2005 Tournament Rules

The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred Restructure, and Succubus Club. That's all. http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:41B11E2D...@white-wolf.com... > The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. > > The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. > > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. > > That's all. That's PLENTY! ;-) I'll throw out the first comment, since I'm here... Sigh...I'm going to miss the table restructuring cards. Stupidly, I never used them enough but I thought they made the game interesting that they even existed. Even so, I'm not shocked that they should be banned: they _were_ very powerful cards and I find the suggestion that they might be considered "not suited for competive play" palatable. I don't know if I'd call them "unbalanced" or "broken", exactly, though. Succubus Club, as I commented when it was previously discussed, hadn't been abused or broken in my part of the world. Apparently, it must have been causing a problem elsewhere. It still seems a bit premature to me to ban it, but again, the suggestion that it's "not suited for competitive play" strikes me as being arguable. Wholesale trading of cards in hand and permanents is a pretty extreme mechanic given how the game is otherwise play. I won't really miss it. Both of these mechanics are actually pretty extreme. It leaves me to wonder if we might them recreated in other cards in the future. In the case of position-switching, perhaps it might reappear with a higher cost, more limitations, more difficult to use or what not. In the case of permanent and/or card trading, perhaps it might be reborn in a milder form - perhaps a card that would allow two players to trade one single permanent for one other single permanent once per turn, for instance (or one card in hand for one card in hand). Fred (nope, it's not April - can't be April Fools...)

In message <41B11E2D...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. > >The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. > >The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are >not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred >Restructure, and Succubus Club. Hurray for the death of DU and KR. Finally, you don't have to do 10 pool in a single turn anymore to get a frickin' VP; you can push your prey to the ropes WITHOUT having a DI in hand for the table-switch vote. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<41B11E2D...@white-wolf.com>... > The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. > > > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. > > That's all. > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules WHAT?!!!! No seatswitching anymore?!! Why that? There are plenty of cards against that. There was no need to ban DU and KR. Who wanted that change? Even in the EC final the guy who played KR didn't win the game (although it won the final to Ruben V.). It was nasty and annoying, but there are more annoying cards in the game, namely Warghoul ;O). I can't believe it. A bit disappointed, Joscha

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:41B11E2D...@white-wolf.com... > The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. > > The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. > > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. A very very sad day for VTES. Totally unnecessary and a bad move imo. Hmmmm the game has lost a lot of appeal for me today.

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e904e39f.0412...@posting.google.com... > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<u9c2r09e5gigis03d...@4ax.com>... > >> >The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are >> >not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred >> >Restructure, and Succubus Club. >> >> Hurray for the death of DU and KR. >> >> Finally, you don't have to do 10 pool in a single turn anymore to get a >> frickin' VP; you can push your prey to the ropes WITHOUT having a DI in >> hand for the table-switch vote. > > I whole-heartedly agree with Derek here, because that's an excellent > point - a lot of strategies had been very hampered by having to assume > that a table-switch to steal your imminent VP is coming... Well, one thing good about it: I've been bitching these last few months about how the game tends to discourage pro-active fast decks. Good players inevitably seems to play a lot of reaction because it allows them to build up their strength slowly with permanents and pool gain. If you try to take your prey out fast the moment you're out of the gate, you better be able to deliver the death blow VERY fast because if you don't, your prey starts walling up and the rest of the table immediately begins to gang up on you since _they're_ all playing slow build-up games too. The chance someone would find a way to pass a Dramatic Upheavel and "steal" the oust you've been working on was just one more thing in that pattern. And least that's one thing you won't have to worry about any more. Fred

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:41B11E2D...@white-wolf.com... > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. Whilst I can understand Succubus Club, from my perspective banning DU and KR seems rather unnecessary. Given that I've got to try and explain/justify this to my players, would you mind please sharing some of your reasoning for the change? Regards, Mike Nudd VEKN Prince of London

> The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. Well, now for my comments. There is a lot of luck involved in playing V:tES in a tournament environment. One part of that is seating order. I liked the cards that change seating order because in that way players were able to "change their luck". These cards are political actions so they are easily stopped by a delayed tactics and votes around the table. As for Succubus Club, I never liked that card. It supported table split deals and deals in general. Deals are a good portion of the "social" part of the game but are abused in tournaments, as they allow a bad deck with a talkative player to end up way better. As we have seen in the "Silence of Death" tournament at the EC in Heidelberg, not to talk during games also has a special quality. Well, let愀 see how things work out without these cards. Simon Klibisch Prince of Bremerhaven (does anyone else here actually know where this is?) :-)

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<u9c2r09e5gigis03d...@4ax.com>... > >The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > >not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > >Restructure, and Succubus Club. > > Hurray for the death of DU and KR. > > Finally, you don't have to do 10 pool in a single turn anymore to get a > frickin' VP; you can push your prey to the ropes WITHOUT having a DI in > hand for the table-switch vote. I whole-heartedly agree with Derek here, because that's an excellent point - a lot of strategies had been very hampered by having to assume that a table-switch to steal your imminent VP is coming... (Case in point, the most recent storyline I played, my prey was begging me to help him pass a seat-switch to help him snipe a cross-table VP, offering me the moon and the stars to do so.. and little did he know that I was already planning to seat-switch on my turn instead to take that cross-table VP before he could get a chance to!) I'll add this: it'll be nice to see someone play a vote deck that DOESN'T have a DU or KR, as it had effectively gotten to the point where (nearly if not) every tournament vote deck automatically included one or both of the seat-switchers, and that's a clear sign that a card is a problem. > -- Derek -John Flournoy

LSJ wrote: > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. Blink. Blink. <mouth agape> Blink. ... Yah! Yah! Hurrah! Hurrah for LSJ and the Rules Team! Woo! Thank you. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<41B11E2D...@white-wolf.com>... > The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. > > The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. > > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. > > That's all. > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules VERY good! Even thought the tableswitching cards wasn´t that hardly abused around here, I had a feeling they were being played more and more and made the game weird. Thanks LSJ.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:41B11E2D...@white-wolf.com... > The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. > > The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. > > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. I just fell off my chair. Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure were/are cornerstones of V:TES. Care to explain why these cards were banned? I cannot see any apparent reason. Who decides which cards are getting banned? Why isn´t there any discussion about this? I am very disappointed by the fact that major things about this game are changed without taking into account the opinion of those who work countless hours in their spare time to promote and run the game. A sad, sad day for V:TES. -- johannes walch

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 02:17:14 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. > > The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. > > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. Most remarkable. I think SC is a great card but banning it from tournament play was kind of necessary. I'm not sure what the game will be without seat switching - I haven't seen a vote deck without seat switching in a long time. One of the most powerful effects, clearly. So, can we get our hopes up that PTO will follow? ;) > That's all. Hmm... That's a lot, you know. It sure will change a lot of things IMHO. Can we get some sort of explanation? I'm curious what the decisions were based on, if for nothing else than to translate the arguments for my local group. I'm not saying I oppose these changes, I just wish I would know the official arguments. -- Bye, Daneel

> The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. I somehow understand SC, but why DU & KS? Okay, I lost one game at EC because of DU, but still... I will miss those two cards, they made the game special. No reason to play vote decks anymore ;) - Guzmo

"Guzmo" <gu...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message news:e7dcd37e.04120...@posting.google.com... > > No reason to play vote decks anymore ;) You jest but I think that is mostly true.

> LSJ wrote : > The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. > > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. I can't understand why DU and KR. I think we can say "good bye" to an important part of the game : political decks. It's a sad day for the funny side of VtES... :-((

LSJ wrote: > The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. > > The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. > > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. > > That's all. I am glad to read that :-) At last, no one will get the VP you have worked so hard to get. Greetings, Damnans -- http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net

LSJ wrote: > The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. > > The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. > > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. > Good to see. Was at first a bit surprised by table switching, but recalled how irritated I was with myself for forgetting to add Dia de los Muertos to my deck... Sten During

Hmm well it's certianly going to change the environment in 2005, no sniping no jumping away from your beast predator, no splits by shifting people about. However I'm suprised that WW went for a ban on these cards rather than perhaps limiting them to being played once per game per player or other adjustments. Will WW give a fuller description of their reasons of why they were banned (none of these cards are particularly broken over here and Succubus club i've not seen used at all in the UK) Hugh

Johannes Walch wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag >>The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are >>not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred >>Restructure, and Succubus Club. > > I just fell off my chair. Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure were/are > cornerstones of V:TES. ? Computer Hacking maybe. Or Wake. Or KRCG News. Or Skin of Steel. Or Torn Signpost, Govern, Majesty, Bewitching Oration, Claws of the Dead, Lost in Crowds, Aid from Bats, Theft of Vitae, Raven Spy, or Flash. By the time you'd add DU and KR as a cornerstone, VTES would be a circle. > Care to explain why these cards were banned? I cannot see any apparent > reason. Not suited to competitive play, since they undermine the foundation of the game (namely, the predator-prey relationship). > Who decides which cards are getting banned? The V:EKN. > Why isn´t there any discussion about this? There are. Such discussions are nearly continuous, here, in email, on forums, on chats, face to face, etc. > I am very disappointed by the fact that major things about this > game are changed without taking into account the opinion of those who work > countless hours in their spare time to promote and run the game. Those opinions are taken into account. Surely you realize that there are others who work countless hours. And they do not all step lockstep all the time on all issues. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:8bisd.88887$7i4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Johannes Walch wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > > Care to explain why these cards were banned? I cannot see any apparent > > reason. > > Not suited to competitive play, since they undermine the foundation > of the game (namely, the predator-prey relationship). > Do the Vp deals not undermine that prey-predator foundation on a regular basis ? Take away Vp deals from the game too, then EMiliano, v:ekn Prince of Rome <snip>

> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 02:17:14 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are >> not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred >> Restructure, and Succubus Club. By the way, the greatest problem with politics is still unaddressed. When talking about a multiplayer game it would probably be a good idea to consider whether it would be beneficial to change political actions to be blockable not by predator or prey but by the targets of the action. Nuking a wall prey from behind an almost ousted meatshield is even more problematic now that the VP from the meatshield is sure not to be sniped. Also, there's the issue of deals. I know that many folks are busy little bees breaking deals 24/7, but since the deals can be legally honored, "amis" won't ever break them. Also there's a reduced awareness concerning the legality of deals, meaning that you can easily deal a table away if you wish to. That's not fair towards 3 people, instead of the 1 people screwed with Upheaval. Also, if you can't rearrange a table, you can't place the dealers beside one another. -- Bye, Daneel

Yann Seroz wrote: > I can't understand why DU and KR. 'Cause with table switch votes: A) Mean that it is pointless to spend all your effort trying to whittle your prey down to near dead, 'cause someone across the table, who you can't block, is going to switch seats with you and steal your hard fought for VP. As Derek pointed out, you can't, in competetive play, realistically drop your prey below 10 pool if you can't kill them *that instant* simply because someone is going to likely steal your seat and all your hard work. Table switch votes make trying to kill your prey fruitless, unless you are packing 5 or so Direct Interventions. B) They are a huge pain in the ass, in a practical sense (granted, this is likely not a particularly significant issue, but for my money, good riddance. But that is me.) > I think we can say "good bye" to an important part of the game : political > decks. Why? Political decks can't kill their *own* prey? Political decks without table switch votes do very well all the time. > It's a sad day for the funny side of VtES... :-(( You can still play them at home. Or in your own non sanctioned-tournaments. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. (This response was originally a lot more coherent, but it got eaten before it got posted; reconstructing it from memory) Banning Succubus Club, I don't care one way or the other. But banning Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure? I'm not personally too happy with that one. I can see all the points in favor of banning DU and KR. You're never quite sure who your prey is. You can hop over and "steal" a VP. It makes "play to win" a lot greyer to judge. *However*, I also see DU (and to a lesser extent, KR) as having legitimate defensive strategies. I'm sure many of you would agree that there is some merit in using it to "get away from" a predator that your deck simply wasn't built to handle. It's part of the knowledge of the deck. With DU banned, it means that you'll have to otherwise devote more deckspace to handling a larger variety of predators. (which, in a dedicated vote deck, is already a pretty tight space) I would much more have preferred a rewording of DU (and, sure, ban KR if you must), than outright banning it. Either that, or changing the VEKN scoring rules mathematically, so that VP-stealing is somehow discouraged (this second option is much harder). Here's a simple example of a reword (don't harp on the specifics too much, I'm just pointing out that it *could* be changed with clear text): Dramatic Upheaval Political Action Choose any other Methuselah. Successful referendum means you switch places with that Methuselah, end your minion phase, and put this card into play. The next time you gain a Victory Point, the chosen Methuselah gains that Victory Point instead (even if that Methuselah was already ousted) and burn this card. I hope that Monocle of Clarity can serve as a precedent that useful cards with questionable rulings can find their way back off of the banned list.

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 09:26:13 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > As Derek pointed out, you can't, in competetive play, realistically drop > your prey below 10 pool if you can't kill them *that instant* simply > because > someone is going to likely steal your seat and all your hard work. Table > switch votes make trying to kill your prey fruitless, unless you are > packing > 5 or so Direct Interventions. Well, that's a bit overgeneralized. If you can kill someone on 9 pool, why don't you kill your prey? It's more a problem with leaving your prey on 1-2 pool OR leaving him or her completely defenceless. Seat switching can hose combat decks pretty well. -- Bye, Daneel

"Rob Treasure" <robtreasure'remove'@ntlworld.com> a écrit dans le message de news:31d6ccF...@individual.net... [ quoted text not captured ] thinking the same thing :( DU/ KR, to politics have always been something special, like Fame could have been to combat decks. i don't see the need to hamper vote decks.

> The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. HooRay! HooRay! Crosstable Hose Someone Who is Not Your Prey Cards (CHoSoWiNYP) are gone. Now that CHoSoWiNYP cards are gone you can try to oust your prey without Dominate, Presence, or Weenies. Direct Intervention is not a must have card and Delaying Tactics don't have to be built into every tournament deck. Let's burn the CHoSoWiNYPs! Burn Them! Burn the evil CHoSoWiNYPs! Burn the evil CHoSoWiNYPs! (two peasants in the angy mob have their heads explode from trying to pronouce 4 syllable CHoSoWiNYP over and over again) All joking aside, this is great! Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

squi...@hotmail.com (Squidalot) writes: > However I'm suprised that WW went for a ban on these cards rather than > perhaps limiting them to being played once per game per player or > other adjustments. I have never, ever played a game where a metuselah has switched seats more than once. Once is plenty enough. -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Do the Vp deals not undermine that prey-predator foundation on a regular > basis ? > Take away Vp deals from the game too, then The illegal ones do, and are already taken away (illegal). The legal ones do not. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <iPjsd.198488$R05.129651@attbi_s53>, Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> mumbled something about: >I can see all the points in favor of banning DU and KR. >You're never quite sure who your prey is. >You can hop over and "steal" a VP. >It makes "play to win" a lot greyer to judge. > >*However*, I also see DU (and to a lesser extent, KR) as >having legitimate defensive strategies. I'm sure many of >you would agree that there is some merit in using it to >"get away from" a predator that your deck simply wasn't >built to handle. It's part of the knowledge of the deck. I would agree. However, the subset of decks that can use it to "get away" is very limited compared to the set of decks that simply cannot use it at all, because they cannot pass the vote. Sadly, however, the abusive uses of the card can't be prevented while still leaving the "bail out" option intact, and so the card had to go. >With DU banned, it means that you'll have to otherwise >devote more deckspace to handling a larger variety of >predators. (which, in a dedicated vote deck, is already >a pretty tight space) Really? This recent year at DragonCon, I finished 2nd in one tournament with a Group 1/2 Ventrue Law Firm/Daughters deck. It had no DU or KR in it whatsoever. I don't see DU and KR being as crucial to the vote deck's success these days as everyone thinks, honestly. I do think that the option to snipe VP was super-powerful, and so everyone played with it, but removing the DU/KR wouldn't hurt its chances of ousting prey any. >Dramatic Upheaval >Political Action >Choose any other Methuselah. >Successful referendum means you switch places with that >Methuselah, end your minion phase, and put this card into >play. >The next time you gain a Victory Point, the chosen Methuselah >gains that Victory Point instead (even if that Methuselah was >already ousted) and burn this card. Makes the card worthless to play. VP are already hard enough to obtain without voluntarily giving one away. >I hope that Monocle of Clarity can serve as a precedent that >useful cards with questionable rulings can find their way >back off of the banned list. If you can find a way to reword DU/KR without allowing it to subvert the predator/prey relationship, go for it. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

Jozxyqk wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > I can see all the points in favor of banning DU and KR. > You're never quite sure who your prey is. > You can hop over and "steal" a VP. > It makes "play to win" a lot greyer to judge. There's at least one more, which you mention just below: > *However*, I also see DU (and to a lesser extent, KR) as > having legitimate defensive strategies. I'm sure many of > you would agree that there is some merit in using it to > "get away from" a predator that your deck simply wasn't > built to handle. It's part of the knowledge of the deck. > With DU banned, it means that you'll have to otherwise > devote more deckspace to handling a larger variety of > predators. (which, in a dedicated vote deck, is already > a pretty tight space) This is one aspect of circumventing the predator-prey relationship that the game is designed on. > I would much more have preferred a rewording of DU (and, > sure, ban KR if you must), than outright banning it. Agreed. No suitable rewording has been discovered/invented at this time however (without wallpapering or completely changing the cards). > Either that, or changing the VEKN scoring rules > mathematically, so that VP-stealing is somehow discouraged > (this second option is much harder). VP-sniping is only one aspect of the problem. > Here's a simple example of a reword (don't harp on the > specifics too much, I'm just pointing out that it *could* be > changed with clear text): > > Dramatic Upheaval > Political Action > Choose any other Methuselah. > Successful referendum means you switch places with that > Methuselah, end your minion phase, and put this card into > play. > The next time you gain a Victory Point, the chosen Methuselah > gains that Victory Point instead (even if that Methuselah was > already ousted) and burn this card. If that had been implemented instead of the ban, we'd now be talking about why not just ban it instead of wallpaper the card *and* increase the errata count. (That's the larger "we", BTW -- not just the two of us in isolation.) > I hope that Monocle of Clarity can serve as a precedent that > useful cards with questionable rulings can find their way > back off of the banned list. Absolutely. That avenue is always a possibility. Some cards, like ante cards for example, would be very difficult to re-word. Seat changers are similarly disadvantaged, given the nature of changing seats. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Janne Hägglund" <h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid> a écrit dans le message de news:m3d5xqk...@etemenanki.homelinux.net... > squi...@hotmail.com (Squidalot) writes: > > > However I'm suprised that WW went for a ban on these cards rather than > > perhaps limiting them to being played once per game per player or > > other adjustments. > > I have never, ever played a game where a metuselah has switched seats more > than once. Once is plenty enough. I did.. and yes, i was the switcheroo vote-monkey :)

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:Lylsd.1029794$Gx4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Tetragrammaton wrote: > > Do the Vp deals not undermine that prey-predator foundation on a regular > > basis ? > > Take away Vp deals from the game too, then > > The illegal ones do, and are already taken away (illegal). > The legal ones do not. > No, legal deals do also undermine that factor, if that was the point behind the ban of the DU and KR. Common legal deal involve a truce between prey and predator often, so i don't agree with your statement (only illegal deals undermine the predator-prey relation) greets Emiliano

<snip> >> Care to explain why these cards were banned? I cannot see any apparent >> reason. > > > Not suited to competitive play, since they undermine the foundation > of the game (namely, the predator-prey relationship). > <snip> Well bums's rush (and any rush card) should be banished too as someone can rush me crosstable and undermine my relations with my prey/predator and eagle sight, sensory deprivation, temptation... too really I don't get the point banishing DU and KR is just making S&B far easier as these decks won't have to care about table vision and vote decks lose the main edge vote is a hard strategy as it requires some skills and a good flow in playing cards (i need the vote, eventually to stealth it by, then I need vote lock or to negociate with the one who has it) So this strategy should be able to do something other strategies are not able too, and that is place switch. Yes it is a powerful strategy but they are *SO MANY* things that can spoil it and that is actually what the game is all about ! Now what... Just play KRCs ? really nice... Mochuda

Mochuda wrote: > vote is a hard strategy as it requires some skills and a good flow in > playing cards (i need the vote, eventually to stealth it by, then I need > vote lock or to negociate with the one who has it) I've always found it the easiest strategy. Inherently stealthy, inherently blood-free (barring a few cornercases), and most importantly, you can flap your lips and make things happen that shouldn't. I mean, 3 intercept just beats 2 stealth, that's it, but not having vote lock in no way precludes a vote deck from functioning successfully. > So this strategy should be able to do something other strategies are not > able too, and that is place switch. It does a mountain of things other strategies don't. Now it just does one less. > Yes it is a powerful strategy but they are *SO MANY* things that can > spoil it and that is actually what the game is all about ! I won't really bother refuting the several refutable things in that sentence. Maybe someone else feels like duck hunting. I will say that I think the effect was ass, and I'm glad to see it gone. Further, FWIW I'm very pleased that LSJ (yeah yeah, "V:EKN") had the boldness to make this change. Inevitably some people are going to like it and others won't. But I've been more concerned with what I feel is a pervasive sense of over-cautiousness in current card design and rulings, leaving the new stuff subpar compared to the crack-addled heady days of WotC design. Anyway, I've spent a lot of time complaining about this or that in the past, and I just wanted to go on record and say "good job" to Scott. -- David Cherryholmes

Guzmo wrote: > No reason to play vote decks anymore ;) Right, because without seat switching, unbounceable pool damage is just crap. -- David Cherryholmes

David Cherryholmes wrote: <snip> >> So this strategy should be able to do something other strategies are >> not able too, and that is place switch. > > > It does a mountain of things other strategies don't. Now it just does > one less. we could banish stealth cards from obfuscate and say that now obfuscate "just does one less" thing. I agree this is a bit of bad faith but you get the point (or not...) >> Yes it is a powerful strategy but they are *SO MANY* things that can >> spoil it and that is actually what the game is all about ! > > > I won't really bother refuting the several refutable things in that > sentence. Maybe someone else feels like duck hunting. I will say that > I think the effect was ass, and I'm glad to see it gone. if you don't bother refuting then you dont need to post reply either i'd love to hear what is refutable in saying that the game is based on different strategies and each one has several specific ways to deal with it <snip> Mochuda

Mochuda <moc...@arfe.netNOSPAM> writes: > David Cherryholmes wrote: > > > It does a mountain of things other strategies don't. Now it just does one > > less. > > we could banish stealth cards from obfuscate and say that now obfuscate "just > does one less" thing. > I agree this is a bit of bad faith but you get the point (or not...) Seriously, what's going on? Some kind of official The Sky Is Falling-week? All ante cards are vote cards. They have already been banned from tournaments. It's not that voting was considered to be too powerful, it's that table switching has been ruled to be too disruptive. Think Madness of the Bard, instead of Return to Innocence. And if table switchers had been regular actions or masters instead of votes, they'd still have been banned. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<41B11E2D...@white-wolf.com>... > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. Thank you. -- -Snapcase

Damn. While I figured that Succubus Club was going to get some sort of treatment I didn't think it would get banned outright. I really liked Succubus Club. As a player who enjoys the RPG background of the game, I thought the card gave the game its flavor of the clandestine deals and backroom negotiations of ancient Methuselahs. Also as a dedicated Assamite player I lament losing the one card that allowed me to play the clan in character with the RPG as hired assassins. As Kevin Mergen alluded to in an earlier thread on Succubus Club, I have regularly used the card in my tournament level Assamite decks to extort protection money, arrange hits, and negotiate non-aggression pacts. It's a shame that such a useful and characterful card has to be banned because a few people used it spitefully to throw a game or king-make. I don't think banning Succubus Club really solves anything though. No one puts it in their deck with the intention of throwing the game or kingmaking. Like myself they probably have very good legitimate uses for the Club in mind, after all a Master slot is never something you can afford to just waste on a whim. The problem isn't Succubbus Club, it's bad players. A player that bleeds/PTOs/torporizes minions cross-table for spite is just as disruptive to the table, but we don't ban Kindred Spirits, PTO, or (D) rush cards. Too make a bad analogy: it's not guns that kill people, it's people who kill people. The gun (Succubus Club) is not the problem, the problem is that people are spiteful. I don't understand why Succubus Club got such a narrow fix to it in CE. Had the problem been addressed by putting a cap on how much you can transfer (1 card for 1 card, no more than 10 pool) I think the card would have been well-limited and still very useful for those of us with legitimate uses in mind. I don't expect these arguments are anything new or that anything will change as a result of my words here, but I just have to post my lament this sad, sad day. David "Aramis" Buerger PS. The loss of table-switch votes is also very disappointing, but not nearly as close to home. Although I imagine it is of much greater importance to the game and will have far greater reprecussions than the loss of Succubus Club.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<8bisd.88887$7i4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Johannes Walch wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > >>The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > >>not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > >>Restructure, and Succubus Club. > > > > I just fell off my chair. Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure were/are > > cornerstones of V:TES. > > ? Computer Hacking maybe. Or Wake. Or KRCG News. Or Skin of Steel. > Or Torn Signpost, Govern, Majesty, Bewitching Oration, Claws of the > Dead, Lost in Crowds, Aid from Bats, Theft of Vitae, Raven Spy, or > Flash. > > By the time you'd add DU and KR as a cornerstone, VTES would be a circle. > > > Care to explain why these cards were banned? I cannot see any apparent > > reason. > > Not suited to competitive play, since they undermine the foundation > of the game (namely, the predator-prey relationship). > That's have no sense, why don't you ban kindred spirits, bum rush, KRC or any card can you make damage to you grandprey or grandpredator????, and you can ban to theo bell, tariq, etc etc... You can make an errata to DU, choose a mathusalah, that's math can block this political action too, if the referedum pass, change position with that math., and for kindred restructure, all playes can block the action... Vtes it's was the best game of the world because a lot of thing's and one of them was a few card's banned from tourneys, now you have banned two card's because you thing that are too much powerful, why don't you balance the game in another direction? banning card's it's the way that magic the gathering get a lot of time... and you know where are magic now. A lot of time (when group rule was made) i say that vtes it's dying, the gehenna it's soon, if you keep doing things like banning cards you will see the wormwood very soon... :( > > Who decides which cards are getting banned? > > The V:EKN. including the princes??? > > > Why isn´t there any discussion about this? > > There are. Such discussions are nearly continuous, here, in email, > on forums, on chats, face to face, etc. Why don't make a public list of this discution's?, that's sound like 3 people decided about all of the destiny of vtes. > > > I am very disappointed by the fact that major things about this > > game are changed without taking into account the opinion of those who work > > countless hours in their spare time to promote and run the game. > i agreed 100% > Those opinions are taken into account. > Surely you realize that there are others who work countless hours. > And they do not all step lockstep all the time on all issues. There a difference about you and our's, you recive a salary for that, we don't, we do free, and it's sad to see how the game it's killing by a person who recive money for play vtes, make erratas with no sense ... i hope to be wrong, but i see the gehenna to vtes (yeah, the gehenna, where all vampires die...) sadly ... :( Enrique San Martín W.

What would be LSJs argument, if he had to counter his own argument? LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<8bisd.88887$7i4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Johannes Walch wrote: > > Care to explain why these cards were banned? I cannot see any apparent > > reason. > > Not suited to competitive play, since they undermine the foundation > of the game (namely, the predator-prey relationship). LSJ [fantasy]: Per definition no. A card that changes your prey doesnt undermine the predator-prey relationship in general. Its IMO obvious that cards that hurt players apart from your prey undermine the predator-prey relationship more than a card that rearranges the table. Why should the predator-prey relationship from the start be more important than other things? Manipulating the basic rules (like a bleed is for one pool or the first player to the left is your prey) is part of a trading card game. And VTEs has always been a game about playing in the chain of predator-prey and at the same time acting against it. Making master cards that let votes pass automatically, and then weaken the votes, doesnt look right. Creating new winning strategies (depleting the deck of your prey) and then killing one game strategie doesnt look right.

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:<opsig9yl...@news.chello.hu>... > On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 02:17:14 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. > > > > The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. > > > > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > > Restructure, and Succubus Club. > > Most remarkable. I think SC is a great card but banning it from > tournament play was kind of necessary. oh yeah :), and why don't change the name of vtes to mtes, magic the ethernal struggle?, and why don't make another type of sudden reversal? and master that burn your vampires in the unconroled region?, and to potence call mountains and dementation call water... > > I'm not sure what the game will be without seat switching - I > haven't seen a vote deck without seat switching in a long time. > One of the most powerful effects, clearly. > > So, can we get our hopes up that PTO will follow? ;) PTO it's a powerful card, but always you have solution... > > > That's all. > > Hmm... That's a lot, you know. It sure will change a lot of things IMHO. > yeah, like make a rules that the bleed deck's can't be rushed... > Can we get some sort of explanation? I'm curious what the decisions > were based on, if for nothing else than to translate the arguments > for my local group. I'm not saying I oppose these changes, I just > wish I would know the official arguments. in that you are right...

Tetragrammaton wrote: > No, legal deals do also undermine that factor, > if that was the point behind the ban of the DU and KR. > Common legal deal involve a truce between prey and > predator often, so i don't agree with your statement > (only illegal deals undermine the predator-prey relation) No. If the deal doesn't violate Play To Win (or other rules), then it doesn't undermine the predator-prey. It may make use of predator-prey, of course. [ quoted text not captured ]

Enrique San Mart?n wrote: > That's have no sense, why don't you ban kindred spirits, bum rush, KRC > or any card can you make damage to you grandprey or grandpredator????, Because they don't undermine the predator-prey mechanic. > and you can ban to theo bell, tariq, etc etc... > > You can make an errata to DU, choose a mathusalah, that's math can > block this political action too, if the referedum pass, change > position with that math., and for kindred restructure, all playes can > block the action... The list of errata that could have been made to DU is infinite, yes. In that list are a great many that would not have alleviated the problem, yes. If there are any in that list that would alleviate the problem, I'll be glad to entertain them. > Vtes it's was the best game of the world because a lot of thing's and > one of them was a few card's banned from tourneys, now you have banned > two card's because you thing that are too much powerful, why don't you > balance the game in another direction? banning card's it's the way > that magic the gathering get a lot of time... and you know where are > magic now. They are not banned for "things that are too powerful". The banned list is still short. It's only two cards larger than it was when the license changed hands. As a percentage, it's size is smaller now than then. Over time, at least three cards have come off of the list (two under the DCI's hand). Now three others are added. How is this a catastrophe of size or number? > A lot of time (when group rule was made) i say that vtes it's dying, > the gehenna it's soon, if you keep doing things like banning cards you > will see the wormwood very soon... :( > > >>>Who decides which cards are getting banned? >> >>The V:EKN. > > including the princes??? No. The princes are event (demo/tournament) coordinators primarily and are, in general, people who volunteer to promote the game. >>>Why isn´t there any discussion about this? >> >>There are. Such discussions are nearly continuous, here, in email, >>on forums, on chats, face to face, etc. > > Why don't make a public list of this discution's?, that's sound like 3 > people decided about all of the destiny of vtes. You want a public list of the things people approach me about face to face at tournaments and otherwise? I think there are some logistical details you've overlooked. >>Surely you realize that there are others who work countless hours. >>And they do not all step lockstep all the time on all issues. > > There a difference about you and our's, you recive a salary for that, I was, of course, not referring to myself in the above. Or do you think that there are no others besides yourself and me? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Janne Hägglund" <h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid> a écrit dans le message de news:m33bym2...@nothung.homelinux.net... > All ante cards are vote cards. They have already been banned from > tournaments. which is not true : Playing for Keeps Type: Master Cost: X pool Unique Master. Only usable if playing for ante. The cost of this card (X) represents the number of Methuselahs currently in the game. When a Methuselah's prey is ousted, the surviving Methuselah wins his or her prey's ante and antes an additional card. Rarity: DS:U > It's not that voting was considered to be too powerful, it's that table > switching has been ruled to be too disruptive. Think Madness of the Bard, > instead of Return to Innocence. But i firmly believe what you called table disruption is part of the essence of the game. the card was printed in 1994 and was clearly something that made this game's personnality > And if table switchers had been regular actions or masters instead of votes, > they'd still have been banned. they have made those switchers vote for a reason, i guess ...

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:<opsihlhu...@news.chello.hu>... > > On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 02:17:14 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > >> not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > >> Restructure, and Succubus Club. > > By the way, the greatest problem with politics is still unaddressed. > When talking about a multiplayer game it would probably be a good idea > to consider whether it would be beneficial to change political actions > to be blockable not by predator or prey but by the targets of the action. > Nuking a wall prey from behind an almost ousted meatshield is even more > problematic now that the VP from the meatshield is sure not to be sniped. > Huh? You must be kidding, man. If you have problems with votedecks play rush and nuke'em. Play big eye. Play antivotecards. I mean, yeah, ban Ventrue altogether, they tend to be too strong because they're are the best voters. Why not making bleeds easier to block. Let's say bleeds can be blocked by predators also. That is making these annoying bleed decks less strong. And why not making vampires able to cancel combat just by tapping. Beast is a too strong weapon. By the way: Warghouls won in Heidelberg, not a votedeck. Excuse me for being a bit over the top, Daneel. I can't believe what's going on. EC was a wonderful experience. I had such cool games, met good players, all was in check. Not a week later people want to change ten year old cornerstones of the game just because they can't add defensive cards to their decks (or why else?). > Also, there's the issue of deals. I know that many folks are busy little > bees breaking deals 24/7, but since the deals can be legally honored, > "amis" won't ever break them. Also there's a reduced awareness concerning > the legality of deals, meaning that you can easily deal a table away if > you wish to. That's not fair towards 3 people, instead of the 1 people > screwed with Upheaval. Also, if you can't rearrange a table, you can't > place the dealers beside one another. Concerning deals: As far as I know honoring deals was no problem at all. Making deals is watched by the judges. If there are flawed deals then it's not the problem of the game, it's the problem of the players and/or the judges. Counterdealing is the way if you dislike deals. I believe in the game mechanics as they are. Don't change them (at least not this dramatically please).

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:<opsig9yl...@news.chello.hu>... > I'm not sure what the game will be without seat switching - I > haven't seen a vote deck without seat switching in a long time. This statement right here, is one major reason why I'm in favor of the cards being banned. When players can't even think of the last time you saw a vote deck without seat-switching, because EVERY vote deck always includes them, then those cards are definitely worth considering for alteration/banning/etc. And it certainly had gotten to the point where almost every deck HAD to account for seat-switching by including DI, or Delaying Tactics, or Dia, or whatever. -John Flournoy

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<41B11E2D...@white-wolf.com>... > The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. > > The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. > > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. > > That's all. > When i saw it first, i felt like V:TES lost a great part of interest for me. As these cards can easily be canceled (Direct, delaying tactics, votes, intercept....) I can't understand the real reason of such a decision. "They undermine the foundation of the game" They have a great influence on the game, but do not change it i think.. Sad sad day for V:TES.

"Rob Treasure" <robtreasure'remove'@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<31dhs0F...@individual.net>... > "Guzmo" <gu...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message > news:e7dcd37e.04120...@posting.google.com... > > > > No reason to play vote decks anymore ;) > > You jest but I think that is mostly true. Second Here. Why bring the Political decks down ?? I find these (decks and cards) to be the most interesting ones, and now what ?? Pack 999999 KRC on my deck ? Change to S/B ? Combat ? Wheren't the deck walls enough ? Of course the ones who play combat decks are happy... ...Come on !!!! I'm getting anoyed at all these changes, though SC well banned.

In message <41b1e9a7$0$579$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, Mochuda <moc...@arfe.netNOSPAM> writes: >Now what... Just play KRCs ? really nice... Disclaimer: I am not, and have never been, part of the design and playtest and whatnot for Kindred Most Wanted. Given the political nature of some of the things like Bloodhunts and Lextalionis and such (in the backstory), KMW strikes me as an expansion where a number of political curve-balls might be appropriate. Assuming that the ban change was discussed for some time (I don't know), it strikes me that this might have fed into the design process also. Additionally, it might be worth considering that if the only option left is to play KRCs, the only option you had before was to play KRCs - but to just move yourself into a position for a kill you hadn't actually earned, and then play KRCs. I don't think this is true, but then I also don't think that KRC is the only remaining possibility. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

In message <ef125c59.04120...@posting.google.com>, Squidalot <squi...@hotmail.com> writes: >Will WW give a fuller description of their reasons of why they were >banned (none of these cards are particularly broken over here and >Succubus club i've not seen used at all in the UK) I think you'll have problems getting LSJ to explain that in those terms, since cards which are "broken" typically get errata-ed for casual play too, IME. [ quoted text not captured ]

Janne Hägglund wrote: > squi...@hotmail.com (Squidalot) writes: > > >>However I'm suprised that WW went for a ban on these cards rather than >>perhaps limiting them to being played once per game per player or >>other adjustments. > > > I have never, ever played a game where a metuselah has switched seats more > than once. Once is plenty enough. > > then you were lucky i think i switched 5 times in one game (2 different political decks) stefan

David Cherryholmes wrote: > WotC design. Anyway, I've spent a lot of time complaining about this or > that in the past, and I just wanted to go on record and say "good job" > to Scott. > > -- > > David Cherryholmes yeah good job LSJ and vekn stefan

Joscha Duell wrote: > > > By the way: Warghouls won in Heidelberg, not a votedeck. > > Excuse me for being a bit over the top, Daneel. I can't believe what's > going on. EC was a wonderful experience. I had such cool games, met > good players, all was in check. Not a week later people want to change > ten year old cornerstones of the game just because they can't add > defensive cards to their decks (or why else?). > > why did this deck win, because a kr screwed the whole table, the affected player could not block it (he was the grandpred) and his whole game was screwed. na i am not going to miss these cards. Stefan

> > Care to explain why these cards were banned? I cannot see any apparent > > reason. > > Not suited to competitive play, since they undermine the foundation > of the game (namely, the predator-prey relationship). Like other people have said there are a lot of other cards that undermine the pred-prey relationship. Premium example : Eagle´s Sight. But that´s not the problem. I think that undermination of the pred-prey relationship IS the foundation of V:TES. It´s not the tunnel game it is a game of intriguing politics. Banning KR and DU just seems random to me. > > Who decides which cards are getting banned? > > The V:EKN. Is The V:EKN = The V:EKN Inner Circle? That would be (AFAIK) you, Steve Wieck, Robert Goudie, Robyn Tatu? Correct? > > Why isn´t there any discussion about this? > > There are. Such discussions are nearly continuous, here, in email, > on forums, on chats, face to face, etc. Of course. I meant a probably more ordered discussion where you can actually identify a consensus. > > I am very disappointed by the fact that major things about this > > game are changed without taking into account the opinion of those who work > > countless hours in their spare time to promote and run the game. > > Those opinions are taken into account. > Surely you realize that there are others who work countless hours. I was not only referring to me but to the bunch of people who do this. They were all rather surprised. And I have seen a common consensus that SC should be banned but about the two other cards there was never THAT much of a discussion. > And they do not all step lockstep all the time on all issues. Of course. -- johannes walch

In message <dcb2a0b5.04120...@posting.google.com>, Fernando Costa <fko...@oninet.pt> writes: >Why bring the Political decks down ?? >I find these (decks and cards) to be the most interesting ones, and >now what ?? >Pack 999999 KRC on my deck ? Are your current political decks 99999999 KRC and a few Dramatic Upheavals? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <cotean$ue$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>, "Johannes Walch" <joha...@scram.de> mumbled something about: >> > Care to explain why these cards were banned? I cannot see any apparent >> > reason. >> >> Not suited to competitive play, since they undermine the foundation >> of the game (namely, the predator-prey relationship). > >Like other people have said there are a lot of other cards that undermine >the pred-prey relationship. Premium example : Eagle愀 Sight. But that愀 not This "premium" example is incorrect. After playing Eagle's Sight, your prey and predator remain the same. This means that while it is possible to play Eagle's Sight and block cross-table actions, you still have to oust your prey to gain VP and to win. Eagle's Sight is a useful tool to prevent others from assisting your prey or predator (ill-timed Political Strangleholds or Ancient Influences, for example), but it now must be used to support ousting your own prey if you want to win. DU and KR, on the other hand, allow you to change (ie. undermine) the predator/prey relationships that are set at the start of the game... meaning that it's a better plan to sit, bloat, and wait for someone to get low, and then snipe their VP. This means each deck must pack plenty of Delaying Tactics (DI is insufficient, as Charming Lobby "hides" the DU from DI), and have it in hand when they go for the oust, or lose. >the problem. I think that undermination of the pred-prey relationship IS the >foundation of V:TES. It愀 not the tunnel game it is a game of intriguing >politics. Banning KR and DU just seems random to me. Garfield's intent was to create a multiplayer game that wasn't just "gang up on the leader", as all other multiplayer games are. V:TES has become a game of "gang up on the leader", and has suffered greatly for it. Removing KR and DU mean that political decks are just going to have to oust their prey like all the rest of us, instead of disrupting and stalling the game while waiting for someone to get low. A political deck that just sits and waits to snipe *IS* disrupting the table balance; its prey runs free, its grandpredator runs free. >> > Who decides which cards are getting banned? >> >> The V:EKN. > >Is The V:EKN = The V:EKN Inner Circle? >That would be (AFAIK) you, Steve Wieck, Robert Goudie, Robyn Tatu? Correct? And what if it were? Who among the people you have named do you not trust to make accurate decisions about the game and its future? Is it not really that you are not on that list, and because they have made a decision you do not agree with, you think you can do better? >> > Why isn愒 there any discussion about this? >> >> There are. Such discussions are nearly continuous, here, in email, >> on forums, on chats, face to face, etc. > >Of course. I meant a probably more ordered discussion where you can actually >identify a consensus. No. What you mean is "a public discussion where people can scream about things they don't like, disrupting any orderly progress being made". >> > I am very disappointed by the fact that major things about this >> > game are changed without taking into account the opinion of those who >> > countless hours in their spare time to promote and run the game. >> >> Those opinions are taken into account. >> Surely you realize that there are others who work countless hours. > >I was not only referring to me but to the bunch of people who do this. They The bunch of people who do what, exactly? Are you referring to the Princes? Most of the Princes are not fit to make decisions of this nature, as they tend to think exclusively for their own benefit, instead of the overall good of the game. >were all rather surprised. And I have seen a common consensus that SC should >be banned but about the two other cards there was never THAT much of a >discussion. Not that much of a public discussion, you mean. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<41B11E2D...@white-wolf.com>... > The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. > > The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. > > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. > > That's all. > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules That is the most stupid thing i ever heard in V:TES. You just banned 2 10 years old cards !!! I can understand for SC , but for the others ? You just amputed political decks a lot ! I guess you must be a HUGE fan of the tunnel vision ... Well , i guess S/B decks will be able to do their VP quite easily now without fear of somebody stealing it. My 2 cents.

What? ... ... Dramatic Upheaval BANNED? ... ... Kindred Restructure BANNED? ... ... Wow, I'm shocked... This is probably (maybe together with NRA) the single major change in the history of V:TES. I'm left without words... But most of all, it was completely unexpected to me. There goes my best deck... :-( It's difficult to judge how good or bad it'll be for the game before actually trying... The only thing that comes to my mind at the moment is that when people asked me what was V:TES, I used to start by telling them that, at a table with 3-4 other players, you must kill the guy at your left, avoid being killed by the one at your right, BUT there are wicked cards which make people change their places!! Now part of the poetry is gone... Anyway, we'll get used to it, and stop talking about the new ban list pretty soon. And... I'm relieved I won't see evil Succubus Club around anymore... Emiliano

"Johannes Walch" <joha...@scram.de> wrote > > Like other people have said there are a lot of other cards that undermine > the pred-prey relationship. Premium example : Eagle愀 Sight. I disagree that Eagle's Sight _undermines_ the effect. It merely steps outside of it briefly. It is a transient effect and generally used to hurt your prey, which is the very essence of predator-prey. Most of the cards that *can* be targeted elsewhere on the table (Bum's Rush, Kindred Spirits, etc) are also transient effects. There is little point targeting your grandpredator with Kindred Spirits if you do not have a means of taking advantage of it later, ie switching seats. As a result of this change, the potential of such cards to be disruptive to the predator-prey relationship has been indirectly weakened. But that's acceptable to me. Basically, the banning of DU and KR is going to force every player's head to look left a bit more, and that will result in better games in the long run. Probably faster games also, which I'm very much in favour of. I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but the discussions caused by DU and KR refrendums are some of the longest and most time-wasting. Not to mention the disruption of actually moving cards physically. I imagine we'll see fewer timed-out games as a result of this change. > Of course. I meant a probably more ordered discussion where you can > actually > identify a consensus. I'm actually surprised by the negative reaction to this ruling. I've been in many a discussion where people felt that DU and KR were bad for the game. Of course, many more were about PTO, but that card is also _slightly_ weakened by this change. >> > I am very disappointed by the fact that major things about this >> > game are changed without taking into account the opinion of those who > work >> > countless hours in their spare time to promote and run the game. >> >> Those opinions are taken into account. >> Surely you realize that there are others who work countless hours. > > I was not only referring to me but to the bunch of people who do this. > They > were all rather surprised. And I have seen a common consensus that SC > should > be banned but about the two other cards there was never THAT much of a > discussion. It was around my part of the world. And on this forum also, if I am not mistaken. I like to think that I have contributed to the game somewhat, time-and-effortwise, and I wholeheartedly support this decision. Thanks VEKN! Cheers, WES

Stefan Ferenci <a95+NO+58+NO+60no@SP+.unet.univie.+AM+.ac.at> writes: > Janne Hägglund wrote: > > I have never, ever played a game where a metuselah has switched seats > > more than once. Once is plenty enough. > > > then you were lucky i think i switched 5 times in one game (2 different > political decks) Holy crap! That's aerobic VTES. :-) "You look so fit and healthy. Do you exercise regulary?" "Yes, I play VTES with political decks every weekend." [ quoted text not captured ]

"Johannes Walch" <joha...@scram.de> wrote in message news:cotean$ue$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net... > I think that undermination of the pred-prey relationship IS the > foundation of V:TES. I think undermination is a brand new word, the likes of which I've never heard before. Fred

""Janne Hägglund"" <h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid> wrote in message news:m3brd9o...@nothung.homelinux.net... > Stefan Ferenci <a95+NO+58+NO+60no@SP+.unet.univie.+AM+.ac.at> writes: > >> Janne Hägglund wrote: >> > I have never, ever played a game where a metuselah has switched seats >> > more than once. Once is plenty enough. >> > >> then you were lucky i think i switched 5 times in one game (2 different >> political decks) > > Holy crap! That's aerobic VTES. :-) > > "You look so fit and healthy. Do you exercise regulary?" > "Yes, I play VTES with political decks every weekend." Heh! Good thing this banning: if THAT kind of thing had continued, we'd have had to invent the "card mat roller tray" to deal with position switching. Believe me folks, this is probably better!!! :-) Fred

>While I figured that Succubus Club was going to get some sort of >treatment I didn't think it would get banned outright. I really liked >Succubus Club. As a player who enjoys the RPG background of the game, >I thought the card gave the game its flavor of the clandestine deals >and backroom negotiations of >ancient Methuselahs. Also as a dedicated >Assamite player I lament losing the one card that allowed me to play >the clan in character with the RPG as hired assassins. As Kevin Well, you can always convince other players to pack Bounty, Anathema, Blood Hunt, War Party, and Haven Uncovered. That will sorta let you simulate that... >The problem isn't Succubbus Club, >it's bad players. A player that bleeds/PTOs/torporizes minions >cross-table for spite is just as disruptive to the table, but we don't >ban Kindred Spirits, PTO, or (D) rush cards. Too make a bad analogy: >it's not guns that kill people, it's people who kill people. The gun >(Succubus Club) is not the problem, the problem is that people are >spiteful. Yeah, but guns make it a helluva lot easier to kill people. Without guns, you'd have to stab or club something to death. With guns, it's point and click. Yeah, Bum's Rush, PTO, and Kindred Spirits can be misused by an incompetent player. But Succubus Club was a frickin' Assault Rifle in comparion. Yes, a gun (even an Assault Rifle like Succubus Club) needs a person in order to be abused. But the gun really does facilitate the task. >I don't understand why Succubus Club got such a narrow fix to it in >CE. Had the problem been addressed by putting a cap on how much you >can transfer (1 card for 1 card, no more than 10 pool) I think the >card would have been well-limited and still very useful for those of >us with legitimate uses in mind. I don't expect these arguments are >anything new or that anything will change as a result of my words >here, but I just have to post my lament this sad, sad day. I don't understand why people are having such knee-jerk reactions to the bannings. LSJ has already said that there's the potential for the cards to come back in a revised format. Why don't we all take a deep breath. Give the new environment (sans Succubus Club and sans table-switching) a chance. And maybe this will give the Rule Team / VEKN / LSJ some time to better evaluate the effect of the cards and maybe make a meaningful change. Halcyan 2

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 12:11:59 -0500, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> scrawled: >Guzmo wrote: > >> No reason to play vote decks anymore ;) > >Right, because without seat switching, unbounceable pool damage is just >crap. oooh, good one. :D hmm. this amounts to a 'me too' post. better fill it with...ummm... oh my god, that's it, i am quitting the game!!1!!! salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

On 4 Dec 2004 12:46:54 -0800, regisc...@yahoo.fr (R?gis Cordier) scrawled: >LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<41B11E2D...@white-wolf.com>... >> The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. >> >> The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. >> >> The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are >> not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred >> Restructure, and Succubus Club. >> >> That's all. >> > >When i saw it first, i felt like V:TES lost a great part of interest >for me. As these cards can easily be canceled (Direct, delaying >tactics, votes, intercept....) if they were so easy to counter, and thus were countered all the time, having them in the game or not should make no difference.... [ quoted text not captured ]

> >> > Who decides which cards are getting banned? > >> > >> The V:EKN. > > > >Is The V:EKN = The V:EKN Inner Circle? > >That would be (AFAIK) you, Steve Wieck, Robert Goudie, Robyn Tatu? Correct? > > And what if it were? Nothing. > Who among the people you have named do you not trust to make accurate > decisions about the game and its future? Nobody. I was just interested to know. And I would like to see a few european guys involved. That´s all. > Is it not really that you are not on that list, and because they have > made a decision you do not agree with, you think you can do better? No. And I am even not yet sure that I do not agree to the change, but I feel that it could have been discussed better. > >> > Why isn´t there any discussion about this? > >> > >> There are. Such discussions are nearly continuous, here, in email, > >> on forums, on chats, face to face, etc. > > > >Of course. I meant a probably more ordered discussion where you can actually > >identify a consensus. > > No. What you mean is "a public discussion where people can scream about > things they don't like, disrupting any orderly progress being made". Interesting that you think you can read my mind. Unfortunately(?) you can not. I meant a discussion with more than 4(?) people (let´s say 10) where the !results! of the discussion are laid open afterwards. The explanation should be more extensive than "they are unsuitable for comp. play because they undermine the pred-prey relationship". > >> > I am very disappointed by the fact that major things about this > >> > game are changed without taking into account the opinion of those who > >> > countless hours in their spare time to promote and run the game. > >> > >> Those opinions are taken into account. > >> Surely you realize that there are others who work countless hours. > > > >I was not only referring to me but to the bunch of people who do this. They > > The bunch of people who do what, exactly? Coordinating the big tournaments like the EC, qualifiers and national championships. Taking care of the pre-releases, prize support, promotion (e.g in local magazines) and so on. The national coordinators for example. > Are you referring to the Princes? Most of the Princes are not fit to > make decisions of this nature, as they tend to think exclusively for > their own benefit, instead of the overall good of the game. Agreed, but I was not referring to them. > >were all rather surprised. And I have seen a common consensus that SC should > >be banned but about the two other cards there was never THAT much of a > >discussion. > > Not that much of a public discussion, you mean. Yes. Public or semi-public. -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch wrote: >>>>>Who decides which cards are getting banned? >>>> >>>>The V:EKN. >>> >>>Is The V:EKN = The V:EKN Inner Circle? >>>That would be (AFAIK) you, Steve Wieck, Robert Goudie, Robyn Tatu? > > Correct? > >>And what if it were? > > > Nothing. > > >>Who among the people you have named do you not trust to make accurate >>decisions about the game and its future? > > > Nobody. I was just interested to know. And I would like to see a few > european guys involved. That愀 all. > > those european guys being you or your buddys right? >>Is it not really that you are not on that list, and because they have >>made a decision you do not agree with, you think you can do better? > > > No. And I am even not yet sure that I do not agree to the change, but I feel > that it could have been discussed better. > but you create the impression that it is about you (or your buddys) not beiing on this list. didn愒 you even write in the german forum, that the VEKN IC has to be changed? >>>>>Why isn愒 there any discussion about this? >>>> >>>>There are. Such discussions are nearly continuous, here, in email, >>>>on forums, on chats, face to face, etc. >>> >>>Of course. I meant a probably more ordered discussion where you can > > actually > >>>identify a consensus. >> more ordered means that you are involved? >>No. What you mean is "a public discussion where people can scream about >>things they don't like, disrupting any orderly progress being made". > > > Interesting that you think you can read my mind. Unfortunately(?) you can > not. > I meant a discussion with more than 4(?) people (let愀 say 10) where the > !results! of the discussion are laid open afterwards. The explanation should > be more extensive than "they are unsuitable for comp. play because they > undermine the pred-prey relationship". > and if it were discussed by 10 people you悲 ask for 15 as long as the people you seem fit are not part of the discussion. be honest you don愒 complain about the system, you complain because you are not part of it. > >>>>>I am very disappointed by the fact that major things about this >>>>>game are changed without taking into account the opinion of those who >>>>>countless hours in their spare time to promote and run the game. >>>> >>>>Those opinions are taken into account. >>>>Surely you realize that there are others who work countless hours. >>> >>>I was not only referring to me but to the bunch of people who do this. > > They > >>The bunch of people who do what, exactly? > > > Coordinating the big tournaments like the EC, qualifiers and national > championships. Taking care of the pre-releases, prize support, promotion > (e.g in local magazines) and so on. The national coordinators for example. > so here we are you want andreas and stephane involved (two very good buddys of yours, and btw everybody knows that when it comes to vtes andreas and you are like twinbrothers, so when andreas is part of the discussion so are you) once again aren愒 you hypocritical, you complain about thesystem because you are not part of it, as soon as you are the system is fine. stefan

In message <m3brd9o...@nothung.homelinux.net>, Janne Hägglund <h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid> writes: > Holy crap! That's aerobic VTES. :-) John Eagles, who ran a lot of tournaments in Portsmouth a number of years ago, told stories of turning up to games with his cards on a tea tray so that he could play Dramatic Upheaval more easily. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de news: 41B11E2D...@white-wolf.com... > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. > > That's all. Very good thing for SC. Most players from Paris have been waiting for it for ages, even and especially the ones who used it very well. Thank you. For DU and KR, the change is interesting-nothing will be the same. It will be a different game from now on. The only negative comment is that the explanation for this decision could be more detailed. I don't care if 2 or 200 people were part of the discussion, but I guess the decisive arguments were examined carefully. It would have been a good thing if they were made public. Stone

yeah, that was my initial response too. jaw still slack from shock, but unfurling the banners of joy.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:ohg4r09v6n2odvq7p...@4ax.com... > In message <cotean$ue$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>, > "Johannes Walch" <joha...@scram.de> mumbled something about: <snip> > A political deck that just sits and waits to snipe *IS* disrupting the > table balance; its prey runs free, its grandpredator runs free. > Many decks adopts the same tactics - ban life boon sniping, then. <snip> > >Of course. I meant a probably more ordered discussion where you can actually > >identify a consensus. > > No. What you mean is "a public discussion where people can scream about > things they don't like, disrupting any orderly progress being made". > Which is the progress you refer to ? The "disrupting predator prey " motivation behind banning the two cads is just *very* arguable - Many decks concepts/cards just don't care about that relation, relying on table control and, often, turning against predator just to deal with he/she after a while (see walls deck). > > Are you referring to the Princes? Most of the Princes are not fit to > make decisions of this nature, as they tend to think exclusively for > their own benefit, instead of the overall good of the game. > Please support this with concrete examples. <snip the rest> Emiliano, v:ekn Princeof Rome

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:vVnsd.89864$7i4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Tetragrammaton wrote: > > No, legal deals do also undermine that factor, > > if that was the point behind the ban of the DU and KR. > > Common legal deal involve a truce between prey and > > predator often, so i don't agree with your statement > > (only illegal deals undermine the predator-prey relation) > > No. If the deal doesn't violate Play To Win (or other > rules), then it doesn't undermine the predator-prey. > I think that it's most assured that "play to win" and "predator-prey relations " are two factor that are very different and separate given the current state of the game, so i really *don't* agree with your assumption. A typical life boon deck, a wall heavy eagle-sighted deck, a multi rush deck, are typical examples of this non-relation between "play to win" and "predator->prey" mechanics tunnel vision. > It may make use of predator-prey, of course. > Can you clear what do you mean with this ? greets Emiliano

In message <GGCsd.27476$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> ha scritto nel messaggio >news:ohg4r09v6n2odvq7p...@4ax.com... >> In message <cotean$ue$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>, >> "Johannes Walch" <joha...@scram.de> mumbled something about: ><snip> > >> A political deck that just sits and waits to snipe *IS* disrupting the >> table balance; its prey runs free, its grandpredator runs free. >> > >Many decks adopts the same tactics - ban life boon sniping, then. Life boon sniping doesn't guarantee a VP. Typically Life Booning someone doesn't actually put them in a position to gain a VP, it just slows down that player's death. Many cards allow you to slow down another player's death, including Consanguineous Boon. Your argument would have us ban it too. ><snip> >> >Of course. I meant a probably more ordered discussion where you can >actually >> >identify a consensus. >> >> No. What you mean is "a public discussion where people can scream about >> things they don't like, disrupting any orderly progress being made". >> >Which is the progress you refer to ? The one where extensive discussions were had about the subject, avenues were explored, and a decision was reached to ban DU, KR, and SC. You aren't going to be foolish enough to say that extensive discussions weren't had, now are you? >The "disrupting predator prey " motivation behind banning the two cads is >just *very* arguable - And I'm sure it was argued. And I bet you, of the four people Johannes listed, I know exactly which of them were on the "don't ban it" side, and what their arguments for not banning it were. I can't speak for anyone who wasn't listed. >Many decks concepts/cards just don't care about that relation, relying on >table control >and, often, turning against predator just to deal with he/she after a while >(see walls deck). None of this "table control", however, alters the fundamental nature of the game, which is that to gain a VP you must oust the player seated to your left. Ousting your predator is a tactical move, intended to gain you survival time to oust your prey. Rushing someone cross-table is a tactical move, intended to slow that player's forward progress down... to give you survival time later in the game, allowing you to oust your prey. >> Are you referring to the Princes? Most of the Princes are not fit to >> make decisions of this nature, as they tend to think exclusively for >> their own benefit, instead of the overall good of the game. >> >Please support this with concrete examples. The Conclave mailing list. Say no more. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <nPtsd.83405$EZ.24071@okepread07>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] Hey, Fred, say "Undermining" in German. [ quoted text not captured ]

>>Many decks adopts the same tactics - ban life boon sniping, then. > >Life boon sniping doesn't guarantee a VP. Typically Life Booning >someone doesn't actually put them in a position to gain a VP, it just >slows down that player's death. And I've also seen occasions where after being Life Boon'ed, the Life Booned player goes after the player who Booned him (since any VP he gets would be stolen and if the player who played the Life Boon is ousted, the Boon is burned). Halcyan 2

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. Dammit, Scott. You're plotting against me. Every time I have a signature deck, you errata or ban the key cards. First it was "Loyalty of Lunatics" (weenie Malk Derange/Clan Loyality) and now my "Vertigo" deck is right out the window. What's next? Uriah Winter? You going to make him go to your predator instead of your prey? Why stop there? Maybe we can make Courier a Unique Ally? It's all a secret plot to get me to stop playing poker, buy some of the new sets and put together new decks. I just know it. Regards, Noal

"Stone" wrote : > For DU and KR, the change is interesting-nothing will be the same. It will > be a different game from now on. The only negative comment is that the > explanation for this decision could be more detailed. I don't care if 2 or > 200 people were part of the discussion, but I guess the decisive arguments > were examined carefully. It would have been a good thing if they were made > public. You are not wrong there. Sweeping changes to the fundamental aspects of the game like this should not be the remit of one person. New sets are playtested and given a wide audience for approval, scrutiny and game shifting/breaking effects, I fail to see how this is so different. Possibly time to vote with my feet, dunno. Real shame though.

carn...@gmail.com (John Flournoy) wrote in message news:<e904e39f.04120...@posting.google.com>... > Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:<opsig9yl...@news.chello.hu>... > > > I'm not sure what the game will be without seat switching - I > > haven't seen a vote deck without seat switching in a long time. > > This statement right here, is one major reason why I'm in favor of the > cards being banned. When players can't even think of the last time you > saw a vote deck without seat-switching, because EVERY vote deck always > includes them, then those cards are definitely worth considering for > alteration/banning/etc. Best get rid of Blood Doll, then, 'cause you see it in just about every deck. IMHO, seat switching was an aspect of the game. I would rather have seen it extended to non-voting actions than banned. If the V:EKN position is that any card that rearranges seating violates the nature of the game, there's not much point to offering new versions. But if VP sniping is the main issue, I'm sure we could come up with a limitation that makes sense. Maybe: "Choose a Methuselah whose prey has more pool than you. If this referendum is successful, move your table seat so that you are the prey of the chosen Methuselah." Or "Choose a Methuselah. If this referendum is successful, switch seating with that Methuselah, and if you oust your new prey before the chosen Methuselah ousts hers, award the VP to the chosen Methuselah."

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:0ma6r099dmkp9jrvs...@4ax.com... > In message <nPtsd.83405$EZ.24071@okepread07>, > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> mumbled something about: > >>"Johannes Walch" <joha...@scram.de> wrote in message >>news:cotean$ue$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net... >>> I think that undermination of the pred-prey relationship IS the >>> foundation of V:TES. >> >>I think undermination is a brand new word, the likes of which I've >>never heard before. > > Hey, Fred, say "Undermining" in German. Well, "unterho(umlaut)hlen", or "unterminieren", or a couple of others according to the online English-German dictionary I can find on the net. (That's actually a translation of "to undermine". "Undermining" could not be translated on this site.) If your point is that it's not his native language, I understand that. I was just particularly amused by the conjugation. (Really, I'm jealous of people who can speak more than one language when I often suck at just communicating in my native language.) Fred

> > I think that undermination of the pred-prey relationship IS the > > foundation of V:TES. > > I think undermination is a brand new word, the likes of which I've > never heard before. Isn愒 it just way more interesting to talk with each other when you invent new words from time to time, just like V:TES gets it愀 new cards ;-) This leads us to the interesting question if words can be broken and banned ;-)). Just kidding, sorry for my not-so-perfect english. -- johannes walch

"Stefan Ferenci" <a95+NO+58+NO+60no@SP+.unet.univie.+AM+.ac.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:41b2e395$0$11352$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... > didn´t you even write in the german forum, that the > VEKN IC has to be changed? I wrote that I would welcome a change to the IC, adding a few people from Europe (and South America, Australasia). -- johannes walch

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<raosd.89903$7i4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Enrique San Mart?n wrote: > > That's have no sense, why don't you ban kindred spirits, bum rush, KRC > > or any card can you make damage to you grandprey or grandpredator????, > > Because they don't undermine the predator-prey mechanic. > The argument of the "undermine the prey-predator mechanic" (UtPPM) it's very poor, because: Allmost in vtes it's undermine (or overuled), many card's give the posibily to do things that can't be done with the basic of the rules. > > and you can ban to theo bell, tariq, etc etc... > > > > You can make an errata to DU, choose a mathusalah, that's math can > > block this political action too, if the referedum pass, change > > position with that math., and for kindred restructure, all playes can > > block the action... > > The list of errata that could have been made to DU is infinite, yes. > In that list are a great many that would not have alleviated the > problem, yes. If there are any in that list that would alleviate the > problem, I'll be glad to entertain them. > The problem is that you have based the ban in a poor argument... > > Vtes it's was the best game of the world because a lot of thing's and > > one of them was a few card's banned from tourneys, now you have banned > > two card's because you thing that are too much powerful, why don't you > > balance the game in another direction? banning card's it's the way > > that magic the gathering get a lot of time... and you know where are > > magic now. > > They are not banned for "things that are too powerful". > Ok, but the why the ban was proposed? it's because some players say that DU and KR UtPPM??? i don't think so... the complaint i think IMHO was made by players who cry for the unfair of that's cards... and that complaint show the poor of the ability of the players to make change to his deck for protection from political actions... or if you have DOM don't you put bounce to your deck? if are many rush deck's don't you put defecen against combat?? why don't you put defence against political??? > The banned list is still short. It's only two cards larger than it was > when the license changed hands. As a percentage, it's size is > smaller now than then. > yeah right... but that it's another poor argument... > Over time, at least three cards have come off of the list (two under > the DCI's hand). Now three others are added. How is this a catastrophe > of size or number? > It's not a crtastrophe of size, it's the precendent who is stablish with the ban... > > A lot of time (when group rule was made) i say that vtes it's dying, > > the gehenna it's soon, if you keep doing things like banning cards you > > will see the wormwood very soon... :( > > > > > >>>Who decides which cards are getting banned? > >> > >>The V:EKN. > > > > including the princes??? > > No. The princes are event (demo/tournament) coordinators primarily > and are, in general, people who volunteer to promote the game. > Yeah, i do that, i teach to new players to play, i have to dealing with support problems, financing the cost of the events (fotocopy of the fliers, promoting, cost of transport to the local), i put many money in doing things, paying the kit's, in some tourneys with the fee, the cost of the kit's can't be coverage and i put he rest of the money, for the event can be do... and i do free and i do happy :), and for that i feel sadly with changes to the game like that... :( > >>>Why isn´t there any discussion about this? > >> > >>There are. Such discussions are nearly continuous, here, in email, > >>on forums, on chats, face to face, etc. > > > > Why don't make a public list of this discution's?, that's sound like 3 > > people decided about all of the destiny of vtes. > > You want a public list of the things people approach me about face > to face at tournaments and otherwise? > > I think there are some logistical details you've overlooked. > Why don't put the discucion in the news group or WW forum or some else... you start the topic ... like that: "Idea of ban KR & DU for they UtPPM"... and the prince and the players have the posibility to make his opinions before the ban will doit... so you can hear (if it's that you hear) the opinion and arguments of pro or againts the ban... > >>Surely you realize that there are others who work countless hours. > >>And they do not all step lockstep all the time on all issues. > > > > There a difference about you and our's, you recive a salary for that, > > I was, of course, not referring to myself in the above. > Or do you think that there are no others besides yourself and me? Yeah, you must have colaborators (and maybe friends too), that help you, but vtes it's a world game, and the players and prince of all the world make that the game it's alive, was the players who make the reborn in 99 (because with no player's it's have no sense to relaunche a game who was dead years ago....) remember that... the players are vtes... with no players... no vtes... :( Sadly Enrique San Martín W.

"Stone" <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message news:<41b2ebcd$0$4275$636a...@news.free.fr>... [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, you see LSJ, all-around the world have waiting for a good explanation, and arguments of why that undermine of an specific mechanic was banned... there a lot of undermine of mechanics, and way THAT and no other are banned.... > > Stone

"Stone" <mc_judg...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message news:<41b2ebcd$0$4275$636a...@news.free.fr>... [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah... you see LSJ, are many people all-around that are waiting for a good (and i say a good not the usual) explanation of why that card's that undermine a specific mechanic of the game are banned, why that mechanic and no other?... why?

"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:59h5r093u84cuf7ts...@4ax.com... > On 4 Dec 2004 12:46:54 -0800, regisc...@yahoo.fr (R?gis Cordier) > scrawled: > > >LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<41B11E2D...@white-wolf.com>... > >> The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. > >> > >> The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. > >> > >> The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > >> not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > >> Restructure, and Succubus Club. > >> > >> That's all. > >> > > > >When i saw it first, i felt like V:TES lost a great part of interest > >for me. As these cards can easily be canceled (Direct, delaying > >tactics, votes, intercept....) > > if they were so easy to counter, and thus were countered all the time, > having them in the game or not should make no difference.... i disagree. you had to include vote defense in your deck. now it´s not that important anymore. that helps combat a little bit but it helps stealth/bleed a lot, since they can focus even more on bleed? good? i am not sure. -- johannes walch

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:25:11 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>> There are. Such discussions are nearly continuous, here, in email, >>> on forums, on chats, face to face, etc. >> >> Why don't make a public list of this discution's?, that's sound like 3 >> people decided about all of the destiny of vtes. > > You want a public list of the things people approach me about face > to face at tournaments and otherwise? Hmm... I underestimated the power of face to face communication. Next time I'll pack a charming lobby and convince you that PTO should be banned. Beware... ;) -- Bye, Daneel

> > I'm not sure what the game will be without seat switching - I > > haven't seen a vote deck without seat switching in a long time. > > This statement right here, is one major reason why I'm in favor of the > cards being banned. When players can't even think of the last time you > saw a vote deck without seat-switching, because EVERY vote deck always > includes them, then those cards are definitely worth considering for > alteration/banning/etc. I disagree. I haven't seen a vote deck without Kine Resources Contested in a long time. Players can't even think of the last time they saw a vote deck without KRC, because EVERY vote deck always includes them, and yet those cards are not worth considering for alteration/banning/etc. Prevalence != power level. -- Brian

On 4 Dec 2004 11:39:45 -0800, Joscha Duell <joscha...@gmx.de> wrote: > Huh? You must be kidding, man. If you have problems with votedecks > play rush and nuke'em. Play big eye. Play antivotecards. Please. Let's be serious. Disk of Joy Master Put this card in play. Tap to win the game. Would this card be powerful? No, because SR and similar cards exist? I think that the game should not be about having a problem with one deck type and needing to play another to specifically counter it. I mean, yeah, some deck types' weaknesses are matched by other deck types' strengths, but *needing* Eagle's Sight to block a cross-table vote is pretty weird and unhealthy for a competitive multiplayer game. IMHO. > Excuse me for being a bit over the top, Daneel. No problem, this is the forums... I'm over the top on occasion. > Concerning deals: As far as I know honoring deals was no problem at > all. Making deals is watched by the judges. If there are flawed deals > then it's not the problem of the game, it's the problem of the players > and/or the judges. Counterdealing is the way if you dislike deals. Excuse me? Counterdealing is dealing, you know. I have a pretty solid vision of what constitutes a good multiplayer game. VTES is pretty cool. But, there are issues. One of them is related to how politics can get around Intercept. If we are to play a serious multiplayer game in a competitive fashion we should aim to minimize the effects of misjudgement on a player's or judge's part. Noone can be assumed to possess immaculate reasoning and judgement at all times. -- Bye, Daneel

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<BijDGnRB...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <dcb2a0b5.04120...@posting.google.com>, Fernando > Costa <fko...@oninet.pt> writes: > >Why bring the Political decks down ?? > >I find these (decks and cards) to be the most interesting ones, and > >now what ?? > >Pack 999999 KRC on my deck ? > > Are your current political decks 99999999 KRC and a few Dramatic > Upheavals? Yes, of course ! ;) But how to get a VP (the regular way)? KRC ? Cons. Agit.? Parity shift ? Domain Challenge ? Banishment?...and...and...Steal locations ? (DOM has Kdominance) Tap minions ?... (these last will be fine, to CASUAL play!) Seriously, to the ones that argue something like "...someone called a DU and stole my VP that was so hard to get, blablabla...", oh yes...as if with ANY kind of deck it is easy to get a VP these days. And how about this answer: "He Ambushed Monçada/or Blocked my +1 (duuuuh!) Stealth Pol. Action called by Monçada, and he costed me 10 POOL to get !!" What this bane seems is: "Stand still right there while I rush every single one of your 8, 9 or 10 cap titles" If you want to bane DU and KR, then ban the cross table Rush/ambush, the infamous Eagle's sight and so ever... And let's not forget the essential...blocking DU and KR is by default a +1 intercept reaction...! At the most a +2 or +3 or +4 stealth with OBF or OBT...My Tzimisce wall deck LAUGHS at that !

> Wow, I'm shocked... This is probably (maybe together with NRA) the > single major change in the history of V:TES. I'm left without words... > > But most of all, it was completely unexpected to me. There goes my > best deck... :-( Well, I'm sure glad I played it before this happened! > It's difficult to judge how good or bad it'll be for the game before > actually trying... The only thing that comes to my mind at the moment > is that when people asked me what was V:TES, I used to start by > telling them that, at a table with 3-4 other players, you must kill > the guy at your left, avoid being killed by the one at your right, BUT > there are wicked cards which make people change their places!! Now > part of the poetry is gone... Yes, Richard Garfield designed our game as a game that has rules, but with cards that break those rules. In V:TES (or in Magic, or in any Garfield game) he tried to break every rule in the first base set. > Anyway, we'll get used to it, and stop talking about the new ban list > pretty soon. And... I'm relieved I won't see evil Succubus Club around > anymore... Yeah, me too. I had 17 vampires in play in one game in the EC, and I don't care if that never happens again. -- Brian

> Its IMO obvious that cards that hurt players apart from your prey > undermine the predator-prey relationship more than a card that > rearranges the table. Why should the predator-prey relationship from > the start be more important than other things? Because it is the framework that the whole game is built around rather than a multi-player free-for-all. There are no other non-master cards in the game that change who you gain Victory Points from. Manipulating the basic > rules (like a bleed is for one pool or the first player to the left is > your prey) is part of a trading card game. And VTEs has always been a > game about playing in the chain of predator-prey and at the same time > acting against it. > > Making master cards that let votes pass automatically, and then weaken > the votes, doesnt look right. > Creating new winning strategies (depleting the deck of your prey) and > then killing one game strategie doesnt look right. Politics is still very healthy. It still has the two most damaging cards in the game, Conservetive Agitation and Kind Resources Contested. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Fernando Costa wrote: > > And let's not forget the essential...blocking DU and KR is by default > a +1 intercept reaction...! At the most a +2 or +3 or +4 stealth with > OBF or OBT...My Tzimisce wall deck LAUGHS at that ! i play a pretty good tzimi wall myself but imagine the following you have you´re prey down on 2 pool all his minions disposed. now your nice grandpre/pred (your choice) calls a du with lets say gilbert duane. you laugh because you have an eagle sight in your hand and proceed to block it. then he plays a forgotten labyrinth, no prob, followed by a lost in crowds, easy dude you´re playing a wall deck, but then he plays and elder impersonation! still laughing? stefan

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:opsijt2h...@news.chello.hu... > I think that the game should not be about having a problem with one deck > type and needing to play another to specifically counter it. I mean, yeah, > some deck types' weaknesses are matched by other deck types' strengths, > but *needing* Eagle's Sight to block a cross-table vote is pretty weird > and unhealthy for a competitive multiplayer game. IMHO. You don?t need Eagle?s Sight. Direct Intervention could be another choice, or Delaying Tactics or Vampires with titles. I still cannot see that the game has a problem with a certain deck type (=the voting deck). -- johannes walch

On 5 Dec 2004 09:21:40 -0800, emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Another option? "Choose a Methusalah. If this referendum is successful, switch seating with that Methusalah and put this card into play with X counters, where X is the number of Methusalahs in the game. During your untap, remove a counter. When this card has zero counters, burn it. While this card is in play, if your Prey is ousted you get 0 (or 0.5?) VP." Or alternately... "Choose a Methusalah. If this referendum is successful, switch seating with that Methusalah and put this card into play. During your untap, put a counter on this card. When this card has X counters (where X is the number of Methusalahs in the game, burn it. While this card is in play, if your Prey is ousted you get 0 (or 0.5?) VP." The second one allows the timespan to be shortened if other people make kills. But both will still not net any (full?) VP to a quick snipe. Moving to get a softer prey, or to get away from a harder predator, would both still be ideal uses of the card. Similar time displacement usage for Kindred Restructure would allow putting the Stealth Bleeder behind the Wall deck, or the Bruise Bleeder behind your Predator. If you have to be around for 3-6 turns, does this not re-establish the predator/prey mechanic somewhat? Morgan Vening

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht news:41B11E2D...@white-wolf.com... > The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. > > The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. > > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. My first reaction was: yeah! gone with SC. second reaction: huh? DU and KR? third reaction: what the hell? fourth: actually, when you think about it: * Kindred restructure was certainly wrong. It's effect changes the game state too much for a single vote. And there where decks who relied on it way too much. frex: the Anson - Anneke Anarch Revolt deck and the First tradition deck. * Dramatic Upheaval: same thing actually, but a bit less so. What Derek said is actually my problem with this card too. Only decks that can do a massive damage turn could oust someone without a DI or DT in hand. * Practically: the above 3 cards turn the game into a discussion match. I've seen games where between the playing of the vote and the actual changing of seats there was 20-30 minutes of discussion. And the actual changing itself takes time too. * Why IMO this will not make vote decks unplayable: simply because other people will play less Delaying Tactics in their decks. Most decks only pack it against 2 things: seat changers and PTO. And I think this will be better for the game too. I've seen to many finals where every deck was packing 3-4 DI and 2-4 Delaying tactics. And they're booooooooooooooring as hell. * Maybe vote decks will now start playing attrition decks too instead of defending until they can get a shot a an easy oust? Just my .02 Jeroen

Daneel wrote: > Well, that's a bit overgeneralized. If you can kill someone on 9 pool, why > don't you kill your prey? 'Cause if it is easier to kill someone elses pry than it is yours, for whatever reason, table switch votes let you. Removing them from the environment says "You have to kill your own prey--do your own hard work", which is a lot closer to the main theme of the game--kill your prey. > It's more a problem with leaving your prey on 1-2 pool Which is, ya know, less than 10, making my point not invalid. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

Mochuda wrote: > Well bums's rush (and any rush card) should be banished too as someone > can rush me crosstable and undermine my relations with my prey/predator You don't gain VP's by Rushing cross table. In fact, more often that not, Rushing cross table makes you *lose* VPs ('cause it usually compromises your position and strengthens someone elses, providing built in disincentive to Rush cross table). Table switch votes got you VPs off of someone elses hard work. Now you just have to do your own work. [ quoted text not captured ]

Mochuda <moc...@arfe.netNOSPAM> wrote in message news:<41b1e9a7$0$579$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>... > <snip> > > >> Care to explain why these cards were banned? I cannot see any apparent > >> reason. > > > > > > Not suited to competitive play, since they undermine the foundation > > of the game (namely, the predator-prey relationship). > > > > <snip> > > Well bums's rush (and any rush card) should be banished too as someone > can rush me crosstable and undermine my relations with my prey/predator > No, they don't. You still have the same predator and prey. So what's changed there? > and eagle sight, sensory deprivation, temptation... too Rubbish. The abiltiy to engage/interact outside the default relationship is something different. It does not change the facts about your predator and prey. > > really I don't get the point > banishing DU and KR is just making S&B far easier as these decks won't > have to care about table vision Oh, and they cared sooo much about it before? I think that you overestimate the average S&B player. > and vote decks lose the main edge I disagree. They lose one strategy, but there zare still plenty more existing options, not too mention upcoming expansions. > > vote is a hard strategy as it requires some skills and a good flow in > playing cards (i need the vote, eventually to stealth it by, then I need > vote lock or to negociate with the one who has it) > So this strategy should be able to do something other strategies are not > able too, and that is place switch. > Yes it is a powerful strategy but they are *SO MANY* things that can > spoil it and that is actually what the game is all about ! > > Now what... Just play KRCs ? really nice... > No, actually you get a couple of more cards, other than KRC.... Cheers -scrote Excommunication Sabbat Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a ready Archbishop. Successful referendum means the chosen Archbishop loses his or her title. Sabbat:U, SW:PB U/PB Final Nights, The Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means each vampire burns 1 blood. If this referendum fails, the acting vampire burns 1 blood. FN:C2 C2 Honor the Elders Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means that each ready vampire with a capacity above 7 gains 1 blood from the blood bank, and each vampire with a capacity above 7 in any uncontrolled region gains 1 blood from the blood bank. FN:C2 C2 Anarchist Uprising Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each minion he or she controls. Sabbat:C, SW:C/PV, Anarchs:PAB3 C/PV Anathema Prince or Justicar Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Prince or Justicar at +1 stealth. Choose a ready vampire. If the referendum is successful, put this card on that vampire. If that vampire is reduced to zero blood in combat, he or she is burned, and the Methuselah controlling the opposing minion gains pool equal to the burned vampire's capacity. DS:U2, CE:U/PB U Ancient Influence Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means each Methuselah may choose a ready vampire he or she controls. Each Methuselah gains an amount of pool from the blood bank equal to his or her chosen vampire's capacity. Each Methuselah also burns 5 pool. Only one Ancient Influence can be played in a game. Jyhad:C, VTES:C, SW:PT/PV, CE:C C/PT/PV Ancilla Empowerment Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each minion he or she controls. Jyhad:C, VTES:C, CE:C/PTo2 C Archon Prince or Justicar Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Prince or Justicar at +1 stealth. Choose a Camarilla vampire. Successful referendum makes the vampire an Archon. An Archon may enter combat with another vampire controlled by another Methuselah as a +1 stealth (D) action. Any vampire attempting to block an Archon burns 1 blood. A Blood Hunt cannot be called on an Archon. -Any vampire can remove these abilities with a successful referendum; calling that referendum is a +1 stealth political action-. Jyhad:V, VTES:V, CE:U V Autarkis Persecution Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means each Methuselah gains 1 pool for each minion he or she controls. Jyhad:C, VTES:C, SW:PB, CE:C C/PB Banishment Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a younger ready vampire. Successful referendum means that the chosen vampire is moved to the uncontrolled region (place him or her face down). The vampire is uncontrolled. The vampire's blood counters, master cards and minion cards stay with that vampire, with any counters they have on them (minion cards are out of play as long as the vampire remains uncontrolled). DS:U2, FN:PS, CE:PTo/PV U Beyond Reproach Prince Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Prince at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. Primogen cannot attempt political actions and get one less vote during political actions. This card may be burned by a referendum called by any vampire as a +1 stealth political action. AH:R2 R2 Blood Siege Archbishop, Priscus or Cardinal Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Archbishop, Priscus or Cardinal at +1 stealth. No action modifiers can be played during or after this referendum. Choose a ready Sabbat vampire and a ready Prince. Successful referendum means that that Prince loses his or her title and the Sabbat vampire becomes Archbishop of that city. Any ready vampire can gain votes during this referendum by burning one blood per vote gained. SW:R R Brujah Justicar Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a ready Brujah. Successful referendum means he or she is declared Brujah Justicar. In this referendum, each Brujah gets 1 extra vote. This could lead to a contested title. Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R R Camarilla Exemplary Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a controlled Camarilla vampire. Successful referendum means that for the remainder of the game, any vampire attempting to block that vampire burns 1 blood. Jyhad:C, VTES:C, CE:C/PV2 C Camarilla Threat Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. Each Methuselah discarding a card during his or her discard phase burns one pool. Any vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action. Sabbat:R, SW:R, BH:PTo R Cardinal Benediction Sabbat Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a Sabbat vampire with a capacity over 6. Successful referendum means that the vampire is given the title of Cardinal. Camarilla vampires cannot vote during this referendum. Sabbat:U, SW:U U Code of Milan Suspended Sabbat Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Select the Methuselah with the Edge. If this referendum is successful, that Methuselah burns 1 pool. Sabbat:R, SW:R R Command of the Harpies Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a ready Prince. Put this card on that vampire. Successful referendum means the Prince loses his or her title. DS:U2, CE:PM/PTo U Consanguineous Boon Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a clan. Successful referendum means each Methuselah gains 1 pool for each member of that clan he or she controls. Jyhad:C, VTES:C, Sabbat:C, SW:PL/PV3, FN:PG/PS, CE:PTo3/PV2, BH:PTo4 C/PL/PV3 Consanguineous Condemnation Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a clan. Successful referendum taps all vampires of that clan. Jyhad:C, VTES:C C Conservative Agitation Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Allocate X points between two or more Methuselahs, where X is the number of Methuselahs in the game. Successful referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point assigned. Jyhad:C, VTES:C, SW:C/PV4, FN:PG/PS, CE:PTo4/PV4, Anarchs:PAB2 C/PV4 Corruption's Purge Prince, Justicar or Inner Circle Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Prince, Justicar, or Inner Circle member at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, each Follower of Set burns 2 blood. Each Follower of Set with zero blood then goes into torpor. AH:V3 V3 Crusade: Atlanta Sabbat Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared ArchBishop of Atlanta. This could lead to a contested title. Sabbat:R, SW:R R Crusade: Chicago Sabbat Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared ArchBishop of Chicago. This could lead to a contested title. Sabbat:R, BH:PM R Crusade: Detroit Sabbat Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared ArchBishop of Detroit. This could lead to a contested title. Sabbat:R, SW:R R Crusade: Houston Sabbat Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared ArchBishop of Houston. This could lead to a contested title. Sabbat:R, SW:R R Crusade: Mexico City Sabbat Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared ArchBishop of Mexico City. This could lead to a contested title. Sabbat:R, SW:PV R/PV Crusade: Miami Sabbat Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared ArchBishop of Miami. This could lead to a contested title. Sabbat:R, BH:PTo R Crusade: New York Sabbat Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared ArchBishop of New York. This could lead to a contested title. SW:R R Crusade: Philadelphia Sabbat Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared ArchBishop of Philadelphia. This could lead to a contested title. Sabbat:R, SW:R R Crusade: Pittsburgh Sabbat Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared ArchBishop of Pittsburgh. This could lead to a contested title. Sabbat:R, SW:PT R/PT Crusade: Toronto Sabbat Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared ArchBishop of Toronto. This could lead to a contested title. Sabbat:R R Cunctator Motion Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Only usable if playing for ante. Choose how you would rearrange the remaining ante cards among the surviving Methuselahs. Successful referendum means you then rearrange the remaining ante cards. Jyhad:R2, VTES:R R2/R Disputed Territory Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a location and a Methuselah. Successful referendum means the chosen Methuselah takes control of the chosen location. Jyhad:C, VTES:C, Sabbat:C, SW:PL/PV2, FN:PG, CE:PN/PV, Anarchs:PAB, BH:PTo C/PL/PV2 Domain Challenge Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each tapped minion he or she controls. Jyhad:C, VTES:C, CE:C/PV2, Anarchs:PAB C First Tradition: The Masquerade, The Prince or Justicar Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Prince or Justicar at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. While in play, each Methuselah must skip a turn or burn 2 pool. Burn this card when you have either skipped 3 turns or paid 6 pool in cumulative penalties. Jyhad:R2, VTES:R, CE:R R2/R Free States Rant Independent Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Independent vampire at +1 stealth. Allocate X points among one or more ready vampires, where X is half the capacity of the acting vampire (rounded up). No more than 3 points can be allocated to a single vampire. Successful referendum means each vampire burns 1 blood for each point assigned. In this referendum, titles are worth 1 less vote each (even in the prisci sub-referendum), and burning the Edge for a vote is worth an additional vote. FN:C2, Anarchs:PAB2 C2 Gangrel Justicar Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a ready Gangrel. Successful referendum means he or she is declared Gangrel Justicar. In this referendum, each Gangrel gets 1 extra vote. This could lead to a contested title. Jyhad:R, VTES:R R Giovanni Acceptance Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, all Giovanni change their staus from Independent vampires to Camarilla vampires for the rest of the game. All options available to Camarilla clans are now open to the Giovanni. DS:U2 U Investiture Cardinal Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Cardinal as a +1 stealth action. Choose a Sabbat vampire. If this referendum is successful, the chosen vampire is given the title of Priscus. In this referendum, each ready Cardinal gets one additional vote. Camarilla vampires cannot vote during this referendum. Sabbat:R, SW:R R Invitation Accepted Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, all Followers of Set are considered Camarilla vampires for the rest of the game. All options available to Camarilla clans are now open to the Followers of Set. AH:V3 V3 Justicar Retribution Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum burns all vampires with a current bleed of 3 or more. VTES:U, CE:U U Kindred Segregation Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means that all allies are burned. Any Methuselah can keep an ally or allies he or she controls by repaying -their pool cost to recruit-. Jyhad:V, VTES:V, CE:PTo V Kine Resources Contested Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Allocate 4 points between two or more Methuselahs. Successful referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point assigned. Jyhad:C, VTES:C, CE:C/PTo2, Anarchs:PAB3, BH:PM5 C Legacy of Pander Sabbat Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. Each non-titled Pander has one vote. Any Sabbat vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action. Sabbat:R, SW:R R Lextalionis Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a Methuselah who has received a victory point since your last turn. Successful referendum means the Methuselah must immediately tap all of his or her minions; the minions do not untap during the Methuselah's next untap phase. Jyhad:V, VTES:V, CE:PTo V Malkavian Justicar Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a ready Malkavian. Successful referendum means he or she is declared Malkavian Justicar. In this referendum, each Malkavian gets 1 extra vote. This could lead to a contested title. Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R R Mark of the Damned Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, each Methuselah burns X pool, where X is the number of vampires in his or her prey's ash heap. AH:C2 C2 Masquerade Enforcement Prince or Justicar Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Prince or Justicar at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. While in play, when any Methuselah moves a vampire from uncontrolled to controlled, he or she burns 1 additional pool. This card can be burned by a successful referendum; calling that referendum is a +1 stealth political action. Jyhad:V, VTES:V, CE:U V Might of the Camarilla Justicar or Inner Circle Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, each Methuselah chooses one vampire in his or her uncontrolled region and burns him or her. AH:R2 R2 National Guard Support Title Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any titled vampire at +1 stealth. You may not play this card if another National Guard Support is in play. Successful referendum means that this card is put into play. All minions get -1 stealth when performing (D) actions. Put a counter on this card during each of your untap phases. Any vampire can burn this card with a successful referendum called as a +1 stealth political action; in that referendum, each counter represents a vote in favor of burning the card. FN:R2 R2 Nosferatu Justicar Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a ready Nosferatu. Successful referendum means he or she is declared Nosferatu Justicar. In this referendum, each Nosferatu gets 1 extra vote. This could lead to a contested title. Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R R Parity Shift Prince or Justicar Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Prince or Justicar at +1 stealth. Choose a Methuselah who has more blood in his or her pool than you do. Allocate X of that pool between any of the other remaining Methuselahs (including you), where X is the number of Methuselahs in the game. Successful referendum means the chosen Methuselah loses that pool, and it is allocated as you announced. Jyhad:V, VTES:V, CE:U V Peace Treaty Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum burns all weapons. A Methuselah may keep any of his or her minions' weapons by repaying their -pool- cost to equip. Jyhad:C, VTES:C, Sabbat:C, SW:PT/PV, CE:PV, Anarchs:PAB C/PT/PV Peace of Khetamon, The Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a vampire in torpor. Successful referendum means that vampire is placed face down in his or her controller's uncontrolled region. The vampire's blood counters, master cards, and minion cards stay with that vampire. AH:C2 C2 Political Flux Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Pick a number from 1 to 12. Successful referendum means this is the amount of pool the next predator will earn for ousting his or her prey (instead of the usual 6 pool). Jyhad:C, VTES:C, CE:C C Political Stranglehold Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means each Methuselah gains 3 pool for each vampire he or she controls with capacity above 7. Only one Political Stranglehold can be played during a game. Sabbat:U, SW:U/PL, FN:PG U/PL Praxis Seizure: Amsterdam Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Amsterdam. This could lead to a contested title. DS:U2 U Praxis Seizure: Athens Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means that the acting vampire is declared Prince of Athens. This could lead to a contested title. If the Prince is Tremere, his or her capacity increases by 1. AH:R2 R2 Praxis Seizure: Atlanta Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Atlanta. This could lead to a contested title. Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R R Praxis Seizure: Barcelona Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Barcelona. This could lead to a contested title. If the Prince is Tremere, his or her capacity increases by 1. DS:U2 U Praxis Seizure: Berlin Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Berlin. This could lead to a contested title. If the Prince is Ventrue, his or her capacity increases by 1. DS:U2 U Praxis Seizure: Boston Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Boston. This could lead to a contested title. Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R R Praxis Seizure: Brussels Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Brussels. This could lead to a contested title. If the Prince is Nosferatu, his or her capacity increases by 1. DS:U2 U Praxis Seizure: Cairo Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Cairo. This could lead to a contested title. If the Prince is Ventrue, his or her capacity increases by 1. AH:R2 R2 Praxis Seizure: Chicago Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Chicago. This could lead to a contested title. Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R R Praxis Seizure: Cleveland Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Cleveland. This could lead to a contested title. Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R R Praxis Seizure: Dallas Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Dallas. This could lead to a contested title. Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R R Praxis Seizure: Dublin Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Dublin. This could lead to a contested title. DS:U2 U Praxis Seizure: Frankfurt Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Frankfurt. This could lead to a contested title. DS:U2 U Praxis Seizure: Geneva Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Geneva. This could lead to a contested title. If the Prince is Ventrue, his or her capacity increases by 1. DS:U2 U Praxis Seizure: Glasgow Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Glasgow. This could lead to a contested title. If the Prince is Gangrel, his or her capacity increases by 1. DS:U2 U Praxis Seizure: Houston Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Houston. This could lead to a contested title. Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R R Praxis Seizure: Istanbul Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Istanbul. This could lead to a contested title. Each Assamite gets one additional vote for this political action. If the vampire declared Prince is not an Assamite, tap all Assamites. AH:R2 R2 Praxis Seizure: London Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of London. This could lead to a contested title. DS:U2 U Praxis Seizure: Miami Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Miami. This could lead to a contested title. Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R R Praxis Seizure: Monaco Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Monaco. This could lead to a contested title. If the Prince is Toreador, his or her capacity increases by 1. AH:R2 R2 Praxis Seizure: Paris Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Paris. This could lead to a contested title. If the Prince is Toreador, his or her capacity increases by 1. DS:U2 U Praxis Seizure: Rome Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Rome. This could lead to a contested title. If the Prince is Brujah, his or her capacity increases by 1. DS:U2 U Praxis Seizure: Seattle Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Seattle. This could lead to a contested title. Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R R Praxis Seizure: Stockholm Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Stockholm. This could lead to a contested title. If the Prince is Malkavian, his or her capacity increases by 1. DS:U2 U Praxis Seizure: Venice Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Venice. This could lead to a contested title. Each Giovanni gets one additional vote for this political action. If the vampire declared Prince is not Giovanni, tap all Giovanni. DS:U2 U Praxis Seizure: Washington, D.C. Camarilla Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Camarilla vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Prince of Washington, D.C. This could lead to a contested title. Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R R Praxis Solomon Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Only usable if at least one card is contested. For each contested card, choose which Methuselah should yield. Successful referendum means that the chosen Methuselahs yield as you selected. Jyhad:V, VTES:V V Protect Thine Own 1 blood Justicar or Inner Circle Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 stealth. Choose a Non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below 6. If the acting vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, you may choose any Non-Camarilla vampire instead. If this referendum is successful, burn that vampire. AH:R2, CE:PV R2 Rabble Razing Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means all vampires with capacity less than 4 burn one blood. SW:C/PV C/PV Ravnos Acceptance Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, all Ravnos change their status from Independent vampires to Camarilla vampires for the rest of the game. All options available to Camarilla clans are now open to the Ravnos. DS:U2 U Regaining the Upper Hand Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a Methuselah. Successful referendum means the chosen Methuselah gets the Edge. Jyhad:C, VTES:C, Sabbat:C C Reinforcements Title Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any titled vampire at +1 stealth. Choose one or more Methuselahs. Successful referendum means each chosen Methuselah selects up to 3 library cards from his or her ash heap and shuffles them into his or her library. Remove this card from the game, even if the action is canceled or blocked or the referendum fails. FN:R2 R2 Reversal of Fortunes Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means direction of play is reversed. Prey is still to the left, however. Jyhad:V, VTES:V, CE:PM V Revocation of Tyre Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, all Assamites are considered Camarilla vampires for the rest of the game. All options available to Camarilla clans are now open to the Assamites. AH:V3 V3 Rumors of Gehenna Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose 1 or more Methuselahs. If this referendum is successful, put this card into play. While in play, each chosen Methuselah receives 2 master phase actions during his or her master phase (instead of 1). Any vampire can burn this card with a successful referendum; calling this referendum is a +1 stealth political action. Jyhad:R2, VTES:R, CE:R2 R2/R Sabbat Inquisitor Archbishop or Cardinal Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Archbishop or Cardinal at +1 stealth. Choose any Sabbat vampire who is not an Inquisitor. Successful referendum means that vampire is an Inquisitor; put this card on that vampire. He or she gets +1 bleed (). As a (D) action, he or she may look at the top vampire of any Methuselah's crypt; if that vampire has Thaumaturgy, burn that card. This card can be burned with a successful referendum called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Sabbat:U U Sabbat Priest Sabbat Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a ready Sabbat vampire. Successful referendum means that for the remainder of the game, any vampire attempting to block the chosen vampire burns 1 blood. Sabbat:C, SW:C/PV, BH:PM2 C/PV Sabbat Threat Prince or Justicar Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Prince or Justicar at +1 stealth. Choose 1 or more Methuselahs. Successful referendum means each chosen Methuselah gets 1 threat counter. Each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each threat counter he or she has during his or her untap phase. A Methuselah may never have more than 2 threat counters, and he or she may burn the Edge to remove all the threat counters he or she has. Jyhad:V, VTES:V, CE:U V Sacrifice Sabbat Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire with capacity above 7 at +1 stealth. Choose a vampire with a capacity below 7 who belongs to the same clan as the acting vampire. Successful referendum burns the chosen vampire. Sabbat:U U Watchtower: Greatest Fall 1 pool Seraph Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Seraph at +1 stealth. Watchtower. In this referendum, each ready Seraph gets 2 additional votes. If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. Tap this card to move 1 blood from the blood bank to a Sabbat vampire in your ready region or your uncontrolled region (not usable during combat). Burn this card if another watchtower enters play. BH:R R Screw the Masquerade! Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a Methuselah. Successful referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool and the chosen Methuselah burns an additional pool. Sabbat:C C Templar Bishop, Archbishop, Priscus or Cardinal Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Bishop, Archbishop, Priscus or Cardinal at +1 stealth. Choose a Sabbat vampire. Successful referendum make the vampire a templar. A templar may enter combat with a ready vampire controlled by another Methuselah as a +1 stealth (D) action. Any Sabbat vampire may call a referendum to remove this ability as a +1 stealth political action. SW:C/PB, BH:PTo5 C/PB Tithings Sabbat Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire with a capacity above 6 at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means you gain 1 pool from each Methuselah who does not a control a vampire with a capacity above 6. Sabbat:R, SW:R R Toreador Justicar Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a ready Toreador. Successful referendum means he or she is declared Toreador Justicar. In this referendum, each Toreador gets 1 extra vote. This could lead to a contested title. Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R R Tradition Upheld Prince, Justicar or Inner Circle Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Prince, Justicar, or Inner Circle member at +1 stealth. Choose a ready Caitiff. If this referendum is successful, burn that Caitiff. DS:C2 C Transfer of Power Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means you gain 1 pool from each Methuselah who has more pool than you do. Sabbat:R, SW:R R Treaty of Tyre Enforced Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, each Methuselah burns X+1 pool, where X is the number of Assamites he or she controls. AH:V3 V3 Tremere Justicar Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a ready Tremere. Successful referendum means he or she is declared Tremere Justicar. In this referendum, each Tremere gets 1 extra vote. This could lead to a contested title. Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R R Ventrue Justicar Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a ready Ventrue. Successful referendum means he or she is declared Ventrue Justicar. In this referendum, each Ventrue gets 1 extra vote. This could lead to a contested title. Alternate card name: Venture Justicar Jyhad:R, VTES:R, CE:R R Wrath of the Inner Circle Inner Circle Political Card-Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Inner Circle member at +1 stealth. Choose a ready Justicar. If the referendum is successful, put this card on that Justicar. The Justicar loses his or her title, and his or her capacity decreases by 1. (A vampire's capacity cannot go below 1.) DS:U U Meddling of Semsith, The Political Action - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose another Methuselah. If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. Your hand size is one card smaller. The chosen Methuselah doesn't draw to replace cards during any Methuselah's minion phase. After each minion phase, he or she draws back up to his or her hand size. Any vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action. Promo-20020201 Promo Firebrand Anarch Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any anarch as a +1 stealth action. If this referendum is successful, put this card on the acting anarch. This anarch gets 1 additional vote during a political action. During your minion phase, this anarch can burn 1 blood to untap a ready younger anarch. Burn this card if this anarch goes to torpor. An anarch may have only 1 Firebrand. Anarchs:C/PAB C Anarch Salon Anarch Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any anarch at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means each ready anarch gains 1 blood from the blood bank, and each Methuselah who controls at least one anarch gains 1 pool from the blood bank. Anarchs:C2/PAB2 C2 Brinksmanship 1 pool Political card - worth 1 vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. Any Methuselah who has exhausted his or her library and begins his or her untap phase with less than a full hand must attempt to withdraw. On that Methuselah's next untap phase, if the withdrawal fails, that Methuselah is ousted. If any Methuselah successfully withdraws, you are ousted. Anarchs:R R Sweeper Baron Political Card - Worth 1 vote. Called by any baron at +1 stealth. Choose a ready anarch vampire. If this referendum is successful, put this card on the chosen anarch. During your untap phase, if the anarch with this card is ready, you may look at the top card of each Methuselah's library (including your own). Anarchs:R R Reins of Power Political Card - Worth 1 vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means each Methuselah may choose a ready vampire he or she controls. Each Methuselah gains 6 pool. Each Methuselah also burns an amount of pool equal to the capacity of his or her predator's chosen vampire. Only one Reins of Power can be played in a game. Anarchs:C C Snipe Hunt Political Card - Worth 1 vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. If this referendum is successful, put this card in play and tap all vampires with a capacity less than 4. Vampires with a capacity less than 4 do not untap as normal during the untap phase. Burn this card during your next master phase. Anarchs:C C Year of Fortune Political Card - Worth 1 vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose one or more Methuselahs who are not chosen for any other Year of Fortune in play. If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. Each chosen Methuselah's hand size is increased by one card. Any vampire can call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action. Anarchs:C C Crusade: Barcelona Sabbat vampire Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Archbishop of Barcelona. This could lead to a contested title. If this vampire is Tremere antitribu, he or she untaps during your next discard phase. BH:R R Crusade: Brussels Sabbat vampire Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Archbishop of Brussels. This could lead to a contested title. If this vampire is Toreador antitribu, he or she untaps during your next discard phase. BH:R R Crusade: Rome Sabbat vampire Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Archbishop of Rome. This could lead to a contested title. If this vampire is Brujah antitribu, he or she untaps during your next discard phase. BH:R R Deploy the Hand Archbishop or Cardinal Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any archbishop or cardinal at +1 stealth. Choose one or more Methuselahs who do not have a target counter. Successful referendum means each chosen Methuselah gets a target counter. During his or her untap phase, a Methuselah with a target counter chooses one of his or her ready minions, who takes 2 unpreventable damage. A Methuselah may burn the Edge to burn his or her target counter. BH:C/PTo C Hand Intervention titled Sabbat vampire Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any titled Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a Methuselah. If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. The chosen Methuselah has -1 hand size. That Methuselah may burn this card by burning the Edge. A Methuselah may be chosen for only one Hand Intervention at a time. BH:C/PM C Seraph Black Hand vampire Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any Black Hand vampire at +1 stealth. Choose a non-Seraph Black Hand vampire with a capacity above 5. If this referendum is successful, put this card on the chosen vampire. That Black Hand vampire gains 2 blood and is a Seraph. Non-Sabbat vampires cannot vote in this referendum. BH:U2 U2 Alastor Justicar or Inner Circle Political card - Worth 1 vote. Called by any justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 stealth. Choose a ready Camarilla vampire. If this referendum is successful, search your library for an equipment card and place this card and the equipment on the chosen vampire. Pay half the cost (round down) of the equipment. This vampire may enter combat with any vampire controlled by another Methuselah as a +1 stealth (D) action. This vampire cannot commit diablerie. A vampire may have only one Alastor. G R Crusade: Amsterdam Sabbat vampire Political card - Worth 1 vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Archbishop of Amsterdam. This could lead to a contested title. If this vampire is Ventrue antitribu, he or she untaps during your next discard phase. G R Crusade: Berlin Sabbat vampire Political card - Worth 1 vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Archbishop of Berlin. This could lead to a contested title. If this vampire is Lasombra, he or she untaps during your next discard phase. G R Crusade: Dublin Sabbat vampire Political card - Worth 1 vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Archbishop of Dublin. This could lead to a contested title. If this vampire is Gangrel antitribu, he or she untaps during your next discard phase. G R Crusade: Frankfurt Sabbat vampire Political card - Worth 1 vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Archbishop of Frankfurt. This could lead to a contested title. G R Crusade: Geneva Sabbat vampire Political card - Worth 1 vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Archbishop of Geneva. This could lead to a contested title. If this vampire is Malkavian antitribu, he or she untaps during your next discard phase. G R Crusade: Istanbul Sabbat vampire Political card - Worth 1 vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Archbishop of Istanbul. This could lead to a contested title. If this vampire is Tzimisce, he or she untaps during your next discard phase. G R Crusade: London Sabbat vampire Political card - Worth 1 vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Archbishop of London. This could lead to a contested title. If this vampire is Nosferatu antitribu, he or she untaps during your next discard phase. G R Crusade: Paris Sabbat vampire Political card - Worth 1 vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Archbishop of Paris. This could lead to a contested title. G R Crusade: Washington, D.C. Sabbat vampire Political card - Worth 1 vote. Called by any Sabbat vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means the acting vampire is declared Archbishop of Washington, D.C. This could lead to a contested title. If this vampire is Ventrue antitribu, he or she untaps during your next discard phase. G R Diversity Political card - Worth 1 vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Successful referendum means each Methuselah gains X pool, where X is the number of different clans to which his or her ready vampires belong. G C Finding the Path Political card - Worht 1 vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose at least half of the Methuselahs in the game. Successful referendum means each chosen Methuselah burns 1 pool and each of the other Methuselahs gains 1 pool. G C

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:8bisd.88887$7i4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > Care to explain why these cards were banned? I cannot see any apparent > > reason. > > Not suited to competitive play, since they undermine the foundation > of the game (namely, the predator-prey relationship). Is it possible for you to please share which cases were used as a basis of evidence? AFAICS DU and KR do not undermine or obviate the predator-prey relationship, they simply define a new predator-prey relationship. Certainly the threat of DU and KR is nothing compared to Anarch Revolt, a dangerous stackable card which has effect which clearly *does* defy the predator-prey relationship, and yet which has *still* not been touched despite, numerous, repeated requests from members of the V:TES community. In addition, DU and KR is a key defence for voting decks against hammer-bleed or weenie-rush type decks. The ban now makes voting even weaker, certainly a step back for the meta-game, not a step forward. > > Who decides which cards are getting banned? > > The V:EKN. I don't remember seeing an reference to a consultation process, although that certainly would have been nice. > There are. Such discussions are nearly continuous, here, in email, > on forums, on chats, face to face, etc. I don't recall seeing any proposals to ban DU and KR in the public domain before now. Could you provide some references? > Those opinions are taken into account. I'd like to formally voice my own disappointment too. > Surely you realize that there are others who work countless hours. > And they do not all step lockstep all the time on all issues. True. However in this case, given enough time, it entirely possible that we will be the majority. Regards, Mike Nudd VEKN Prince of London

In message <cafbc9c8.04120...@posting.google.com>, Enrique San Mart?n <es...@chile.com> writes: >The argument of the "undermine the prey-predator mechanic" (UtPPM) >it's very poor, because: > >Allmost in vtes it's undermine (or overuled), many card's give the >posibily to do things that can't be done with the basic of the rules. True, but you're missing the point that LSJ (and the V:EKN) appear to view the predator-prey dynamic a fundamental part of the framework of the game. Keeping that *framework* in tact is a very different argument to doing things that the basic rules don't give you the possibility to do (e.g. steal a location). As an extreme example, imagine a vote that said: "Pick a Methuselah. That Methuselah is ousted. You gain the victory point and pool (if any)." Clearly, that vote undermines the fundamental dynamics of the game. (If you disagree with that, I think we'll have issues agreeing at all, ever.) And hence maintaining the framework is rather different to the actual possibilities that are/should be allowed inside that framework. (I still don't know what I think of the change. But arguments like this one are unlikely to cause V:EKN to shift, IMO.) -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

Stefan Ferenci <a95+NO+58+NO+60no@SP+.unet.univie.+AM+.ac.at> wrote in message news:<41b36675$0$11352$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... > Fernando Costa wrote: > > > > > And let's not forget the essential...blocking DU and KR is by default > > a +1 intercept reaction...! At the most a +2 or +3 or +4 stealth with > > OBF or OBT...My Tzimisce wall deck LAUGHS at that ! > > i play a pretty good tzimi wall myself but imagine the following > you have you´re prey down on 2 pool all his minions disposed. now your > nice grandpre/pred (your choice) calls a du with lets say gilbert duane. > you laugh because you have an eagle sight in your hand and proceed to > block it. then he plays a forgotten labyrinth, no prob, followed by a > lost in crowds, easy dude you´re playing a wall deck, but then he plays > and elder impersonation! still laughing? > > stefan Not laughing anymore...But u forgot the previous part of my post: ______ "...to the ones that argue something like "...someone called a DU and stole my VP that was so hard to get, blablabla...", oh yes...as if with ANY kind of deck it is easy to get a VP these days. And how about this answer: He Ambushed/IG Monçada/or Blocked/IG my +1 (duuuuh!) Stealth Pol. Action called by Monçada, and he costed me 10 POOL to get !!" ______ Exchanging places on the table to "steal" a easy VP is a Critical/hated/loved move...yes. But so is Ambushing/harass/BR etc...to all my Ventrues/Lasombra/whateverpolitical and sending them all to kingdom come...Even across table !!! (so much for the Prey/Predator !) So here's my errata: (based on the prey/predator BASICS) BR/Harass/whatever rush... (...) enter combat with (...) a minion controled BY YOUR PREY.(...) ..bye bye cross table rushes, byebye killing the predator (THAT'S NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE GAME!)

In message <covp1i$mhq$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>, Johannes Walch <joha...@scram.de> writes: >You don?t need Eagle?s Sight. Direct Intervention could be another choice, >or Delaying Tactics or Vampires with titles. I still cannot see that the >game has a problem with a certain deck type (=the voting deck). Would you, for instance, be happy if KRC said "8" instead of "4"? That defences do exist does not mean that certain cards might not be too powerful in the circumstances where defences fail (due to card randomness, shuffling etc.). (Standard disclaimer about not being sure what I think about DU/KR etc.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <covk30$ck9$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>, Johannes Walch <joha...@scram.de> writes: >i disagree. you had to include vote defense in your deck. now it愀 not that >important anymore. You want to be Banished, PTO-ed and turned into Anathema? And you don't want the ability to tell a weenie KRC deck to back off with its KRCs for a turn? (Delaying Tactics.) It may well be that these sorts of things don't turn up in your area. But there are still frightening things vote decks can do. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <cafbc9c8.0412...@posting.google.com>, Enrique San Mart?n <es...@chile.com> writes: >Yeah... you see LSJ, are many people all-around that are waiting for a >good (and i say a good not the usual) explanation of why that card's >that undermine a specific mechanic of the game are banned, why that >mechanic and no other?... why? [Note: This is in no way intended to be a criticism of your post but... bits of it don't seem to make much sense to me. So my response may mis- interpret something you thought was obvious.] Could you provide a concrete example of one of the fundamental defining mechanics of the game you think is being violated by a group of cards? This should also probably include a reason why players would do it - particularly when they can't table switch now - if it wasn't already in their interests. And also why it couldn't be caught with play-to-win rulings. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <31gu1jF...@individual.net>, Rob Treasure <robtreasure'r emove'@ntlworld.com> writes: >You are not wrong there. Sweeping changes to the fundamental aspects of the >game like this should not be the remit of one person. I've seen no evidence that the V:EKN inner circle (and whichever subsets of V:EKN rewrite the tournament rules[0]) is one person. [0] To clarify, I am not in either group, nor have I ever been. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 16:40:22 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> It's more a problem with leaving your prey on 1-2 pool > > Which is, ya know, less than 10, making my point not invalid. Dear sir, please allow me to clarify. While 1-2 is indeed undoubtedly less than 10, and all instances of 1-2 are also instances of less than 10, your statement referred to "less than 10" without further narrowing the set. Less than 10 includes a lot of elements which are not 1-2. Like, occurances or combinations of 3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9. So while 1-2 is indeed less than 10, the reference of "less than 10" in no way implies 1-2 over any other element of said set. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

In message <41b38c66$0$29750$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>, Mike <mi...@vekn.org.uk> writes: >Is it possible for you to please share which cases were used as a basis of >evidence? AFAICS DU and KR do not undermine or obviate the predator-prey >relationship, they simply define a new predator-prey relationship. Consider: You, me, LSJ, Peter Bakija and Rob Treasure sit down at a table, in that order. Throughout the flow of the game, each of us is discarding chaff, looking at the table, working out our defences and so on. Peter knows that LSJ wants to oust him, and is trying to form tentative alliances with both you and me. Ditto, the rest of the table, where it makes sense. Peter is playing a rush deck, with some bleed backup. Sadly, Rob Treasure is playing a toolbox Tzimisce War Ghoul deck, so Peter is in real trouble. Lots of people are trying to work out how the table dynamic is going to go, where they need to balance things out, whether they can still get a table win if LSJ gets Peter. LSJ has got Peter down to 2 pool, though. Peter is manfully trying to take out LSJ's weenies, though it's hard work. He might go next turn, he might not. His defences are okay - but will they be good enough? I'm having major trouble getting through LSJ, though. He's playing weenie stealth bleed, with a butt-load of Tribute to the Master. I throw damage after damage at him, and he can soak it all. Everyone knows the state of the table, everyone knows who's who. Peter is working at the moment on defending against LSJ and Rob, not you and me. Now, as it happens, I happen to draw my Dramatic Upheaval this turn. I play it and luckily it passes. Now, this *could* have been Vox Domini- ed or Delaying Tactics-ed. But it's not. After all, Peter saw LSJ playing some stealth bleed and Rob playing War Ghoul toolbox, so vote defence wasn't top of his list of priorities. And he was doing relatively badly, so one of us deciding to vanquish him wasn't likely - it'd just help LSJ. I swap places with LSJ. I now oust Peter with a single KRC. 1) What could Peter have done to defend against that? 2) Should everyone on a table be thinking "What happens if the table suddenly becomes a completely different order?" every time they play a card? 3) If table-switching is such a crucial element of the game, why is it only available to political decks? (Many other forms of offence and defence - pool destruction, minion denial, secondary resource manipulation etc. - are available to many, many deck types.) I am vaguely undecided on these points, though believe that these points are somewhat fundamental to the change that's been enacted. [ quoted text not captured ]

Daneel wrote: > Dear sir, please allow me to clarify. While 1-2 is indeed undoubtedly > less than 10, and all instances of 1-2 are also instances of less > than 10, your statement referred to "less than 10" without further > narrowing the set. Less than 10 includes a lot of elements which are > not 1-2. Like, occurances or combinations of 3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9. So > while 1-2 is indeed less than 10, the reference of "less than 10" in > no way implies 1-2 over any other element of said set. Yeah. I know. I said "less than 10" as it was an oblique reference to another post in the discussion. I could have said "Less than 6" or "1-2". All of which work just as well. The point being that with Table Switch votes, leaving your prey barely alive (which decks that oust slowly and steadily, as opposed to bleeding for 6 per action) is pointless unless you have a magic anti vote bullet in your hand, 'cause someone is highly likely to swap seats and steal your hard work. As the VEKN seems to want to encourage, ya know, killing your prey, it makes sense to remove elements that discourage trying. Lets not get hung up on pointless details. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<41B11E2D...@white-wolf.com>... > The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. > > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. Metagame predictions: * Voting decks are much weaker (as though Rastacouriere isn't enough). DU and KR were the primary "shelters" of voting decks against, say, fast-bleeding decks or rush decks. You feel that you're going to die here, so you make the effort to find a better place. Future voting decks would have to pack more bounce and combat protection cards. * Intercept decks are much stronger. Intercepting neighbour is generally a nightmare for a voting deck, if it doesn't have enough stealth to beat the intercept, and now the voting deck cannot even convince the interceptor to pass the KR or DU and become allies after it. * Rush decks are stronger. Voting decks have to pack political actions, vote-pushing, stealth or "cannot block" cards etc. etc., so they cannot regularly pose a serious threat in combat. Rush predator can methodically kill voting vampires one by one - his prey can't escape anymore. That's all. I'm not going to say that the metagame shift would be bad...and it definitely can be fixed with new cards. Ector

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 07:51:47 +1100, Morgan Vening <mor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>If the V:EKN position is that any card that rearranges seating >>violates the nature of the game, there's not much point to offering >>new versions. But if VP sniping is the main issue, I'm sure we could >>come up with a limitation that makes sense. Maybe: >> >>"Choose a Methuselah whose prey has more pool than you. If this >>referendum is successful, move your table seat so that you are the >>prey of the chosen Methuselah." >> >>Or "Choose a Methuselah. If this referendum is successful, switch >>seating with that Methuselah, and if you oust your new prey before the >>chosen Methuselah ousts hers, award the VP to the chosen Methuselah." > >Another option? > >"Choose a Methusalah. If this referendum is successful, switch seating >with that Methusalah and put this card into play with X counters, >where X is the number of Methusalahs in the game. During your untap, >remove a counter. When this card has zero counters, burn it. While >this card is in play, if your Prey is ousted you get 0 (or 0.5?) VP." > >Or alternately... > >"Choose a Methusalah. If this referendum is successful, switch seating >with that Methusalah and put this card into play. During your untap, >put a counter on this card. When this card has X counters (where X is >the number of Methusalahs in the game, burn it. While this card is in >play, if your Prey is ousted you get 0 (or 0.5?) VP." > >The second one allows the timespan to be shortened if other people >make kills. But both will still not net any (full?) VP to a quick >snipe. Moving to get a softer prey, or to get away from a harder >predator, would both still be ideal uses of the card. Similar time >displacement usage for Kindred Restructure would allow putting the >Stealth Bleeder behind the Wall deck, or the Bruise Bleeder behind >your Predator. If you have to be around for 3-6 turns, does this not >re-establish the predator/prey mechanic somewhat? Or given a bit further understanding of the reasoning behind the change, how about "Choose two opposing Methusalahs neither of which can be your prey. Those Methusalahs switch seating positions." This allows the switching out of a particularly painful predator (one of the reasons given), allow for some structuring of Anarch Revolt (another reason given [1]), and doesn't allow VP sniping in an overt fashion (double-ousting being the exception. [1] Not flawless if you can't hurt your prey enough to get him to fall before your grand-prey falls. Just throwing it out there. Obvious flaws likely. Any found are copyrighted Morgan Vening (c) 2004. Morgan Vening

"Mike" <mi...@vekn.org.uk> wrote in message news:41b38c66$0$29750$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:8bisd.88887$7i4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > Care to explain why these cards were banned? I cannot see any apparent > > > reason. > > > > Not suited to competitive play, since they undermine the foundation > > of the game (namely, the predator-prey relationship). > > Is it possible for you to please share which cases were used as a basis of > evidence? AFAICS DU and KR do not undermine or obviate the predator-prey > relationship, they simply define a new predator-prey relationship. Every case. > Certainly > the threat of DU and KR is nothing compared to Anarch Revolt, a dangerous > stackable card which has effect which clearly *does* defy the predator-prey > relationship, and yet which has *still* not been touched despite, numerous, > repeated requests from members of the V:TES community. If cards can be rehabilitated with new text in a new printing, there's not much need to ban them. IMO (and Scott's too, AFAIK), Anarch Revolt falls into that category of redeemable cards. As Scott has posted elsewhere, if text were to be discovered that would redeem DU/KR, then they would be unbanned (Of course, given their nature, it will certainly be challenging to find appropriate text). Also, if a good solution had presented itself previously, the cards would never have been banned. > In addition, DU and KR is a key defence for voting decks against > hammer-bleed or weenie-rush type decks. The ban now makes voting even > weaker, certainly a step back for the meta-game, not a step forward. > > > > Who decides which cards are getting banned? > > > > The V:EKN. > > I don't remember seeing an reference to a consultation process, although > that certainly would have been nice. > > > There are. Such discussions are nearly continuous, here, in email, > > on forums, on chats, face to face, etc. Correct. -Robert

Ector wrote: > * Voting decks are much weaker (as though Rastacouriere isn't enough). They are slightly weaker, 'cause they lost access to preposterouslt powerful cards, but did fine without them anyway. Voting decks are just fine. > * Intercept decks are much stronger. But they still can't actually win games, generally speaking, so who cares? > * Rush decks are stronger. Marginally, due to not having to worry about working really hard to get their prey down to "I can kill you next turn" pool levels only to have your seat and VP stolen. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <coul5r$eab$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>, "Johannes Walch" <joha...@scram.de> mumbled something about: >> >> > Who decides which cards are getting banned? >> >> >> >> The V:EKN. >> > >> >Is The V:EKN = The V:EKN Inner Circle? >> >That would be (AFAIK) you, Steve Wieck, Robert Goudie, Robyn Tatu? >> >Correct? >> >> And what if it were? > >Nothing. Then what's the problem? >> Who among the people you have named do you not trust to make accurate >> decisions about the game and its future? > >Nobody. I was just interested to know. And I would like to see a few >european guys involved. That´s all. Ahhh. So you feel that the European point of view is inadequately represented in what you _believe_ to be the Inner Circle. Now we're getting somewhere. I'm not sure I agree with your list as far as who the "IC" are. But that's their own business whether they wish to be publically known or not, because I certainly wouldn't want my mailbox full of people with nothing better to do than complain. >> Is it not really that you are not on that list, and because they have >> made a decision you do not agree with, you think you can do better? > >No. And I am even not yet sure that I do not agree to the change, but I feel >that it could have been discussed better. But you have no idea what discussions have taken place, or even who they have involved. How can you possibly think it could have been discussed better? Perhaps all possible avenues of change were explored, and the only suitable solution when all facets were considered was to ban the cards. >> >Of course. I meant a probably more ordered discussion where you can >actually >> >identify a consensus. >> >> No. What you mean is "a public discussion where people can scream about >> things they don't like, disrupting any orderly progress being made". > >Interesting that you think you can read my mind. Unfortunately(?) you cannot. Funny, I don't think I was off-base at all when I say that you want things to be public DURING the discussion, and that you want to be able to object to things in that discussion you don't like. >I meant a discussion with more than 4(?) people (let´s say 10) where the How do you know 10 people weren't involved? >!results! of the discussion are laid open afterwards. The explanation should >be more extensive than "they are unsuitable for comp. play because they >undermine the pred-prey relationship". You mean, a discussion where everyone can make even more noise than they are now and spend their whole time second-guessing the decisions that were made? We've already got a bunch of yoyos posting to the group without even bothering to think -- look at that Enrique dude. He has barely any clue what's happening, but he's shrieking that the sky is falling. >> >> Those opinions are taken into account. >> >> Surely you realize that there are others who work countless hours. >> > >> >I was not only referring to me but to the bunch of people who do this. >> >> The bunch of people who do what, exactly? > >Coordinating the big tournaments like the EC, qualifiers and national >championships. Taking care of the pre-releases, prize support, promotion >(e.g in local magazines) and so on. The national coordinators for example. Why should the ability to effectively coordinate events and promote the game automatically make someone qualified to accurately evaluate the nature and state of the rules and game, and implement changes to those rules? Answer: It doesn't. LSJ is a nice guy and all, but I absolutely would NOT want him to be in charge of designing marketing promotions, etc. for the game; it takes a different sort of person to do that, with a different personality than he has. He is, however, eminently suited to evaluate the rules, make rulings, and the like. In short, the NCs have enough to do without burdening them with this sort of thing, don't you think? Perhaps some Europeans are already involved in the process, though. >> Are you referring to the Princes? Most of the Princes are not fit to >> make decisions of this nature, as they tend to think exclusively for >> their own benefit, instead of the overall good of the game. > >Agreed, but I was not referring to them. Thank god for that, at least. >> >were all rather surprised. And I have seen a common consensus that SC >should >> >be banned but about the two other cards there was never THAT much of a >> >discussion. >> >> Not that much of a public discussion, you mean. > >Yes. Public or semi-public. You can see how much of a consensus can be reached by the "public" these days by simply reading the newsgroup. Most people will never change their opinions, and the most noise is typically made by the people who have the least qualification to make that noise. Closed-door "IC" type of things have been the way to get things done since time immemorial, both in your country, mine, and many others -- because the more people you involve in a decision-making process, the less actually gets decided. Limiting the number of people involved is the only way to be certain that all avenues actually GET explored, and that those people don't completely get derailed by having to perpetually re-cover ground that has already been decided. One of my tasks at work is to sit down with the technical support groups and discuss the most common issues/calls they are receiving, and from that determine whether or not changes need to be made to the product. These meetings consist of only a few people from Support, instead of the entire Support staff -- because we want to actually get things done. If I had to address each individual Support person's concerns, I would spend all my time weeding out the 90% or so requests that were trivial or incorrect, and I would never get anything done. The few Support people I DO speak to do all that for me, and present only the 10% or so that are serious concerns -- and THOSE get discussed at length. A similar parallel exists in V:TES. The complaints from players all get registered, both in person, on the forums, and everywhere... then those complaints get filtered by priority appropriately, along with the garbage reasons for the otherwise-sound complaints, and then discussion commences on those sound complaints. (At least one person reading this message is laughing right now, possibly two. HI GUYS! * HUG! *) -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:<opsijs2q...@news.chello.hu>... > On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:25:11 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >>> There are. Such discussions are nearly continuous, here, in email, > >>> on forums, on chats, face to face, etc. > >> > >> Why don't make a public list of this discution's?, that's sound like 3 > >> people decided about all of the destiny of vtes. > > > > You want a public list of the things people approach me about face > > to face at tournaments and otherwise? > > Hmm... I underestimated the power of face to face communication. > > Next time I'll pack a charming lobby and convince you that PTO should be > banned. > YEAH!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D WOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YAHOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KILL VTES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D BAN ALL THE CARDS!!!!!!!!!!!! LEFT ONLY REALLY GOODS CARDS LIKE: Banish from mind eye... BAN ALL OTHER BAD & UGLY CARDS!!!!!!!! YEAH YEAH!!!! :D :D > Beware... ;) sadly Enrique

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<pHlsd.89481$7i4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Jozxyqk wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > I can see all the points in favor of banning DU and KR. > > You're never quite sure who your prey is. > > You can hop over and "steal" a VP. > > It makes "play to win" a lot greyer to judge. > > There's at least one more, which you mention just below: > > > *However*, I also see DU (and to a lesser extent, KR) as > > having legitimate defensive strategies. I'm sure many of > > you would agree that there is some merit in using it to > > "get away from" a predator that your deck simply wasn't > > built to handle. It's part of the knowledge of the deck. > > With DU banned, it means that you'll have to otherwise > > devote more deckspace to handling a larger variety of > > predators. (which, in a dedicated vote deck, is already > > a pretty tight space) > > This is one aspect of circumventing the predator-prey > relationship that the game is designed on. > well... the prey-predator it's in tourney, a fluctuanting relantionship... when your predator it's ousted... you have a new predator... so... why don't make a change of that... because undermine the mechanic??? or why don't make that the first who oust his predator, win the table... so ... you always will have the same prey-predator and nothing would undermine the "basic/important" mechanich... > > I would much more have preferred a rewording of DU (and, > > sure, ban KR if you must), than outright banning it. > > Agreed. No suitable rewording has been discovered/invented > at this time however (without wallpapering or completely > changing the cards). > The problems with overpowered card's can be fixed with the next's expansion... but for that... you must have a good betha tester teams (i hope you have)... the erratas are for card's who the text are too ambiguos or are bad printing (something common in vtes), with the next expansion... but see all type of metagame, including... only rush-metagame... only bleed-metagame ... only vote metagame and fun-metagame... and the combination of those... not only.... testing with one of the traditionals (2 bleed, 2 rush, 1 vote... etc etc.), because... you can be thinking in that normal table... some card would be confrotating to decks of rush and vote and bleed... but what happen when all players have rush deck? have you think in situation's like that? and about wallpapering... i am searching for vanish from mind eye's, i need to wallpaper the wall of my room... > > Either that, or changing the VEKN scoring rules > > mathematically, so that VP-stealing is somehow discouraged > > (this second option is much harder). > > VP-sniping is only one aspect of the problem. > yeah... when you have kill your prey, you steal his VP, and add to you... and why don't you have the chance to stealth VP to another's players that not are your start prey, when your prey (becoming in your old prey)... it's not ousted??? > > Here's a simple example of a reword (don't harp on the > > specifics too much, I'm just pointing out that it *could* be > > changed with clear text): > > > > Dramatic Upheaval > > Political Action > > Choose any other Methuselah. > > Successful referendum means you switch places with that > > Methuselah, end your minion phase, and put this card into > > play. > > The next time you gain a Victory Point, the chosen Methuselah > > gains that Victory Point instead (even if that Methuselah was > > already ousted) and burn this card. > > If that had been implemented instead of the ban, we'd now be > talking about why not just ban it instead of wallpaper the > card *and* increase the errata count. > > (That's the larger "we", BTW -- not just the two of us in > isolation.) > > > I hope that Monocle of Clarity can serve as a precedent that > > useful cards with questionable rulings can find their way > > back off of the banned list. > > Absolutely. That avenue is always a possibility. > > Some cards, like ante cards for example, would be very difficult > to re-word. Seat changers are similarly disadvantaged, given > the nature of changing seats. from i see... the problem of the changing seat an the undermine of the mechanic... it's very ambiguos, because, you have appealing to that mechanic it's fundamental to vtes, and can't be touched, and that, it's questionable (at least)

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20041204233841...@mb-m20.aol.com>... > Well, you can always convince other players to pack Bounty, Anathema, Blood > Hunt, War Party, and Haven Uncovered. That will sorta let you simulate that... Never going to happen. People build decks for themselves, not for my personal enjoyment. With Succubus Club, people could deal with me if they chose to with little or no transaction cost up front (it's my card slot wasted, not theirs). Without Succubus Club, they have to plan on dealing with me ahead of time and include the appropriate cards in their deck to facilitate the deal (wasting their precious card slots). See the dilemma? It shifts the burden in a way that virtually eliminates the possibility of making the sort of deals I used to make. Bad for the game? Not really. But my personal enjoyment of VTES and playing Assamites in particular has notably decreased with this ban. > >The problem isn't Succubbus Club, > >it's bad players. A player that bleeds/PTOs/torporizes minions > >cross-table for spite is just as disruptive to the table, but we don't > >ban Kindred Spirits, PTO, or (D) rush cards. Too make a bad analogy: > >it's not guns that kill people, it's people who kill people. The gun > >(Succubus Club) is not the problem, the problem is that people are > >spiteful. > > > Yeah, but guns make it a helluva lot easier to kill people. Without guns, you'd > have to stab or club something to death. With guns, it's point and click. > > Yeah, Bum's Rush, PTO, and Kindred Spirits can be misused by an incompetent > player. But Succubus Club was a frickin' Assault Rifle in comparion. > > Yes, a gun (even an Assault Rifle like Succubus Club) needs a person in order > to be abused. But the gun really does facilitate the task. I maintain the problem is not with the card, but the player using it. If a particular use of SC is objectionable, the judge can deny that particular use under the Sportmanslike Conduct rule. I fail to see how this is unlike any other cross-table stupidity that cards technically allow. Bleeding/PTO'ing/torp'ing cross-table is just as strong if not stronger than giving away your last few resources with SC and we don't see the need to ban those cards. Stupid/spiteful play is not a reason to ban a card IMO. > I don't understand why people are having such knee-jerk reactions to the > bannings. LSJ has already said that there's the potential for the cards to come > back in a revised format. > > Why don't we all take a deep breath. Give the new environment (sans Succubus > Club and sans table-switching) a chance. And maybe this will give the Rule Team > / VEKN / LSJ some time to better evaluate the effect of the cards and maybe > make a meaningful change. I don't believe this is a knee-jerk reaction Eric and I don't appreciate it being characterized as such and generically shrugged off as the reaction of "people". I've made this exact defense of SC in the past and I believe it's a valid argument (if not persuasive to you). I hope SC in particular does come back in a more limited form in KMW. However, I don't think that there will be a better chance for SC/KR/DU to come back in time with better data. In particular it seems like KR/DU has been deemed per se inappropriate for tournament play because it is what it is. > Halcyan 2 Aramis (as long as we're going by net-pseudonyms)

"James Coupe" wrote : > I've seen no evidence that the V:EKN inner circle (and whichever subsets > of V:EKN rewrite the tournament rules[0]) is one person. That's nice. IMO it's foolhardy to consider the final decision at least laying anywhere other than with LSJ. But that's just my opinion :o) Just not sure I'm thrilled with the way that cards like this can be erased, a 3 steps forward 2 steps back kind of situation. I think that this is a real long term change that will see vote not unplayable, but significantly weakened which I personally think dums VTES down a bit and allows the void to be filled with more S+B and (maybe no bad thing) combat. As an aside, I think that reversal of major changes like this is pretty damn unlikely. Not exactly got the best history of admitting mistakes, heh. I guess we'll all see but it's a done deal now and no amount of lobbying is going to do squat so no more campaigning for me, I have other brick walls to headbutt :o)

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:31hnj3F...@individual.net... > > Is it possible for you to please share which cases were used as a > basis of > > evidence? AFAICS DU and KR do not undermine or obviate the > predator-prey > > relationship, they simply define a new predator-prey relationship. > > Every case. That's a rather conservative response. In terms of metagame theory the predator-prey relationship means that you should only be able to oust your prey, not other methuselahs around the table. A DU or a KR will give you a new prey, but the general relationships from predator to prey around the table are preserved. The only point of contention as James Coupe has noted above (in the thread) is the point of timing where the vote is called and the new prey-to-be may or may not be able to react in their own defence. And as I've noted above (in the thread) this could be safely cushioned with errata such that once a DU or KR has been played (whether successful or not) that Methuselah's minion phase immediately ends. This give not just the new prey but *the whole table* a turn to adjust and respond before the offending player can act again - this should make stealing a end-game kill a lot harder, whilst still allowing the table dynamic to be changed. > > Certainly > > the threat of DU and KR is nothing compared to Anarch Revolt, a > dangerous > > stackable card which has effect which clearly *does* defy the > predator-prey > > relationship, and yet which has *still* not been touched despite, > numerous, > > repeated requests from members of the V:TES community. > > If cards can be rehabilitated with new text in a new printing, there's > not much need to ban them. IMO (and Scott's too, AFAIK), Anarch Revolt > falls into that category of redeemable cards. As Scott has posted > elsewhere, if text were to be discovered that would redeem DU/KR, then > they would be unbanned (Of course, given their nature, it will certainly > be challenging to find appropriate text). Also, if a good solution had > presented itself previously, the cards would never have been banned. I've seen plenty of good solutions offered for Anarch Revolt over the last few years, *none* of which has ever been mooted seriously AFAIK. My favourite is to add that during the referendum to burn the card, there is 1 vote in favour for each other Anarch Revolt already in play. Nothing's been done about this card, and personally I feel that's far more important than the timing/fairness of DU or KR. And you are seriously telling me that *no-one* could come up with any sensible errata for DU and KR and that banning was the *only* option? I find that very hard to believe. I'd be extremely grateful if The Powers That Be could give the matter some more thought (including my suggestion above). [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:7ADtODtC...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > 1) What could Peter have done to defend against that? I would agree that a pro-active rush deck has very little to throw in defence of a voting player in that player's turn. However, there are a myriad of other deck types that would be able to produce intercept, votes or a DT to keep themselves alive. Some decks suffer more than others from this kind of play. I realise that having to deal with this kind of play at all is an issue in any case, but less for some than others. I would argue though that DU/KR isn't *always* played in the late game to steal a kill. The issue regarding timing could be resolved with errata in any case, *not* a total ban - e.g. once a DU or KR has been played successfully (whether it fails or passes) that methuselah's minion phase immediately ends. > 2) Should everyone on a table be thinking "What happens if the table > suddenly becomes a completely different order?" every time they play a > card? Not every time cards are played, but when a strong vote deck is on the table, I've always considered that an issue. But then again I usually play with intercept coming out of my ass which means it's never really been that much of an issue for me personally :) > 3) If table-switching is such a crucial element of the game, why is it > only available to political decks? (Many other forms of offence and > defence - pool destruction, minion denial, secondary resource > manipulation etc. - are available to many, many deck types.) That is a good question, but I would argue that making similar options available to other kinds of decks (Anarchs? Black Hand?) would be far more interesting than banning the existing cards and removing the possibility of the strategy altogether. We should bear in mind that in V:TES the available strategies are very small: bleeding, fighting or voting. Deck milling is now a possible fourth, but it's very much an outside, unlikely case that you'd score a table win. Anything that creates more options and variety is IMHO a good thing. > I am vaguely undecided on these points, though believe that these points > are somewhat fundamental to the change that's been enacted. Perhaps the most serious complaint (which I didn't raise before but which I've seen elsewhere) is how come after 10 years of V:TES, and DU and KR being available for the *entire* period should they be banned now? If they were such a problem then they should have been banned before - what changed in the last year or so that has made a ban so necessary all of a sudden? I've never seen people bitching about them in the public domain to the extent that a ban would need to be mooted. On this basis alone it strikes me as rather unecessary...? *shrugs* [ quoted text not captured ]

On 5 Dec 2004 09:21:40 -0800, emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) scrawled: >carn...@gmail.com (John Flournoy) wrote in message news:<e904e39f.04120...@posting.google.com>... >> Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:<opsig9yl...@news.chello.hu>... >> >> > I'm not sure what the game will be without seat switching - I >> > haven't seen a vote deck without seat switching in a long time. >> >> This statement right here, is one major reason why I'm in favor of the >> cards being banned. When players can't even think of the last time you >> saw a vote deck without seat-switching, because EVERY vote deck always >> includes them, then those cards are definitely worth considering for >> alteration/banning/etc. > >Best get rid of Blood Doll, then, 'cause you see it in just about >every deck. well, you do need at least 4 Blood Dolls in a deck for it to be competative...... (i so hope someone remembers what i am referencing here...) :D salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

GREAT! I applaud this decision. I wanted those seatswitchers changed for a long time. Don't get me wrong, i love the ability to balance the table, as it was used for in the the EC-final, if they could be changed so that they are only usefull in that context, great!. I just hated the fact that AND they were VERY high-effect cards. (much more so than PTO) And they weren't even that high opportunity costed (at some point people WILL die) AND it makes rulings about playing-to-win much more complicated. AND it screws over people who worked hard for their VP, while i just wait there untill they are almost done. Lately, if i played malkavians, i would include 3 riderclauses and 3 DU's. I was pretty sure to get 2 VP's just by those 6 cards. (add revolts, if you don't expect voters). DU was really a nobrainer for me, in any deck that can get some stealth and/or some way to get the vote through (even if it is only one prince). Playing Sabbat? 2*Dia, 2*DU=1vp. It is all just TOO easy. On top of that, it takes time to move your butt. Eagles and rushes are VERY different from the seatswitchers. You can stop people from getting a VP (in other words, work balance), but you cannot get a VP unless you oust your own prey (vp, sniping). This change will do a lot of good for the game, you can just go forward without worrying about who is going to get your VP. And there are still plenty of options to balanec the table. W

In message <41b4359c$0$50873$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, "Mike" <mi...@vekn.org.uk> mumbled something about: > >"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:31hnj3F...@individual.net... > >> > Is it possible for you to please share which cases were used as a >> basis of >> > evidence? AFAICS DU and KR do not undermine or obviate the >> predator-prey >> > relationship, they simply define a new predator-prey relationship. >> >> Every case. > >That's a rather conservative response. In terms of metagame theory the >predator-prey relationship means that you should only be able to oust your >prey, not other methuselahs around the table. A DU or a KR will give you a >new prey, but the general relationships from predator to prey around the >table are preserved. Utterly incorrect. A -> B -> C -> D -> E. A swaps with D. A has a new predator and prey. B has a new predator. C has a new prey. D has a new predator and prey. E has a new predator and prey. The general relationships have been completely demolished. >The only point of contention as James Coupe has noted above (in the thread) >is the point of timing where the vote is called and the new prey-to-be may >or may not be able to react in their own defence. And as I've noted above >(in the thread) this could be safely cushioned with errata such that once a >DU or KR has been played (whether successful or not) that Methuselah's >minion phase immediately ends. This give not just the new prey but *the Anarch Revolt. >whole table* a turn to adjust and respond before the offending player can >act again - this should make stealing a end-game kill a lot harder, whilst >still allowing the table dynamic to be changed. Anarch Revolt. Besides, what are you going to do when he switches behind someone with 4 pool and one minion? There isn't anything you can do to prop up the losing player, and just arbitrarily Rushing cross-table to stop a VP isn't in most decks' interest. Allowing a strategy that FORCES hostile cross-table action against your own best interests ALSO demolishes the predator-prey relationship. >> If cards can be rehabilitated with new text in a new printing, there's >> not much need to ban them. IMO (and Scott's too, AFAIK), Anarch Revolt >> falls into that category of redeemable cards. As Scott has posted >> elsewhere, if text were to be discovered that would redeem DU/KR, then >> they would be unbanned (Of course, given their nature, it will certainly >> be challenging to find appropriate text). Also, if a good solution had >> presented itself previously, the cards would never have been banned. > >I've seen plenty of good solutions offered for Anarch Revolt over the last >few years, *none* of which has ever been mooted seriously AFAIK. My Many have been taken seriously. None of them have sufficed. >favourite is to add that during the referendum to burn the card, there is 1 >vote in favour for each other Anarch Revolt already in play. Nothing's been >done about this card, and personally I feel that's far more important than >the timing/fairness of DU or KR. Modifying the ease of burning the card does nothing for the person who is the prey of the AR does (the primary victim), and does nothing in the case of 1-3 Anarchs (because it's easy to vote down). >And you are seriously telling me that *no-one* could come up with any >sensible errata for DU and KR and that banning was the *only* option? I find >that very hard to believe. I'd be extremely grateful if The Powers That Be >could give the matter some more thought (including my suggestion above). Balls to you, dude. It's not their problem if it's hard for you to believe; as I have shown above, it seems that YOU haven't given the matter enough thought. Now cry me some more river. [ quoted text not captured ]

Mike wrote: > Perhaps the most serious complaint (which I didn't raise before but which > I've seen elsewhere) is how come after 10 years of V:TES, and DU and KR > being available for the *entire* period should they be banned now? If they > were such a problem then they should have been banned before - what changed > in the last year or so that has made a ban so necessary all of a sudden? > I've never seen people bitching about them in the public domain to the > extent that a ban would need to be mooted. On this basis alone it strikes me > as rather unecessary...? *shrugs* This doesn't seem like a serious problem to me. If you look at *most* of the card changes that have been made (and you can view erratta as a type of banning, since one effect is replaced by another), in each case it is possible to say "well that card has been around for X years, so why ban it now?". I have heard LSJ refer in the past to a "threshold", and perhaps even things "rising above a threshold", which indicates to me that it is more of a cumulative process than what you seem willing to grant it. -- David Cherryholmes

salem wrote: > well, you do need at least 4 Blood Dolls in a deck for it to be > competative...... > (i so hope someone remembers what i am referencing here...) Well, ya know I do. :) -- David Cherryholmes

Aramis wrote: > Never going to happen. People build decks for themselves, not for my > personal enjoyment. With Succubus Club, people could deal with me if > they chose to with little or no transaction cost up front (it's my > card slot wasted, not theirs). Without Succubus Club, they have to > plan on dealing with me ahead of time and include the appropriate > cards in their deck to facilitate the deal (wasting their precious > card slots). See the dilemma? It shifts the burden in a way that > virtually eliminates the possibility of making the sort of deals I > used to make. I know you've been a fan of the card for a while, and I even see your name pop up every now and then when people are fishing for "positive" examples of SC use. So, I can sympathise with your position. However, I don't think things, while less good, are as lost as you are making them out to be. You can still engage in contract style dealing, it just requires that there be something intrinsic about the other decks on the table that allows them to give something back. A totally linear "all I do is bleed my prey and bounce, and maybe dodge" deck is obviously going to have very, very little to offer, but most decks will have something, e.g. an eagle's sight block, votes, rush, kindred spirits, etc. Now you just have to float the whole arrangement on pure dealing rather than the easy pool-channel granted by SC. -- David Cherryholmes

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ieo8r0picsjl4bs4e...@4ax.com... > Utterly incorrect. > > A -> B -> C -> D -> E. > > A swaps with D. > > A has a new predator and prey. > B has a new predator. > C has a new prey. > D has a new predator and prey. > E has a new predator and prey. > > The general relationships have been completely demolished. It seems that there's some splitting of hairs whilst overlooking semantics. I would agree that the *specific* relationships for each individual predator and prey *have* changed, however the general theoretical relationship for predator vs. prey have not, the latter of which after all is the essential dynamic of the game. I would only see a need for a rules change if the general case was undermined, *not* the specific case. > Besides, what are you going to do when he switches behind someone with 4 > pool and one minion? There isn't anything you can do to prop up the > losing player, and just arbitrarily Rushing cross-table to stop a VP > isn't in most decks' interest. Err what are you going to do when *any* player is left with 4 pool and one minion? Anyone on their last legs is going to die, whether or not their predator has changed in the intervening turn or not. Acting cross-table to protect a dying player is a general concern, not something specific to a DU/KR switcher. Bleating about the stealing of kills is more to do with bad decks letting vote decks have a field day rather than vice versa. > Many have been taken seriously. None of them have sufficed. You are able to state this with certainty because you're on the Rules Team? If not, I'd much rather hear from someone who is. > Modifying the ease of burning the card does nothing for the person who > is the prey of the AR does (the primary victim), and does nothing in the > case of 1-3 Anarchs (because it's easy to vote down). Can you give me some context for the above? AR is not necessarily easy to vote down, and it only becomes a killer when multiples are stacked and protected by vote lock. > Balls to you, dude. It's not their problem if it's hard for you to > believe; as I have shown above, it seems that YOU haven't given the > matter enough thought. TBH you haven't shown any such thing, although you're welcome to try again... > Now cry me some more river. Forgive me if I treat your eloquence with indifference... ;)

"Mike" <mi...@vekn.org.uk> wrote in message news:41b4359c$0$50873$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net... > > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:31hnj3F...@individual.net... > > > > Is it possible for you to please share which cases were used as a > > basis of > > > evidence? AFAICS DU and KR do not undermine or obviate the > > predator-prey > > > relationship, they simply define a new predator-prey relationship. > > > > Every case. > > That's a rather conservative response. In terms of metagame theory the > predator-prey relationship means that you should only be able to oust your > prey, not other methuselahs around the table. Not true. You've always been able to oust players other than your prey--you just didn't benefit from it with a VP and six pool. DU/KR essentially allow you to gain that benefit by ousting someone else's prey (even though you technically become their predator moments before the oust). [clip] > > If cards can be rehabilitated with new text in a new printing, there's > > not much need to ban them. IMO (and Scott's too, AFAIK), Anarch Revolt > > falls into that category of redeemable cards. As Scott has posted > > elsewhere, if text were to be discovered that would redeem DU/KR, then > > they would be unbanned (Of course, given their nature, it will certainly > > be challenging to find appropriate text). Also, if a good solution had > > presented itself previously, the cards would never have been banned. > > I've seen plenty of good solutions offered for Anarch Revolt over the last > few years, *none* of which has ever been mooted seriously AFAIK. My > favourite is to add that during the referendum to burn the card, there is 1 > vote in favour for each other Anarch Revolt already in play. Nothing's been > done about this card, and personally I feel that's far more important than > the timing/fairness of DU or KR. Banned cards are banned when the tournament rules for the year are released. Cards receiving new text are released with new expansions. > And you are seriously telling me that *no-one* could come up with any > sensible errata for DU and KR and that banning was the *only* option? I find > that very hard to believe. This has been addressed in other threads. If you've got a good suggestion, let us know. As Scott has said, however, the nature of those two cards is such that errata will be very difficult to create (unless you are removing the table changing effect...but why bother then, eh?). > I'd be extremely grateful if The Powers That Be > could give the matter some more thought (including my suggestion above). There are many good suggestions out there for AR. Of course, if any AR suggestions are/were acted upon, they'd appear in a future expansion instead of on the banned list (unless we can't/couldn't find any good suggestions). -Robert Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:31jaiqF...@individual.net... > Not true. You've always been able to oust players other than your > prey--you just didn't benefit from it with a VP and six pool. There are very few ways to achieve this though, and to do so would be questionable in any case under 'playing to win' remit. > DU/KR > essentially allow you to gain that benefit by ousting someone else's > prey (even though you technically become their predator moments before > the oust). I guess that's the semantic crux of it. The point is they *are* your prey, no matter how brief the period is. And the period may not be so brief - I've seen many, many games where despite the new predator, the prey has managed to hang on for a considerable amount of time. > Banned cards are banned when the tournament rules for the year are > released. Cards receiving new text are released with new expansions. I know the differences there dude - are you trying to sidestep me? :) Are you trying to imply that AR *will* be re-worded, or that all suggestions to date haven't been good enough for you guys and you're still looking? > > And you are seriously telling me that *no-one* could come up with any > > sensible errata for DU and KR and that banning was the *only* option? > I find > > that very hard to believe. > > This has been addressed in other threads. If you've got a good > suggestion, let us know. Making each card one per game, or ending the minion phase after the action, or making it a delayed effect (e.g. at the beginning of your next turn) all sound like feasible options to me. Would you mind elucidating us to explain why you guys decided that none of these were good enough? ;) > As Scott has said, however, the nature of > those two cards is such that errata will be very difficult to create > (unless you are removing the table changing effect...but why bother > then, eh?). With the new cards banned we've lost the table changing effect anyway. Any move from there would be a step up. > There are many good suggestions out there for AR. Of course, if any AR > suggestions are/were acted upon, they'd appear in a future expansion > instead of on the banned list (unless we can't/couldn't find any good > suggestions). See above :)

Morgan Vening wrote: > On 5 Dec 2004 09:21:40 -0800, emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit Svenson) [ quoted text not captured ] > Morgan Vening These cards would actually change the total number of VP awarded in a game, so I don't think they'll fly. Also, they still allow decks to rob others of their VPs, even if they don't get the lost VP themselves, so they could still be used for a kind of VP sniping.

Mike wrote: > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>Not true. You've always been able to oust players other than your >>prey--you just didn't benefit from it with a VP and six pool. > There are very few ways to achieve this though, and to do so would be > questionable in any case under 'playing to win' remit. It might be an instance for a judge to take a peek, but as a judge, I wouldn't consider the bald fact of a cross-table oust to be violating play to win. If the player doing it thinks that's his best path to a GW, so be it. Now, really extreme cases can be constructed where it could be a violation of PTW, but the fact that it is merely "questionable" isn't a problem to me. But, hey, I'm quick with the "judgement". -- David Cherryholmes

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:31jcioF...@individual.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Actually I would beg to differ. IMHO the player would *have* to demonstrate that the oust was genuinely in his best interests or otherwise he *is* guilty of violating the play to win remit. The only way I can see this being permissible is in a VP-splitting deal of some kind. There is simply no excuse for giving away a VP for no reason, effectively depriving yourself of it in the process. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Mechadick" <mech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:397ee008.04120...@posting.google.com... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:<41B11E2D...@white-wolf.com>... >> The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. >> >> The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. >> >> The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are >> not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred >> Restructure, and Succubus Club. >> >> That's all. >> >> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules > > That is the most stupid thing i ever heard in V:TES. You just banned 2 > 10 years old cards !!! Actually, all three are 10 years old... DaveZ Atom Weaver

On 6 Dec 2004 07:34:18 -0800, emmits...@hotmail.com wrote: *snip switch cards that reduce VP for snipes* >These cards would actually change the total number of VP awarded in a >game, so I don't think they'll fly. Also, they still allow decks to rob >others of their VPs, even if they don't get the lost VP themselves, so >they could still be used for a kind of VP sniping. I've never understood this argument, when a time out (an apparently common situation at tourney level*) already does this. If 2 people are left at time out, the game nets 1VP less than normal overall. 3 people, 1.5 VP less. 4, 2 VP less, and so on. So I've never understood the whole 'VP parity' thing. As for the sniping, yes, it could be used to take VP from someone who 'earned' it, but it doesn't grant the voter anything, lowering the reasoning for doing so. Making it the equivalent of a cross table block/bleed/PTO/whatever, in that it's using resources that doesn't gain you anything. And chances are, your new prey (given your old one was oustable), is likely going to be harder to oust. * Our games don't time out, because we don't put time restrictions on our play. If the game goes 4 hours, so be it. Morgan Vening

"Morgan Vening" <mor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:bda9r0d7h1l2vascb...@4ax.com... > I've never understood this argument, when a time out (an apparently > common situation at tourney level*) already does this. If 2 people are > left at time out, the game nets 1VP less than normal overall. 3 > people, 1.5 VP less. 4, 2 VP less, and so on. So I've never understood > the whole 'VP parity' thing. The only time you don't get N VPs awarded in an N-player game is when you don't finish an N-player game. More of a zero sum than parity. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

"Rob Treasure" <robtreasure'remove'@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:31d6ccF...@individual.net... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:41B11E2D...@white-wolf.com... > > The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. > > > > The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. > > > > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > > Restructure, and Succubus Club. > > A very very sad day for VTES. Totally unnecessary and a bad move imo. > > Hmmmm the game has lost a lot of appeal for me today. Becoming a reactionary in your old age? :-) I know it's a drastic change to the game environment, but I think it's a good one. Yeah, it's nice when you can steal someone else's VP, or get away from a predator or prey who was mean to you. But it's not really a fair effect for everyone else who was playing "the normal game of VTES" like a sucker. :-) Josh vtes progressive

[ quoted text not captured ] The "normal game" of vtes included those cards for a decade until now, though. And no-one complained about them. greets Emiliano, vekn Prince of Rome

James Coupe wrote: > In message <41b38c66$0$29750$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>, > Mike <mi...@vekn.org.uk> writes: >> Is it possible for you to please share which cases were used as a >> basis of evidence? AFAICS DU and KR do not undermine or obviate the >> predator-prey relationship, they simply define a new predator-prey >> relationship. > > Consider: > > You, me, LSJ, Peter Bakija and Rob Treasure sit down at a table, in > that order. <snip example> Ok, can you, or any other agreeing with the ban, tell me how many winning deck have won at tournaments by the use (or abuse) of KR or DU ? How many decks at tournaments try to abuse clearly on those 2 cards banned ? Are those number reasonable to get the card banned ? I think that no, we would not find reasonable numbers justifying such decision. greets Emiliano

Tetragrammaton wrote: > The "normal game" of vtes included those cards for a decade until now, > though. > And no-one complained about them. Well, yes. People complained about them all the time. And pretty much every deck in the world that wanted to be competetive was forced to include specific "anti table switch vote" technology, as use of these cards to steal VPs was endemic. People complained about these cards all the time. Really. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Ok, can you, or any other agreeing with the ban, tell me how many winning > deck have won at tournaments by the use (or abuse) of KR or DU ? A lot. Seat switching and VP sniping was incredibly common. > How many decks at tournaments try to abuse clearly on > those 2 cards banned ? What exactly do you mean "abuse"? When used, the cards, generally speaking, resulted in the destruction of the predator/prey dynamic that was established at the start of the game, and generally resulted in stealing someone's VPs that they had worked hard all game to try and get (as that is the goal of the game). This wasn't "abuse". This was just what the card did. > Are those number reasonable to get the card banned ? The cards are banned 'cause they undermined the very structure of the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:49:44 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: > >> The "normal game" of vtes included those cards for a decade until now, >> though. >> And no-one complained about them. > > Well, yes. People complained about them all the time. And pretty much > every > deck in the world that wanted to be competetive was forced to include > specific "anti table switch vote" technology, as use of these cards to > steal > VPs was endemic. > > People complained about these cards all the time. Really. That's not exactly fair to state. I mean, yeah, some people might have been complaining about table switching votes, and yeah, some people might have been packing vote defence specifically to thwart VP-snipe, but I find it odd how all of a sudden everyone starts to whine retroactively. Yes, I had my concerns with seat switching, but I had far greater concerns with PTO for example. I included 5+ card vote defence packs *explicitly* against PTO and I know for sure that I wasn't the only one. I might add, I always saw use of that anti-PTO defence (mostly on PTOs, and not just random Kines). Politics, by the way, transcends the normal table dynamics, for good and ill. While I ultimately came to think that banning these seatswitchers will enhance the game experience in the medium run, banning them is IMHO a remedy for the symptoms, and not a cure for the ailment. Politics will get more and more attention as the tournaments become more seriouos. I wouldn't be surprised if ultimately the blocking provisions were indeed revised. -- Bye, Daneel

In message <K44td.29961$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: >The "normal game" of vtes included those cards for a decade until now, >though. >And no-one complained about them. I think LSJ's posts indicate that "no-one" is wrong. It may be no-one that you've seen, however. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

In message <41b47db9$0$50866$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, Mike <mi...@vekn.org.uk> writes: >Actually I would beg to differ. IMHO the player would *have* to demonstrate >that the oust was genuinely in his best interests or otherwise he *is* >guilty of violating the play to win remit. The only way I can see this being >permissible is in a VP-splitting deal of some kind. Counter-example: An Anarch Revolt deck that is destroying the table. I would find it very, very hard to rule that a player ousting one of those (or similar) was violating play-to-win. It kept them alive, for a start. (There are plenty of other counter-examples out there. They don't involve VP splits.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <41b477ba$0$50910$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, Mike <mi...@vekn.org.uk> writes: >"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:31jaiqF...@individual.net... >> Not true. You've always been able to oust players other than your >> prey--you just didn't benefit from it with a VP and six pool. > >There are very few ways to achieve this though, and to do so would be >questionable in any case under 'playing to win' remit. I think the first part of this is highly questionable. Vote decks can throw damage cross-table. Rush decks can throw rushes cross-table, which certainly can contribute to the oust significantly even if it doesn't do it itself. Add Fame, if you need the actual killing blow. Some bleed decks can go cross-table. A number of them can go upstream if they need to (e.g. Night Moves), others can go properly cross-table (Kindred Spirits). Other bleed decks can't so easily, of course. Also, if any vote deck could take such actions cross-table and justify it on "I have a DU in my deck", that undermines play-to-win anyway. However, play-to-win is more robust than "Must take the optimal action, RIGHT NOW." People make mistakes, people miscalculate, and plans get foiled. ("OMG YOU VOX DOMINI-ED MY DRAMATIC UPHEAVAL I'M DOOMED.") People can mistakenly make cross-table alliances - only to find themselves on the pointy end of a shafting. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <31ijgrF...@individual.net>, Rob Treasure <robtreasure'r emove'@ntlworld.com> writes: >IMO it's foolhardy to consider the final decision at least laying anywhere >other than with LSJ. But that's just my opinion :o) You're ignoring the fact that LSJ is a White Wolf employee these days. Do you honestly think that White Wolf won't act if LSJ is single- handedly responsible for trashing V:TES, even if you allow for him being the only person with any say so? I can't imagine them being even half that naive. The final say-so clearly cannot be LSJ's, in the grand scheme. I would also hazard that White Wolf have some considerable experience of upsetting players by rendering their investment "worthless". Look at their non-V:TES products for numerous examples. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: > >> The "normal game" of vtes included those cards for a decade until >> now, though. >> And no-one complained about them. > > Well, yes. People complained about them all the time. And pretty much > every deck in the world that wanted to be competetive was forced to > include specific "anti table switch vote" technology, as use of these > cards to steal VPs was endemic. > > People complained about these cards all the time. >Really. Really ? Here in italy, with a player base of 300+ player i never * ever* heard one of such complain in 10 years. Not in forum, not at tournaments, not at regular meeting games. Maybe is just here.... Emiliano, V:EKN Prince of Rome

James Coupe wrote: > In message <K44td.29961$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: >> The "normal game" of vtes included those cards for a decade until >> now, though. >> And no-one complained about them. > > I think LSJ's posts indicate that "no-one" is wrong. > > It may be no-one that you've seen, however. Care to link some google/usenet discussion where this problem was noted and arisen ? thanks Emiliano

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: > >> Ok, can you, or any other agreeing with the ban, tell me how many >> winning deck have won at tournaments by the use (or abuse) of KR or >> DU ? > > A lot. Seat switching and VP sniping was incredibly common. > >> How many decks at tournaments try to abuse clearly on >> those 2 cards banned ? > > What exactly do you mean "abuse"? When used, the cards, generally > speaking, resulted in the destruction of the predator/prey dynamic > that was established at the start of the game, A deal with the predator/prey is disruptive in the same way. And it's allowed. I'm asking for some proof, not for speculation / perception of what "disrupt the predator/prey" mechanic. >and generally resulted > in stealing someone's VPs that they had worked hard all game to try > and get (as that is the goal of the game). This wasn't "abuse". This > was just what the card did. > >> Are those number reasonable to get the card banned ? > > The cards are banned 'cause they undermined the very structure of the > game. This is your perspective, yes. However, i asked a raw count of tournaments winning deck/report in which was obvious that DU/KR seat switching caused the victory to the calling meth, and proved to be such destablizing factor you speak of. IMHO there is no proof- you base your motivation just by speculation, not by fact. Emiliano

[Tetragrammaton] > Care to link some google/usenet discussion > where this problem was noted and arisen ? Don't you know how to search google? http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1393cc1261c7ba4a Speaking of knowing how to search google, how do you give a more concise url than the above, under the new google groups system? * lehrbuch

On 6 Dec 2004 17:12:49 -0800, "lehrbuch" <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote: >http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1393cc1261c7ba4a >Speaking of knowing how to search google, how do you give a more >concise url than the above, under the new google groups system? >* lehrbuch If you are looking for a starting place for searches, this works: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad This is good for advanced searches: http://groups-beta.google.com/advanced_search?q=& Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

Daneel wrote: > That's not exactly fair to state. It isn't fair to state that people complained about those cards? > I mean, yeah, some people might have > been complaining about table switching votes, and yeah, some people might > have been packing vote defence specifically to thwart VP-snipe, but I find > it odd how all of a sudden everyone starts to whine retroactively. No one is whining retroactively. The complaints existed. They might not have gotten the attention that, like, SC, PTO, or Anarch Revolt got at times, but those were very hot button issue cards. Personally, it never even *occured* to me that table switch votes might get banned. But when they did, it made perfect sense to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Really ? Here in italy, with a player base of 300+ player > i never * ever* heard one of such complain in 10 years. > Not in forum, not at tournaments, not at regular meeting games. > Maybe is just here.... Maybe it is. [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > A deal with the predator/prey is disruptive in the same way. And it's allowed. It is not even remotely similar. A deal with your predator or prey does not make them not your predator or prey. DU and KR changed your predator and prey. The issue here is not "abuse". It is that DU and KR are cards that uniquely allow you to change who your predator and prey are (while changing who other people's predators and preys are). People sit to play a game. Build a position based on who their predator and prey are, and where everyone at the table is. DU and KR made it possible to completely rearrange this half way through the game, or whatever. A unique ability. Apparently, the tournament organization felt that the only way you should be able to change who your prey is is by ousting your current prey. Which nicely encourages the stated goal of the game. > I'm asking for some proof, not for speculation / perception of what "disrupt > the predator/prey" mechanic. This is not speculation. DU and KR allowed you to arbitrarily change who your prey and predator are. Without ousting anyone. It was, apparently, decided that this was bad for the game. I can't say I disagree. > This is your perspective, yes. > However, i asked a raw count of tournaments winning deck/report in which was > obvious that DU/KR seat switching caused the victory to the calling meth, > and proved to be such destablizing factor you speak of. > IMHO there is no proof- you base your motivation just by speculation, not by > fact. The impression I got was not that the cards were banned due to "abuse" or winning too much. They were banned due to them facilitating an ability that has been deemed inappropriate for competetive play. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 02:17:14 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. > >The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. > >The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are >not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred >Restructure, and Succubus Club. > >That's all. > >http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules Sample discussions of banning Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure: http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=dramatic+ban+group:rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=kindred+ban+group:rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/c9c97ceb0c07fc29 http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/51af89cddea3bf20 http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/ac2bd41451e0ab58 http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5cc57233b2643a20 http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/caea4c7b0885bccb http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b6a6c9b8486aa093 http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1393cc1261c7ba4a http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4f3b1559db144ca0 Unfortunately, the word "ban" is a very high noise word on this newsgroup, and thousands of articles have included it over the years. The above list was 5 minutes of searching. Anyone truly interested could do better, I'm sure. [ quoted text not captured ]

[Lasombra] > If you are looking for a starting place for searches, > this works: ... No, I mean how do you give a concise url for a particular message. Under the old google groups system a url like: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F54BC53...@white-wolf.com would take you directly to a specific message. Now it just seems to take you to the *thread* that the message is in. The new system seems to require a longer url like: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a3ed0822bbf4cca2 To do the same. I'm not sure if this is because I'm an idiot or google's system is now a bit more convoluted. (I know I could use one of the various "tiny url" tools). * lehrbuch

"Mike" <mi...@vekn.org.uk> wrote in message news:41b477ba$0$50910$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net... > > Banned cards are banned when the tournament rules for the year are > > released. Cards receiving new text are released with new expansions. > > I know the differences there dude - are you trying to sidestep me? :) Nope. Just trying to say that each decision happens in its own time. Banned List changes with the Tournament Rules and card reprints with new text occur in expansions or base sets. And, just FYI, if text has to change, there needs to be an appropriately themed set. If someone felt the need to fix a card requiring a Toreador-Anti, for example, you wouldn't be able to fix that in a Camarilla themed set. > Are > you trying to imply that AR *will* be re-worded No comment. >, or that all suggestions to > date haven't been good enough for you guys and you're still looking? I think my previous response addresses that. > > > And you are seriously telling me that *no-one* could come up with any > > > sensible errata for DU and KR and that banning was the *only* option? > > I find > > > that very hard to believe. > > > > This has been addressed in other threads. If you've got a good > > suggestion, let us know. > > Making each card one per game, or ending the minion phase after the action, > or making it a delayed effect (e.g. at the beginning of your next turn) all > sound like feasible options to me. Would you mind elucidating us to explain > why you guys decided that none of these were good enough? ;) See below as well as Scott's posts on the subject. > > As Scott has said, however, the nature of > > those two cards is such that errata will be very difficult to create > > (unless you are removing the table changing effect...but why bother > > then, eh?). > > With the new cards banned we've lost the table changing effect anyway. Any > move from there would be a step up. I disagree. If rewritten cards were to be wildly different from their or iginals in function and theme, then I'd prefer to ban them. > > There are many good suggestions out there for AR. Of course, if any AR > > suggestions are/were acted upon, they'd appear in a future expansion > > instead of on the banned list (unless we can't/couldn't find any good > > suggestions). > > See above :) See above. :) -Robert Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

Mike wrote: > Actually I would beg to differ. IMHO the player would *have* to demonstrate > that the oust was genuinely in his best interests or otherwise he *is* > guilty of violating the play to win remit. The only way I can see this being > permissible is in a VP-splitting deal of some kind. There is simply no > excuse for giving away a VP for no reason, effectively depriving yourself of > it in the process. > UK -cup last year I ousted predator and grand-prey in one turn. Deliberately. Can't see a possible worse oust using your terms above. Of course that double oust (and one player having to run) gave you the pleasure of watching two Anson Anarch Revolts decks during the finals. With Obedience only as defense you tend to dislike Ally-combat decks :) Thus the peculiar non-prey ousts. Sten During

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:km1ar05lpvgf1gf4p...@4ax.com... > On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 02:17:14 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >>The 2005 season VEKN Tournament Rules are up. >> >>The nature of "randomness" in determining seating is clarified a bit. >> >>The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are >>not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred >>Restructure, and Succubus Club. >> >>That's all. >> >>http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules > > Sample discussions of banning Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred > Restructure: > > http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=dramatic+ban+group:rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad I checked this one out just for shits and grins. (Kindred Restructure seems to get mentioned just about every time DU does so I don't feel like I'm missing much not pursuing both.) Unfortunately, for some reason I'm having trouble clicking Jeff's article links and making things come up on my browser. So I just ran the above search by cutting and pasting the search URL itself. Here are my comments: 1) MAN, I HATE THIS INTERFACE. (Sorry, I just had to say that. Anyway...) 2) Some of the articles are the threads that have started once the current ban was announced, i.e. December 3, 2004 and beyond. 3) Ironically, Brian White just last month mentioned he'd like to see DU and KR banned. Not sure if he was serious. 4) There was the thread in May, apparently on the tail of the big PTO debate, about "What cards would you ban if you were, er, the god of Jyhad card banning." (Or whatever, you know what I mean.) Not surprisingly, it was David who specifically mentioned Dramatic Upheavel. My take on the general response to it was a lot of guys saying that DU irritated them from time to time (in some cases just because of the physical act of moving cards around) but he sure didn't get so much as a, "Yea, I'm totally with you!" from anyone else I could find. 4) Found myself replying to a "PeterM" in 2001 who suggested that if "SC (I assume Succubus Club) was banned for its VP splitting ability, "you'd have to ban Dramatic Upheavel, no?" I replied, "No." Must have been back when the previous incarnation of Succubus Club was causing all the problems, pre-game-win rule. 5) One or two cases of people mentioning they dislike Dramatic Upheavel in the course of discussing the ban of another card. Sort of skirting the issue but not a head-on proposal to actually ban Dramatic Upheavel. 6) A lot of "missearches" - by which I mean things like: found the word "dramatic" in some other context (not the name of "Dramatic Upheavel") in a conversation about banning other cards or found Dramatic Upheavel came up in some other context in the course of a conversation about banning other cards. 7) For some reason, you run the search and it shows 37 references on the first page, referring you to 3 other pages. But the second page says there's only 16 results and shows you only 6 more links with no additional page links. Go back to page one and take the page three link and that link shows you three references although the top of the page states it is showing you "number 21-22 of 22". Take the page four link and it shows you "0 of 22" with no additional links. Anyway, the short answer is by *this* search: really nothing. There is *NO* talk anywhere of banning Dramatic Upheavel prior to December 3rd, excepting Brian White and David Cherryholmes. Of course, the search may be flawed or I may have somehow missed something (don't think so but I'm sloppy about reading everything, so maybe...) but from this, I just remain all the more convinced that as far as this newsgroup goes, banning DU and KR is an event that materialized out of nowhere. > Unfortunately, the word "ban" is a very high noise word on this > newsgroup, and thousands of articles have included it over the years. > > The above list was 5 minutes of searching. > > Anyone truly interested could do better, I'm sure. This search worked well enough certainly. Not so many links that you couldn't just look at them all and see who was talking about what and how "ban" and "dramatic" were related in the context of banning Dramatic Upheavel (which they weren't in almost all cases). Given that such a loose search didn't turn up much even when you examined all the links, I fail to see how a better one could be created that would turn something else up. Fred

>> well, you do need at least 4 Blood Dolls in a deck for it to be >> competative...... > >> (i so hope someone remembers what i am referencing here...) > > Well, ya know I do. :) Best series of posts, evar. Ankur

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 01:53:50 +0100, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] i searched for 'dramatic upheaval' with dates limited to before 1 dec 2004. Brian White Nov 26, 2:11 am "Just ban Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restucture and I am happy. Brian. Watford's Bitch." thus, the statement 'no-one' is proven wrong. Proof by contradiction. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 01:53:50 +0100, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> scrawled: >James Coupe wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Otto Koskinen Oct 5, 10:33 am "Nothing like bleeding your prey down to 3 pool, only to have your cross-table enemy come and steal it from you via Dramatic Upheaval/Kindred Restructure." [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > "The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:km1ar05lpvgf1gf4p...@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 02:17:14 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: <snip> [ quoted text not captured ] In fact, i was almost sure that this topic has almost never arisen here. In fact, this proves once more that the decision was uttelrly done in a very arbitrary way. just my 2 cents EMiliano

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: > >> A deal with the predator/prey is disruptive in the same way. And >> it's allowed. > > It is not even remotely similar. A deal with your predator or prey > does not make them not your predator or prey. > In fact, it does not longer make them your predator or prey, at leats in the pratical sense of the game you'll express by that deal (say, not attacking your prey for X turn or whatever). <snip> > Apparently, the tournament organization felt that the only way you > should be able to change who your prey is is by ousting your current > prey. Which nicely encourages the stated goal of the game. > Yes, "the organization" deliberatley ruled against the original set design of cards, in that we agree. >> I'm asking for some proof, not for speculation / perception of what >> "disrupt the predator/prey" mechanic. > > This is not speculation. DU and KR allowed you to arbitrarily change > who your prey and predator are. Without ousting anyone. It was, > apparently, decided that this was bad for the game. I can't say I > disagree. > For a game in which you are completely randomly assigend to a table, i can't be so bad to switch place with another - besides it's no guranteed at all you'll be able to switch that place (referenda are so hard to succeed these days). >> This is your perspective, yes. >> However, i asked a raw count of tournaments winning deck/report in >> which was obvious that DU/KR seat switching caused the victory to >> the calling meth, >> and proved to be such destablizing factor you speak of. >> IMHO there is no proof- you base your motivation just by >> speculation, not by fact. > > The impression I got was not that the cards were banned due to > "abuse" or winning too much. They were banned due to them > facilitating an ability that has been deemed inappropriate for > competetive play. > Then we should define what "competitive play" is. IMHO, in a competitive envoriment, deals should exist not the way they are "ruled" now at all. Then i could start speaking of competitive play. Until now, i see no competitive play at all, just fun in a game in which almost every fundamental mechanincs can be subverted by cards and deals. Anyway, just speaking about "competitive", i could see the problem with that only if the 2 banned cards caused a rift in the competitive aspect, namely - allowing a player to "win" (= being competitive) on a regular basis by the use of them. But we know that's untrue, so i see no problem with the 2 cards and "competitive play". greets Emiliano

salem wrote: > On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 01:53:50 +0100, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> > scrawled: > >> James Coupe wrote: >>> In message <K44td.29961$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, >>> Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: >>>> The "normal game" of vtes included those cards for a decade until >>>> now, though. >>>> And no-one complained about them. >>> >>> I think LSJ's posts indicate that "no-one" is wrong. >>> >>> It may be no-one that you've seen, however. >> >> Care to link some google/usenet discussion where >> this problem was noted and arisen ? > > i searched for 'dramatic upheaval' with dates limited to before 1 dec > 2004. > > > Brian White Nov 26, 2:11 am > "Just ban Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restucture and I am happy. > > Brian. > Watford's Bitch." > > thus, the statement 'no-one' is proven wrong. Proof by contradiction. > Sorry, but i'm not prone to see just *one* discussion in years and years of debating on this group as proof that the problem was debated or evaluated enough to justify such decision. greets Emiliano

"James Coupe" wrote > >IMO it's foolhardy to consider the final decision at least laying anywhere > >other than with LSJ. But that's just my opinion :o) > > You're ignoring the fact that LSJ is a White Wolf employee these days. > > Do you honestly think that White Wolf won't act if LSJ is single- > handedly responsible for trashing V:TES, even if you allow for him being > the only person with any say so? I can't imagine them being even half > that naive. > > The final say-so clearly cannot be LSJ's, in the grand scheme. > > I would also hazard that White Wolf have some considerable experience of > upsetting players by rendering their investment "worthless". Look at > their non-V:TES products for numerous examples. Nope, not getting drawn in <crosses arms> shant. You have the last word on this one old buddy.

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message news:N4etd.30383$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > > In fact, i was almost sure that this topic has almost never arisen here. > In fact, this proves once more that the decision was uttelrly done in a very > arbitrary way. Alright. Now you need to STFU and choose a different line of argument. The topic has arisen here as well as in other electronic forums, and through other means of communication. Your continued assertions that there has been no discussion do not strengthen your position. To proclaim the decision as an arbitrary one is to choose ignorance and disrespect. Decisions like this are not easy; the people involved never decide arbitrarily. Do you think they made the decision to purposefully hurt you and other fans of the cards in question? LSJ has consistently made decisions that have improved and advanced this game. Robert Goudie has consistently made decisions that have improved and advanced this game. > just my 2 cents > > EMiliano Please feel free to spend your 2 cents in a different, more constructive manner. -mikeooi

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 02:17:14 +0000, LSJ wrote: > The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are > not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred > Restructure, and Succubus Club. And there was much rejoicing. :) Very good call here, having these cards out of tournaments massively reduces grey-area collusion possibilites between players and therefore judge headaches. Me likes. A lot. //Petri

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:GYQi4TTI...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <41b47db9$0$50866$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, Mike > <mi...@vekn.org.uk> writes: > >Actually I would beg to differ. IMHO the player would *have* to demonstrate > >that the oust was genuinely in his best interests or otherwise he *is* > >guilty of violating the play to win remit. The only way I can see this being > >permissible is in a VP-splitting deal of some kind. > > Counter-example: An Anarch Revolt deck that is destroying the table. I would argue that Anarch Revolt (when stacked) is the only card capable of destroying a whole table. Antedeluvian Awakening and Fame cause similar environmental damage but they're one-shot only. And Anarch Revolt should be addressed by the Rules Team because it *can* destroy a whole table. It's a much more serious threat IMHO to the metagame and to the predator-prey relationship then any other card I could name. But as I've posted elsewhere, the environmental damage caused by Anarch Revolt also effects your prey as well as everybody else. This is a different issue from *specifically and singly* targeting a player other than your prey. Regards, Mike

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:aIYl8pSp...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <41b477ba$0$50910$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, Mike > <mi...@vekn.org.uk> writes: > >"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > >news:31jaiqF...@individual.net... > >> Not true. You've always been able to oust players other than your > >> prey--you just didn't benefit from it with a VP and six pool. > > > >There are very few ways to achieve this though, and to do so would be > >questionable in any case under 'playing to win' remit. > > I think the first part of this is highly questionable. > > Vote decks can throw damage cross-table. Rush decks can throw rushes > cross-table, which certainly can contribute to the oust significantly > even if it doesn't do it itself. Add Fame, if you need the actual > killing blow. *Actually* ousting someone is different from performing an action which may or may not later contribute to the oust. I can see the relevancy but that's not quite the same thing. Using a KRC vote as an example I see the allocation of damage to kill a player other than your prey as *bad* play, unless the acting player can demonstrate what's in it for them. Allocating damage which *doesn't* oust is not so much of an issue because it's not actually ousting anyone. I'm not saying it's not an issue - you could still argue for bad play but it's more grey, whereas an oust is very clear cut and it rewards the predator not the acting player. That's not ruling our miscalculation or error on the part of the acting player anyway of course, but that's the kind of thing you just have to judge on the day. > Add Fame, if you need the actual killing blow. Environmental effects are slightly different though again. They target your prey *as well* as everybody else, which is a different case from *specifically and singly* targeting a player other than your prey with an ousting action. I take umbrage with the latter, not the former. > Also, if any vote deck could take such actions cross-table and justify > it on "I have a DU in my deck", that undermines play-to-win anyway. Possibly. Personally I would see the reliance of the draw of a single yet-to-be-seen card to be clutching at straws. I can see though that ditching DU and KR *does* obviate these kinds of arguments... ;) Regards, Mike

"lehrbuch" <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1102381969.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] To do message-ID searching, use: http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?selm=c6o93f$e9of0$1...@ID-209231.news.uni-berlin.de (hardly more concise, and it doesn't show the article in question per se, only the thread it is in -- I've submitted a bug report to Google on that point.)

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message news:%Ndtd.30360$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > salem wrote: > >>> Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: > >>>> And no-one complained about them. > >>> > > thus, the statement 'no-one' is proven wrong. Proof by contradiction. > > > Sorry, but i'm not prone to see just *one* discussion in > years and years of debating on this group as proof that the problem was > debated or evaluated enough to justify such decision. Ah, the old moving target defense. Sounds like what happens when you learn to juggle 3 balls. You friend asks if you can juggle 4. He's not really interested if you can juggle 4, exactly, of course. He just wants one more than you can do. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

Mike wrote: > I would argue that Anarch Revolt (when stacked) is the only card capable of > destroying a whole table. Antedeluvian Awakening and Fame cause similar > environmental damage but they're one-shot only. 1st Tradition decks, Smiling Jack decks, (moot now, but) table dancers. I'm sure there are more, but it's really irrelevant because I don't think you require a "kill the whole table deck" for it to be in your interest to oust someone else. I rarely play decks that are built for the sweep. Every now and then the game just falls out that way, but I'm looking at the game win. Most generally, collapse the table to a favorable three way, and then win that three way. It may be counter argued that this is insufficient for a really large tournament, but A) I don't think the counterargument holds in the end, as 3 GW are going to get you there, B) we don't all attend really large tournaments, and C) the constraints tournaments of that size place on viable deck choices betray their problematic nature, IMO. Lastly, in a 5 player game, one VP can just go *poof* and it's not really an impediment towards your own game win. Even very early (and thus likely to be faulty) speculation about the late game state is buffered by the fact that you can fuck up once and possibly oust the wrong guy without irrevocably shooting yourself in the foot. It's a game of limited information and best guesses must suffice. > And Anarch Revolt should be addressed by the Rules Team because it *can* > destroy a whole table. It's a much more serious threat IMHO to the metagame > and to the predator-prey relationship then any other card I could name. That's a specific issue with that card, and not really relevant to the discussion at hand, which is "can I oust cross table and still be playing to win." -- David Cherryholmes

"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:aqpar0h8cmveou5ft...@4ax.com... > On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 01:53:50 +0100, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> > scrawled: > >>James Coupe wrote: >>> In message <K44td.29961$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, >>> Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: >>>> The "normal game" of vtes included those cards for a decade until >>>> now, though. And no-one complained about them. >>> >>> I think LSJ's posts indicate that "no-one" is wrong. >>> >>> It may be no-one that you've seen, however. >> >>Care to link some google/usenet discussion where >>this problem was noted and arisen ? > > i searched for 'dramatic upheaval' with dates limited to before 1 dec > 2004. > > Brian White Nov 26, 2:11 am > "Just ban Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restucture and I am happy. > > Brian. > Watford's Bitch." > > thus, the statement 'no-one' is proven wrong. Proof by contradiction. The essence of it is beginning to appear correct to me, however. Elsewhere, I responded directly to The Lasombra's proposed search. I found exactly two: the one you just submitted and the one LSJ quoted. This one may not even be serious - it was a throw-in at the end of a long spiel about a completely different topic. There may be a better way to search the newsgroup and find real discussion on banning Dramatic Upheaval/Kindred Restructure but no one has shown it, yet. IMHO, Tetragrammaton is totally correct. Fred

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:31lofuF...@individual.net... > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message > news:%Ndtd.30360$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... >> Sorry, but i'm not prone to see just *one* discussion in >> years and years of debating on this group as proof that the problem was >> debated or evaluated enough to justify such decision. > > Ah, the old moving target defense. > > Sounds like what happens when you learn to juggle 3 balls. > You friend asks if you can juggle 4. > > He's not really interested if you can juggle 4, exactly, of course. > He just wants one more than you can do. I think the issue is whether there's been any real discussion or not. Apparently, there has not. Sure, you can find the one or two articles to disprove the technically overstated claim that "no one has complained about them". But I find it ironic that you seem to be accusing him of not caring what the real answer is in the end - if I've interpreted your analogy correctly. Fred

"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:m0qar0h7cu7nsoad8...@4ax.com... > On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 01:53:50 +0100, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> > scrawled: > >>James Coupe wrote: >>> In message <K44td.29961$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, >>> Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: >>>> The "normal game" of vtes included those cards for a decade until >>>> now, though. >>>> And no-one complained about them. >>> >>> I think LSJ's posts indicate that "no-one" is wrong. >>> >>> It may be no-one that you've seen, however. >> >>Care to link some google/usenet discussion where >>this problem was noted and arisen ? > > Otto Koskinen Oct 5, 10:33 am > "Nothing like bleeding your prey down to 3 pool, only to have > your cross-table enemy come and steal it from you via Dramatic > Upheaval/Kindred Restructure." This is a guy making reference to the problems of running an Assamite bleed deck for crying out loud! Would I be complaining about Govern the Unaligned in terms of claiming it needed to be banned if I mentioned, "Nothing like bleeding your prey down to 3 pool, only to have him run several Govern the Unaligned and start building back up." Find REAL examples of people discussing these cards in terms of a balance problem, not just someone discussing the tactics of the game. Fred

"UniqueMaster" <theuniquenes...@com.com> wrote in message news:Cq6dncnbMtJ...@texas.net... > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message > news:N4etd.30383$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... >> >> In fact, i was almost sure that this topic has almost never arisen here. >> In fact, this proves once more that the decision was uttelrly done in a >> very arbitrary way. > > Alright. Now you need to STFU and choose a different line of argument. > > The topic has arisen here as well as in other electronic forums, and > through other means of communication. Your continued assertions that > there has been no discussion do not strengthen your position. WHAT?!? He's responding to *ME*, after I supported the assertion. So the opposite would appear to be true: the assertion that there *HAS* been discussion here - though I can't make claims about other formus - appears to be baseless. So you need to support it. Or STFU. Fred

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message news:K44td.29961$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > The "normal game" of vtes included those cards for a decade until now, > though. > And no-one complained about them. > The "normal game" included Succubus Club, too, and it took a good eight years for people to get around to assertively complaining about that in tournament play. It was some six or seven years for ToGP to get erratum. Time for a card in the game is not a valid argument for or against banning, as the big tournament scene, the one with many 100+ player turnouts per year, is still a relatively recent development ('recent' from the standpoint of the slower movng evolution of VTES play, anyways). DaveZ Atom Weaver "I'm old, for a cabbage... but as a mountain I have not yet begun in years."

Tetragrammaton wrote: > In fact, it does not longer make them your predator or prey, at leats in the > pratical > sense of the game you'll express by that deal (say, not attacking your prey > for X turn or > whatever). You seem to misunderstand what "fact" means. You can make all the deals in the world, but you still have the same predator and the same prey. When your prey is ousted, you gain a VP and 6 pool. When you are ousted, your predator gains a VP and 6 pool. Making a deal to gang up on someone doesn't change this. Going up stream doesn't change this. Ousting someone X-Table with KRC's doesn't change this. Who *you* need to oust to get a VP and 6 pool isn't ever changed by deals. Regardless of what deal you make and how that deal pans out, your prey is still your prey and your predator is still your predator. DU and KR *changed* who your (and other folks') preys and predators are. Totally different. > Yes, "the organization" deliberatley ruled against the original set design > of cards, in that we agree. I'm not understading your use of sarcastic quote marks here, but I can move on. Yes. They banned cards from the original set design. They have done so before (ante cards, Monocle of Clarity) and in every case, their actions have made the game work better. Why do you suddenly think that now they are doing this just to piss you off? > For a game in which you are completely randomly assigend to a table, > i can't be so bad to switch place with another - besides it's no guranteed > at all you'll be able to switch that place (referenda are so hard to succeed > these days). Yes. You initial predator/prey relationship is random. And it changes as people are ousted. This is how the game works. DU and KR, however, would, after said relationships were established and dealth with for a large portion of the game, change them. This had the effect of discouraging trying to oust your prey--if you couldn't oust them immediately and instead left them hanging by a thread, you had significant disincentive to try, as it was very likely that someone would switch places with you from across the table to steal your VP. This is a serious negative incentive to try and oust your prey. The tournament organizers apparently felt the environment would be better served by encouraging folks to oust their prey. > Then we should define what "competitive play" is. IMHO, in a competitive > envoriment,deals should exist not the way they are "ruled" now at all. Umm, ok? "Competetive play" is already defined, for the purposes of card bannings, as "playing in sanctioned tournaments". > Then i could start speaking of competitive play. You can speak of whatever you want. Competetive play, for the purposes of what cards are or are not banned, refers to VEKN sanctioned tournament play. If you aren't playing in a VEKN sanctioned tournament, what cards are or are not banned is irrelevant. > Anyway, just speaking about "competitive", i could see the problem with that > only if the 2 > banned cards caused a rift in the competitive aspect, namely - allowing a > player to > "win" (= being competitive) on a regular basis by the use of them. > But we know that's untrue, so i see no problem with the 2 cards and > "competitive play". Conviniently, the tournament ruling body disagrees with you. As all of their actions in the past have helped make the game better, I'm not seeing why this one would be any different. -Peter

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message news:Ha4td.29972$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > James Coupe wrote: >> In message <41b38c66$0$29750$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>, >> Mike <mi...@vekn.org.uk> writes: >>> Is it possible for you to please share which cases were used as a >>> basis of evidence? AFAICS DU and KR do not undermine or obviate the >>> predator-prey relationship, they simply define a new predator-prey >>> relationship. >> >> Consider: >> >> You, me, LSJ, Peter Bakija and Rob Treasure sit down at a table, in >> that order. > <snip example> > > Ok, can you, or any other agreeing with the ban, tell me how many winning > deck have won at tournaments by the use (or abuse) of KR or DU ? > How many decks at tournaments try to abuse clearly on > those 2 cards banned ? > Are those number reasonable to get the card banned ? > Wasn't this line of argument discarded when considering ban/edit to Succubus Club? A card can be bad for the game, and not enable gratuitous VP wins, especially when it mucks with the game's fundamentals. In this sense, a DU/KR ban is a logical extension of the same reasons used for banning SC... > I think that no, we would not find reasonable numbers > justifying such decision. > The justification therefore comes from another line of reasoning. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:bHjtd.86739$EZ.12834@okepread07... [ quoted text not captured ] Um. How is it ironic to point out that he claims that there are none and then when that is proved false he claims that more than one is needed "sounds like" a common response to someone learning to juggle? I fail to see the irony. And, moving on to the point you find "apparent": as others have mentioned, the NG is not the universe. So even if the N posts eventually found on the NG (2? 3? 6? 15? 25?) were deemed insufficient (being not 3, 4, 7, 16, or 26), that wouldn't show that no real discussion had taken place. Others have also noted that the conversations have gone on elsewhere (not so easily proved since Google hasn't archived them, but I haven't heard anyone calling them liars yet). Moreover, again, quantity != quality. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message news:T_dtd.30376$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > Peter D Bakija wrote: >> Tetragrammaton wrote: >> >>> A deal with the predator/prey is disruptive in the same way. And >>> it's allowed. >> >> It is not even remotely similar. A deal with your predator or prey >> does not make them not your predator or prey. >> > In fact, it does not longer make them your predator or prey, at leats in > the > pratical > sense of the game you'll express by that deal (say, not attacking your > prey > for X turn or > whatever). > > <snip> >> Apparently, the tournament organization felt that the only way you >> should be able to change who your prey is is by ousting your current >> prey. Which nicely encourages the stated goal of the game. >> > Yes, "the organization" deliberatley ruled against the original set design > of cards, in that we agree. > *rolls eyes*. They've been doing that for years, E. Granted, there have been occasions when original intent was the argument for reversing an old ruling, but there are just as many edits which took the game away from its original deisgn. What agg. damage rules are you playing with, hmmm? >>> I'm asking for some proof, not for speculation / perception of what >>> "disrupt the predator/prey" mechanic. >> >> This is not speculation. DU and KR allowed you to arbitrarily change >> who your prey and predator are. Without ousting anyone. It was, >> apparently, decided that this was bad for the game. I can't say I >> disagree. >> > For a game in which you are completely randomly assigend to a table, > i can't be so bad to switch place with another - besides it's no guranteed > at all you'll be able to switch that place (referenda are so hard to > succeed > these days). > Derek Ray's posts are the best refutation of this. Vote lock or auto-pass a referendum with a Cryptic to move cross-table and snipe a VP. No DT in hand? You're out. >>> This is your perspective, yes. >>> However, i asked a raw count of tournaments winning deck/report in >>> which was obvious that DU/KR seat switching caused the victory to >>> the calling meth, >>> and proved to be such destablizing factor you speak of. >>> IMHO there is no proof- you base your motivation just by >>> speculation, not by fact. >> >> The impression I got was not that the cards were banned due to >> "abuse" or winning too much. They were banned due to them >> facilitating an ability that has been deemed inappropriate for >> competetive play. >> > Then we should define what "competitive play" is. IMHO, in a competitive > envoriment, > deals should exist not the way they are "ruled" now at all. > Then i could start speaking of competitive play. > Until now, i see no competitive play at all, just fun in a game in which > almost every > fundamental mechanincs can be subverted by cards and deals. > Aye. Again, the point is, some of those subversions aren't appropriate for competitive play. Succubus Club is the gross example of that. DU/KR are lesser inclusive examples. > Anyway, just speaking about "competitive", i could see the problem with > that > only if the 2 > banned cards caused a rift in the competitive aspect, namely - allowing a > player to > "win" (= being competitive) on a regular basis by the use of them. Again, that's not the only reason to ban or edit a card; cf. Succubus Club. > But we know that's untrue, so i see no problem with the 2 cards and > "competitive play". > Then you mean 3 cards. If this is your line of reasoning, then you are in favor of un-banning SC too, right? DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, David Cherryholmes wrote: > I rarely play decks that are built for the sweep. Every now and then > the game just falls out that way, but I'm looking at the game win. Most > generally, collapse the table to a favorable three way, and then win > that three way. It may be counter argued that this is insufficient for > a really large tournament, but A) I don't think the counterargument > holds in the end, as 3 GW are going to get you there, B) we don't all > attend really large tournaments, and C) the constraints tournaments of > that size place on viable deck choices betray their problematic nature, IMO. All true and also beside the point. If you're playing for three VPs per table and you meet your goal twice and then just get 1 VP at the third table, you'll be at 2 and 7. That is plenty to get into the finals in a small or medium tournament. It was also the cutoff to get to the finals of the EC this year. That was a big tournament in my book. I think the NAC qualifiers I attended this year had similar cutoff points. I made the finals of both with 2 game wins and 7-7.5 VPs. Matt Morgan

"having vampires with titles" to defend against vote decks is not a better argument than "having +1 strength vampires" to defend against combat decks is or "having +1 intercept vampires" to defend against S&B is.. Vote decks are going to win the (90% of) voting against non voting decks. Just like combat rush decks are going to win the combats and so on. Delaying tactics, vox sennis, kindred coercions, direct intervention, etc, are defenses against voting (like obedience is against combat or deflection is against sneaky bleeds). "having titles" is not. There are a huge number of decks that CANT have titles (ie: weenie decks, decks based on a vampire, decks based on a number of weird disciplines, black hand decks, whatever). You cant just drop Volker in every deck you build to have two votes (for example, maybe your deck is an Obeah/animalism/thaumaturgy deck :) )

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:31m0l5F...@individual.net... > Moreover, again, quantity != quality. > I'll add; Usenet Discussion Quality<<<<In-Person Discussion Quality DaveZ Atom Weaver

Frederick Scott wrote: > I think the issue is whether there's been any real discussion or > not. Apparently, there has not. Sure, you can find the one or > two articles to disprove the technically overstated claim that "no > one has complained about them". Not every discussion is archived in google, since plenty of discussions take place on mailing lists that are not public. For example, problems with the effects of seat-switching might very well have come up in recent playtesting efforts. Those involved in would be unable to give specifics of those discussions here and now in any sort of detail due to non-disclosure agreements. Not that I'm hinting or anything, of course. > Fred -John Flournoy -hint hint

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:31m0l5F...@individual.net... > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:bHjtd.86739$EZ.12834@okepread07... >> >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >> news:31lofuF...@individual.net... >> > Sounds like what happens when you learn to juggle 3 balls. >> > You friend asks if you can juggle 4. >> > >> > He's not really interested if you can juggle 4, exactly, of course. >> > He just wants one more than you can do. >> >> I think the issue is whether there's been any real discussion or >> not. Apparently, there has not. Sure, you can find the one or >> two articles to disprove the technically overstated claim that "no >> one has complained about them". But I find it ironic that you seem >> to be accusing him of not caring what the real answer is in the end - >> if I've interpreted your analogy correctly. > > Um. How is it ironic to point out that he claims that there > are none and then when that is proved false he claims that > more than one is needed "sounds like" a common response to > someone learning to juggle? I fail to see the irony. I thought I made it very clear but I'll spell it out for you: the significance of your allegory appears to be that you are he doesn't really care about the information. He only made the challenge for "show" and when it was disproved, he moved the target. But - ironically - it appears to me that you don't see to care about the signficance of the information we have on hand (at least at this moment). That information seems to show that there has not been any real discussion or interest about banning or otherwise fixing Dramatic Upheaval nor Kindred Restructure. > And, moving on to the point you find "apparent": as others have > mentioned, the NG is not the universe. Perhaps. But now who's moving the target? Well, OK, granted if you go back to the original claim, there was no distinction on where the discussion he claimed hadn't taken place ought to exist. But then he was "disproved" using references to Usenet when those references in fact appear to be very sparse and exceptional. If you mean, "OK perhaps there wasn't much discussion here but I recall discussions in other forums." then I think it would be more appropriate to say so. I just think it's ironic to quibble about whether there's been zero or one or two posts or whatever when the point is, there doesn't seem to have been very many at all. > Others have also noted that the conversations have gone on > elsewhere (not so easily proved since Google hasn't archived > them, but I haven't heard anyone calling them liars yet). One can't call them liars when one has no evidence either way. You probably know my opinion about this by now: had there been a lot of common experience amongst players that these cards were a problem of some sort and needed to be banned or fixed, sooner or later in all the time we've played with them, such discussion about it would have arrived here. > Moreover, again, quantity != quality. Agreed, to a limited extent. But my perusal of the articles turned up from The Lasombra's search didn't turn up any quality to speak of either. The only one in which actually banning was suggested and responded to was David's. And my interpretation of the responses were, at best, people saying the cards irritated them and one or two mentioned they wouldn't miss them if banned. That's it. Hardly much quality there. Fred

David Zopf wrote: > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message > news:K44td.29961$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > > >> The "normal game" of vtes included those cards for a decade until >> now, though. >> And no-one complained about them. >> > > The "normal game" included Succubus Club, too, and it took a good No, it didn't for a couple of time during the decade, and i think you now that, being succubus banned form from tournament for a pretty amount of time. DU and KR, on the other hand, weren't. greets Emiliano <snip>

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: <snip> > Conviniently, the tournament ruling body disagrees with you. As all of > their actions in the past have helped make the game better, I'm not > seeing why this one would be any different. > Doing good in the past does not mean that everything you'll do in the future is good, you know greets Emiliano

[ quoted text not captured ] Strangely, with got *plenty* of topics about banning /rewording succubus club in the past, however. While we got almost nothing about DU and KR. >> I think that no, we would not find reasonable numbers >> justifying such decision. >> > The justification therefore comes from another line of reasoning. So far, i see the justification coming just from an arbitrary line of reasoning, yes. greets Emiliano

Frederick Scott wrote: > >>Care to link some google/usenet discussion where > >>this problem was noted and arisen ? Again, not every discussion occurs over usenet - there are at least a half-dozen other sizable forums for VTES discussion, including regional forums like the German and British VTES sites, White Wolf's forum, thepathofblood.com, and so on. > Find REAL examples of people discussing these cards in terms of > a balance problem, not just someone discussing the tactics of > the game. Sure. DU/KR has been discussed in several different threads on the Path of Blood's forums by a large group of players, where a number of people put both in their 'top 5 most powerful votes' along with comments about how the vp-snipe aspect made the cards too powerful. It also came up in a thread about table-balancing and how DU/KR made it harder to do that (it's hard to use cross-table effects like rushes or KRC's or whatever to effectively balance a table when the table order might switch abruptly). Several people have mentioned at least in passing the disruptive nature of the cards in clan newsletters, as well. I'd also suggest looking back at April's 'what to ban' thread in the newsgroup, where several people mention how they either want to ban DU/KR or have gotten in the habit of packing Direct Interventions specifically because of the prevalence of DU/KR in decks. There was also a usenet discussion in April under 'Protect Whining' where players discussed the prevalance of Kindred Spirits/Dramatic Upheaval decks that never bled their prey, instead planning from the get-go to KS cross-table and then seat-switch, giving the target two predators in practice. (That style of deck ABSOLUTELY undermines the prey/predator relationship that LSJ refers to.) That should be a sufficient start. > Fred -John Flournoy

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Doing good in the past does not mean that everything you'll do in the future > is good, you know This is correct. But as the past history of the changes made to this game by the current design team and/or tournament authority has been very positive in pretty much every instance: -7/7 rulings/errata -New text on cards reprinted to match said rulings/errata -No Repeat Actions/No Vote Pushing -Banning of RTI and Madness of the Bard -Unbanning of Monocle of Clariy based on new wording -The Game Win rule I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and trust them. -Peter

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message news:Uoltd.31117$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... [ quoted text not captured ] Sorry dude. Language barrier thing. I cannot understand the content of your reply. Would you please rephrase? This is what it looks like you are saying: <No, the normal game did not include Succubus Club for a couple of times during the last ten years. I think you know that, being that Ssuccubus Club was banned from tournaments for a pretty fair amount of that time. DU and KR, on the other hand, weren't.> AFAIK, Succubus Club was never banned from tournament play until 12/3/04. I'm almost certain I'm reading your post wrong... DaveZ atom Weaver

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message news:5Dltd.31149$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... [ quoted text not captured ] Thus only proving that VTES is ultimately not a democracy, and/or that discussions about DU/KR occured somewhere other than Usenet. Consider it more like a benign dictatorship, or a heavily socialized democracy, with generous freedom of speech :-) >>> I think that no, we would not find reasonable numbers >>> justifying such decision. >>> >> The justification therefore comes from another line of reasoning. > > So far, i see the justification coming just from an arbitrary line of > reasoning, yes. > As arbitrary as Succubus Club. Succubus Club: banned as not appropriate for competitive play. My interpretation: SC enables Resources of multiple players to be combined/reallocated in a manner not condusive to competitive play. Succubus Club enables an environment which circumvents the normal predator-prey relationship, as leveraged through table deals. DU/KR: banned as not appropriate for competitive play. My interpretation: DU/KR allows a player to circumvent the normal predator prey relationship, (not through the combination of multiple player resources ala Succubus Club, but rather) by supplanting another player's efforts towards a GW at a time of their own choosing. Again, DU/KR are a lesser infraction of the type epitomized by Succubus Club. DaveZ atom weaver "555 - a Lesser Evil"

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1102440123.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > I'd also suggest looking back at April's 'what to ban' thread in the > newsgroup, where several people mention how they either want to ban > DU/KR or have gotten in the habit of packing Direct Interventions > specifically because of the prevalence of DU/KR in decks. Actually, not "several people", as far as actually wanting to ban the card. Just David. People responded to him though I didn't see anyone really agreeing with him about actually banning them. Just that they're irritating cards to have played against us. We knew that. > There was also a usenet discussion in April under 'Protect Whining' > where players discussed the prevalance of Kindred Spirits/Dramatic > Upheaval decks that never bled their prey, instead planning from the > get-go to KS cross-table and then seat-switch, giving the target two > predators in practice. (That style of deck ABSOLUTELY undermines the > prey/predator relationship that LSJ refers to.) Perhaps. I saw that thread, too. But I didn't see where people were suggesting that Dramatic Upheaval was some kind of problem card that needed to be fixed nor that the deck was "prevalent" and creating a problem in the metagame. Most of thread, even the parts about Kindred Spirits, appears to focused on strategy not complaints that the card is just wrong for the game. > That should be a sufficient start. Actually, considering I'd looked at everything you posted already, it shouldn't be surprising to you that I disagree. The point being, amongst the thousands of posts that come through the group every month, such scattering and oblique references do not constitute much real discussion at all, even by a standard of "quality over quantity". I'm saying you'll have to forgive people who feel blind-sided by the banning of these cards because it's really hard to look at the traffic here and see any content which would tend to justify it. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:bPjtd.86741$EZ.33785@okepread07... > > "UniqueMaster" <theuniquenes...@com.com> wrote in message news:Cq6dncnbMtJ...@texas.net... > > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message > > news:N4etd.30383$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > >> > >> In fact, i was almost sure that this topic has almost never arisen here. > >> In fact, this proves once more that the decision was uttelrly done in a > >> very arbitrary way. > > > > Alright. Now you need to STFU and choose a different line of argument. > > > > The topic has arisen here as well as in other electronic forums, and > > through other means of communication. Your continued assertions that > > there has been no discussion do not strengthen your position. > > WHAT?!? He's responding to *ME*, after I supported the assertion. And I was responding to him, more specifically to his last sentence. > So the opposite would appear to be true: the assertion that there *HAS* > been discussion here - though I can't make claims about other formus - > appears to be baseless. Well, you're wrong. http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=%22josh+duffin%22+%22kindred+restructure%22 Look for the subject header "Jyhad/VTES Done right". (A direct link does not paste well) Your assertion that there has not been discussion on this newsgroup is in fact impossible to prove. Especially since you will change your definition of "discussion" to allow you to continue arguing. > So you need to support it. Or STFU. > Fred After reading your other posts, I wish you followed your own advice. Although after examining your past behavior, I believe you won't. -mo

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Frederick Scott wrote: > Find REAL examples of people discussing these cards in terms of > a balance problem, not just someone discussing the tactics of > the game. I've only skimmed this thread so please forgive me if this has already been mentioned, by why is it important that banning DU and KR was discussed on this group? In addition to the fact that only a small percentage of VTES players post here regularly, I think this group also has a tendency to "group-think" (to use a term which of late has been popular to explain the inexplicable). If banning those cards isn't on the "group-brain" then it's not going to get discussed. It doesn't mean it's a bad idea. I never complained about those cards and never thought about asking them to be banned. I've participated in a couple of discussions about how disruptive and annoying they are, but I never thought they'd be banned so I didn't go out of my way to bring it up. I'm elated that they're gone. Is it too late to get some discussion in about how seat-switchers should be banned? I've always hated those stupid cards. PTO is less annoying to me. Matt Morgan

"UniqueMaster" <theuniquenes...@com.com> wrote in message news:z4idnWEzTLb...@texas.net... > > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:bPjtd.86741$EZ.33785@okepread07... >> >> "UniqueMaster" <theuniquenes...@com.com> wrote in message >> news:Cq6dncnbMtJ...@texas.net... >> > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message >> > news:N4etd.30383$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... >> >> >> >> In fact, i was almost sure that this topic has almost never arisen >> >> here. In fact, this proves once more that the decision was uttelrly >> >> done in a very arbitrary way. >> > >> > Alright. Now you need to STFU and choose a different line of argument. >> > >> > The topic has arisen here as well as in other electronic forums, and >> > through other means of communication. Your continued assertions that >> > there has been no discussion do not strengthen your position. >> >> WHAT?!? He's responding to *ME*, after I supported the assertion. > > And I was responding to him, more specifically to his last sentence. Quote "The topic has arisen here..." - that does not sound much like a response to his last sentence as opposed to the prior one. >> So the opposite would appear to be true: the assertion that there *HAS* >> been discussion here - though I can't make claims about other formus - >> appears to be baseless. > > Well, you're wrong. > > http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=%22josh+duffin%22+%22kindred+restructure%22 > > Look for the subject header "Jyhad/VTES Done right". (A direct link > does not paste well) I'm not wrong. Josh Duffin posting his, "If I controlled the game..." list and DU/KR happens to be on it. Not that he found them to be probleamatic. Just that he wouldn't have included them had he been designer. Big Difference. Furthermore, in 60+ posts, you and he went back and forth on it a couple of times and one other person responded to say, "Disagree..." that I saw. First of all, the fact that you can go out and find one other oblique reference to removing DU and KR from the game - and the word "ban" is nowhere in site - demonstrates the difficulty of proving something in the negative. I have been careful to leave myself an out saying other people might find something but The Lasombra's suggested search didn't turn up much is about all I can do. So you managed to find one other instance by searching a different way, fine. But don't jump up and down and crow at Tetragrammaton that he needs to "STFU" when he's just responding to the information he's got - and it seems to show that he's right and you're wrong. As for finding a thread like this, BFD. You're not getting the point. The point is not to look under every rock to find one or two places where someone or other posted his wish list about how they'd have created the game. The point is that there's been no appreciable sentiment expressed in this newsgroup there's a REAL problem in this game caused by Dramatic Upheaval or Kindred Restructure and they need to be fixed. Go away and come back when you've found posters discussing THAT - in volume. It might exist. I don't even claim I know for sure it doesn't and I never have because that's an impossible claim to make. But find it first, THEN you can get obnoxious. Fred

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in messagenews:Pine.LNX.4.44.041207...@fnord.io.com... > On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Frederick Scott wrote: > >> Find REAL examples of people discussing these cards in terms of >> a balance problem, not just someone discussing the tactics of >> the game. > > I've only skimmed this thread so please forgive me if this has already > been mentioned, by why is it important that banning DU and KR was > discussed on this group? Three reasons: 1) In most forums there isn't an easy way to get at the history of the forum, so claiming it's been discussed there is unprovable. Meaning, I don't think you discount such claims but you can't verify them either so what are you supposed to do about such a dispute? 2) *We're* here. One issue I think is legimate against the ban (and make no mistake, I think some of the issues against it are bogus) is that we got blindsided by it. There was no appreciable discussion about it. If there was discussion elsewhere, I'd say that's interesting but certainly the people who hang out here seem to be correct in saying that they've never had a chance to express an opinion about it because it's never been raised as an issue here. You don't post to loudly say, "Oh, by the way, Kindred Restructure and Dramatic Upheavel exist in this game and I think that's just ducky! Keep 'em!" At least, no one's going to post that unless someone else (or really a group of someone elses) has taken the time to loudly post that they want these cards banned. 3) If lots of players are having experiences that make them feel these cards were a problem, I don't think the discussion about it would be confined to just one forum. If such discussion were in another forum but skipped the newsgroup, I think that's pretty sketchy evidence that the mass population playing the game felt a problem existed. > In addition to the fact that only a small percentage of VTES players post > here regularly, I think this group also has a tendency to "group-think" > (to use a term which of late has been popular to explain the > inexplicable). If banning those cards isn't on the "group-brain" then > it's not going to get discussed. It doesn't mean it's a bad idea. No, it doesn't. But I think you're not as correct about "group-think" as you say. One thing I notice about the newsgroup is that issues I consider to be "real" seem to come up over and over - often with new posters entering the newsgroup posting about them because they hadn't seen previous discussion. It depends on what you're looking for in the level of discussion. I think it's pretty clear that this banning wasn't a response to problem seen by the general population of card players. It was something else. I don't automatically think that's wrong. But at least don't say this has had discussion when it doesn't seem to have had much substantial discussion. Or it you're going say it happened elsewhere not here, then that statement could also be more forthright. > Is it too late to get some discussion in about how seat-switchers should > be banned? Obviously not! ;-) Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1102440123.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > I'd also suggest looking back at April's 'what to ban' thread in the > > newsgroup, where several people mention how they either want to ban > > DU/KR or have gotten in the habit of packing Direct Interventions > > specifically because of the prevalence of DU/KR in decks. > > Actually, not "several people", as far as actually wanting to ban > the card. Just David. People responded to him though I didn't see > anyone really agreeing with him about actually banning them. Just > that they're irritating cards to have played against us. We knew that. I stand by the statement I actually made, which was broader than simply counting noses about who said 'ban it' - and your 'only David' assertion is wrong, to boot. I direct your attention to the following reply (fairly far down the thread: Wouter Kuyper: "SeatSwitchers are my only cards that i think banningworthy. I hate it when someone just takes the VP for someone elses hard work, not really fun. I play DI's because of these (not because of PTO)" Curevei's reply to it (including DI in decks): "If there weren't seat switching votes, I'd probably rarely play it." (Several other players in that thread) (Snapcase, Orpheus) talked about how the cards were at least annoying and/or very powerful. Curevei even flat out says "For competitive play, what is most bothersome is the deck built around them that totally skews the predator-prey dynamic. Still, V:TES (Jyhad) has always been about many small effects and seat switching is not at all a small effect.") > Actually, considering I'd looked at everything you posted already, > it shouldn't be surprising to you that I disagree. The point being, > amongst the thousands of posts that come through the group every month, > such scattering and oblique references do not constitute much real > discussion at all, even by a standard of "quality over quantity". I'm not disagreeing with that. I offered those comments as a rebuttal to your statement of "Find REAL examples of people discussing these cards in terms of a balance problem". I certainly agree that it wasn't discussed _much_ on Usenet, but it was an occasional issue, and more importantly, discussions of this nature have not and do not solely consist of Usenet posts. The subject has come up on a variety of sites and/or discussions lately, ranging from usenet, to web forums, to playtest lists (there, I've said it) to private emails to face-to-face discussions. > I'm saying you'll have to forgive people who feel blind-sided by the > banning of these cards because it's really hard to look at the traffic > here and see any content which would tend to justify it. I'm absolutely forgiving of that. Not everybody reads all the various forums where things like this might get discussed. I am somewhat less forgiving of people who say (directly quoting someone else, not you): "no-one complained about them" or "the decision was uttelrly done in a very arbitrary way". It just so happened that your statements were somewhat supporting his easily disproven statements of fact, so that makes it harder to separate your more reasonable statements from his absolute-statement falsehoods. Sorry for jumping down your proverbial throat too hard. -------------- As a side note to all the other people who feel blind-sided because they didn't see a lot of discussion on usenet ahead of time: other, much more significant changes to the game have occured in the past with little to no discussion on the newsgroup; things like the grouping rule, the adoption of group 4, the inclusion of Bloodlines, Anarchs, three-way cards, outferiors, Events, the change in card layout, the decisions about what cards to reprint or not and so on. Many enormous changes to the game have occured without publically-archived discussion. Many of these things get specifically, _privately_ discussed, analyzed and playtested and discussed by multiple groups of experienced players. Sometimes these things are adopted, and sometimes they are left out (like the 'double edge' rule playtested back in the game's beginning.) But just because you don't see or aren't part of the discussions of changes and/or new things for the game doesn't mean that no or little discussion has occured. > Fred -John Flournoy

Frederick Scott wrote: > "John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1102440123.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > I'd also suggest looking back at April's 'what to ban' thread in the > > newsgroup, where several people mention how they either want to ban > > DU/KR or have gotten in the habit of packing Direct Interventions > > specifically because of the prevalence of DU/KR in decks. > > Actually, not "several people", as far as actually wanting to ban > the card. Just David. People responded to him though I didn't see > anyone really agreeing with him about actually banning them. Just > that they're irritating cards to have played against us. We knew that. I stand by the statement I actually made, which was broader than simply counting noses about who said 'ban it' - and your 'only David' assertion is wrong, to boot. I direct your attention to the following reply (fairly far down the thread: Wouter Kuyper: "SeatSwitchers are my only cards that i think banningworthy. I hate it when someone just takes the VP for someone elses hard work, not really fun. I play DI's because of these (not because of PTO)" Curevei's reply to it (including DI in decks): "If there weren't seat switching votes, I'd probably rarely play it." (Several other players in that thread) (Snapcase, Orpheus) talked about how the cards were at least annoying and/or very powerful. Curevei even flat out says "For competitive play, what is most bothersome is the deck built around them that totally skews the predator-prey dynamic. Still, V:TES (Jyhad) has always been about many small effects and seat switching is not at all a small effect.") > Actually, considering I'd looked at everything you posted already, > it shouldn't be surprising to you that I disagree. The point being, > amongst the thousands of posts that come through the group every month, > such scattering and oblique references do not constitute much real > discussion at all, even by a standard of "quality over quantity". I'm not disagreeing with that. I offered those comments as a rebuttal to your statement of "Find REAL examples of people discussing these cards in terms of a balance problem". I certainly agree that it wasn't discussed _much_ on Usenet, but it was an occasional issue, and more importantly, discussions of this nature have not and do not solely consist of Usenet posts. The subject has come up on a variety of sites and/or discussions lately, ranging from usenet, to web forums, to private emails to face-to-face discussions. > I'm saying you'll have to forgive people who feel blind-sided by the > banning of these cards because it's really hard to look at the traffic > here and see any content which would tend to justify it. I'm absolutely forgiving of that. Not everybody reads all the various [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:uAntd.87049$EZ.62132@okepread07... > As for finding a thread like this, BFD. You're not getting the point. > The point is not to look under every rock to find one or two places > where someone or other posted his wish list about how they'd have > created the game. The point is that there's been no appreciable > sentiment expressed in this newsgroup there's a REAL problem in this > game caused by Dramatic Upheaval or Kindred Restructure and they need > to be fixed. Go away and come back when you've found posters discussing > THAT - in volume. Why haven't you looked for yourself? It's not impossible to develop one's own Google-using skills (even though Google-beta does, I admit, look kind of nasty right now). On September 21, 2004, Jo Herroelen (wolflord) mentioned "there are cards which are a lot more disruptive, and force tables into kingmaking a lot more than AR (for example Dramatic upheaval or Kindred Restructure, but nobody's complaining about them are they?)" http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5c464a7fc02314d2 An odd formulation, since he claimed that KR and DU were very disruptive to the game, but that no one complained about them. But our own Daneel immediately responded "I do. Complain-complain." http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0b06a7e2d75dcb4b I then chimed in myself to claim that I complained about Dramatic Upheaval as well, though admittedly I didn't provide a laundry list of reasons in that message. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4e0b8fa9c750093e Brian White's message has been mentioned already. Here's one where Charles Lechasseur mentions KR and DU as overpowered political cards, in July of this year: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b9e9e5b082d9cce2 Wouter Kuyper agreed with him in the same thread: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b1dde16b4f063b10 David Cherryholmes, of course, put them in his "what to ban" list in that thread that mutated from talking about Rotschreck. If you're looking for hints that this could have been coming, LSJ posted on the newsgroup in December 2003 saying that "I don't think Succubus Club is as disruptive as Kindred Restructure or Dramatic Upheaval." http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/24e759b7469a1ac9 I then argued in response that Succubus Club was a little more disruptive, but that Upheaval and Restructure were also probably inappropriate for truly competitive play. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b5e332348694c333 In September of 2001, Andrew S. Davidson pointed out, in a thread discussing Succubus Club and whether it should be banned, that (at that time) Kindred Restructure appeared in the TWDA 15 times, and Dramatic Upheaval 23 times, to Succubus Club's 1 time. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/e110d2a73e19e9c7 In December 2000, Jeff Thompson agreed with a post suggesting that KR/DU are some of the most powerful effects in the game, and provided a link to a Paul Johnson article talking about the same thing: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/93fbd90ce83adc6b Sure, most of these aren't discussions specifically about *banning* Dramatic Upheaval or Kindred Restructure. I believe this is largely because the players here believe (rightly) that they don't have the power to get cards banned, and that talking about how much they'd like to see card X banned isn't all that worthwhile a use of their time. The other major reason I see for banning Succubus Club, Dramatic Upheaval, and Kindred Restructure *now* is that competitive play is (from my point of view) bigger now than it has ever been in the past. For most of VTES history, most tournaments have been fairly small and local. Only recently has an organized system of qualifier tournaments and continental championships been developed. In that environment, cards that disrupt the predator-prey relationship are, I absolutely agree, not suited for competitive play. As for getting blind-sided by it, sure. I certainly was. But I think we ought to expect to be blind-sided (though I agree that it would be nice if we *did* get some kind of advance notice, or request for comments, or whatever) by bannings, errata, and so on: that's how it's always been. The rules authorities don't operate in public and they don't usually tell us what they're thinking about doing. Josh not a secret lizard overlord

David Zopf wrote: > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message > news:Uoltd.31117$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... >> David Zopf wrote: >>> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message >>> news:K44td.29961$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... >>> >>> >>>> The "normal game" of vtes included those cards for a decade until >>>> now, though. >>>> And no-one complained about them. >>>> >>> >>> The "normal game" included Succubus Club, too, and it took a good >> No, it didn't for a couple of time during the decade, and i think >> you now that, being succubus banned form from >> tournament for a pretty amount of time. >> DU and KR, on the other hand, weren't. >> > Sorry dude. Language barrier thing. I cannot understand the content > of your reply. Would you please rephrase? > > This is what it looks like you are saying: <snip> > AFAIK, Succubus Club was never banned from tournament play until > 12/3/04. I'm almost certain I'm reading your post wrong... Sorry, i meant re-worded. Du and KR nover got reworded, Succubus was. greets Emiliano

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:uAntd.87049$EZ.62132@okepread07... > "UniqueMaster" <theuniquenes...@com.com> wrote in message > news:z4idnWEzTLb...@texas.net... > > > > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > > news:bPjtd.86741$EZ.33785@okepread07... > >> > >> "UniqueMaster" <theuniquenes...@com.com> wrote in message > >> news:Cq6dncnbMtJ...@texas.net... > >> > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message > >> > news:N4etd.30383$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > >> >> > >> >> In fact, i was almost sure that this topic has almost never arisen > >> >> here. In fact, this proves once more that the decision was uttelrly > >> >> done in a very arbitrary way. > >> > > >> > Alright. Now you need to STFU and choose a different line of argument. > >> > > >> > The topic has arisen here as well as in other electronic forums, and > >> > through other means of communication. Your continued assertions that > >> > there has been no discussion do not strengthen your position. > >> > >> WHAT?!? He's responding to *ME*, after I supported the assertion. > > > > And I was responding to him, more specifically to his last sentence. > > Quote "The topic has arisen here..." - that does not sound much like a > response to his last sentence as opposed to the prior one. So re-read my post, and figure out what I was telling him to STFU about. > >> So the opposite would appear to be true: the assertion that there *HAS* > >> been discussion here - though I can't make claims about other formus - > >> appears to be baseless. > > > > Well, you're wrong. > > > > http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=%22josh+duffin%22+%22kindred+restructure%22 > > > > Look for the subject header "Jyhad/VTES Done right". (A direct link > > does not paste well) > > I'm not wrong. I disproved your assertion quoted above. So your statement is wrong. Unless the word "has" means something different when capitalized and surrounded by asterisks. > Josh Duffin posting his, "If I controlled the game..." > list and DU/KR happens to be on it. Not that he found them to be > probleamatic. Just that he wouldn't have included them had he been > designer. Big Difference. This was still a discussion on what cards should not be in the game. Not including them and banning them were not so different in that context. > Furthermore, in 60+ posts, you and he went back and forth on it a couple > of times and one other person responded to say, "Disagree..." that I > saw. First of all, the fact that you can go out and find one other > oblique reference to removing DU and KR from the game - and the word > "ban" is nowhere in site - demonstrates the difficulty of proving > something in the negative. I have been careful to leave myself > an out saying other people might find something but The Lasombra's > suggested search didn't turn up much is about all I can do. So you > managed to find one other instance by searching a different way, fine. Fine indeed. And what other hoops are you going to try to get me to jump through now? > But don't jump up and down and crow at Tetragrammaton that he needs to > "STFU" when he's just responding to the information he's got - and it > seems to show that he's right and you're wrong. He's been given several examples that his assertion of "no discussion" was incorrect. Someone beating their chest generally deserves the same, as they are now demonstrating that they aren't listening to what others are saying. And again, the information shows that there has been discussion. I didn't dispute quantity (leaving myself an "out"); I disputed the existence. A claim that no discussion occurred can be either verified or disproved. We'll all disagree on the definitions of "some", "a lot", and most importantly, "enough". There is no way to satisfy people in this newsgroup who are against something that there is ever "enough" discussion of any topic. I decided to be offensive after being offended. > As for finding a thread like this, BFD. You're not getting the point. > The point is not to look under every rock to find one or two places > where someone or other posted his wish list about how they'd have > created the game. No, it really is no BFD. I didn't "look under every rock" to find that post. I remembered that discussion VERY well, and it was at the forefront of my mind, where it left a very lasting impression. Just because it wasn't repeated 50 times across several years, or that 8908098 people didn't chime in, doesn't make it less valid, doesn't void it from existence, and doesn't leave it out of the pro-ban/anti-ban discussion. > The point is that there's been no appreciable > sentiment expressed in this newsgroup there's a REAL problem in this > game caused by Dramatic Upheaval or Kindred Restructure and they need > to be fixed. Re-read his post. The point is that he is accusing the developers of acting arbitrarily. And that's what got me into this. >Go away and come back when you've found posters discussing > THAT - in volume. I certainly don't need to in order to prove my point. > It might exist. I don't even claim I know for sure it doesn't and I > never have because that's an impossible claim to make. Correct. Which is why I wasn't responding to your post, although leaving yourself an out just so you can continue to rant is irresponsible. > But find it first, THEN you can get obnoxious. > > Fred Others have found and presented it, even though it's not their responsibilty. The burden of proof usually stands with the accuser, does it not? It's obnoxious to continue to choose ignorance and disrespect. -mo

In message <41b597ed$0$29722$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>, Mike <mi...@vekn.org.uk> writes: >I would argue that Anarch Revolt (when stacked) is the only card capable of >destroying a whole table. Antedeluvian Awakening and Fame cause similar >environmental damage but they're one-shot only. Smiling Jack can do similar such fun. Matt Green's recent Omaya deck with it in reminded me how interesting a card it is. There are also quite a few Gehenna cards that can screw a deck to the point of "I need THAT DECK off the table RIGHT NOW." -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

In message <34ktd.29946$Rf1....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> writes: >*rolls eyes*. They've been doing that for years, E. Granted, there have >been occasions when original intent was the argument for reversing an old >ruling, but there are just as many edits which took the game away from its >original deisgn. What agg. damage rules are you playing with, hmmm? IMO: - Most of the changes away from Garfield's system have been to do with cards that Garfield and co. didn't quite understand the significance of. After all, it takes us *years* to exploit some of them. Playtesting for a few months isn't going to cut the mustard. There are also some changes away from the card sets that Garfield wasn't involved with e.g. Thoughts Betrayed, Return to Innocence, Tomb of Rameses III. - Most of the things that have been kept are trying to preserve the over-arching system he set up. e.g. play-to-win preserves the some-but-not-all diplomacy element of the game he clearly wanted, the agg damage rules simplify without stupidly over- powering agg damage [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <Ha4td.29972$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: >Ok, can you, or any other agreeing with the ban, As I've repeatedly pointed out, I'm undecided. However, if people are going to complain about it, they'd better put some effort in as there's a lot of shoddy arguments around - a lot[0] of which seem to be either: - "It didn't happen over here" OR - "You just killed my deck" whether the relevant arguers will admit that or not. If people want to get things changed, however, they'd do much better if they stopped arguing points that really don't make a lot of sense, though. >tell me how many winning >deck have won at tournaments by the use (or abuse) of KR or DU ? You're assuming that the number of decks that win with a card is a metric by which a card's suitability for tournament play (or otherwise) can be measured. Madness of the Bard, for instance, is unsuitable for competitive play, though I think you'd be hard pressed to show that it was being used to win a lot. [0] This says "A lot". It does not say "All". It does not say "<your name here>". [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <012301c4dc47$956ca2d0$e3199fd4@PSI>, Mike <mi...@darkness.org.uk> writes: >> I think the first part of this is highly questionable. >> >> Vote decks can throw damage cross-table. Rush decks can throw rushes >> cross-table, which certainly can contribute to the oust significantly >> even if it doesn't do it itself. > >*Actually* ousting someone is different from performing an action which may >or may not later contribute to the oust. I can see the relevancy but that's >not quite the same thing. Depends on the set-up. There are lots of times in games where you can see that someone is, say, using their vampires to block with and leaving them untapped etc. So if you rush the untapped vampires, suddenly they end up with no bleed defence. Sure, someone else (the predator) takes an action here - but the difference can often be "I acted, he acted" vs "He acted, I acted". Which in the grand scheme of things, isn't *that* much difference. Deals can, of course, be broken - but people don't have to break them, and lots of people keep them. >Using a KRC vote as an example I see the allocation of damage to kill a >player other than your prey as *bad* play, unless the acting player can >demonstrate what's in it for them. In a Dramatic Upheaval deck, it's obvious what's in it for me - cross- table damage to someone who can't block, letting me move in with the DU. (Or KR - but DU is generally better, IME.) >Allocating damage which *doesn't* oust is >not so much of an issue because it's not actually ousting anyone. That's surely not true. If I do 9 damage to you with 3 KRCs, that's not much of an issue? It puts you on 1 pool, and that's not much of an issue? Urr... Why are things only an issue if they actually perform the oust? Assume that you have a predator with 2 vampires. He's not playing much (any?) Fortitude, so you calculate for his worst two bleeds. He's only been playing Computer Hacking, so you've gone for weenie defence. And you can block him, probably. So you can stand up to him, and are discarding your (say) combat defence. It's weenie bleed, you're not about to die from combat. But I DU in (and I was your grand-prey) and oust you. You had two other people to consider before me (your grand-pred and your pred), so you really weren't thinking about defending properly against me just yet - it wasn't like I was about to roll the two of them over. Do you think that - even if you allow the turn to end RIGHT NOW - that any deck can suddenly alter the course it's been taking, the cards it's been discarding, the pro-active defence it's been taking etc.? >> Add Fame, if you need the actual killing blow. > >Environmental effects are slightly different though again. They target your >prey *as well* as everybody else, I'm thinking of the "Burn three pool" effect of Fame here. Very few decks ever get to exploit the 1 a turn. Someone typically rescues it or burns it - an ally if they don't want the pool loss, the aggressor if they want the vampire burned (too troublesome to leave around, e.g. Arika). There's also "Tension in the Ranks", which is somewhat weaker IMO but still usable if you like that sort of thing. >which is a different case from >*specifically and singly* targeting a player other than your prey with an >ousting action. Which you can still do. Political decks, rush decks, bleed decks can all target one player and do pool loss. >> Also, if any vote deck could take such actions cross-table and justify >> it on "I have a DU in my deck", that undermines play-to-win anyway. > >Possibly. Personally I would see the reliance of the draw of a single >yet-to-be-seen card to be clutching at straws. I can see though that >ditching DU and KR *does* obviate these kinds of arguments. What if there are five in the deck? Eight? How many does it need before you can say "Right, do what you want?" [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <gJ9td.84821$EZ.31817@okepread07>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >the short answer is by *this* search: really nothing. There >is *NO* talk anywhere of banning Dramatic Upheavel prior to December 3rd, >excepting Brian White and David Cherryholmes. Of course, the search >may be flawed or I may have somehow missed something (don't think so >but I'm sloppy about reading everything, so maybe...) but from this, >I just remain all the more convinced that as far as this newsgroup >goes, banning DU and KR is an event that materialized out of nowhere. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/ac 2bd41451e0ab58?dmode=source "if you banned SC for the VP-splitting ability, then you'd have to ban Dramatic Upheavel no? And more..." - Kevin M. Well, they banned SC... http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/34 03b0004352ba88?dmode=source talks about the possible unsuitability of cards in a money-driven format. It's not a long way from that to them being unsuitable for simply a highly competitive format. "Depends. Like you said: If you got a very enviormental changing decks (like Dramatic Upheavel yourself to a spot where the prey is weak and taking the VP in front of the nose of a hard struggling player or moving a friend that has troubles to another spot) it really could destroy the game. But these are cards that exist in competetive formats today and should be tryed out before banned in a money-format. A council like the DCI who ban and restrict cards should be installed in some variant I guess." [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 15:58:24 -0500, Joshua Duffin <duff...@bls.gov> wrote: > Why haven't you looked for yourself? It's not impossible to develop > one's own Google-using skills (even though Google-beta does, I admit, > look kind of nasty right now). It does. Anyway, good research. To prevent the accusation of a "me too" though: > But our own Daneel immediately responded "I do. Complain-complain." Are we getting all huggy-buggy? I never knew any property issues were involved. > Josh > > not a secret lizard overlord Makes me wonder... ;) -- Bye, Daneel

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Ok, can you, or any other agreeing with the ban, tell me how many winning > deck have won at tournaments by the use (or abuse) of KR or DU ? > How many decks at tournaments try to abuse clearly on > those 2 cards banned ? > Are those number reasonable to get the card banned ? > > I think that no, we would not find reasonable numbers > justifying such decision. It'd be impossible for someone to say 'how many decks have won by the use of a specific card' since not all tournaments report examples of play, so here are some numbers on card inclusion: I skimmed every deck in the Tournament Winning Deck Archive that has won in 2004. I found 20 decks that I'd consider 'vote decks', and of those 20, 15 had DU, KR or both, most of which had multiples. Additionally, I found 13 decks that had which I would not call a vote deck yet had vote cards (1-6 political cards, plus 1 Baltimore purge deck with 9 votes backing it up) and 9 of those 13 included DU/KR. Several had nothing _but_ seat-switching votes. So by my preliminary count of decks that won tourneys that I could quickly identify as having ANY votes in them at all in 2004 (excluding storyline tourneys), 24 of 33 decks had either KR or DU or both in them, and more than half the vote decks had 2 to 5 copies. I would certainly think that if you're putting multiple copies of a card in your deck, you're intending to at least have the opportunity to play it. There will certainly be times when playing a KR/DU in hand is not optimal in a given game, but over half the winning political decks PLANNED to be able to seat switch and about 70% made a point to include it. (Anecdotally, at least 2 of the 5 finalists at this year's NAC packed DU/KR, and Hughues Bertrand (who came in second) has mentioned in his analysis of his play that he based decisions on his planned ability to seat-switch later in the game, which he did pull off once.) (Also anecdotally, I won a storyline tournament within the last month solely because I managed to VP-snipe a VP the turn before my prey could, and we were both planning for much of the game to use the card in such fashion. And I felt so very dirty doing it! :P ) As to whether having over 2/3 of the winning political decks over the last year include seat-switching is a problem or not, that's up to the individual. > greets > > Emiliano -John Flournoy

I still stand by my point quoted here. And i have asked for bans on seatswitchers often. It is because of seatswitchers i played DI's. Not because of PTO. I am glad that seatswitchers are out. Now i don't HAVE TO pack 3 DI's in every tourney deck. i am glad about that. It gives me more options. W

I think it was David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu>, who once wrote: > You can still engage in contract style dealing, it just > requires that there be something intrinsic about the other decks on the > table that allows them to give something back. A totally linear "all I > do is bleed my prey and bounce, and maybe dodge" deck is obviously going > to have very, very little to offer, but most decks will have something, Even then, they might make a deal about where the bounces would be directed at. Use your imagination. ;) Rogar

UniqueMaster wrote: > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message > news:N4etd.30383$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... >> >> In fact, i was almost sure that this topic has almost never arisen >> here. In fact, this proves once more that the decision was uttelrly >> done in a very arbitrary way. > > Alright. Now you need to STFU and choose a different line of argument. > Which line ? A one you would like to dictate me? As several people noted, there was not almost any real discussion about kr a du being banned, so it's perfectly reasonable that *many* people (like me) are upset by this decision. > The topic has arisen here as well as in other electronic forums, and > through other means of communication. Your continued assertions that > there has been no discussion do not strengthen your position. > I didn't tried to strength anything about my position - i just said that the dicision was utterly arbitral. > To proclaim the decision as an arbitrary one is to choose ignorance > and disrespect. Really ? care to explain me why ? If a decision comes out almost from nothing, then it's arbitrary - can't see ignorance in telling the truth about that - just telling the truth. >Decisions like this are not easy; the people involved > never decide arbitrarily. Do you think they made the decision to > purposefully hurt you and other fans of the cards in question? > I'm not a fan of the cards in question (namely DU a KR - succubus club concept it's ok to be eradicated from the game, IMHO). I play the game since the beginning - i got no complain about the 7/7 ruling, or the 1 blood cost majesty, the banning of return of innocence & the like. An argument before the rewording was that banning was the last solution to be taken about an unbalanced card - after a discussion with mr. Coupe i got convinced that the rewording line was effectively the best choiche to deal with an unbalanced card (while i was for the banning before that). And i think that a rewording of both the cards was indeed preferable rather than a ban. greets Emiliano <snip>

I think it was Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com>, who once wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > This is not speculation. DU and KR allowed you to arbitrarily change > > who your prey and predator are. Without ousting anyone. It was, > > apparently, decided that this was bad for the game. I can't say I > > disagree. > > For a game in which you are completely randomly assigend to a table, > i can't be so bad to switch place with another Sure, not at the start of the game, when you haven't invested too much effort in ousting your randomly asigned prey. Perhaps the votes should be changed so that they can only be played in the first X turns of the game. Or, reflecting on Peter's remark that only ousting usually changes one's prey, the seating order change could trigger on the next oust, similar to Political Flux. Rogar

In message <32Btd.32016$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> mumbled something about: >UniqueMaster wrote: >> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message >> news:N4etd.30383$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... >>> >>> In fact, i was almost sure that this topic has almost never arisen >>> here. In fact, this proves once more that the decision was uttelrly >>> done in a very arbitrary way. >> >> Alright. Now you need to STFU and choose a different line of argument. >> >Which line ? A one you would like to dictate me? >As several people noted, there was not almost any real discussion about kr a >du being banned, >so it's perfectly reasonable that *many* people (like me) are upset by this >decision. At least, none that you were aware of. Since you do not attend any of the numerous tournaments in America, specifically the East Coast ones or the NAC, you have no actual idea whether or not there was extensive discussion about KR and DU being inappropriate and ban-worthy. There was, by the way. I can personally assure you of that, because a lot of it happened in my presence... at these tournaments, and at the beer-and-wingfests afterwards, and at numerous other times. The newsgroup is not the only means to hold a discussion. It's one of the less useful ones, actually... mostly because of people like you, who would prefer to whine instead of adapt. >And i think that a rewording of both the cards was indeed preferable rather >than a ban. Fine. Please begin proposing alternate wordings, instead of bitching that you weren't personally consulted, because guess what; you won't be consulted next time, either. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsinwi9...@news.chello.hu... > On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 15:58:24 -0500, Joshua Duffin <duff...@bls.gov> wrote: > > But our own Daneel immediately responded "I do. Complain-complain." > > Are we getting all huggy-buggy? I never knew any property issues were > involved. Heh, I didn't really mean that I owned you there (or that I was eligible to use the royal plural) - "our own", here, is in the sense of "one of our colleagues, newsgroup poster Daneel". :-) > > not a secret lizard overlord > > Makes me wonder... ;) Damn! Won't someone shut up that David Icke already? Josh mango

Derek Ray wrote: > In message <32Btd.32016$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> mumbled something about: <snip> > The newsgroup is not the only means to hold a discussion. It's one of > the less useful ones, actually... mostly because of people like you, > who would prefer to whine instead of adapt. > >> And i think that a rewording of both the cards was indeed preferable >> rather than a ban. > > Fine. Please begin proposing alternate wordings, instead of bitching > that you weren't personally consulted, because guess what; you won't > be consulted next time, either. > Never complained i weren't personally consulted, why always to put dialogue on paradoxical extent ? Anyway: DU Only usable by a titled vampire with a capacity above 7 KR only one kr can be played during a game that's all greets Emiliano

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1102449712.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1102440123.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> > I'd also suggest looking back at April's 'what to ban' thread in the >> > newsgroup, where several people mention how they either want to ban >> > DU/KR or have gotten in the habit of packing Direct Interventions >> > specifically because of the prevalence of DU/KR in decks. >> >> Actually, not "several people", as far as actually wanting to ban >> the card. Just David. People responded to him though I didn't see >> anyone really agreeing with him about actually banning them. Just >> that they're irritating cards to have played against us. We knew >> that. > > I stand by the statement I actually made, which was broader than simply > counting noses about who said 'ban it' - and your 'only David' > assertion is wrong, to boot. I direct your attention to the following > reply (fairly far down the thread: > > Wouter Kuyper: "SeatSwitchers are my only cards that i think > banningworthy. I hate it when someone just takes the VP for someone > elses hard work, not really fun. I play DI's because of these (not > because of PTO)" All right. Touche, you found one in that whole big thread. > Curevei's reply to it (including DI in decks): "If there weren't seat > switching votes, I'd probably rarely play it." > > (Several other players in that thread) (Snapcase, Orpheus) talked about > how the cards were at least annoying and/or very powerful. Actually, I probably should have raised this before but I wasn't considering someone saying they were "annoyed by (DU and KR)" or that they included in DIs in their decks as discussion about banning them. It's not. Let's not pretend it is. >> Actually, considering I'd looked at everything you posted already, >> it shouldn't be surprising to you that I disagree. The point being, >> amongst the thousands of posts that come through the group every >> month, such scattering and oblique references do not constitute much >> real discussion at all, even by a standard of "quality over quantity". > > I'm not disagreeing with that. I offered those comments as a rebuttal > to your statement of "Find REAL examples of people discussing these > cards in terms of a balance problem". In general, this is not, IME. Or at best it skirts the edge. I'm talking about guys posting threads headed, "LET'S BAN DRAMATIC UPHEAVAL!" and people giving their opinions back and forth about how these cards constitute a salient balance problem that warps the game. As I pointed to LSJ, quibbling about a tiny handful of references about irritation with these cards that you can find if you turn over every rock is missing the point. >> I'm saying you'll have to forgive people who feel blind-sided by the >> banning of these cards because it's really hard to look at the > traffic >> here and see any content which would tend to justify it. > > I'm absolutely forgiving of that. Not everybody reads all the various > forums where things like this might get discussed. > > I am somewhat less forgiving of people who say (directly quoting > someone else, not you): "no-one complained about them" or "the decision > was uttelrly done in a very arbitrary way". "No one complained about them" is a generalized statement that basically reflects the truth. If you want to get technical, everything is complained about in SOME sense sooner or later. Mike Ooi pointed at Josh Duffin's lengthy post about things he (Josh) would change if Josh created the game. In the list is eliminating DU and KR. Is this "complaining" about these cards. In sense, it is. Joshes list was very long - he would alter a lot! (At least, it had a lot of details about it.) If you consider stuff like this to be counterdictory evidence to the claim that "No one has complained about" this, that, or the other, then one can never make such a claim. But the statement has meaning, it is pertinent, and if read in the spirit in which it was made, it IS truthful. > As a side note to all the other people who feel blind-sided because > they didn't see a lot of discussion on usenet ahead of time: other, > much more significant changes to the game have occured in the past with > little to no discussion on the newsgroup; things like the grouping > rule, the adoption of group 4, the inclusion of Bloodlines, Anarchs, > three-way cards, outferiors, Events, the change in card layout, the > decisions about what cards to reprint or not and so on. Absolutely. This is actually the part of it that disturbs me. As I've said elsewhere, I'll adjust to this particular change myself just fine. It kind of bugs me that a pattern has been established where changes just suddenly get announced that the player population never asked for nor gave any opinions about. Fait accompli - it just happened, don't whine about it! Move on. I don't really think that's good. Sometimes it may be necessary but it isn't a good thing. And the fact that White Wolf chooses to do it certainly doesn't make it good, either. (That last is pointed out because it seems like you're using the fact that it happened in the past to justify it. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way.) Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > > As a side note to all the other people who feel blind-sided because > > they didn't see a lot of discussion on usenet ahead of time: other, > > much more significant changes to the game have occured in the past with > > little to no discussion on the newsgroup; things like the grouping > > rule, the adoption of group 4, the inclusion of Bloodlines, Anarchs, > > three-way cards, outferiors, Events, the change in card layout, the > > decisions about what cards to reprint or not and so on. > > Absolutely. This is actually the part of it that disturbs me. As > I've said elsewhere, I'll adjust to this particular change myself just > fine. It kind of bugs me that a pattern has been established where > changes just suddenly get announced that the player population never > asked for nor gave any opinions about. Fait accompli - it just happened, > don't whine about it! Move on. Yes, changes get announced and the population "at-large" are not asked for opinions. I don't imagine that will change. I don't even think that would be productive. Many of the things that appear to be out of the blue are announced after extensive discussions, bickering, consulting, phone calls, and in-person visits. The things that have come up here are essentially the same things that come up in the smaller discussions that take place. I'm confident that enough people were involved in the discussions to adequately represent all of the opinions expressed here. -Robert

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:31mjrhF...@individual.net... > > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:uAntd.87049$EZ.62132@okepread07... > >> As for finding a thread like this, BFD. You're not getting the point. >> The point is not to look under every rock to find one or two places >> where someone or other posted his wish list about how they'd have >> created the game. The point is that there's been no appreciable >> sentiment expressed in this newsgroup there's a REAL problem in this >> game caused by Dramatic Upheaval or Kindred Restructure and they need >> to be fixed. Go away and come back when you've found posters >> discussing THAT - in volume. > > Why haven't you looked for yourself? It's not impossible to develop > one's own Google-using skills (even though Google-beta does, I admit, > look kind of nasty right now). If you'd look back two or three exchanges, you'd see that I did. I used Jeff Thompson's suggested search. But it's impossible to prove something like this in the negative, as you well know. You can make an obvious search (look for "ban" and "Dramatic Upheaval" or "Kindred Restructure" in the same post) but how many esoteric choices should I pursue? Ultimately, it's up to the people who want to prove this thing in the positive to provide evidence. If I've ignored a means of searching you consider obvious, then mea culpa, I'm sorry. But so far I don't see it. > On September 21, 2004, Jo Herroelen (wolflord) mentioned "there are > cards which are a lot more disruptive, and force tables into kingmaking > a lot more than AR (for example Dramatic upheaval or Kindred > Restructure, but nobody's complaining about them are they?)" > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5c464a7fc02314d2 > An odd formulation, since he claimed that KR and DU were very disruptive > to the game, but that no one complained about them. Indeed - that IS ironic. Apparently, Jo agrees with my central point. > But our own Daneel immediately responded "I do. Complain-complain." > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0b06a7e2d75dcb4b Gosh, Josh - four words. And they do NOT include "ban-ban". > > I then chimed in myself to claim that I complained about Dramatic > Upheaval as well, though admittedly I didn't provide a laundry list of > reasons in that message. > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4e0b8fa9c750093e (Um, this link doesn't show me what you're saying it does. ???) > > Brian White's message has been mentioned already. As oblique a reference as they get... (More stuff elided.) Josh, this stuff is just not what I'm talking about. EVERY card gets discussed at some point or other. The issues is, was there ever any serious discussion that Dramatic Upheavel and Kindred Restructure were actual immediate problems that required some kind of near-term intervention. In short, the kind of discussion that would alert people to the possibility that a change might be considered. This kind of stuff won't do that. > Sure, most of these aren't discussions specifically about *banning* > Dramatic Upheaval or Kindred Restructure. I believe this is largely > because the players here believe (rightly) that they don't have the > power to get cards banned, and that talking about how much they'd like > to see card X banned isn't all that worthwhile a use of their time. I'm not sure everyone here believes that and it isn't my interpreation (rightly or wrongly) of what Scott says. He seems to imply that discussion here and in other forums has some input into the process and I'm not questioning that. But if that's true, then I notice that a number of people conclude that one way to contribute to an action would be to start a thread, "Let's Ban 'Card X'" (or fix or whatever). People do that. And the fact that nobody has done that for DU and KR implies, IMHO - and contrary to yours, apparently - that the sentiment to ban these two cards in the general player population is probably pretty small. (ellided discussion justifying the ban, which really isn't my issue). > As for getting blind-sided by it, sure. I certainly was. OK. This is what _was_ what I posted to discuss. Sounds like you agree. > But I think > we ought to expect to be blind-sided (though I agree that it would be > nice if we *did* get some kind of advance notice, or request for > comments, or whatever) by bannings, errata, and so on: that's how it's > always been. I wouldn't say that's how it's _always_ been. It has precedent, certainly. But other things have come down that were well expected: incorporating the NRA rule into the game rules, the game win rule, and I expect I could find other things with some work. Such changes were inevitably successful and useful, I would point out - which is just to say, it's nice when the "powers that be" and the opinions of the players are on the same page. I don't think it's always possible to avoid surprising players. I do think it's highly desirably not to, if you can help it. Fred

"UniqueMaster" <theuniquenes...@com.com> wrote in message news:ptWdncp9qpy...@texas.net... > > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:uAntd.87049$EZ.62132@okepread07... >> "UniqueMaster" <theuniquenes...@com.com> wrote in message >> news:z4idnWEzTLb...@texas.net... >> > >> > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message >> > news:bPjtd.86741$EZ.33785@okepread07... >> >> >> >> "UniqueMaster" <theuniquenes...@com.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Cq6dncnbMtJ...@texas.net... >> >> > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message >> >> > news:N4etd.30383$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... >> >> >> In fact, i was almost sure that this topic has almost never arisen >> >> >> here. In fact, this proves once more that the decision was uttelrly >> >> >> done in a very arbitrary way. >> >> > >> >> > Alright. Now you need to STFU and choose a different line of >> >> > argument. >> >> > >> >> > The topic has arisen here as well as in other electronic forums, and >> >> > through other means of communication. Your continued assertions that >> >> > there has been no discussion do not strengthen your position. >> >> >> >> WHAT?!? He's responding to *ME*, after I supported the assertion. >> > >> > And I was responding to him, more specifically to his last sentence. >> >> Quote "The topic has arisen here..." - that does not sound much like a >> response to his last sentence as opposed to the prior one. > > So re-read my post, and figure out what I was telling him to STFU about. What do you want? The way it's worded it SOUNDS like you're telling him he's wrong about it not being discussed in this forum SO THEREFORE, "STFU" - an assertion that itself is wrong. >> > Look for the subject header "Jyhad/VTES Done right". (A direct link >> > does not paste well) >> >> I'm not wrong. > > I disproved your assertion quoted above. So your statement is wrong. You may think these things but I disagree with them. >> Josh Duffin posting his, "If I controlled the game..." >> list and DU/KR happens to be on it. Not that he found them to be >> probleamatic. Just that he wouldn't have included them had he been >> designer. Big Difference. > > This was still a discussion on what cards should not be in the game. Not > including them and banning them were not so different in that context. You're clutching at straws. The point is about serious discussion that these cards are a problem and need to be banned. Josh included dozens of things on his list of "how to make a better game" of which these points were near the bottom and not much discussed over the whole thread. Trying to portray it as an earnest discussion about banning that should have alerted people to the possibility that the move was being considered is just wrong. OF COURSE if you search the entire newsgroup, you'll find discussion about whether any powerful card belongs in the game at all. That's beside the point and it's NOT "making you jump through hoops" to show discussion about banning which is more salient than that. > He's been given several examples that his assertion of "no discussion" > was incorrect Someone beating their chest generally deserves the same, > as they are now demonstrating that they aren't listening to what others > are saying. It depends on what you consider 'discussion'. You have to think about the point he was trying to make and take it for what it's worth, not stretch so far that it becomes a snap to disprove. It sounds like you expect players to read every single post in the newsgroup for every complaint anybody ever made about every card, note them, and remember them - because if anyone ever complained about said card, players shouldn't be surprised when it suddenly gets banned. That's unrealistic and you know it. Such a list would include every card which is popular to use and many that aren't. So accept the point as being true for what it's worth. If it's not an important point to you, that's a different thing. > Re-read his post. The point is that he is accusing the developers of > acting arbitrarily. And that's what got me into this. Well, I think you got into it the wrong way, then. I'm not going to defend it being arbitrary or not arbitrary because I don't think the one automatically follows the other - and you could have made that point as well. But he's right about there not being any substantial discussion about banning these cards in this newsgroup prior to the announcement. >> It might exist. I don't even claim I know for sure it doesn't and I >> never have because that's an impossible claim to make. > > Correct. Which is why I wasn't responding to your post, although leaving > yourself an out just so you can continue to rant is irresponsible. Hardly. The point about there being no discussion is important. It's simply not a thing that can be proved in the negative. I feel I've made enough of a reasonable search that it's hardly "irresponsible" to leave one's self an out if someone else comes up with a search I didn't think of that proves otherwise. I think it's mostly just something that gives you an excuse for ad homien attack, therefore is irrelevant. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "No one complained about them" is a generalized statement that basically > reflects the truth. It reflects the truth ONLY if you include the not-included phrase 'on the newsgroup' as part of that statement, as many people have stated that complaints about the card have been made in the past by multiple people in other, non-usenet forums. Certainly 'No one complained much on the newsgroup' is a generally truthful statement. I think we're both all done discussing the minutae of past usenet comments about DU/KR. > > As a side note to all the other people who feel blind-sided because > > they didn't see a lot of discussion on usenet ahead of time: other, > > much more significant changes to the game have occured in the past with > > little to no discussion on the newsgroup; things like the grouping > > rule, the adoption of group 4, the inclusion of Bloodlines, Anarchs, > > three-way cards, outferiors, Events, the change in card layout, the > > decisions about what cards to reprint or not and so on. > > Absolutely. This is actually the part of it that disturbs me. As > I've said elsewhere, I'll adjust to this particular change myself just > fine. It kind of bugs me that a pattern has been established where > changes just suddenly get announced that the player population never > asked for nor gave any opinions about. Fait accompli - it just happened, > don't whine about it! Move on. Fred, you're STILL using generalizations like 'the player population' that aren't accurate in spirit or in fact. The people who have been complaining in person, in private emails, in playtest groups, over other web forums, and even (rarely) on this newsgroup are people who play the game. They're not mystery WW employees who've never played V:TES, they are as much part of 'the player population' as you or I are. The example changes I listed were DECIDEDLY run past 'the player population' before being introduced to the game. Pretty much every one of them (maybe not card layout, shrug) was run through multiple playtest groups, and those playtest groups have been comprised of some of the most active and/or sizable and/or high-quality playgroups out there. They were not run past EVERY MEMBER of the 'player population', and they were not run past the usenet group as a subset of the player base, because (like almost every CCG company and most game companies) the reward for letting EVERY player playtest a game is that you get overwhelmed with requests and opinions from people who are not worth listening to. For example, there are people who post to this usenet group on a regular basis who haven't actually played the game in several years, who admit they don't know the rules or cards, and yet feel compelled to give their input on strategy, rules and game design issues. Those people's opinions aren't worth the time it takes you to killfile them. So instead, White Wolf usually makes a point to start by going out and proactively soliciting the opinions of specific players and groups of players about things like upcoming changes, instead of throwing open the gates to everyone with a web browser and an opinion. (If you look on usenet, you'll find that people occasionally ask how they can playtest the R0XX0R new cards and are told that White Wolf solicits the playtesters from the player base, not the other way around.) And on some occasions, they _do_ solicit the opinions of the wider player population, such as when LSJ asked for suggestions for themes for new expansions that players wanted to see last December on multiple forums (which is partly responsible for us getting a Kindred Most Wanted set), or the repeated statements of 'if you guys can come up with a way to fix this problem card/rule, please do so because the options already considered aren't workable' for a variety of cards - including DR/KU. I'm actually pleased to see LSJ posting asking for people to suggest ways to fix DU/KR to take them back off the banned list; the game does have a history of banning a problem card in the short term while asking for more and more input on how to fix it in the long-term. Even if that doesn't always work. (There's also the whole side issue of copyrights and NDAs for truly new material and their specifics; hard to get 'usenet and everyone who can search google' to sign off on an NDA so you can solicit specific feedback from all the players on a new card before its published - but that's not really relevant when talking solely about rules changes like banning cards.) I've been told (by people in a position to know) that people who make a point to be involved in discussions on the newsgroup, talk about strategies, card balance, rules changes and so forth - like you are doing now, and don't get me wrong, I'm not at all suggesting you shouldn't be griping about how you feel left out of the process and why that bugs you - are much more likely to be included in the people whose opinions get solicited, who get to playtest, etc etc. People who show a desire and a commitment to improving the quality of the game and demonstrate the ability to hold intelligent discussions on it get noticed by the people who look for player input on big decisions. (I won't claim that they all get consulted on every decision, but their chances of being included in any one discussion is certainly astromically higher than a random member of the player population.) I completely understand and sympathize with how you feel about being blind-sided by this change. Lots of players were. I even to some degree sympathize with your being upset that the discussions (which do happen) don't generally take place where you might find them or take part. I do take exception to your generalizations that the changes now or in the past were not asked for, not discussed, and that 'the player population' had no input either specifically this time or as an ongoing pattern, because that simply is not true. They weren't discussed by everyone or in front of everyone, but they were discussed (often at length) by a number of the most involved and experienced players of the game. > I don't really think that's good. Sometimes it may be necessary but > it isn't a good thing. And the fact that White Wolf chooses to do it > certainly doesn't make it good, either. (That last is pointed out > because it seems like you're using the fact that it happened in the > past to justify it. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way.) You're right, I didn't mean that as a justification, since 'White Wolf chooses to make changes without consulting the player population' isn't what I was suggesting. If that were the case, I'd agree with you that it's bad. And even if the decisions WERE being made in a vaccuum, it's nice to see the designer(s) saying 'here's a surprise change, now please feel free to tell us better alternatives cause we'll consider reversing it if you find one that works' rather than a final fait accompli from the get-go. > Fred -John Flournoy

<rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1102535252....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> > As a side note to all the other people who feel blind-sided because >> > they didn't see a lot of discussion on usenet ahead of time: other, >> > much more significant changes to the game have occured in the past >> > with little to no discussion on the newsgroup; things like the >> > grouping rule, the adoption of group 4, the inclusion of Bloodlines, >> > Anarchs, three-way cards, outferiors, Events, the change in card >> > layout, the decisions about what cards to reprint or not and so on. >> >> Absolutely. This is actually the part of it that disturbs me. As >> I've said elsewhere, I'll adjust to this particular change myself just >> fine. It kind of bugs me that a pattern has been established where >> changes just suddenly get announced that the player population never >> asked for nor gave any opinions about. Fait accompli - it just >> happened, don't whine about it! Move on. > > Yes, changes get announced and the population "at-large" are not asked > for opinions. I don't imagine that will change. I don't even think > that would be productive. On this, I agree. If you're considering, say, the immienent banning of Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Retructure regardless of prior discussion I don't think would be a good thing to post a request for opinions on the move and base your final decision on the reaction. I can think of a number of reasons for that. But that wasn't what I said above. I was talking about "changes...that the player population NEVER ASKED FOR nor gave any opinions about." The distinction is important. I'm talking about making changes that players (as far as I can see, from the discussion in the newsgroup) expressed no prior interest in. To restate a concession from my prior post, I don't claim this should be an absolute standard. But I definitely feel it's a standard that should be aspired to. I believe if you reviewed a list of changes made over the last several years, you'd find that the ones for which there was wide player discussion of in forums like this beforehand are the ones that are now the best liked and supported. I doubt such a conclusion would be surprising. But I'm disturbed about whether this point carries much weight in the circle of people who makes these decisions. Of course, I can only speculate but it's just an impression I get that it doesn't have as much weight as I would prefer it to. > The things that have come up here are essentially the same things > that come up in the smaller discussions that take place. That's the point: in this case, this doesn't seem to be true. That is, banning Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure is _not_ something that really "came up" here. Fred

Tetragrammaton wrote: > DU > Only usable by a titled vampire with a capacity above 7 > > KR > only one kr can be played during a game Neither of these fix the fundemental problem of the cards--namely that they allow a player to not have to focus on ousting *their* prey, 'cause they can choose to oust anyone else at the table that happens to be easy to oust for whatever reason. The designers and tournament authority clearly seem interested in refocusing the game on its intended goal--kill your prey, that being the guy sitting to your left when the game starts. DU and KR both completely circumvent this. There is nothing at all to stop a deck using, say, DU or KR from simply sitting on its resources and protecting itself till, say, its prey (who has been unmolested up till this point and likely plowing ahead at high speed) is close to ousting your Grandprey. And then you steal your Prey's seat, oust your Grandprey-now Prey, gain a VP and 6 extra pool. And then do it again to whomever is closest to being ousted. And so on. This gives a *huge* benefit to someone who is completely ignoring what is supposed to be the fundemantal guiding focus of the game--kill your prey. Can you see how this could be deemed inappropriate to the game where the main goal is supposed to be "kill your prey"? And how errata isn't going to fix that? Succubus Club is banned. I'd lay money, however, that a new card that has a similar effect (allows folks to trade stuff) but is greatly restricted will be printed eventually. 'Cause while SC is also wildly inappropriate for competetive play, it *is* a card that could be fixed by errata, 'cause the inappropriateness of the effect of the card isn't the effect in and of itself (i.e. trading stuff), it is the scale at which it is possible. It seems very likely that there is some version of a SC type card possible that allows players to trade some stuff but isn't capable of 'causing endless havok, like SC is. DU and KR? Unless the errata to these cards prevents them from being used to switch seats, the errata isn't fixing the problem. And if the errata does prevent them from being used to switch seats, then they aren't the same cards and there is no point to the errata. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:cTItd.88999$EZ.221@okepread07... > If you'd look back two or three exchanges, you'd see that I did. > I used Jeff Thompson's suggested search. But it's impossible to > prove something like this in the negative, as you well know. You > can make an obvious search (look for "ban" and "Dramatic Upheaval" > or "Kindred Restructure" in the same post) but how many esoteric > choices should I pursue? Ultimately, it's up to the people who want > to prove this thing in the positive to provide evidence. If I've > ignored a means of searching you consider obvious, then mea culpa, > I'm sorry. But so far I don't see it. The search I used was "upheaval and restructure and group = rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad". I didn't require the word "ban" because discussions of banning cards are actually quite rare on this newsgroup. People just don't have discussions about what cards to ban all that often. You know why? Because it's not up to us! The people who start those discussions are, by and large, the ones who enjoy banging their heads against brick walls (at least metaphorically). I didn't realize you were dead-set on finding discussion specifically about *banning* Kindred Restructure and Dramatic Upheaval, and that discussion about how overpowered they are wasn't sufficient for you. I'll certainly grant that there has not been "a lot" of discussion about the cards being overpowered. I would say that there has been "some". > > On September 21, 2004, Jo Herroelen (wolflord) mentioned "there are > > cards which are a lot more disruptive, and force tables into kingmaking > > a lot more than AR (for example Dramatic upheaval or Kindred > > Restructure, but nobody's complaining about them are they?)" > > > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5c464a7fc02314d2 > > > > An odd formulation, since he claimed that KR and DU were very disruptive > > to the game, but that no one complained about them. > > Indeed - that IS ironic. Apparently, Jo agrees with my central > point. Jo didn't think anything could be broken, pretty much, it seems. Even old Return to Innocence, perhaps. :-) > > But our own Daneel immediately responded "I do. Complain-complain." > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0b06a7e2d75dcb4b > > > Gosh, Josh - four words. And they do NOT include "ban-ban". Nope. > > I then chimed in myself to claim that I complained about Dramatic > > Upheaval as well, though admittedly I didn't provide a laundry list of > > reasons in that message. > > > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/4e0b8fa9c750093e > > (Um, this link doesn't show me what you're saying it does. ???) My signature in that post is "complains about Dramatic Upheaval too" - an incidental mention, I grant, but I clearly intended it as an observation about the card being overpowered. > (More stuff elided.) > > Josh, this stuff is just not what I'm talking about. EVERY card gets > discussed at some point or other. The issues is, was there ever any > serious discussion that Dramatic Upheavel and Kindred Restructure were > actual immediate problems that required some kind of near-term > intervention. In short, the kind of discussion that would alert people > to the possibility that a change might be considered. This kind of > stuff won't do that. Nothing *really* alerts people to the possibility a change might be considered unless LSJ himself posts in the thread saying something along those lines. He doesn't normally do that. My point, which apparently is not what you intended to argue after all, is that the bannings are not totally out of left field because the cards were pretty widely recognized as overpowered and problematic cards. > > Sure, most of these aren't discussions specifically about *banning* > > Dramatic Upheaval or Kindred Restructure. I believe this is largely > > because the players here believe (rightly) that they don't have the > > power to get cards banned, and that talking about how much they'd like > > to see card X banned isn't all that worthwhile a use of their time. > > I'm not sure everyone here believes that and it isn't my interpreation > (rightly or wrongly) of what Scott says. They should, because they don't. :-) > He seems to imply that > discussion here and in other forums has some input into the process > and I'm not questioning that. But if that's true, then I notice that > a number of people conclude that one way to contribute to an action > would be to start a thread, "Let's Ban 'Card X'" (or fix or whatever). > People do that. And the fact that nobody has done that for DU and KR > implies, IMHO - and contrary to yours, apparently - that the sentiment > to ban these two cards in the general player population is probably > pretty small. I've hardly seen any discussions started saying "let's ban card X". Protect Thine Own, Anarch Revolt, that's about all I can think of off the top of my head (maybe Succubus Club too?). Those haven't gotten banned or fixed yet - despite (apparently) more evidence that "the players want them fixed". I'm not sure they ever will. But if they do, you think that'd be a lot less of a blindside than Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure were? I guess a little bit, but it doesn't make that much difference to me. > I wouldn't say that's how it's _always_ been. It has precedent, > certainly. But other things have come down that were well expected: > incorporating the NRA rule into the game rules, the game win rule, > and I expect I could find other things with some work. Such changes > were inevitably successful and useful, I would point out - which is > just to say, it's nice when the "powers that be" and the opinions of > the players are on the same page. Those were very different changes, I think. The NRA rule had been a tournament rule for a long time before it got integrated into the game rules (and became a tournament rule by fiat). The game win idea, as I remember, did get some discussion ahead of time but I wouldn't say that I was *expecting* it when it happened. But besides that, those are relatively (relatively!) minor changes that can be discussed in public looking for ideas on how to implement them. Whether or not to ban a few specific (and, now-obviously, rather controversial) cards isn't something that public discussion is really going to handle all that well, I think, beyond the simple "yes/no" poll that you could get out of it. > I don't think it's always possible to avoid surprising players. I > do think it's highly desirably not to, if you can help it. Sure. I also would love to see the rules authorities be more open and forthcoming. I don't really expect them to, though, having seen several years of history already. :-) Josh off to bang my head against a planet... of sound!

Frederick Scott wrote: > <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1102535252....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > Yes, changes get announced and the population "at-large" are not asked > > for opinions. I don't imagine that will change. I don't even think > > that would be productive. > > On this, I agree. If you're considering, say, the immienent banning of > Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Retructure regardless of prior discussion > I don't think would be a good thing to post a request for opinions on > the move and base your final decision on the reaction. I can think of > a number of reasons for that. But that wasn't what I said above. Yeah, I was misunderstanding. I was mainly commenting on the "never gave any opinions about". [clip] > I believe if you reviewed a list of changes made over > the last several years, you'd find that the ones for which there was wide > player discussion of in forums like this beforehand are the ones that > are now the best liked and supported. I doubt such a conclusion would > be surprising. But I'm disturbed about whether this point carries much > weight in the circle of people who makes these decisions. Of course, > I can only speculate but it's just an impression I get that it doesn't > have as much weight as I would prefer it to. Well, its hard to say exactly how much weight it has vs. how much you'd prefer. And it probably differs for design decisions vs. Rules Team vs. tournament rules. I can't speak about everything over the last several years (since I'm not in charge of all of it). All I can tell you is that it has weight. If for no other reason than avoiding headaches and having to answer gazillions of emails, I'd always prefer that ideas originate here and are hashed out and even popular here. :) > > The things that have come up here are essentially the same things > > that come up in the smaller discussions that take place. > > That's the point: in this case, this doesn't seem to be true. That is, > banning Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure is _not_ something > that really "came up" here. I'm not talking about whether or not the topic "came up" in this forum. I misunderstood what you were saying. My point is not offered in response to the discussion about whether or not the topic came up here. I was just making it clear that, in this case, a public discussion would not have helped. The discussions that did take place during the decision-making process (once the topic was on the table) were extensive and that a good understanding of all of the arguments now seen in this forum were discussed prior to the decision. -Robert

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1102538829....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "No one complained about them" is a generalized statement that >> basically reflects the truth. > > It reflects the truth ONLY if you include the not-included phrase 'on > the newsgroup' as part of that statement, as many people have stated > that complaints about the card have been made in the past by multiple > people in other, non-usenet forums. As has also been state many times, that claim is speculative; neither provable nor disprovable. (For that matter, I might take issue with the term "many" in the "many people have stated..." - but this thread itself is huge.) > Certainly 'No one complained much on the newsgroup' is a generally > truthful statement. ... > Fred, you're STILL using generalizations like 'the player population' > that aren't accurate in spirit or in fact. > > The people who have been complaining in person, in private emails, in > playtest groups, over other web forums, and even (rarely) on this > newsgroup are people who play the game. They're not mystery WW > employees who've never played V:TES, they are as much part of 'the > player population' as you or I are. It's accurate enough for my purposes. Either we have a different notion of what level of player interest is meaningful, in which case we'll just have to disagree. Or else you're proposing some mysterious dichotomy of interest between different forums that I just don't believe exists. That is, only on other "forum X" do all those people bitch and moan about Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure. Here, we got all the guys (or a vast majority of guys if not 100%) who either are fine with them or are at least not dissatisfied with them enough to ever propose that it's important something be done. I would find that very strange. > The example changes I listed were DECIDEDLY run past 'the player > population' before being introduced to the game. What you were talking about was "playtesting and analyzing". In other words, "Do they work?" Does it work to ban DU and KR? Of course it does. They have no signficant role in, say, preventing some other card, tactic, or strategy from becoming unbalanced. But the issue here is, "Is this change desired?" Do people like the game better with or without these cards. Your description of groups play-testing other things (rules changes, cards, etc.) gives me no confidence that this has been taken into account. This change really is different from those sorts of changes, at least partially. It really seems philosophical to me, not so much a matter of game balance or some other rules problem. > I'm actually pleased to see LSJ posting asking for people to suggest > ways to fix DU/KR to take them back off the banned list; I am, too. I mean, it's hard to dislike that, sure. But inherent in that request is an implied value: table switching is bad (or certain aspects of it). And I'm not sure the rank and file necessarily agrees with that value. In any case, due to that ground rule, that dialogue is basically orthagonal to this point. Fred

In message <zFFtd.32526$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> In message <32Btd.32016$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, >> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> mumbled something about: ><snip> >> The newsgroup is not the only means to hold a discussion. It's one of >> the less useful ones, actually... mostly because of people like you, >> who would prefer to whine instead of adapt. >> >>> And i think that a rewording of both the cards was indeed preferable >>> rather than a ban. >> >> Fine. Please begin proposing alternate wordings, instead of bitching >> that you weren't personally consulted, because guess what; you won't >> be consulted next time, either. >> >Never complained i weren't personally consulted, >why always to put dialogue on paradoxical extent ? Because I'm answering what you REALLY meant to say, but you already know the answer -- instead you're pretending to take up the banner for the Hordes of People who Can't Defend Themselves. Come on, now, be honest. If LSJ selected twenty people from the newsgroup to be consulted on all rules changes, and they still banned DU and KR, you'd STILL be bitching because you weren't one of those people. >Anyway: > >DU >Only usable by a titled vampire with a capacity above 7 You do realize that a vast number of DUs are called by Arika, Wilhelm Waldburg, Queen Anne, Marcus Vitel, etc? Totally worthless fix; changes nothing. >KR >only one kr can be played during a game A broken effect that only occurs once per game is still broken; it's simply a race to who gets the broken effect first. See "Return to Innocence". Moving on. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > In message <zFFtd.32526$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> mumbled something about: > >> Derek Ray wrote: >>> In message <32Btd.32016$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, >>> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> mumbled something about: >> <snip> >> Never complained i weren't personally consulted, >> why always to put dialogue on paradoxical extent ? > > Because I'm answering what you REALLY meant to say, but you already > know the answer -- instead you're pretending to take up the banner > for the Hordes of People who Can't Defend Themselves. > I don't pretend anything, so please be polite and stop talking for other pretending to be in their mind. Thanks > Come on, now, be honest. If LSJ selected twenty people from the > newsgroup to be consulted on all rules changes, and they still banned > DU and KR, you'd STILL be bitching because you weren't one of those > people. > >> Anyway: >> >> DU >> Only usable by a titled vampire with a capacity above 7 > > You do realize that a vast number of DUs are called by Arika, Wilhelm > Waldburg, Queen Anne, Marcus Vitel, etc? > I realize that is a political action, with all the pro & cons fo it. Restricting to 8+ titled vampire would be fine. Unless we deem now that raising up 8+ titled vampires makes automatically succesful any political actions and relate referendum they will call. > Totally worthless fix; changes nothing. > Yes, thanks for make your opinion so clear. >> KR >> only one kr can be played during a game > > A broken effect that only occurs once per game is still broken; it's > simply a race to who gets the broken effect first. See "Return to > Innocence". So every effect that can occour once should be considered broken ? Emiliano

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 11:20:48 -0500, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > news:opsinwi9...@news.chello.hu... >> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 15:58:24 -0500, Joshua Duffin <duff...@bls.gov> >> wrote: > >> > But our own Daneel immediately responded "I do. Complain-complain." >> >> Are we getting all huggy-buggy? I never knew any property issues were >> involved. > > Heh, I didn't really mean that I owned you there (or that I was eligible > to > use the royal plural) - "our own", here, is in the sense of "one of our > colleagues, newsgroup poster Daneel". :-) Yeah, I was just teasing. ;) Anyway, I'm a most dangerous troll running loose. Boo. >> > not a secret lizard overlord >> >> Makes me wonder... ;) > > Damn! Won't someone shut up that David Icke already? *silently makes notes* > Josh > > mango *expands said notes* Tsk-tsk... -- Bye, Daneel

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 02:17:14 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >The Banned List is expanded to include three cards that are >not suited for competitive play: Dramatic Upheaval, Kindred >Restructure, and Succubus Club. Awesome. An excellent decision, I think. While I understand that people are frustrated about this decision (and I realize I'm coming to the argument late), there's something I think that hasn't been touched upon (much). The predator/prey mechanic is fairly distinct (or at least was, I'm not very up on my CCGs) to V:tES, and in the CCGs I'm familiar with, seating doesn't really matter very much (Shadowfist, Magic, Babylon5). V:tES, by placing some sort of emphasis on seating, has made seating important to the players (possibly more important than it should be). The ability to change seating is also relatively distinct in V:tES, and made more important because it can matter. In a "friendly" game, DU/KR are minor annoyances, and rather characteristic of Garfield's desire to throw some sort of monkeywrench into every aspect of the game, and increase some of the parlor-game-like attributes of V:tES. See also: Cunctator Motation, Curse of Nitocris, Malkavian Prank, Monocle of Clarity. In games that have an outcome that "matters", though, DU/KR supplant the randomness of seating with an order that only benefits one (or perhaps two) players, to the detriment of the other players, and it imposes a new state on the game that cannot easily be undone. As someone (can't recall who) pointed out, there is a "before DU/KR" state, and an "after DU/KR" state which are fundamentally different. The ability to change the table that much, and with such devestating effect gives unprecedented power to political decks, which is simply undesirable, even if that mechanism could be used by all archetypes. If the following card existed: Bum's Rush++ Action +1 stealth (D) Enter combat with a minion. If this minion inflicts more damage than the opposing minion in the resulting combat, burns the opposing minion, or sends the opposing vampire to torpor, this methuselah may switch seats with any other methuselah at the table. that effect would likely be deemed problematic by many (most?) players. But in effect, that is what DU does. DU picks a "fight" that it can probably win (Bewitching Oration/Awe/Cryptic Rider/Business Pressure/etc.), and gets a large effect out of it. Sure, the above isn't exactly the same, but it's similar. The targeted methuselah can block it instead of predator/prey, combat defense exists (and is actually more varied than vote defense), and not all methuselahs have a say in the outcome. But I think the point is still valid. Feel free to discuss. Or not. There have already been a lot of messages on the subject, and I think most of you have already made up your minds (for good or ill). Xian

Tetragrammaton wrote: > I realize that is a political action, with all the pro & cons > fo it. > Restricting to 8+ titled vampire would be fine. Well, not if you consider that the very effect (changing seats) is completely a bad idea from the get go. And the thing that the tournament ruling authority and game designer want to do away with. > Unless we deem now that raising up 8+ titled vampires > makes automatically succesful any political actions and relate > referendum they will call. Ok. Here is the thing about vote cards. That vote cards can be blocked or fail does not justify making vote cards that are too powerful or inappropriate. Yes. Sometimes votes are blocked or can't pass. But if a vote deck can do anything at all, then it can pass votes--otherwise it is a dead deck. So "the vote can fail" simply isn't a balance point, as if a deck can pass votes, it can pass whatever vote is inappropriate. If there was a vote that said "If this referendum passes, your prey is ousted. You gain 6 pool and a VP.", would that be ok, 'cause sometimes polical actions fail or are blocked? Even if it was only callable by a vampire of capacity 8+? Or only once per game? No, of course it wouldn't. DU and KR are effects that are simply inappropriate for the game, as they completely undermine the main guiding relationship of the game (predator/prey). No errata can fix that. > So every effect that can occour once should be considered broken ? Are you being purposefully obtuse? Derek's point was that things that are broken, even if they can only happen once per game, are still broken. If the card I propose above (called "Ousted!", say) was only playable once per game, would that make it ok? [ quoted text not captured ]

> > A broken effect that only occurs once per game is still broken; it's > > simply a race to who gets the broken effect first. See "Return to > > Innocence". > > So every effect that can occour once should be considered broken ? Every person who lives in my house, lives in Australia, but every person who lives in Australia does not live in my house. Derek has merely stated that if an effect is broken, it's broken regardless of whether it happens 1 time, or 1000 times. It's still a broken effect. Ancient Influence is a one-off, yet is not broken. Nor is Giant's Blood. Making a broken effect a one off only use will still mean that it is a broken effect. -- J -- "Fry crack corn, and I don't care, Leela crack corn, I still don't care, Bender crack corn and he is great; Take that you stupid corn!" grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com to email me

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: > >> I realize that is a political action, with all the pro & cons >> fo it. >> Restricting to 8+ titled vampire would be fine. > > Well, not if you consider that the very effect (changing seats) is > completely a bad idea from the get go. And the thing that the > tournament ruling authority and game designer want to do away with. > I still can't get how the changing seat has become suddenly so much of a problem, but that's my problem, so i think i'll take my time to understand it. > Ok. Here is the thing about vote cards. That vote cards can be > blocked or fail does not justify making vote cards that are too > powerful or inappropriate. Yes. Sometimes votes are blocked or can't > pass. But if a vote deck can do anything at all, then it can pass > votes--otherwise it is a dead deck. So "the vote can fail" simply > isn't a balance point, as if a deck can pass votes, it can pass > whatever vote is inappropriate. > If the vote that could pass can effectively make you "win", that i would agree. But changing seat does not make you automatically to "win". > If there was a vote that said "If this referendum passes, your prey is > ousted. You gain 6 pool and a VP.", would that be ok, 'cause sometimes > polical actions fail or are blocked? Even if it was only callable by a > vampire of capacity 8+? Or only once per game? > No, at all. There's a big difference between "you oust" and "you change seat". Unless (i repeat) there's a clear evidence that every time a political deck that has changed seat has got also the VP and, in the end, has "won". >> So every effect that can occour once should be considered broken ? > > Are you being purposefully obtuse? > > Derek's point was that things that are broken, even if they can only > happen once per game, are still broken. If the card I propose above > (called "Ousted!", say) was only playable once per game, would that > make it ok? > I point that, probably, it's a problem of mine - i don't perceive the effect as "broken", so it would be still fine to limit it greatly by the "once per game", speaking of KR greets Emiliano

J wrote: >>> A broken effect that only occurs once per game is still broken; it's >>> simply a race to who gets the broken effect first. See "Return to >>> Innocence". >> >> So every effect that can occour once should be considered broken ? > > Every person who lives in my house, lives in Australia, but every > person who lives in Australia does not live in my house. > > Derek has merely stated that if an effect is broken, it's broken > regardless of whether it happens 1 time, or 1000 times. It's still a > broken effect. > > Ancient Influence is a one-off, yet is not broken. Nor is Giant's > Blood. Making a broken effect a one off only use will still mean that > it is a broken effect. Got it - so we played with a broken effect for so long time and so many people didn't realized that ;D Funny greets Emiliano

Emiliano wrote: >>I still can't get how the changing seat has become suddenly so much of a problem, but that's my problem, so i think i'll take my time to understand it.>> It probably will. It is unlikely that is had suddenly become such a problem. It is likely that the issue had been discussed for a while (which it had, even if not here), and when Succubus Club became a issue for banning based on being wildly inappropriate for competetive play, the designers/tournament authority figured if that was going to to being wildly inappropriate for competetive play, then DU/KR (which fit the same description) also had justification to go. Environments change. All the time. >>the vote that could pass can effectively make you "win", that i would agree. But changing seat does not make you automatically to "win".>> No. But it is inappropriate for the game, given that you want the game to revolve around players ousting their prey. Given that this is something the designers/tournament authority want to refocus the game on (ousting your prey), DU and KR are the best possible targets to remove, as they specifically make ousting your prey unecessary. As you can just oust someonelse's prey instead. Which isn't what the game is supposed to be about. >>No>> So you accept that there are some effects that are simply inappropriate for the game, correct? So all you need to do is to come to terms with the idea that seat switching is simply inappropriate for the game on a completely fundemental level, and you'll understand why they were banned. Sure. It took 10 years for someone to come to this decision, but that doesn't make it any less valid a decision. >>Unless (i repeat) there's a clear evidence that every time a political deck that has changed seat has got also the VP and, in the end, has "won".>> Do you accept that Succubus Club was banned for being completely inappropriate for competetive play, even if it didn't make people win all the time? Again, once you can accept that certian things are simply bad for the game as a whole, even if they don't make you win all the time (and you seem to accept this possibility, as you don't seem to have a problem with Succubus Club being banned, and you realize that a political action that simply ousted your prey if it passed isn't ok for the game), all you need to do is make that shift in view that gets you to the point where you say "Ahh. I see. Seat switching *is* completely inappropriate for a game where the main governing principal is kill your prey...", and why it was a justifyable action to ban these cards will become quite clear. -Peter

Emiliano wrote: >>I still can't get how the changing seat has become suddenly so much of a problem, but that's my problem, so i think i'll take my time to understand it.>> It probably will. It is unlikely that is had suddenly become such a problem. It is likely that the issue had been discussed for a while (which it had, even if not here), and when Succubus Club became a issue for banning based on being wildly inappropriate for competetive play, the designers/tournament authority figured if that was going to to being wildly inappropriate for competetive play, then DU/KR (which fit the same description) also had justification to go. Environments change. All the time. >>the vote that could pass can effectively make you "win", that i would agree. But changing seat does not make you automatically to "win".>> No. But it is inappropriate for the game, given that you want the game to revolve around players ousting their prey. Given that this is something the designers/tournament authority want to refocus the game on (ousting your prey), DU and KR are the best possible targets to remove, as they specifically make ousting your prey unecessary. As you can just oust someonelse's prey instead. Which isn't what the game is supposed to be about. >>No>> So you accept that there are some effects that are simply inappropriate for the game, correct? So all you need to do is to come to terms with the idea that seat switching is simply inappropriate for the game on a completely fundemental level, and you'll understand why they were banned. Sure. It took 10 years for someone to come to this decision, but that doesn't make it any less valid a decision. >>Unless (i repeat) there's a clear evidence that every time a political deck that has changed seat has got also the VP and, in the end, has "won".>> Do you accept that Succubus Club was banned for being completely [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > I still can't get how the changing seat has become suddenly so much of > a problem, but that's my problem, so i think i'll take my time to > understand it. > > If the vote that could pass can effectively make you "win", that i would > agree. > But changing seat does not make you automatically to "win". > > Unless (i repeat) there's a clear evidence that every time a political > deck that has changed seat has got also the VP and, in the end, has "won". I wouldn't say that seat-switching has 'suddenly' become a problem. I'd say it's something that has _gradually_ become a problem, as more and more players realized what they could do with the mechanic and started to use it accordingly in increasing numbers in tournaments. I also wouldn't say it's 'every time a political deck has won', but it has become increasingly frequent to use KR/DU specifically to snipe VPs; multiple players in the last 6 months have discussed in tournament reports and/or casual conversation how in the course of winning (or making the finals) they've 'sat back and waited for someone to be weak enough to seat-switch to steal the vp' instead of making any effort to oust their prey. Sometimes those people win, and sometimes they just get VP, but more and more often of late the cards have been included in decks with the intent of engineering cross-table VP sniping instead of other purposes (like avoiding a horrific predator, which is a separate, yet still undesirable effect.) > Emiliano -John Flournoy

In message <dcUtd.33338$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: >Got it - so we played with a broken effect for so long time >and so many people didn't realized that ;D > >Funny Consider that people have whined about Succubus Club. On the other hand, a lot of people have turned around and said "What?" when asked about how broken Succubus Club is. If it is appropriate to ban Succubus Club, even though other groups haven't found it to be problematic in any way, it is extremely problematic to reverse the standards for cards like DU/KR. Why ban Succubus Club when lots of people were playing with it for a long time without realising how horrible it was? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

In message <R7Utd.33330$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes: >I still can't get how the changing seat has become suddenly so much of >a problem, but that's my problem, so i think i'll take my time to >understand it. Consider: In some situations, the power of a card is readily obvious. For instance, as-printed Return to Innocence is hugely powerful. This was obvious from the start. Having to take steps against it was something that was obvious the moment you saw it. Well, maybe not quite then. You'd think "Ooh, it burns the vampire. That's not good." And then people would discuss how you can get round that being a problem and... well, you see how it quickly becomes a hot card. However, another card may not be registering on people's radar, but may slowly start to take on a more central role as more and more people just start including it. People take steps to account for it in some ways, and it's not a radical sea-change like RtoI. But at some point, you could see it as problematic that if people aren't preparing for it specifically, they get screwed. I am not entirely convinced of this, but it strikes me as one possible way to see how this works. I'd include a few of the reprint changes in Camarilla Edition as having worked in a similar-ish fashion. [ quoted text not captured ]

Regarding the new Banned List additions and Limited tournaments... Any chance we can get a provision into the rules that allowed trade/swap with the tournament organizer if someone happens to get stuck with SC, KR, or DU during a draft/booster event? Considering the rarities involved, it might necessitate opening an extra booster pack for every 30 people or so to replace the offending cards. Jeff

jeff_kuta wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] What about if someone happens to get one of the other banned cards? What about if someone happens to get an otherwise legal, but wallpaper card? Or one that requires a Discipline that none of his crypt cards have and for which he did not draft a Master: Discipline card or other enabler? Given the rarities involved, the only way to get "stuck" with these things is to be the last drafter of that pack/tableau. In that case, you'd typically be getting chaff of some form or another. But seriously... Sure -- swap them all for Sacre Cour Cathedral, France. This is already permitted (in the form of: the organizer can supply all players with X copies of Sacre Cour Cathedral, France, where X is the number deemed suitable to accomplish such a swap in the worst-case scenario). The organizer can use whatever card she has sufficient copies of instead of Sacre Cour Cathedral, France, of course, so long as every player has access to the same set of "bonus" cards. [VEKN 7.2.3] She could supply every player with an Ascendance, a Blood Doll, and a Forced Awakening, for instance, to swap with whatever "chaff" the player happens to get "stuck" with. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

El dom, 05-12-2004 a las 22:47 +0000, James Coupe escribió: > In message <cafbc9c8.0412...@posting.google.com>, Enrique San > Mart?n <es...@chile.com> writes: > >Yeah... you see LSJ, are many people all-around that are waiting for a > >good (and i say a good not the usual) explanation of why that card's > >that undermine a specific mechanic of the game are banned, why that > >mechanic and no other?... why? > > [Note: This is in no way intended to be a criticism of your post but... > bits of it don't seem to make much sense to me. So my response may mis- > interpret something you thought was obvious.] > > > Could you provide a concrete example of one of the fundamental defining > mechanics of the game you think is being violated by a group of cards? I respond this with another question to LSJ, 1) what are the basic mechanic of vtes? (can you name 3 or 4)??? or the only basic mechanich is prey-predator???, 2) and where in the rulebook says that you can't win VP if you don't kill your prey??? > > This should also probably include a reason why players would do it - > particularly when they can't table switch now - if it wasn't already in > their interests. And also why it couldn't be caught with play-to-win > rulings. > That's it's another point of view of the ban, i try to put again the discution of the basic mechanic, so, for that i asking about the basic mechanic of vtes... (and i would very interest to know where in the rulebook say that...) Enrique San Martín W.

"Enrique San Martín Woerner" <es...@galilea.cl> wrote in message news:1103086312....@localhost.localdomain... > I respond this with another question to LSJ, An earnest response would have been better, but since I've got a little extra time on my hands... > 1) what are the basic mechanic of vtes? (can you name 3 or 4)??? > or the only basic mechanich is prey-predator???, 1) Most VPs wins 2) Number of VPs = number of players 3) You get VPs by ousting your prey 4) Each player brings his or her own deck 5) Each card in play is controlled by exactly one of the players 6) Each card returned to a deck (library or crypt) is returned to its owner's deck. > 2) and where in the rulebook says that you can't win VP if you don't > kill your prey??? It specifies how you win, not how you can't. If you want to win without killing your prey, use Life Boon. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

El mié, 15-12-2004 a las 08:56 -0500, LSJ escribió: > "Enrique San Martín Woerner" <es...@galilea.cl> wrote in message > news:1103086312....@localhost.localdomain... > > I respond this with another question to LSJ, > > An earnest response would have been better, but since I've got a little > extra time on my hands... > > > 1) what are the basic mechanic of vtes? (can you name 3 or 4)??? > > or the only basic mechanich is prey-predator???, > > 1) Most VPs wins > 2) Number of VPs = number of players > 3) You get VPs by ousting your prey yeah, the rulebook say's that you win VP killing your prey (not your starting prey...) > 4) Each player brings his or her own deck > 5) Each card in play is controlled by exactly one of the players > 6) Each card returned to a deck (library or crypt) is returned to its > owner's deck. > > > 2) and where in the rulebook says that you can't win VP if you don't > > kill your prey??? > > It specifies how you win, not how you can't. > If you want to win without killing your prey, use Life Boon. > So, why they undermine the basic mechanic?, the rulebook say's, that your hope to oust your prey and your predator hope to oust you, so, the card's don't go against that... and also, when you change place, you still have a prey and a predator...

"Enrique San Martín Woerner" <es...@galilea.cl> wrote in message news:1103124658.5...@localhost.localdomain... > yeah, the rulebook say's that you win VP killing your prey (not your > starting prey...) Each player is supposed to have one player to "gun for" at any given time (his prey at the moment) and one player who is "gunning for" him at any given time (his predator at the moment). DU and KR undermine that. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > "Enrique San Martín Woerner" <es...@galilea.cl> wrote in message > news:1103124658.5...@localhost.localdomain... > >>yeah, the rulebook say's that you win VP killing your prey (not your >>starting prey...) > > > Each player is supposed to have one player to "gun for" at any > given time (his prey at the moment) and one player who is > "gunning for" him at any given time (his predator at the moment). > > DU and KR undermine that. If one player is suposed to "gun for" his prey why are there cards such as Kindred Spirits allowing to bleed other players other than your prey then? Or votes such as KRC? They undermine "the gun for", too. A basic tactic of DU and KR decks was to reduce a player other than your prey to a low amount of pool and change the seat to oust your newly prey. But your newly prey has most of the time you prey in your "hidden agenda". -- Andreas Nusser www.vekn.de a.nu...@vekn.de

"Andreas Nusser" <time...@NOSPAMscram.de> wrote in message news:cppn95$ov2$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net... > If one player is suposed to "gun for" his prey why are there cards such > as Kindred Spirits allowing to bleed other players other than your prey > then? Or votes such as KRC? They undermine "the gun for", too. They don't undermine who the player should be gunning for, any more than Bum's Rush or Arson do. Allowing interaction is not the same as altering the impetus. > A basic tactic of DU and KR decks was to reduce a player other than your > prey to a low amount of pool and change the seat to oust your newly > prey. But your newly prey has most of the time you prey in your "hidden > agenda". Yes, that's one of the examples of DU/KR undermining the predator-prey relationship by changing who the VP-reward system rewards you for going after. [ quoted text not captured ]

El mié, 15-12-2004 a las 10:45 -0500, LSJ escribió: > "Enrique San Martín Woerner" <es...@galilea.cl> wrote in message > news:1103124658.5...@localhost.localdomain... > > yeah, the rulebook say's that you win VP killing your prey (not your > > starting prey...) > > Each player is supposed to have one player to "gun for" at any > given time (his prey at the moment) and one player who is > "gunning for" him at any given time (his predator at the moment). When DU or KR change the place in the table, each player, at one moment have a player to "gun for" (before the referendum was aproveded) and in another moment, but follow the previus moment, each player have a player to "gun for" (can be the same player or a new player), if you are saying that in an infinetisimal moment, each player don't have a player to "gun for", you are entering in a philosophical discution's of the duration of the minimal moment... > > DU and KR undermine that. > In an infinetisimal moment before the table say's yes to the referendum and after the referendum???, but still, when the referundum it's called, and the vote are cast, you still have the same prey-predator, and when the referendum are aproved, you have a new prey and new predator... Enrique San Martín W. Arzobispo de Talca

"Enrique San Martín Woerner" <es...@galilea.cl> wrote in message news:1103136817.5...@localhost.localdomain... El mié, 15-12-2004 a las 10:45 -0500, LSJ escribió: > > Each player is supposed to have one player to "gun for" at any > > given time (his prey at the moment) and one player who is > > "gunning for" him at any given time (his predator at the moment). > When DU or KR change the place in the table, each player, at one moment > have a player to "gun for" (before the referendum was aproveded) and in > another moment, but follow the previus moment, each player have a player > to "gun for" (can be the same player or a new player), if you are saying > that in an infinetisimal moment, each player don't have a player to "gun > for", you are entering in a philosophical discution's of the duration of > the minimal moment... You are missing the point. Prior to the DU/KR, the player who intends to call DU/KR is operating outside of the predator-prey mechanic -- "gunning for" the player who is to be his new prey, or (more likely) simply not gunning for anyone but instead waiting for someone else to weaken another player (while the DU/KR player simply builds up -- bloats, equips, whatever) waiting to switch. See Peter's post in this thread for more coverage on this as well. [ quoted text not captured ]

Robert, that's are good argument's, like historical conception of the game or anti-game decks made on those cards (i don't see no one yet), but the argument of the prey-predator mechanic was undermine, it's too poor... El mié, 15-12-2004 a las 10:00 -0800, rrgo...@earthlink.net escribió: > LSJ wrote: > > "Enrique San Martín Woerner" <es...@galilea.cl> wrote in message > > news:1103124658.5...@localhost.localdomain... > > > yeah, the rulebook say's that you win VP killing your prey (not > your > > > starting prey...) > > > > Each player is supposed to have one player to "gun for" at any > > given time (his prey at the moment) and one player who is > > "gunning for" him at any given time (his predator at the moment). > > > > DU and KR undermine that. > > Just a little historical side note... One question, what it's the opinion of Richard Garlfield of (in the past and now, if you asking) of KR and DU??? > > Richard Garfield pointed out that one reason for the predator/prey > relationship was to give players an idea of who their short term > opponents are. > > Also, if my memory is correct, I recall him saying that he only wanted > players to earn VPs for ousting thier prey. He likened getting VPs for > ousting players other than your predator or prey to early roleplaying > experiences where the player that landed the death blow to the dragon > received the experience points for the kill (even if other players did but that's have no much sense, because if you oust another player other than your prey, you have done the 100% (you ousted the player), so in that argument, every time when you oust a player you must win his VP, (like in the roleplaying) > 99% of the work). Jyhad would be different in that if you ousted > someone other than your prey, you'd be doing it for some other benefit > (not VPs). Ok. > > IMO, DU/KR fly in the face of those concepts. Claims that you are still > ousting your prey after a DU/KR might technically be true but violates > the spirit in which the concept was created--that the player who does > 99% of the work shouldn't be robbed of a VP by the player who deals the > death blow (1%). This have two point of view... if my grand-predator make 3 bleeds of 7, and i call a DU, my predator have done the 99% and i have done the "death blow" or if i put 4 KRC and a reigns of power and a banishment and a PTO... well, i have done the 99%, and my Grand Predator, the 1% (if him oust my predator), from the 2 case that i'm putting, in the 2 the guy who did the 99% don't get the VP's... another topic it's that good or not... > > -Robert > Enrique Arzobispo de Talca

LSJ wrote: > "Enrique San Martín Woerner" <es...@galilea.cl> wrote in message > news:1103124658.5...@localhost.localdomain... > > yeah, the rulebook say's that you win VP killing your prey (not your > > starting prey...) > > Each player is supposed to have one player to "gun for" at any > given time (his prey at the moment) and one player who is > "gunning for" him at any given time (his predator at the moment). > > DU and KR undermine that. Just a little historical side note... Richard Garfield pointed out that one reason for the predator/prey relationship was to give players an idea of who their short term opponents are. Also, if my memory is correct, I recall him saying that he only wanted players to earn VPs for ousting thier prey. He likened getting VPs for ousting players other than your predator or prey to early roleplaying experiences where the player that landed the death blow to the dragon received the experience points for the kill (even if other players did 99% of the work). Jyhad would be different in that if you ousted someone other than your prey, you'd be doing it for some other benefit (not VPs). IMO, DU/KR fly in the face of those concepts. Claims that you are still ousting your prey after a DU/KR might technically be true but violates the spirit in which the concept was created--that the player who does 99% of the work shouldn't be robbed of a VP by the player who deals the death blow (1%). -Robert

Andreas wrote: >>If one player is suposed to "gun for" his prey why are there cards such as Kindred Spirits allowing to bleed other players other than your prey then? Or votes such as KRC? They undermine "the gun for", too.>> No, they don't. Using Kindred Spirits or KRC to kill someone X-table doesn't get *you* a VP. It gives someone else a VP. Consequently, there is built in disnicentive to do these things--X-table actions tend to make you weaker and someone else stronger. And they never get you a VP, which is your main incentive to do anything in game. -Peter

Enrique San Martín Woerner wrote: > if you are saying > that in an infinetisimal moment, each player don't have a player to "gun > for", you are entering in a philosophical discution's of the duration of > the minimal moment... Ok. When you sit down to play a game of VTES, you sit next to 2 other people. One of the is your predator. One of them is your prey. Once this relationship is established, your job is to kill your prey--the game has significant built in incentive to do this--if you kill *your* prey, i.e. the guy you sat next to when the game started, you get a VP and 6 pool. As 6 pool is a lot of pool, and you win the game by getting, generally, at least 3 VPs, this is a very significant, concrete incentive to kill your prey (as opposed to someone elses prey). What this sets up is a situation where the whole game dynamic revolves around you killing your prey (they guy to your immediate left) and your predator killing you. When you introduce an element into the situation that allows you to arbitrarily change who your prey is (i.e. Dramatic Upheaval, say), you no longer have any concrete incentive to kill your prey--you can kill *anyone's* prey, and get the 1 VP and 6 pool. You don't have to operate within the established main relationship of the game--predator/prey, as you can make anyone your prey at any time, making the whole structure moot. Currently, there are a lot of actions you can do cross table--Rush, Kindred Spirits, Eagle's Sight block, toss KRC damage, whatever. But doing these things to someone who is not your prey comes with significant disadvantages--you are using your resources (actions, blood, cards, whatever) to make someone *else's* life easier--someone else gets to benefit from your action, likely, much more than you do, as it makes it easier for that someone else to oust their prey. Which is what the main goal of the game is (oust your prey). When you can switch seats at a whim, these cross table actions lose their balance, and the whole game loses it's main governing principal (i.e. kill your prey). [ quoted text not captured ]

El mié, 15-12-2004 a las 14:04 -0500, LSJ escribió: > "Enrique San Martín Woerner" <es...@galilea.cl> wrote in message > news:1103136817.5...@localhost.localdomain... > El mié, 15-12-2004 a las 10:45 -0500, LSJ escribió: > > > Each player is supposed to have one player to "gun for" at any > > > given time (his prey at the moment) and one player who is > > > "gunning for" him at any given time (his predator at the moment). > > > When DU or KR change the place in the table, each player, at one moment > > have a player to "gun for" (before the referendum was aproveded) and in > > another moment, but follow the previus moment, each player have a player > > to "gun for" (can be the same player or a new player), if you are saying > > that in an infinetisimal moment, each player don't have a player to "gun > > for", you are entering in a philosophical discution's of the duration of > > the minimal moment... > > You are missing the point. You are missing the point. > > Prior to the DU/KR, the player who intends to call DU/KR is operating > outside of the predator-prey mechanic -- "gunning for" the player who > is to be his new prey, or (more likely) simply not gunning for anyone > but instead waiting for someone else to weaken another player (while > the DU/KR player simply builds up -- bloats, equips, whatever) waiting > to switch. The card can be canceled, burned, block the action, fail the referendum, the referendum can be against, so, it's the posibility of a new prey but not 100%. If are players play's to win VP from another sources, they have lost the basic of vtes, and it's that they win with the VP from his prey, and for players who don't know how to play, you can't ban a card... and if the other players do not do nothing against the "bad" players, it's problem of the table. From my point of view (IMHO), when you have to ban a card, when you get in your hand and you know that you win... it's simple, if the card you get in the first turn, you automatically know that you win (like dark ritual or some like that from magic or Black Lotus), but you can't ban a card that have many forms to be canceled (irregular protocol, vox senis, delaying tactics, can be blocked, can be against the referendum, direct intervention, etc etc) You are saying, that for only the players have "that" card they don't think (or hope) to kill his prey???, that's ridiculus... maybe would be some bad players that think like this, but for some players, you can't make an generalization (i hope that word exist in english), and ban a card because some players play to "only" theft VP from other's players... And the last one...: Vamp A call an DU, Controler of Vamp A (math A) have to Math B of prey and Math C of predator. Vamp A it's not blocked, Controler of Vamp A (math A) have to Math B of prey and Math C of predator. Math A cast all his votes to say yes to the referendum, Controler of Vamp A (math A) have to Math B of prey and Math C of predator. Math B and Math C say NO (because math A have a perfect wall of blood and Math C have weak prey and in the close future he think that he can oust to math A), Controler of Vamp A (math A) have to Math B of prey and Math C of predator. The referendum it's aproved, Controler of Vamp A (math A) have to Math X of prey and Math Y of predator. In no moment, any math don't have prey and predator... I insist, where in the rulebook says that you only can win VP if only you kill your starting prey (and his prey when you oust him, and etc etc)... The only think that i see was that the guy in your left are your prey and the guy in your right is your predator, you hope to oust your prey and you predator hope to oust you... but, don't talk about the only way of win VP or etc. Enrique Arzobispo de Talca [ quoted text not captured ]

"Enrique San Martín Woerner" <es...@galilea.cl> escribió en el mensaje [...] > Prior to the DU/KR, the player who intends to call DU/KR is operating > outside of the predator-prey mechanic -- "gunning for" the player who > is to be his new prey, or (more likely) simply not gunning for anyone > but instead waiting for someone else to weaken another player (while > the DU/KR player simply builds up -- bloats, equips, whatever) waiting > to switch. | The card can be canceled, burned, block the action, fail the referendum, | the referendum can be against, so, it's the posibility of a new prey but | not 100%. Any political action card (regardless of its power) can be canceled, burned, blocked, delayed, or can fail. So this is not an excuse to justify the existence of DU or KR in tournament play. [...] | From my point of view (IMHO), when you have to ban a card, when you get | in your hand and you know that you win... it's simple, if the card you | get in the first turn, you automatically know that you win (like dark | ritual or some like that from magic or Black Lotus), but you can't ban a | card that have many forms to be canceled (irregular protocol, vox senis, | delaying tactics, can be blocked, can be against the referendum, direct | intervention, etc etc) So a political card named "I win the game" (for instance) should not be banned because it is a political card, and therefore it can be cancelled by several means? ;-) | You are saying, that for only the players have "that" card they don't | think (or hope) to kill his prey???, that's ridiculus... maybe would be | some bad players that think like this, but for some players, you can't | make an generalization (i hope that word exist in english), and ban a | card because some players play to "only" theft VP from other's | players... What you must understand is that both KR and DU are the perfect excuse (whether you have any of them in hand or not) to justify any cross-table move. [...] Greetings, Damnans

Enrique San Martín Woerner wrote: > El mié, 15-12-2004 a las 14:04 -0500, LSJ escribió: >>"Enrique San Martín Woerner" <es...@galilea.cl> wrote in message >>>When DU or KR change the place in the table, each player, at one moment >>>have a player to "gun for" (before the referendum was aproveded) and in >>>another moment, but follow the previus moment, each player have a player >>>to "gun for" (can be the same player or a new player), if you are saying >>>that in an infinetisimal moment, each player don't have a player to "gun >>>for", you are entering in a philosophical discution's of the duration of >>>the minimal moment... >> >>You are missing the point. > > You are missing the point. Incorrect. To see: I see that your point above was that players always have a prey, including immediately before and after a DU/KR is passed, and that somehow I am trying to make matter out of that ethereal point in time that is the transition. QED. I am not trying to make that matter, and your assertion indicates that you miss the point, which is as quoted below: >>Prior to the DU/KR, the player who intends to call DU/KR is operating >>outside of the predator-prey mechanic -- "gunning for" the player who >>is to be his new prey, or (more likely) simply not gunning for anyone >>but instead waiting for someone else to weaken another player (while >>the DU/KR player simply builds up -- bloats, equips, whatever) waiting >>to switch. > The card can be canceled, burned, block the action, fail the referendum, > the referendum can be against, so, it's the posibility of a new prey but > not 100%. True, but non sequitur (missing the point again, perhaps). > If are players play's to win VP from another sources, they have lost the > basic of vtes, and it's that they win with the VP from his prey, and for > players who don't know how to play, you can't ban a card... and if the > other players do not do nothing against the "bad" players, it's problem > of the table. Possibly partially true, but non sequitur (missing the point again, perhaps). > From my point of view (IMHO), when you have to ban a card, when you get > in your hand and you know that you win... it's simple, if the card you > get in the first turn, you automatically know that you win (like dark > ritual or some like that from magic or Black Lotus), but you can't ban a > card that have many forms to be canceled (irregular protocol, vox senis, > delaying tactics, can be blocked, can be against the referendum, direct > intervention, etc etc) Not true (improper cards can and should be banned if they cannot be adequately addressed with errata or some other measure), but also non sequitur. > You are saying, that for only the players have "that" card they don't > think (or hope) to kill his prey???, that's ridiculus... maybe would be > some bad players that think like this, but for some players, you can't > make an generalization (i hope that word exist in english), and ban a > card because some players play to "only" theft VP from other's > players... I do not make the generalization. I merely indicate an example of a problem. DU was not banned "because some players only use it to snipe". It was banned because it is not suitable for competitive play. It is not suitable for competitive play because it undermines the predator-prey relationship upon which the competition is based. See the previous example of a card that would allow you to choose your competitor (or get away from the deck that is your deck's weakness) in a duel-format game played in a single-elimination tournament. > And the last one...: > > Vamp A call an DU, Controler of Vamp A (math A) have to Math B of prey > and Math C of predator. > Vamp A it's not blocked, Controler of Vamp A (math A) have to Math B of > prey and Math C of predator. > Math A cast all his votes to say yes to the referendum, Controler of > Vamp A (math A) have to Math B of prey and Math C of predator. > Math B and Math C say NO (because math A have a perfect wall of blood > and Math C have weak prey and in the close future he think that he can > oust to math A), Controler of Vamp A (math A) have to Math B of prey and > Math C of predator. > The referendum it's aproved, Controler of Vamp A (math A) have to Math X > of prey and Math Y of predator. > > In no moment, any math don't have prey and predator... True, but serving only to indicate that you missed my point above. I do not claim that there is a moment where a Meth doesn't have a prey and a predator. > I insist, where in the rulebook says that you only can win VP if only > you kill your starting prey (and his prey when you oust him, and etc > etc)... Back to this again? See previous response to this exact query. > The only think that i see was that the guy in your left are your prey > and the guy in your right is your predator, you hope to oust your prey > and you predator hope to oust you... but, don't talk about the only way > of win VP or etc. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

El jue, 16-12-2004 a las 11:35 +0000, LSJ escribió: > Enrique San Martín Woerner wrote: ... > > >>Prior to the DU/KR, the player who intends to call DU/KR is operating > >>outside of the predator-prey mechanic -- "gunning for" the player who > >>is to be his new prey, or (more likely) simply not gunning for anyone > >>but instead waiting for someone else to weaken another player (while > >>the DU/KR player simply builds up -- bloats, equips, whatever) waiting > >>to switch. > > > The card can be canceled, burned, block the action, fail the referendum, > > the referendum can be against, so, it's the posibility of a new prey but > > not 100%. > > True, but non sequitur (missing the point again, perhaps). > > > If are players play's to win VP from another sources, they have lost the > > basic of vtes, and it's that they win with the VP from his prey, and for > > players who don't know how to play, you can't ban a card... and if the > > other players do not do nothing against the "bad" players, it's problem > > of the table. > > Possibly partially true, but non sequitur (missing the point again, perhaps). The posibility give to the table to "incentivate" to all players to play to win via wining VP from they prey's... i explain this below. > > > From my point of view (IMHO), when you have to ban a card, when you get > > in your hand and you know that you win... it's simple, if the card you > > get in the first turn, you automatically know that you win (like dark > > ritual or some like that from magic or Black Lotus), but you can't ban a > > card that have many forms to be canceled (irregular protocol, vox senis, > > delaying tactics, can be blocked, can be against the referendum, direct > > intervention, etc etc) > > Not true (improper cards can and should be banned if they cannot be > adequately addressed with errata or some other measure), but also non sequitur. (explanation): Why don't make card's that "incentivate" more to the final objective to win VP from the starting prey? or make a card aho have two effects, like for an example: Name: Any name... Type: Master Card. Cost: 0 pool Out of turn - Master. Cancel an political card that that make the seating change. Also if you discard this card with a discard action, you can untap a tapped vampire if that vampire burn 1 blood. This is only an example... the effect of the card(s) can be more generaly (like a master card that can cancel a political card or etc etc). You can make card's with 2 effect's one generally and another especific against a card(s) or a clan or etc etc :P, to not make more wallpapers cards... Banning card's it's not the solution, the posibility of play an non-competive card(s) can be reduced to 1% or less, if you make cards like that, you kill undirect some card(s) and give to the players to choose if they put the card's or not (and nowbody can be ungry for that) > > > You are saying, that for only the players have "that" card they don't > > think (or hope) to kill his prey???, that's ridiculus... maybe would be > > some bad players that think like this, but for some players, you can't > > make an generalization (i hope that word exist in english), and ban a > > card because some players play to "only" theft VP from other's > > players... > > I do not make the generalization. I merely indicate an example of a > problem. DU was not banned "because some players only use it to snipe". > It was banned because it is not suitable for competitive play. It is not > suitable for competitive play because it undermines the predator-prey > relationship upon which the competition is based. But the only that would be undermine it's that some players are not thinking in they prey's, they are thinking in some else prey(s) and for that they don't have a prey... > > See the previous example of a card that would allow you to choose your > competitor (or get away from the deck that is your deck's weakness) in a > duel-format game played in a single-elimination tournament. And for that i don't play one-on-one trading's card's game's... the diference of vtes (multiplayers games) with 1-on-1 games it's one of the reasons o why vtes it's one of the best games of the world (IMHO and i say this 3 years ago, the best game of the world... but it's not perfect) > > > And the last one...: > > > > Vamp A call an DU, Controler of Vamp A (math A) have to Math B of prey > > and Math C of predator. > > Vamp A it's not blocked, Controler of Vamp A (math A) have to Math B of > > prey and Math C of predator. > > Math A cast all his votes to say yes to the referendum, Controler of > > Vamp A (math A) have to Math B of prey and Math C of predator. > > Math B and Math C say NO (because math A have a perfect wall of blood > > and Math C have weak prey and in the close future he think that he can > > oust to math A), Controler of Vamp A (math A) have to Math B of prey and > > Math C of predator. > > The referendum it's aproved, Controler of Vamp A (math A) have to Math X > > of prey and Math Y of predator. > > > > In no moment, any math don't have prey and predator... > > True, but serving only to indicate that you missed my point above. I do not > claim that there is a moment where a Meth doesn't have a prey and a predator. Ok, the problem of player's thinking in another's pray's have solution with the direction of the game, keeping the card's in tournament's you give more diversity to the game, if you ban the card's, you are cuting the game > > I insist, where in the rulebook says that you only can win VP if only > > you kill your starting prey (and his prey when you oust him, and etc > > etc)... > > Back to this again? > See previous response to this exact query. > > > The only think that i see was that the guy in your left are your prey > > and the guy in your right is your predator, you hope to oust your prey > > and you predator hope to oust you... but, don't talk about the only way > > of win VP or etc. > Baning card's give only less diversity (and with that less fun) to the game, you have the game in your's hand, but remember, the player's make vtes, with no player's, no vtes. I hope that you consider the posibility of errata or make that the game take another direction (a promo card with an effect against DU & KR would be fine or some like that) Another Question's it's: Why in Black Hand in one of the preconstructed deck's you put DU???, what be done with that card???, would be replace via mail exchange progamam??? Enrique San Martín W. Arzobispo de Talca.

Enrique San Martín Woerner wrote: > Name: Any name... > Type: Master Card. > Cost: 0 pool > Out of turn - Master. > Cancel an political card that that make the seating change. Also if you > discard this card with a discard action, you can untap a tapped vampire > if that vampire burn 1 blood. See, making specific hoser cards is rarely the answer. This card is generally less effective than simply using Vox Domini (the cancel a vote card). And even then, having a specific way to stop a given card does not make it ok to have in the game if the effect is inappropriate--again, look back that the imaginary political action "I win!' which when it passes, automatically ousts your prey. There are ways to stop this card (intercept, Vox Domini, Delaying Tactics, voting it down, whatever). That doesn't mean it is ok to make such a card. Look at Return to Innocence. That was stopable as well. It could be blocked, bounced, or Archon Investigated. But its effect was simply inappropriate for the game, so it was banned. DU and KR are simply inappropriate effects. It doesn't matter that they can be stopped, blocked, voted down, Delaying Tacticed, or whatever. They are still simply inappropriate effects. Consequently, no amount of errata or silver bullets will make them ok. > Banning card's it's not the solution, the posibility of play an > non-competive card(s) can be reduced to 1% or less, if you make cards > like that, you kill undirect some card(s) and give to the players to > choose if they put the card's or not (and nowbody can be ungry for that) Which makes the game a crap shoot. Cards that shouldn't be in a game still shouldn't be in a game, even if you can only play it once a game. Or whatever. > Baning card's give only less diversity (and with that less fun) to the > game, you have the game in your's hand, but remember, the player's make > vtes, with no player's, no vtes. Banning 2 cards that were mistakes from the get go does not make the game less diverse. It makes it work better. > I hope that you consider the posibility of errata or make that the game > take another direction (a promo card with an effect against DU & KR > would be fine or some like that) There is no errata that will fix the cards. The effect is simply not appropriate for the game. > Why in Black Hand in one of the preconstructed deck's you put DU???, > what be done with that card???, would be replace via mail exchange > progamam??? Dude. The Black Hand starters were designed and printed before they decided to ban the card. And the cards are still perfectly playable in casual play--just not tournament play. And as mentined before, a mail exchange? Dude--there are plenty of cards that when you pull them out of a booster are essentially unplayable. If you are playing draft, you end up with lots of cards you can't play. If you open a booster and get, like, Open Grate, are you putting that in your deck immediately? What about a clan specific master to a clan you don't use? Do you need a trade in program for that as well? It is a card. In a collectible card game. Sometimes, cards are made unplayable. It is one of the risks of the format. And we all deal and move on. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Another Question's it's: > > Why in Black Hand in one of the preconstructed deck's you put DU???, > what be done with that card???, would be replace via mail exchange > progamam??? Can you hear those footsteps..... There getting closer..... And Closer.... Closer.... It sounds like...... A PINATA! HA! HA! HA! THE PINATA WILL NEVER DIE! IT JUST GETS BIGGER AND BIGGER! Comments Welcome(in a normal tone voice), Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 15:58:24 -0500, Joshua Duffin wrote: >In September of 2001, Andrew S. Davidson pointed out, in a thread >discussing Succubus Club and whether it should be banned, that (at that >time) Kindred Restructure appeared in the TWDA 15 times, and Dramatic >Upheaval 23 times, to Succubus Club's 1 time. My, how time flies. Anyway, this was hardly a call for these cards to be banned. Later that month I suggested that Bum Rush ought to be banned and made a strong, albeit tongue-in-cheek, argument for doing so. Banning Bum Rush would make more sense to me than banning KR and DU. It's amusing that the game that brags about being the #1 multiplayer TCG turns out to have been unsuitable for competitive play all this time. There's another multiplayer TCG celebrating its 10th anniversary soon: Shadowfist. Those who like serious competitive play should note that that game has no banned cards, not a single one. It will get a new base set next year, but all the old cards should still be legal. And I don't expect that they will monkey with the card backs or layout either. So, if you want to change seats in that game, you can play your 1996 "Year of the Rat" card without anyone crying foul. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:fc6cs0lpouf5m38f8...@4ax.com... > There's another multiplayer TCG celebrating its 10th > anniversary soon: Shadowfist. Those who like serious competitive play > should note that that game has no banned cards, not a single one. Question #1: Why should "serious competitive play" be mutually exclusive with "banning"? Question #2: How many Shadowfist players are active in my home state of Connecticut? #2a. Where is the "serious competitive Shadowfist play" in Hartford, CT? Question #3: If Shadowfist had a Huuuge errata list, would more than 20 people even care? > It > will get a new base set next year, but all the old cards should still > be legal. Question #4: Do my original 1996 'Fist cards all still play as written? > And I don't expect that they will monkey with the card > backs or layout either. You might consider encouraging Z-Man Games to take a look at doing so. VTES sales continue to rise, and player bases continue to grow. Maybe the changes they're making are actually part of what is attracting our new players..? > So, if you want to change seats in that game, > you can play your 1996 "Year of the Rat" card without anyone crying > foul. How totally irrelevant can seat switching in 'Fist be to seat switching in VTES? Lacking a predator-prey relationship, seating in 'Fist is largely a matter of turn order, and not much more. Its still just a Kill the Leader game... What seat you take on the Leader from is a factor in 'Fist, but not a huge one. DaveZ Atom Weaver

Dave wrote: >Question #3: If Shadowfist had a Huuuge errata list, would more than 20 >people even care? To be fair, probably, as it does have a pretty significant player base. But it does have a huuuge errata list, and we deal. I'm pretty certain that all the errataed cards are re-printed cards with appropriate text, and a convinient indicator that the new card has different text than the old card (which sometimes is a trick in and of itself to find the significant difference between on old card and an errataed new one...) >Question #4: Do my original 1996 'Fist cards all still play as written? Maybe? A lot of cards have errata/re-writes. >How totally irrelevant can seat switching in 'Fist be to seat switching in >VTES? Lacking a predator-prey relationship, seating in 'Fist is largely a >matter of turn order, and not much more. Its still just a Kill the Leader >game... What seat you take on the Leader from is a factor in 'Fist, but not >a huge one. Absolutely correct, although as Fist is usually won by the 3rd guy to try and win (after the first two use up everyone else's denial), it is sometimes useful to put ones self into that particular spot :-) -Peter

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:13:00 GMT, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > Question #2: How many Shadowfist players are active in my home state of > Connecticut? #2a. Where is the "serious competitive Shadowfist play" in > Hartford, CT? > > Question #3: If Shadowfist had a Huuuge errata list, would more than 20 > people even care? [snip] >> And I don't expect that they will monkey with the card >> backs or layout either. > > You might consider encouraging Z-Man Games to take a look at doing so. > VTES > sales continue to rise, and player bases continue to grow. Maybe the > changes they're making are actually part of what is attracting our new > players..? I don't like the tone of this post. For many years I've been playing an abandoned game without really caring about how many poeple play it. Arguments like "but nobody plays VTES" bounced off me simply because I knew the game was worth playing. I would have continued to collect the game even if everybody I know have had stopped playing. Drawing a parallel between the popularity and quality of the game did not appeal to me back then; I might as well just stick to that approach. The growing player base is a result of popularity. The fact that the game did not die during its abandonment - that's probably more a sign of quality, if anything can be. Yet I would advise against the high horse. VTES is not the best CCG. It is a good and well-supported game with great source and intriguing rules, but IMHO that has to do more with MRH, JA and KRC than with the current crew. Maybe LSJ can be included with the benefactors if he had no saying in the layout change, because the game really gained rules-wise, errata-wise and cards-wise. Not a bed of roses either (had its fumbles), but a generally positive tendency. The rest is not that appealing. Disillusioning marketing and far from perfect quality control detract from the purple haze. -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > I don't like the tone of this post. > > For many years I've been playing an abandoned game without really caring > about how many poeple play it. By 'abandoned game' I assume you mean V:TES. So by 'many years' you mean... two? And even two years is stretching it: Wizards stopped making V:TES expansions at the end of 1997 and LSJ announced 'no future plans for anything more' in 2/98; in 3/00 the announcement of WW getting back the license was announced. But during those two years, the company was still running tournaments, releasing updated rulings and so on (remember the '7/7' rulings? Came during that two-year period of no forthcoming expansions.) So while the game wasn't in production, it was still being supported by the game company and/or its reps and employees. > The > fact that the game did not die during its abandonment - that's probably > more a sign of quality, if anything can be. Yet I would advise against > the high horse. VTES is not the best CCG. Please bear in mind the ease in which that high horse is mounted when responding to the posts of certain people who continue to make blanket quality and/or rules statements about a game they don't play anymore and don't know the rules for, and who specifically post to try to start arguments. I'd expect to see similarly snooty-toned, high-horse replies if I were to (for instance) post on a Shadowfist mailing list and start making spurious claims about how much that game has sucked for a while now, especially since I haven't played a game of it in about 3 years. :P -John Flournoy -who actually finds SF loads of fun

John Flournoy wrote: > But during those two years, the company was still running tournaments, Argh. I'd be surprised if "the company" ever ran more than a dozen tournaments in their history. :) "We" players filled all the gaps and did far more on our own. > releasing updated rulings and so on (remember the '7/7' rulings? Came > during that two-year period of no forthcoming expansions.) So while the > game wasn't in production, it was still being supported by the game > company and/or its reps and employees. Naw, WotC was doing almost nothing. Far far less than you are thinking. The fact that Scott became the NetRep was a boon for us but WotC's giving it to him was more of a resignation from support on their part. They ran out of competent people in house long before and sent us a string of complete goofballs who seemingly didn't even play vtes. That said, I certainly agree with you that we shouldn't take our good fortunate as a sign that one game is or isn't very good. -Robert

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsjbt8w...@news.chello.hu... > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:13:00 GMT, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > >> Question #2: How many Shadowfist players are active in my home state of >> Connecticut? #2a. Where is the "serious competitive Shadowfist play" in >> Hartford, CT? >> >> Question #3: If Shadowfist had a Huuuge errata list, would more than 20 >> people even care? > > [snip] > >>> And I don't expect that they will monkey with the card >>> backs or layout either. >> >> You might consider encouraging Z-Man Games to take a look at doing so. >> VTES >> sales continue to rise, and player bases continue to grow. Maybe the >> changes they're making are actually part of what is attracting our new >> players..? > > I don't like the tone of this post. > Thats certainly your perogative... I don't like the tone of Andrew's posts, but I'm long gone from asking him to change... > For many years I've been playing an abandoned game without really caring > about how many poeple play it. Arguments like "but nobody plays VTES" > bounced off me simply because I knew the game was worth playing. I would > have continued to collect the game even if everybody I know have had > stopped playing. Drawing a parallel between the popularity and quality > of the game did not appeal to me back then; I might as well just stick > to that approach. Draw a parallel? In what you could call the secondary, or 'cult' CCG market, there really isn't a parallel, so much as an inseperable dichotomy. Quality _is_ popularity, or at least, one of the greatest contributing factors to it. Prior threads have mentioned that 'Fist players feel that one of the reasons that their game is less popular is due to under-marketing. Well, here's a marketing pointer they might take from VTES (and later MTG); you can change a layout, and continue to grow a game. I offered the possibility to Andrew as an advocate for Shadowfist that he might be denigrating some of the very things which could help his preferred game become more popular. > The growing player base is a result of popularity. ?? Popularity is an expression of a growing player base, but its not so much a causal factor (for the secondary market CCGs). VTES's 'popularity' is hardly an overwhelmingly positive factor at this point in time. Its tough to convince players to try a new TCG. People playing their existing duel-type TCGs will continue to do so until burnt out or bored (at that point, many merely leave the hobby entirely). Converting VTM RPGers and/or LARPers has its own, deeper set of problems. There's some momentum offered by the fact that VTES has been around so much, and that it has a regular release of product. Its still far from a truly 'popular' game, though. > The > fact that the game did not die during its abandonment - that's probably > more a sign of quality, if anything can be. Yet I would advise against > the high horse. There's no high horse involved. ASD drew the parallels, offering Shadowfist as a better option for reasons which are inadequate. I questioned the premise of his statements (See Question #1, banning being mutually exclusive with good competitive play) , and the lack of a statistical basis for comparison (due to low amounts of 'Fist play). Google search r.g.t-c.jyhad and *.misc: Shadowfist VTES author: atomweaver (or author: R. David Zopf). In each thread prior to this one, I have maintained that Shadowfist is a good game (sorry, Andrew, that I missed my perfect record on that point). You may not have liked the agitative tone, but Andrew is the one who chooses that, I merely oblige him and respond in kind. [Daneel, there's a fairly long history of tradition on usenet with Andrew denigrating VTES (or most anything he chooses to post about, except Shadowfist), despite the fact that his agitative habits end up ultimately detracting from Fist's popularity if you think about it. Its naive to think that a person's net presence represents the person themself, but we do it anyways. Would you want to play a game with someone who posts like Andrew? Does it encourage people to be open-minded about whatever he's advocating? Granted, r.g.t-c.jyhad has Derek, Ector, etc, but for each one agitator, we have ten to fifty friendly faces. 'Fist has harldly anything, and most contemporary 'Fist posts on usenet are Andrew's contribution. I cannot claim to understand why he continues to choose an agitative, opinionated style, but its his choice to make...] > VTES is not the best CCG. Obviously, since there is no "best CCG". > It is a good and well-supported > game with great source and intriguing rules, but IMHO that has to do more > with MRH, JA and KRC than with the current crew. I spot only Mark Rein-Hagen (a none-too-involved person, from the perspective of VTES, anyways...) Who are the other two? What do they have to do with VTES? > Maybe LSJ can be > included with the benefactors if he had no saying in the layout change, > because the game really gained rules-wise, errata-wise and cards-wise. > Not a bed of roses either (had its fumbles), but a generally positive > tendency. > > The rest is not that appealing. Disillusioning marketing and far from > perfect quality control detract from the purple haze. You petered out in the end of this post into vague hand-waving and non-specifc dissatisfaction. If you want a reply to any of this, please elaborate. Regards, DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:55:12 GMT, David Zopf wrote: >> VTES is not the best CCG. > >Obviously, since there is no "best CCG". It currently advertises itself as the #1 multiplayer TCG. The adverts don't say whether that's before or after these cards have been banned but this hardly seems to be an assurance of quality. Consider a different TCG: Lord of the Rings. I was initally impressed with that and so bought a box or two. It appeared that the designers had thought everything through and tested the game properly but then the cracks of doom started to appear. I gave it up when they added the "rule of four" (not to be confused with HeroClix' equally dumb "rule of three"). Since then they have become quite trigger-happy it seems and cards go in and out of the banned list just like in the days of the demented DCI. I know one or two players who have stuck with it and I tease them when we meet by asking what cards have been banned now and whether Galadriel's Mirror is in or out this week. My point is that the game is now a joke to me because its producers so clearly admit that they don't know what they are doing. They've designed cards which they themselves regard as broken and yet they haven't got the wit to fix them in an elegant and unobtrusive manner. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:q7ngs0tg54v3b01nn...@4ax.com... > On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:55:12 GMT, David Zopf wrote: > >>> VTES is not the best CCG. >> >>Obviously, since there is no "best CCG". > > It currently advertises itself as the #1 multiplayer TCG. You quote above as if advertising had anything to do with a "best CCG"..? You're not that naive, Andrew, are you? The VTES ads I've seen mention that Inquest article, which listed VTES as the #1 multiplayer CCG. That's not "advertising itself as the #1 multiplayer CCG" (which would be an assertion of such by WW itself), so much as it is listing an accolade of the game, as is done by many other products with their various gaming awards and recognitions. Even if WW did list VTES as the #1 multiplayer CCG, there'd be a lot of reasons why that would be a fair assertion... VTES is the #1 multiplayer TCG from a standpoint of a combination of; 1) sales, 2) popularity, 3) volume of play, 4) accolades as a multiplayer CCG, and 5) total quality of game. But sensible people recognize that "#1" != "best", since "best" is a subjective value, often varying from one player to the next, whereas #1 can take into account more concrete factors (such as sales). Example, VTES's long rounds are a fairly common condition of play. If thats an issue for someone in determining what their 'best CCG' is, then they probably wouldn't pick VTES... Example 2, it is exceedingly rare to find a regular Shadowfist group, outside a few major markets. If being able to find a group to play with easily is a criteria for your "best CCG", Shadowfist is not your game of choice. I am still curious for a response to my question posted higher up in this thread, namely; Why should we consider "serious competitive play" to be mutually exclusive with "banning"? DaveZ Atom Weaver

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > It currently advertises itself as the #1 multiplayer TCG. The adverts > don't say whether that's before or after these cards have been banned > but this hardly seems to be an assurance of quality. So, Andrew, what IS an assurance of quality? Apparently not banning cards is a big key in your mind, to judge from your below statement about Lord of the Rings (and from previous comments you made earlier in the year about other games): > My point is that the game > is now a joke to me because its producers so clearly admit that they > don't know what they are doing. They've designed cards which they > themselves regard as broken and yet they haven't got the wit to fix > them in an elegant and unobtrusive manner. (Side note: What about a case where Designer A creates a card, no longer works on the game at all, and brand-new game designers B&C come in and determine that Designer A was smoking crack and fix some of his design errors via errata and/or banning? Is that a positive quality thing or a negative one, to you? Does recognizing that someone _else_'s previous work was witless and fixing their problems still count as obtrusive and inelegant?) Let's examine another CCG: Ultimate Combat! That's a game that despite being out of production, still has tournaments, websites, playgroups scattered around the country, sanctioned tournament rules... and apparently most importantly, has banned zero cards from competitive play in its 10 years of existence. So I guess that would fit your criteria for a well-designed and/or 'good' CCGs that are 'suitable for competitive play', huh? Oh, UC only had one expansion and went out of publication quickly, so maybe that's too small to consider. How about... SPELLFIRE! That's a game with 4 base sets and and a dozen booster sets that was in production for many years, and they still run tournaments and have a fan base and THEY don't have any banned cards either. I guess that makes Spellfire an excellent-quality and well-designed CCG that isn't a joke and worthy of consideration of 'best CCGs'? > Andrew -John Flournoy

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:55:12 GMT, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: >> I don't like the tone of this post. > > Thats certainly your perogative... I don't like the tone of Andrew's > posts, but I'm long gone from asking him to change... Okay. > Quality _is_ popularity, or at least, one of the greatest contributing > factors to it. Well, I frankly disagree. Unless of course you consider popularity to be a definition of quality in a circular argument kind of sense. In order for a product to be popular it directly requires recognition and a positive image. It indirectly assumes an existing demand for it. It does not, however, even assume quality - demand and the brand image more or less incorporates "quality", but nowhere to the point of being indicative. In fact, IMHO most popular things are by necessity not of the highest quality, because in order for something to be popular it must satisfy unsophisticated needs, whereas quality is perhaps best defined as the ability to satisfy sophisticated needs. That said, I would not even like to imply that if something is not popular it must be of high quality. But I would also like to advise against assuming that something that is popular is necessarily of great quality, or that if something is not popular it is necessarily of low quality. > In each thread prior to this one, I have maintained that Shadowfist is a > good game (sorry, Andrew, that I missed my perfect record on that point). > You may not have liked the agitative tone, but Andrew is the one who > chooses that, I merely oblige him and respond in kind. > [Daneel, there's a fairly long history of tradition on usenet with Andrew > denigrating VTES (or most anything he chooses to post about, except > Shadowfist), despite the fact that his agitative habits end up ultimately > detracting from Fist's popularity if you think about it. I recall earlier instances, but since I'm only posting since earlier this year, I might have missed that prior history. It just strikes me as odd when someone who has proven to be reasonable and courteous innumerable times suddenly "bursts". I like your style, Atomweaver, I like the stuff you post, and in no small part thanks to that courteous manner in which you do that (and has done so on the WW forums when I still visited them). I admire that courtesy as the coward admires courage, as the poor man admires wealth. > Its naive to think > that a person's net presence represents the person themself, but we do it > anyways. Would you want to play a game with someone who posts like > Andrew? Dunno. My style is far from being chiseled. I might tell that I don't like this and that in VTES (hell, I might even tell I *hate* this and that in VTES) and still love and enjoy to play the game. Guess I'm complicated... ;) > Does it encourage people to be open-minded about whatever he's > advocating? Guess not really. > Granted, r.g.t-c.jyhad has Derek, Ector, etc, but for each one agitator, > we have ten to fifty friendly faces. Tell me about them. ;) > 'Fist has harldly anything, and most > contemporary 'Fist posts on usenet are Andrew's contribution. I cannot > claim to understand why he continues to choose an agitative, opinionated > style, but its his choice to make...] I must admit you know more about Shadowfist (or its forums) than I do. >> VTES is not the best CCG. > > Obviously, since there is no "best CCG". True. ;) >> It is a good and well-supported >> game with great source and intriguing rules, but IMHO that has to do >> more >> with MRH, JA and KRC than with the current crew. > > I spot only Mark Rein-Hagen (a none-too-involved person, from the > perspective of VTES, anyways...) Who are the other two? What do they > have to do with VTES? Yeah, well, KRC is really RCG. ;) (wrong three letters of the intercept location...) JA wanted to stand for Justin Achilli, the late developer of VtM. >> Maybe LSJ can be >> included with the benefactors if he had no saying in the layout change, >> because the game really gained rules-wise, errata-wise and cards-wise. > >> Not a bed of roses either (had its fumbles), but a generally positive >> tendency. >> >> The rest is not that appealing. Disillusioning marketing and far from >> perfect quality control detract from the purple haze. > > You petered out in the end of this post into vague hand-waving and > non-specifc dissatisfaction. If you want a reply to any of this, please > elaborate. I tend to end my posts with breaking off into long rants. These rants reflect upon the ambivalent nature of life, reminding us of the sophisticated human psyche and they venture, through bold, unsupported statements beyond the confines of reasoned argument and step valiantly onto the stage of demagogue agitation mankind is so proud to be highly susceptible to. -- Bye, Daneel

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 23:33:00 GMT, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >JA wanted to stand for Justin Achilli, the late developer of VtM. I'm sure Justin will be quite surprised to hear of his death. I'll ask him how it went, later. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

In message <amths056v2gg614fh...@4ax.com>, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about: >On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 23:33:00 GMT, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > >>JA wanted to stand for Justin Achilli, the late developer of VtM. > >I'm sure Justin will be quite surprised to hear of his death. > >I'll ask him how it went, later. Ten bucks says he videoed it, set it to music, and is selling DVDs on eBay for $30 each. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsjdtc9...@news.chello.hu... > On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:55:12 GMT, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > >>> I don't like the tone of this post. >> >> Thats certainly your perogative... I don't like the tone of Andrew's >> posts, but I'm long gone from asking him to change... > > Okay. > >> Quality _is_ popularity, or at least, one of the greatest contributing >> factors to it. > > Well, I frankly disagree. Unless of course you consider popularity to be > a definition of quality in a circular argument kind of sense. > You snipped a key element, which I'll put back. I was talking about the minor CCG market which sits behind the MTGs and the YuGohI's of the world. Games which survive based on a "cult following". That level of dedication (popularity) is hardly ever applied to a product of low quality, even when its tied to a product/TV show/work of fiction of exceedingly high popularity (cf Babylon 5 CCG, Dune CCG, and a dozen other examples). Popularity can be a consequence of quality, but its a derivative feature, not a driving factor. Call it "The Cure" effect. In the 1970's and early 1980's, if you were a Cure fan, you were a cultish freak. In the late 1990s through today, everybody and their brother owns a copy of Staring at the Sea, Galore, or some other compilation albumn. The Cure went from being a cult favorite, to becoming truly Popular. To be a factor driving continued growth of the product (popularity as a self-sustaining feature of a product), you need a different order of magnitude of Popular, which involves a lot more people than the secondary CCG market can deliver. > In order for a product to be popular it directly requires recognition and > a positive image. It indirectly assumes an existing demand for it. It does > not, however, even assume quality - demand and the brand image more or > less > incorporates "quality", but nowhere to the point of being indicative. In > fact, IMHO most popular things are by necessity not of the highest > quality, > because in order for something to be popular it must satisfy > unsophisticated > needs, whereas quality is perhaps best defined as the ability to satisfy > sophisticated needs. > Yeah, again, there's popular and then there POPular, if you follow... In order for the above (accurate and well argued) to apply, you need lots and lots and LOTS of consumers. I'm talking on the order of hundreds of thousands... and honestly you're right, you need the dumb ones at that. > That said, I would not even like to imply that if something is not popular > it must be of high quality. But I would also like to advise against > assuming > that something that is popular is necessarily of great quality, or that if > something is not popular it is necessarily of low quality. > Naah, such was never my intention. My intention was to point out the lack of 'epidemiological data' to support ASD's assertion that Shadowfist is a better competitive option (and to rib him a little for playing a "dead game". Hey, I took it for eight years, so can he. ;-) >> In each thread prior to this one, I have maintained that Shadowfist is a >> good game (sorry, Andrew, that I missed my perfect record on that point). >> You may not have liked the agitative tone, but Andrew is the one who >> chooses that, I merely oblige him and respond in kind. > >> [Daneel, there's a fairly long history of tradition on usenet with Andrew >> denigrating VTES (or most anything he chooses to post about, except >> Shadowfist), despite the fact that his agitative habits end up ultimately >> detracting from Fist's popularity if you think about it. > > I recall earlier instances, but since I'm only posting since earlier this > year, I might have missed that prior history. It just strikes me as odd > when someone who has proven to be reasonable and courteous innumerable > times > suddenly "bursts". I like your style, Atomweaver, I like the stuff you > post, > and in no small part thanks to that courteous manner in which you do that > (and has done so on the WW forums when I still visited them). I admire > that > courtesy as the coward admires courage, as the poor man admires wealth. > Thanks for that. I mean it... Consider how much 'history' must be had to make a guy like me post like that... No, a little more... Nope, a little more than that... Bit more... you're almost there... Yep. You've got it. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsjdtc9...@news.chello.hu... > On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:55:12 GMT, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: >> Granted, r.g.t-c.jyhad has Derek, Ector, etc, but for each one agitator, >> we have ten to fifty friendly faces. > > Tell me about them. ;) The friendly faces? Its the holiday season, so I'll oblige. In no particular order; Dave Tatu is one of the most generous guys I know. The man offered me crash space for Dragon Con after meeting me only once. Him getting me tickets to the Nutcracker ballet at the Fox Theater (Atlanta) for me and my wife still ranks as one of the wife's all-time favorite dates... As nice a guy as Dave is, he only _barely_ deserves a woman as kind and wonderful as Robyn Tatu :-) When I first met LSJ, I was expecting Democritus... Nope. He's a guy who is great with his kids, and always has the witty comment at the ready. Try and get him a little tipsy, then ask him about the folks at WotC... :O You'll laugh till you cry. Matt Heslin is my Milwaukee drinking buddy, and the most lovable freak of nature you will ever meet. I count Ben Peal as one of my best friends, the kind for whom I'd bury bodies. The Lasombra, Jeff Thompson is as astute a guy in person, as he is in his posts (albeit a bit more soft-spoken). For all his online bluster and bullshit :P, IRL Derek Ray is a guy you want on your side. His faithfulness to friends is nigh-unshakable. David Davila brought has a fine quality and sense of fairness that is found only rarely. I don't know a more generous, intelligent, friendly Brit than Legibter. My home is _always_ open to him and his family. And yes, I know a lot of Brits... Norm Brown is a bug-sucking, swamp mucking, God bedamned, good ol' boy, and I can think of no better person to start a riot with in the French Quarter... If I had to choose only one person for my team on a reality TV show competition, it'd be Dave Cherryholmes. Man I could go on. Theres so many damned good people I've come to know through this game... Jose Lafuente, Steve( Egothha) Coombs, Peter Bakija, Ethan Burrow, Mike Ooi, The Quinonero brothers (David and Damnans), Josh Duffin, Bernie (he brought me wine) Bresnahan, Jordan Beall, Pat Ricochet, Trey Morita, Sorrow, Steve "The Evil One" Buonocore, Ben Spaulding, Ben Swainback, Greg Pettigrew, Matt Hirsch, The Strait brothers, Todd Bannister, Stu 'Oathbreaker' Pieloch, Xian Herro, James Coupe, Prescott Jenner, Mike Perlman... and these are just the ones which come to me as I type. I'm going to stop now... this is looking more like an awards ceremeony acceptance speech. Forgive me any of you who weren't mentioned by name. >>> The rest is not that appealing. Disillusioning marketing and far from >>> perfect quality control detract from the purple haze. >> >> You petered out in the end of this post into vague hand-waving and >> non-specifc dissatisfaction. If you want a reply to any of this, please >> elaborate. > > I tend to end my posts with breaking off into long rants. These rants > reflect upon the ambivalent nature of life, reminding us of the > sophisticated human psyche and they venture, through bold, unsupported > statements beyond the confines of reasoned argument and step valiantly > onto the stage of demagogue agitation mankind is so proud to be highly > susceptible to. > Gee, how to comment on that? Errrr Ummmm.... Chainsaw..? DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:38:46 GMT, David Zopf wrote: >Naah, such was never my intention. My intention was to point out the lack >of 'epidemiological data' to support ASD's assertion that Shadowfist is a >better competitive option (and to rib him a little for playing a "dead >game". Hey, I took it for eight years, so can he. ;-) It was good to see Shadowfist in Scrye's Top of the Charts recently. The December issue has: 1. Magic: The Gathering 2. Yu-Gi-Oh! 3. Vs System 4. Duel Masters 5. Lord of the Rings 6. Pokemon 7. A Game of Thrones / Yu Yu Hakusho 9. G.I. Joe 10. Shadowfist That's just a straw in the wind but maybe that game is benefiting from the current cycle of movies like Kill Bill and House of the Flying Daggers. Anyway, VTES shouldn't be complacent about its position as it has trouble making the charts at all. Perhaps it should try joining the current fashion by going animé like Magic :) Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:38:46 GMT, David Zopf wrote: > > It was good to see Shadowfist in Scrye's Top of the Charts recently. > The December issue has: > > 1. Magic: The Gathering > 2. Yu-Gi-Oh! > 3. Vs System > 4. Duel Masters > 5. Lord of the Rings > 6. Pokemon > 7. A Game of Thrones / Yu Yu Hakusho > 9. G.I. Joe > 10. Shadowfist > > That's just a straw in the wind but maybe that game is benefiting from > the current cycle of movies like Kill Bill and House of the Flying > Daggers. And also perhaps it benefits from having the chart cover the release period of the brand-new expansion, otherwise known as "Sales Frenzy Time" for CCGs. > Anyway, VTES shouldn't be complacent about its position as > it has trouble making the charts at all. Perhaps it should try > joining the current fashion by going animé like Magic :) It has trouble making the charts for a given month when it's on the absolute bottom end of the release-cycle before a new expansion, like most CCGs do. But congrats to Shadowfist for having such strong sales of its new set! > Andrew -John Flournoy

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:707js0p603tafeit2...@4ax.com... > On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:38:46 GMT, David Zopf wrote: > >>Naah, such was never my intention. My intention was to point out the lack >>of 'epidemiological data' to support ASD's assertion that Shadowfist is a >>better competitive option (and to rib him a little for playing a "dead >>game". Hey, I took it for eight years, so can he. ;-) > > It was good to see Shadowfist in Scrye's Top of the Charts recently. > The December issue has: > > 1. Magic: The Gathering > 2. Yu-Gi-Oh! > 3. Vs System > 4. Duel Masters > 5. Lord of the Rings > 6. Pokemon > 7. A Game of Thrones / Yu Yu Hakusho > 9. G.I. Joe > 10. Shadowfist > Out of curiousity, what criteria go into this ranking? > That's just a straw in the wind but maybe that game is benefiting from > the current cycle of movies like Kill Bill and House of the Flying > Daggers. Anyway, VTES shouldn't be complacent about its position as > it has trouble making the charts at all. *shrug* I don't think I'm interested in seeing WW do anything for the purpose of trying to sway Scrye's opinion. They do a good job. If they keep doing a good job, the game will continue to do well... It was nice to get a mention in Inquest, but those sorts of things were never a driving force behind VTES... > Perhaps it should try > joining the current fashion by going animé like Magic :) > Becky Cloonan set that fashion waaay back in Bloodlines, eg; http://images.auctionworks.com/hi/5/5056/vtesbl-repulsion.jpg It was probably... ill-conceived, for Vampire. :-) DaveZ Atom Weaver

In message <1103733401.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, John Flournoy <carn...@gmail.com> writes: [Top 10 games lists in magazines] >And also perhaps it benefits from having the chart cover the release >period of the brand-new expansion, otherwise known as "Sales Frenzy >Time" for CCGs. It may also be worth noting that in a lot of polls where people are asked to vote for such things, the results are always skewed by things which are recent. e.g. we get quite a few "Top 100 records EVER" things turning up every now and then, and they're always skewed by the last 12 months. Watching the stuff that consistently does well, even if not topping the charts, is typically more interesting. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

John Flournoy wrote: > Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:38:46 GMT, David Zopf wrote: > > > > It was good to see Shadowfist in Scrye's Top of the Charts recently. > > The December issue has: > > > > 1. Magic: The Gathering > > 2. Yu-Gi-Oh! > > 3. Vs System > > 4. Duel Masters > > 5. Lord of the Rings > > 6. Pokemon > > 7. A Game of Thrones / Yu Yu Hakusho > > 9. G.I. Joe > > 10. Shadowfist > > > > That's just a straw in the wind but maybe that game is benefiting > from > > the current cycle of movies like Kill Bill and House of the Flying > > Daggers. > > And also perhaps it benefits from having the chart cover the release > period of the brand-new expansion, otherwise known as "Sales Frenzy > Time" for CCGs. I would be surprised if V:TES made charts like this even when a new expansion first hits. Past polling that I'm aware of revolved around questions posed to a handful of retailers. Frankly, V:TES has not been very big in the retail world for a long time (and for a variety of reasons). Look at Potomac Distribution's ads they mail out and notice the prominence of V:TES displays when an expansion is due out. A large percentage of V:TES sales (I'd guess over 50%) are made through online sales of one kind or another. Also, nearly 1/2 of the sales are probably made overseas. Somehow I doubt the Scrye offices were on the phone with game stores in Budapest and Paris. :) -Robert

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:36:27 GMT, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: >> 10. Shadowfist >> > Out of curiousity, what criteria go into this ranking? Sales volume through select US retaliers, I presume. (?) >> Perhaps it should try >> joining the current fashion by going animé like Magic :) > > Becky Cloonan set that fashion waaay back in Bloodlines, eg; > > http://images.auctionworks.com/hi/5/5056/vtesbl-repulsion.jpg > > It was probably... ill-conceived, for Vampire. :-) Agreed. Everything goes anime... Vampire should not. IMHO. It perhaps should try to recapture some dark-gothic mood without using the hazy Shy-type works excessively. IMHO, that is. -- Bye, Daneel

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:00:00 GMT, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: >>> Granted, r.g.t-c.jyhad has Derek, Ector, etc, but for each one >>> agitator, >>> we have ten to fifty friendly faces. >> >> Tell me about them. ;) > > The friendly faces? Its the holiday season, so I'll oblige. In no > particular order; That's a nice list. I only know a few of the people you mentioned in person (though meeting someone once and playing a game with them does not equate real "knowing" - also, I guess I'm not a remarkably friendly person). > As nice a guy as Dave is, he only _barely_ deserves a woman as kind and > wonderful as Robyn Tatu :-) I talked a bit with Robyn both in Barcelona and Heidelberg. She seems nice. Smart too. > When I first met LSJ, I was expecting Democritus... Nope. My opinion - a nice person with an ass job. Kind of hard not to be one when you must represent a company towards the fans. Still, he manages well despite certain best efforts. ;) > I count Ben Peal as one of my best friends, the kind for whom I'd bury > bodies. He's been to Hungary, quite friendly and a decent player. The kind of guy who has the balls to say "I'll give you 10 bucks if you prevent the damage" and then deliver after a well-played Reality Mirror. ;) > The Lasombra, Jeff Thompson is as astute a guy in person, as he is in his > posts (albeit a bit more soft-spoken). He's one of my one-game acquaintences, but I liked his play. > For all his online bluster and bullshit :P, IRL Derek Ray is a guy you > want on your side. Yeah, lest you want to get flamed to cinders... ;) > His faithfulness to friends is nigh-unshakable. Must be quite good to know such a person in person... > The Quinonero brothers (David and Damnans) I've never played with Damnans, though I greatly admired his play in the finals of day one in Heidelberg. Such self-restraint is beyond me... ;) > Gee, how to comment on that? Errrr Ummmm.... > > Chainsaw..? Wroom. ;) -- Bye, Daneel