No VPs for time-out?

How about changing the tournament rules not to award any VPs for reaching a time-out? While at first glance it doesn't solve the main questions on the tray (certain players making decks to win with time-outs either with 2.5 VP in prelims or 0.5 VP in finals), it does give a general boost to the willingness of players to move forward. Also, losing the incentive to "just hang in there and survive for the 0.5 VP" might make for interesting new scenarios. Of course we might need to revisit (eliminate?) the withdrawal rule then. Opinions? -- Regards, Daneel

On Aug 28, 9:37 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > How about changing the tournament rules not to award any > VPs for reaching a time-out? [...] How about playing to win? :-) I honestly see no problem with time outs. If a game times out, then it times out. Time outs are usually a consequence of bad play. -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/ http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)

[ quoted text not captured ] Potential problem: It doesn't look like I can oust my prey (both to me, observers and judges.) Since I can't oust him, my possible VPs are maxed whether or not I survive to the time limit or not. Since it doesn't matter if I survive or not (in terms of playing to win), I'm free to transfer myself out to my predator if I want, even if he has no legitimate chance to oust me - I can just give him a VP for the hell of it, and I'm still 'playing to win' by the tournament rules. And I'd think most players would not like a rules change that makes it easier for people to legally 'transfer themselves out' or otherwise deliberately throw VPs/games to their predator. > Regards, > > Daneel -John Flournoy

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:04:38 -0700, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: > On Aug 28, 9:37 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> How about changing the tournament rules not to award any >> VPs for reaching a time-out? > > [...] > > How about playing to win? :-) > > I honestly see no problem with time outs. If a game times out, then it > times out. > > Time outs are usually a consequence of bad play. If this is so, then it is just another argument not to reward it. -- Regards, Daneel

On Aug 28, 11:44 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:04:38 -0700, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > On Aug 28, 9:37 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > >> How about changing the tournament rules not to award any > >> VPs for reaching a time-out? > > > [...] > > > How about playing to win? :-) > > > I honestly see no problem with time outs. If a game times out, then it > > times out. > > > Time outs are usually a consequence of bad play. > > If this is so, then it is just another argument not to reward it. How is bad play currently being rewarded? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] If by bad, you mean slow, ineffective, "let me hope to gt 0.5 VP" play, well then, thats easy! With 0.5 VPs... :)

PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER PLAY FASTER - Ben Peal

Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in news:1188331478.382590.289220 @y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com: > On Aug 28, 9:37 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> How about changing the tournament rules not to award any >> VPs for reaching a time-out? > > [...] > > How about playing to win? :-) > > I honestly see no problem with time outs. If a game times out, then it > times out. > > Time outs are usually a consequence of bad play. > ...and apparently, the Swiss Academy ;-) DZ AW

On Aug 29, 4:54 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@spamtrap.com> wrote: > Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote in news:1188331478.382590.289220 [ quoted text not captured ] The top seed isn't necessarily playing badly if he is aiming for the time out. [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans schrieb: > On Aug 29, 4:54 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@spamtrap.com> wrote: >> Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote in news:1188331478.382590.289220 >> @y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com: >> >>> On Aug 28, 9:37 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >>>> How about changing the tournament rules not to award any >>>> VPs for reaching a time-out? >>> [...] >>> How about playing to win? :-) >>> I honestly see no problem with time outs. If a game times out, then it >>> times out. >>> Time outs are usually a consequence of bad play. >> ...and apparently, the Swiss Academy ;-) > > The top seed isn't necessarily playing badly if he is aiming for the > time out. In fact, most of the time he is playing very well :) -- Johannes Walch

Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in news:1188369943.880762.31500 @d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > On Aug 29, 4:54 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@spamtrap.com> wrote: >> Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote in news:1188331478.382590.289220 >> @y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com: >> > Time outs are usually a consequence of bad play. >> >> ...and apparently, the Swiss Academy ;-) > > The top seed isn't necessarily playing badly if he is aiming for the > time out. > ...and people seem to think that this is a positive feature of the game? *shakes head* DZ AW

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, atomweaver wrote: >> The top seed isn't necessarily playing badly if he is aiming for the >> time out. >> > ...and people seem to think that this is a positive feature of the game? I don't think anyone is running around saying "try vtes, you can win tournaments by just sitting at a table doing nothing for two hours!" Any example of a final table timing out with nobody ousted can be attributed to players not trying hard enough to win. The lower seeds sought to protect their rankings rather than improve them. That's where you should be pointing your finger. At the start of the final, the top seed guy is currently winning. Seeking to maintain that state just makes sense. > *shakes head* Careful, some good stuff might fall out. Matt Morgan

atomweaver wrote: > Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in news:1188369943.880762.31500 > @d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > >> On Aug 29, 4:54 am, atomweaver <atomwea...@spamtrap.com> wrote: >>> Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote in news:1188331478.382590.289220 >>> @y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com: > >>>> Time outs are usually a consequence of bad play. >>> ...and apparently, the Swiss Academy ;-) >> The top seed isn't necessarily playing badly if he is aiming for the >> time out. >> > ....and people seem to think that this is a positive feature of the game? I've never seen anyone suggest that, no. Perhaps you're talking to other people, though. Or you're conflating the positive feature of "a tournament has a winner" with this time out business.

<ben...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1188338880.4...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Signed. I'm starting to dislike tournament games as they seem to are more and more talking and "thinking" and less and less about playing the game. Some examples from my latest: * Looking at your hand 10 times when you KNOW you don't have a deflection while pretending to be contemplating wheter or not to bounce is not good play. Looking once, maybe twice and pondering it for 20-25 seconds - sure. Anything more is stalling. * Thinking for 5 minutes before you do that hunt action, pretending to have some masterplan in mind doesn't make you intimidating and strong. At best it looks like you're stalling; at worst you annoy the other 4 players. * When you're tapped out with no wakes in hand, 1 pool with one minute on the clock while your opponent bleeds you, means you're ousted. No amount of staring at your hand faking you're thinking about which minion to wake while waiting for the time to run out is going to save your ass. It's bad sportmanship if not plain cheating. * Putting a card face-down on the table when someone is being Conditioning-ousted pretending it's a DI is to see the effect one thing. Taking 7-8 minute to negotiate a deal with your predator (who was being ousted) and then taking the card back saying: "nah you'll break it anyway" is a whole different thing especially if the card turns out not to be a DI and you're next to get ousted unless that clock runs out (which it thank god did just AFTER you got ousted...) I don't think zero VP for a time-out isn't a good idea for reasons mentioned above among others. I'd like to see a 30-minute per player time limit and just play with a 5-way chess clock (these actually exist, yes) and still time at 2 hours. If it runs out you're out as well - Your predator gains 1 VP and six pool. Thanks for playing - next time play faster and play your Deck instead of Diplomacy. Solved. And don't get me started on 'decks that take long turns'. Any decent player can handle 12-13 turns in 30 minutes with ANY deck and have time spare for some talk.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Izaak wrote: > Some examples from my latest: > > * Looking at your hand 10 times when you KNOW you don't have a deflection > while pretending to be contemplating wheter or not to bounce is not good > play. Looking once, maybe twice and pondering it for 20-25 seconds - sure. > Anything more is stalling. Call a judge. > * Thinking for 5 minutes before you do that hunt action, pretending to have > some masterplan in mind doesn't make you intimidating and strong. At best it > looks like you're stalling; at worst you annoy the other 4 players. Call a judge. > * When you're tapped out with no wakes in hand, 1 pool with one minute on > the clock while your opponent bleeds you, means you're ousted. No amount of > staring at your hand faking you're thinking about which minion to wake while > waiting for the time to run out is going to save your ass. It's bad > sportmanship if not plain cheating. Call a judge. > * Putting a card face-down on the table when someone is being > Conditioning-ousted pretending it's a DI is to see the effect one thing. > Taking 7-8 minute to negotiate a deal with your predator (who was being > ousted) and then taking the card back saying: "nah you'll break it anyway" > is a whole different thing especially if the card turns out not to be a DI > and you're next to get ousted unless that clock runs out (which it thank god > did just AFTER you got ousted...) I guess you have to call the bluff here. It doesn't strike me as illegal (but yes, could be annoying). > I don't think zero VP for a time-out isn't a good idea for reasons mentioned > above among others. I'd like to see a 30-minute per player time limit and > just play with a 5-way chess clock (these actually exist, yes) and still > time at 2 hours. If it runs out you're out as well - Your predator gains 1 > VP and six pool. Thanks for playing - next time play faster and play your > Deck instead of Diplomacy. > > Solved. Please go back and read all the threads about why this is a terrible, unworkable idea. It really is. > And don't get me started on 'decks that take long turns'. Any decent player > can handle 12-13 turns in 30 minutes with ANY deck and have time spare for > some talk. I'll just waste all your time and now you're ousted. Thanks for the VP! Matt Morgan

[ quoted text not captured ] What it comes down to is resource management. You have a limited resource in a finals which is a time limit. It is not alloted equally to all players but apportioned according to use. Therefore, the first place player can "politic", stall, play-slow, play Imbued, or any other manner to burn up the clock which doesn't get him in trouble with the judge. This according to LSJ is playing to win. It is unsportmanlike behavior that goes against the intent of the game. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

XZealot wrote: > What it comes down to is resource management. You have a limited > resource in a finals which is a time limit. It is not alloted equally > to all players but apportioned according to use. Therefore, the first > place player can "politic", stall, play-slow, play Imbued, or any > other manner to burn up the clock which doesn't get him in trouble > with the judge. This according to LSJ is playing to win. If a judge determines that a player is stalling for time or playing excessively slowly at any point during the tournament, the responsible player will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. According to LSJ, and the V:EKN rules, this (stall, slow-play, "politic" when it means the same, and so on) is not allowed. The caveat "when it doesn't get him into trouble with the judge" is odd. To wit: illegal activity which doesn't violate the law is legal. Sure, it is true in some sense, being a zero case, but it doesn't add anything.

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:2007082910...@fnord.io.com... > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Izaak wrote: > >> Some examples from my latest: >> >> * Looking at your hand 10 times when you KNOW you don't have a deflection >> while pretending to be contemplating wheter or not to bounce is not good >> play. Looking once, maybe twice and pondering it for 20-25 seconds - >> sure. >> Anything more is stalling. > > Call a judge. "I'm thinking about this and that move, I'm not stalling" "Well, move it, just finish the action" Time passed, mission accomplished. Plus, a people that do this start it early and by the time you're annoyed enough to call a judge it's too late anyway. >> * Thinking for 5 minutes before you do that hunt action, pretending to >> have >> some masterplan in mind doesn't make you intimidating and strong. At best >> it >> looks like you're stalling; at worst you annoy the other 4 players. > > Call a judge. And then what? >> * When you're tapped out with no wakes in hand, 1 pool with one minute on >> the clock while your opponent bleeds you, means you're ousted. No amount >> of >> staring at your hand faking you're thinking about which minion to wake >> while >> waiting for the time to run out is going to save your ass. It's bad >> sportmanship if not plain cheating. > > Call a judge. I would have if I was the player that did the action. I was just a bystander (and as such could see the hands of both) and in no position to call a judge. >> * Putting a card face-down on the table when someone is being >> Conditioning-ousted pretending it's a DI is to see the effect one thing. >> Taking 7-8 minute to negotiate a deal with your predator (who was being >> ousted) and then taking the card back saying: "nah you'll break it >> anyway" >> is a whole different thing especially if the card turns out not to be a >> DI >> and you're next to get ousted unless that clock runs out (which it thank >> god >> did just AFTER you got ousted...) > > I guess you have to call the bluff here. It doesn't strike me as illegal > (but yes, could be annoying). And that's just one way to endlessly stall games for no good reason. Gotta love the amount of DI-talk when someone is going to get ousted. This has more to do with the card than the VP's or players though. Just ban the fucking card and be done with it. >> I don't think zero VP for a time-out isn't a good idea for reasons >> mentioned >> above among others. I'd like to see a 30-minute per player time limit and >> just play with a 5-way chess clock (these actually exist, yes) and still >> time at 2 hours. If it runs out you're out as well - Your predator gains >> 1 >> VP and six pool. Thanks for playing - next time play faster and play your >> Deck instead of Diplomacy. >> >> Solved. > > Please go back and read all the threads about why this is a terrible, > unworkable idea. It really is. I followed the threads. Doesn't seem unworkable to me, but opinions tend to differ. >> And don't get me started on 'decks that take long turns'. Any decent >> player >> can handle 12-13 turns in 30 minutes with ANY deck and have time spare >> for >> some talk. > > I'll just waste all your time and now you're ousted. Thanks for the VP! Call a judge?

On Aug 29, 5:22 pm, "Izaak" <.> wrote: > "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote in messagenews:2007082910...@fnord.io.com... > > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Izaak wrote: > > >> Some examples from my latest: > > >> * Looking at your hand 10 times when you KNOW you don't have a deflection > >> while pretending to be contemplating wheter or not to bounce is not good > >> play. Looking once, maybe twice and pondering it for 20-25 seconds - > >> sure. > >> Anything more is stalling. > > > Call a judge. > > "I'm thinking about this and that move, I'm not stalling" > "Well, move it, just finish the action" > > Time passed, mission accomplished. Plus, a people that do this start it > early and by the time you're annoyed enough to call a judge it's too late > anyway.[...] If a judge determines that a player has been stalling, he or she can add more time to the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Izaak wrote: > "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message > news:2007082910...@fnord.io.com... >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Izaak wrote: >> >>> Some examples from my latest: >>> >>> * Looking at your hand 10 times when you KNOW you don't have a deflection >>> while pretending to be contemplating wheter or not to bounce is not good >>> play. Looking once, maybe twice and pondering it for 20-25 seconds - >>> sure. >>> Anything more is stalling. >> Call a judge. > > "I'm thinking about this and that move, I'm not stalling" > "Well, move it, just finish the action" Or: "you've been stalling illegally. You are disqualified. Set down your hand and leave the table. I'll play out your position from here. Table has 10 additional minutes." > Time passed, mission accomplished. Plus, a people that do this start it > early and by the time you're annoyed enough to call a judge it's too late > anyway. It's never too late. The judge can add time.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Izaak wrote: >>> * Looking at your hand 10 times when you KNOW you don't have a deflection >>> while pretending to be contemplating wheter or not to bounce is not good >>> play. Looking once, maybe twice and pondering it for 20-25 seconds - >>> sure. >>> Anything more is stalling. >> >> Call a judge. > > "I'm thinking about this and that move, I'm not stalling" > "Well, move it, just finish the action" > > Time passed, mission accomplished. Plus, a people that do this start it > early and by the time you're annoyed enough to call a judge it's too late > anyway. A judge can award extra time to a game. >>> * Thinking for 5 minutes before you do that hunt action, pretending to >>> have >>> some masterplan in mind doesn't make you intimidating and strong. At best >>> it >>> looks like you're stalling; at worst you annoy the other 4 players. >> >> Call a judge. > > And then what? If you believe a player is deliberately stalling and wasting your time, then you should call a judge to rule on that. The judge could ask the player not to waste time, award extra time to the game or even take some disciplinary action. >>> * When you're tapped out with no wakes in hand, 1 pool with one minute on >>> the clock while your opponent bleeds you, means you're ousted. No amount >>> of >>> staring at your hand faking you're thinking about which minion to wake >>> while >>> waiting for the time to run out is going to save your ass. It's bad >>> sportmanship if not plain cheating. >> >> Call a judge. > > I would have if I was the player that did the action. I was just a bystander > (and as such could see the hands of both) and in no position to call a > judge. You can still notify a judge that you saw something you believe to be illegal. No position to call a judge? Were you wrapped up like a mummy and suspended from the ceiling or something? >>> * Putting a card face-down on the table when someone is being >>> Conditioning-ousted pretending it's a DI is to see the effect one thing. >>> Taking 7-8 minute to negotiate a deal with your predator (who was being >>> ousted) and then taking the card back saying: "nah you'll break it >>> anyway" >>> is a whole different thing especially if the card turns out not to be a >>> DI >>> and you're next to get ousted unless that clock runs out (which it thank >>> god >>> did just AFTER you got ousted...) >> >> I guess you have to call the bluff here. It doesn't strike me as illegal >> (but yes, could be annoying). > > And that's just one way to endlessly stall games for no good reason. Gotta > love the amount of DI-talk when someone is going to get ousted. This has > more to do with the card than the VP's or players though. Just ban the > fucking card and be done with it. Well, that's probably not going to happen right now, so a better solution is just to ignore a player who seeks to waste your time like that. A player cannot hold the game hostage by threatening to play a card. "Do you DI the Conditioning, yes or no? Apparently he's not DIing it, so the bleed is for 3." Gameplay continues. Again, if you believe someone is wasting your time, call a judge. >>> I don't think zero VP for a time-out isn't a good idea for reasons >>> mentioned >>> above among others. I'd like to see a 30-minute per player time limit and >>> just play with a 5-way chess clock (these actually exist, yes) and still >>> time at 2 hours. If it runs out you're out as well - Your predator gains >>> 1 >>> VP and six pool. Thanks for playing - next time play faster and play your >>> Deck instead of Diplomacy. >>> >>> Solved. >> >> Please go back and read all the threads about why this is a terrible, >> unworkable idea. It really is. > > I followed the threads. Doesn't seem unworkable to me, but opinions tend to > differ. > >>> And don't get me started on 'decks that take long turns'. Any decent >>> player >>> can handle 12-13 turns in 30 minutes with ANY deck and have time spare >>> for >>> some talk. >> >> I'll just waste all your time and now you're ousted. Thanks for the VP! > > Call a judge? Nah. I wouldn't be actually stalling. I'd just play a very reactive deck, like weenie Auspex with Smiling Jack. My minion phase takes 2 seconds. I'm never going to run out of my time. But maybe you'll run your clock out while you're trying to figure out how you can possibly get an action off. All my card play happens during your turn, so even with fast playing, I'm still going to be burning your clock. Rather than try to change the rules to fix a problem that not everyone is having, try using the tools that are already in place. Stalling is illegal. You could also try running faster decks. Or you could stop playing with massive jerks. Matt Morgan

Matthew T. Morgan schrieb: > Rather than try to change the rules to fix a problem that not everyone > is having, try using the tools that are already in place. Stalling is > illegal. You could also try running faster decks. Or you could stop > playing with massive jerks. The design of the cards (in new expansions) is also a key factor here. As I have allready complained many times the game design does have a too strong favor for reactive cards for my taste (for the last few expansions). A lot of new intercept possibilities emerged (Bowl of Convergence, many locations, Unmasking ...) but only very little (good) stuff to push actions through (Veil of the Legions, perhaps Vermin Channel). Let´s look at a (hypothetical) example: If you had a card that has no requirements, is a bleed for +2 at +5 stealth, most likely no game would time out. Obviously this is not a well designed card but it shows the point: Game Design needs to put more focus on taking resources *off* the table instead of protecting them or getting them back. -- Johannes Walch

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:_8gBi.566$ZA5...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com: > XZealot wrote: >> What it comes down to is resource management. You have a limited >> resource in a finals which is a time limit. It is not alloted >> equally to all players but apportioned according to use. Therefore, >> the first place player can "politic", stall, play-slow, play Imbued, >> or any other manner to burn up the clock which doesn't get him in >> trouble with the judge. This according to LSJ is playing to win. > > If a judge determines that a player is stalling for time or playing > excessively slowly at any point during the tournament, the responsible > player will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN > Penalty Guidelines. > > According to LSJ, and the V:EKN rules, this (stall, slow-play, > "politic" when it means the same, and so on) is not allowed. > He just said "politic", absent the 'when it means the same'. Politicking can take time, legitimately. Indeed, it can take more time than any other aspect of game play, given one or two more willing participants. > The caveat "when it doesn't get him into trouble with the judge" is > odd. To wit: illegal activity which doesn't violate the law is legal. > Sure, it is true in some sense, being a zero case, but it doesn't add > anything. Sure it does. When determining slow play, the primary thing a judge uses is his judgment... Without more objective guidelines, judgement is (highly?) variable by judge... I belive Norm's just saying to take into account what you anticipate the Judge's judgment on rate of play will be, when a player decides how best to consume the clock. DaveZ

On Aug 29, 11:20 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > Matthew T. Morgan schrieb: > > > Rather than try to change the rules to fix a problem that not everyone > > is having, try using the tools that are already in place. Stalling is > > illegal. You could also try running faster decks. Or you could stop > > playing with massive jerks. > > The design of the cards (in new expansions) is also a key factor here. > As I have allready complained many times the game design does have a too > strong favor for reactive cards for my taste (for the last few > expansions). A lot of new intercept possibilities emerged (Bowl of > Convergence, many locations, Unmasking ...) but only very little (good) > stuff to push actions through (Veil of the Legions, perhaps Vermin Channel). Huh what? Going backwards, here's EVERY new library card that provides intercept: Sword of Caine: Number of new intercept cards: 1 (Census Taker). Third edition: Number of new intercept cards: 1 (Abbot.) (Nights of Reckoning: No intercept cards that can be used by non- imbued.) Legacies of Blood: 6 cards. (Ahriman Protectorate, No Secrets, Predator's Communion, Quicksilver Contemplation, Scry the Hearthstone, Shaman.) Kindred Most Wanted: 6: (Anima Gathering, Bloodstone, Harzomatuili, Phased Motion Detector, Trophy: Domain, Warning Sirens.) 10th Anniversary: 3 cards. Bowl of Convergence, Channel 10, Carlton Van Wyck. Gehenna: 4 cards. Instinctive Reaction, Divine Sign, Friend of Mine, The Unmasking. Promos: 1. (Wall Street) So in the last SEVEN expansions, or three years, we've seen a grand total of twenty-two new intercept cards (plus NoR's imbued-specific stuff.) Of those 22 cards, maybe nine actually see regular play. At least seven of them are rarely if ever played (Divine Sign, Warning Sirens, PMD, Quicksilver, Protectorate, Bloodstone, Harzo). So by "Many locations", you mean... two? Want to take a wild guess at how many new cards in that time period provide stealth or inhibit someone's ability to block (not even counting inherent-stealth actions)? It's a _lot_ more than the 9 intercept cards regularly played, or the 15 even played occasionally, or even the 22 total printed in the last 3 years. In fact, I'd argue that since KMW came out, there's been a near absolute -lack- of new intercept options, not an unbalancing and unending stream of them. > Let´s look at a (hypothetical) example: If you had a card that has no > requirements, is a bleed for +2 at +5 stealth, most likely no game would > time out. Obviously this is not a well designed card but it shows the > point: Game Design needs to put more focus on taking resources *off* the > table instead of protecting them or getting them back. The above said, I do agree that your point is more valid when you look at reaction cards; the game has seen a great deal of (non-intercept) reaction cards printed lately, and that has made people look to play more reactively and defensively instead of ousting their prey. > Johannes Walch -John Flournoy

atomweaver wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in > news:_8gBi.566$ZA5...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com: > >> XZealot wrote: >>> What it comes down to is resource management. You have a limited >>> resource in a finals which is a time limit. It is not alloted >>> equally to all players but apportioned according to use. Therefore, >>> the first place player can "politic", stall, play-slow, play Imbued, >>> or any other manner to burn up the clock which doesn't get him in >>> trouble with the judge. This according to LSJ is playing to win. >> If a judge determines that a player is stalling for time or playing >> excessively slowly at any point during the tournament, the responsible >> player will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN >> Penalty Guidelines. >> >> According to LSJ, and the V:EKN rules, this (stall, slow-play, >> "politic" when it means the same, and so on) is not allowed. >> > He just said "politic", absent the 'when it means the same'. Politicking > can take time, legitimately. Indeed, it can take more time than any > other aspect of game play, given one or two more willing participants. Yes. I was just reading it in the context in which it was used, not in isolation. >> The caveat "when it doesn't get him into trouble with the judge" is >> odd. To wit: illegal activity which doesn't violate the law is legal. >> Sure, it is true in some sense, being a zero case, but it doesn't add >> anything. > > Sure it does. When determining slow play, the primary thing a judge uses > is his judgment... Without more objective guidelines, judgement is > (highly?) variable by judge... I belive Norm's just saying to take into > account what you anticipate the Judge's judgment on rate of play will be, > when a player decides how best to consume the clock. Perhaps that's what he was thinking, but that isn't what he said (context above).

[ quoted text not captured ] The caveat is as important as is your "if a judge determines that a player is stalling" is the key part of that phrase. in the 60 turns taken up in a game (12 turns and 5 players), the only real thing a player has to do is interupt every players turn, including his own, for 30 seconds to take up 25% of the finals. 30 seconds is a tiny window for a judge to examine for stalling. That isn't very hard to do. Now you have effectively reduced the finals to a 1:30 hour game which is very easy to time out. I'm sure no one would try to do that. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp Comments Welcome,

In article <fb46cf$bpp$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote: > Let´s look at a (hypothetical) example: If you had a card that has no > requirements, is a bleed for +2 at +5 stealth, most likely no game would > time out. Obviously this is not a well designed card but it shows the > point: Game Design needs to put more focus on taking resources *off* the > table instead of protecting them or getting them back. Which is a reasonable statement--except that the game design has been trying to catch up every other strategy to compete with Stealth and Bleed since day 1. All of the increases in defense that have fallen into the game in the last 10 years are likely the direct result of Stealth and Bleed being too good from day 1, and the rest of the game trying to compete effectively. So on one hand, the slow and steady influx of defense into the game is a necessary function to make non S+B strategies viable. But in doing so, the rest of the game (that isn't S+B) is forced to slow down a lot. Which leads to slow game. Endless table talk certainly doesn't help, though. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

[ quoted text not captured ] Happily, after seeing you disrupt each players turn frequently, the judge can use his Judgment to Determine that you are, in fact, attempting to stall out the game by chunks, and take appropriate action. > I'm sure no one would try to do that. If they do, call a judge. witness1 - judges are magical like that

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, witness1 wrote: > Happily, after seeing you disrupt each players turn frequently, the > judge can use his Judgment to Determine that you are, in fact, > attempting to stall out the game by chunks, and take appropriate > action. Are your tournaments judged by Earl "Shaka74" Deams? Matt Morgan

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:etiBi.579$ZA5...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com: > atomweaver wrote: >> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >> news:_8gBi.566$ZA5...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com: >> >>> XZealot wrote: >>>> What it comes down to is resource management. You have a limited >>>> resource in a finals which is a time limit. It is not alloted >>>> equally to all players but apportioned according to use. >>>> Therefore, the first place player can "politic", stall, play-slow, >>>> play Imbued, or any other manner to burn up the clock which doesn't >>>> get him in trouble with the judge. This according to LSJ is >>>> playing to win. >>> If a judge determines that a player is stalling for time or playing >>> excessively slowly at any point during the tournament, the >>> responsible player will be subject to the appropriate provisions of >>> the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. >>> >>> According to LSJ, and the V:EKN rules, this (stall, slow-play, >>> "politic" when it means the same, and so on) is not allowed. >>> >> He just said "politic", absent the 'when it means the same'. >> Politicking can take time, legitimately. Indeed, it can take more >> time than any other aspect of game play, given one or two more >> willing participants. > > Yes. I was just reading it in the context in which it was used, not in > isolation. > I'm not so sure of that. Norm listed two legal and two potentially* illegal means of using the clock, and the context you provided was to flip one of the legal instances listed over into an illegal instance, and then delete the other legal instance he mentioned (play Imbued; which i would read more generally as "play a time-intensive strategy"). Sorry dude, thats not "reading in context". * I say "potentially" above, because of course, most behavior Judged upon will be the 'borderline' instances of behavior which *might* be stalling/slow play or *might* be legitimate play, as those will likely be the ones leveraged most often by the prudent player who is aiming for a table time-out. Behavior like that is only illegal if the Judge uses his judgement to decide that it is stalling or slow play. Despite your suggesting you'd DQ a guy for illegal slow-play, you'll probably never come across a case which is cut-n-dry enough to warrant a DQ as a first penalty. And, even if you did DQ someone in a 'borderline' situation, I'd expect that no other judge is likely to follow your example in, say, a local tournament (pure conjecture on my part, I know... but I'd say its reasonable, considering that they'll likely have to live/game with the DQ'ed, once the tournament is over). DaveZ

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, no, but I'd support putting his image on a "judge" t-shirt. witness1

witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:1188415624.410984.94370 @50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com: > On Aug 29, 2:59 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: >> On Aug 29, 10:20 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> The caveat is as important as is your "if a judge determines that a >> player is stalling" is the key part of that phrase. in the 60 turns >> taken up in a game (12 turns and 5 players), the only real thing a >> player has to do is interupt every players turn, including his own, >> for 30 seconds to take up 25% of the finals. 30 seconds is a tiny >> window for a judge to examine for stalling. That isn't very hard to >> do. Now you have effectively reduced the finals to a 1:30 hour game >> which is very easy to time out. > > Happily, after seeing you disrupt each players turn frequently, the > judge can use his Judgment to Determine that you are, in fact, > attempting to stall out the game by chunks, and take appropriate > action. > Disruption of another player's game/turn is a big chunk of what VTES _is_. If its only an average of 30 seconds per player-turn, and is attempted by a player of any competence, it will be 100% indiscernable from legitimate game play. Indeed, most/all of the extra time used could actually be consumed through legitimate play; a deck with a high level of table interaction, interference, negotiative elements can also be a very strong archetype; !Toreador cel-guns with Eagles Sight and maybe with a fair few DIs, would be a decent example. Considering the comments from the Swiss Academy (was it Olivier? Can't find the post right now...) on the matter of finals time length, I'd say they've already been actively building their decks under just such a strategy for quite some time now, and that's a perfectly legal way to play VTES. Given that the time use will more than likely be determined to be legitimate (either because it simply is legitimate, or because it is indiscernable from legitimate play), a Judge cannot help you. DaveZ

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in news:pdb6-19FAA8.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com: > In article <fb46cf$bpp$1...@news01.versatel.de>, > Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote: > >> Let´s look at a (hypothetical) example: If you had a card that has no >> requirements, is a bleed for +2 at +5 stealth, most likely no game >> would time out. Obviously this is not a well designed card but it >> shows the point: Game Design needs to put more focus on taking >> resources *off* the table instead of protecting them or getting them >> back. > > Which is a reasonable statement--except that the game design has been > trying to catch up every other strategy to compete with Stealth and > Bleed since day 1. All of the increases in defense that have fallen > into the game in the last 10 years are likely the direct result of > Stealth and Bleed being too good from day 1, and the rest of the game > trying to compete effectively. > So, make a Sensible VTES Player's banned list: Govern, Conditioning, Deflection, DI, MoM and PTO... and, accept that Sensible VTES Play is slowed a bit, in exchange for greater variation in game play. ;-) Or, make any non-dom non-obf bleed or stealth action mod able to increase its base stealth/bleed by 1, for the cost of an additional blood from the acting minion (to put "not dom/obf S&B" closer to the same footing). No, I'm not really serious... but they'd make for some nifty alternative/house rules. DaveZ

On Aug 28, 12:37 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > How about changing the tournament rules not to award any > VPs for reaching a time-out? > > While at first glance it doesn't solve the main questions on > the tray (certain players making decks to win with time-outs > either with 2.5 VP in prelims or 0.5 VP in finals), it does > give a general boost to the willingness of players to move > forward. > > Also, losing the incentive to "just hang in there and survive > for the 0.5 VP" might make for interesting new scenarios. I assume you also intend to remove the draw rules as well? I think it's important to have the 0.5 VPs available for those who hang on. I'm not encouraging stalling, but having that 0.5 VP carrot keeps things in balance. With 0 VPs for a timeout, if I'm at a table that's going to time out, I can simply self-oust or go entirely crosstable. I'm going to get 0 VPs anyway, so it becomes PTW for me to kingmake. One of the most destructive (and least fun) aspects of the game is kingmaking when someone is in a completely lost position. If we remove the 0.5 VPs from a timeout, then we increase such kingmaking. It sounds like your real concern is that tables time out, and that's not fun or desirable. In tournament standings, it's so important to get GWs that I feel like most good players push for the GW. That said, sometimes it's best to just take it slow. I think that's simply the nature of a 5 player game, and we'll never be rid of that entirely. In the finals, the lower seeds have the responsibility to move the game forward. I personally haven't seen intentional stalling on the part of the 1st seed, but I'm willing to admit it might happen. Also, from a fun perspective, I've played plenty of fun games that have timed out. Ira

John Flournoy schrieb: > On Aug 29, 11:20 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: >> Matthew T. Morgan schrieb: >> >>> Rather than try to change the rules to fix a problem that not everyone >>> is having, try using the tools that are already in place. Stalling is >>> illegal. You could also try running faster decks. Or you could stop >>> playing with massive jerks. >> The design of the cards (in new expansions) is also a key factor here. >> As I have allready complained many times the game design does have a too >> strong favor for reactive cards for my taste (for the last few >> expansions). A lot of new intercept possibilities emerged (Bowl of >> Convergence, many locations, Unmasking ...) but only very little (good) >> stuff to push actions through (Veil of the Legions, perhaps Vermin Channel). > > Huh what? > > Going backwards, here's EVERY new library card that provides > intercept: > > Sword of Caine: Number of new intercept cards: 1 (Census Taker). It愀 a quite small set. And Black Hand allready had Ministry. > Third edition: Number of new intercept cards: 1 (Abbot.) > (Nights of Reckoning: No intercept cards that can be used by non- > imbued.) But the Imbued use them good enough. > Legacies of Blood: 6 cards. (Ahriman Protectorate, No Secrets, > Predator's Communion, Quicksilver Contemplation, Scry the Hearthstone, > Shaman.) No Secrets is really good. > Kindred Most Wanted: 6: (Anima Gathering, Bloodstone, Harzomatuili, > Phased Motion Detector, Trophy: Domain, Warning Sirens.) > 10th Anniversary: 3 cards. Bowl of Convergence, Channel 10, Carlton > Van Wyck. 10th was really bad in the regard. > Gehenna: 4 cards. Instinctive Reaction, Divine Sign, Friend of Mine, > The Unmasking. Unmasking is huge since it is permanent and per minion. > Promos: 1. (Wall Street) > > So in the last SEVEN expansions, or three years, we've seen a grand > total of twenty-two new intercept cards (plus NoR's imbued-specific > stuff.) > > Of those 22 cards, maybe nine actually see regular play. At least > seven of them are rarely if ever played (Divine Sign, Warning Sirens, > PMD, Quicksilver, Protectorate, Bloodstone, Harzo). > > So by "Many locations", you mean... two? > > Want to take a wild guess at how many new cards in that time period > provide stealth or inhibit someone's ability to block (not even > counting inherent-stealth actions)? It's a _lot_ more than the 9 > intercept cards regularly played, or the 15 even played occasionally, > or even the 22 total printed in the last 3 years. I haven愒 seen any card that boost Obfuscate stealth except for Veil of the Legions, while Auspex did get Bowl, Anima Gathering plus Channel 10 and Wall street (while there is allready KRCG, Rumor Mill, London Star ...). > In fact, I'd argue that since KMW came out, there's been a near > absolute -lack- > of new intercept options, not an unbalancing and unending stream of > them. There has been new stuff, but for new clans (e.g Laibon). It does not make the old stealth strategies better. But Auspex gets a lot of usable tools (see above) while allready being strong before. > The above said, I do agree that your point is more valid when you look > at reaction cards; the game has seen a great deal of (non-intercept) > reaction cards printed lately, and that has made people look to play > more reactively and defensively instead of ousting their prey. When did you play a deck that relies on Obfuscate to push it愀 actions through the last time? In the recent tournament environment that愀 just not gonna make it, you will run out of stealth after 2 preys, latest. Except for Inner Circle vote stuff with Forgotten Labyrinth, Lost in Crowds + Elder Impersonation it just got really bad since you need to play 2-3 cards to even pass the permanent stuff on the table. -- Johannes walch

In article <Xns999BA5BD22...@207.115.33.102>, atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > So, make a Sensible VTES Player's banned list: Govern, Conditioning, > Deflection, DI, MoM and PTO... and, accept that Sensible VTES Play is > slowed a bit, in exchange for greater variation in game play. ;-) Heh--see, I really *would* like to see a "New World Order" VTES that did, in fact, have a bunch of cards banned outright in the name of making the game better all around. And the list you present above is a pretty good basis for the NWO VTES. I know we have had many discussions about "how we could have done it better from the ground floor", (and most of those involve slowing down bleeding from the get go). But as those, really, are just pipe dreams, I think "let's just ban a handful of cards and go from there" isn't that out of the realm of a good idea. To wit, if we killed: -Govern -Conditioning -Deflection Bleeding would slow down a lot. Bounce would still be viable, but it would have to be based in AUS (which is a significant cost over dom) or with Redirection (which is less good than Deflection, and then specifically reprinted in 3rd, as if it was some sort of half hearted, vague attempt to replace Deflection with Redirection...). Although if Govern and Conditioning went, we'd probably have to get all the cards that let you bleed for +2 with an inferior discipline. -Direct Intervention Would just make the game all around better and easier to play. -Protect Thine Own Still the most broken card in the game. And moved on from there, I think VTES would be much, much better all around. Memories is also a possibility, but only, really, 'cause of the Imbued, and I'd still just rather see the Imbued get fixed on the rules front rather than on the card or card text front. [ quoted text not captured ]

atomweaver wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in >> Yes. I was just reading it in the context in which it was used, not in >> isolation. >> > I'm not so sure of that. Either way. Either he and I agree, in which case I clarified his statement that could easily have been misread by many people, or I corrected his misstatement.

John Flournoy <carn...@gmail.com> wrote: > In fact, I'd argue that since KMW came out, there's been > a near absolute -lack- of new intercept options, not an > unbalancing and unending stream of them. Abbot? No Secrets? Predator's Communion? Scry the Hearthstone? I see all of those played on a regular basis. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "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

atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Considering the comments from the Swiss Academy (was it Olivier? > Can't find the post right now...) on the matter of finals time > length, I'd say they've already been actively building their decks > under just such a strategy for quite some time now, and that's a > perfectly legal way to play VTES. I can see like 5 years in the future, where Origins is the only place to still play "pure" V:TES, with 2hr time limits all-around, constructed, booster, and recursion drafts, and the judge not interfering in players Playing The Game, except to add time when players try to stall and to shuffle Eric Chiang's deck. <sigh> =) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in news:gqrBi.11834$L_7.11274 @newsfe16.phx: > atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Considering the comments from the Swiss Academy (was it Olivier? >> Can't find the post right now...) on the matter of finals time >> length, I'd say they've already been actively building their decks >> under just such a strategy for quite some time now, and that's a >> perfectly legal way to play VTES. > > I can see like 5 years in the future, where Origins is the only place to > still play "pure" V:TES, with 2hr time limits all-around, constructed, > booster, and recursion drafts, and the judge not interfering in players > Playing The Game, except to add time when players try to stall and to > shuffle Eric Chiang's deck. > ...Will it have a dome, and a horde of zombies lurking around the perimeter? ;-) DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Aug 29, 3:51 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <Xns999BA5BD22A6Eatomwea...@207.115.33.102>, [ quoted text not captured ] > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "Find hungry samurai." > -The Old Man I'd be happy if the NWO list just banned these three: Conditioning Direct Intervention Protect Thine Own Govern and Deflection are clearly the other power Dominate cards, but if Conditioning were gone, Deflection's usefulness would lessen ever so slightly. Govern is always declared so you can make blocking decisions with full knowledge. Plus, if there was less offensive Dominate cheese, people would be less likely to play it to begin with so Deflection would slowly become less prevalent. VTES-NWO should start with a very small banned list and can add more cards as appropriate once its metagame settles in. Jeff

In message <46d589ce$0$30867$ba62...@nova.planet.nl>, Izaak <?.?@?.?.invalid> writes: > >"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message >news:2007082910...@fnord.io.com... >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Izaak wrote: <snip - five-way chess clock> >>> Solved. >> >> Please go back and read all the threads about why this is a terrible, >> unworkable idea. It really is. > >I followed the threads. Doesn't seem unworkable to me, but opinions >tend to differ. Why do you think letting an intercept deck waste my time is workable? Every action suddenly has blocks and combats. The intercept deck does the same to his predator or prey, too, and has very little action necessary during his own turn (until he's removed potential blockers). That's not workable. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Peter D Bakija schrieb: > In article <Xns999BA5BD22...@207.115.33.102>, > atomweaver <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> So, make a Sensible VTES Player's banned list: Govern, Conditioning, >> Deflection, DI, MoM and PTO... and, accept that Sensible VTES Play is >> slowed a bit, in exchange for greater variation in game play. ;-) > > Heh--see, I really *would* like to see a "New World Order" VTES that > did, in fact, have a bunch of cards banned outright in the name of > making the game better all around. And the list you present above is a > pretty good basis for the NWO VTES. Perhaps a big step like this is really needed. Let´s do some analysis. > I know we have had many discussions about "how we could have done it > better from the ground floor", (and most of those involve slowing down > bleeding from the get go). But as those, really, are just pipe dreams, I > think "let's just ban a handful of cards and go from there" isn't that > out of the realm of a good idea. To wit, if we killed: > > -Govern > -Conditioning > -Deflection To see if those cards are really so interesting I analysed the last 15 Decks of the TWDA. 3 of those were Imbued, I exclude those, since when looking at Dominate it doesn´t make sense to include non-vampire decks in the statistics. Leaves us with 12 Decks. Out of those 8/12 used Deflection and 7/12 used Conditioning. Seems like DOM is really the discipline of choice when you want to win. I wouldn´t include Govern in the ban list since perhaps it wouldn´t be to clever to take all "goodness" out of DOM. > Bleeding would slow down a lot. Bounce would still be viable, but it > would have to be based in AUS (which is a significant cost over dom) or > with Redirection (which is less good than Deflection, and then > specifically reprinted in 3rd, as if it was some sort of half hearted, > vague attempt to replace Deflection with Redirection...). Although if > Govern and Conditioning went, we'd probably have to get all the cards > that let you bleed for +2 with an inferior discipline. Absolutely correct imho. > -Direct Intervention I really see it´s a problematic card. Perhaps we could just errata it to one per game/player? Just like Temptation of Greater Power. > Would just make the game all around better and easier to play. > > -Protect Thine Own > Still the most broken card in the game. Same thing. One per game/player. Those cards somehow add to the "flavour" of the game imho, so we should keep them, but in limited use. > And moved on from there, I think VTES would be much, much better all > around. Memories is also a possibility, but only, really, 'cause of the > Imbued, and I'd still just rather see the Imbued get fixed on the rules > front rather than on the card or card text front. We should give it a try. Why not organise a few unsactioned tournaments with those rules and see what happens. -- Johannes Walch

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote > > We should give it a try. Why not organise a few unsactioned tournaments > with those rules and see what happens. JOL is a great way to try out ideas like this, FWIW. http://deckserver.net:8080/jol3/ Cheers, WES

On 30 aug, 10:08, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > Peter D Bakija schrieb: > > > In article <Xns999BA5BD22A6Eatomwea...@207.115.33.102>, > > atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> So, make a Sensible VTES Player's banned list: Govern, Conditioning, > >> Deflection, DI, MoM and PTO... and, accept that Sensible VTES Play is > >> slowed a bit, in exchange for greater variation in game play. ;-) not slowed, if you remove the need for all those defences. It might take a while before people stop putting 9 bounce cards in every tourney deck, but after a while you would see faster games. I think, in any case. > > > Heh--see, I really *would* like to see a "New World Order" VTES that > > did, in fact, have a bunch of cards banned outright in the name of > > making the game better all around. And the list you present above is a > > pretty good basis for the NWO VTES. > > Perhaps a big step like this is really needed. Let´s do some analysis. I agree :-) Completely. > > > I know we have had many discussions about "how we could have done it > > better from the ground floor", (and most of those involve slowing down > > bleeding from the get go). *sigh* that's what I've been thinking alot lately. >But as those, really, are just pipe dreams, I > > think "let's just ban a handful of cards and go from there" isn't that > > out of the realm of a good idea. To wit, if we killed: > > > -Govern > > -Conditioning > > -Deflection > To kill 2 birds with one stroke:I wouldn't ban Govern outright, but give it the 8 cap of higher restriction. (And the same for Command of the beast.) Conditioning can go, threats should cost 1, forshadowing destruction too. Deflection can go, when bleed is reduced in strength. I'd keep Redirection, with the caveat that you can also bounce your predator's minion. (like MEE) IMO, the big problem with bounce is not the bounce itself, but the bleed sink situation. <snip> > > > Bleeding would slow down a lot. Bounce would still be viable, but it > > would have to be based in AUS (which is a significant cost over dom) or > > with Redirection (which is less good than Deflection, and then > > specifically reprinted in 3rd, as if it was some sort of half hearted, > > vague attempt to replace Deflection with Redirection...). Although if > > Govern and Conditioning went, we'd probably have to get all the cards > > that let you bleed for +2 with an inferior discipline. > > Absolutely correct imho. yup > > > -Direct Intervention > > I really see it´s a problematic card. Perhaps we could just errata it to > one per game/player? Just like Temptation of Greater Power. fine by me > > > Would just make the game all around better and easier to play. > > > -Protect Thine Own > > Still the most broken card in the game. > > Same thing. One per game/player. > Those cards somehow add to the "flavour" of the game imho, so we should > keep them, but in limited use. > > > And moved on from there, I think VTES would be much, much better all > > around. Memories is also a possibility, but only, really, 'cause of the > > Imbued, and I'd still just rather see the Imbued get fixed on the rules > > front rather than on the card or card text front. > > We should give it a try. Why not organise a few unsactioned tournaments > with those rules and see what happens. As said: JOL might work. I'm game :-)

In article <fb5tt5$1b6$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote: > I wouldn´t include Govern in the ban list since perhaps it wouldn´t be > to clever to take all "goodness" out of DOM. I dunno, Dom would still be pretty damn good without Govern too. It has Scouting Mission which is still pretty good. And lots of other potent stuff. > I really see it´s a problematic card. Perhaps we could just errata it to > one per game/player? Just like Temptation of Greater Power. Meh. I'd rather live in a world where cards are just banned outright rather than erattaed. At least in the New World. > Same thing. One per game/player. > Those cards somehow add to the "flavour" of the game imho, so we should > keep them, but in limited use. If the old versions were outright whacked, new versions could be introduced. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <46d589ce$0$30867$ba62...@nova.planet.nl>, Izaak > <?.?@?.?.invalid> writes: >> "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message >> news:2007082910...@fnord.io.com... >>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Izaak wrote: > <snip - five-way chess clock> >>>> Solved. >>> Please go back and read all the threads about why this is a terrible, >>> unworkable idea. It really is. >> I followed the threads. Doesn't seem unworkable to me, but opinions >> tend to differ. > > Why do you think letting an intercept deck waste my time is workable? > Every action suddenly has blocks and combats. The intercept deck does > the same to his predator or prey, too, and has very little action > necessary during his own turn (until he's removed potential blockers). > > That's not workable. To sum up (quoting the phrase used in the other threads): A player's turn is not his own. This single fact renders the chess clock "solution" untenable.

On 30 aug, 13:45, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Meh. I'd rather live in a world where cards are just banned outright > rather than erattaed. At least in the New World. > Me no agree. If you ban something, you get rid of an overpowered effect, but make all those cards people already bought into wasted money*. If you errata something, you get rid of an overpowered effect as well, but you keep all those cards useable. Why would you prefer "banning+throwing lots of stuff you own away" to "keeping track of updated card text"? *of course the cards could still be used in social play, but I'd feel bad about having "old, powerful" versions of cards while some newer players own only "new, fixed" versions, and probably not use the "old" cards. > If the old versions were outright whacked, new versions could be > introduced. > That's still possible if you errata cards instead of banning them. Only thing is, you won't be issuing a new card that would just have the errata'd text (but with a different name) of a banned card, but an actual new card altogether. And I think that's good for 'old' players. Otherwise, every time a mistake is spotted and the card in question gets banned, "new" cards would get printed that are just 'fixed versions' of cards you already own (re-prints, really) instead of something genuinely new, so you'd be buying less 'actual new stuff' with every new set, but lots of re-named fixes instead. I think that would suck ballz. Teeka

Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1188476313.228608.120530 @y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com: > On 30 aug, 13:45, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> Meh. I'd rather live in a world where cards are just banned outright >> rather than erattaed. At least in the New World. >> > > Me no agree. If you ban something, you get rid of an overpowered > effect, but make all those cards people already bought into wasted > money*. If you errata something, you get rid of an overpowered effect > as well, but you keep all those cards useable. Why would you prefer > "banning+throwing lots of stuff you own away" to "keeping track of > updated card text"? > I think you're taking Peter's comments outside of the context of NWO-VTES. Since this is, at this point, a variant which no one is suggesting be sanctioned, that argument is largely moot. And, you'll note that each example of removal (GtU, Conditioning, Deflection) from Dominate leaves a lower-powered analogue intact (Scout, Threats, Redirection). DI could be once per player, other than the simple argument of the greater simplicity of a ban. PTO; nope. IMO, it should be Banned in NWO. Like RTI, it should be banned on the grounds that a single action should not impact the game state to such a degree. Even once per player is once too much. And note, if we actually succeed in expanding the number of playable cards by banning a small handful of cards, the argument of "throwing cards away" becomes less relevant, because the goal is to have a greater portion of the cards in your collection become tournament-viable. >> If the old versions were outright whacked, new versions could be >> introduced. >> > > That's still possible if you errata cards instead of banning them. > Only thing is, you won't be issuing a new card that would just have > the errata'd text (but with a different name) of a banned card, but an > actual new card altogether. And I think that's good for 'old' players. > Otherwise, every time a mistake is spotted and the card in question > gets banned, "new" cards would get printed that are just 'fixed > versions' of cards you already own (re-prints, really) instead of > something genuinely new, so you'd be buying less 'actual new stuff' > with every new set, but lots of re-named fixes instead. I think that > would suck ballz. > Meh. I'll pull out another old argument; card text migrations add to the burden of entry for new players, for the benefit of keeping established player's cards playable. A banned list is simple and direct, and if it isn't used willy-nilly, like in Some Other Card Games, could become a strong tool for improvement in this game... DaveZ

LSJ schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Saves the EC organisers from the burden auf acquiring 50+ 5-way chess clocks :) -- Johannes Walch

On 30 aug, 14:49, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1188476313.228608.120530 > @y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com: > > > On 30 aug, 13:45, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > >> Meh. I'd rather live in a world where cards are just banned outright > >> rather than erattaed. At least in the New World. > > > Me no agree. If you ban something, you get rid of an overpowered > > effect, but make all those cards people already bought into wasted > > money*. If you errata something, you get rid of an overpowered effect > > as well, but you keep all those cards useable. Why would you prefer > > "banning+throwing lots of stuff you own away" to "keeping track of > > updated card text"? > > I think you're taking Peter's comments outside of the context of NWO-VTES. > Since this is, at this point, a variant which no one is suggesting be > sanctioned, that argument is largely moot. > That's true. See it as an argument to not go NWO, then. > And, you'll note that each example of removal (GtU, Conditioning, > Deflection) from Dominate leaves a lower-powered analogue intact (Scout, > Threats, Redirection). > True also. But there must be ways to power-down cards through errata which do not make them 'copies' of such analogues, but give us two equally powerful, but still (even though perhaps just slightly) different cards instead. > PTO; nope. IMO, it should be Banned in NWO. Like RTI, it should be > banned on the grounds that a single action should not impact the game state > to such a degree. Even once per player is once too much. > Make it once per game, then. Or add a text-addition (like suggested a while ago), like sect- or capacity restricted. Don't really mean to into another argument on that now, mind, just saying there are tons of different ways to remove the uber-poweredness. > And note, if we actually succeed in expanding the number of playable > cards by banning a small handful of cards, the argument of "throwing cards > away" becomes less relevant, because the goal is to have a greater portion > of the cards in your collection become tournament-viable. > If you errata cards so they're less powerful and getting them on the same power-level as other, not-so-often-used cards, those other cards will become more playable just as well. I totally see how the suggested banning would result in making other cards 'better', I'm not arguing that. But I think it's not the only way to accomplish this goal, just the easiest, most rigorous (and not necessarily best) way. > >> If the old versions were outright whacked, new versions could be > >> introduced. > > > That's still possible if you errata cards instead of banning them. > > Only thing is, you won't be issuing a new card that would just have > > the errata'd text (but with a different name) of a banned card, but an > > actual new card altogether. And I think that's good for 'old' players. > > Otherwise, every time a mistake is spotted and the card in question > > gets banned, "new" cards would get printed that are just 'fixed > > versions' of cards you already own (re-prints, really) instead of > > something genuinely new, so you'd be buying less 'actual new stuff' > > with every new set, but lots of re-named fixes instead. I think that > > would suck ballz. > > Meh. I'll pull out another old argument; card text migrations add to the > burden of entry for new players, for the benefit of keeping established > player's cards playable. A banned list is simple and direct, and if it > isn't used willy-nilly, like in Some Other Card Games, could become a > strong tool for improvement in this game... > Counter-argument (which I'm certain has been used a zillion times as well): newer players will likely own mostly newer "on-the-curve" cards and reprinted/corrected versions of older cards, which means they don't need to remember as many errata to their cards as oldbees . If they however voluntarily choose to buy older cards for their collection through eBay or other players, they must know there's gonna be a bit of checking involved. Don't see how that is such a big 'burden'.

Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1188480184....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com: > On 30 aug, 14:49, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote in >> news:1188476313.228608.120530 @y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com: >> >> > On 30 aug, 13:45, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> >> Meh. I'd rather live in a world where cards are just banned >> >> outright rather than erattaed. At least in the New World. >> >> > Me no agree. If you ban something, you get rid of an overpowered >> > effect, but make all those cards people already bought into wasted >> > money*. If you errata something, you get rid of an overpowered >> > effect as well, but you keep all those cards useable. Why would you >> > prefer "banning+throwing lots of stuff you own away" to "keeping >> > track of updated card text"? >> >> I think you're taking Peter's comments outside of the context of >> NWO-VTES. Since this is, at this point, a variant which no one is >> suggesting be sanctioned, that argument is largely moot. >> > > That's true. See it as an argument to not go NWO, then. > OK. >> And note, if we actually succeed in expanding the number of >> playable >> cards by banning a small handful of cards, the argument of "throwing >> cards away" becomes less relevant, because the goal is to have a >> greater portion of the cards in your collection become >> tournament-viable. > > If you errata cards so they're less powerful and getting them on the > same power-level as other, not-so-often-used cards, those other cards > will become more playable just as well. I totally see how the > suggested banning would result in making other cards 'better', I'm not > arguing that. But I think it's not the only way to accomplish this > goal, just the easiest, most rigorous (and not necessarily best) way. > Yeh. A lot of those have been hashed out before. Adding a blood cost to each of DOM's Big Three is my preference, but it really just makes them not worth playing vs. the zero cost analogues. The "equal, but different" goal for errata is admirable, but have yet to see a practical card text change that actually accomplishes it. With 13 years of Dom's Big Three remaining so ubiquitous, I'm ready for a change... now. >> >> If the old versions were outright whacked, new versions could be >> >> introduced. >> >> > That's still possible if you errata cards instead of banning them. >> snip >> Meh. I'll pull out another old argument; card text migrations add to >> the burden of entry for new players, for the benefit of keeping >> established player's cards playable. A banned list is simple and >> direct, and if it isn't used willy-nilly, like in Some Other Card >> Games, could become a strong tool for improvement in this game... >> > > Counter-argument (which I'm certain has been used a zillion times as > well): newer players will likely own mostly newer "on-the-curve" cards > and reprinted/corrected versions of older cards, which means they > don't need to remember as many errata to their cards as oldbees . Aye. Its been used ;-) The Counter-counter argument: If a new player plays even once against an older player using a card with outdated text, he'll have to know of/learn the card text migration, anyways, since he cannot simply ask to read the card in-game (which is the single most common way that new players assimilate cards into their knowledge of the game). These are probably minor arguments for most players, but I happen to be in the unique and un-enviable position of having created two play groups (the one in Boston, and another in Charlotte, NC), and I've been trying ad nauseam to set up a third in my current town... unsuccessfully so far, so I have to admit that burdens for teaching VTES play larger in my head than for most others. *shrug* DaveZ

On 30 aug, 15:44, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > The "equal, but different" goal > for errata is admirable, but have yet to see a practical card text change > that actually accomplishes it. With 13 years of Dom's Big Three remaining > so ubiquitous, I'm ready for a change... now. > I can understand that. But, you know, banning is a 'last resort', so have we really explored all the options? Feel free to plainly say yes, I haven't been playing for 13 years like you have. > Aye. Its been used ;-) The Counter-counter argument: If a new player > plays even once against an older player using a card with outdated text, > he'll have to know of/learn the card text migration, anyways, since he > cannot simply ask to read the card in-game (which is the single most common > way that new players assimilate cards into their knowledge of the game). > Counter-counter-counter... eh... thingie: I get what you're saying here, but when I teach new people a CCG, I usually just play a card and tell everyone, in simple to-the-point words and relating only to the current game-state, what it *does* (instead of what it *says*). IME, this takes less time than letting people read (and re-read*) a card and having to think about what the text implies (especially on the more 'difficult' cards). It's my experience that just seeing the effect happen makes people understand a card better than having them read all the text, especially since lots of text is not about the actual effect, but only there to avoid certain problems. So you could just play an errata'd card and say what it (correctly) does and perhaps add "that's not exactly what this old version says, mind". Or, you could have people read a card and just, in a few words, tell them what has been changed about it. This might all be a personal/cultural/whateveral difference in approach, though. Perhaps you'd find this annoying or bothersome, or taking up more time instead of less, I don't know. *one of my friends is dyslexic, and another is not that good at reading English. So "saying what a card does instead of says" is especially preferred in my little VTES group. > These are probably minor arguments for most players, but I happen to be in > the unique and un-enviable position of having created two play groups (the > one in Boston, and another in Charlotte, NC), un-enviable, but admirable. and I've been trying ad > nauseam to set up a third in my current town... unsuccessfully so far, so I > have to admit that burdens for teaching VTES play larger in my head than > for most others. *shrug* > I totally understand. I might still be fairly new to VTES, but I've taught tons of games (board games and CCG's) to tons of people. I'm usually the first to try a game out, learn all the rules by myself first and then teach others. I've even translated the VTES rules into Dutch, summed up into small sections for easy reference (again focussing on what things *do* instead of the actual wordings of the rulebook). So no shrugs necessary, dude, I feel your pain. ;-)

Peter D Bakija wrote: > pretty good basis for the NWO VTES. "What we are talking about is good vs evil, right vs wrong..." Love that Jorgenson... best - chris And on a different set of acronyms, what about INWO VTES? fnord -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

Teeka wrote: > > Counter-argument (which I'm certain has been used a zillion times as > well): newer players will likely own mostly newer "on-the-curve" cards > and reprinted/corrected versions of older cards, which means they > don't need to remember as many errata to their cards as oldbees . Jyhad backed cards are still the cheapest cards out there. And lots of older players give away their Jyhad and older cards to new players to help get them started. And one phenomenon I see a lot of is players with Jyhad/VTES and maybe some DS wanting to get back into the game. Lots of their cards are changed - Wake is the biggie. If > they however voluntarily choose to buy older cards for their > collection through eBay or other players, they must know there's gonna > be a bit of checking involved. Don't see how that is such a big > 'burden'. > If you don't play with new players alot, or don't actively try to demo to new players, then I can see where you might feel this way. However, when you do deal with new players, or returnees, I find this is the biggest "burden". best - chris [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1188476313.2...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Me no agree. If you ban something, you get rid of an overpowered > effect, but make all those cards people already bought into wasted > money*. Yeah, see, this is where I just don't care--I'd much rather see a handful of overpowered cards simply removed from the game than have to worry about errataing them (and really, how do you errata, say, Conditioning?). Like, I'm not actually expecting this to happen. Nor am I realistically agitating for it to happen. But I still think it would be a good idea. And all the people who are sad, 'cause their Conditiongs and Direct Interventions were no longer playable could suck it up for the sake of a better game. If banning a handful of overpowered cards makes the game as a whole better? That works for me. > Why would you prefer > "banning+throwing lots of stuff you own away" to "keeping track of > updated card text"? 'Cause it is easier that way. And if you still want a similar effect for a more reasonable cost, you can print a replacement. I'm unconvinced that the sanctity of a handful of cards is worth not getting rid of them. While I think the wholesale effective banning of sets in Magic is not a great system, I think that they have the ability to regularly remove overpowered cards from the game and replace them with less overpowered versions is a significant advantage over VTES. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1188488060.3...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I can understand that. But, you know, banning is a 'last resort', so > have we really explored all the options? Feel free to plainly say yes, > I haven't been playing for 13 years like you have. For the purposes of my (our?) idea of New World Order VTES, the issue is, well, we *can't* go back in time and redesign the game from the ground up. But we can get rid of the biggest problem offenders in the game. And yeah, you could errata things (which is a pain in the ass in and of itself), but as I mentioned before, how do you errata Govern and Conditioning, such that they are still playable and not total trash? And still fit in with my overarching rule of "you should not be able to get +2 bleed with an inferior discipline" (which is, if you missed it, one of the main goals of a NWO VTES plan)--you could errata Govern to be only +1 bleed at inferior and only move 2 blood to an uncontrolled younger vampire, and then make it free to make up for the change, and then, oh, wait. Then it is just Scouting Mission. And what are you going to do to Conditioning that doesn't just make it Threats? And what are you going to do to PTO that, really, doesn't make it either totally useless or still broken but only broken once per game? If a handful of cards (less than 10, easily) just got removed from the game, the whole game would probably work much better, [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 30, 12:51 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <Xns999BA5BD22A6Eatomwea...@207.115.33.102>, [...] > Heh--see, I really *would* like to see a "New World Order" VTES that > did, in fact, have a bunch of cards banned outright in the name of > making the game better all around. And the list you present above is a > pretty good basis for the NWO VTES. New Whiners Organization? >:-) > I know we have had many discussions about "how we could have done it > better from the ground floor", (and most of those involve slowing down > bleeding from the get go). But as those, really, are just pipe dreams, I > think "let's just ban a handful of cards and go from there" isn't that > out of the realm of a good idea. To wit, if we killed: > > -Govern Govern The Unaligned is too weak. It should untap the acting vampire after action resolution. Clearly. > -Conditioning Conditioning should give you 1 pool if the bleed is successful. > -Deflection Deflection should also deflect rush actions against this reacting minion, as well as increase the bounced bleed by 1. Clearly. [...] > > -Direct Intervention > > Would just make the game all around better and easier to play. Direct Intervention is underpowered. It should make your prey burn 2 pool. Otherwise, DI is just wallpaper. > -Protect Thine Own Broken. It should only burn imbued and other allies :-) > And moved on from there, I think VTES would be much, much better all > around. How can the New Whiners Organization (NWO) make VTES much better? >:-) -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/ http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)

In article <1188494539.3...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: > New Whiners Organization? >:-) Dude, uh, what's your point here? I'm just discussing how to make an effective hypothetical reboot. Who is "whining"? I can (and do) use Dominate as much as anyone else. > How can the New Whiners Organization (NWO) make VTES much better? >:-) A) You aren't really making any sense--I mean, yeah, ok, your "ironic" and over the top suggestions are, ya know, I suppose attempts to be funny. B) Your little evil face smiley doesn't really help make it funny. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:51:55 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Heh--see, I really *would* like to see a "New World Order" VTES that > did, in fact, have a bunch of cards banned outright in the name of > making the game better all around. And the list you present above is a > pretty good basis for the NWO VTES. [...] > And moved on from there, I think VTES would be much, much better all > around. Memories is also a possibility, but only, really, 'cause of the > Imbued, and I'd still just rather see the Imbued get fixed on the rules > front rather than on the card or card text front. This world never ceases to amaze me. I'm actually so much agreeing with Peter that I'm just gonna post a yes-man post here. I'm generally very resistant to the idea of changing the game fundamentally by banning scores of top-of-the-power-curve staples. I'm also not sure how V:tES would look if it would look significantly different from how it looks now. But recent experiences made me reconsider the merits of such an operation. Perhaps, as suggested, it could be tried out as an alternate format. There is a "banned list" format tournament used by the local Guardians community, and although I've never tried it myself, I'm hearing very good things about it. Perhaps we could try it (then comes though the question of assembling the list, for example noone mentioned Eagle's Sight, which is one of the endless-debate cards in my book and I wouldn't mind to see it on the list). > "Find hungry samurai." > -The Old Man Cool sig too. "So. Again we are defeated." P.S.: Peter, if only you wouldn't be so far off by you claiming that V:tES cards don't need artwork... :) -- Regards, Daneel

In article <optxv15u...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > This world never ceases to amaze me. I'm actually so much agreeing with > Peter that I'm just gonna post a yes-man post here. Ah, so we meet again. Only this time as allies! > I'm generally very resistant to the idea of changing the game > fundamentally by banning scores of top-of-the-power-curve staples. I'm > also not sure how V:tES would look if it would look significantly > different from how it looks now. But recent experiences made me > reconsider the merits of such an operation. Perhaps, as suggested, it > could be tried out as an alternate format. Maybe, but I don't see WW sanctioning alternate formats, as it will fracture the environment. Shadowfist has lots and lots of different sanctioned tournament formats that are all fun and get regular play (there is the "designator" format, where most of your deck needs to share a word in the title, which kind of enforces theme decks; there is the "alphabet" format, where every card in your deck needs to start with one of three letters so you can have an ACE deck or a BAD deck; etc.), and one of the formats is the "we ban all the most obvious power cards" format, which is fun, and sees a lot of good use out of a lot of janky cards. The "banned" list for that format is a lengthy one, but it seems to work. > Cool sig too. Hey--I'm actually a very charming guy :-) > P.S.: Peter, if only you wouldn't be so far off by you claiming that > V:tES cards don't need artwork... :) (Now, now, you totally know that was never my actual argument--it was always just that a small number of cards with no pictures that are a special situation and not a general rule, being legal for play, isn't going to hurt anything...) Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

On Aug 30, 10:05 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1188494539.318060.134...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > New Whiners Organization? >:-) > > Dude, uh, what's your point here? I'm just discussing how to make an > effective hypothetical reboot. Who is "whining"? I can (and do) use > Dominate as much as anyone else. > > > How can the New Whiners Organization (NWO) make VTES much better? >:-) > > A) You aren't really making any sense--I mean, yeah, ok, your "ironic" > and over the top suggestions are, ya know, I suppose attempts to be > funny. > > B) Your little evil face smiley doesn't really help make it funny. > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "Find hungry samurai." > -The Old Man Um, Peter, I think he was agreeing with you, in a suitably sardonic and ironic fashion. Cos to be honest, to point out the overpoweredness of the mentioned cards is possibly to show that the only way to make them stronger is to make them ridiculous? *Runs away giggling "Lord of night, one les for Qui, w00t!!!"*

On Aug 30, 10:05 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1188494539.318060.134...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > New Whiners Organization? >:-) > > Dude, uh, what's your point here? I'm just discussing how to make an > effective hypothetical reboot. With what purpose (being it an "hypotetical reboot")? > Who is "whining"? You :-) > > How can the New Whiners Organization (NWO) make VTES much better? >:-) > > A) You aren't really making any sense--I mean, yeah, ok, your "ironic" > and over the top suggestions are, ya know, I suppose attempts to be > funny. My suggestions are honest and should be hypotetically implemented as soon as possible :-P Or perhaps you think that my suggestions wouldn't make VTES better? >:-) > B) Your little evil face smiley doesn't really help make it funny. But this isn't funny. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 30, 10:53 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 30, 10:05 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <1188494539.318060.134...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > > Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > > New Whiners Organization? >:-) > > > Dude, uh, what's your point here? I'm just discussing how to make an > > effective hypothetical reboot. Who is "whining"? I can (and do) use > > Dominate as much as anyone else. > > > > How can the New Whiners Organization (NWO) make VTES much better? >:-) > > > A) You aren't really making any sense--I mean, yeah, ok, your "ironic" > > and over the top suggestions are, ya know, I suppose attempts to be > > funny. > > > B) Your little evil face smiley doesn't really help make it funny. > > > Peter D Bakija > > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > > "Find hungry samurai." > > -The Old Man > > Um, Peter, I think he was agreeing with you, I was not. I was disagreeing with him :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Then your being a bit silly D. The guy is making a damn good point. If those cards had not been printed, the VtES scene would be far more varied most likely. So why not ban the frikkin cards? There is a fairly general consensus that, yes, they are a bit too strong. So what exactly is your point? He is also not whining but making a constructive point

On Aug 30, 11:00 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 30, 10:55 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: [...] > > Then your being a bit silly D. The guy is making a damn good point. If > those cards had not been printed, the VtES scene would be far more > varied most likely. Prove it. And what do you mean with "varied"? > So why not ban the frikkin cards? There is a > fairly general consensus that, yes, they are a bit too strong. Consensus or whinesensus? :-) > So what exactly is your point? He is also not whining but making a > constructive point He is making a destructive point. And he is also implying that trimming offensive strategies such as bleed would be better for the game. Isn't there another thread with complaints about time outs? :-P [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 30, 5:15 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > Isn't there another thread with complaints about time outs? :-P You mean the other half of this thread? witness1

In article <1188507260.2...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: > With what purpose (being it an "hypotetical reboot")? Making the game work better. Currently, there are certain parts of the game that don't lead to the game working as well as it could (Dominate still being the most powerful discipline in the game; PTO still being the most brokenly powerful card in the game; DI being completely inappropriate for the game; etc.) A possible way to fix them all is to remove many of them from the game and see how it goes from there. You saw the part where I was like "I don't actually expect for this to happen, nor am I actually agitating for it to happen", right? > You :-) It is kind of like you *haven't* been active on this newsgroup for years and years. Discussions of what is or is not in need of fixing in this game come up, uh, every day. And this particular one is both incredibly mild and not even something anyone expects to happen. And *this* is the one that makes you react? [ quoted text not captured ]

On 30 aug, 23:15, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > On Aug 30, 11:00 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 30, 10:55 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > [...] > > > Then your being a bit silly D. The guy is making a damn good point. If > > those cards had not been printed, the VtES scene would be far more > > varied most likely. > > Prove it. . Err. we get called whiners for just talking about it. How can we possibly prove anything? And even *if* we would be allowed to talk about it, it obviously needs playtesting. duh. >And what do you mean with "varied"? Look it up. Varied means varied. Fr.ex: not needing bounce would - logically- lead to more decks being playable. Because, you know, only 2 disciplines have bounce. > > > So why not ban the frikkin cards? There is a > > fairly general consensus that, yes, they are a bit too strong. > > Consensus or whinesensus? :-) what's that supposed to mean? > > > So what exactly is your point? He is also not whining but making a > > constructive point > > He is making a destructive point. And he is also implying that > trimming offensive strategies such as bleed would be better for the > game. Yes they would. As explained a number of times. I'll do it again for you. 1. heavy bleed gets powered down a bit. (also dem and pre, imo) 2. That means: more offensive actions needed to get the same result. Look: more offensive play. 3. More offensive actions needed: needs more space in a deck. Defence must be reduced, because of the limited deck space. 4. With powered down bleed, the defences against that, can be powered down or even removed altogether. 5. another advantage: a 4 cap minion wouldn't be able to bleed for 7 right out the box. disadvantages: none that I know of. > > Isn't there another thread with complaints about time outs? :-P It would speed the game up actually, IMO. No more: wait wait wait wait lunge with 2 bleeds for 12 wait wait wait wait Lunge again wait wait time-out Which has become the standard mode of play for a lot of decks.

On Aug 31, 10:11 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 30 aug, 23:15, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 30, 11:00 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 30, 10:55 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > [...] > > > > Then your being a bit silly D. The guy is making a damn good point. If > > > those cards had not been printed, the VtES scene would be far more > > > varied most likely. > > > Prove it. . > > Err. we get called whiners for just talking about it. No, you get called whiners for whining :-) > How can we possibly prove anything? And even *if* we would be allowed to talk > about it, it obviously needs playtesting. duh. So your statements are unfounded? > >And what do you mean with "varied"? > > Look it up. Varied means varied. Fr.ex: not needing bounce would - > logically- lead to more decks being playable. Because, you know, only > 2 disciplines have bounce. The fact that many good decks do not need bounce to work refutes that statement. > > > So why not ban the frikkin cards? There is a > > > fairly general consensus that, yes, they are a bit too strong. > > > Consensus or whinesensus? :-) > > what's that supposed to mean? A consensus of whiners :-) > > > So what exactly is your point? He is also not whining but making a > > > constructive point > > > He is making a destructive point. And he is also implying that > > trimming offensive strategies such as bleed would be better for the > > game. > > Yes they would. As explained a number of times. I'll do it again for > you. > 1. heavy bleed gets powered down a bit. (also dem and pre, imo) Amazing :-) We could power down Computer Hacking as well :-P > 2. That means: more offensive actions needed to get the same result. > Look: more offensive play. That means more time to bring out more minions and to take more actions, and less offensive play. > 3. More offensive actions needed: needs more space in a deck. Defence > must be reduced, because of the limited deck space. That means your actions are less effective. And that wall decks become even more powerful. > 4. With powered down bleed, the defences against that, can be powered > down or even removed altogether. Are you allergic to bounce or what? >:-) > 5. another advantage: a 4 cap minion wouldn't be able to bleed for 7 > right out the box. So what? > disadvantages: none that I know of. Try harder :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 31, 12:20 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1188507260.242968.326...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > With what purpose (being it an "hypotetical reboot")? > > Making the game work better. Currently, there are certain parts of the > game that don't lead to the game working as well as it could (Dominate > still being the most powerful discipline in the game; That is being currently addressed by increasing the effectiveness of other disciplines. > PTO still being the most brokenly powerful card in the game; Yeah, PTO is broken (no kidding) > DI being completely inappropriate for the game; etc.) So a card that does not require dominate and that helps you defensively and, sometimes, offensively, is inappropriate for the game? :-) [...] > It is kind of like you *haven't* been active on this newsgroup for years > and years. Discussions of what is or is not in need of fixing in this > game come up, uh, every day. Ha, ha, ha... Where have you been all these years? Search Google again, and try harder ;-) > And this particular one is both incredibly mild and not even something > anyone expects to happen. And *this* is the one that makes you react? As you will find out, if you try harder, I have reacted to other discussions. And I am taking part in this one because I found it particularly "amusing" :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 31 aug, 12:57, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > On Aug 31, 10:11 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 30 aug, 23:15, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 30, 11:00 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 30, 10:55 pm, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > Then your being a bit silly D. The guy is making a damn good point. If > > > > those cards had not been printed, the VtES scene would be far more > > > > varied most likely. > > > > Prove it. . > > > Err. we get called whiners for just talking about it. > > No, you get called whiners for whining :-) point me to the whining? Talking about a hypothetical variant is whining? Since when? > > > How can we possibly prove anything? And even *if* we would be allowed to talk > > about it, it obviously needs playtesting. duh. > > So your statements are unfounded? Duh. It hasn't been tried. What's your point? You cannot try something out, without talking about it first, can you? > > > >And what do you mean with "varied"? > > > Look it up. Varied means varied. Fr.ex: not needing bounce would - > > logically- lead to more decks being playable. Because, you know, only > > 2 disciplines have bounce. > > The fact that many good decks do not need bounce to work refutes that > statement. Ha. Look at the 3 final tables of the EC. 13 had bounce, 2 were Imbued. > > > > > So why not ban the frikkin cards? There is a > > > > fairly general consensus that, yes, they are a bit too strong. > > > > Consensus or whinesensus? :-) > > > what's that supposed to mean? > > A consensus of whiners :-) ???? > > > > > So what exactly is your point? He is also not whining but making a > > > > constructive point > > > > He is making a destructive point. And he is also implying that > > > trimming offensive strategies such as bleed would be better for the > > > game. > > > Yes they would. As explained a number of times. I'll do it again for > > you. > > 1. heavy bleed gets powered down a bit. (also dem and pre, imo) > > Amazing :-) We could power down Computer Hacking as well :-P if it would make the game better: why not? > > > 2. That means: more offensive actions needed to get the same result. > > Look: more offensive play. > > That means more time to bring out more minions and to take more > actions, and less offensive play. why is that? Have you tested that? Can you prove it? > > > 3. More offensive actions needed: needs more space in a deck. Defence > > must be reduced, because of the limited deck space. > > That means your actions are less effective. no shit. That's the idea. >And that wall decks become > even more powerful. that's what needs to be playtested. > > > 4. With powered down bleed, the defences against that, can be powered > > down or even removed altogether. > > Are you allergic to bounce or what? >:-) Tired of it. Been a must include for 13 years now. Time for it to go. > > > 5. another advantage: a 4 cap minion wouldn't be able to bleed for 7 > > right out the box. > > So what? If you don't think that's a problem, we're playing a different game. > > > disadvantages: none that I know of. > > Try harder :-) Why? To convince you why should I? We're just whining, anyway.

On 31 aug, 13:19, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > On Aug 31, 12:20 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > In article <1188507260.242968.326...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > > Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > > With what purpose (being it an "hypotetical reboot")? > > > Making the game work better. Currently, there are certain parts of the > > game that don't lead to the game working as well as it could (Dominate > > still being the most powerful discipline in the game; > > That is being currently addressed by increasing the effectiveness of > other disciplines. Ha! you try searching google for 'power creep' Now come back and read that statement again. > > > DI being completely inappropriate for the game; etc.) > > So a card that does not require dominate and that helps you > defensively and, sometimes, offensively, is inappropriate for the > game? :-) Yes. Totally. And the reasons your giving have absolutely nothing to do with what Peter's saying. He's saying: the effect is wrong for this game. And it's too strong. Your answer: No, it belongs, because it's a very good and useful card.

On Aug 31, 1:37 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 31 aug, 12:57, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: [...] > > > How can we possibly prove anything? And even *if* we would be allowed to talk > > > about it, it obviously needs playtesting. duh. > > > So your statements are unfounded? > > Duh. It hasn't been tried. What's your point? You cannot try something > out, without talking about it first, can you? So just trying for trying's sake with no remote foresight of its implications or effects? :-) > > > >And what do you mean with "varied"? > > > > Look it up. Varied means varied. Fr.ex: not needing bounce would - > > > logically- lead to more decks being playable. Because, you know, only > > > 2 disciplines have bounce. > > > The fact that many good decks do not need bounce to work refutes that > > statement. > > Ha. Look at the 3 final tables of the EC. 13 had bounce, 2 were > Imbued. Is that a representative sample of something? Does that mean that there aren't good decks that don't need bounce to work? [...] > > > 1. heavy bleed gets powered down a bit. (also dem and pre, imo) > > > Amazing :-) We could power down Computer Hacking as well :-P > > if it would make the game better: why not? Unbelievable :-) > > > 2. That means: more offensive actions needed to get the same result. > > > Look: more offensive play. > > > That means more time to bring out more minions and to take more > > actions, and less offensive play. > > why is that? Have you tested that? Can you prove it? I can use my judgment, based on my experience. Judgment isn't a proof, but it's something at least. > > > 3. More offensive actions needed: needs more space in a deck. Defence > > > must be reduced, because of the limited deck space. > > > That means your actions are less effective. > > no shit. That's the idea. :-) > >And that wall decks become > > even more powerful. > > that's what needs to be playtested. Try to use your judgment too. > > > 4. With powered down bleed, the defences against that, can be powered > > > down or even removed altogether. > > > Are you allergic to bounce or what? >:-) > > Tired of it. Been a must include for 13 years now. Time for it to go. I am tired of wall decks. Therefore they should be trimmed :-) > > > 5. another advantage: a 4 cap minion wouldn't be able to bleed for 7 > > > right out the box. > > > So what? > > If you don't think that's a problem, we're playing a different game. Indeed. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 31 aug, 14:09, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > On Aug 31, 1:37 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 31 aug, 12:57, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > [...] > > > > How can we possibly prove anything? And even *if* we would be allowed to talk > > > > about it, it obviously needs playtesting. duh. > > > > So your statements are unfounded? > > > Duh. It hasn't been tried. What's your point? You cannot try something > > out, without talking about it first, can you? > > So just trying for trying's sake with no remote foresight of its > implications or effects? :-) You said we had to prove things, not me. > > > > > >And what do you mean with "varied"? > > > > > Look it up. Varied means varied. Fr.ex: not needing bounce would - > > > > logically- lead to more decks being playable. Because, you know, only > > > > 2 disciplines have bounce. > > > > The fact that many good decks do not need bounce to work refutes that > > > statement. > > > Ha. Look at the 3 final tables of the EC. 13 had bounce, 2 were > > Imbued. > > Is that a representative sample of something? > > Does that mean that there aren't good decks that don't need bounce to > work? No. But still most do. > > > > 1. heavy bleed gets powered down a bit. (also dem and pre, imo) > > > > Amazing :-) We could power down Computer Hacking as well :-P > > > if it would make the game better: why not? > > Unbelievable :-) It would kill the 1 cap deck for. ex. > > > > > 2. That means: more offensive actions needed to get the same result. > > > > Look: more offensive play. > > > > That means more time to bring out more minions and to take more > > > actions, and less offensive play. > > > why is that? Have you tested that? Can you prove it? > > I can use my judgment, based on my experience. Judgment isn't a proof, > but it's something at least. Our judgment apparently wasn't. Your is? > > > > > 3. More offensive actions needed: needs more space in a deck. Defence > > > > must be reduced, because of the limited deck space. > > > > That means your actions are less effective. > > > no shit. That's the idea. > > :-) > > > >And that wall decks become > > > even more powerful. > > > that's what needs to be playtested. > > Try to use your judgment too. Not, you said, we had to prove stuff. > > > > > 4. With powered down bleed, the defences against that, can be powered > > > > down or even removed altogether. > > > > Are you allergic to bounce or what? >:-) > > > Tired of it. Been a must include for 13 years now. Time for it to go. > > I am tired of wall decks. Therefore they should be trimmed :-) Well, maybe, if bleed was turned down in power, deflection removed, unblockables could become more useful; > > > > > 5. another advantage: a 4 cap minion wouldn't be able to bleed for 7 > > > > right out the box. > > > > So what? > > > If you don't think that's a problem, we're playing a different game. > > Indeed. > > -- > Damnans > [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote in news:1188562153.2...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com: > On Aug 31, 1:37 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 31 aug, 12:57, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > [...] >> > > How can we possibly prove anything? And even *if* we would be >> > > allowed to talk about it, it obviously needs playtesting. duh. >> >> > So your statements are unfounded? >> >> Duh. It hasn't been tried. What's your point? You cannot try >> something out, without talking about it first, can you? > > So just trying for trying's sake with no remote foresight of its > implications or effects? :-) > *Sigh* Didn't I go through this with Teeka just a second ago? Again, just for you Gines; What is proposed is voluntary participation with a VARIANT rules set, with six additional banned cards. Peter and I, and all the others I think, are curious what the game would look liked in NON-sanctioned play, were GtU, Defl, Cond, DI, PTO and MoM to not be in the game. *whiners* would simply agitate for LSJ to make the changes unevidenced. I'm curious, but I'd like to see how it goes in actual game play before I would advocate such a thing. Oh, and the smilies..? After repeating an insult *seven* times, they no longer make your repeated accusations any less insulting... DaveZ

On 31 aug, 14:50, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > *Sigh* Didn't I go through this with Teeka just a second ago? Hey! Waitaminute.. all I did was try and explain why I would not like the NWO idea (although I didn't make that clear enough in my intial posts). I never said anyone was whining, nor did I say we shouldn't be arguing a hypothetical situation... I'm 100% OK with this discussion!

In article <1188559194....@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: > That is being currently addressed by increasing the effectiveness of > other disciplines. Sure. Which is a good thing. But unless you increase all disciplines to the point where an inferior discipline can bleed for 5 *and* bounce a bleed with a 2 cap vampire, they are never going to catch up to Dominate. So another possibility is to cull back dominate. > So a card that does not require dominate and that helps you > defensively and, sometimes, offensively, is inappropriate for the > game? :-) Yes. And really. Slow down with the smiley faces. DI is too general and broad of an effect for a game that generally doesn't work like that. And it is too easy to use DI to arbitrarily stop someone from ousting their prey cross table, which is counter productive to the game as a whole. > Ha, ha, ha... Where have you been all these years? Search Google > again, and try harder ;-) Dude. It was sarcasm. [ quoted text not captured ]

Teeka <teeka_...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1188565301.868643.142550@ 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] gack, sorry if I implied wrongly. I only meant that the fact that NWO is suggested only as non-sanctioned variant play was a part of our exchange. DZ AW

In article <1188562153.2...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: > So just trying for trying's sake with no remote foresight of its > implications or effects? :-) Again. You don't need to end ever sentence with a similey face. Especially as it doesn't make what you are saying suddenly funny a light hearted. The whole point is the foresight of the effects. If you slow down the upper bounds of bleeds (by nerfing Dominates ability to bleed for 5 with a single, inferior discipline), bleed defense (read: bounce) becomes slightly less necessary and other deck possibilities (read: decks without bounce) become more viable. By taking out Conditioning and Govern, Dominate becomes "hobbled" by being as good at bleeding as Dementation (easy to bleed for 3 with dem, easy to bleed for 4 with DEM). Heck, it would still be better than Dementation as you could jack up bleeds to 5 with DOM and either Command the Beast or Forshadowing. Taking out Govern and Conditioning would, however, require Dominate decks to ramp up some with DOM before the serious shock bleeds started, as opposed to now, when a single 2 cap hits the table and bleeds for 5 before your prey has a vampire on the table. Which would make Dominate less overwhelmingly good, other bleed disciplines more attractive, relatively speaking, and slow the power bleed aspect of the game that most folks don't seem real fond of down a bit. > Does that mean that there aren't good decks that don't need bounce to > work? No. There are good decks that don't need bounce to work. Not many of them, though. It would be nice if there were more of them. > I am tired of wall decks. Therefore they should be trimmed :-) None of my suggestions would increase the existence of wall decks. But they might make them seem less attractive and less necessary. What is the best card in the game for making wall decks work? Direct Intervention. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com [ quoted text not captured ]

On 31 aug, 15:44, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > gack, sorry if I implied wrongly. I only meant that the fact that NWO is > suggested only as non-sanctioned variant play was a part of our exchange. > OK, cool.

On Aug 30, 10:44 am, atomweaver wrote: > These are probably minor arguments for most players, but I happen to be in > the unique and un-enviable position of having created two play groups (the > one in Boston, and another in Charlotte, NC), and I've been trying ad > nauseam to set up a third in my current town... unsuccessfully so far, so I > have to admit that burdens for teaching VTES play larger in my head than > for most others. *shrug* I think I have posted this too before, but I think it's worth mentioning, just for the record. We teach VTES to new players around here, many of them don't speak English at all. I never heard anyone complain about card text changes, but it's a huge deal for a lot of us that "VTES is a game that does not ban cards". I'm not saying that banning 5 or 6 cards would be a major blow for VTES here (probably wouldn't), or trying to downplay the impact that card text changes might have on your efforts to teach VTES to people in your area. Just pointing out that things that could make it very difficult for you to Embrace new players have no impact at all elsewhere. And vice-versa. Maybe it's about cultural differences, or teaching styles. I don't know. Abraço, Luiz Mello Brazil VTES NC -- IV VTES Brazilian National Championship Vitória, October 12 to 14, 2007 http://cbr2007.vtesbrasil.com

On Aug 31, 2:50 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote innews:1188562153.2...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com: > > > On Aug 31, 1:37 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 31 aug, 12:57, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > [...] > >> > > How can we possibly prove anything? And even *if* we would be > >> > > allowed to talk about it, it obviously needs playtesting. duh. > > >> > So your statements are unfounded? > > >> Duh. It hasn't been tried. What's your point? You cannot try > >> something out, without talking about it first, can you? > > > So just trying for trying's sake with no remote foresight of its > > implications or effects? :-) > > *Sigh* Didn't I go through this with Teeka just a second ago? Again, > just for you Gines; What is proposed is voluntary participation with a > VARIANT rules set, with six additional banned cards. Peter and I, and > all the others I think, are curious what the game would look liked in > NON-sanctioned play, were GtU, Defl, Cond, DI, PTO and MoM to not be in > the game. *whiners* would simply agitate for LSJ to make the changes > unevidenced. I'm curious, but I'd like to see how it goes in actual game > play before I would advocate such a thing. So this NWO has no other goal than seeing how the game would be without those cards? :-) [...] [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 31, 3:58 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1188562153.251481.240...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > > Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > So just trying for trying's sake with no remote foresight of its > > implications or effects? :-) > [...] > > The whole point is the foresight of the effects. If you slow down the > upper bounds of bleeds (by nerfing Dominates ability to bleed for 5 with > a single, inferior discipline), bleed defense (read: bounce) becomes > slightly less necessary and other deck possibilities (read: decks > without bounce) become more viable. And other decks become weaker or useless, and others become much stronger, and others become more viable. > By taking out Conditioning and Govern, Dominate becomes "hobbled" by > being as good at bleeding as Dementation (easy to bleed for 3 with dem, > easy to bleed for 4 with DEM). Heck, it would still be better than > Dementation as you could jack up bleeds to 5 with DOM and either Command > the Beast or Forshadowing. Your conception of better is, at least, weird here, since Dementation would still be better due to Kindred Spirits (which allows you to bleed any Methuselah, thus being more versatile). > Taking out Govern and Conditioning would, > however, require Dominate decks to ramp up some with DOM before the > serious shock bleeds started, as opposed to now, when a single 2 cap > hits the table and bleeds for 5 before your prey has a vampire on the > table. Which is a stupid move to make in many occasions, since you just make your prey bring out 1 fewer vampire and you draw too much attention while wasting resources. > Which would make Dominate less overwhelmingly good, other bleed > disciplines more attractive, relatively speaking, and slow the power > bleed aspect of the game that most folks don't seem real fond of down a > bit. So is this just a matter of taste? :-) [...] > > > I am tired of wall decks. Therefore they should be trimmed :-) > > None of my suggestions would increase the existence of wall decks. But > they might make them seem less attractive and less necessary. What is > the best card in the game for making wall decks work? Direct > Intervention. Wow!, lots of very subjective statements in a row :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 31, 3:44 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1188559194.834196.77...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, [...] > > So a card that does not require dominate and that helps you > > defensively and, sometimes, offensively, is inappropriate for the > > game? :-) > [...] > > DI is too general and broad of an effect for a game that generally > doesn't work like that. And it is too easy to use DI to arbitrarily stop > someone from ousting their prey cross table, which is counter productive > to the game as a whole. What's counterproductive to the game is bad play, not DI. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1188597316....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: > So this NWO has no other goal than seeing how the game would be > without those cards? :-) Ok. The smiley. It is used to indicate that something you are saying is a joke. Or at least tongue in cheek. It is not used as punctuation at the end of every sentence. On the actual discussion, the whole purpose of this discussion, as it were, is to pose a hypothetical situation where the uber powered cards are hacked out of the environment. The 6 or 7 I proposed are likely the best examples of cards that are at the pinacle of the power curve, and if they were not in the game, the game would probably be more fun and see more variety (super Dominate bleed potential means that you always need to worry about super Dominate bleed killing you and that without Bounce, most decks can't cut it while Deflection is simply too far over the power curve; PTO existing means that decks based on large, non-camarilla vampires are simply too dangerous to play in serious competition as well as it being still the most overpowered card in the game; Direct Intervention makes the game wildly difficult to play a great deal of the time and is simply to wide ranging of an effect). I'm totally confused as to what you are not understanding about this. And why you choose to object to the very discussion of a hypothetical situation. Again, no one here is saying "LSJ! Ban these cards! WAAAAA!". Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1188598382.8...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: > What's counterproductive to the game is bad play, not DI. Holy crap. How are you not understanding this discussion? You seem like a smart guy. It is possibly the language issue, but you generally seem at ease with English. This discussion has nothing at all to do with good play or bad play. Direct Intervention is, as has been posed many, many times in this newsgroup, a card that is likely too wide range in effect for the game of VTES. That it can cancel any card played by anyone, in a game where such blanket effects are, well, unknown but for a single card, makes it probably over the power curve. In a practical sense, that DI exists is incredibly disruptive to game play, as any time anyone does *anything*, they need to say "Anyone want to DI that?" and wait around while everyone at the table considers the possibility to DIing whatever card just got played. And any time anyone tries to do anything at a table, someone can say "Wait, I might want to DI that...", regardless of where they are. Which is a pain in the ass for everyone. Direct Intervention is a card that probably should never have been introduced into the game. Ever. If one is discussing "what cards should not be in the game at all, in a hypothetical sense, to make the game as a whole a better* place for everyone", DI is likely on the top of the list. (*by "better", I mean "better balanced, more fun, and more varied in terms of viable strategies".) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1188598138.6...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: > And other decks become weaker or useless, and others become much > stronger, and others become more viable. Yes. That is the whole point. If you cut out the top most cards of the power curve (and I'm not even suggesting that many), then other decks become weaker or useless and others become much stronger and others become more viable. Correct. > Your conception of better is, at least, weird here, since Dementation > would still be better due to Kindred Spirits (which allows you to > bleed any Methuselah, thus being more versatile). Maybe. They would still be different--Dominate would still be easier to bleed for more with (i.e. 3 with an inferior discipline and not Computer Hacking; 4-5 with a superior). And Dominate comes with bleed bounce (even if Deflection got whacked), which Dementation does not. See, this way, Dominate would not be better or worse than Dementation, just different. Currently, it is just better. See where this is going? > Which is a stupid move to make in many occasions, since you just make > your prey bring out 1 fewer vampire and you draw too much attention > while wasting resources. Which is irrelevant. Being able to bleed for 5 with a single minion with an inferior discipline is simply too far over the power curve of the rest of the disciplines in the game. And too much of a power swing. > So is this just a matter of taste? :-) For the love of punk rock. Where have I claimed anything else? And again. The smiley. Do you not understand how those work? > Wow!, lots of very subjective statements in a row :-) This entire fucking discussion is completely subjective. No one is claiming it is anything else. How are you not understanding this? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 1, 12:20 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1188597316.240233.90...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > So this NWO has no other goal than seeing how the game would be > > without those cards? :-) > > Ok. The smiley. It is used to indicate that something you are saying is > a joke. Or at least tongue in cheek. It is not used as punctuation at > the end of every sentence. You are wrong. Smileys are used to indicate emotions and attitudes that would be conveyed by body language in face-to-face communications :-) [...] > I'm totally confused as to what you are not understanding about this. > And why you choose to object to the very discussion of a hypothetical > situation. Again, no one here is saying "LSJ! Ban these cards! WAAAAA!". Maybe no one is saying that, but you are implying that the game would be better without those cards, which IMO is the same. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 1, 12:29 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1188598382.888035.125...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > > Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > What's counterproductive to the game is bad play, not DI. > > Holy crap. How are you not understanding this discussion? You seem like > a smart guy. It is possibly the language issue, but you generally seem > at ease with English. > > This discussion has nothing at all to do with good play or bad play. It was you who brought "bad play" to this discussion by writing: "And it is too easy to use DI to arbitrarily stop someone from ousting their prey cross table, which is counter productive to the game as a whole." as one of the reasons why DI is bad for the game. [...] [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1188600472.7...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: > It was you who brought "bad play" to this discussion by writing: "And > it is too easy to use DI to arbitrarily stop > someone from ousting their prey cross table, which is counter > productive to the game as a whole." as one of the reasons why DI is > bad for the game. That is not an example of bad play. It is an example of being able to arbitrarily stop someone from ousting their prey cross table, which is counter productive to the game, as being able to overtly affect people across table is counter productive to the game. Where does "bad play" enter the equation? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1188599777....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: > You are wrong. Smileys are used to indicate emotions and attitudes > that would be conveyed by body language in face-to-face > communications :-) The emotions and attitudes that you seem to be trying to indicate with your excessive use of smileys in no way fits with the discussion you are having. Nor are you being funny. Thus, inappropriate. > Maybe no one is saying that, but you are implying that the game would > be better without those cards, which IMO is the same. Your opinion is clearly flawed, as in your opinion, it is a good idea to end 90% of your sentences with smileys. You also keep using the word "implying". I don't think that word means what you think it means. I'm not *implying* anything. I am straight out saying "the game would be better without these cards". That is not an "implication". And is a totally subjective opinion on my part. And being discussed as I think it is an interesting discussion. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 1, 6:10 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1188599777.313072.62...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > > Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > You are wrong. Smileys are used to indicate emotions and attitudes > > that would be conveyed by body language in face-to-face > > communications :-) > > The emotions and attitudes that you seem to be trying to indicate with > your excessive use of smileys in no way fits with the discussion you are > having. Nor are you being funny. Thus, inappropriate. Well, then you don't seem to have understood what a smiley is for. > > Maybe no one is saying that, but you are implying that the game would > > be better without those cards, which IMO is the same. [...] > You also keep using the word "implying". I don't think that word means > what you think it means. I'm not *implying* anything. I am straight out > saying "the game would be better without these cards". That is not an > "implication". And is a totally subjective opinion on my part. And being > discussed as I think it is an interesting discussion. You appear to have missed what I meant with my above statement, so I will quote the relevant paragraphs: PETER SAID: "I'm totally confused as to what you are not understanding about this. And why you choose to object to the very discussion of a hypothetical situation. Again, no one here is saying 'LSJ! Ban these cards! WAAAAA!'." DAMNANS SAID: "Maybe no one is saying that, but you are implying that the game would be better without those cards, which IMO is the same." I'll elaborate my sentence. Maybe no one is saying "LSJ!; Ban these cards! WAAAAA!", but you are [straight out saying] the game would be better without those cards, which, in my opinion, is the same as saying "LSJ!, Ban these cards! WAAAAA!" [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 1, 6:03 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1188600472.794944.315...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > It was you who brought "bad play" to this discussion by writing: "And > > it is too easy to use DI to arbitrarily stop > > someone from ousting their prey cross table, which is counter > > productive to the game as a whole." as one of the reasons why DI is > > bad for the game. > > That is not an example of bad play. It is an example of being able to > arbitrarily stop someone from ousting their prey cross table, It is an example of bad play because you used the word "arbitrarily" in that sentence. > which is counter productive to the game, as being able to overtly affect people > across table is counter productive to the game. Where does "bad play" > enter the equation? See above. VTES has lots of cards that affect people across table. It's in its nature. I'll give you just ONE example: Political actions :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

No-one has asked anybody to ban anything,. We are having a fucking hypothetical discussion (and before you say anything about that, get a dictionary and get the correct meaning of the word hypothetical, and arbitrarily while you are at it as well.) Dom is overpowered. This is a very widely and generally accepted fact. DI is way stronger than ANY comparable card. PTO is broken. The discussion is not about anything except the question :What would VtES be like if Govern, Conditioning, Deflection, PTO and DI did not exist. A (I'm gonna make this loud so you see it this time) SUGGESTION was made for a NON SANCTIONED format where this could be playtested so that the effects could be carefully scrutinized in a real environment.

On 1 sep, 09:26, Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > PETER SAID: "I'm totally confused as to what you are not understanding > about this. And why you choose to object to the very discussion of a > hypothetical situation. Again, no one here is saying 'LSJ! Ban these > cards! WAAAAA!'." > > DAMNANS SAID: "Maybe no one is saying that, but you are implying that > the game would > be better without those cards, which IMO is the same." > > I'll elaborate my sentence. > > Maybe no one is saying "LSJ!; Ban these cards! WAAAAA!", but you are > [straight out saying] the game would be better without those cards, > which, in my opinion, is the same as saying "LSJ!, Ban these cards! > WAAAAA!" > Not the same. I agree with Peter (and others) that the proposed ban would fix lots of problems, yet I would always vote for errata instead of banning. So in a sense, I'm saying "WAAAA these cards are way too powerful!" but not "WAAAA ban these cards!". You seem to think that acknowledgement of a problem and the discussion of (just one of the) possible solutions, is the same as pleading for implementation of a specific solution. It is not. In case a possible solution is not so obvious we can all instantly agree on it, we need to examine what would happen if we'd implement it. This discussion is exactly the same as any other in which we discuss "what if we'd change this card's text into...". Teeka (no smilies)

"Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> schreef in bericht news:1188598382.8...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 31, 3:44 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> In article <1188559194.834196.77...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, > [...] >> > So a card that does not require dominate and that helps you >> > defensively and, sometimes, offensively, is inappropriate for the >> > game? :-) >> > [...] >> >> DI is too general and broad of an effect for a game that generally >> doesn't work like that. And it is too easy to use DI to arbitrarily stop >> someone from ousting their prey cross table, which is counter productive >> to the game as a whole. > > What's counterproductive to the game is bad play, not DI. So banning bad players would be ok? Gines, Who pissed in your coffee today? If you don't like this experiment: just butt out and leave people who want to try an alternate variant of the game talk about it. And as to the above point: I must agree with Peter that DI doesn't belong in this game. Bad play or not.

In article <1188631604.6...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: > Well, then you don't seem to have understood what a smiley is for. Ok dude. Just keep smileying it up. > You appear to have missed what I meant with my above statement, so I > will quote the relevant paragraphs: No, I didn't miss it at all. > Maybe no one is saying "LSJ!; Ban these cards! WAAAAA!", but you are > [straight out saying] the game would be better without those cards, > which, in my opinion, is the same as saying "LSJ!, Ban these cards! > WAAAAA!" Yes. Your use of "imply" was incorrect. If you don't like an interesting hypothetical discussion, no one is making you take part in it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1188632049....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Damnans <damna...@ono.com> wrote: > It is an example of bad play because you used the word "arbitrarily" > in that sentence. And I don't think *that* word means what you think it means, either. Use of the word "arbitrarily" in this context does not in any way imply (which is an appropriate use of the word in this context) bad play. It just indicates that someone can use the card to do something at their whim. > VTES has lots of cards that affect people across table. It's in its > nature. Yes. But none of them have that blanket of an effect. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

On Aug 29, 3:51 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <Xns999BA5BD22A6Eatomwea...@207.115.33.102>, > > atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > So, make a Sensible VTES Player's banned list: Govern, Conditioning, > > Deflection, DI, MoM and PTO... and, accept that Sensible VTES Play is > > slowed a bit, in exchange for greater variation in game play. ;-) > > Heh--see, I really *would* like to see a "New World Order" VTES that > did, in fact, have a bunch of cards banned outright in the name of > making the game better all around. And the list you present above is a > pretty good basis for the NWO VTES. > > I know we have had many discussions about "how we could have done it > better from the ground floor", (and most of those involve slowing down > bleeding from the get go). But as those, really, are just pipe dreams, I > think "let's just ban a handful of cards and go from there" isn't that > out of the realm of a good idea. To wit, if we killed: > > -Govern > -Conditioning > -Deflection > > Bleeding would slow down a lot. Bounce would still be viable, but it > would have to be based in AUS (which is a significant cost over dom) or > with Redirection (which is less good than Deflection, and then > specifically reprinted in 3rd, as if it was some sort of half hearted, > vague attempt to replace Deflection with Redirection...). Although if > Govern and Conditioning went, we'd probably have to get all the cards > that let you bleed for +2 with an inferior discipline. > > -Direct Intervention > > Would just make the game all around better and easier to play. > > -Protect Thine Own > > Still the most broken card in the game. > > And moved on from there, I think VTES would be much, much better all > around. Memories is also a possibility, but only, really, 'cause of the > Imbued, and I'd still just rather see the Imbued get fixed on the rules > front rather than on the card or card text front. > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "Find hungry samurai." > -The Old Man Any chance of ignoring the trolls, picking this thread back up, and discussing the variant? I (and, I believe, lots of others of my fellow lurkers) are *very* interested in this idea, and would love to see where it leads. I'd love to make the next "experimental game day" I host be an NWO night, but it looks like the idea needs more examination? I lack the expertise to push it much further, but are there other cards on the "exclusion" list besides these: - Govern the Unaligned - Conditioning - Deflection - Direct Intervention - Protect Thine Own ? Memories of Mortality came up recently...? -Jason

In article <1188654450.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, paladin_brand <jason.van...@gmail.com> wrote: > Any chance of ignoring the trolls, picking this thread back up, and > discussing the variant? I (and, I believe, lots of others of my > fellow lurkers) are *very* interested in this idea, and would love to > see where it leads. Ah, bless you. I blame myself, really... > I'd love to make the next "experimental game day" I host be an NWO > night, but it looks like the idea needs more examination? I lack the > expertise to push it much further, but are there other cards on the > "exclusion" list besides these: > > - Govern the Unaligned > - Conditioning > - Deflection > - Direct Intervention > - Protect Thine Own I think these are the main cards that need killing, but as I mentioned elsewhere, if Govern and Conditioning are going to go, you probably need to kill all the cards that give you +2 bleed with an inferior discipline: -Legal Manipulations -Slaughtering the Herd -Madman's Quill -Media Influence Legal is a powerhouse card, Slaughtering is kind of bad, but still lets you bleed for +2 with dom, although at 2 blood, not as horrible. Madman's requires 2 disciplines, but that isn't a big deal, as if you have dem, 95% of the time you also have aus, and Media Influence is pretty much just like Legal. -Aire of Elation -Truth of 10K lies These guys are tricky, as Aire costs 1 for +1/+2 if you aren't the Toredaor. But if you are, it is Conditioning. But maybe if there is no Legal to back it up with, it isn't that bad. Truth is something the Settites kinda need for the superior ability, but at the inferior, it is still +2 bleed, but for 2 blood, so I'm up in the air about it. You could try with just the Dom cards killed, and assume that the combo of strong bleed and bleed bounce and good combat defense (Obedience) is enough to make Dominate still totally good, and let Presence have the "I can bleed for 5 with a single inferior discipline ('cause I am also the Toreador)", which is *probably* ok (as the Toreador lack a good delivery mechanism). Plus, if you only ban the 5 (or 6) cards in the original list, that is a lot easier to remember than if the list blows up to, like, 10-12. So a trade off. I'd like to hear opnions from folks who, ya know, actually have something constructive to say on the idea. In terms of Deflection, I think killing Deflection is probably totally reasonable, due to the existance of Redirection--it is especially problematic that Deflection has not been (IRC) reprinted since Camarilla--Deflection is one of the most powerful, necessary cards in the game. I own, like, 30 Deflections, and *still* run out of them all the time. I suspect that most folks who play a lot of VTES have the same problem. And yeah, you can still get handfuls of Deflection on e-bay for a not unreasonable cost, but it is still a problem that anyone who is getting into the game now, or got in in the last 4-5 years (when was CE released?) has no access to Deflection except through the secondary market is a problem. > ? Memories of Mortality came up recently...? Yeah, Memories is a card that, really, is linked to the Imbued--without the Imbued, I don't think Memories is that strong. I mean, yeah, it makes Shambling Hordes and War Ghouls really good, but not excessively so. If the Imbued get fixed like everyone hopes, the Memories is probably fine as it is. If they don't get fixed, then Memories is a good card to whack in this world. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 1, 4:55 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1188654450.406891.258...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > paladin_brand <jason.vandenber...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd love to make the next "experimental game day" I host be an NWO > > night, but it looks like the idea needs more examination? I lack the > > expertise to push it much further, but are there other cards on the > > "exclusion" list besides these: > > > - Govern the Unaligned > > - Conditioning > > - Deflection > > - Direct Intervention > > - Protect Thine Own > > I think these are the main cards that need killing, but as I mentioned > elsewhere, if Govern and Conditioning are going to go, you probably need > to kill all the cards that give you +2 bleed with an inferior discipline: > > -Legal Manipulations > -Slaughtering the Herd > -Madman's Quill > -Media Influence > > Legal is a powerhouse card, Slaughtering is kind of bad, but still lets > you bleed for +2 with dom, although at 2 blood, not as horrible. > Madman's requires 2 disciplines, but that isn't a big deal, as if you > have dem, 95% of the time you also have aus, and Media Influence is > pretty much just like Legal. Granted, these cards also give +2 on inferior, but at a cost of 2 blood for the majority (will get to legal manip) it makes it not so usefull for the majority of weenie bleeders. But granted it is a possibility. An alternative I thought of for Deflection, just for interest's sake, is instead of banning, make it's dom/DOM be replaced by a capacity clasue instead. Say under 7cap and above 6 for inferior and superior respectively. Not for any other reason than I want to see what the true effect of a disciplineless bounce card that gives advantage to fatties would be. The cap range might need to move up one or two blood, but thats pretty much where io would stick it. However this is not congruent with the rest of the NWO idea, so take it as you wish. > -Aire of Elation > -Truth of 10K lies > These guys are tricky, as Aire costs 1 for +1/+2 if you aren't the > Toredaor. But if you are, it is Conditioning. But maybe if there is no > Legal to back it up with, it isn't that bad. Truth is something the > Settites kinda need for the superior ability, but at the inferior, it is > still +2 bleed, but for 2 blood, so I'm up in the air about it. Just on the strength of the "Torries dont have a delivery system" I would leave Aire as is. T1K, again being 2 blood for the bleed boost is okay in my book. MoM is an include only if there is a huge imbued presence (read, one regular player :). And even then I would say make it unique. All in all, if people play this variant, please be so kind as to just jot down some basic notes on what happens during or after gameplay, as this will make a fairly large difference in the usefulness of this though (and hopefully real world) experiment.

In article <1188661034....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> wrote: > An alternative I thought of for Deflection, just for interest's sake, > is instead of banning, make it's dom/DOM be replaced by a capacity > clasue instead. Say under 7cap and above 6 for inferior and superior > respectively. Not for any other reason than I want to see what the > true effect of a disciplineless bounce card that gives advantage to > fatties would be. The cap range might need to move up one or two > blood, but thats pretty much where io would stick it. However this is > not congruent with the rest of the NWO idea, so take it as you wish. Yeah, not out of the realm of reason, but I'm tending to stay on the side of "just remove the cards" in the name of simplicty. Redirection isn't a bad card--it is just bad compared to Deflection. I suspect that it would become a much better card with no Deflection around. > Just on the strength of the "Torries dont have a delivery system" I > would leave Aire as is. T1K, again being 2 blood for the bleed boost > is okay in my book. Reasonable. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 1 sep, 16:55, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1188654450.406891.258...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > paladin_brand <jason.vandenber...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'd love to make the next "experimental game day" I host be an NWO > > night, but it looks like the idea needs more examination? I lack the > > expertise to push it much further, but are there other cards on the > > "exclusion" list besides these: > > > - Govern the Unaligned > > - Conditioning > > - Deflection > > - Direct Intervention > > - Protect Thine Own > > I think these are the main cards that need killing, but as I mentioned > elsewhere, if Govern and Conditioning are going to go, you probably need > to kill all the cards that give you +2 bleed with an inferior discipline: > > -Legal Manipulations > -Slaughtering the Herd > -Madman's Quill > -Media Influence > > Legal is a powerhouse card, Slaughtering is kind of bad, but still lets > you bleed for +2 with dom, although at 2 blood, not as horrible. > Madman's requires 2 disciplines, but that isn't a big deal, as if you > have dem, 95% of the time you also have aus, and Media Influence is > pretty much just like Legal. I think legal should be on the banned list. The others, not so much. > > -Aire of Elation > -Truth of 10K lies > > These guys are tricky, as Aire costs 1 for +1/+2 if you aren't the > Toredaor. But if you are, it is Conditioning. But maybe if there is no > Legal to back it up with, it isn't that bad. Truth is something the > Settites kinda need for the superior ability, but at the inferior, it is > still +2 bleed, but for 2 blood, so I'm up in the air about it. If we opt for ban or keep, i would keep it as is. If we would accept a couple of minor errata, I would remove the Toreador clause from the inferior, but not from the superior. > > You could try with just the Dom cards killed, and assume that the combo > of strong bleed and bleed bounce and good combat defense (Obedience) is > enough to make Dominate still totally good, and let Presence have the "I > can bleed for 5 with a single inferior discipline ('cause I am also the > Toreador)", which is *probably* ok (as the Toreador lack a good delivery > mechanism). Plus, if you only ban the 5 (or 6) cards in the original > list, that is a lot easier to remember than if the list blows up to, > like, 10-12. So a trade off. I'd like to hear opnions from folks who, ya > know, actually have something constructive to say on the idea. The thing is, that if you leave in the 5-6 bleed in the game, you don't really remove the 'need' for deflection. See also Kindred spirit below. > > In terms of Deflection, I think killing Deflection is probably totally > reasonable, Yup. > > > ? Memories of Mortality came up recently...? > > Yeah, Memories is a card that, really, is linked to the Imbued--without > the Imbued, I don't think Memories is that strong. I mean, yeah, it > makes Shambling Hordes and War Ghouls really good, but not excessively > so. If the Imbued get fixed like everyone hopes, the Memories is > probably fine as it is. If they don't get fixed, then Memories is a good > card to whack in this world. Also true; So to recap: What I would ban: - Govern the Unaligned - Conditioning - Deflection - Direct Intervention - Protect Thine Own - Legal manipulations If allowed for this format, I would change: Aire of elation (remove the Torry clause from the inferior) Kindred Spirits (change to 'gain blood if succesfully bled your prey') Problems that IMO might arise in NWO: - Aus becomes even stronger, now it has most intercept, best bounce and no counter like Perfect Clarity. For that reason (if it happens), I would add Telepathic Misdirection to the list too (but keep MEE.) - By limiting bleed max: bleed reduction might become a bit too powerfull. - The above will affect the inferior (read: weenie) bleed decks, which is good. But banning govern for larger caps, might be bad. That's why my first thoughts were about changing govern to having a minimum capacity.

On Sep 1, 3:27 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1188631604.612273.145...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > Damnans <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote: > > Well, then you don't seem to have understood what a smiley is for. > > Ok dude. Just keep smileying it up. > > > You appear to have missed what I meant with my above statement, so I > > will quote the relevant paragraphs: > > No, I didn't miss it at all. > > > Maybe no one is saying "LSJ!; Ban these cards! WAAAAA!", but you are > > [straight out saying] the game would be better without those cards, > > which, in my opinion, is the same as saying "LSJ!, Ban these cards! > > WAAAAA!" > > Yes. Your use of "imply" was incorrect. > > If you don't like an interesting hypothetical discussion, no one is > making you take part in it. > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "Find hungry samurai." > -The Old Man If people disagree with the idea being a good one, it's not so strange they voice their opinion on that. If you don't like people disagreeing with you, no one is making you have this discussion on a public forum. ok, fine, perhaps there are valid reasons to have it on a public forum ;) but Gines' disagreement with the basic ideas isn't a reason for him not to participate. Cheers, B

[ quoted text not captured ] disagreeing is ok, constructive disagreement is even great. Sabotage is something completely different (as is smiley spamming.)

[ quoted text not captured ] > is something completely different (as is smiley spamming.)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - We should clearly string him up for the smiley spamming, who has some rope? :O) Ant.

[snip] >> >> disagreeing is ok, constructive disagreement is even great. Sabotage >> is something completely different (as is smiley spamming.)- Hide quoted >> text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > We should clearly string him up for the smiley spamming, who has some > rope? > > :O) > > Ant. I do, but I would have to untie your mum first. (And Gines, you knowI love you, but I'm with Jeroen on this one.)

On 3 sep, 13:46, "Cameron" <cro13...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: > (And Gines, you knowI love you, but I'm with Jeroen on this one.) Hey, I have nothing against Gines. The few times we met/ played together were very fun.

Bram Vink <jja....@hccnet.nl> wrote in news:1188817663.009083.285440 @k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > On Sep 1, 3:27 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> In article <1188631604.612273.145...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> If you don't like an interesting hypothetical discussion, no one is >> making you take part in it. >> > > If people disagree with the idea being a good one, it's not so strange > they voice their opinion on that. If you don't like people disagreeing > with you, no one is making you have this discussion on a public forum. > People disagree all the time... Ad hominems are hardly "disagreement" however. They're just pointless agitation. DZ AW

On 30 Aug., 00:51, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <Xns999BA5BD22A6Eatomwea...@207.115.33.102>, > And the list you present above is a > pretty good basis for the NWO VTES. > -Govern > -Conditioning > -Deflection > -Direct Intervention > -Protect Thine Own I didn't follow the discussions at this forum for some days so excuse me if it has been said before: Apparently dominate is the discipline of choice for many players playing at tournaments. Some guys proved that already by looking at the TWA. We all agree that dominate is one of the most useful disciplines at the moment because of the mentioned cards above. In my opinion this is true not because of game mechanics or mistakes at game design in the past but because of the fact, that people tend to play specific decktypes at today tournaments. You can be enormously successful by playing those decks. If you want to change that you don't have to alter cards or rules. You have to adjust your playstyle. If you are annoyed by decks relying heavy on deflections and bleed cards play decks which can hit them (i.e. combat decks). Dominate relying decks are seldom good at combat defence. If I have to fear hitting decks at tourneys I cannot participate with decks completely without combat defence like I can today. If I have to worry about combat, I have to add cards. With that I lose focus. And that leads to that bigger variation of decks at tournaments we like to see. At the moment people learned what decks are the most useful in today's metagame. This problem can be solved by playing decks which can counter them and thus changing the metagame. The problem cannot be solved by banning cards or tuning down bleeddecks (really guys, I can't believe what I just read in this thread). If I play a bleed deck in my playgroup in Frankfurt I often get hit from Enkidu, weenie to midcap potence, guns, War Ghouls and so on. In that environment no dominate deck can win. So changing that environment is the key, not changing deck-archetypes. I know that many players now yell "how should I get into finals with a frikking combatdeck"? True, combat decks don't often get sweeps or high GWs. But if you hinder those monster-sweep-decks to win you don't need high stats for finals anymore. And a good combat deck is capable to get a 2-3 VP GW at any table. If you want to work on a weakness of the game do something about the weenies.

On Sep 3, 2:24 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@spamtrap.com> wrote: > Bram Vink <jja.v...@hccnet.nl> wrote in news:1188817663.009083.285440 [ quoted text not captured ] Pah. You're goddamn retarded anyway! :P Look. A functional smiley. ;) Cheers, B

On 3 sep, 14:59, Joscha <joscha.du...@gmx.de> wrote: > On 30 Aug., 00:51, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > In article <Xns999BA5BD22A6Eatomwea...@207.115.33.102>, > > And the list you present above is a > > pretty good basis for the NWO VTES. > > -Govern > > -Conditioning > > -Deflection > > -Direct Intervention > > -Protect Thine Own > > I didn't follow the discussions at this forum for some days so excuse > me if it has been said before: go back then: were making a variant, not changing the basic game. Arguments about tourneys are moot. Simply because: ha! there never has been a NWO tourney. > > Apparently dominate is the discipline of choice for many players > playing at tournaments. Some guys proved that already by looking at > the TWA. Do you really need proof that dominate is the best discipline in this game? > We all agree that dominate is one of the most useful disciplines at > the moment because of the mentioned cards above. > In my opinion this is true not because of game mechanics or mistakes > at game design in the past but because of the fact, that people tend > to play specific decktypes at today tournaments. You can be enormously > successful by playing those decks. They play those because bleed is (and always has been) the easiest way of ousting people. That's because of game mechanics, whatever you might think. Dominate (and presence) make it possible to bleed for lots. Now you can argue about the amount that is 'right' or 'wrong' for the game. But apparently a number of people here agree that a 2 cap bleeding for 5 is wrong. You probably even think that, by you closing statement. > > If you want to change that you don't have to alter cards or rules. You > have to adjust your playstyle. doesn't work. I did it for years. Just makes me lose and the same boring decks win. Just not those that sit as my predator. You cannot force people to play another way. Especially not on big tournement. The fact that this is necesary, btw, points to the existence of a problem. > If you are annoyed by decks relying heavy on deflections and bleed > cards play decks which can hit them (i.e. combat decks). Dominate > relying decks are seldom good at combat defence. If I have to fear > hitting decks at tourneys I cannot participate with decks completely > without combat defence like I can today. If I have to worry about > combat, I have to add cards. With that I lose focus. And that leads to > that bigger variation of decks at tournaments we like to see. > At the moment people learned what decks are the most useful in today's > metagame. This problem can be solved by playing decks which can > counter them and thus changing the metagame. The problem cannot be > solved by banning cards or tuning down bleeddecks (really guys, I > can't believe what I just read in this thread). You can't change a metagame alone. And, like I said, I simply doesn't work like that. Only if you can 'shame' people out of playing dom bleeders it might work. But, again, that's a sign the game has balance issues. Besides metagame. Dominate is a problem in and of itself. It has easy combat defence in both obedience and has enough vamps that can add for to that too (or tha, or....) > > If I play a bleed deck in my playgroup in Frankfurt I often get hit > from Enkidu, weenie to midcap potence, guns, War Ghouls and so on. In > that environment no dominate deck can win. So changing that > environment is the key, not changing deck-archetypes. Small environment amongst people you know != big tournement. <snip> > If you want to work on a weakness of the game do something about the > weenies. You mean like 2 cap dom weenies bleeding for 5? Besides, by your own argument: if everyone plays anti-weenie decks, there shouldn't be a problem.... (See how silly that is?)

In article <1188817663.0...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Bram Vink <jja....@hccnet.nl> wrote: > ok, fine, perhaps there are valid reasons to have it on a public > forum ;) but Gines' disagreement with the basic ideas isn't a reason > for him not to participate. See, his disagreement is non-sensical. He seems to completely misunderstand the point of the discussion. He can disagree all he wants, but he should probably, at the very least, understand what is being discussed before arguing with it. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1188808035.3...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I think legal should be on the banned list. The others, not so much. Fair enough--other than the Legal, those cards are all below the power curve (although inferior Media is identical to inferior Legal). > So to recap: > What I would ban: > - Govern the Unaligned > - Conditioning > - Deflection > - Direct Intervention > - Protect Thine Own > - Legal manipulations > > If allowed for this format, I would change: > Aire of elation (remove the Torry clause from the inferior) > Kindred Spirits (change to 'gain blood if succesfully bled your prey') On the Aire front, I suspect that it is fine as is, due the the Toreador having no good delivery system (i.e. no legitimate stealth). Tap and Bleed is ok, but much harder to pull off than simply playing a Lost in Crowds. Kindred Spirits is probably at the top of the power curve, but as Dementation generally has trouble bleeding for more than 4 per action, it should be fine to have a top of the power curve. > Problems that IMO might arise in NWO: > - Aus becomes even stronger, now it has most intercept, best bounce > and no counter like Perfect Clarity. For that reason (if it happens), > I would add Telepathic Misdirection to the list too (but keep MEE.) Sure, but I suspect it is probably fine--it isn't like bleeding is being removed from the game here. Just slowed down a bit. Auspex is also going to be at the top of the power curve, but probably ok. > - By limiting bleed max: bleed reduction might become a bit too > powerfull. Heh. That'd be interesting. Bleed reduction mostly sucks right now, so I'd be ok with that :-) Really, though, by killing off the cards suggested, bleeding is *still* the most effective ousting strategy--with a 2 cap with dom, you can still bleed for 3 easily or 4 with DOM. Add Command the Beast or Forshadowing into the mix, and you bleed for 5. > - The above will affect the inferior (read: weenie) bleed decks, which > is good. But banning govern for larger caps, might be bad. That's why > my first thoughts were about changing govern to having a minimum > capacity. I dunno--there is still the (essentially identical) Scouting Mission. And Grooming. And 4th (?) Tradition. I think bruiser decks would do just fine without Govern. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1188824345.2...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Joscha <joscha...@gmx.de> wrote: > We all agree that dominate is one of the most useful disciplines at > the moment because of the mentioned cards above. Dominate has *always* been *the* most useful discipline. And still is. 'Cause it is too good. > In my opinion this is true not because of game mechanics or mistakes > at game design in the past but because of the fact, that people tend > to play specific decktypes at today tournaments. You could look at it that way. Or you could look at it that some mistakes were made (Dominate in particular). Which I think they pretty much were--Dominate is too good. And always has been too good. And the rest of the game has been trying to catch up since day one. > If you want to change that you don't have to alter cards or rules. You > have to adjust your playstyle. As mentioned many times, this is a hypothetical discussion about a hypothetical variant to the game (yes, deep down, it is, in fact, a discussion about how to fix the game as a whole, but no one is actually suggesting that this get actually implemented as anything other than a variant format). > The problem cannot be > solved by banning cards or tuning down bleeddecks (really guys, I > can't believe what I just read in this thread). Once again, this is a discussion of a hypothetical play variant. Where the upper bounds of bleed are lowered and a few of the most overpowered cards are removed from the game. In the name of making the game more enjoyable. > I know that many players now yell "how should I get into finals with a > frikking combatdeck"? True, combat decks don't often get sweeps or > high GWs. But if you hinder those monster-sweep-decks to win you don't > need high stats for finals anymore. And a good combat deck is capable > to get a 2-3 VP GW at any table. Uh, have you met me? Well, ok, you haven't. But are you familliar with my body of work? Well, ok, probably not. I'll just say, yeah, I know the theory behind playing combat decks in competitive play as a trump to standard tournament archetypes. > If you want to work on a weakness of the game do something about the > weenies. If weenies can't bleed you for 5 with an inferior discipline, that isn't doing something about weenies? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] OWNED!!! Dude, you just tried to explain Peter D Bakija (author and inventor of the Quintessential "Peter D Bakija's guide to winning with combat") how to win with combat. VtES equivalent: Trying to explain to LSJ how the rules work. Sorry bro, but your entire point just became too funny for words. Yes, you can win with combat. Yes, you generally win by ousting your first prey fast as possible, then backousting everyone else. Its called "The Bakija Gambit" for a reason. (Stomach cramping, must stop laughing.)

On 3 sep, 15:52, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1188808035.364519.307...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I think legal should be on the banned list. The others, not so much. > > Fair enough--other than the Legal, those cards are all below the power > curve (although inferior Media is identical to inferior Legal). Hey, I completely missed that; :-) So, to have some kind of hard line here: what about banning all bleed actions that give more than +1 bleed for less than 2 blood? that's probably easier to remember than a list of cards. And yes, that would add Media to the list. > > > So to recap: > > What I would ban: > > - Govern the Unaligned > > - Conditioning > > - Deflection > > - Direct Intervention > > - Protect Thine Own > > - Legal manipulations > > > If allowed for this format, I would change: > > Aire of elation (remove the Torry clause from the inferior) > > Kindred Spirits (change to 'gain blood if succesfully bled your prey') > > On the Aire front, I suspect that it is fine as is, due the the Toreador > having no good delivery system (i.e. no legitimate stealth). Tap and > Bleed is ok, but much harder to pull off than simply playing a Lost in > Crowds. > > Kindred Spirits is probably at the top of the power curve, but as > Dementation generally has trouble bleeding for more than 4 per action, > it should be fine to have a top of the power curve. No problems with that. Aire and KS stay the same. > > > Problems that IMO might arise in NWO: > > - Aus becomes even stronger, now it has most intercept, best bounce > > and no counter like Perfect Clarity. For that reason (if it happens), > > I would add Telepathic Misdirection to the list too (but keep MEE.) > > Sure, but I suspect it is probably fine--it isn't like bleeding is being > removed from the game here. Just slowed down a bit. Auspex is also going > to be at the top of the power curve, but probably ok. > > > - By limiting bleed max: bleed reduction might become a bit too > > powerfull. > > Heh. That'd be interesting. Bleed reduction mostly sucks right now, so > I'd be ok with that :-) I'll agree tentatively ;-) > > Really, though, by killing off the cards suggested, bleeding is *still* > the most effective ousting strategy--with a 2 cap with dom, you can > still bleed for 3 easily or 4 with DOM. Add Command the Beast or > Forshadowing into the mix, and you bleed for 5. True. > > - The above will affect the inferior (read: weenie) bleed decks, which > > is good. But banning govern for larger caps, might be bad. That's why > > my first thoughts were about changing govern to having a minimum > > capacity. > > I dunno--there is still the (essentially identical) Scouting Mission. > And Grooming. And 4th (?) Tradition. I think bruiser decks would do just > fine without Govern. OK. Scouting mission and Enchant Kindred still exist, true.

On 3 sep, 16:15, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, you can win with combat. Yes, you generally win by ousting your > first prey fast as possible, then backousting everyone else. Its > called "The Bakija Gambit" for a reason. huh? I know Peter's 'Body of work' ;-) But I always assumed that the Bakija Gambit is overinfluencing a minion so 2-3 blood drain of the minute it comes into play. Extra credit if you do it with a Samedi. ;-)

[ quoted text not captured ] Nonononononono, thats the lesser known but far more impressive Bakija Fudge up... :)

On 3 Sep, 15:15, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 3, 2:59 pm, Joscha <joscha.du...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > On 30 Aug., 00:51, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > I know that many players now yell "how should I get into finals with a > > frikking combatdeck"? True, combat decks don't often get sweeps or > > high GWs. But if you hinder those monster-sweep-decks to win you don't > > need high stats for finals anymore. And a good combat deck is capable > > to get a 2-3 VP GW at any table. > > OWNED!!! uh? > Dude, you just tried to explain Peter D Bakija (author and inventor of > the Quintessential "Peter D Bakija's guide to winning with combat") > how to win with combat. VtES equivalent: Trying to explain to LSJ how > the rules work. Sorry bro, but your entire point just became too funny > for words. Really? his points seem reasonable to me. I doubt Peter would say he has nothing to learn on how to win with combat (not that thats even what Joshas point was, I understood his point to be how to make certain decks less vaible by adjusting your playstyle and deck choice and thus changing the meta) so why exactly your saying it for him I don't know. > Yes, you can win with combat. Yes, you generally win by ousting your > first prey fast as possible, then backousting everyone else. Its > called "The Bakija Gambit" for a reason. The Bakija Gambit is bringing out a compy of a vampire you already have in play, nothing to do with what you say above. > (Stomach cramping, must stop laughing.) Yup, I'm having a similar problem here :O) Ant

On 3 sep, 17:13, Anthony Coleman <Buntina...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Really? his points seem reasonable to me. a bit unpractical, to say the least. >I doubt Peter would say he > has nothing to learn on how to win with combat (not that thats even > what Joshas point was, I understood his point to be how to make > certain decks less vaible by adjusting your playstyle and deck choice > and thus changing the meta) Has been discussed 100000ths of times. Doesn't work like that in large tourneys (blind metagame). Unless everybody thinks the same (unlikely). Or everybody 'shames' each other out of playing those decks and removes offenders from the table with a concerted effort. > The Bakija Gambit is bringing out a compy of a vampire you already > have in play, nothing to do with what you say above. > I think we need a new definition of the Bakija Gambit, here ;) it's been used in three different ways in this thread.

In article <1188833849....@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I think we need a new definition of the Bakija Gambit, here ;) it's > been used in three different ways in this thread. I don't know that it has. The term, as it were, was invented to describe a particularly humiliating loss that came out of, well, influencing out the same vampire I already had in play by accident. And consequently losing the game. I think the initial reference to that paticular term in this conversation was one of misunderstanding. And other than that, it isn't really relevant to this discussion. But I am amused that it comes up sometimes :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 3 Sep., 15:36, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Besides, by your own argument: if everyone plays anti-weenie decks, > there shouldn't be a problem.... (See how silly that is?) There was no breed-Con Boon deck or the like in any final at the EC. Why? Because the Metagame reacted to that threat. I don't call that silly. I call it clever ;o).

On 3 Sep., 16:00, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > If you want to work on a weakness of the game do something about the > > weenies. > > If weenies can't bleed you for 5 with an inferior discipline, that isn't > doing something about weenies? I don't like heavy bleeding weenies for sure. But with those NWO ideas you not only hit the small guys. You guys seem to try to cripple a whole archetype of deckdesign - bleeding. I don't like that. Of course you can play like whatever you want in your playgroup, but I fear you are trying to change the whole game I love so much. And in my VtES- world, there are sneaky-bleeders too. They're part of it. I hate to lose to them, but it's okay they are there. I admit it is one of the easiest decktype to play. But it is not an unfair strong one. Why shouldn't a big cap play a Govern on superior for pool? Why shouldn't she be able to deflect many times in a turn? Why shouldn't she bleed like hell with a Conditioning (burning in the progress through Archon Investigation)? I'm sure we all think this is okay for a big'un. If you ban those cards (and legal manip, and slaughtering the herd, and tel. misdirection, and... and...) does this brings you nearer to disversity of deck types? Well, try it. Why not. I don't think it works. I think good ideas to counter decktypes creates disversity. Admitted many people aren't creative or reckless enough. I think THAT is the problem.

"Joscha" <joscha...@gmx.de> schreef in bericht news:1188916415.6...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] First: how many were played? second, point me to the defence that the final decks had against them.

"Joscha" <joscha...@gmx.de> schreef in bericht news:1188917709.6...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On 3 Sep., 16:00, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > >> > If you want to work on a weakness of the game do something about the >> > weenies. >> >> If weenies can't bleed you for 5 with an inferior discipline, that isn't >> doing something about weenies? > > I don't like heavy bleeding weenies for sure. But with those NWO ideas > you not only hit the small guys. You guys seem to try to cripple a > whole archetype of deckdesign - bleeding. Power down, not cripple. >I don't like that. Of course > you can play like whatever you want in your playgroup, but I fear you > are trying to change the whole game I love so much. And in my VtES- > world, there are sneaky-bleeders too. They're part of it. And they still would. A DOM bleeder can still bleed for 4 -5 in NWO. That's 1 sixth of your starting pool. Most decks now bleed for 6 (some for 7), is that crippling? >I hate to > lose to them, but it's okay they are there. I admit it is one of the > easiest decktype to play. But it is not an unfair strong one. > Why shouldn't a big cap play a Govern on superior for pool? Why > shouldn't she be able to deflect many times in a turn? Why shouldn't > she bleed like hell with a Conditioning (burning in the progress > through Archon Investigation)? define 'bleed like hell' The numbers that are in the game are only there because of tradition. That's what we want to find out. How would the game be with bleed a little less powerful. > I'm sure we all think this is okay for > a big'un. Depends on the numbers. >If you ban those cards (and legal manip, and slaughtering > the herd, and tel. misdirection, and... and...) does this brings you > nearer to disversity of deck types? Well, try it. Why not. I don't > think it works. I think good ideas to counter decktypes creates > disversity. As proven in the last 13 years: hardly. >Admitted many people aren't creative or reckless enough. I > think THAT is the problem. No, it's people that say: if you can defend against it, it's not overpowered. Which leads to: 1. Defencive decks 2. seating becoming way to important.

On Aug 29, 6:51 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <Xns999BA5BD22A6Eatomwea...@207.115.33.102>, > > > Heh--see, I really *would* like to see a "New World Order" VTES that > did, in fact, have a bunch of cards banned outright in the name of > making the game better all around. And the list you present above is a > pretty good basis for the NWO VTES. > I am of the Kick-In-The-Pants school of thought with regards to V:tes. I do think the game would be improved by a gradual kill your darlings approach. I've posted on this in the past, and I support the idea of gradually (or rarely but more widely) banning or nerfing top cards to do deliberate meta-game shifts. It was a good thing with Cam Edition and I feel like we're overdue for a next wave. I do think this should be done "officially". A alternalte format strikes me as less interesting. I also notice that this feeling is most acute when we haven't had a new set for a while. Then the new set arrives and I get all excited playing with new toys and the "V:tes needs to change/ be rescued" feeling goes away. Then then after I realize that the new toys are mostly worse than the old sleaze the feeling comes back again. -Ben Swainbank

"Ben Swainbank" <bswai...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1188927124.0...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Ben, please stop reading my mind :-)

In message <L3gDi.87991$ZR6.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Jeroen Rombouts <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> writes: >"Joscha" <joscha...@gmx.de> schreef in bericht >news:1188916415.6...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> There was no breed-Con Boon deck or the like in any final at the EC. >> Why? Because the Metagame reacted to that threat. I don't call that >> silly. I call it clever ;o). >how many were played? If players perceive a metagame shift against such decks (if nothing else, enhanced table hate), this number may pre-emptively go down. If everyone is going to hate you and you can't deal well with managing a whole table full of hate and defence and thumping, you play a different deck. The metagame has its effect without being seen in the way you seem to want. >point me to the defence that the final decks had against them. If the metagame shifts against a deck style, as is being claimed, individual decks don't have to and may, in fact, thrive by not devoting card-space to counter a threat that the rest of the table will shut down. For example, if your bogeyman deck was Imbued and the metagame shifted against it, a player may do better by not including specific anti-Imbued defence because he can reasonably rely on other people on the table doing that for him. (For example, his grand-predator might eat the Imbued deck with Smiling Jack.) This may not always be a conscious effort, of course. Over the whole tournament, the design choices of the non-finalists (i.e. the majority of players in most tournaments) can, in some ways, reverse king-make who /doesn't/ make the final. This is no surprise to anyone who's seen a shifting metagame. Combat is a problem. So everyone plays combat defence, so combat decks have a way harder time winning games or making finals. So then some average or better player(s) decides "Fuck that, no-one is going to play combat around here anymore" and decides to play little to no combat defence, and uses the 20 cards saved to kick some ass. And so the metagame can shift to react to that brutally effective weenie vote deck that's just been created, or whatever. That finalists don't have particular defences against particular deck styles won't, therefore, necessarily prove a whole lot. It can certainly be interesting to see, but it's not going to definitely be significant. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In article <1188917709.6...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Joscha <joscha...@gmx.de> wrote: > I don't like heavy bleeding weenies for sure. But with those NWO ideas > you not only hit the small guys. You guys seem to try to cripple a > whole archetype of deckdesign - bleeding. Please, please, please explain how limiting Dominate to a bleed of *FIVE* per action is "trying to cripple" bleeding? All of my suggestions result in Dominate being capped at a bleed of 5. That is five. (Scouting+Threats at superior+Command the Beast or Scouting+Forshadowing at superior). You see how the "crippling" of bleeding has the total effect of limiting Dominate to bleeding for 5, right? (or, ya know, 6 if you have Scouting+Forshadowing+Command). Heck, if the +2 bleed for 2 blood at inferior (like Slaughtering the Herd) are left in play, Dominate can bleed for 6 without much effort. How is this "crippling" bleeding? From what I understand, Dementation bleed is still pretty strong. And it has trouble bleeding for more than 4. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] It's hard to be creative or (functionally) reckless when you need to worry about being power bled for 5-7 on turn 2 from a 4-cap with dom/ DOM. Jeff

On 4 sep, 23:07, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <L3gDi.87991$ZR6.3409...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Jeroen > > Rombouts <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> writes: > >"Joscha" <joscha.du...@gmx.de> schreef in bericht > >news:1188916415.6...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > >> There was no breed-Con Boon deck or the like in any final at the EC. > >> Why? Because the Metagame reacted to that threat. I don't call that > >> silly. I call it clever ;o). > >how many were played? > > If players perceive a metagame shift against such decks (if nothing > else, enhanced table hate), this number may pre-emptively go down. If > everyone is going to hate you and you can't deal well with managing a > whole table full of hate and defence and thumping, you play a different > deck. The metagame has its effect without being seen in the way you > seem to want. You can explain everything away, like that. Maybe everyone got bored by breed decks and didn't play them and the metagame did nothing? Also possible. > > >point me to the defence that the final decks had against them. > > If the metagame shifts against a deck style, as is being claimed, > individual decks don't have to and may, in fact, thrive by not devoting > card-space to counter a threat that the rest of the table will shut > down. For example, if your bogeyman deck was Imbued and the metagame > shifted against it, a player may do better by not including specific > anti-Imbued defence because he can reasonably rely on other people on > the table doing that for him. (For example, his grand-predator might > eat the Imbued deck with Smiling Jack.) This may not always be a > conscious effort, of course. > > Over the whole tournament, the design choices of the non-finalists (i.e. > the majority of players in most tournaments) can, in some ways, reverse > king-make who /doesn't/ make the final. This is no surprise to anyone > who's seen a shifting metagame. Combat is a problem. So everyone plays > combat defence, so combat decks have a way harder time winning games or > making finals. So then some average or better player(s) decides "Fuck > that, no-one is going to play combat around here anymore" and decides to > play little to no combat defence, and uses the 20 cards saved to kick > some ass. And so the metagame can shift to react to that brutally > effective weenie vote deck that's just been created, or whatever. > > That finalists don't have particular defences against particular deck > styles won't, therefore, necessarily prove a whole lot. It can > certainly be interesting to see, but it's not going to definitely be > significant. Neither is their absense in the finals, which I didn't bring up.

On Sep 4, 5:11 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1188917709.647419.301...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > > Joscha <joscha.du...@gmx.de> wrote: > > I don't like heavy bleeding weenies for sure. But with those NWO ideas > > you not only hit the small guys. You guys seem to try to cripple a > > whole archetype of deckdesign - bleeding. > > Please, please, please explain how limiting Dominate to a bleed of > *FIVE* per action is "trying to cripple" bleeding? All of my suggestions > result in Dominate being capped at a bleed of 5. That is five. > (Scouting+Threats at superior+Command the Beast or Scouting+Forshadowing > at superior). You see how the "crippling" of bleeding has the total > effect of limiting Dominate to bleeding for 5, right? (or, ya know, 6 if > you have Scouting+Forshadowing+Command). Heck, if the +2 bleed for 2 > blood at inferior (like Slaughtering the Herd) are left in play, > Dominate can bleed for 6 without much effort. > > How is this "crippling" bleeding? From what I understand, Dementation > bleed is still pretty strong. And it has trouble bleeding for more than > 4. > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "Find hungry samurai." > -The Old Man I realize that this is currently a hypothetical discussion and the topic being discussed is eliminating certain cards to make the game better, but rather than eliminating what are staple cards like govern, conditioning, etc and having to decide which need to be banned, and going through the issues of banning why not propose a simple rule: "no minion may bleed for more than X (X=5?) in a single action" and likewise simple rules to address other issues: "no minion can gain more than Y (Y=5?) votes from action modifiers or eaction cards" (tones down voter cap/awe combo) and other such simple stuff that can be in the next base set. Or does this miss the point? John P. Winnipeg

[ quoted text not captured ] This would actually work quite well IMO. Our local VTES guru, Ian Lee, proposed a variation on this many years ago. Something like this: "A vampire may neither bleed, not cast votes, nor singly strike for damage in excess of its capacity." No more 2-caps with Dom bleeding for 5 on turn 2, or 1-cap !Toreador Embraces swarming for 2 each via Palla Grande. No more 1-cap Caitiff/ Pander vote decks, though they could still cast 1 vote each even if they were Princes/Legacied. No more 3-caps with POT striking for 7-9 and downing Arika if she gets caught unawares (though Disarm is still very strong). Mid-cap bleeders and voters and fighters would still be able to function at nearly full efficacy, though Awe/Cap would be slightly less powerful. Large vampires would be virtually unaffected, which makes them slightly more hardy in combat, which is their traditional bane/risk factor. Of course, imbued (and most decent allies) did not exist at this time so they were not factored into the above rule, but something could easily be adopted for them. Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] X= Capacity? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

[ quoted text not captured ] > Jeff- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - How far should the concept extend? Stealth? Intercept? Damage prevention? All numerical quantities? mmmm.... knowing that the little 2 cap dom weenie could only bleed me for two at a max of two stealth would be nice. Might make Keep it Simple more useful. I would assume that the cap-limit would apply instantly. Ex A: So I govern & condition with Mustafa, bleeding for five reduced to two. <insert bleed reduction for 1> so its a bleed for one. instead of.... Ex B: I govern & conditioning with mustafa, bleeding for five. <insert reduction by one> so its a bleed of four reduced to a net bleed of two. Although it could make Wormwood worse. Meh. But it has the potential to un-wallpaper several cards, where they were simply not effective enough against high amounts of bleed, stealth, etc. John P. Winnipeg

[ quoted text not captured ] Probably not all numerical quantities. You'd make small vampires unable to stealth their *small* actions past big vampires with access to much more intercept. > mmmm.... knowing that the little 2 cap dom weenie could only > bleed me for two at a max of two stealth would be nice. Might > make Keep it Simple more useful. > > I would assume that the cap-limit would apply instantly. > Ex A: > So I govern & condition with Mustafa, bleeding for five reduced to > two. > <insert bleed reduction for 1> so its a bleed for one. > instead of.... > Ex B: > I govern & conditioning with mustafa, bleeding for five. > <insert reduction by one> so its a bleed of four reduced > to a net bleed of two. I'd envision all of these things working as if a Protected Resources were in play. Any modifiers/reactions would be applied and then it'd still be capped. So if our 2-cap wanted to TRY and bleed for 5, you'd only burn 2 pool for it. So you could cycle those Telepathic Counters until it was small enough or just take the 2. I guess the rule would be something like: "A Methuselah burns no more pool due to a bleed than the capacity of the acting vampire." > Although it could make Wormwood worse. Meh. > > But it has the potential to un-wallpaper several cards, > where they were simply not effective enough against > high amounts of bleed, stealth, etc. > > John P. > Winnipeg Which "it?" The stealth/intercept cap? Yeah, that could work, but I tend to think these changes ought to be rolled out slowly. If we also mucked with the steath/intercept dynamic, it could have many more unforeseen consequences. Super Protected Resources Master (Unique?) 3 pool Burn 1 pool and tap this card to reduce a bleed against you to zero. Burn this card if a minion you control successfully bleeds. Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] I'd like to see stealth and intercept included. I think all numerical quantities could be difficult to implement. Would Skin of Steel prevent all damage up to X if damage prevention was included? Weenie intercept can probably still block most actions with 3, 4 or 5 intercept, but it would put a limit on it. Block fails cards would allow even the smallest vampires to sneak through some actions. Short of block fails, I'm ok that the 2 cap can't get more than +2 stealth. From a role-playing sense, he can only possess so much obfuscate, while an elder can have a very high level of auspex. I only like role-playing justifications when they serve my purpose. :) > > mmmm.... knowing that the little 2 cap dom weenie could only > > bleed me for two at a max of two stealth would be nice. Might > > make Keep it Simple more useful. > > > I would assume that the cap-limit would apply instantly. > > Ex A: > > So I govern & condition with Mustafa, bleeding for five reduced to > > two. > > <insert bleed reduction for 1> so its a bleed for one. > > instead of.... > > Ex B: > > I govern & conditioning with mustafa, bleeding for five. > > <insert reduction by one> so its a bleed of four reduced > > to a net bleed of two. > > I'd envision all of these things working as if a Protected Resources > were in play. Any modifiers/reactions would be applied and then it'd > still be capped. So if our 2-cap wanted to TRY and bleed for 5, you'd > only burn 2 pool for it. So you could cycle those Telepathic Counters > until it was small enough or just take the 2. I guess the rule would > be something like: > > "A Methuselah burns no more pool due to a bleed than the capacity of > the acting vampire." > If it included stealth and intercept, I think it would need to be, whenever you try to go above X, it is capped at X. Mustafa should play Govern the Unaligned and then wait for bleed reduction before playing his Conditioning. > > Although it could make Wormwood worse. Meh. > Wormwood is pretty worthless until it gets everyone real low in capacity. I could see Wormwood bringing everyone down to 5 or 6 capacity having more appeal (and not trying to get it all the way to 1 or 2). I like how this rules change would mean cards don't have to be banned (even though I'd be ok with a banning, but it seems many are not) and still limit the effectiveness of a weenie with inferior dominate. Later, ~Rehlow

On Sep 5, 1:16 pm, Rehlow <newsgr...@rehlow.com> wrote: > I'd like to see stealth and intercept included. I think all numerical > quantities could be difficult to implement. Would Skin of Steel > prevent all damage up to X if damage prevention was included? > > Weenie intercept can probably still block most actions with 3, 4 or 5 > intercept, but it would put a limit on it. > > Block fails cards would allow even the smallest vampires to sneak > through some actions. Short of block fails, I'm ok that the 2 cap > can't get more than +2 stealth. From a role-playing sense, he can only > possess so much obfuscate, while an elder can have a very high level > of auspex. I only like role-playing justifications when they serve my > purpose. :) After I posted the thought of damage prevention perhaps being problematic occured to me. But thinking about it now I don't have a problem with 2 caps only being able to prevent 2 damage with skin of steel. "All" would become "All up to the cap-limit". But does this do enough? I can see how it would limit bleed effectively, but I cannot see it harming intercept decks and stealth decks as they likely are going to be three caps of higher. Weenie vote would be unaffected as a 2 cap could become a prince and still have 2 votes, or play bewitching oration at [pre] and gain two votes. But on the other hand complex formulas would drive most people nuts. "So I can bleed for my capacity/2 +1 = ?" and perhaps simple is better. Bleed Intercept Stealth Votes (total votes, not just votes gained by cards) Damage reduction per strike Damage dealt per strike Blood Stolen per strike Imbued off the top of my head I would treat the same. Imbued effectively have a capacity, and recruited allies I think would only be limited when playing cards as a vampire (by card text) and would then be limited to cost. (IE Ghouled Steet Thug would be limited to using potence strikes to strike for 2, but the Knights would still strike for 2.) You could limit the amount of conviction on an imbued to their capacity but I do not know if that is neccessary or even worthwhile. > I like how this rules change would mean cards don't have to be banned > (even though I'd be ok with a banning, but it seems many are not) and > still limit the effectiveness of a weenie with inferior dominate. That was my thinking, and apparently some others' as well. But if the folks discussing banning cards do not think this woul deal with their issues then I do not see the point of further advocating yet another game "fix", no matter how much I like it better. :) John P. Winnipeg

On 4 Sep., 18:52, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > "Joscha" <joscha.du...@gmx.de> schreef in berichtnews:1188916415.6...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] What I'm trying to say is: Some time ago there was a huge discussion of the always winning Weenie-breed-Decks you can't do nothing about and which are so strong. (The whole lot of whining before that particular discussion about other "much too strong" decks and cards, which PTO is just a part of I don't remember anymore). This year there wasn't any such deck even in reach of a final win at four big tournaments (LCQ, ECI+II, Side-Event). And they even didn't change a card. What more do you have to know? (Btw: Imbued are breed-killers, so are Shambling Hordes and Heavy Bleeders. You don't have to have a defence against often played decks, you can exploit their weaknesses. That's why you don't find many countercards. The deck-concept is the counter.)

"Joscha" <joscha...@gmx.de> schreef in bericht news:1189019510.1...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On 4 Sep., 18:52, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > wrote: >> "Joscha" <joscha.du...@gmx.de> schreef in >> berichtnews:1188916415.6...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 3 Sep., 15:36, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Besides, by your own argument: if everyone plays anti-weenie decks, >> >> there shouldn't be a problem.... (See how silly that is?) >> >> > There was no breed-Con Boon deck or the like in any final at the EC. >> > Why? Because the Metagame reacted to that threat. I don't call that >> > silly. I call it clever ;o). >> >> First: how many were played? >> second, point me to the defence that the final decks had against them. > > What I'm trying to say is: Some time ago there was a huge discussion > of the always winning Weenie-breed-Decks you can't do nothing about > and which are so strong. (The whole lot of whining before that > particular discussion about other "much too strong" decks and cards, > which PTO is just a part of I don't remember anymore). This year there > wasn't any such deck even in reach of a final win at four big > tournaments (LCQ, ECI+II, Side-Event). And they even didn't change a > card. What more do you have to know? Doesn't mean jack shit (as James said). Even last week a breed deck was reported here, the Dutch ECQ had 2 in the finals. They (weenies, DI, ...) still are overpowered. Even with 5000 decks that can put defence against them. The point is, of course, that you HAVE to put defence against those things in. And that is bad. Every card that is a must-include is bad (I can live with Blood doll / Minion tap) > > (Btw: Imbued are breed-killers, so are Shambling Hordes and Heavy > Bleeders. You don't have to have a defence against often played decks, > you can exploit their weaknesses. That's why you don't find many > countercards. The deck-concept is the counter.) and? a Wall deck also stops it. A wall deck could stop old style Return to Innocence, do you want that back too? No problem, because you can defend against it.

In article <1189002487....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, "John P." <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote: > why not propose a simple rule: > "no minion may bleed for more than X (X=5?) in a single action" 'Cause it doesn't really fix the problem of a 2 cap with dom bleeding you for 5 on the second turn. And totally demolishes the generally not that good but also not in need of demolishing "My one huge vampire ramps up like crazy and bleeds you for 11 with permanents". And doesn't do anything to fix PTO and DI. Such a rule would have to be more complicated than you make it out to actually fix anything (something involving vampire capacities) and would do more collateral damage than probably intended. Some nice, laser targeted bannings actually fixes what needs fixing (i.e. the removal of cards that are too powerful). Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 5, 10:46 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1189002487.632461.72...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, > "John P." <jtpat...@mts.net> wrote: > > > why not propose a simple rule: > > "no minion may bleed for more than X (X=5?) in a single action" > > 'Cause it doesn't really fix the problem of a 2 cap with dom bleeding > you for 5 on the second turn. And totally demolishes the generally not > that good but also not in need of demolishing "My one huge vampire ramps > up like crazy and bleeds you for 11 with permanents". And doesn't do > anything to fix PTO and DI. > > Such a rule would have to be more complicated than you make it out to > actually fix anything (something involving vampire capacities) and would > do more collateral damage than probably intended. > > Some nice, laser targeted bannings actually fixes what needs fixing > (i.e. the removal of cards that are too powerful). > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "Find hungry samurai." > -The Old Man However Peter, the idea of linking numericals to Capacaity is very good, as it means no card bannings, and does remove the 2 cap bleeding for 5 turn 2...

"John P." <jtpa...@mts.net> schreef in bericht news:1189019092.7...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 5, 1:16 pm, Rehlow <newsgr...@rehlow.com> wrote: >> I like how this rules change would mean cards don't have to be banned >> (even though I'd be ok with a banning, but it seems many are not) and >> still limit the effectiveness of a weenie with inferior dominate. This one works too. Probably better, even. > > That was my thinking, and apparently some others' as well. > But if the folks discussing banning cards do not think this woul deal > with their issues then I do not see the point of further advocating > yet > another game "fix", no matter how much I like it better. :) This would, imo, solve a lot of problems. Except for DI, of course ;)

On Sep 5, 3:46 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1189002487.632461.72...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, > "John P." <jtpat...@mts.net> wrote: > > > why not propose a simple rule: > > "no minion may bleed for more than X (X=5?) in a single action" > > 'Cause it doesn't really fix the problem of a 2 cap with dom bleeding > you for 5 on the second turn. And totally demolishes the generally not > that good but also not in need of demolishing "My one huge vampire ramps > up like crazy and bleeds you for 11 with permanents". And doesn't do > anything to fix PTO and DI. > > Such a rule would have to be more complicated than you make it out to > actually fix anything (something involving vampire capacities) and would > do more collateral damage than probably intended. > > Some nice, laser targeted bannings actually fixes what needs fixing > (i.e. the removal of cards that are too powerful). > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "Find hungry samurai." > -The Old Man I did not mean to imply that the proposed solution (linking capacity to bleed, votes, etc) would solve DI, PTO etc, only that it could deal with the "bleed for 5 on turn 2" situation that seems to be pushing for the removal of govern, conditioning, etc without removing those cards. Considering to limit bleeding to 5 or less you have to get rid of govern, conditioning, legal manipulations, air of elation, command, force of will, iron glare, madmans quill, media influence, sense the sin, slaughtering the herd, truth of 1000 lies and probably others. Rather than ban 12 cards to power down bleeding would it not be easier to use Jeff's suggestion of bleed limited to capacity? Or some variation thereof. Then to deal with PTO and DI you ban them or restict them to once a game or whatever but two bannings are easier for many people to swallow than 12 + 2 bannings. John P. Winnipeg

On Sep 3, 7:00 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1188824345.220919.281...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > Dominate has *always* been *the* most useful discipline. And still is. > 'Cause it is too good. Yeah, probably. I saw a lot of dominate many years ago, sure. But now I see a lot of obtenebration, auspex, presence, obfuscate, dementation, and other things that I don't think would have been standard tournament decks before. I mean, we used to laugh at Dementation for being "Dominate Jr." when it first came out, but now look at it--Kindred Spirits bleed wins tournaments. > Dominate is too good. And always has been too good. And the > rest of the game has been trying to catch up since day one. The rest of the game has been trying to catch up, from day one, with the original OBF DOM Malk bleed deck. Making other disciplines better was most of that, sure. Better vampires (to compete with the malks vamps, which were already quite good) was another. Arguably, there came a day that DEM bleed surpassed DOM bleed as the "best bleed deck," but not because DEM got better--only because the right DEM vampires were printed. Today, I don't remember the last DOM/OBF bleeder I saw in a real tournament; I only see (pre/dem/etc.) with OBF or (nec or pre) with DOM. I agree that DOM is really good, but like LSJ said, dominate has a strong role in V:TES, not an overpowering one. > > I know that many players now yell "how should I get into finals with a > > frikking combatdeck"? True, combat decks don't often get sweeps or > > high GWs. But if you hinder those monster-sweep-decks to win you don't > > need high stats for finals anymore. And a good combat deck is capable > > to get a 2-3 VP GW at any table. > > Uh, have you met me? Well, ok, you haven't. But are you familliar with > my body of work? Well, ok, probably not. I'll just say, yeah, I know the > theory behind playing combat decks in competitive play as a trump to > standard tournament archetypes. Ha ha, oh wow. Yeah, saying that to Peter Bakija is sorta like telling Ralph Nader that you think the auto industry doesn't likely have the consumers' safety in mind. > > If you want to work on a weakness of the game do something about the > > weenies. Grr, why does this keep coming up? I've been to every continental championship in North America and Europe for four years now and the only time weenies were a huge deal was when the Palla Grande / Week of Nightmares based weenies met with some success. If nobody cares to see those cards changed, DUE TO THOSE DECKS NOT CONSISTENTLY WINNING ENOUGH, and they are the MOST successful weenie decks, then WHY DOES THE WEENIE THING KEEP COMING UP? No weenie deck wins enough games to be broken, if the most successful weenie decks don't win enough games to be broken. Either examine and change the most broken weenie deck, or let it die already. Cause it seems all weenies' "overpoweredness" contributes to is the frequent addition of midcap bleed, midcap wall/toolbox, and large cap vote decks to the TWDA. In other words, everything but weenies seems to be doing great. -- Brian

<islando...@aol.com> schreef in bericht news:1189030427.2...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > >> > If you want to work on a weakness of the game do something about the >> > weenies. > > Grr, why does this keep coming up? because it is a problem. >I've been to every continental > championship in North America and Europe for four years now and the > only time weenies were a huge deal was when the Palla Grande / Week of > Nightmares based weenies met with some success. If nobody cares to > see those cards changed, DUE TO THOSE DECKS NOT CONSISTENTLY WINNING > ENOUGH, and they are the MOST successful weenie decks, then WHY DOES > THE WEENIE THING KEEP COMING UP? He said weenies, in general, not only breed decks. (Besides, weenie auspex won an EC. 2 Ravnos carnival bleed decks in the the year after that.) > > No weenie deck wins enough games to be broken, if the most successful > weenie decks don't win enough games to be broken. Why do you have to win games to be broken? Isn't 'giving your first prey not even a chance to get started and then die' not broken? >Either examine and > change the most broken weenie deck, or let it die already. Cause it > seems all weenies' "overpoweredness" contributes to is the frequent > addition of midcap bleed, midcap wall/toolbox, and large cap vote > decks to the TWDA. In other words, everything but weenies seems to be > doing great. Like the assamites? And the midcap rush decks?

In article <1189029474....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, "John P." <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote: > I did not mean to imply that the proposed solution (linking capacity > to > bleed, votes, etc) would solve DI, PTO etc, only that it could deal > with the > "bleed for 5 on turn 2" situation that seems to be pushing for the > removal of > govern, conditioning, etc without removing those cards. The further suggestion ("no one can do anything larger than their capacity") has a lot to recommend it, but is also probably too blanket of an effect to graft onto the game at this point. One of the attractive aspects of the NWO VTES I suggested is, at least for me, that it doesn't actually change the game all that much. Which is good, as, well, I like the way the game works currently, for the most part. But there are still a few cards that are at the top of the power curve by a considerable margin (the ones I suggest killing). Getting rid of these would change the game in a subtle way (making it harder to bleed for huge amounts, making non camarilla vampires safer to play, making bounce a little harder to get, and just, ya know, getting rid of DI) without doing untold collateral damage. > Considering to limit bleeding to 5 or less you have to get rid of > govern, conditioning, > legal manipulations, air of elation, command, force of will, iron > glare, madmans quill, > media influence, sense the sin, slaughtering the herd, truth of 1000 > lies and probably > others. Most of those were discussed in this thread. My view is, at least, not necessarily killing all bleeds of 6+, but making them harder to get ahold of *and* making Dominate, specifically, less good. Govern and Conditioning are the obvious power bleed cards. Legal Manipulations probably needs to go too if Govern goes. But the rest of the cards mentioned have a great deal to make them much less of an issue: -Aire is less good than Threats if you aren't a Toreador, and if you are a Toreador, you have very limited delivery capabilities (i.e. no reliable stealth). So reasonable. -Command the Beast: Requires an extra card and DOM to get the extra +1 bleed. Reasonable. Currently, Command the Beast is mostly wallpaper, as the effort for the extra +1 bleed isn't generally worth it. With Govern and Conditioning gone, Command suddenly becomes an attractive and powerful card. Which is a nice effect of what I suggest. -Force of Will: Very significant cost (minimum of 2 blood and a trip to torpor). -Iron Glare: Only gives you +2 bleed with POT/PRE. And as such is less good than Threats. -Madman's Quill: Teetering on the edge of being in the same spot as Govern, but at least requires aus as well as dem, which isn't completely insignificant. And the superior is mostly useless. -Sense the Sin: Requires a superior discipline. And, generally speaking, being infernal. Reasonable. -Slaughtering the Herd: Costs 2 blood. Superior is kind of a waste. As a plus, specifically hoses the Imbued. -Truth: Costs 2 blood. Again, my intention is not to completely destroy bleeding as a strategy. Or even limit it to a maximum of 5. Just to make it harder to bleed for a lot (given the suggestions I have, it is generally difficult to bleed for more than 3 with an inferior discipline--with dom, you can bleed for maximum of 4 for 2 blood, and this is only if you are playing with Slaughtering the Herd; with pre, you can bleed for 4 for 2 blood with Legal and Aire, *if* you are a Toreador and Legal is still in play) and power down Dominate across the board. > Rather than ban 12 cards to power down bleeding would it not > be easier > to use Jeff's suggestion of bleed limited to capacity? Or some > variation thereof. I don't think it would. As simply banning the top edge of the power curve doesn't have any unforeseen collateral effect on the game that a rule like "no one can bleed for more than their capacity" does. Which might not be a bad idea, in an absolute sense, but would require *far* more testing and adjusting than what I suggest. > Then to deal with PTO and DI you ban them or restict them to once a > game > or whatever but two bannings are easier for many people to swallow > than > 12 + 2 bannings. I'm not looking for 14. Just 5 (maybe 6). -Govern -Conditioning -Deflection -PTO -DI Maybe Legal Manipulations. Memories probably doesn't need to go anywhere, assuming the Imbued get fixed at a rules level. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1189027449.2...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> wrote: > However Peter, the idea of linking numericals to Capacaity is very > good, as it means no card bannings, and does remove the 2 cap bleeding > for 5 turn 2... Possibly. But also has a ton of wide ranging impact and basically makes VTES into a very different game than it is now. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, in an absolute sense, but certainly a *much* bigger move than what I suggest (killing 5 cards). Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <pdb6-BD0B97.2...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, I <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > with pre, you can bleed for 4 for 2 blood with > Legal and Aire, *if* you are a Toreador and Legal is still in play) I meant "5" here, which is, for my money, still ok--if Legal is in play, and you are a Toreador, you can bleed for 5 with pre for 2 blood. But then you have *very* limited stealth options (2 blood for Alacrity, which, granted, no one ever expects; the smallest Toreador with obf is a 6 cap). So still, a reasonable capability. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >I've been to every continental > > championship in North America and Europe for four years now and the > > only time weenies were a huge deal was when the Palla Grande / Week of > > Nightmares based weenies met with some success. If nobody cares to > > see those cards changed, DUE TO THOSE DECKS NOT CONSISTENTLY WINNING > > ENOUGH, and they are the MOST successful weenie decks, then WHY DOES > > THE WEENIE THING KEEP COMING UP? > > He said weenies, in general, not only breed decks. (Besides, weenie auspex > won an EC. 2 Ravnos carnival bleed decks in the the year after that.) Yes, weenie auspex won the EC 2003, but not necessarily because the deck relied on weenies, but rather because Auspex was the answer to the metagame. Jay Kristoff had a very similar AUS midcaps deck, which got second that year in both the NAC and the EC. Taken together, I think these two decks' success demonstrated the power of heavy intercept in that specific environment, which had no real combat. My point is that it was the Auspex that did well, weenies or no. > > No weenie deck wins enough games to be broken, if the most successful > > weenie decks don't win enough games to be broken. > > Why do you have to win games to be broken? Isn't 'giving your first prey not > even a chance to get started and then die' not broken? Brainwash decks can do that. Why aren't people upset about Brainwash? Well-tuned rush combat, intercept+S:CE repeatedly, Slaughterhouse, midcap DOM/PRE, there are so many examples of ways to ruin your first prey's whole game before he can play it that even if I had the time to list all of them, I'm not sure it would be worth your time to read the list. Do you think all weenie decks have the ability to ruin their first prey before they can do anything? Cause that would be a bit too much of an exaggeration for discussion, I think. Do you agree there exist other decks without weenies which can also snuff out their first prey's game in basically the same way? If this problem can occur without weenies, and weenies can exist without causing this problem, then why exactly are you singling out weenies, when it's obviously decks that are one-minded about ruining their prey that cause the problem? The reason I'm positing that these sorts of decks aren't problematic enough to be changed is because they don't actually work. And when people go into a real competitive tournament, they tend to play things with a track record -- something that has worked consistently in the past. And while weenies seem to do well in some smaller tournaments and amongst inexperienced and/or intercept light playgroups, they don't consistently perform at the highest levels of play. This means players will often choose another, more effective deck, and decks which don't make it to the table are pretty incapable of being problems there. > >Either examine and > > change the most broken weenie deck, or let it die already. Cause it > > seems all weenies' "overpoweredness" contributes to is the frequent > > addition of midcap bleed, midcap wall/toolbox, and large cap vote > > decks to the TWDA. In other words, everything but weenies seems to be > > doing great. > > Like the assamites? And the midcap rush decks? Assamites and preemptive rush decks are bad, whether anyone at the table influences weenies or not. It's an entirely unrelated problem. Making weenies less powerful will not result in previously bad decks suddenly being good. I apologize for my hyberbole, which I didn't recognize until you pointed it out. I meant that all the traditional (non-joke) deck types -- voters, blockers, stealth-bleeders, etc. -- are still racking up tournament wins, just like they were in 1997. Except that intercept decks are getting more wins, probably thanks to the GW rule, and weenies are getting less. Now I'm wondering about the data, though. Maybe one of you Perl wizards could find some quick way to summarize average capacity of the TWDA's decks categorized by year, or some such. :) In summary, I don't think weenies always cripple their first prey. I don't think weenies are the only way to cripple your prey. I don't think weenies are nearly as effective as they once were, and I don't think unsuccessful decks will get picked consistently for competitive play. Therefore, competitive play doesn't really have a "weenie problem". There was a while that AUS was strong, with or without weenies. There was a time that clans with a way to double their bleed did great with weenies. And there was a time, long, long ago, when just using weenies with dominate or Legacy of Pander was very strong, but I feel all of these times are behind us, based on my experiences in competitive play, and supported by what little data is available. -- Brian

On 6 sep, 10:20, islandofyia...@aol.com wrote: > > >I've been to every continental > > > championship in North America and Europe for four years now and the > > > only time weenies were a huge deal was when the Palla Grande / Week of > > > Nightmares based weenies met with some success. If nobody cares to > > > see those cards changed, DUE TO THOSE DECKS NOT CONSISTENTLY WINNING > > > ENOUGH, and they are the MOST successful weenie decks, then WHY DOES > > > THE WEENIE THING KEEP COMING UP? > > > He said weenies, in general, not only breed decks. (Besides, weenie auspex > > won an EC. 2 Ravnos carnival bleed decks in the the year after that.) > > Yes, weenie auspex won the EC 2003, but not necessarily because the > deck relied on weenies, here we already differ in opinion. Aus weenies have the advantages of: - automatice more bleed (1 per minion, lots of minions) - action advantage - less untap needed The only disadavantage against midcaps is problems with combat. But real combat will take out the midcaps too. >but rather because Auspex was the answer to > the metagame. Jay Kristoff had a very similar AUS midcaps deck, which > got second that year in both the NAC and the EC. Taken together, I > think these two decks' success demonstrated the power of heavy > intercept in that specific environment, which had no real combat. My > point is that it was the Auspex that did well, weenies or no. But, as you point out, weenies did better than the midcaps. > > > > No weenie deck wins enough games to be broken, if the most successful > > > weenie decks don't win enough games to be broken. > > > Why do you have to win games to be broken? Isn't 'giving your first prey not > > even a chance to get started and then die' not broken? > > Brainwash decks can do that. Not reliably they can't. Unless you only have very large vamps in your crypt draw and no way of speeding up influencing. Why aren't people upset about > Brainwash? Because it takes too many slots to be able to play 4 of them in the first 4 turns. Also because they can be removed by allies. >Well-tuned rush combat Only weenie rush combat. The rest is too slow. >, intercept+S:CE repeatedly, How does that oust someone without a chance? > Slaughterhouse That takes ages to work. > midcap DOM/PRE, Weenies are even faster. there are so many examples of ways to > ruin your first prey's whole game before he can play it that even if I > had the time to list all of them, I'm not sure it would be worth your > time to read the list. Most of them work better with weenies. > > Do you think all weenie decks have the ability to ruin their first > prey before they can do anything? Cause that would be a bit too much > of an exaggeration for discussion, I think. Of course not, but almost every deck gets better by weeniefying it. >Do you agree there exist > other decks without weenies which can also snuff out their first > prey's game in basically the same way? If this problem can occur > without weenies, and weenies can exist without causing this problem, > then why exactly are you singling out weenies, when it's obviously > decks that are one-minded about ruining their prey that cause the > problem? Because, as mentioned above, (barring some special abilities) a 6 cap OBF DOM vamp is not beter as a 4 cap OBF DOM. And most non-star decks don't use more than 2-3 disciplines. > > The reason I'm positing that these sorts of decks aren't problematic > enough to be changed is because they don't actually work. And when > people go into a real competitive tournament, they tend to play things > with a track record -- something that has worked consistently in the > past. So because no-one plays them, there is no problem? I'll just point out that the Dutch ECQ had a dom weenie in the final with 2 GW* (and a Palla Grande deck too) So they are played. And when played well, they still win. *the only reason that he didn't get 3 was because of my Free State Rants in round 2. >And while weenies seem to do well in some smaller tournaments > and amongst inexperienced and/or intercept light playgroups, they > don't consistently perform at the highest levels of play. No deck consistently performs at the highest level of play. There's too many variables for that. (seating, crypt draw, deals,....) That's why it's so hard defining overpowerednes in V:TES. > > This means players will often choose another, more effective deck, and > decks which don't make it to the table are pretty incapable of being > problems there. > > > >Either examine and > > > change the most broken weenie deck, or let it die already. Cause it > > > seems all weenies' "overpoweredness" contributes to is the frequent > > > addition of midcap bleed, midcap wall/toolbox, and large cap vote > > > decks to the TWDA. In other words, everything but weenies seems to be > > > doing great. > > > Like the assamites? And the midcap rush decks? > > Assamites and preemptive rush decks are bad, whether anyone at the > table influences weenies or not. The point is that weenie dedicated rush isn't bad. But only weenie, again. >It's an entirely unrelated problem. > Making weenies less powerful will not result in previously bad decks > suddenly being good. if fr.ex bleed is capped at capacity, it would imo make previously tier 2 decks become tier 1. Simply because of reducing the need for bounce. It also makes midcap rush playable, because you only have to worry about big bleeders behind you, and don't need to remove every 3 cap with dom or pre. >I apologize for my hyberbole, which I didn't > recognize until you pointed it out. I meant that all the traditional > (non-joke) deck types -- voters, blockers, stealth-bleeders, etc. -- > are still racking up tournament wins, just like they were in 1997. so are weenies. the last 3 tourneys I played at, i saw at least 2 weenie decks at each. Every time there was one in the finals. > Except that intercept decks are getting more wins, probably thanks to > the GW rule, and weenies are getting less. > > Now I'm wondering about the data, though. Maybe one of you Perl > wizards could find some quick way to summarize average capacity of the > TWDA's decks categorized by year, or some such. :) > > In summary, I don't think weenies always cripple their first prey. not all, but they shouldn't be able to do it. > I > don't think weenies are the only way to cripple your prey. the easiest, in any case. >I don't > think weenies are nearly as effective as they once were, and I don't > think unsuccessful decks will get picked consistently for competitive > play. Therefore, competitive play doesn't really have a "weenie > problem". Again: 'i don't see them and they don't win' is not really sound logic. If you would see them a lot and they didn't win, that's something else. >There was a while that AUS was strong, with or without > weenies. There was a time that clans with a way to double their bleed > did great with weenies. And there was a time, long, long ago, when > just using weenies with dominate or Legacy of Pander was very strong, > but I feel all of these times are behind us, based on my experiences > in competitive play, and supported by what little data is available. And the question, of course, is why. I remain convinced that it's because of people being bored playing with weenies, not because other decks are suddenly so much better at stopping them or weenies being powered down.

> > Yes, weenie auspex won the EC 2003, but not necessarily because the > > deck relied on weenies, > > here we already differ in opinion. Aus weenies have the advantages of: > - automatice more bleed (1 per minion, lots of minions) > - action advantage > - less untap needed I would argue that "action advantage" isn't a sure path to victory lane. Take for example the greatest "action advantage" possible, which is Una--and yet, Una isn't exactly tearing up the tournament scene. What you do with the actions you have is what determines whether you win--which is why Una taking 30 actions on one turn doesn't usually mean two or three dead preys. Arika has some very powerful options available to her when she acts, and she might not HAVE to choose just one if she has a Freak Drive. That's not the sort of power a weenie will come up with out of nowhere. In fact, if the weenies in question don't have any disciplines on them, it could take 10 or more of them to do the sort of damage Arika can do in any one turn! Bleed, Freak Drive, Vote, I'm sure she could do much more than 10 pool damage on her own, in one turn, and she only takes two turns to bring out if you have a Zillah's. How long does it take to bring 10 Auspex vampires out? Or 10 Potence vampires? Number of actions * pool damage per action = total pool damage. Yes, weenies have lots of the former. But fatties have lots of the latter. Midcaps have some of both. Are things balanced? I'd say we have to look at the evidence here in order to decide -- and recent major tournament victories with weenies (I'd guess) are probably in the minority. > The only disadavantage against midcaps is problems with combat. But > real combat will take out the midcaps too. I'm not sure why one would choose midcaps over weenies for a wall deck, but there are some really accomplished players on this group who have probably played with both and could answer that. I'd ask Jay Kristoff or Stefan Ferenci, as they've done outstandingly well with that sort of deck. Not having built and succeeded with an AUS deck myself, all I know is that I see 5 and 6 caps in play in an all-AUS deck about as often as I see weenies, and that I also see slower intercept decks with more moving parts and larger vampires like Carna or Howler which I think are more effective than either of the mono-AUS walls. Meaning I don't think the weenies are better cause the bigger vampires can do more with less. > >but rather because Auspex was the answer to > > the metagame. Jay Kristoff had a very similar AUS midcaps deck, which > > got second that year in both the NAC and the EC. Taken together, I > > think these two decks' success demonstrated the power of heavy > > intercept in that specific environment, which had no real combat. My > > point is that it was the Auspex that did well, weenies or no. > > But, as you point out, weenies did better than the midcaps. Marginally--the weenies got 1st place in only 1 championship, the midcaps got 2nd in two different championships. A larger sample is needed to support a definitive conclusion, but again, I've seen plenty of 5-caps used in AUS decks. If you want to know whether blocky walls are better with weenies or without, I'd probably ask the creators. Erik Torstensson has built a couple interesting versions that have splashed Dominate or Thaumaturgy, so maybe he could say something about whether paying 2 or 3 extra pool for those larger vampires is worth it. > Why aren't people upset about > > > Brainwash? > > Because it takes too many slots to be able to play 4 of them in the > first 4 turns. Also because they can be removed by allies. I saw it ruin a person's game a couple of times. One guy got really mad when he had 4 Brainwashes on him. His cross-table allies burned a couple of them, only to be followed by his predator playing two more that turn (Parthenon). Deck also had Pentex in it for anyone who made it into play successfully. It never really won games, but it was sure a terrible game if you were its first prey. > >Well-tuned rush combat > > Only weenie rush combat. The rest is too slow. Midcap bleed combat can be pretty scary. Combat also performs very well in toolboxy decks. I could post a decklists for Ahrimanes, Akunanse, Brujah, Tremere, and (believe it or not) !Salubri decks which I currently have assembled which use lots of combat and do just fine. And none of them are rush decks, because preemptive rush decks are still stupid. I think weenie rush works best when you bleed every turn with it, and rush only when you have to rush -- NOT rush every turn until you run out and have to bleed. Cause preemptive rushing is stupid. > >, intercept+S:CE repeatedly, > > How does that oust someone without a chance? It doesn't have to do the ousting. If enough of your actions are blocked, whether it's your predator or your prey blocking you, and you can't do anything to the blocking minions in return, you will lose the game. Of course, he probably will, too, and that's why you don't see much of this--but my goal was only to illustrate another way I've been shut down before without really getting a chance to do anything. I remember one tournament when I announced to the nearby tables that I had finally performed a successful action, for the first time in the whole tournament. IT WAS ROUND THREE. > > Slaughterhouse > > That takes ages to work. Your predator has still destroyed your ability to win this game without you being able to do anything about it. I don't see how one is preferable to the other. > > midcap DOM/PRE, > > Weenies are even faster. I would say they're not. The Mind Numb/Freak Drive/Govern/ Conditioning/Daring the Dawn sort of crap that that deck can pull out with some regularity is truly impressive. I was ousted as its prey after only 5 turns, and I had a freakin' Eternal Vigilance on my Abbot, Cailean, and two weenies untapped to deflect. (Damn Pentex and Mind Numb!) I don't think that sort of lunge could have been as effective or as hard for the table to see coming if it were arranged by weenies. > there are so many examples of ways to> ruin your first prey's whole game before he can play it that even if I > > had the time to list all of them, I'm not sure it would be worth your > > time to read the list. > > Most of them work better with weenies. I'm not sure that's true. I think most of the aggressive, pool- destroying ones work better with weenies, maybe. But there are lots of ways to lose the game in only a couple turns that don't include being ousted. We used to have this guy who played Theo Bell, Beast, and Jimmy Dunn, exclusively, and I can't stress enough that you were dead as hell if you sat next to him. > > Do you think all weenie decks have the ability to ruin their first > > prey before they can do anything? Cause that would be a bit too much > > of an exaggeration for discussion, I think. > > Of course not, but almost every deck gets better by weeniefying it. It's always better to pay less for things, sure. I don't think that means that cheap things are always better than quality things. > >Do you agree there exist > > other decks without weenies which can also snuff out their first > > prey's game in basically the same way? If this problem can occur > > without weenies, and weenies can exist without causing this problem, > > then why exactly are you singling out weenies, when it's obviously > > decks that are one-minded about ruining their prey that cause the > > problem? > > Because, as mentioned above, (barring some special abilities) a 6 cap > OBF DOM vamp is not beter as a 4 cap OBF DOM. And most non-star decks > don't use more than 2-3 disciplines. Again, of course paying less for things is better, provided you're getting the same thing. But you rarely are! I think your comparison is specious: You're comparing two things of the same value, which have different costs. This doesn't exist in Vampire. If it were ONLY about cost, everyone would switch to 1 or 2 caps. It's NOT all about cost. Again, Roland Bishop costs more than Samson because he's WORTH more. And so it is with Ozmo over Roland, and Gratiano over Ozmo, and Arika over Gratiano. > > The reason I'm positing that these sorts of decks aren't problematic > > enough to be changed is because they don't actually work. And when > > people go into a real competitive tournament, they tend to play things > > with a track record -- something that has worked consistently in the > > past. > > So because no-one plays them, there is no problem? I'll just point out > that the Dutch ECQ had a dom weenie in the final with 2 GW* (and a > Palla Grande deck too) So they are played. And when played well, they > still win. I'm not sure what to say. I don't know how big the tournament was, or how usual that sort of finals table is, or whether weenies actually won the finals game or not. In addition, I'll admit that my experience is probably different from that of most players, as I don't play anything but small local games and Championship-level events. Medium size stuff isn't something I'm very familiar with at all. I don't see dom weenie bleed at the local level because it wouldn't be any fun for anybody, but I think I don't see dom weenie bleed at the continent level because it just isn't as good as a lot of other stuff out there. > >And while weenies seem to do well in some smaller tournaments > > and amongst inexperienced and/or intercept light playgroups, they > > don't consistently perform at the highest levels of play. > > No deck consistently performs at the highest level of play. There's > too many variables for that. (seating, crypt draw, deals,....) That's > why it's so hard defining overpowerednes in V:TES. I disagree with that. Arika and other DOM for OBF PRE voters do great, consistently, over many years. Kindred Spirits bleed seems to have performed consistently since at least the first time I saw Ben Peal's "Cheesequake" deck, and likely before that as well. Toreador Grand Ball has been making strong showings and occasionally winning the EC. :) Imbued, I hear, are popping up at finals tables near you. DOM/NEC block denial bleed with Shambling Hordes is pretty common to see. Tzimisce seem to be performing strong too. See, I think there are definitely decks which have consistently made top 5 at huge events. > > > Like the assamites? And the midcap rush decks? > > > Assamites and preemptive rush decks are bad, whether anyone at the > > table influences weenies or not. > > The point is that weenie dedicated rush isn't bad. But only weenie, > again. That's because weenie dedicated rush (ironically) isn't particularly "dedicated" to rushing vampires! It bleeds most of the time, and then rushes when it ought to. If it rushed most of the time, and bled when it had to, it would probably be crap as well. > if fr.ex bleed is capped at capacity, it would imo make previously > tier 2 decks become tier 1. Simply because of reducing the need for > bounce. It also makes midcap rush playable, because you only have to > worry about big bleeders behind you, and don't need to remove every 3 > cap with dom or pre. I kicked around the idea of what would happen if a vampire's bleed were maxed out at his/her capacity. I thought it would be a good thing for the game, but then when I realized that I don't really see weenie dom bleed or weenie pre bleed anymore, I thought, nah, maybe it wouldn't change much at all and would simply mean more rules text for new players to learn. > >I apologize for my hyberbole, which I didn't > > recognize until you pointed it out. I meant that all the traditional > > (non-joke) deck types -- voters, blockers, stealth-bleeders, etc. -- > > are still racking up tournament wins, just like they were in 1997. > > so are weenies. the last 3 tourneys I played at, i saw at least 2 > weenie decks at each. Every time there was one in the finals. Did they win? Cause if they didn't, you're not really contradicting my statement about them "racking up tournament wins". In fact, there's a whole archive for that, and if it's tomorrow and we're still talking about this, I'll probably crawl the last year or two of results and see what we're looking at for average capacity. I'd be surprised if it was low, seriously. > > Except that intercept decks are getting more wins, probably thanks to > > the GW rule, and weenies are getting less. > > > Now I'm wondering about the data, though. Maybe one of you Perl > > wizards could find some quick way to summarize average capacity of the > > TWDA's decks categorized by year, or some such. :) > > > In summary, I don't think weenies always cripple their first prey. > > not all, but they shouldn't be able to do it. OK, I agree with that, they shouldn't be able to do it. But, I think many more decks are able to survive that sort of focussed onslaught now than there were five years ago, by a considerable margin. Uh, by a large enough margin that players are opting not to play them in the first place because of that. > > I > > don't think weenies are the only way to cripple your prey. > > the easiest, in any case. Dedicated rush is much better at crippling your prey, I think. I can probably survive if my pool is low but I can act and react. I can definitely not survive without actions/reactions, no matter what my pool is. > >I don't > > think weenies are nearly as effective as they once were, and I don't > > think unsuccessful decks will get picked consistently for competitive > > play. Therefore, competitive play doesn't really have a "weenie > > problem". > > Again: 'i don't see them and they don't win' is not really sound > logic. If you would see them a lot and they didn't win, that's > something else. For a while there, I did see them a lot, and they didn't win. It was like 2003-2004-2005 when, other than the aforementioned AUS and Palla Grande/WoN weenies, I saw lots of them not winning. Weenie PRE and weenie DOM in particular, I would see them oust their first prey and then lose, or cripple their prey and then turn into 2VP for their predator. I saw less weenie PRE and weenie DOM after that, and I wonder whether the repeated thrashings they got in real tournament play are a part of their reduction in frequency. I think that might be happening to mono-AUS right now, too; I'm seeing less of it after every time it loses. > >There was a while that AUS was strong, with or without > > weenies. There was a time that clans with a way to double their bleed > > did great with weenies. And there was a time, long, long ago, when > > just using weenies with dominate or Legacy of Pander was very strong, > > but I feel all of these times are behind us, based on my experiences > > in competitive play, and supported by what little data is available. > > And the question, of course, is why. I remain convinced that it's > because of people being bored playing with weenies, not because other > decks are suddenly so much better at stopping them or weenies being > powered down. I think that when competition is low, yes. Here, locally, the players wouldn't play something that was that "disruptive" to new players feeling like they're doing anything in the game at all. But I think if they will fly to Sweden to win, they will probably play whatever it takes to win. So I don't know how good the players in your playgroup are, or how many people there are in your tournaments, but if the answers are "not championship level" and "maybe 12-14", then I'd consider that the weenies simply haven't been handed their asses yet. Build an Ahrimanes deck and kill all of them every time for a couple weeks and see how many come back for a third week, see what I'm sayin? -- Brian

> I would argue that "action advantage" isn't a sure path to victory > lane. Take for example the greatest "action advantage" possible, > which is Una--and yet, Una isn't exactly tearing up the tournament > scene. What you do with the actions you have is what determines > whether you win--which is why Una taking 30 actions on one turn > doesn't usually mean two or three dead preys. Arika has some very > powerful options available to her when she acts, and she might not > HAVE to choose just one if she has a Freak Drive. That's not the sort > of power a weenie will come up with out of nowhere. In fact, if the > weenies in question don't have any disciplines on them, it could take > 10 or more of them to do the sort of damage Arika can do in any one > turn! Bleed, Freak Drive, Vote, I'm sure she could do much more than > 10 pool damage on her own, in one turn, and she only takes two turns > to bring out if you have a Zillah's. How long does it take to bring > 10 Auspex vampires out? Or 10 Potence vampires? This archtype has specifically been nerfed by the NRA rule. If you want a true example of identically named minions taking 30 actions in a single turn then you should use Turbo Arika or Turbo Lucita as an example. Those are terrifying decks when they are runnning properly. Action advantage is the universal determiner of success in VTES. Generating actions against your prey is the source of 90 percent of all victory points. You can do this in different ways. You can play weenies, or Freak Drives or Deflections. These all generate actions against your prey. Everything else is too easily mitigated by common defenses. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 5 Sep., 22:35, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > The point is, of course, that you HAVE to put defence against those things > in. And that is bad. Every card that is a must-include is bad (I can live > with Blood doll / Minion tap) Sorry Jeroen, I really don't get you. The WHOLE GAME is about attacking and defending. Of course you HAVE to put defences against other decks in your deck. That's the fun. I try to imagine what the others will throw at me and try to counter it. I'm off now.

"Joscha" <joscha...@gmx.de> schreef in bericht news:1189094831.3...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > On 5 Sep., 22:35, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > wrote: > >> The point is, of course, that you HAVE to put defence against those >> things >> in. And that is bad. Every card that is a must-include is bad (I can live >> with Blood doll / Minion tap) > > Sorry Jeroen, I really don't get you. Obviously. >The WHOLE GAME is about > attacking and defending. No. The whole game is about generating effects that ultimately lead to you winning. >Of course you HAVE to put defences against > other decks in your deck. Not if it means that you almost automatically lose to x if you don't have defence against x. >That's the fun. I try to imagine what the > others will throw at me and try to counter it. That's, of course, the reason the current metagame is so focused on defense.

On 6 sep, 12:22, islandofyia...@aol.com wrote: > > > Yes, weenie auspex won the EC 2003, but not necessarily because the > > > deck relied on weenies, > > > here we already differ in opinion. Aus weenies have the advantages of: > > - automatice more bleed (1 per minion, lots of minions) > > - action advantage > > - less untap needed > > I would argue that "action advantage" isn't a sure path to victory > lane. Take for example the greatest "action advantage" possible, > which is Una--and yet, Una isn't exactly tearing up the tournament > scene. What you do with the actions you have is what determines > whether you win--which is why Una taking 30 actions on one turn > doesn't usually mean two or three dead preys. wrong end of the stick there. You're actually proving my point. Weenie vamps have the action advantage, not only in number of actions but also in types of actions. Una can hunt 40 times, 10 weenies can each bleed for 2. >Arika has some very > powerful options available to her when she acts, and she might not > HAVE to choose just one if she has a Freak Drive. Again: Arika bleeds once, votes once and maybe Mind Rapes once. 1 Deflection stops her bleed, one DT stops the vote. Compare with needing 10 deflections, or 10 DT. (and the wakes to play them) Besides, you are comparing with arguably the best vampire in the game. >That's not the sort > of power a weenie will come up with out of nowhere. In fact, if the > weenies in question don't have any disciplines on them, it could take > 10 or more of them to do the sort of damage Arika can do in any one > turn! Bleed, Freak Drive, Vote, I'm sure she could do much more than > 10 pool damage on her own, in one turn, and she only takes two turns > to bring out if you have a Zillah's. How long does it take to bring > 10 Auspex vampires out? Or 10 Potence vampires? Arika uses cards, the weenie can too: You only need 5 computer hacks. And you start a turn earlier with 4 bleeds of 2. > > Number of actions * pool damage per action = total pool damage. > > Yes, weenies have lots of the former. But fatties have lots of the > latter. Midcaps have some of both. Are things balanced? I'd say we > have to look at the evidence here in order to decide -- and recent > major tournament victories with weenies (I'd guess) are probably in > the minority. Most imbued are <5 cap in average too. > <snip> > Meaning I don't think the weenies are better cause the bigger vampires > can do more with less. Actually: they can deliver more with 1 action. 1 action is easier to stop than 5. > <snip> > > > Why aren't people upset about > > > > Brainwash? > > > Because it takes too many slots to be able to play 4 of them in the > > first 4 turns. Also because they can be removed by allies. > > I saw it ruin a person's game a couple of times. One guy got really > mad when he had 4 Brainwashes on him. His cross-table allies burned a > couple of them, only to be followed by his predator playing two more > that turn (Parthenon). Deck also had Pentex in it for anyone who made > it into play successfully. It never really won games, but it was sure > a terrible game if you were its first prey. What are the chances of this succeeding? Unless he has like 20 Brainwash in there? And even then, he'll probably use weenie support to actually oust people. > > > >Well-tuned rush combat > > > Only weenie rush combat. The rest is too slow. > >Cause preemptive rushing is > stupid. No it isn't. > > > >, intercept+S:CE repeatedly, > > > How does that oust someone without a chance? > > It doesn't have to do the ousting. If enough of your actions are > blocked, whether it's your predator or your prey blocking you, and you > can't do anything to the blocking minions in return, you will lose the > game. Of course, he probably will, too, and that's why you don't see > much of this--but my goal was only to illustrate another way I've been > shut down before without really getting a chance to do anything. I > remember one tournament when I announced to the nearby tables that I > had finally performed a successful action, for the first time in the > whole tournament. IT WAS ROUND THREE. And? > > > > Slaughterhouse > > > That takes ages to work. > > Your predator has still destroyed your ability to win this game > without you being able to do anything about it. I don't see how one > is preferable to the other. Because at least you had a game before your library runs out. That's the difference. > > > > midcap DOM/PRE, > > > Weenies are even faster. > > I would say they're not. The Mind Numb/Freak Drive/Govern/ > Conditioning/Daring the Dawn sort of crap that that deck can pull out > with some regularity is truly impressive. I was ousted as its prey > after only 5 turns, and I had a freakin' Eternal Vigilance on my > Abbot, Cailean, and two weenies untapped to deflect. (Damn Pentex and > Mind Numb!) I don't think that sort of lunge could have been as > effective or as hard for the table to see coming if it were arranged > by weenies. why all this anecdotal evidence. Yes, in the 13 years I 've played this game I too saw things that midcaps can do better than weenies. Doesn't mean that weenies, on the whole, are better. > > > there are so many examples of ways to> ruin your first prey's whole game before he can play it that even if I > > > had the time to list all of them, I'm not sure it would be worth your > > > time to read the list. > > > Most of them work better with weenies. > > I'm not sure that's true. I think most of the aggressive, pool- > destroying ones work better with weenies, maybe. But there are lots > of ways to lose the game in only a couple turns that don't include > being ousted. We used to have this guy who played Theo Bell, Beast, > and Jimmy Dunn, exclusively, and I can't stress enough that you were > dead as hell if you sat next to him. and? > > > > Do you think all weenie decks have the ability to ruin their first > > > prey before they can do anything? Cause that would be a bit too much > > > of an exaggeration for discussion, I think. > > > Of course not, but almost every deck gets better by weeniefying it. > > It's always better to pay less for things, sure. I don't think that > means that cheap things are always better than quality things. not always: most of the time. And that's bad enough. > > > >Do you agree there exist > > > other decks without weenies which can also snuff out their first > > > prey's game in basically the same way? If this problem can occur > > > without weenies, and weenies can exist without causing this problem, > > > then why exactly are you singling out weenies, when it's obviously > > > decks that are one-minded about ruining their prey that cause the > > > problem? > > > Because, as mentioned above, (barring some special abilities) a 6 cap > > OBF DOM vamp is not beter as a 4 cap OBF DOM. And most non-star decks > > don't use more than 2-3 disciplines. > > Again, of course paying less for things is better, provided you're > getting the same thing. But you rarely are! I think your comparison > is specious: You're comparing two things of the same value, which have > different costs. This doesn't exist in Vampire. If it were ONLY > about cost, everyone would switch to 1 or 2 caps. It's NOT all about > cost. Again, Roland Bishop costs more than Samson because he's WORTH > more. And so it is with Ozmo over Roland, and Gratiano over Ozmo, and > Arika over Gratiano. Should be worth more. But, in practice, aren't. > > > > The reason I'm positing that these sorts of decks aren't problematic > > > enough to be changed is because they don't actually work. And when > > > people go into a real competitive tournament, they tend to play things > > > with a track record -- something that has worked consistently in the > > > past. > > > So because no-one plays them, there is no problem? I'll just point out > > that the Dutch ECQ had a dom weenie in the final with 2 GW* (and a > > Palla Grande deck too) So they are played. And when played well, they > > still win. > > I'm not sure what to say. I don't know how big the tournament was, or > how usual that sort of finals table is, or whether weenies actually > won the finals game or not. In addition, I'll admit that my > experience is probably different from that of most players, as I don't > play anything but small local games and Championship-level events. > Medium size stuff isn't something I'm very familiar with at all. I > don't see dom weenie bleed at the local level because it wouldn't be > any fun for anybody, but I think I don't see dom weenie bleed at the > continent level because it just isn't as good as a lot of other stuff > out there. Or because people are tired of it. Or because of the table hate it attracts (also a sign that it's wrong) > > > >And while weenies seem to do well in some smaller tournaments > > > and amongst inexperienced and/or intercept light playgroups, they > > > don't consistently perform at the highest levels of play. > > > No deck consistently performs at the highest level of play. There's > > too many variables for that. (seating, crypt draw, deals,....) That's > > why it's so hard defining overpowerednes in V:TES. > > I disagree with that. Arika and other DOM for OBF PRE voters do > great, consistently, over many years. Kindred Spirits bleed seems to > have performed consistently since at least the first time I saw Ben > Peal's "Cheesequake" deck, and likely before that as well. Toreador > Grand Ball has been making strong showings and occasionally winning > the EC. :) Imbued, I hear, are popping up at finals tables near > you. DOM/NEC block denial bleed with Shambling Hordes is pretty > common to see. Tzimisce seem to be performing strong too. See, I > think there are definitely decks which have consistently made top 5 at > huge events. your turning it around. How many of those decks that entered the tourney make it to the final. Not which play the final. And you see: even though some tourney is won by an arika deck, 3 other Arika decks didn't consistently win. [ quoted text not captured ] 2 of them were won with weenie decks, iirc. All decks for the Dutch ECQ were posted here. Google should help you find it. [ quoted text not captured ] If you're going so far, you won't play stupid boring decks either. >So I don't know how good the players in your playgroup > are, or how many people there are in your tournaments, but if the > answers are "not championship level" and "maybe 12-14", then I'd > consider that the weenies simply haven't been handed their asses yet. > Build an Ahrimanes deck and kill all of them every time for a couple > weeks and see how many come back for a third week, see what I'm sayin? Oh yes. If someone is too strong: build a wall deck and kill them. so?

On Sep 6, 10:31 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 6 sep, 12:22, islandofyia...@aol.com wrote: > > I would argue that "action advantage" isn't a sure path to victory > > lane. Take for example the greatest "action advantage" possible, > > which is Una--and yet, Una isn't exactly tearing up the tournament > > scene. What you do with the actions you have is what determines > > whether you win--which is why Una taking 30 actions on one turn > > doesn't usually mean two or three dead preys. > > wrong end of the stick there. You're actually proving my point. Weenie > vamps have the action advantage, not only in number of actions but > also in types of actions. Una can hunt 40 times, 10 weenies can each > bleed for 2. I agree that most of Una's actions are not useful. Comparing her to weenies is missing the point. Una REPRESENTS weenies in my example, because she produces many actions of little consequence. Inner Circle members generally produce few actions of much greater consequence, and that's the case to be made for them. > >Arika has some very > > powerful options available to her when she acts, and she might not > > HAVE to choose just one if she has a Freak Drive. > > Again: Arika bleeds once, votes once and maybe Mind Rapes once. 1 > Deflection stops her bleed, one DT stops the vote. Compare with > needing 10 deflections, or 10 DT. (and the wakes to play them) > Besides, you are comparing with arguably the best vampire in the game. So use Stanislava instead. Or Lucinde, Marcus Vitel, Queen Anne, take your pick. There are lots of huge voters that can bleed and multi- act, and they ALL see regular play. And with just Govern, Conditioning, Freak, KRC, you just did 11 pool damage to your prey. This is simply not something Caitiff can emulate. And you know what's much more important than this? That they don't have to do it as soon as they come out in order to pull it off. I guarantee if you're playing weenie Presence, and you just sit there and don't do anything for the first five turns or so, you're going to have a much harder time winning, whereas big voters THRIVE on waiting until their hand can do huge amounts and then lunging. As far as "stoppability" goes, though, players don't always have their defensive cards in their hands. There are whole decks without Deflection, and whole TABLES without Delaying Tactics. Many of the good voters have access to Approximation of Loyalty, which is actually much better than people give it credit for, and of course Minion Tap + Voter Cap, which can keep them surviving indefinitely. This isn't something weenies can do. I mean, there's Tribute to the Master, but that basically costs you your turn. And don't forget the one-card stuff that ruins weenies but not fatties or midcaps, like Aranthebes, No Secrets, Atonement, NUN, etc. Note especially that Deflection or DT can hurt you once each, while the weenies' banes just stay in play and ruin their game every turn. > >That's not the sort > > of power a weenie will come up with out of nowhere. In fact, if the > > weenies in question don't have any disciplines on them, it could take > > 10 or more of them to do the sort of damage Arika can do in any one > > turn! Bleed, Freak Drive, Vote, I'm sure she could do much more than > > 10 pool damage on her own, in one turn, and she only takes two turns > > to bring out if you have a Zillah's. How long does it take to bring > > 10 Auspex vampires out? Or 10 Potence vampires? > > Arika uses cards, the weenie can too: You only need 5 computer hacks. > And you start a turn earlier with 4 bleeds of 2. If you're seriously comparing Arika's offensive power to that of 4 1- caps with Computer Hackings, then I think you have to take into account the staying power of each. Which is to say, that the CH weenies will maybe not oust their first prey, getting weaker each turn, and almost certainly not oust their second prey, unless he only has 1 vampire who never blocks. Arika will get nothing but stronger every turn, and at the same time as she moves forward. > > Number of actions * pool damage per action = total pool damage. > > > Yes, weenies have lots of the former. But fatties have lots of the > > latter. Midcaps have some of both. Are things balanced? I'd say we > > have to look at the evidence here in order to decide -- and recent > > major tournament victories with weenies (I'd guess) are probably in > > the minority. > > Most imbued are <5 cap in average too. Yeah, well, fuck imbued. Imbued are not weenie vampires, they are their own whole set of problems. They could certainly stand to lose some power -- but again, they get stronger as the game goes on, instead of weaker, like many fast-oust weenie decks. Beyond capacity, no comparison exists. > <snip> > > Meaning I don't think the weenies are better cause the bigger vampires > > can do more with less. > > Actually: they can deliver more with 1 action. 1 action is easier to > stop than 5. One action backed up with Lost in Crowds + Elder Intervention or Earth Control + Form of Mist is much harder to stop with an Aranthebes or No Secrets than 5 actions by weenies who will never have more than 1 stealth. > > I saw it ruin a person's game a couple of times. One guy got really > > mad when he had 4 Brainwashes on him. His cross-table allies burned a > > couple of them, only to be followed by his predator playing two more > > that turn (Parthenon). Deck also had Pentex in it for anyone who made > > it into play successfully. It never really won games, but it was sure > > a terrible game if you were its first prey. > > What are the chances of this succeeding? Unless he has like 20 > Brainwash in there? And even then, he'll probably use weenie support > to actually oust people. You said earlier that weenie decks didn't HAVE to succeed in order to be bad. This deck crippled its prey, which is what we were discussing as "the problem with weenies", and this deck was also terrible, which is why it isn't played anymore -- like many one-minded weenie decks that don't win. > > > >Well-tuned rush combat > > > > Only weenie rush combat. The rest is too slow. > > >Cause preemptive rushing is > > stupid. > > No it isn't. Then instead of "stupid", I'll say it "doesn't win games". (I thought that fit squarely under "stupid", but apparently you don't. I'm fine with "preemptive rush as a strategy is weak.") As I mentioned earlier, successful weenie "rush" decks usually aren't -- they bleed every turn, and rush only when they have to. > > > >, intercept+S:CE repeatedly, > > > > How does that oust someone without a chance? > > > It doesn't have to do the ousting. If enough of your actions are > > blocked, whether it's your predator or your prey blocking you, and you > > can't do anything to the blocking minions in return, you will lose the > > game. Of course, he probably will, too, and that's why you don't see > > much of this--but my goal was only to illustrate another way I've been > > shut down before without really getting a chance to do anything. I > > remember one tournament when I announced to the nearby tables that I > > had finally performed a successful action, for the first time in the > > whole tournament. IT WAS ROUND THREE. > > And? And, it's another way to ruin someone's game without weenies, before that player can really do anything. Which you suggested earlier didn't have to succeed in order to be bad for the game. This was an example. > > > > Slaughterhouse > > > > That takes ages to work. > > > Your predator has still destroyed your ability to win this game > > without you being able to do anything about it. I don't see how one > > is preferable to the other. > > Because at least you had a game before your library runs out. That's > the difference. I don't think so. If I'm going to lose this game no matter what I do, I'm not really interested in what happens between now and then. > > > > midcap DOM/PRE, > > > > Weenies are even faster. > > > I would say they're not. The Mind Numb/Freak Drive/Govern/ > > Conditioning/Daring the Dawn sort of crap that that deck can pull out > > with some regularity is truly impressive. I was ousted as its prey > > after only 5 turns, and I had a freakin' Eternal Vigilance on my > > Abbot, Cailean, and two weenies untapped to deflect. (Damn Pentex and > > Mind Numb!) I don't think that sort of lunge could have been as > > effective or as hard for the table to see coming if it were arranged > > by weenies. > > why all this anecdotal evidence. You said weenies would make DOM/PRE faster. This was the clearest way I could illustrate why I think you're wrong, and that midcap DOM/PRE would be better than any weenie version of it. It directly contradicted your statement: I can't imagine something more relevant than an example which directly gainsays your statement. >Yes, in the 13 years I 've played > this game I too saw things that midcaps can do better than weenies. > Doesn't mean that weenies, on the whole, are better. This was another example of a deck which completely stops you from playing before you can do anything, without weenies. I think it is relevant to this conversation. > > > there are so many examples of ways to> ruin your first prey's whole game before he can play it that even if I > > > > had the time to list all of them, I'm not sure it would be worth your > > > > time to read the list. > > > > Most of them work better with weenies. > > > I'm not sure that's true. I think most of the aggressive, pool- > > destroying ones work better with weenies, maybe. But there are lots > > of ways to lose the game in only a couple turns that don't include > > being ousted. We used to have this guy who played Theo Bell, Beast, > > and Jimmy Dunn, exclusively, and I can't stress enough that you were > > dead as hell if you sat next to him. > > and? I'm not sure why you'd even say that. Throughout this thread, I've continually said I think non-weenies can do all the "problematic" things weenies can do, you've said I'm wrong, I've given some sort of example to support my position, and you've been unsure why I'm providing the evidence. I'm providing examples to strengthen my position. That's how I thought arguing worked. > > > > Do you think all weenie decks have the ability to ruin their first > > > > prey before they can do anything? Cause that would be a bit too much > > > > of an exaggeration for discussion, I think. > > > > Of course not, but almost every deck gets better by weeniefying it. > > > It's always better to pay less for things, sure. I don't think that > > means that cheap things are always better than quality things. > > not always: most of the time. And that's bad enough. This question is right at the heart of the issue: Why do you think cheaper beats stronger "most of the time"? Cause, from the games I play in, and from the examples given in the TWDA, I'd say that "most of the time" it's NOT weenies that win. Here, this table shows the average capacity of vampires in the crypts of every reported tournament winner since July 1st 2007 (source: thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm): event name avg cap Fee Stake: Torun 9.67 Tolaria Agosto 2007 8.09 Munduko Txapelketa 2007 3.92 13 years of Jyhad Drinking 4.84 Abjure: Westerville, Ohio 7.09 Belgrade: Black dawn 3,5 Black Hand Ritual 2007 7 Strange Day: Austin 6.33 US National Championship Constructed Event 5.34 Melbourne qualifier 6.25 French National Qualifier 4,58 European Championship Day 2 7.25 European Championship Day 1 4.92 Gran Madre 9.17 Buffet contre les vampires 6.42 Ex Mundis 2007 4,07 Northwest Qualifier - Seattle 9.42 Continental mini-qualifier: Palma de Mallorca 2007 6,58 Mozambique Allure 7.25 South American Championship 5 LCQ FOR THE SPANISH CHAMPIONSHIP 2007 6,58 Crusade: Seattle! 7.66 Selective Silence: Kennesaw 4.75 Shambling Hordes, Dallas (Mini-qualifier) 6.67 Mini-Qualifier, Veszprem (Mini-Qualifier) 5,66 SPANISH CHAMPIONSHIP 2007 3,33 Last Stand, Mini-Qualifier 4.42 Tasmanian State Qualifier 4.34 Mini Qualifier Alès, France 4,25 Stutter-Step 6.66 ECQ Manse 9.31 Camp Helland 2007 mini qualifier 8.5 BloodBATH 2007: Fifth Tradition 4 Eternal Sunshine Series, Part III 1.65 Denver Qualifier 6.25 Origins 2007 Sunday 11AM 10 Origins 2007 Saturday 10AM 4.5 Origins 2007 Friday 6PM 5.41 Origins 2007 Friday 11AM 5.58 Origins 2007 Thursday 11AM 6.33 Free States Rant: Columbus 5.34 Mökkiqualifier (summercottagequalifier) 7.09 I didn't include the following decks: 7 Imbued decks (we're talking about weenie vampires) 1 combat deck (which was played in a special combat-rules tournament) Now, from the data, here are the numbers again in order: 1.65 3.33 3.5 3.92 4 4.07 4.25 4.34 4.42 4.5 4.58 4.75 4.84 4.9 5 5.34 5.34 5.41 5.58 5.66 6.25 6.25 6.33 6.33 6.42 6.58 6.58 6.66 6.67 7 7.09 7.09 7.25 7.25 7.66 8.09 8.5 9.17 9.31 9.42 9.67 10 Given that a deck's main vampire is usually not supported with _larger_ vampires, it's not unusual that Inner Circle decks have averages around 7-9 capacity, and Carna decks have capacities averaging around 5. This means that about 2/3 of the decks had vampires with capacity 7 or higher in them, and only 4 decks out of 42 didn't have anyone with capacity 5 or higher. If weenie decks use only vampires with capacity <5, then I'd say weenie decks have done relatively poorly, during the last 2.5 months, as evidenced by the data above. If you're wondering, the 1.65 was Tupdog, the 3.33 avg was Rock Cats with Fidus, the 3.5 was ANI weenies, the 3.92 was a Brujah Debate deck, and the avg 4 deck was !Tremere bringing out Nephandus mages and doing combat with them. In other words, ALL of the weenies in the LAST 50 TOURNAMENT VICTORIES were using a HEAVY COMBAT ELEMENT. Some rushing, others blocking, none of these decks even remotely resembled an aggressive pool- damaging deck. There were 4 Conditionings in each of two decks, and no pool-damaging votes except 3 Parity Shifts in the Brujah Debate deck. The type of deck you're describing as problematic does not appear in the last 50 entries of tournament winners (42 listed + 7 Imbued + 1 combat variant). Of course, they can't be any less of a problem than no appearances at all. I could go back further in time, maybe give results from the last 100 entries if you like. But I'm sure I won't find anything of interest, because DOM weenies and PRE weenies just aren't as strong as they once were. Conversely, 16 decks used political actions, 16 influenced vampires with titles worth at least 2 votes, and six of those decks specifically influenced Inner Circle members (and a seventh influenced Sha-Ennu, who is like an Inner Circle member, in that he's the opposite of a weenie.) This list is dominated by fatties and Imbued, if anything could be said to be dominant. > > > >Do you agree there exist > > > > other decks without weenies which can also snuff out their first > > > > prey's game in basically the same way? If this problem can occur > > > > without weenies, and weenies can exist without causing this problem, > > > > then why exactly are you singling out weenies, when it's obviously > > > > decks that are one-minded about ruining their prey that cause the > > > > problem? > > > > Because, as mentioned above, (barring some special abilities) a 6 cap > > > OBF DOM vamp is not beter as a 4 cap OBF DOM. And most non-star decks > > > don't use more than 2-3 disciplines. > > > Again, of course paying less for things is better, provided you're > > getting the same thing. But you rarely are! I think your comparison > > is specious: You're comparing two things of the same value, which have > > different costs. This doesn't exist in Vampire. If it were ONLY > > about cost, everyone would switch to 1 or 2 caps. It's NOT all about > > cost. Again, Roland Bishop costs more than Samson because he's WORTH > > more. And so it is with Ozmo over Roland, and Gratiano over Ozmo, and > > Arika over Gratiano. > > Should be worth more. But, in practice, aren't. "In practice" = "by the actual results" The actual results are posted above. According to the actual results, larger vampires seem to win more games, so I'd say they are in fact worth more pool. > > I > > don't see dom weenie bleed at the local level because it wouldn't be > > any fun for anybody, but I think I don't see dom weenie bleed at the > > continent level because it just isn't as good as a lot of other stuff > > out there. > > Or because people are tired of it. Or because of the table hate it > attracts (also a sign that it's wrong) Table hate is a sign that people _believe_ that something's wrong--and people aren't always correct. > > I disagree with that. Arika and other DOM for OBF PRE voters do > > great, consistently, over many years. Kindred Spirits bleed seems to > > have performed consistently since at least the first time I saw Ben > > Peal's "Cheesequake" deck, and likely before that as well. Toreador > > Grand Ball has been making strong showings and occasionally winning > > the EC. :) Imbued, I hear, are popping up at finals tables near > > you. DOM/NEC block denial bleed with Shambling Hordes is pretty > > common to see. Tzimisce seem to be performing strong too. See, I > > think there are definitely decks which have consistently made top 5 at > > huge events. > > your turning it around. How many of those decks that entered the > tourney make it to the final. Not which play the final. And you see: > even though some tourney is won by an arika deck, 3 other Arika decks > didn't consistently win. I don't have any data available on which decks are consistently played but don't make the final, or on which decks make the final but don't win. But I can say I think finals games have more vote decks than either the finals rounds OR the winners, proportionately. That is, they make it to the finals more often, but win less often. > > > the last 3 tourneys I played at, i saw at least 2 > > > weenie decks at each. Every time there was one in the finals. > > > Did they win? Cause if they didn't, you're not really contradicting > > my statement about them "racking up tournament wins". In fact, > > there's a whole archive for that, and if it's tomorrow and we're still > > talking about this, I'll probably crawl the last year or two of > > results and see what we're looking at for average capacity. I'd be > > surprised if it was low, seriously. > > 2 of them were won with weenie decks, iirc. All decks for the Dutch > ECQ were posted here. Google should help you find it. ECQ Netherlands 2007 winner is listed as a Black Hand !Toreador deck. Half of the minions are 5- and 6-caps, and the other half is made of 4 caps and below. So, it's a low to midcap deck...doesn't seem that "broken". It certainly can't oust you before you've had a chance to play, unless you need an unreasonably large amount of setup. > > I think > > if they will fly to Sweden to win, they will probably play whatever it > > takes to win. > > If you're going so far, you won't play stupid boring decks either. You know the Imbued were all over in the LCQ, right? And that the finals of the EC day 2 included two Inner Circle decks, a Tzimisce wall and another Imbued deck? Maybe you think these decks are really exciting. But if you think they're a bit clichéd, boring decks to see over and over again, then I think people WILL go that far and play something "boring". > >So I don't know how good the players in your playgroup > > are, or how many people there are in your tournaments, but if the > > answers are "not championship level" and "maybe 12-14", then I'd > > consider that the weenies simply haven't been handed their asses yet. > > Build an Ahrimanes deck and kill all of them every time for a couple > > weeks and see how many come back for a third week, see what I'm sayin? > > Oh yes. If someone is too strong: build a wall deck and kill them. so? "So?", you say? As if to suggest that a good deck which beats the tar out of weenie bleed every time - and happens to occasionally win the EC - is completely irrelevant to the question of whether weenie bleed is too powerful, right? Ahrimanes ARE a force in the metagame, which prospective weenie bleed players have to take into consideration. If your regular decks have too much defense for weenie bleed to win anymore, and you can win with these decks, and this causes people to stop playing weenie bleed, then WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? -- Brian Note 1: I do not fault the players at the EC for choosing "boring" decks. I thought it was a reasonably exciting game, even for one that timed out. I feel the metagame is, in the end, in the hands of the Lead Designer, and visionary deckbuilders and players like Olivier, Ferenc, Errol, Stoffe, etc. are merely the ones who reveal TO the designer what is currently likely to win. Note 2: "WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?": I believe that if defense beats offense, the problem is repeated time-outs. I don't particularly care for them, but they do serve as an indicator here that fast weenie- based aggressive decks obviously aren't doing too well.

On 7 sep, 06:49, islandofyia...@aol.com wrote: <snip > So use Stanislava instead. Or Lucinde, Marcus Vitel, Queen Anne, take > your pick. There are lots of huge voters that can bleed and multi- > act, and they ALL see regular play. And with just Govern, > Conditioning, Freak, KRC, you just did 11 pool damage to your prey. > This is simply not something Caitiff can emulate. And you know what's > much more important than this? That they don't have to do it as soon > as they come out in order to pull it off. I guarantee if you're > playing weenie Presence, and you just sit there and don't do anything > for the first five turns or so, you're going to have a much harder > time winning, whereas big voters THRIVE on waiting until their hand > can do huge amounts and then lunging. Still: and? You still only proving that other decks can -after a set- up time and with a good hand might have a better offence than the weenies. > > As far as "stoppability" goes, though, players don't always have their > defensive cards in their hands. There are whole decks without > Deflection, and whole TABLES without Delaying Tactics. Maybe where you play. I don't have tables without delaying tactics, nor without DI (kills freak drive, fr.ex) >Many of the > good voters have access to Approximation of Loyalty, which is actually > much better than people give it credit for, and of course Minion Tap + > Voter Cap, which can keep them surviving indefinitely. This isn't > something weenies can do. Luckily, they can't. They do have faults, yes. The above, again, needs a good hand and not DT, blocks, DI. Approximation isn't that good of a card because, IMO, the chain becomes too long. Vote +stealth + push + AoL + Votercap is at least 5 cards. >I mean, there's Tribute to the Master, but > that basically costs you your turn. And don't forget the one-card > stuff that ruins weenies but not fatties or midcaps, like Aranthebes, > No Secrets, Atonement, NUN, etc. Note especially that Deflection or > DT can hurt you once each, while the weenies' banes just stay in play > and ruin their game every turn. There we go with the 'you can defend against them' again. You can't. not reliably. > <snip> > If you're seriously comparing Arika's offensive power to that of 4 1- > caps with Computer Hackings, then I think you have to take into > account the staying power of each. No. YOU brought op offensive power comparisons. One rush finishes the Arika deck. 1 rush only removes a weenie. That's also staying power. >Which is to say, that the CH > weenies will maybe not oust their first prey, getting weaker each > turn, and almost certainly not oust their second prey, unless he only > has 1 vampire who never blocks. Arika will get nothing but stronger > every turn, and at the same time as she moves forward. Unless she get's Pentexed, or rushed... <snip> > > <snip> > > > Meaning I don't think the weenies are better cause the bigger vampires > > > can do more with less. > > > Actually: they can deliver more with 1 action. 1 action is easier to > > stop than 5. > > One action backed up with Lost in Crowds + Elder Intervention or Earth > Control + Form of Mist is much harder to stop with an Aranthebes or No > Secrets than 5 actions by weenies who will never have more than 1 > stealth. Yes. Aranthebes foiles weenies. Bad luck your Aranthebes is the 85th card of your deck. And Fear of Mekhet is in my hand here.... <snip> > > What are the chances of this succeeding? Unless he has like 20 > > Brainwash in there? And even then, he'll probably use weenie support > > to actually oust people. > > You said earlier that weenie decks didn't HAVE to succeed in order to > be bad. I meant in succeding in fucking up your prey's game. As in: playing those 4 Brainwashes in the first 4 turns, your prey not having vamps with caps below 4 etc.... >This deck crippled its prey, which is what we were discussing > as "the problem with weenies", and this deck was also terrible, which > is why it isn't played anymore -- like many one-minded weenie decks > that don't win. > <snip: preemptive rush> > Then instead of "stupid", I'll say it "doesn't win games". (I thought > that fit squarely under "stupid", but apparently you don't. I'm fine > with "preemptive rush as a strategy is weak.") As I mentioned > earlier, successful weenie "rush" decks usually aren't -- they bleed > every turn, and rush only when they have to. You mean: they have actions left too bleed with? Yes. Why? because they are weenies. > > > > > >, intercept+S:CE repeatedly, > > > > > How does that oust someone without a chance? > > > > It doesn't have to do the ousting. If enough of your actions are > > > blocked, whether it's your predator or your prey blocking you, and you > > > can't do anything to the blocking minions in return, you will lose the > > > game. Of course, he probably will, too, and that's why you don't see > > > much of this--but my goal was only to illustrate another way I've been > > > shut down before without really getting a chance to do anything. I > > > remember one tournament when I announced to the nearby tables that I > > > had finally performed a successful action, for the first time in the > > > whole tournament. IT WAS ROUND THREE. > > > And? > > And, it's another way to ruin someone's game without weenies, before > that player can really do anything. It doesn't screw your game per se. That's the difference. You can still try to do something. Which is completely different from being ousted before your first vamp hits the tabel (hyberbole I know, but with the right support, it is possible.) >Which you suggested earlier > didn't have to succeed in order to be bad for the game. This was an > example. No, it's an example of wall decks being irritating, not of the being screwed before your game gets going. > > > > > > Slaughterhouse <snip> > > > Because at least you had a game before your library runs out. That's > > the difference. > > I don't think so. If I'm going to lose this game no matter what I do, > I'm not really interested in what happens between now and then. You could, fr. ex, back oust the slaughterhouse deck,; or race it: get VPs before you run out of cards.. See: again, a chance to at least try to play. > > > > > > midcap DOM/PRE, <snip> > You said weenies would make DOM/PRE faster. This was the clearest way > I could illustrate why I think you're wrong, and that midcap DOM/PRE > would be better than any weenie version of it. It directly > contradicted your statement: I can't imagine something more relevant > than an example which directly gainsays your statement. I was talking about the 5 turns example, not the deck. I've also been ousted by 2 cap dominate weenies in turn 5. > > >Yes, in the 13 years I 've played > > this game I too saw things that midcaps can do better than weenies. > > Doesn't mean that weenies, on the whole, are better. > > This was another example of a deck which completely stops you from > playing before you can do anything, without weenies. I think it is > relevant to this conversation. not really, at least you HAVE a vampire in play. You can at least TRY to defend before noticing that you can't pay your second vampire. > > > > > there are so many examples of ways to> ruin your first prey's whole game before he can play it that even if I > > > > > had the time to list all of them, I'm not sure it would be worth your > > > > > time to read the list. > <snip beast deck example> >I'm not sure why you'd even say that. No, i don't see how this fits the 'before you get a chance to play' thing we were talking about. >Throughout this thread, I've > continually said I think non-weenies can do all the "problematic" > things weenies can do, you've said I'm wrong, I've given some sort of > example to support my position, and you've been unsure why I'm > providing the evidence. I'm providing examples to strengthen my > position. That's how I thought arguing worked. But we're not using the same definition of what the problematic was, apparently. > > > > > > Do you think all weenie decks have the ability to ruin their first > > > > > prey before they can do anything? Cause that would be a bit too much > > > > > of an exaggeration for discussion, I think. > > > > > Of course not, but almost every deck gets better by weeniefying it. > > > > It's always better to pay less for things, sure. I don't think that > > > means that cheap things are always better than quality things. > > > not always: most of the time. And that's bad enough. > <snip numbers> 0. not winning does not mean that there are no balance issues. (Not that this is a balance issue, i think its a mechanic issue with the transfers) 1. not all tourneys get reported 2. average cap is not a good metric in and by itself. 3. Without knowledge about how many weenies decks played in those tourneys, the numbers mean nothing. You also need to know how many get into the finals AND how many were cross table scewed (or ganged up on) during the finals and during the prelims. > > The type of deck you're describing as problematic does not appear in > the last 50 entries of tournament winners (42 listed + 7 Imbued + 1 > combat variant). Again: they don't have to win to be a problem. There an even worse problem if the get prelim results like 1VP, 2 VP, 1 VP. > Of course, they can't be any less of a problem than no appearances at > all. I could go back further in time, maybe give results from the > last 100 entries if you like. But I'm sure I won't find anything of > interest, because DOM weenies and PRE weenies just aren't as strong as > they once were. They haven't lost anything in power. Why would you think that? Maybe people don't play them as often, because it's old tech. But why would they be worse than 5 years ago? >Conversely, 16 decks used political actions, 16 > influenced vampires with titles worth at least 2 votes, and six of > those decks specifically influenced Inner Circle members (and a > seventh influenced Sha-Ennu, who is like an Inner Circle member, in > that he's the opposite of a weenie.) > > This list is dominated by fatties and Imbued, if anything could be > said to be dominant. Nowhere did I say that fatties can't be played. I just said that weenies are still too strong. <snip> > > Should be worth more. But, in practice, aren't. > > "In practice" = "by the actual results" > The actual results are posted above. they mean nothing, I hope you see that. > According to the actual results, larger vampires seem to win more > games, so I'd say they are in fact worth more pool. Again: winning is not the issue. And even if it was, you numbers don't mean anything. > > Or because people are tired of it. Or because of the table hate it > > attracts (also a sign that it's wrong) > > Table hate is a sign that people _believe_ that something's wrong--and > people aren't always correct. Not always, but most table hate is justified. <snip> > > your turning it around. How many of those decks that entered the > > tourney make it to the final. Not which play the final. And you see: > > even though some tourney is won by an arika deck, 3 other Arika decks > > didn't consistently win. > > I don't have any data available on which decks are consistently played > but don't make the final, or on which decks make the final but don't > win. But I can say I think finals games have more vote decks than > either the finals rounds OR the winners, proportionately. That is, > they make it to the finals more often, but win less often. based on? > > > > > the last 3 tourneys I played at, i saw at least 2 > > > > weenie decks at each. Every time there was one in the finals. > > > > Did they win? Cause if they didn't, you're not really contradicting > > > my statement about them "racking up tournament wins". In fact, > > > there's a whole archive for that, and if it's tomorrow and we're still > > > talking about this, I'll probably crawl the last year or two of > > > results and see what we're looking at for average capacity. I'd be > > > surprised if it was low, seriously. > > > 2 of them were won with weenie decks, iirc. All decks for the Dutch > > ECQ were posted here. Google should help you find it. > > ECQ Netherlands 2007 winner is listed as a Black Hand !Toreador deck. > Half of the minions are 5- and 6-caps Half of the minions: meaning 4 Banjoko's, I don't remember the 6 caps. But it's 2 midcap 'stars' with a lot of weenie support most likely. >, and the other half is made of 4 > caps and below. So, it's a low to midcap deck...doesn't seem that > "broken". It certainly can't oust you before you've had a chance to > play, unless you need an unreasonably large amount of setup. Seen the second place deck? It was posted on the NG. Those are the decks that i'm talking abouts. The breed decks are mosty ok since the nerfing of the Embrace. > > > > I think > > > if they will fly to Sweden to win, they will probably play whatever it > > > takes to win. > > > If you're going so far, you won't play stupid boring decks either. > > You know the Imbued were all over in the LCQ, right? And that the > finals of the EC day 2 included two Inner Circle decks, a Tzimisce > wall and another Imbued deck? Those are still a whole lot less boring than weenie bleed decks, in my book. (yes, even the imbued) > > Maybe you think these decks are really exciting. But if you think > they're a bit clichéd, boring decks to see over and over again, then I > think people WILL go that far and play something "boring". Boring deck is of course in the eye of the beholder. But as said weenie bleed is on a whole other level of boring for me. > > >So I don't know how good the players in your playgroup > > > are, or how many people there are in your tournaments, but if the > > > answers are "not championship level" and "maybe 12-14", then I'd > > > consider that the weenies simply haven't been handed their asses yet. No playgroup at the moment. But they were champion level. Again: winning isn't the issue. > > > Build an Ahrimanes deck and kill all of them every time for a couple > > > weeks and see how many come back for a third week, see what I'm sayin? > > > Oh yes. If someone is too strong: build a wall deck and kill them. so? > > "So?", you say? As if to suggest that a good deck which beats the tar > out of weenie bleed every time - and happens to occasionally win the > EC - is completely irrelevant to the question of whether weenie bleed > is too powerful, right? Yup. The 'you can defend against it' is no argument. Ahrimanes ARE a force in the metagame, which > prospective weenie bleed players have to take into consideration. If > your regular decks have too much defense for weenie bleed to win > anymore, and you can win with these decks, and this causes people to > stop playing weenie bleed, then WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? Metagame solutions don't work for mechanical problems. Not winning isn't the issue either. > Note 2: "WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?": I believe that if defense beats > offense, the problem is repeated time-outs. I don't particularly care > for them, but they do serve as an indicator here that fast weenie- > based aggressive decks obviously aren't doing too well. Again with the winning or not winning. That's not the issue. the issue is game balance and the possibility of building screw you over before you have a vamp in play decks. Even if it is bad play, the possibility alone should be taken out of the game. I suggest you read the other thread where this was discussed a while ago. People who are more eloquent than me in English might show you what is meant.

> Still: and? You still only proving that other decks can -after a set- > up time and with a good hand might have a better offence than the > weenies. OK. > > As far as "stoppability" goes, though, players don't always have their > > defensive cards in their hands. There are whole decks without > > Deflection, and whole TABLES without Delaying Tactics. > > Maybe where you play. I don't have tables without delaying tactics, > nor without DI (kills freak drive, fr.ex) Oh. Well, then, I'm sorry to hear that, since I've found that tables are usually less fun the more DIs they have. > >Many of the > > good voters have access to Approximation of Loyalty, which is actually > > much better than people give it credit for, and of course Minion Tap + > > Voter Cap, which can keep them surviving indefinitely. This isn't > > something weenies can do. > > Luckily, they can't. They do have faults, yes. The above, again, needs > a good hand and not DT, No, Approximation is there to cancel DT. > blocks, DI. Approximation isn't that good of a > card because, IMO, the chain becomes too long. Vote +stealth + push + > AoL + Votercap is at least 5 cards. If you Approximation, you can't Voter Cap. The way you use it is, you just hold an Approximation in your hand and use it when needed, which is usually when they play DT. > >I mean, there's Tribute to the Master, but > > that basically costs you your turn. And don't forget the one-card > > stuff that ruins weenies but not fatties or midcaps, like Aranthebes, > > No Secrets, Atonement, NUN, etc. Note especially that Deflection or > > DT can hurt you once each, while the weenies' banes just stay in play > > and ruin their game every turn. > > There we go with the 'you can defend against them' again. You can't. > not reliably. That's part of the point of the evidence and the anecdotes, is that people have, people can, and people are consistently defending against them. My first predator in my first big tournament was PRE weenies. He hit me hard, he hit me fast, I governed down and pulled back. I blocked a lot, and eventually, he died. I slowly made my way back up into the game, and even though I didn't win the game, I did go on to oust my first prey and ALMOST won. My point is that it IS defensible. And that guy didn't play PRE weenies the next year, possibly because it did so poorly that year. Which I think happened to a lot of people. > <snip> > > If you're seriously comparing Arika's offensive power to that of 4 1- > > caps with Computer Hackings, then I think you have to take into > > account the staying power of each. > > No. YOU brought op offensive power comparisons. One rush finishes the > Arika deck. 1 rush only removes a weenie. That's also staying power. Sure, but notice that rushes aren't very prevalent in really good tournaments. Which means Arika's not usually as vulnerable as weenies are, whose defenses are played regularly. > > Arika will get nothing but stronger > > every turn, and at the same time as she moves forward. > > Unless she get's Pentexed, or rushed... Somebody will usually burn your Pentex if you ask. > Yes. Aranthebes foiles weenies. Bad luck your Aranthebes is the 85th > card of your deck. And Fear of Mekhet is in my hand here.... You think that's usual? I'm pretty sure there were lots of Aranthebes and Domain Challenge/Anarchist Uprising/etc. in the last few years of championship games, and very little Fear of Mekhet. Maybe you just play somewhere with a really weird metagame? I mean, if your players are packing Fear of Mekhet and DTs instead of Aranthebes and Wakes, then no wonder the weenies are doing great: You're killing fatties that don't exist. > > > What are the chances of this succeeding? Unless he has like 20 > > > Brainwash in there? And even then, he'll probably use weenie support > > > to actually oust people. > > > You said earlier that weenie decks didn't HAVE to succeed in order to > > be bad. > > I meant in succeding in fucking up your prey's game. As in: playing > those 4 Brainwashes in the first 4 turns, your prey not having vamps > with caps below 4 etc.... Right. He totally succeeded in fucking up his prey's game. According to your argument, this doesn't have to result in a win for him, or even be prevalent, it just has to be POSSIBLE for it to be bad. So according to your argument, Brainwash is bad for the game and something should be done. I brought it up to demonstrate that just because it's possible to ruin someone's game, doesn't mean it will get you wins, and if it won't get you wins, then it won't get played. How is "I brainwash all your guys and then we both lose" much different from "I bleed you for 16 before I run out and get ousted, so we both lose"? > <snip: preemptive rush> > > > Then instead of "stupid", I'll say it "doesn't win games". (I thought > > that fit squarely under "stupid", but apparently you don't. I'm fine > > with "preemptive rush as a strategy is weak.") As I mentioned > > earlier, successful weenie "rush" decks usually aren't -- they bleed > > every turn, and rush only when they have to. > > You mean: they have actions left too bleed with? Yes. Why? because > they are weenies. No, they don't have actions left to bleed with, they have actions left to _rush_ with. That's a significant difference that many players ignore, and it's why some people can get GWs with rush decks and others can't. Bleed. Bleed often, and bleed with all of your guys. Rush _only when you have to_. When you think of it this way, it's clear why midcap rush isn't doing well: They can't usually bleed well, when bleeding is most of what a successful "rush" deck does. > > And, it's another way to ruin someone's game without weenies, before > > that player can really do anything. > > It doesn't screw your game per se. That's the difference. You can > still try to do something. Which is completely different from being > ousted before your first vamp hits the tabel (hyberbole I know, but > with the right support, it is possible.) Fast weenie bleed, you're dead before you act or block. Jimmy Dunn/ Beast/Theo rush, you can block the first rush action, but you're still dead before you act. Woo. Whatever, it still sucks hard. And again, the only way to stop it (in either case) is to wait for the player to realize he isn't winning. Moreover, I think it's harder to defend against an all-combat deck than an all-bleed deck. I can put in enough Forced Awakenings into a deck to deal with weenies without making it a shitty deck, or enough Deflections, etc. But I CAN'T put enough, say, Skin of Steels in my Ventrue to stop Tupdog, or enough Disengages in my Setites to stop Beast. Not without making my deck crap against everyone else, anyway. So yeah, I'd rather my predator was a bad player with a bunch of weenies than a bad player with a bunch of Potence, cause at least lots of wakes and deflections MIGHT already belong in my deck. > > > > > > midcap DOM/PRE, > <snip> > > You said weenies would make DOM/PRE faster. This was the clearest way > > I could illustrate why I think you're wrong, and that midcap DOM/PRE > > would be better than any weenie version of it. It directly > > contradicted your statement: I can't imagine something more relevant > > than an example which directly gainsays your statement. > > I was talking about the 5 turns example, not the deck. I've also been > ousted by 2 cap dominate weenies in turn 5. And the difference between the weenie bleed and the midcap bleed (which both oust on turn 5) is that the DOM/PRE deck is regularly making the finals in large tournaments, whereas the weenie version is not. What other kinds of "better" are you interested in? Midcap DOM/ PRE bleed is a better bleed deck than weenie ANYTHING bleed, and it ousts you just as fast. > No, i don't see how this fits the 'before you get a chance to play' > thing we were talking about. You've never been rushed to death before you could take any actions, have you? > But we're not using the same definition of what the problematic was, > apparently. What is problematic about weenies that isn't also problematic about some other, non-weenie decktype? We have examples of decks with better offense than weenies. Many decks have better pool gain that weenies. Most decks have better general defenses than weenies do. Some decks which kill you before you can act are weenies--but some aren't. In fact, here's what's weak about weenies: Weenie bleed decks are doing exceedingly poorly in tournaments. Weenies can be stopped by large numbers of cards common to many decks (deflection, wake, etc.) Weenies' "hosers" are extremely good at ending their games (No Secrets, Atonement, Ancilla Empowerment) Weenies get table hate JUST FOR BEING WEENIES, even if they aren't strong. So what's left? What sort of "problematic" is left to weenies and weenies alone? > <snip numbers> > 0. not winning does not mean that there are no balance issues. (Not > that this is a balance issue, i think its a mechanic issue with the > transfers) > 1. not all tourneys get reported > 2. average cap is not a good metric in and by itself. > 3. Without knowledge about how many weenies decks played in those > tourneys, the numbers mean nothing. You also need to know how many get > into the finals AND how many were cross table scewed (or ganged up on) > during the finals and during the prelims. Either the data on TWDA is sufficient to support a conclusion, or I don't think there exists data which would be sufficient to support a conclusion. My personal experience is that aggressive weenies have gotten weaker and weaker as a strategy for the last 7 years or so. The only (extensive) data I could find seems to back that up. I'm afraid that's the best anyone can do...and if anyone thinks I'm wrong, by all means, go ahead and prove me wrong. I'd love to see any more data one way or the other. > > The type of deck you're describing as problematic does not appear in > > the last 50 entries of tournament winners (42 listed + 7 Imbued + 1 > > combat variant). > > Again: they don't have to win to be a problem. There an even worse > problem if the get prelim results like 1VP, 2 VP, 1 VP. Weenies are worse if they lose? How? > > Of course, they can't be any less of a problem than no appearances at > > all. I could go back further in time, maybe give results from the > > last 100 entries if you like. But I'm sure I won't find anything of > > interest, because DOM weenies and PRE weenies just aren't as strong as > > they once were. > > They haven't lost anything in power. Why would you think that? Maybe > people don't play them as often, because it's old tech. But why would > they be worse than 5 years ago? Because every other strategy has been boosted. - Defensive decks now have Aranthebes, No Secrets from the Magaji, Carlton Van Wyk, Bowl of Convergence, and more vampires than ever with inherent +1 intercept. Perhaps most importantly, they have the GW rule. - Voters have appeared in record numbers, partly due to larger vampires getting more and more for their capacity than they ever have before. This happens to make weenie vote exceptionally hard to pull off, compared to 5 years ago. - Aggressive midcap decks have to compensate for the increase in intercept, and consequently, Elder Impersonation, Call of the Hungry Dead, Pentex Subversion, Mind Numb, Aching Beauty, and Toreador Grand Ball have started being regulars on the tournament scene--some of which aren't useful with smaller vamps at all. - And lastly, but still very important, there now exist the Imbued. Play weenie bleed and sit behind Imbued, and you die. Every time. What have weenies gained in the last 5 years? Nothing I can think of. I know they've LOST Anarch Revolt, free basic Majesty, and the discipline card for The Embrace. I don't know when Legacy of Pander stopped being cumulative, but that and no-vote-pushing are both primarily anti-weenie measures that weren't in effect at the start of the game. Measures which worked out great, by the way. > >Conversely, 16 decks used political actions, 16 > > influenced vampires with titles worth at least 2 votes, and six of > > those decks specifically influenced Inner Circle members (and a > > seventh influenced Sha-Ennu, who is like an Inner Circle member, in > > that he's the opposite of a weenie.) > > > This list is dominated by fatties and Imbued, if anything could be > > said to be dominant. > > Nowhere did I say that fatties can't be played. I just said that > weenies are still too strong. ? How could 11-caps consistently beat weenies and still we could say it is weenies which are too strong? Would "weenies are slower but win more games" be acceptable to you? I don't see how this could be worked out in practice, unless they made all the weenie decks slower but more powerful. ...which I guess people are doing with combat, actually. > > > Should be worth more. But, in practice, aren't. > > > "In practice" = "by the actual results" > > The actual results are posted above. > > they mean nothing, I hope you see that. Then give me something that DOES mean something. I have given concrete examples, personal views, and hard data. You have stated only that weenies COULD oust you before you do something, provided that you don't have appropriate defenses. That amounts to very little, as most decks seem to have the appropriate defenses, as evidenced by my concrete examples, personal views, and hard data. > >, and the other half is made of 4 > > caps and below. So, it's a low to midcap deck...doesn't seem that > > "broken". It certainly can't oust you before you've had a chance to > > play, unless you need an unreasonably large amount of setup. > > Seen the second place deck? It was posted on the NG. Those are the > decks that i'm talking abouts. The breed decks are mosty ok since the > nerfing of the Embrace. Alright, I looked up the second place deck, ECQ Utrecht...it had 20 Computer Hacking, 4 Anarch Troublemaker, 8 Misdirection...it doesn't sound like any fun. All of the minions cost 2 or less, so it's a true weenie bleed deck. My guess is that that player would be consistently able to oust his first prey, unless he hits Ahrimanes, Tremere, Akunanse, etc., in which case he won't be able to make it through all the wakes. Either way, he's not getting 2 VP unless the second player is pretty monumentally unprepared, or unless the first player just didn't do anything about him at all. Let me guess, he ran up against you first, and then the AUS deck at the table had him for lunch? Let him play this crap. Doing nothing besides ousting your first prey consistently will get you in the finals in a small tourney but not in a large one. And after enough of this, and then not winning, maybe he'll conclude, "Gee, this deck doesn't ever seem to win. Maybe I should build something else with a better chance of winning." That's how that problem will clear itself up. I think it sucks that ousting your first prey consistently will get you into a small finals, because it provides a false hope of winning the tournament. But, of course, there's nothing I can do about that, except talk to aggressive weenie players about this and hope they understand that they will not likely win, even though they may get to the finals consistently if players don't defend against them. > > "So?", you say? As if to suggest that a good deck which beats the tar > > out of weenie bleed every time - and happens to occasionally win the > > EC - is completely irrelevant to the question of whether weenie bleed > > is too powerful, right? > > Yup. The 'you can defend against it' is no argument. If weenies being defensible isn't an argument for them not being too strong, then what WOULD be an argument? Just because they can quite probably never win a tourney, just because they're not guaranteed their first prey, isn't enough for them not to be a problem...what WOULD be enough for them not to be a problem? Not which method (like by limiting their bleed to capacity), but rather, which result? > Again with the winning or not winning. That's not the issue. the issue > is game balance and the possibility of building screw you over before > you have a vamp in play decks. Even if it is bad play, the possibility > alone should be taken out of the game. Then ban Computer Hacking, and right after that, ban Immortal Grapple, because it can screw you over before you can act with a vamp. But that's never going to happen unless and until those decks consistently win, which is also never going to happen. > I suggest you read the other thread where this was discussed a while > ago. People who are more eloquent than me in English might show you > what is meant. I have found you to speak English perfectly well. But, if you think there's another thread that would be of interest, then please tell me where it is. -- Brian I've been pissed at being ousted by weenies really fast before, but I also accept some of the responsibility, since I was playing a 10-cap based deck with no deflections or wakes.

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:49:12 -0700, islando...@aol.com wrote: >1 combat deck (which was played in a special combat-rules tournament) Where do you see that? It will be removed immediately upon being found. 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.

On 7 sep, 19:07, islandofyia...@aol.com wrote: This says everything right here: > I've been pissed at being ousted by weenies really fast before, but I > also accept some of the responsibility, since I was playing a 10-cap > based deck with no deflections or wakes. It should be possible to play that deck without being killed before you can play. 'nuff said.

The Lasombra wrote: > On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:49:12 -0700, islando...@aol.com wrote: > > >1 combat deck (which was played in a special combat-rules tournament) > > Where do you see that? > > It will be removed immediately upon being found. Jarkko Suvela's Standard Constructed Tournament: Gothenburg, Sweden August 2007 The deck features Wynn and Julius. I believe this was a "combat zone" variant. However, you should not take my word for it; there may have been another tournament going on which I just didn't know about, so I would ask a participant, judge, or organizer before removing it from your archives. -- Brian

[ quoted text not captured ] It's possible. I could have had more cards which sped up my transfers, or deflections (since Huitzilopochtli can use them), or more Minion Taps. But I didn't. I don't know whether I feel more strongly that the game should not be able to be over before you can act, or that a deck without defense should expect to die. I already accept that a deck without offense will probably time out, so why shouldn't I accept that a deck with no defense will die? I suppose the game would be marginally better if you were not able to be ousted before you had gotten 11 transfers, but I don't think it would be better enough to warrant changing at this point. Putting defense into a deck is encouraged by this deck's mere existence, and offense by the game's nature, so decks should realistically include both. I don't think that it takes unreasonable defenses to stop weenies from ruining your game in most cases, especially as they continue to print new cards that make that task easier. NUN etc. -- Brian

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:33:56 -0700, islando...@aol.com wrote: >Jarkko Suvela's Standard Constructed Tournament: Gothenburg, Sweden >August 2007 >The deck features Wynn and Julius. I believe this was a "combat zone" >variant. However, you should not take my word for it; there may have >been another tournament going on which I just didn't know about, so I >would ask a participant, judge, or organizer before removing it from >your archives. "Standard Constructed Tournament" The report is clear. This was not the combat zone event.