5th Tradition v. Restoration

Ok, if true, the revised text is very much like Restoration. At least, the two cards have been compared heavily after the revelation of the change. What is interesting is that, unless it's a typo, Restoration isn't even *in* the Camarilla Edition... Yet another blow to pool gain. Sorrow --- "This is my costume. I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else." -- Wednesday Addams

Sorrow wrote: >What is interesting is that, unless it's a typo, Restoration > isn't even *in* the Camarilla Edition... Yet another blow > to pool gain. So what? Does this mean that you cannot play it? When did a new set come out that you couldn't play existing cards (barring the original Jyhad set?) -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

> Sorrow wrote: > >What is interesting is that, unless it's a typo, Restoration > > isn't even *in* the Camarilla Edition... Yet another blow > > to pool gain. Blood Doll ain't in it either !! But maybe they're in starters ? Does the list include them ? No anti-clan card either, and that is good !! Let's hope they won't waste good space with them in the starts. > So what? Does this mean that you cannot play it? When did a new set > come out that you couldn't play existing cards (barring the original > Jyhad set?) Since the previous editions were hard to find or out-of-print...

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > What is interesting is that, unless it's a typo, Restoration > isn't even *in* the Camarilla Edition... Yet another blow > to pool gain. According to the ELDB database, Restoration was printed in the Jyhad, V:TES, Sabbat, SW, FN sets. So, a new player can still get some copies from them (only in the starters though, if I'm remembering correctly). Beside, it was a Common; easlily enough to trade or buy on eBay for not much (I'm ventruring that it will become more popular though ;-). F.

> According to the ELDB database, Restoration was printed in the Jyhad, > V:TES, Sabbat, SW, FN sets. So, a new player can still get some copies > from them (only in the starters though, if I'm remembering correctly). > Beside, it was a Common; easlily enough to trade or buy on eBay for > not much (I'm ventruring that it will become more popular though ;-). I wasn't intimating that it was going to be difficult to get a hold of. Just that, if the 5th change is true, it lends further credence to the fact that the designers are trying to shift (however subtly) the metagame away from pool gain... Sorrow --- "I am Jack's wasted life." - Narrator

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uie2khp...@corp.supernews.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I wonder if the shift away from pool gain is going to be good for the game. In my experience, one of the major factors that pushes newbies from picking up the game (aside from its high learning curve) is the fact that they don't want to play a game that averages 1.5 to 2 hours in length. Most of the popular CCGs are over in 30 mins or less. So maybe the shift away from pool gain will lead to faster games which will, in turn, lead to more new players willing to pick it up. Peteo feels like he just stated the painfully obvious, oh well

Peter Oh wrote: > > I wonder if the shift away from pool gain is going to be good for the game. > In my experience, one of the major factors that pushes newbies from picking > up the game (aside from its high learning curve) is the fact that they don't > want to play a game that averages 1.5 to 2 hours in length. Most of the > popular CCGs are over in 30 mins or less. So maybe the shift away from pool > gain will lead to faster games which will, in turn, lead to more new players > willing to pick it up. Not only that, maybe it will keep certain clods and dolts from bringing decks to tournaments that do nothing except pull off half a dozen Fifth Traditions followed by half a dozen Minion Taps. "Gosh, another game where all five of us get a half a victory point and no one wins the game point. How nice...." Fred

>Not only that, maybe it will keep certain clods and dolts from bringing decks >to tournaments that do nothing except pull off half a dozen Fifth Traditions >followed by half a dozen Minion Taps. > >"Gosh, another game where all five of us get a half a victory point and no >one wins the game point. How nice...." How else do you expect to win a tournament with an all Samedi crypt?

Curevei wrote: > > >Not only that, maybe it will keep certain clods and dolts from bringing decks > >to tournaments that do nothing except pull off half a dozen Fifth Traditions > >followed by half a dozen Minion Taps. > > How else do you expect to win a tournament with an all Samedi crypt? You could find out when and where they're holding Peter D Bakija clone day and unexpectedly show up at the VtES tournament with a Samedi combat deck. ("He's in torpor again...he's out of torpor again...he's in torpor again...he's out of torpor again...he's in torpor again...he's out of torpor again - WOW!!! LOOK AT THAT BOY GO!!!") Fred, wondering how The Baron was gonna pull off a Fifth Tradition anyway

> I wonder if the shift away from pool gain is going to be good for the game. > In my experience, one of the major factors that pushes newbies from picking > up the game (aside from its high learning curve) is the fact that they don't > want to play a game that averages 1.5 to 2 hours in length. Another thing that pushes them away (and I've experienced this first hand) is the fact that they don't like the mechanic where you are spending your *life* to acquire your resources. To get them past that, I show them the multitude ways to gain not only pool but significant amounts of pool. It helps them overlook the whole life for resources issue and actually focus on the game. Now, showing that is made more difficult. Sorrow --- "I'll be watching the news. If anything is vandalized or explodes or catches on fire, 'X' is going to equal me kicking your ass!" - Red Forman

"Peter Oh" <ohb...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:<1tGV8.81250$UT.55...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > I wonder if the shift away from pool gain is going to be good for the game. > In my experience, one of the major factors that pushes newbies from picking > up the game (aside from its high learning curve) is the fact that they don't > want to play a game that averages 1.5 to 2 hours in length. Most of the > popular CCGs are over in 30 mins or less. So maybe the shift away from pool > gain will lead to faster games which will, in turn, lead to more new players > willing to pick it up. I certainly hope that isn't the intent. We play 1.5 to 2 hour games regardless of whether people use 5th Tradition. One of the *attractions* of the game for us is the long duration of a single match vs. other games like Magic the Gathering. So far I haven't seen any newbie pushed away by the length of the matches either, but your mileage may vary. JSpektr

Sorrow wrote: > > > In my experience, one of the major factors that pushes newbies from picking > > up the game (aside from its high learning curve) is the fact that they don't > > want to play a game that averages 1.5 to 2 hours in length. > > Another thing that pushes them away (and I've experienced this first hand) is > the fact that they don't like the mechanic where you are spending your *life* > to acquire your resources. And why would anyone see that as a "bad thing"? I realize that's not exactly an accurate description of the game, but even if it were, I'm confused why anyone would be turned off by it. It's actually a rather interesting balancing act - which makes it a rather good dynamic to base a game on. Fred

Sorrow wrote: > > > In my experience, one of the major factors that pushes newbies from picking > > up the game (aside from its high learning curve) is the fact that they don't > > want to play a game that averages 1.5 to 2 hours in length. > > Another thing that pushes them away (and I've experienced this first hand) is > the fact that they don't like the mechanic where you are spending your *life* > to acquire your resources. And why would anyone see that as a "bad thing"? I realize that's not exactly an accurate description of the game, but even if it were, I'm confused why anyone would be turned off by it. It's actually a rather interesting balancing act - which makes it a good dynamic to base a game on. Fred

> And why would anyone see that as a "bad thing"? I realize that's not exactly > an accurate description of the game, but even if it were, I'm confused why anyone > would be turned off by it. It's actually a rather interesting balancing act - > which makes it a rather good dynamic to base a game on. But people don't appreciate the subtlety of that until they get into the game. That mechanic is actually one of the things I like the most. However, when you are coming from another game (especially M:tG), it's just not appealing. You are killing yourself just so you can play? On the surface, it just doesn't make sense. Sure, to you or I it does. But not to newbies. And the only way I can keep people like that interested is to show them that there are, in fact, alot of ways to gain life back. But now with one of the biggest way (possibly) getting hamstrung, it makes it hard to demonstrate that. Sorrow --- I keep telling them that I think they're out to get me. They ask me if I feel remose and I answer, "Why of course! There's so much more I could have done if they'd let me!" So it's Rorschach and Prozac and everything is groovy

Sorrow wrote: > I wrote: (re: the concept of spending your "life points" - the thing that must remain above zero for one to continue playing - in order to buy resources that will help you win the game.) > > And why would anyone see that as a "bad thing"? I realize that's not exactly > > an accurate description of the game, but even if it were, I'm confused why anyone > > would be turned off by it. It's actually a rather interesting balancing act - > > which makes it a rather good dynamic to base a game on. > > But people don't appreciate the subtlety of that until they get into the game. > That mechanic is actually one of the things I like the most. However, when > you are coming from another game (especially M:tG), it's just not appealing. > You are killing yourself just so you can play? On the surface, it just doesn't > make sense. OK, this is the part I challenge. I suppose there's no accounting for taste and I wouldn't dispute your word about it. But I just can't see why it would be unappealing or nonsensical in any way, shape, or form. I've never heard any newbies mention that this thing in particular bothered them nor would I ever expect to. If you have, I would tend to write it off as either a weird anomaly you've experience or something in what's being communicated to you that you're failing to reflect accurately in your post. For instance, the _real_ frustration your newbies may be encountering is losing against more experienced players which they experience as a feeling of "damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't" because they somehow always find themselves caught between insufficient resources and an insufficient buffer of pool to prevent a sudden rush of bleeding from ousting them. If so, the problem is a very common one: they're losing a lot while learning the strategies and tactics that allow them to balance pool and resources. It just turns out that some form of pool gain is one of the key strategies in managing one's pool. If it didn't exist, veteran players wouldn't be able to use it either, thus it wouldn't be as much of a frustration for newer players. Fred

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uif3en6...@corp.supernews.com... > > But people don't appreciate the subtlety of that until they get into the game. > That mechanic is actually one of the things I like the most. However, when > you are coming from another game (especially M:tG), it's just not appealing. > You are killing yourself just so you can play? On the surface, it just doesn't > make sense. Sure, to you or I it does. But not to newbies. And the only > way I can keep people like that interested is to show them that there are, in > fact, alot of ways to gain life back. But now with one of the biggest way > (possibly) getting hamstrung, it makes it hard to demonstrate that. > I'd like to chime in with anecdotal evidence that you're right... When my friends and I first started playing Jyhad, we *were* confused with the "life = mana" mechanic in the game. Coming directly from Magic at the time, we saw life and mana both as things you wanted to maximize, and the person that effectively maximized both was going a long way towards winning the game. In Jyhad, the amount you could spend on effects was very regimented (or so we saw when we started). You had essentially 4 mana per turn, but each one you used would cost life. So, in a way, it seemed like it would be better to not bring out any vampires, as you would last longer that way. If you went for bringing out 5 vampires (which seemed like a small amount of creatures to be controlling, after the Goblin and Merfolk decks we had just finished playing with), you were practically dead. You were just waiting for anyone with a modicum of stealth to come over, bleed you for 2, and oust you. All those creatures you controlled, and they didn't save you at all - they just made you die faster. Eventually, we went to 40 pool games, so that you could have enough pool to bring out some reasonable number of creatures to see the interplay between them. We felt that you should definitely be able to afford at least one 10-cap , and 4 to 6 other vampires. We did this, and games lasted *hours* and *hours*. So we quit the game for a while because it took too long. When we came back to it a couple of months later, we ditched the 40-pool rule and started playing "Anarch" (weenie) decks. From there, the metagame evolved in ways which you are probably all aware. But yeah, that's the story of the painful transition from "The Dark"-era Magic to Jyhad. Granted, we are all wiser now (well, not all... some of us quit this game), and know that you should never use the word "mana" or "creature" when talking about Jyhad. ;)

Chris Berger wrote: > > "Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:uif3en6...@corp.supernews.com... > > > > But people don't appreciate the subtlety of that until they get into the game. > > That mechanic is actually one of the things I like the most. However, when > > you are coming from another game (especially M:tG), it's just not appealing. > > You are killing yourself just so you can play? On the surface, it just doesn't > > make sense. Sure, to you or I it does. But not to newbies. And the only > > way I can keep people like that interested is to show them that there are, in > > fact, alot of ways to gain life back. But now with one of the biggest way > > (possibly) getting hamstrung, it makes it hard to demonstrate that. > > > I'd like to chime in with anecdotal evidence that you're right... When my > friends and I first started playing Jyhad, we *were* confused with the "life = > mana" mechanic in the game. Coming directly from Magic at the time, we saw > life and mana both as things you wanted to maximize, and the person that > effectively maximized both was going a long way towards winning the game. Confused, I'll buy. But could you explain why you would see that as a bad thing, as Sorrow is suggesting? After all, the rule is the same for everyone. Everyone has to solve the same problem. As for the 30 vs. 40 pool thing, that's more understandable. That seems a question of taste insofar as the amount of pool you start with would dictate how many (and how powerful of) resources you can reasonably bring into the game to play with in the course of the game. Fred

> > > > I wonder if the shift away from pool gain is going to be good for the game. > > In my experience, one of the major factors that pushes newbies from picking > > up the game (aside from its high learning curve) is the fact that they don't > > want to play a game that averages 1.5 to 2 hours in length. Most of the > > popular CCGs are over in 30 mins or less. So maybe the shift away from pool > > gain will lead to faster games which will, in turn, lead to more new players > > willing to pick it up. > > Not only that, maybe it will keep certain clods and dolts from bringing decks > to tournaments that do nothing except pull off half a dozen Fifth Traditions > followed by half a dozen Minion Taps. > Or it could function in exactly the oposite manor as no one is willing to take the actions because they need to keep their minions free to block what precious little pool they can gain. That then would of course lead the prevalence of "wall" decks once again.....of course I could just be pissing in the wind....

On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Frederick Scott wrote: > Not only that, maybe it will keep certain clods and dolts from bringing decks > to tournaments that do nothing except pull off half a dozen Fifth Traditions > followed by half a dozen Minion Taps. Maybe you are accurately describing your experience, but adding that bit about "nothing except" strikes me as a straw man. And where does that leave the "clods and dolts" who bring decks with tight DOM crypts, or weenie Praxis, or weenie hack, that repetitiously, mechanically, carve six to eight pool out of you a turn starting with turn two? Is that "better?" I've tried to avoid jumping into the freak-out fest, but if I see a trend towards anything in the sum of the new changes, it's towards iaijitsu jyhad. David Cherryholmes Prince of Durham, NC

David Cherryholmes wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Frederick Scott wrote: > > > Not only that, maybe it will keep certain clods and dolts from bringing decks > > to tournaments that do nothing except pull off half a dozen Fifth Traditions > > followed by half a dozen Minion Taps. > > Maybe you are accurately describing your experience, but adding that bit > about "nothing except" strikes me as a straw man. I've had experiences with such decks in tournaments. The "nothing except" was part of it, yes. Granted, you play one game against a guy and perhaps his cards don't come up right for whatever else it does. But for them to be pulling off so many Minion Tap/Fifth combos you know that had to be putting a high priority on that part - likely at the expense of much offense. > And where does that leave the "clods and dolts" who bring decks with tight > DOM crypts, or weenie Praxis, or weenie hack, that repetitiously, > mechanically, carve six to eight pool out of you a turn starting with turn > two? Is that "better?" I'm not sure what you're getting at. But yes, I'd much rather see people attempting to win games the best way they know how than attempting not to lose them. If we have a big draw where no one ousts anyone else, it's basically one big loss for the whole table. > I've tried to avoid jumping into the freak-out fest, but if I see a trend > towards anything in the sum of the new changes, it's towards iaijitsu > jyhad. OK, I'll bite. What's "iaijitsu jyhad"? Fred

On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, David Cherryholmes wrote: > I've tried to avoid jumping into the freak-out fest, but if I see a trend > towards anything in the sum of the new changes, it's towards iaijitsu > jyhad. Assuming the list of changes is true. I don't know that. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Frederick Scott wrote: > I've had experiences with such decks in tournaments. The "nothing except" was > part of it, yes. Granted, you play one game against a guy and perhaps his cards > don't come up right for whatever else it does. But for them to be pulling off so > many Minion Tap/Fifth combos you know that had to be putting a high priority on > that part - likely at the expense of much offense. I wasn't there for the games you are recounting. It could be that they were getting ousted by [pre || dom || weenie || S+B], and had to shift gears to stay alive. Who knows. > > And where does that leave the "clods and dolts" who bring decks with tight > > DOM crypts, or weenie Praxis, or weenie hack, that repetitiously, > > mechanically, carve six to eight pool out of you a turn starting with turn > > two? Is that "better?" > > I'm not sure what you're getting at. But yes, I'd much rather see people > attempting to win games the best way they know how than attempting not to lose > them. If we have a big draw where no one ousts anyone else, it's basically one > big loss for the whole table. Again, without deck lists it's hard to comment, but I'm doubtful that any of these decks were completely lacking in offense. Were any of these games final tournament rounds? If so, one would presume they got to the finals somehow. Staying alive until everyone's spent a bunch of pool and atempting to sweep up the table with relatively light pool damage is just as proper as anything you're advocating. > OK, I'll bite. What's "iaijitsu jyhad"? I picked up the word from an old RPG named "Bushido." Two samurai face off at arm's length, stare each other down for a while, and then execute a draw-and-cut maneuver. It's all about pure speed. [ quoted text not captured ]

jsp...@sprynet.com (jspektr) wrote in message news:<196f2577.0207...@posting.google.com>... > "Peter Oh" <ohb...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:<1tGV8.81250$UT.55...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > > > > I certainly hope that isn't the intent. We play 1.5 to 2 hour games > regardless of whether people use 5th Tradition. One of the > *attractions* of the game for us is the long duration of a single > match vs. other games like Magic the Gathering. So far I haven't seen > any newbie pushed away by the length of the matches either, but your > mileage may vary. > > JSpektr I agree with u . when i play for first time the Jyhad , for me was a grateful surprise as a player can develop his(her game , and not a game of only over 10-15 min. like magic. For me , it´s GREAT adventage of Jyhad over others cards games. It´s better make a deck that u spent xxx time thiking as it can work and seem it in the table that other rushedd games where u only play of 8 -15 cards of the library. that´s all Best regards : A spanish drunken guy :-)

On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 19:24:17 GMT, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote: > >Not only that, maybe it will keep certain clods and dolts from bringing decks >to tournaments that do nothing except pull off half a dozen Fifth Traditions >followed by half a dozen Minion Taps. > >"Gosh, another game where all five of us get a half a victory point and no >one wins the game point. How nice...." > >Fred *cough* card limits! *cough* T

David Cherryholmes wrote: > > On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Frederick Scott wrote: > > > I've had experiences with such decks in tournaments. The "nothing except" was > > part of it, yes. Granted, you play one game against a guy and perhaps his cards > > don't come up right for whatever else it does. But for them to be pulling off so > > many Minion Tap/Fifth combos you know that had to be putting a high priority on > > that part - likely at the expense of much offense. > > I wasn't there for the games you are recounting. It could be that they > were getting ousted by [pre || dom || weenie || S+B], and had to shift > gears to stay alive. Nope. They were just minion-tap-fifth-tradition-minion-tap-fifth-traditioning away. Their pool would get up ludicrously high and they'd bring on more princes on...and then....more minion-tap-fifth-tradition-minion-tap-fifth-tradition. "Oh boy! Look! Now I can do it with FIVE princes a turn!!!" (Well, not really. One was sufficient. The others just sat there.) > > I'm not sure what you're getting at. But yes, I'd much rather see people > > attempting to win games the best way they know how than attempting not to lose > > them. If we have a big draw where no one ousts anyone else, it's basically one > > big loss for the whole table. > > Again, without deck lists it's hard to comment, but I'm doubtful that any > of these decks were completely lacking in offense. Were any of these > games final tournament rounds? Nope. I can't imagine anyone with such a deck ever making the finals. > > OK, I'll bite. What's "iaijitsu jyhad"? > > I picked up the word from an old RPG named "Bushido." Two samurai face > off at arm's length, stare each other down for a while, and then execute a > draw-and-cut maneuver. It's all about pure speed. There's all kinds of defense left in the game. Like a lot of people, I'm not sure Second and Fifth Traditions merited changing and, in any circumstances, I mourn for yet two more cards that don't do what they do on the old versions - assuming this rumor is true. But I do look forward to playing the game without the wholesale refilling of minions with the old Fifth Tradition. There are other ways to take care of weeny bleed. In fact, one of the main types of weeny bleed may be taking a major hit if the other rumor about Majesty is true. Weeny presence minions can less afford to play a blood every combat than anyone else. And offensive combat, in some form or another (whether rush, intercept, bleed and bruise, or whatever) should be more prevalent with presence S:CE being harder to make work. So if you're convinced Minion Tap/Fifth Tradition is the only way large minions can survive weeny bleed, I still think things may not be so bad. Fred

In message <3D28A78A...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled something about: >Weeny presence minions can less afford to play a blood every combat than anyone >else. And offensive combat, in some form or another (whether rush, intercept, Consider the effectiveness of Thin Blood and Blood to Water now. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

> Confused, I'll buy. But could you explain why you would see that as a bad > thing, as Sorrow is suggesting? After all, the rule is the same for everyone. > Everyone has to solve the same problem. Doesn't matter that everyone has the same problem. Everyone has the same problem in M:tG with regards to the possiblity of not drawing any land (and as such won't be able to play their deck) for X turns. That doesn't mean that I have to like it. I don't. Hate it in fact and that's one of the reasons I don't play M:tG. It's a mechanic that people find doesn't suit them. In order to make it so that it's at least somewhat palatable, you have to show them ways around what they see as a defect of the game (it doesn't matter that *you* don't see it as a defect). The way I did that was to show them bloat. Now, I can't really even do that anymore. Sorrow --- I keep telling them that I think they're out to get me. They ask me if I feel remorse and I answer, "Why of course! [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow wrote: > > > Confused, I'll buy. But could you explain why you would see that as a bad > > thing, as Sorrow is suggesting? After all, the rule is the same for everyone. > > Everyone has to solve the same problem. > > Doesn't matter that everyone has the same problem. Everyone has the same > problem in M:tG with regards to the possiblity of not drawing any land (and as > such won't be able to play their deck) for X turns. That doesn't mean that I > have to like it. I don't. Hate it in fact and that's one of the reasons I don't play > M:tG. > It's a mechanic that people find doesn't suit them. In order to make it so that > it's at least somewhat palatable, you have to show them ways around what > they see as a defect of the game (it doesn't matter that *you* don't see it as > a defect). The way I did that was to show them bloat. Now, I can't really even > do that anymore. You might try contrasting it with Monopoly, where you have to spend money to make money. Or Vinci/Evo where you frequently have to spend VPs in order to get the best chance of ulimately getting the most VPs. If they're viewing a fundamental part of the game (pool for play) as a defect, then maybe the game isn't for them. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3D27B2EF...@removethis.com... > Chris Berger wrote: > > > > > > > I'd like to chime in with anecdotal evidence that you're right... When my > > friends and I first started playing Jyhad, we *were* confused with the "life = > > mana" mechanic in the game. Coming directly from Magic at the time, we saw > > life and mana both as things you wanted to maximize, and the person that > > effectively maximized both was going a long way towards winning the game. > > Confused, I'll buy. But could you explain why you would see that as a bad > thing, as Sorrow is suggesting? After all, the rule is the same for everyone. > Everyone has to solve the same problem. > I'd like to postulate that confusion equals "bad" for starting players. Granted, once you learn a game and understand that this mechanic is a decision about spending pool in order to protect your pool, and one which everyone has to find a way to deal with, well... then it ceases to be confusing and becomes interesting. It's a part of the game. One way to explain this to people is to show that you can use your minions to gain pool back. Thus, it's a sort of investment, and most people understand investments. Note, I don't think that the changes to blood gain that have so far been "revealed" are a bad thing. But, I do see Sorrow's point. I don't think that the pool investment mechanic in the game is a bad thing, but until you realize that it's an investment, it can be confusing. Especially when considering how you will best spend your pool. It's tough to go about solving a problem until you have a handle on exactly what problem you're solving, and showing people that there are ways to gain back pool goes at a least a little ways toward explaining the problem.

Sorrow wrote: > > > Confused, I'll buy. But could you explain why you would see that as a bad > > thing, as Sorrow is suggesting? After all, the rule is the same for everyone. > > Everyone has to solve the same problem. > > Doesn't matter that everyone has the same problem. Everyone has the same > problem in M:tG with regards to the possiblity of not drawing any land (and as > such won't be able to play their deck) for X turns. That doesn't mean that I > have to like it. I don't. Hate it in fact and that's one of the reasons I > don't play M:tG. > > It's a mechanic that people find doesn't suit them. In order to make it so that > it's at least somewhat palatable, you have to show them ways around what > they see as a defect of the game (it doesn't matter that *you* don't see it as > a defect). The way I did that was to show them bloat. Now, I can't really even > do that anymore. I guess what I was trying to get at was what was actually _bad_ about it. Granted, there's always just arbitrary taste: "I don't like that in a game, so I'm not going to play that game." That's fine. It's somewhat arbitrary but a lot of people have certain things like that - including me. But when you responded to this thread, you seemed to infer that it's a common, widespread thing, which is what I can't understand. A game that takes more time than a person likes to spend on games is something that might be common and understandable to dislike. (As might a game that's too short, for that matter.) A game like Magic where a spate of bad luck (e.g. drawing no land) will negate any chance of winning the game, no matter how clever your deck, is something that might be common and understandable to dislike. But there's nothing about spending pool to gain resources to win the game that seems inherently "bad" to me. It's just arbitrary to view it as "bad". Fred

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uif3en6...@corp.supernews.com... > However, when > you are coming from another game (especially M:tG), it's just not appealing. > You are killing yourself just so you can play? On the surface, it just doesn't > make sense. Sure, to you or I it does. But not to newbies. And the only Understood. > way I can keep people like that interested is to show them that there are, in > fact, alot of ways to gain life back. But now with one of the biggest way > (possibly) getting hamstrung, it makes it hard to demonstrate that. Of course, *your* pool gain isn't hindered at all. There haven't been any hints at changes to Blood Doll or Minion Tap, etc. It's just going to be harder to get blood back on your vampires. Which is somewhat different, I think. Not to mention, it really only messes with (it most definitely does not destroy) Minion Tap/5th decks. It does nothing to (as has been noted elsewhere, I know) Minion Tap/Voter Cap, Minion Tap/rush/Taste, Minion Tap/Theft of Vitae (okay, okay, I'm probably one of the few people doing this). Still...it just slows down Minion Tap/5th; it doesn't necessarily wreck it. Assuming that the 4-blood limit is anything more than a rumor. Xian

> > way I can keep people like that interested is to show them that there are, in > > fact, alot of ways to gain life back. But now with one of the biggest way > > (possibly) getting hamstrung, it makes it hard to demonstrate that. > Of course, *your* pool gain isn't hindered at all. There haven't been any hints > at changes to Blood Doll or Minion Tap, etc. Well, Blood Doll isn't appearing in the set. At least it wasn't on the checklist. > It's just going to be harder to get blood back on your vampires. Which is > somewhat different, I think. No, not really. W/o blood on your vamps, you can't pull it back to your pool. > Not to mention, it really only messes with (it most definitely does not destroy) > Minion Tap/5th decks. Indeed. But did it really need to? > It does nothing to (as has been noted elsewhere, I know) Minion Tap/Voter Cap, True. > Minion Tap/rush/Taste, But Taste was seriously hampered as well. Because of that, you can't pull back as much pool as you could have otherwise. > Minion Tap/Theft of Vitae (okay, okay, I'm probably one of the few people doing > this). Unless you are also using Celerity, the blood gain you get from theft is very minor. > Still...it just slows down Minion Tap/5th; it doesn't necessarily wreck it. Before, all you needed was 1 vamp out to pull this off. You could build your crypt around 1 vamp to do it all (and it's been done) and you could still MT/5th. Now, you need at least 2 vamps. 1 token prince to perform the 5ths (and another way to get blood back on him because the 5ths will cost) and your primary vamp. And if someone blows away your prince, too bad for you. > Assuming that the 4-blood limit is anything more than a rumor. I'm 99.9% certain it's not a rumor based on various things that were also disclosed. Sorrow --- "I am Jack's wasted life." - Narrator

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uien7bf...@corp.supernews.com... > Another thing that pushes them away (and I've experienced this first > hand) is the fact that they don't like the mechanic where you are > spending your *life* to acquire your resources. This is interesting. In my experience, it's much more common for newer/less experienced players to *over*extend themselves by spending their pool down lower than they should (eg by buying more vampires - or buying more uncontrolled vamps off their crypt - than they can really afford) than for them to not be able to do anything because they don't spend *enough* on vamps/other in-game resources. Josh fascinating, captain

In message <1tGV8.81250$UT.55...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Peter Oh <ohb...@wam.umd.edu> writes: >So maybe the shift away from pool >gain will lead to faster games which will, in turn, lead to more new players >willing to pick it up. One alternative option: - Due to a perceived inability to gain pool as easily as previously, decks will become more defensive - As a result, more players will include Telepathic Counter, Deflection and so on - What pool gain there is will be seen as much more important. Combined with a greater level of defence, this could create a greater differential in general pool totals from current levels, when defence is included (that is, even with a smaller total pool, more bleed will be needed to break down defences) - Games, overall, will take longer, as a result I can see a metagame working this way, as well as the faster option. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D I am woman. Here, me raw. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:TCDW8.1125$FW5.1...@newshog.newsread.com... > > Of course, *your* pool gain isn't hindered at all. There haven't been any hints > > at changes to Blood Doll or Minion Tap, etc. > > Well, Blood Doll isn't appearing in the set. At least it wasn't on the checklist. True. Still unknown whether or not that's just the list for the boosters or not. > > It's just going to be harder to get blood back on your vampires. Which is > > somewhat different, I think. > > No, not really. W/o blood on your vamps, you can't pull it back to your pool. I'm talking about the very first time. Assuming Democritus isn't thumped into torpor by your predator before you get to take your first action with him, you can Minion Tap him for as much as you used to be able to the first time around. Yes, if there isn't blood on the vampires, it doesn't go into your pool as quickly. I see that as merely another problem for deck design. "How do I put more blood gain into this deck?" I don't see it as a pool gain problem. > > Not to mention, it really only messes with (it most definitely does not destroy) > > Minion Tap/5th decks. > > Indeed. But did it really need to? Unsure. I'm surprised it doesn't top out at 5 blood, but...ehh. > > Minion Tap/rush/Taste, > > But Taste was seriously hampered as well. Because of that, you can't pull back > as much pool as you could have otherwise. Taste wasn't hampered, really. You can't gain any more or less blood because of the changes to Taste; you just have to be a little more careful in combat. > > Minion Tap/Theft of Vitae (okay, okay, I'm probably one of the few people doing > > this). > > Unless you are also using Celerity, the blood gain you get from theft is very minor. Generally true. > > Still...it just slows down Minion Tap/5th; it doesn't necessarily wreck it. > > Before, all you needed was 1 vamp out to pull this off. You could build your crypt > around 1 vamp to do it all (and it's been done) and you could still MT/5th. Now, > you need at least 2 vamps. 1 token prince to perform the 5ths (and another way > to get blood back on him because the 5ths will cost) and your primary vamp. And > if someone blows away your prince, too bad for you. Yup, that sounds about right. I don't really see a problem. :) > > Assuming that the 4-blood limit is anything more than a rumor. > > I'm 99.9% certain it's not a rumor based on various things that were also disclosed. Initially I was pretty certain that they're real, but I'm withholding my personal stamp of approval until I actually see the cards (or preview). Like Josh mentioned, I would have to agree that they are at the very extreme end of card alteration, not really something I expected to see from LSJ. And heck, Chris Berger liked every one of them. You can't tell me there's something unholy going on there. :) Xian

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<qd9hiu8dpi14ce25d...@4ax.com>... > In message <3D28A78A...@removethis.com>, > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled > something about: > > >Weeny presence minions can less afford to play a blood every combat than anyone > >else. And offensive combat, in some form or another (whether rush, intercept, > > Consider the effectiveness of Thin Blood and Blood to Water now. Or Vitae Block. :) Salubri combat rules! ~SV

In message <higqiusn5sp5chiim...@4ax.com>, Chris. QJ <ro...@gmx.at> writes: >Considering my comments, i don't think so. You missed one very important word in my post. That word was "perceived". [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <r42tiu46drdmsfqhb...@4ax.com>, Chris. QJ <ro...@gmx.at> writes: >Well, pardon me, but even I, as a relative newbie (only playing about >half a year), don't "percieve" a inability to gain pool, or defend >myself because of the change to 5th. As I said, the word was perceived. The post also noted that this could vary from group to group. My apologies if suggesting that some players, and thus affecting some groups, which had relied on Fifth Tradition bloating for uber-pool gain might go onto more defensive lines to compensate, doesn't meet with your approval. Such reactions do happen, as new deck styles are explored, or a ruling is issued, or whatever. Some players see a certain card as being utterly whack, and so regard it as a much more powerful situation than it really is - current example, Rotschreck. There are myriad defences to it (and it's notable that the Rules Team 'added' another one, using common disciplines[0]), yet players still perceive it as being extremely powerful. You may not view it as that. I may not view it as that. There are, however, many players whose reactions and expectations regarding certain cards and certain effects differs quite wildly from my own. It can be quite enlightening (or less so) to listen to inexperienced players whose views of cards are wildly different. I recall a gentleman trying to sell the virtues of Blood Puppy to me. Anyway, perception is nine tenths of the law. Just ask David Tatu. [0] Auspex and Celerity. And also Sanguinus. Two out of three ain't bad. [ quoted text not captured ]