > consider searching the newsgroup archives for prior references to the > subject. ;D What, that your opinion is based on nothing more than nonsense and lies? Deals can make and break games. That's far from pointless. >> It is legal play, however. >> >> Confusing issues of negotiations, deal-making and stalling, based on the >> fact that you like silent play, is unhelpful. > >Is this what they call straw-man? I've never been to good at this sort of > verbal fencing. No, it's the truth. You are confusing the issues based on your prejudices. You are telling us, for instance, that you can't tell them apart, only to then tell us that you can tell them apart. Which is pretty much rubbish, and only serves to confuse. >I like silent play - yeah, in tournaments I mostly do. Helps with the >clock. > >May I be biased? Yes, you are. >> Attempting to effect changes to the game based on your personal >> appraisal of whether you like such tactics or not is, however, >> foolhardy. > >If table talk would be a part of the game, it would be mentioned in > the rulebook... Nope. Guess they left it out... You are Andrew S. Davidson and I claim my five pounds. To help you out, you may care to find many, many, many posts by LSJ on the subject of the legality of table talk and its place in the game. >Maybe the game is > really about playing a strategic card game, with an optional (and > not necessarily dominant) aspect of verbal table manipulation? Uh, that's what I've been saying. It comprises many different aspects which different people use as they see fit and as they are able. I have not said that players must use careful table play, as that would be clearly nonsense. >That > if used excessively, turns the game into something completely > different from what it was intended to be like? No, the game's limits (and the "play to win" rule) mean that no negotiation can be entirely arbitrary, which is what was definitely not wanted. (c.f. "I'm not the threat, he's the threat.") And any player who doesn't want to deal can simply ignore the deal- making. When it becomes an issue of stalling or slow play, they can call a judge. You can ignore it just like you can provide yourself with no political options and ignore voting during referenda - both of which are entirely valid options for the right players and right decks. >To save you some time in this particular issue - "Highly > unimplementable" refers to something that - with simpler words - is > pretty darn hard to do (if possible at all). Which is a less than > optimistic assessment of the prospects for the feasibility of the > matter. > >[snip good points about why it really is highly unimplementable at > first glance] > >Exactly. These were good points about why it really is highly > unimplementable at first glance. ;) No, the two points raised are not about implementation. They are about why the premise behind such timers is invalid. Whether you could implement a clock system or not, the fact is a player cannot control the length of their turn and will be penalised if they don't have the swiftest reactions. These two things (amongst others) combine to invalidate the basic premise of the system. "Highly unimplementable" or not, it is an idea littered with problems to start with in that it fails to take into account the basic reality of the game. Before attempting to rebut my points with nonsense, please read the point first. You are confusing implementation with the idea's suitability for the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <380rijF...@individual.net>, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> writes: >One side benefit we noticed was that it effectively moved the midgame >up to almost the very beginning. I know there are good things to be >said for the slow build up in the early game, but there are just as >many bad things to be said about the small percentage of decks who can >bypass that slowness and start dropping 5 pool to the dome on turn 2. >And the problem with the two hour time limit is very, very real..... a >much more pervasive problem than this or that speed deck. > >It strikes me as a workable solution, and I don't see any real loss >from adopting it. Any opinions on this? It's an interesting idea. However, it would remove the need largely for a lot of cards e.g. Information Highway. There'd still be uses for them, but they'd be much less. This isn't a show-stopper by any means, though. I do like some of the variant rules that people have created for e.g. clan wars, though, where you bring out a Justicar and a set value of vampires from a given clan, or similar. They can be quite fun, providing a very different experience. (e.g. lots of emphasis on fighting) In the standard game these days, there are a number of cards that benefit from a slow start, though. For example, an intercept-heavy deck probably wants the chance to throw down three or four bits of intercept in the first few turns - bikes, Angels, newspapers etc. Or a card like Smiling Jack, which builds up over time. They benefit from decks not being able to bring out 15 points of vampires with stealth bleed tattoo- ed on their forehead. Ditto rush decks, which can benefit from being able to take out vampires over multiple turns. If I bring out 4 four-cap vampires with obf/dom and you, as my prey, bring out your rushers, you don't get a chance to stop me. I come over with four bleeds for 3. As a rush deck, can you block me? Doubtful. Bounce? Well, maybe - perhaps it's a Giovanni weenie rush deck, with a splash of Dominate around. Reduce? Again, maybe - perhaps it's a Celerity gun deck which brings in a lot of casual Auspex along the way, with Toreador and !Toreador. And if I can bring out 5, because I played Effective Management, that's, what, 15 pool damage in the first "real" turn? Of course, if you get to be my predator, I may well find myself in deep crap because I haven't had time to play my pieces - Leather Jacket, weapons, or whatever - I probably haven't had the chance to card cycle enough to get to many Concealed Weapons if they're not in my starting hand, even allowing for an early play of Fragment or The Barrens or Visit from the Capuchin. Which isn't to say the idea is bad, but I think a lot of decks would have to radically change if they could find themselves with scary, scary crap coming for them. There'd be an element of self-righting from that. Okay, I *can* play the crypt of all 4 cap obf/dom, but it'd be bad if I find myself with a scary rush deck as my predator going before me. So I wouldn't play, and maybe you wouldn't play the scary, scary rush deck, for the same reasons. Which makes things a little, hmm, arbitrary? If I do get a good draw out of my somewhat less extreme deck, it could hose you early on for a lot. Maybe even oust you on the first turn, if I get the "perfect" hand, even if I have included a clutch of bounce and combat defence. If I get enough pool damage early on, and can still get some more whilst I cycle through my first twenty cards, I probably don't mind too much that I've now got a hand full of bounce and defence - I've potentially just ousted you, or crippled you. Now, of course, pool gain is an option. You can still play Minion Tap, right? And if you've just brought out Queen Anne, that's a lot of pool you can get back. Sure, that's true, but I find (in general) that pool gain is another of the processes that gains from relative slowness. Blood Doll back every turn, and hunt/Hunting Ground occasionally, is a stalwart of many decks. Tribute to the Master and Blood Doll are great for weenie pool gain. But on your first turn, they're all worthless. And on your second turn, you can only play two (assuming the first turn got you a Parthenon), or three if you brought out Anson or similar too. (This gives Anson a strong early swing factor.) Have you ever played Civilization? Or any similar turn-based strategy game. Quite a few recent ones have options where you can start a few turns in. From a spectator's point of view (I don't know how it works internally), the computer plays the game for a while, then hands over control to you. So not only do you have cities, you also have armies and facilities etc. The computer often makes crap decisions, but that can make for a quirky game where, for example, you don't have all the early Wonders of the World you want - you essentially get one of seven, instead of two, three or more. (Often you go for all of them on easy settings, but if not, you tend to go for the l33t ones for your faction.) I'd be interested in something like that. I'm not sure how you'd implement it in V:TES - static starting positions for a challenge game, say, where each table has decks tuned to within an inch of their life - because of the inherent difficulties. Even if you let everyone have three turns to start with, that'd screw things up where some of the current balance comes from the ability to interact with those actions. (e.g. Parity Shift where you can't interact would be pain.) Of course, there could be some interesting ways round that - restrictions on what you could do, say. But I think that would be more interesting (FSVO "interesting") than super-transfers - which could still be interesting. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:51:51 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > If they're being unreasonably slow, call a judge across and ask for a > ruling of Slow Play, instead of Stalling. Good point. >> Also, they may just be accurate perceptions based on the game state. > > How? You've said you can't tell the two apart. There are borderline cases I consider impossible to tell apart. The clear-cut cases are obvious to decide. The border-line cases, however, do have an accumulated impact on the game. > On one hand, you can't tell the two apart - you've told us that. Now, > you can accurately perceive the game state and determine that players > are bullshitting the time limit away > > Which is it? You can't have this both ways, kiddo. Most judges don't observe a table for as long as the players do. Calling a judge does very little to remedy any former instances of stalling, though the judge's presence can (in some cases) limit future stalling. > Certainly, an inexperienced player may well benefit from having the > intricacies explained, when trying to establish or deny vote lock. Explained? I doubt any VTES player will truly explain anything to a noobie*. They will manipulate the person by omitting at least half of the truth**. The only advice I usually have for noobies is "play the way you think is best and don't listen to anyone". Because, frankly, most "explaining" players will simply try to manipulate them to do their bidding. So we're back where we started from - there is a noobie, and the more experienced players are bullshiting him to win. * At a tournament with stakes. ** The half that would be beneficial to the noobie but harmful to themselves. > The game is not just played by good players, nor even average ones - if > everyone is above average, you've got a problem with statistics. Depends on your definition of average... But true, in general the average player will be average. ;) > Similarly, combat decks can have similar issues when they sit next to > each other - they mutually annihilate each other, and let the stealth > bleeder (or whoever) roll on by. ??? When I'm playing combat, and am seated next to another combat deck, I don't fiercely attack the other combat deck unless provoked, because I understand that a 3/2 split is our mutual interest. Why spend a good 50+ card slots on greasing up a similar deck's 50+ card slots, only to become two quick VPs in our former poredator's resumé? This is about rule #2 of playing heavy combat. (Rule #1 is killing the first minion your predator influences). >> Even a vote deck can be played with aboslutely NO negotiation, even >> without a vote lock. That's my experience. I'm not saying it should be >> played in such a way, or that it is most fun when played in such a way, >> but it is certainly possible to play in such a way and still be >> effective. > > It can, yes - if you have significant transient vote-push/cancellation > that you can effect temporary vote lock on a given action, say, or if > you throw down enough Bribes that other people relent on voting against, > or whatever. Or you simply call votes in a way that those with votes will support you. >> Is this what they call straw-man? I've never been to good at this sort >> of >> verbal fencing. > > No, it's the truth. You are confusing the issues based on your > prejudices. You are telling us, for instance, that you can't tell them > apart, only to then tell us that you can tell them apart. Which is > pretty much rubbish, and only serves to confuse. Unless you really want to understand what I'm meaning - and not hairsplit when in one instance I do not include the reference to the border-line case (which seems obvious to me, and I recall pointing it out at least once in this thread). I'm not too sympathetic to people who quote the theory of the rules when talking about their applications. I never questioned the theory - but I have doubts about the practice, doubts which more theoretical reasoning won't dissolve. I've seen blatant issues of collusion and stalling go unadressed out of judge prudence. I'm neither blaiming the judges nor the system, by the way. The judges must be prudent to avoid haphazard or unfounded judgements; the system can only give guidelines. The players, however, are not always the most sportsmanlike. >> I like silent play - yeah, in tournaments I mostly do. Helps with the >> clock. >> >> May I be biased? > > Yes, you are. Misquoting by omission does little service to your credibility. >>> Attempting to effect changes to the game based on your personal >>> appraisal of whether you like such tactics or not is, however, >>> foolhardy. >> >> If table talk would be a part of the game, it would be mentioned in >> the rulebook... Nope. Guess they left it out... > > You are Andrew S. Davidson and I claim my five pounds. Yess! Go play Shadowfist! Mwhahaha! Next? > To help you out, you may care to find many, many, many posts by LSJ on > the subject of the legality of table talk and its place in the game. Indeed. Some of those are undoubtedly earlier responses to stuff I posted... ;) Nevertheless, this is still one of those issues that (like collusion, playing to win, etc.) has clear-cut rules but few clear-cut examples. Not realizing the often ambiguous nature of pronounced or implied allegations of such charges hints at poor judgement (no pun intended). >> Maybe the game is >> really about playing a strategic card game, with an optional (and >> not necessarily dominant) aspect of verbal table manipulation? > > Uh, that's what I've been saying. It comprises many different aspects > which different people use as they see fit and as they are able. I have > not said that players must use careful table play, as that would be > clearly nonsense. I fail to see the point. If you agree that verbal table manipulation is not a central part of the game, then why do you have trouble grasping the inbalance its excessive practice causes? >> That >> if used excessively, turns the game into something completely >> different from what it was intended to be like? > > No, the game's limits (and the "play to win" rule) mean that no > negotiation can be entirely arbitrary, which is what was definitely not > wanted. (c.f. "I'm not the threat, he's the threat.") I've seen that kind of thing go uninterfered by the judges. Because, despite your denial, it is hard to prove such stalling. "I was just explaining the situation. I wasn't stalling. They say it because I'm in a good position." etc. > And any player who doesn't want to deal can simply ignore the deal- > making. When it becomes an issue of stalling or slow play, they can > call a judge. You can ignore it just like you can provide yourself with > no political options and ignore voting during referenda - both of which > are entirely valid options for the right players and right decks. I begin to see that what you are really lacking is tournament experience. >> Exactly. These were good points about why it really is highly >> unimplementable at first glance. ;) > > No, the two points raised are not about implementation. They are about > why the premise behind such timers is invalid. Hairspltting. The purpose of the timer would be to limit the time taken away with table talk. Since you got into it, I might as well comment on it. The "timer" would probably best be a "dealing timer". Taking turns is "free" as long as they are done in a silent manner (that is, stating cards, targets, effects, no chatter). When someone wishes to negotiate, they can start their timer, and converse about any deals or pacts or mutual agreements or whatnot they wish to. I'm not saying this does not open its own can of worms, but if well implemented, it could somewhat alleviate the problem that there are fewer judges than tables. > Before attempting to rebut my points with nonsense, please read the > point first. You are confusing implementation with the idea's > suitability for the game. I will attempt to reply to any points you may eventually make. Until then, I'll keep on excercising verbal fencing, seeing how I'm quite behind my adversary in skill and technique. -- Bye, Daneel

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:42:52 -0500, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: > Daneel wrote: > >> I like silent play - yeah, in tournaments I mostly do. Helps with the >> clock. > > I am also a very clock-conscious player. There's nothing I hate more > than a timed-out table (worse yet, a final). And yet, anyone who's > played with me will tell you that I talk a lot. I like that aspect of > the game. In fact, I'd say it's the lack of the clock that really > distinguishes tournament play from casual play (there's certainly no > distinction between decks, at least in my group). I guess talking itself does not make you unsportsmanlike. ;) > A few years ago I got a few people together and tried out a variant of > Jyhad. At the time I was very focused on the weeny problem (still a > problem IMO). Actually, now that I think about it, the whole idea came > out of a conversation with James Coupe where I was arguing that the only > solution to the problem was a change in the transfer rules themselves. > So I proposed throwing out the limits all together. Transfer 29 pool > on your first turn, if you think that will make you win, with the > proviso that as soon as you've payed a pool to see a new uncontrolled > minion your influence phase was over. Interesting idea. Minor nitpick about it - the costing system of the crypt cards breaks at points relevant to influencing them out. A 9-er is usualy significantly stronger than a 8-er because of this, a 5-er stronger than a 4-er, etc. > It strikes me as a workable solution, and I don't see any real loss from > adopting it. Any opinions on this? Alas, I like the early game. This game is about limited resources, and the limit on exerting your control adds to the mood. I'm not saying it cannot be done without, but it might deserve some consideration to keep it. The problem with acting fatties (reacting fatties is not a problem given how Forced can be played any number of times on different actions) is that they still get only one action per turn. However, I see that getting done away with. Cards like Mylan, Flurry, Forced March, etc. help complement Freak Drive in making more and more fatties play-worthy. Even 2 actions a turn make a big difference, if the acting vampire can pack a bigger punch with his actions. -- Bye, Daneel

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:08:18 GMT, Jeroen Rombouts <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> wrote: >> If table talk would be a part of the game, it would be mentioned in >> the rulebook... Nope. Guess they left it out... > > or alternatively: it's not prohibited by the rules so it's allowed. eg > rules for Whist or Bridge explicitly state that everyone has to shut up > in > the game. Being allowed is not the same as being supported. I'm not saying that table talk can not be a healthy part of VTES. Overdoing it is what I dislike. >> Maybe the game is >> really about playing a strategic card game, with an optional (and >> not necessarily dominant) aspect of verbal table manipulation? > > a good strategist uses all strategies available. But a good sportsman will adhere to the spirit of the game. My problem is probably with the good strategist/bad sportsman combination... ;( >> That >> if used excessively, turns the game into something completely >> different from what it was intended to be like? Guess that must be >> the case... > > nope. that's what the predator - prey relationship is for. Card game. Strategy. This kind of stuff. -- Bye, Daneel

On 22 Feb 2005 09:12:50 -0800, Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote: >> 1) Detecting, 2) Proving and 3) Preventing. Not much else. ;P > > The *judge* makes the decision as to whether something is stalling or > slow play, etc. The judge need not *prove* stalling. *Prevention* is > not needed since the judge can act when he or she chooses to. The judge > can add time to the clock to remedy any actual stalling. Aye, but the players accusing other players must somehow support their charges. > Seems that you are able to detect stalling but your judges are unable > to. I think we can all agree that different judges will draw the line > in a different place. However, you might consider that you draw the > line in a place that few other players (and apparently no judges you've > encountered) agree with. I understand that judges must excercise prudence. Having judged myself I know what it is like to be summoned to a table and be presented with an argument. I've always looked for the most "peaceful" solution to every issue. However, as a player I have a keener awareness of what transpires at the table, and am able to observe the events as they occur. The specific charges like collusion, stalling, etc. are quite hard to "prove". -- Bye, Daneel

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:57:57 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <opsmlg9g...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:47:11 GMT, Jeroen Rombouts <jeroen.rombouts@NOS >> PAMpandora.be> wrote: >>> about your suggestion: you cannot talk against yourself. So if >>> someone is >>> really bullshitting, stop listening and play. If he does it in his own >>> turn: call a judge. >> >> I've no trouble doing that. Still, I can only do this if someone is >> talking to me. > > Not true. Indeed. I wanted to write something along the lines of "you can't tell someone who is talking to shut up any play unless they are directly talking to you". Calling a judge is indeed an option. -- Bye, Daneel

In message <opsmmggz...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >On 22 Feb 2005 09:12:50 -0800, Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote: > >>> 1) Detecting, 2) Proving and 3) Preventing. Not much else. ;P >> >> The *judge* makes the decision as to whether something is stalling or >> slow play, etc. The judge need not *prove* stalling. *Prevention* is >> not needed since the judge can act when he or she chooses to. The judge >> can add time to the clock to remedy any actual stalling. > >Aye, but the players accusing other players must somehow support their > charges. "Judge, he's taking forever on everything. I think it's slow play or he's stalling. What's your call on the matter?" This isn't a court of law. Players can ask judges to watch situations, right wrongs, and so on. >I understand that judges must excercise prudence. Having judged myself I > know what it is like to be summoned to a table and be presented with an > argument. I've always looked for the most "peaceful" solution to every > issue. That's one option. However, the most "peaceful" solution isn't necessarily the "right" one. In some instances, harsh intervention may well be necessary. Picking a different solution because it's peaceful ducks the question. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <opsmmf23...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >Interesting idea. Minor nitpick about it - the costing system of the crypt > cards breaks at points relevant to influencing them out. A 9-er is usualy > significantly stronger than a 8-er because of this, a 5-er stronger than > a 4-er, etc. Also true at other points, however - 7s (these days) tend to get two more points than 6s, 11s get two more than 10s. Additionally, the potential for Advanced vampires and merging screws up a number of naive costings. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:49:53 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> Aye, but the players accusing other players must somehow support their >> charges. > > "Judge, he's taking forever on everything. I think it's slow play or > he's stalling. What's your call on the matter?" Judge: "Is that so? Have you been playing slowly?" Staller: "No." Judge: "Okay, keep on playing, I'll be watching the table." Upset Player: "But he's been playing slow for an hour! We lost about ten minutes because of him!" Judge: "Sorry, you should've thought of it earlier. I am not omniscient." > This isn't a court of law. Players can ask judges to watch situations, > right wrongs, and so on. > >> I understand that judges must excercise prudence. Having judged myself I >> know what it is like to be summoned to a table and be presented with an >> argument. I've always looked for the most "peaceful" solution to every >> issue. > > That's one option. However, the most "peaceful" solution isn't > necessarily the "right" one. Yes. "Looking for the most peaceful situation" is generally good though, even if the most peaceful situation is not always feasible. Because judges are not there at every table, they must excercise prudence (like in the previous example: if the player has indeed been stalling, it would be best for the judge to issue a warning and add time to the clock. Still, he is incapable of doing that, not having witnessed earlier events). > In some instances, harsh intervention may well be necessary. Picking a > different solution because it's peaceful ducks the question. Indeed. Looking for a peaceful solution is always good though, even if a less than peaceful one must be selected in the end. -- Bye, Daneel

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote > > It strikes me as a workable solution, and I don't see any real loss from > adopting it. Any opinions on this? Yeah. My deck sucked. I thought the influence idea worked fairly well, for what was intended. As I recall, Colin Riggs' weenie deck did win the game (was it just one game?) but the weenieness was not a major factor in the game, really. Hard to say if the pace was that much quicker, since we are talking about JOL... I think we had fewer turns than the average game of V:tES though. Cheers, WES

Wes wrote: > I thought the influence idea worked fairly well, for what was intended. As I > recall, Colin Riggs' weenie deck did win the game (was it just one game?) > but the weenieness was not a major factor in the game, really. I think we played a couple, but JOL games tend to turn into a blur. Anyone else recall? > Hard to say if the pace was that much quicker, since we are talking about > JOL... I think we had fewer turns than the average game of V:tES though. Yeah, given the format I'm not really making a comparison. It simply *must* be quicker. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > However, it would remove the need largely for a lot of cards e.g. > Information Highway. There'd still be uses for them, but they'd be > much less. This isn't a show-stopper by any means, though. Thanks for the thoughts on its ramifications. It's such a huge, sweeping change that I don't have any kind of confidence that all, or even most, of the consequences are understood by me. I pretty much just have a notion that it would tip the balance away from weenie decks and speed up games. It may be that it's still an overall loss. So the only point I want to make here is with respect to your observation about Info Highway. Obviously this variant would wallpaper a few mastercards. But that brings me to *another* problem I see with the game as it stands: the majority of your master slots tend to get eaten up by the staples, leaving lots of very interesting cards to rot on the curb. Also, playing large minions is enough of an intrinsic liability IMO, and necessitating that they further erode those master slots with influence enhancers that may or may not wind up dead card slots is more baggage than they need. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:20:50 -0500, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: > Wes wrote: > >> I thought the influence idea worked fairly well, for what was intended. >> As I recall, Colin Riggs' weenie deck did win the game (was it just one >> game?) but the weenieness was not a major factor in the game, really. > > I think we played a couple, but JOL games tend to turn into a blur. > Anyone else recall? There were two games if I remember. One was: Me playing Josh's Parity Shift obf/pre/for deck. Wouter playing?? Raille playing a Sutekh deck Cherry playing an Esmeralda deck with Sens Dep and bleed Tobias? playing weenie dom/obf I think I was nearly ousted, but then the weenies fell on hard times. David won with the stealth bleed at some point. The second was: Me, playing a 40 theft(trap) weenie bleed deck. Wouter, playing something Leandro-esque Tobias?? Cherry playing Rachel bleeds with Madness Raille... hmm.. In this game, I was coming on strong but Wouter golcondatapped several times to stay ahead. Things weren't going very well until Leandro got burned on some blood hunt vote, then I ousted enough people to win. The names and decks are somewhat confused, but maybe this will jog some memories. >> Hard to say if the pace was that much quicker, since we are talking >> about JOL... I think we had fewer turns than the average game of V:tES >> though. > > Yeah, given the format I'm not really making a comparison. It simply > *must* be quicker. > It was quicker, it jumped right to the mid-game, but from then on seemed pretty normal. Colin Strauss Riggs

"Colin Riggs" <colin...@yahoo.com> wrote > > Me playing Josh's Parity Shift obf/pre/for deck. > Wouter playing?? > Raille playing a Sutekh deck > Cherry playing an Esmeralda deck with Sens Dep and bleed > Tobias? playing weenie dom/obf > > Me, playing a 40 theft(trap) weenie bleed deck. > Wouter, playing something Leandro-esque > Tobias?? > Cherry playing Rachel bleeds with Madness > Raille... hmm.. Well, I know I was in both games as both player and moderator, so that can't be right. I recall playing a Silvia Giovanni deck in one, but did not recall the other until David mentioned we played two. So I guess I can't contribute much to this thread other than that my deck really did suck. So much so that Colin here forgot that he even played against me! Hang on, I just found them: http://www.deckserver.net/cgi-bin/jolgame.cgi?local33 http://www.deckserver.net/cgi-bin/jolgame.cgi?local34 History and log are still there too. Cheers, WES

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: > But that brings me to *another* problem > I see with the game as it stands: the majority of your master slots > tend to get eaten up by the staples, leaving lots of very interesting > cards to rot on the curb. Aside from the best card in the game (Blood Doll) I can't think of a single Master card that I would consider a "staple", so I don't see your point. What cards do you feel are "interesting" that are rotting on the curb? Why can't/don't you/others make decks with those cards, do you think? > David Cherryholmes > david.che...@gmail.com Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

Kevin M. wrote: > Aside from the best card in the game (Blood Doll) I can't think of a > single Master card that I would consider a "staple", so I don't see > your point. Dreams in multiples DI in multiples Blood Doll/Minion Tap in multiples Info/Zillah's in multiples, if you play 8+ caps. That's 12 - 16 slots right there. Then there's things like Barrens, Giant's Blood, Coven, Powerbase Montreal, and a few others that are highly tempting to include in most decks. > What cards do you feel are "interesting" that are rotting on the > curb? Why can't/don't you/others make decks with those cards, do you > think? Well, I do make room for them. Usually at the expense of decent pool gain, which is a risky proposition (but not certain death, contrary to some opinions). As far as exactly which cards, I'd say a lot of them are more recent ones that I don't have lasered into my brain like I do the cards from the first 4 sets or so. I'd sure like to play more Dummy Corps, off the top of my head. Then there's that one that lets you not tap when you block Cam vampires. Perfectionist competes with Blood Doll in my book (granted I play a lot of Chimestry and Quietus, and Freak Drives). They're out there, but I imagine the exact list is going to vary from individual to individual. -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@gmail.com "OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)" -- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:21:19 -0500, Wes <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: > > "Colin Riggs" <colin...@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> Me playing Josh's Parity Shift obf/pre/for deck. >> Wouter playing?? >> Raille playing a Sutekh deck >> Cherry playing an Esmeralda deck with Sens Dep and bleed >> Tobias? playing weenie dom/obf >> >> Me, playing a 40 theft(trap) weenie bleed deck. >> Wouter, playing something Leandro-esque >> Tobias?? >> Cherry playing Rachel bleeds with Madness >> Raille... hmm.. > > Well, I know I was in both games as both player and moderator, so that > can't be right. > > I recall playing a Silvia Giovanni deck in one, but did not recall the > other > until David mentioned we played two. So I guess I can't contribute much > to > this thread other than that my deck really did suck. So much so that > Colin > here forgot that he even played against me! > > Hang on, I just found them: > > http://www.deckserver.net/cgi-bin/jolgame.cgi?local33 > http://www.deckserver.net/cgi-bin/jolgame.cgi?local34 > > History and log are still there too. Oops, I think I was confused by the Wouter/Tobias thing (I don't know what the thing is, maybe it is them being from the same area of the world? There was a thread a few months back that confused them also). Replace all instances of Wouter with Wes, and then move some decks around. Or just look at the excellent links Wes provided. Colin Strauss Riggs forgetful of canada

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> Aside from the best card in the game (Blood Doll) I can't think of >> a single Master card that I would consider a "staple", so I don't see >> your point. > > Dreams in multiples With all due respect to Dreams' greatness, considering this a staple is just plain silly. Has the deck construction metagame shifted so much in the last few years that everyone's deck is so unfocused and well-rounded that this kind of card cycling ability is now *necessary*? :P > DI in multiples Insanity. Sudden should be here WAAAAAAAYYY before DI, if only due to the existence and game-lengthening ability of Blood Doll and (especially) Minion Tap. Or have people just conceded the fact that they aren't going to be able to kill their prey until 115 minutes into the game? > Blood Doll/Minion Tap in multiples As I stated, above. Right. > Info/Zillah's in multiples, if you play 8+ caps. I *rarely* see Zillah's played here in Vegas, or LA, but I did see it somewhat more frequently in the Madison/Milwaukee/Chicago area. Info Highway is right up there but it isn't a *staple*. I don't see it *that* often, not by a long shot. > That's 12 - 16 slots right there. Then there's things like Barrens, > Giant's Blood, Coven, Powerbase Montreal, and a few others > that are highly tempting to include in most decks. But we aren't talking about "tempting" cards. It's *tempting* to create 110 card decks, but I always have to cut them down to 80-90. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Kevin M. wrote: > With all due respect to Dreams' greatness, considering this a staple is > just plain silly. Has the deck construction metagame shifted so much in > the last few years that everyone's deck is so unfocused and well-rounded > that this kind of card cycling ability is now *necessary*? :P I suppose it's inevitable that we now debate what a staple is. I'd say if it exists in nearly all tournament decks, then it is a staple (although there may be other criteria by which a card could qualify). Dreams is not just card cycling, though. If you hit one on your opening hand, it's a turn 2 10 cap, just like a Zillah's or an Info. And it's good for other things. And if you clump on them, the same card helps you unclump the needed copies. > > DI in multiples > > Insanity. Sudden should be here WAAAAAAAYYY before DI, if only due to the > existence and game-lengthening ability of Blood Doll and (especially) > Minion Tap. Or have people just conceded the fact that they aren't going > to be able to kill their prey until 115 minutes into the game? I'm beginning to realize not everyone appreciates the power of DI. Still, I think most people do. I'm not exactly sure what the "115 minutes into the game" thing means with respect to DI, but it seems pretty common to me that most of the table plays very conservatively through a lot of the game, and then pours on the heat towards the end. Most ousts happen towards the end, except for maybe that first guy who didn't get to play because he was the prey of a speed deck. > > Blood Doll/Minion Tap in multiples > > As I stated, above. Right. > > > Info/Zillah's in multiples, if you play 8+ caps. > > I *rarely* see Zillah's played here in Vegas, or LA, but I did see it > somewhat more frequently in the Madison/Milwaukee/Chicago area. Info > Highway is right up there but it isn't a *staple*. I don't see it *that* > often, not by a long shot. If you want to play 8+ caps, it's almost always a staple. I guess that gets back to what a staple is. Sure, there are some decks built around large minions that don't need to worry about getting their large guy out before turn 3, but most do. Anyway, whether it's all Info, all Zillah's, or a blend of the two, it's still going to be some master card slots eaten up. > But we aren't talking about "tempting" cards. It's *tempting* to create > 110 card decks, but I always have to cut them down to 80-90. ;) I kind of was talking about what's tempting. My point is that I'm tempted to include this or that card, but ultimately decide that another copy of the "power masters" is probably a more competitive choice. I mean, I'm not saying the game should be somehow restructured so that people can indulge in all the Tortured Confessions and Werewolf Packs they desire, but the problem seems especially pointed where master cards are concerened. At least to me. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.58.05...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... (about Dreams of the Sphyinx) > I suppose it's inevitable that we now debate what a staple is. I'd say if > it exists in nearly all tournament decks, then it is a staple (although > there may be other criteria by which a card could qualify). Look, with all due respect for your opinion about it, Dreams of the Sphinx does NOT "exist in nearly all tournament decks" - not in my part of the world (and not counting my own decks, if you're wondering). Just came home from Left for Dead in LA and although I did see a fair number of the played, CLEARLY more than half the decks (and probably more than that) contained zero Dreams of the Sphinxes. Nor - I will gratutiously throw in (knowing the debate is futile, however) - SHOULD "nearly all tournament decks" contain a DotS. It is not a staple. Were it a rare card that should be in nearly all tournament decks then it shouldn't be a rare card. It should be an uncommon and then I guess we could quibble about it. But it is properly rare, albeit a very popular one. And one that should be reprinted often. (Kudos to the designers for putting it in two precons, by the way.) Fred

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in news:WjuTd.36873$xt.19602@fed1read07: > With all due respect to Dreams' greatness, considering this a staple > is just plain silly. Has the deck construction metagame shifted so > much in the last few years that everyone's deck is so unfocused and > well-rounded that this kind of card cycling ability is now > *necessary*? :P Dreams isn't card cycling. It's pool gain. pe seriously, people use Dreams for card cycling now?

Gomi no Sensei <xn...@pollywog.com> wrote: : "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in [ quoted text not captured ] Seriously, you call a 2 pool/3 influence gain in three turns pool gain? Yes, it's card cycling and one of the best at that. //T

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:11:59 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > It is not a staple. Were it a rare card that should be in nearly all > tournament decks then it shouldn't be a rare card. It should be an > uncommon and then I guess we could quibble about it. But it is properly > rare, albeit a very popular one. And one that should be reprinted often. > (Kudos to the designers for putting it in two precons, by the way.) This is a controversy. The card is being reprinted in multiple precons exactly because there is demand for it. Demand that clearly exceeds current supply. Now, as for Dreams - it is a powerful card. The ONLY reason I don't use it in almost every 90-card deck is its Uniqueness. That is a huge drawback. Otherwise, almost any deck can use it, because decks use cards to function and do their thing, and having the rights cards at the right time can mean THE difference. -- Bye, Daneel

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Daneel wrote: > Now, as for Dreams - it is a powerful card. The ONLY reason I don't use > it in almost every 90-card deck is its Uniqueness. That is a huge drawback. > Otherwise, almost any deck can use it, because decks use cards to > function and do their thing, and having the rights cards at the right > time can mean THE difference. It's unique but usually gone within three turns. Maybe some people will ditch the Dreams in their hand because they don't want to hold onto it for that long, but IME they usually just wait and play theres. The card is Da Bomb, and I can't believe I'm arguing the obvious. Again. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Daneel wrote: > > > Now, as for Dreams - it is a powerful card. The ONLY reason I don't use > > it in almost every 90-card deck is its Uniqueness. That is a huge drawback. > > Otherwise, almost any deck can use it, because decks use cards to > > function and do their thing, and having the rights cards at the right > > time can mean THE difference. > > It's unique but usually gone within three turns. Maybe some people will > ditch the Dreams in their hand because they don't want to hold onto it for > that long, but IME they usually just wait and play theres. > > The card is Da Bomb, and I can't believe I'm arguing the obvious. Again. I don't want to wade too deeply into this discussion, but here are some rough numbers: Over 450 decks in the Lasombra's TWD. Roughly 140 TWD decks that use Dreams of the Sphinx, most in multiples. It's a good card. Jeff

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Frederick Scott wrote: > Look, with all due respect for your opinion about it, Dreams of the Sphinx > does NOT "exist in nearly all tournament decks" - not in my part of the > world (and not counting my own decks, if you're wondering). Just came home > from Left for Dead in LA and although I did see a fair number of the played, > CLEARLY more than half the decks (and probably more than that) contained > zero Dreams of the Sphinxes. I'll give you this, it only occurs in 7 out the past 20 tournament winning decks. That surprised me, and I'll think about it. Everyone I know well always plays with it in their decks, but it's obviously not as common as I thought. > Nor - I will gratutiously throw in (knowing the debate is futile, however) - > SHOULD "nearly all tournament decks" contain a DotS. I think it's something they can live without, but are probably strictly better off for being in there. > It is not a staple. Were it a rare card that should be in nearly all > tournament decks then it shouldn't be a rare card. It should be an > uncommon and then I guess we could quibble about it. But it is properly > rare, albeit a very popular one. And one that should be reprinted often. > (Kudos to the designers for putting it in two precons, by the way.) The inability to find a Giovanni starter, and its inclusion in two of the newest starter decks says *something*. That's a fact. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

"Gomi no Sensei" <xn...@pollywog.com> wrote in message news:Xns96086B4BD6B7F...@216.196.97.142... > Dreams isn't card cycling. > > It's pool gain. > > pe > seriously, people use Dreams for card cycling now? That's all I use it for. As pool gain, it's Short Term Investment with a couple of transfers thrown in if you need them (or a requirement to have an uncontrolled minion if you don't). Fred

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in news:UfOTd.16504 $ds.1487@okepread07: > That's all I use it for. As pool gain, it's Short Term Investment > with a couple of transfers thrown in if you need them (or a requirement > to have an uncontrolled minion if you don't). :blank stare: Fred, your brain is desiccating out in AZ. STI requires MPAs to draw the pool off. MPAs are way, way harder to come by than spare transfers. DotS is basically strike: gain 2 pool*, which is pretty darn nice. The card cycle is kind of occasionally useful, I guess, but it's rare that 'increase hand size by 2 for some time not long enough to be useful' is worth giving up a pool, at least in a competently put together deck. pe * I'd freaking love a Ravnos combat card that was strike: gain 1 pool, with suitable restrictions. It just seems to fit their ethos.

Gomi no Sensei <xn...@pollywog.com> wrote: > Dreams isn't card cycling. It's pool gain. > > pe > seriously, people use Dreams for card cycling now? Combat Deck -------------- Turn 1: bring out Dreams, use it for whatever Turn 2: use it for whatever Turn 3: before the end of your Master phase, use it to gain hand size +2, it goes away, drop another Dreams, use it to gain +2 hand size Let me tell you, my all-time favorite VTES move is doing this with a combat deck. 11-card hand size for *the whole turn* is ridiculously amazing with a combat deck! :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 01:46:16 -0800, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Gomi no Sensei <xn...@pollywog.com> wrote: >> Dreams isn't card cycling. It's pool gain. >> >> pe >> seriously, people use Dreams for card cycling now? > > Combat Deck > -------------- > Turn 1: bring out Dreams, use it for whatever > Turn 2: use it for whatever > Turn 3: before the end of your Master phase, use it to gain hand size +2, > it goes away, drop another Dreams, use it to gain +2 hand size > > Let me tell you, my all-time favorite VTES move is doing this with a > combat deck. 11-card hand size for *the whole turn* is ridiculously > amazing with a combat deck! :) Which, given how its Turn 3, is seldom that important, because even if you have your soldiers, you might still be lacking suitable targets... *grin* Alas, its a bargain, if you disregard its uniqueness (that it gets contested). Dreams is an excellent card. It's only drawback is its uniqueness. -- Bye, Daneel

"Gomi no Sensei" <xn...@pollywog.com> wrote in message news:Xns9608E019B3C74...@216.196.97.142... > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in news:UfOTd.16504 > $ds.1487@okepread07: > >> That's all I use it for. As pool gain, it's Short Term Investment >> with a couple of transfers thrown in if you need them (or a requirement >> to have an uncontrolled minion if you don't). > > Fred, your brain is desiccating out in AZ. STI requires MPAs to draw the > pool off. MPAs are way, way harder to come by than spare transfers. Yea, OK you're right. Brain fart. Still, the point was more about investing one to make three. Not enough payoff for a single master card, IMHO. > DotS is basically strike: gain 2 pool*, which is pretty darn nice. The > card cycle is kind of occasionally useful, I guess, but it's rare that > 'increase hand size by 2 for some time not long enough to be useful' is > worth giving up a pool, at least in a competently put together deck. I agree the temporary hand size by itself wouldn't be worth it. But in the process, you get two extra discards three times - THAT'S worthwhile if you need to draw cards. The Barrens MAY eventually yield more discards, depending on when you draw it in a game. But you have to discard first then draw, as opposed to the other way around. Also, remember the average game length I keep seeing is in the 12-13 turn range. Often you won't get as many discards from The Barrens. Fred

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.58.05...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Frederick Scott wrote: > > > Look, with all due respect for your opinion about it, Dreams of the Sphinx > > does NOT "exist in nearly all tournament decks" - not in my part of the > > world (and not counting my own decks, if you're wondering). Just came home > > from Left for Dead in LA and although I did see a fair number of the played, > > CLEARLY more than half the decks (and probably more than that) contained > > zero Dreams of the Sphinxes. > > I'll give you this, it only occurs in 7 out the past 20 tournament winning > decks. That surprised me, and I'll think about it. Everyone I know well > always plays with it in their decks, but it's obviously not as common as I > thought. You know we agree with you in DC. :-) Dreams really is that good. I put it in most (not all, but most) of my decks. We see proxied copies of Dreams probably more often than any other proxied card (I like Short Term Investment as a proxy, Colin likes Dummy Corporation...). Probably we'll see less proxied ones with the current starter reprints. The pool gain is good. The hand-cycling is uber. The uniqueness rarely matters that much, I've seen Dreams get contested on occasion, but unless it's your prey, you're almost always fine with waiting for the other person's Dreams to burn up. It sounds to me like the +hand size portion is being underestimated a little (by the Dreams-doubters) compared to the +discards portion (and pool-gain/transfer portion). Adding two cards to your hand for an entire turn is much better than discarding just one (Barrens) in terms of increasing the window on your deck and your ability to implement card combinations. That it comes with discards (for more cycling) rather than not (like Elder Library) is a definite bonus, of course. Josh loses with dreams wins with giant's blood

ja...@zephyr.org.uk wrote: > In message <cv7071$62h$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>, Johannes Walch > <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: > No, the importance of table playing is still high. > However, your wishes for Richard Garfield to be back in the game are at > odds with this. Richard is specifically against games where interaction > is too free (his writings about the creation of Jyhad confirm this) and > wanted a game where players might have incentives to attack other > players but which were not rewarded with pool or VPs. During creation, > a number of people suggested that the pool and/or VP should go to the > Methuselah performing the oust (not the predator). This was > specifically denied. > The existence of table-switching mechanics undermines this, in that it > makes the death blow give the XP/pool to a "cross-table" Methuselah. > It's just that you have to pass a Dramatic Upheaval first. > Bearing in mind that, for instance, one anecdote he brings forward > involves two players at the same table playing Political Backlash on the > same vote, it is plausible (though by no means certain) that playtesting > underestimated how easy vote push could be. The need to fix the rules > so that only one PA card could be used for a vote by a Methuselah per > action suggests that some 'power vote' strategies didn't come up in > playtesting much, and that the power of Dramatic Upheaval (say) was > perceived to be much lower than it was in reality because it was much > harder to pass (relative to the game as she is played now). > -- > James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual > PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and > EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?" > 13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/ Great evilpum...@duskmail.com