Transfer Rules Proposition

Okay, with the several hundred posts scattered across about 4 threads on "contesting"... it seems like people secretly have an issue with the Transfers Rules. LSJ has made some points on it, and I thought it might be good to get a clear space for discussing changes to the TRANSFER RULES instead of whinging about "is contesting good/bad/ugly/ shiny". Objective: Create a rule to negate the scenario of you "wasting many turns and pool and transfers to get boned cross-table cause someone influences out your vampire". Rule Option 1: From LSJ >Expose a crypt card that would contest a unique card controlled by >another player to remove that card from the game and redistribute the >blood counters on that card among your other uncontrolled minions >and/or your pool. Rule Option 2: [Insert into rules on Transfer Phase Actions] During your transfer phase, you may spend 4 transfers and reveal a unique card in your uncontrolled region that is currently controlled or being contested by at least one other Methuselah. The card you reveal is removed from the game and you may move any blood counters on that unique card to another unique card in your uncontrolled region. Rule Option 3: You may spend 1 transfer to move 1 blood between two cards in your uncontrolled region. Since this really isn't about "contesting itself" but instead a weakness in the Transfers system highlighted by contestation... If you agree with one of the options, let it be known... if you have issues with any of them debate (as I have no doubt you will)

[ quoted text not captured ] Of the 3 options presented, option 2 seems most balanced. Breaks in 1,3: Govern down to 10 cap that is contestable, repeatedly, burn to move all blood to 11 cap which comes out via indirect GtU. Not so cool. i do think a penalty of some kind has to be added to contesting, however something as light as lose all transfers for a turn to get all spent blood back is a good one i think.

[ quoted text not captured ] The game as stands now is very good and so needs *not* to be changed in any of the core rules (rulebook). The game needs just to keep on with good card design that improves variety for deckbuilding, over the time. just my two cents Emiliano, NC Italy www.italybynight.org

On 19 elo, 22:42, "Tetragrammaton" <n...@usa.com> wrote: > The game as stands now is very good and so needs *not* to be changed in any > of > the core rules (rulebook). > The game needs just to keep on with good card design that improves variety > for deckbuilding, over the time. > > just my two cents > > Emiliano, NC Italywww.italybynight.org Of course the rules don't *need* to be improved. That doesn't mean that they *shouldn't* be improved.

> Rule Option 2: > [Insert into rules on Transfer Phase Actions] > During your transfer phase, you may spend 4 transfers and reveal a > unique card in your uncontrolled region that is currently controlled > or being contested by at least one other Methuselah. The card you > reveal is removed from the game and you may move any blood counters on > that unique card to another unique card in your uncontrolled region. Count me for Option 2. Simon

[ quoted text not captured ] Indeed, i said "change" (for the rules(book)), not "improve" Where's the mean in considering the change for something (rules) that doesn't need to be changed ? Variety, on the other side, can be improved with good card design, but that is entirely another matter.

On 21 elo, 01:40, "Tetragrammaton" <n...@usa.com> wrote: > suoli wrote: > > On 19 elo, 22:42, "Tetragrammaton" <n...@usa.com> wrote: > >> The game as stands now is very good and so needs *not* to be changed > >> in any of > >> the core rules (rulebook). > >> The game needs just to keep on with good card design that improves > >> variety for deckbuilding, over the time. > > >> just my two cents > > >> Emiliano, NC Italywww.italybynight.org > > > Of course the rules don't *need* to be improved. That doesn't mean > > that they *shouldn't* be improved. > > Indeed, i said "change" (for the rules(book)), not "improve" > Where's the mean in considering the change for something > (rules) that doesn't need to be changed ? The purpose would be to improve the rules. This is, of course, not strictly necessary but certainly preferable. Or do you think the current rules are as perfect as they can be made? [ quoted text not captured ]

Okay, the point is this (and has been covered EXTENSIVELY in other threads): Being in the situation where two people are influencing out the same medium-to-large-vampire and someone beats you to it (especially when it was your first minion) screws up games. Therefore, to improve the game (and help tables not be horridly destroyed by a series of coincidences, chance events and player decisions) a change should potentially be made to the TRANSFER rules to reduce the TABLE- destroying results of those coincidences, chance events and player decisions. So what this thread is about is: Which Option do you like best? Which option solves the issues, as described above (and WE DON'T need more analysis of the issues!!!!), and doesn't create a whole raft of other rogue-effects that will overbalance the game? There have also been LONG discussions about the types of choices that could be made and are summarised basically as: Category 1: Burn the "card which would be contested" and move all pool counters to other uncontrolled vampires and/or pool. Category 2: Increase the speed of transferring off contested minions (say 1TP = 1 pool back for contested or "would be contested" cards) Category 3: Have a cup of cement princess and harden up. (No Change at all) CATEGORY 1: From LSJ >Expose a crypt card that would contest a unique card controlled by >another player to remove that card from the game and redistribute the >blood counters on that card among your other uncontrolled minions >and/or your pool. My own variation (with slightly increased cost, restricting it to crypt-cards and reducing the places pool could be sent to) During your transfer phase, you may spend 4 transfers and reveal a unique card in your uncontrolled region that is currently controlled or being contested by at least one other Methuselah. The card you reveal is removed from the game and you may move any blood counters on that unique card to another unique card in your uncontrolled region. CATEGORY 2: #1 (From another thread, I've forgotten which and there are a few variations on those) 1 TP = Move 1 pool to crypt card, move 1 pool from crypt card to pool 2 TP = move 1 blood from ready vampire to pool, move 1 pool to ready vampire #2 You may spend 1 transfer to move 1 blood between two cards in your uncontrolled region. CATEGORY 3: Lots of people. It's basically Current Rules, No change, play better and harden up. Peter Bakija... I'd love to hear your feedback since it was your rant that started this whole thing off. Playtesting option for those who are interested: Force the situaiton. On a table of 5 there should be 2 pairs of 2 players playing EXACTLY the same deck. (i.e. 5play table = 2x AAA-Toreador, 2x Obf Ven Vote, 1x Dom-Gangrel) and play with the contesting rule of your choice. That should push up the chances of contesting and also allow you to see how it affects people's games vs the current rule.

Aleksi Nuora wrote: > On 21 elo, 01:40, "Tetragrammaton" <n...@usa.com> wrote: >> suoli wrote: >>> On 19 elo, 22:42, "Tetragrammaton" <n...@usa.com> wrote: >>>> The game as stands now is very good and so needs *not* to be >>>> changed in any of >>>> the core rules (rulebook). >>>> The game needs just to keep on with good card design that improves >>>> variety for deckbuilding, over the time. >> >>>> just my two cents >> >>>> Emiliano, NC Italywww.italybynight.org >> >>> Of course the rules don't *need* to be improved. That doesn't mean >>> that they *shouldn't* be improved. >> >> Indeed, i said "change" (for the rules(book)), not "improve" >> Where's the mean in considering the change for something >> (rules) that doesn't need to be changed ? > > The purpose would be to improve the rules. This is, of course, not > strictly necessary but certainly preferable. Or do you think the > current rules are as perfect as they can be made? Yes, as i said i think the current rules (rulebook) are OK as they are right now, so they don't need to be changed.

First off I have missed this whole conversation. (Thanks for the recaps). I have given it some though, and to achieve minimal screwing, and manipulation of the rules the below is quite close in my opinion. > My own variation (with slightly increased cost, restricting it to > crypt-cards and reducing the places pool could be sent to) > During your transfer phase, you may spend 4 transfers and reveal a > unique card in your uncontrolled region that is currently controlled > or being contested by at least one other Methuselah. The card you > reveal is removed from the game and you may move any blood counters > on > that unique card to another unique card in your uncontrolled region. I would change it to. During your transfer phase, you may reveal a unique card in your uncontrolled region with blood counter(s) that is currently controlled or being contested by at least one other Methuselah. The card is removed from the game. Half(rounded up) of the blood on this card is moved to another vampire in your uncontroled region of the players choice (If none are present the blood goes to the blood bank), and the rest is moved to your pool. This way the player who was slowest to pull out the vamp should only lose 1 round of transfers causing minimum automatic of a player being so far behind. Forcing half of it at worst case would be 4 blood ie being beaten to a 9-11cap. Having it not cost transfers, and moving half back to your pool. I'd say on average 4 blood. Let's the player transfer the gained pool that turn. Effectively losing only 1 turn of transfers. Also by adding half must move to your uncontrolled region should stop any shenanigans with the system, and never harm the intended, the slower player. He/she will always have another vampire to move it to. Kind of seems like a backwards way of doing it. Why not just have it all be able to move where ever? If forced to move all back to your pool, that's not so helpful, and could lead to a "bleed though this". Moving it all to the uncontroled has no consequences, and could be used to your advance. My proposed option is a slap on the wrist compared to what normally happens. > CATEGORY 3: Lots of people. It's basically Current Rules, No change, > play better and harden up. Of course there are 1308 vampires in the game. Suck it up. We're playing rock,paper,scissors... It happens sometimes you just can't win. On the other hand I don't see how my proposed rule would hurt any normal game. Only give us a better chance for a more balanced table in a tragic situation. So yeah if the rule change can only help, I'm all for it. Woo 3:30 am posts! Hope it's not a stupid idea... lol -Eric Leal

Should add with blood less than capacity (Excess drains off). This will stop say multi governs to a 2 cap, and then saying 'oops" you had that vampire too. Guess I'll take half that to my pool, and move 3 to arika. So my idea of a close to as perfect rule. During your transfer phase, you may reveal a unique card in your uncontrolled region with less blood counters than capacity that is currently controlled, or being contested by at least one other Methuselah. The card is removed from the game. Half(rounded up) of the blood on this card is moved to another unique card, or cards of the players choice in his/ her uncontrolled region(If none are present the blood goes to the blood bank), and the rest is moved to his/her pool.

I vote for Category 1. Least impact for the rest of the game but solves the "I got screwed with unintentional contest". Archie

Archibald Zimonyi schrieb: > unintentional contest". there is no such thing

[ quoted text not captured ] Ok, sorry, bad phrasing. I meant "screwed by someone bringing out the same vampire i was influencing but had not brought out yet". Archie

On Aug 20, 7:36 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter Bakija... I'd love to hear your feedback since it was your rant > that started this whole thing off. Oh, heh--I was off doing other stuff and not paying attention :-) Well, for my money, I think the best fix is: "If you yield contestation, burn that card and move all blood counters on that card to your pool." Yeah, I started this whole fray with suggestions for shared/ alternating control, which while it would be cool in theory, is just too much of a pain in the ass and probably too rule intensive to make it worth the effort. The above fix is completely targeted and laser guided, and has zero impact on anything other than contestation. You still lose control of a minion, you still pay to contest, but if you contest a big important minion early on, you get your investment back. LSJ's plan (which is similar, but takes away undo influence as a cost for the fix) makes perfect sense, design wise, but I think it is probably too far into the evolution of the game to change something that significant (i.e. removing undo influence). Yes, I agree that Dominate could probably take the kick in the junk, but still, that is a really significant change to the game. That most people aren't going to see as a reasonable change just to fix contestation. I suspect that if the change has to come as a whole bundle that includes the removal of undo influence, most folks will be opposed to the whole bill, even if they agree with the fix contestation line item. So in the end, again, I'd just like to see the nice, easy, simple, low collateral damage kind of fix I like above (just get all the blood back on a card you yield)--if someone brings out your huge vampire right before you do? On your turn, you bring him out too. You both lose control of the guy. The other guy gets to either pay a pool or get all his blood back by yielding. If he doesn't, you get to on your turn. You both suffer a bit (which is a reasonable penalty for contesting). If you are both super committed to keeping the guy, you both spend a lot of pool for nothing. If one of you is willing to suck it up and start over, you yield and get back the pool you spent. Strikes me as a totally reasonable change. Without unwanted side effects. -Peter

"Juggernaut1981" <brassc...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f8c9eaf8-9dd8-4716...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > CATEGORY 3: Lots of people. It's basically Current Rules, No change, > play better and harden up. This. Well, I mean, the "play better" admonition is cracked because the problem doesn't really crop up due to truly incompetent play. It could be seen as cropping up due to the loss of the metagame (i.e. failure to predict that the vampire(s) you chose would also be chosen by somebody else) but that doesn't really cut it as real proof of incompetence. When it happens, it's just a calculated risk that backfired - as they do from time to time. All that said, the problem here is not broken enough to warrant the kinds of risky and (IMHO) traumatic fixes that are getting kicked around. It's been an entertaining thread with which to waste a bit of time waiting for news of Heirs to the Blood - but let's not actually do anything about it. Fred

I don't think a change is required - I just think less people should play AAA. There are enough vampires out there that are playable (and more each year) so I don't think it's that important to require a relatively clunky rule to be added to the rulebook (given how many core rules are already missing from the rulebook - e.g. ic uniqueness and imbued). If people talked to the other players more that'd also help!

squidalot wrote: > I don't think a change is required - I just think less people should > play AAA. Those three are not the only unique vampires in the game. > There are enough vampires out there that are playable (and more each > year) The frequency of the occurrence isn't at issue. It's the effect it has when it occurs (coupled with the fact that the player can do nothing to avoid it either in the deck construction phase nor the play phase). > so I don't think it's that important to require a relatively > clunky rule to be added to the rulebook It isn't clunky. Certainly less so than agg damage or priscus votes. > (given how many core rules are > already missing from the rulebook - e.g. ic uniqueness and imbued). Those aren't missing. IC uniqueness: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulebook/rulebook.html#sec10_1 Imbued: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/?line=Checklist_NightsOfReckoning

LSJ wrote: > squidalot wrote: >> I don't think a change is required - I just think less people should >> play AAA. > > Those three are not the only unique vampires in the game. > >> There are enough vampires out there that are playable (and more each >> year) > > The frequency of the occurrence isn't at issue. It's the effect it > has when it occurs (coupled with the fact that the player can do > nothing to avoid it either in the deck construction phase nor the > play phase). >> so I don't think it's that important to require a relatively >> clunky rule to be added to the rulebook > > It isn't clunky. Certainly less so than agg damage or priscus votes. > >> (given how many core rules are >> already missing from the rulebook - e.g. ic uniqueness and imbued). > > Those aren't missing. <snip> > Imbued: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/?line=Checklist_NightsOfReckoning It think he was referring to the rulebook, not online rules. The imbued are still not part of the printed rulebook, unfortunately

Tetragrammaton wrote: > It think he was referring to the rulebook, not online rules. > The imbued are still not part of the printed rulebook, unfortunately They have five printed pages of the rulebook that describe the rules for them.

On Aug 21, 6:48 pm, Eek <theinnerbe...@gmail.com> wrote: > First off I have missed this whole conversation. (Thanks for the > recaps). I have given it some though, and to achieve minimal screwing, > and manipulation of the rules the below is quite close in my opinion. > > > My own variation (with slightly increased cost, restricting it to > > crypt-cards and reducing the places pool could be sent to) > > During your transfer phase, you may spend 4 transfers and reveal a > > unique card in your uncontrolled region that is currently controlled > > or being contested by at least one other Methuselah. The card you > > reveal is removed from the game and you may move any blood counters > > on > > that unique card to another unique card in your uncontrolled region. > I would change it to. > > During your transfer phase, you may reveal a unique card in your > uncontrolled region with blood counter(s) that is currently controlled > or being contested by at least one other Methuselah. The card is > removed from the game. Half(rounded up) of the blood on this card is > moved to another vampire in your uncontroled region of the players > choice (If none are present the blood goes to the blood bank), and the > rest is moved to your pool. ... > > Kind of seems like a backwards way of doing it. Why not just have it > all be able to move where ever? If forced to move all back to your > pool, that's not so helpful, and could lead to a "bleed though this". > Moving it all to the uncontroled has no consequences, and could be > used to your advance. My proposed option is a slap on the wrist > compared to what normally happens. Eric, The point of not allowing it to "leave" the uncontrolled region is to actually neuter any dodgey bloating tricks. It stops a "My 8cap governs to my 5-cap twice, I burn them and get 6 pool for 4 transfers and loosing a vampire i wouldn't bring out". I have far less issue with them spending 2 GtUs + 4 transfers to move 6 counters onto some other vampire that they previously couldn't target. It's an end run, but combined with the fact you can't use the ability if YOU own a copy of the vamp it stops that dodgey shennanigan too. It's about mitigating the time-delay, not pool cost, of having someone else influence out your main vamp before you do. I don't think this should replace the "transfer back" rule (it has its own place and should stay as is) this is about adding an additional way to spend your Transfers to mitigate a scenario people think is particularly bad, etc, etc, etc.

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks Peter. If anything I've fallen into the camp of "look just ADD something to the transfer rules" camp. Personally contesting has nearly always been a tactical event and deep down there is a good element of "Here's a cup of concrete, drink it and harden up" still in me. For LSJ> I don't think we need to remove the "transfer back" rule, just add a "show & burn unique crypt card that would be contested" rule.

It was written thusly: "Therefore, to improve the game (and help tables not be horridly destroyed by a series of coincidences, chance events and player decisions) a change should potentially be made to the TRANSFER rules to reduce the TABLE-destroying results of those coincidences, chance events and player decisions. " Perhaps what we should do, then, is create a mathematical algorithm to analyze decks and determine the winner without having to actually play the game. We can thus avoid all of its messy coincidences, chance events, and player decisions. I jest, of course. Count me firmly in Category 3. Having to table-talk your ass off while you desperately try to move your blood off of Regina Giovanni and onto Andreas instead is *fun*. The solution isn't a change to the transfer rules, the solution is to tell your grandpredator and your grandprey explicitly what just happened and BEG for help.

On Aug 24, 2:47 pm, Legendre wrote: > Count me firmly in Category 3. Having to table-talk your ass off > while you desperately try to move your blood off of Regina Giovanni > and onto Andreas instead is *fun*. The solution isn't a change to the > transfer rules, the solution is to tell your grandpredator and your > grandprey explicitly what just happened and BEG for help. Fun? No, I don't agree. First, fly 9 hours and travel to another country. Then, only speak the native language poorly. Then, deal with your grand-predator influencing your only vampire after you have (on the 3rd turn of the game). There is no fun. There is only thousands of dollars wasted on a trip to sit with your thumb up your butt for 30 minutes while you're ousted. Then, you can wait an hour and a half for a chance to do it again. Enjoy!

[ quoted text not captured ] If your entire trip to another country can be *wasted* by a game of VTES gone wrong, then you've got bigger problems than the transfer rules.

On Aug 24, 3:31 pm, Legendre wrote: > If your entire trip to another country can be *wasted* by a game of > VTES gone wrong, then you've got bigger problems than the transfer > rules. Way to stay on subject. Congratulations on taking the high road and avoiding the personal attacks. If you're going to play VTES, and travel for any length of time to do it, playing VTES is what should happen. Contesting an 8-11 cap vampire prevents that from happening. Investing 8-10 pool in that a vampire that someone brings out first and that you choose not to contest also prevents that from happening. There is no question in my mind that the game can be improved by changing this circumstance.

I think dynamic vampire contestation would be more interesting than changing the transfer rules in any of these ways. LSJ suggested it briefly in that monster thread. **Whenever a player brings a unique vampire (or imbued, etc.) into the controlled region that is already controlled by another player, the iteration of the vampire currently in play is returned face down to its owner's controlled region with all its blood and attached cards.** (similar to Banishment) Even if you can get back your pool and transfers with one of the rules proposed in this thread, it doesn't mean you'll still have the chance to use a critical vampire that someone else got out first. Contestation is currently all or nothing. If the control went back and forth based on who most recently influenced the vampire, it would add strategic depth to the game when vampire contestation occurred: Contestable vampire comes out before you can bring out your copy --> Wait until it loses blood/make it lose blood/screw this, I don't care if the other one's full! --> Bring out your own copy, other copy banished to the uncontrolled region --> Other player decides whether to spend enough pool to fill it up again/ waits until the best moment to do so/it's already full so back it goes! --> Rinse and repeat. That's more interesting AND more liberal than the current rule. It's more interesting than "I get back all my pool and transfers with new rule X, but I still have no real chance to use the vampire I need". It is also true to the flavor of the game: Two Methusalehs vie for control of a minion. The minion's allegiances change based on which side most recently fulfilled its requirements for service, a "What have you done for me lately?" rule, as it were. A true struggle ensues.

On Aug 24, 3:31 pm, Legendre <glav...@gmail.com> wrote: > If your entire trip to another country can be *wasted* by a game of > VTES gone wrong, then you've got bigger problems than the transfer > rules. I mean, while I don't really want to play the "do you have any idea who you are talking to?" game, really? This is the response you give to Jeff? Really? -Peter

On Aug 24, 5:11 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think dynamic vampire contestation would be more interesting than > changing the transfer rules in any of these ways. > > LSJ suggested it briefly in that monster thread. The original suggestion that started that monster thread (by, ya know, me) was along the lines of "swap control of the contested minion at the start of each of your turns", which would mean that you get to use the guy on your turn, and your opponent got to use the guy on his turn (by flipping them face down when control changes). Which would be cool, but I suspect way too much of a pain in the ass to be worth the hassle. Which is why I currently land firmly in the camp of "sweet and simple"--when you yield contestation, all blood on the yielded minion is returned to your pool. Doesn't help that much if he is your superstar, and you still lost the turns influencing out the guy, but at least you get all your pool back instantly, so if there is a way to salvage your position, you can start trying to do so. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] See, I don't like this because it neuters the strategic value of contesting. If I contest your Theo Bell (because I'm tired of watching him rush-up- river like a salmon in breeding season) I may not actually want to own Theo Bell (although its probably shiny) I just don't want YOU to own Theo. So, I tie up a big handful of your resources (and tie up a big handful of my own) for a while until I get a chance to do what I want/ need. That gets neutered if you have the option of "unwinding" your spend on Theo by removing him from the game and gaining his blood as pool (especially if the vampires capacity has changed up or down and you will gain say the "card value" of the vampire or the blood-as- pool). If the issue is "You just influenced out the Anson I have 6 pool on... WAAAAAAHHHH!!!" Then I see no problem with "I remove my copy of Anson in the uncontrolled region from the game and get back the resources"... As a Methuselah you have withdrawn all interest in Anson and sworn off having interest in Anson for a significant period of time. It seemed from most people's posts about contesting their beef is with the "You just influenced out Anson I have 6 pool on my Anson... WAAAH!!!" So we should fix THAT situation and leave "You contested my HG/Rack/Fame/Ivory Bow/Anson/Tariq/Theo Bell" alone.

On Aug 24, 7:24 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > See, I don't like this because it neuters the strategic value of > contesting. Not much--if they need/want that minion, they have to either keep contesting, or give it up and be out the minion. And at the point at which you want to strategically contest someone, they are unlikely to be full of blood, and consequently, won't get them that much if they give it up. > It seemed from most people's posts about contesting their beef is with > the "You just influenced out Anson I have 6 pool on my Anson... > WAAAH!!!" So we should fix THAT situation and leave "You contested my > HG/Rack/Fame/Ivory Bow/Anson/Tariq/Theo Bell" alone. My suggestion has no impact at all on contesting HG/Rack/Fame/Ivory Bow (as they don't have blood on them). And as noted, if you contest Anson/Tariq/Taco Bell, and they yeild, you are way ahead anyway, and most likely, they aren't getting all that blood back anyway. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] For a scenario, this is purely exemplary and I'm not looking to say this covers every situation but is intended to indicate a situation where I think that getting the blood back from a minion you stop contesting hurts the game. MethA has Edward Vignes (3 blood) Anneke (7 blood) and 5 pool + 1VP MethB has Jan Pieterzoon (5 blood) William Waldberg (6 blood) and has planned to influence out Anneke to contest and will have around 5 pool after starting the contest. The point of the Contest is clearly to stop Anneke's ability to block and allow Meth B to have a chance to oust their prey. Anneke has been on the table for a considerable period of time and will have taken actions and blocked actions that have more than counterbalanced her initial cost (and has gained blood at various times so she has 7 blood at the moment). Meth B is taking a big gamble that their predator will not manage to oust them while they still continue the contest of Anneke. Using the "Yield and gain their current blood" rule: If Meth A concedes the contest immediately, they have effectively gained 7 pool (more than you gain for ousting and it is not blockable by anyone and cannot be janked around by DI/Wash/Sudden/Bleeding the Vine) because they've been able to prevent 10 pool loss and take forward actions to gain 6 pool from ousting. It is in Meth As interest to hold the contest for as long as possible because Meth B has more to gain by yielding than they do by contesting (10 immediate pool gain as opposed to 6 from ousting implying a net difference of -1 per turn of contest which is at most 4 turns). Using the current rules It is in Meth Bs interest to hold the contest for as long as possible, since they have 6 pool to gain from their prey and will have wasted 10 pool to get it (net pool loss of 4 + pool used to maintain contest) unless they win the contest. It is actually in Meth As interest to yield the contest to minimise their ongoing pool damage UNLESS they have a guaranteed way to generate 1 pool per turn.

Juggernaut1981 wrote: > For a scenario, this is purely exemplary and I'm not looking to say > this covers every situation but is intended to indicate a situation > where I think that getting the blood back from a minion you stop > contesting hurts the game. > Using the "Yield and gain their current blood" rule: > If Meth A concedes the contest immediately, they have effectively > gained 7 pool (more than you gain for ousting and it is not blockable > by anyone and cannot be janked around by DI/Wash/Sudden/Bleeding the > Vine) because they've been able to prevent 10 pool loss and take > forward actions to gain 6 pool from ousting. > > It is in Meth As interest to hold the contest for as long as possible > because Meth B has more to gain by yielding than they do by contesting > (10 immediate pool gain as opposed to 6 from ousting implying a net > difference of -1 per turn of contest which is at most 4 turns). > > Using the current rules > It is in Meth Bs interest to hold the contest for as long as possible, > since they have 6 pool to gain from their prey and will have wasted 10 > pool to get it (net pool loss of 4 + pool used to maintain contest) > unless they win the contest. It is actually in Meth As interest to > yield the contest to minimise their ongoing pool damage UNLESS they > have a guaranteed way to generate 1 pool per turn. Well, you show that it's different, yes. Any change will make some situations different. But you haven't shown that the difference hurts the game.

[ quoted text not captured ] Since you asked: Yes. I can accept that he disagrees that fighting from behind a contested vampire isn't fun for someone; that's a simple difference in taste. But when someone's argument for that disagreement amounts to "My entire trip to another country was ruined by a frustrating 2-hour card game" or "I wasted $1000 to go to another country because I had a frustrating 2-hour card game", then yes, I feel obligated to point out that this is not the sort of argument that reasonable people make. It's the sort of argument that teenagers make, a la "You're ruining my life!" Some perspective is in order. If we want to change the rules based on the fact that most players don't find desperately fighting from behind a contested vampire fun, then that's one thing. But we shouldn't change rules based on the fact that it's not fun for a very insular minority of people whose enjoyment of other countries and whose travel budgets hinge on their ability to enjoy the game. That's as absurd as banning peanut butter from an entire elementary school because one kid happens to be allergic to peanuts.

On Aug 25, 2:56 pm, Legendre wrote: > I can accept that he disagrees that fighting from behind a contested > vampire isn't fun for someone; that's a simple difference in taste. re: your proposed solution. "The solution isn't a change to the transfer rules, the solution is to tell your grandpredator and your grandprey explicitly what just happened and BEG for help. " http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/14087d2f9be84aad But whining at the other players is fun for anyone? And you would travel 9+ hours to engage in this activity? > But when someone's argument for that disagreement amounts to "My > entire trip to another country was ruined by a frustrating 2-hour card > game" It never happened. It would be nice if you actually discussed the issue, instead of continuing to attack me. The example is how your whining preference is no good for the competitive game that requires travel. > or "I wasted $1000 to go to another country because I had a > frustrating 2-hour card game", Nope, that isn't the argument either. > then yes, I feel obligated to point out that this is not the sort of argument that reasonable people make. > It's the sort of argument that teenagers make, a la "You're ruining my > life!" Some perspective is in order. Some perspective? Yes, that's what I am asking you to have. > If we want to change the rules based on the fact that most players > don't find desperately fighting from behind a contested vampire fun, > then that's one thing. Nope. Fun isn't the point. Competition is the point. > But we shouldn't change rules based on the > fact that it's not fun for a very insular minority of people whose > enjoyment of other countries and whose travel budgets hinge on their > ability to enjoy the game. Again with the bias and personal attack. Did I oust you cross-table in your infancy? > That's as absurd as banning peanut butter > from an entire elementary school because one kid happens to be > allergic to peanuts. Which isn't actually absurd, as it can save a life immediately and help prevent obesity in the rest of the elementary school population. The amount of sugar in most commercially available peanut butters is obscene. The issue under discussion, changing the penalty for the occurrence of random chance, has nothing to do with travel. It has nothing to do with enjoyment of a trip. It has to do with playing a competitive game. The game isn't competitive when 2 players get a "you lose" card at the beginning of the game (i.e. contesting cross-table). The game isn't competitive when 1 player gets a "you lose" card at the beginning of the game by investing 8 of the 9 pool necessary to bring out a minion to have it appear in its grand-prey's controlled region. Please, find the point and work on understanding and discussing it.

Here's what you said. I'll let it speak for itself: "There is no fun. There is only thousands of dollars wasted on a trip to sit with your thumb up your butt for 30 minutes while you're ousted. " My point was not to make a personal attack, but was directed at your method of argument. I actually sincerely doubted that you really believe that your thousands of dollars were "wasted" -- I think you're just trying to make a slightly disingenuous rhetorical point. Perhaps you were serious after all, though, given your statement that the focus of the rules should be on competition and not fun. Here's what I see as the real root of the problem: When the game first came out, contesting happened all the time. Elder Library, Mob Connections, The Elysium, vampires like Gideon Fontaine, Aleph, Didi Meyers, and Sir Walter Nash, the Ivory Bow, and even Thaddeus Zho got contested on a fairly regular basis because there weren't that many unique cards. But with every expansion, players' expectations of contesting have gotten lower and lower. Every new vampire added to the mix means a smaller likelihood of someone running your exact deck. The grouping rules make it even LESS likely that you'll contest. With hundreds of vampires to choose from, contesting happens far more rarely. (The exception to this trend consists of cards that are good in pretty much every and any deck type: Van Wyk, Heart of N., the Barrens, etc. But vampires - with the possible exception of Ian Forestal - are not of this genus.) Now, with many many expansions behind us, what used to be an integral part of the game starts to seem like an outlying annoyance, or even a penalty incurred through no fault of our own. Decks aren't built with contesting in mind because, more often than not, it's simply not an issue. When was the last time you saw a Praxis: Solomon played? I stopped including them in my decks after Final Nights. There hasn't been one in a TWD since 2005. But just because people have, as a matter of habit, stopped preparing (both psychologically and in deck construction) for a situation does not mean on that basis alone that we should get rid of the rules that give rise to that situation. I think that the wide variety of cards available to us, and the lowered expectations of contesting, should not blind us to the thrill of slapping down a vampire that's already out, narrowing our eyes, and daring our opponent to keep paying pool, or, alternatively, to engaging in table diplomacy as we quickly reallocate our resources and pray. Those of us who have been playing since the game came out used to know these things -- we *must* have or we wouldn't have kept playing all these years. Or... ..or perhaps the point *is* competition and not fun. Perhaps the greater variety of cards has just led to faster, more efficient decks -- much like the Magic decks that are able to win in their first turn -- that no longer really admit of an opportunity to enjoy contesting. If that's what's going on, then the game is becoming less about play and more about mechanics. (Hence my earlier comment about deciding the game by algorithm instead of playing.) That's certainly what sucked the fun out of Magic for me and got me to limit my card-game playing to Jyhad exclusively -- it became impossible to just find a relaxed, fun game of Magic. People stopped thinking about what the cards depicted and focused solely on what the cards did in a functional sense, and cards became less about modeling some fictional struggle or conflict and more about establishing mathematical relationships among the cards and recursions and such. And, now that I'm thinking about it, that would explain how we get something like the Heart of Nizchetus, which increases a deck's mechanical efficiency but leaves one wondering exactly why *that* particular card has *that* particular effect. (Summon Soul, by contrast, at least has the patina of pulling spirits with ancient knowledge from the afterworld and priming them for action.) So maybe, in the end, Jeff's actually right... maybe the game's design shouldn't focus on fun, but on competition and making sure that the rules themselves never put someone in a really difficult position that they didn't "deserve" in some in-that-game-decision sense. Certainly if VTES were a betting sport rather than a card game, someone would make a point similar to the one Jeff is making. After all, there'd be money riding on the results so you'd want to do everything you could to eliminate unnecessary chaos in outcomes, so as to avoid people's "wasting" thousands of dollars. But I'd hate to think that's what the game's becoming.

On Aug 25, 12:24 am, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Which is why I currently land firmly in the camp of "sweet and > > simple"--when you yield contestation, all blood on the yielded minion > > is returned to your pool. Doesn't help that much if he is your > > superstar, and you still lost the turns influencing out the guy, but > > at least you get all your pool back instantly, so if there is a way to > > salvage your position, you can start trying to do so. > > See, I don't like this because it neuters the strategic value of > contesting. > > If I contest your Theo Bell (because I'm tired of watching him rush-up- > river like a salmon in breeding season) I may not actually want to own > Theo Bell (although its probably shiny) I just don't want YOU to own > Theo... In this instance, I would think that the strategic benefit is that Peter no longer has a minion with a built-in rush. The last time I deliberately contested a Vampire, which is two weeks ago, it was Isabel, Prophet of Guadalajara. And my main motivation was that she had the Bowl of Convergence and a .44 Magnum. Even if my prey had had the option of gaining 4 pool by yielding, I would still have denied him +2 permanent intercept and a gun. Kevin Walsh

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:34:22 -0700 (PDT), Legendre <gla...@gmail.com> wrote: >Here's what I see as the real root of the problem: When the game >first came out, contesting happened all the time. Really? I never saw contesting. You knew or announced what clans you were playing and other people picked decks to avoid overlap. There was no competitive play before VEKN got involved.

On Aug 25, 4:34 pm, Legendre <glav...@gmail.com> wrote: > But I'd hate to think that's what the game's becoming. Becoming? http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/888482d89f5d14d2 John Eno

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Really? > >I never saw contesting. You knew or announced what clans you were >playing and other people picked decks to avoid overlap. > >There was no competitive play before VEKN got involved. There was competitive play, it was just fairly limited in its scope and availability. And it went through a couple of (abysmal) rules changes involving restricted lists before the (fairly sensible) NRA floor rules were implemented. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

[ quoted text not captured ] > But you haven't shown that the difference hurts the game.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - LSJ my point is this: If you have paid for a vampire, *gained beneficial use* of that vampire *before* someone contests it, then why should you in effect get a *refund* on that vampire if you decide to let someone else have it? You paid your pool, you got your bang for your buck and clearly you didn't consider that vampire an asset worth 1-pool-per-turn to struggle for. *That* undermines the game. You spend resources, get the chance to get a benefit from it and then see how the cards fall later. If I had never fully paid for the vampire and *never gained beneficial use* of the vampire then I see no reason why the Methuselah shouldn't be able to *transfer credit*, so to speak, onto another vampire.

On Aug 25, 12:35 pm, The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 25, 2:56 pm, Legendre wrote: > > If we want to change the rules based on the fact that most players > > don't find desperately fighting from behind a contested vampire fun, > > then that's one thing. > > Nope. > Fun isn't the point. > Competition is the point. I disagree with your second sentence. Fun is definitely the point. Competition is a subset of fun, since it's fun to compete. But fun is definitely the point. I agree with you that being randomly dealt a "you lose" card is not fun, and therefore we should strive to fix it. Ira

[ quoted text not captured ] Kevin, Right. It is a *strategic* choice and I don't want my predator or prey who has clearly gained benefits from their own investment to have a "get out of jail free" *refund* of their investment. They spent the pool and got some benefit, if they didn't why would I consider spending the pool to get the vampire and then pool to contest the vampire if I didn't consider the other Methuselah's benefit to be equal to or greater than the cost of pool I am spending? If you have the vampire face-up, you've had the chance to gain the benefit of that minion: No Refunds! If you never got the chance (i.e. Pred, X-table, Prey influenced out the minion you are influencing) I don't see a problem in you giving up your opportunity to influence out that minion (by removing them from play) and instead move that influence to another minion. Seems a fair solution to the problem that was originally voiced: I got screwed by my X-table influencing out the vampire I wanted.

On Aug 25, 3:28 pm, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 25, 4:34 pm, Legendre <glav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > But I'd hate to think that's what the game's becoming. > > Becoming? > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/8884... > > John Eno Touche. I am, perhaps, behind the times.

On Aug 25, 6:57 pm, Ira Fay <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If we want to change the rules based on the fact that most players > > > don't find desperately fighting from behind a contested vampire fun, > > > then that's one thing. > > Nope. > > Fun isn't the point. > > Competition is the point. > I disagree with your second sentence. Fun is definitely the point. No, fun isn't the point of the rules change. The prey of the person who doesn't bring out an 8-11 cap vampire with most of the pool invested because the vampire has been brought out cross-table gets a huge advantage. They may have great fun with that position. > Competition is a subset of fun, since it's fun to compete. But fun is > definitely the point. I don't think fun is a good reason to change this particular rule. > I agree with you that being randomly dealt a "you lose" card is not > fun, and therefore we should strive to fix it. Ok.

On Aug 25, 4:34 pm, Legendre wrote: > ..or perhaps the point *is* competition and not fun. Perhaps the Yes, the reason I support changing the rule is for competition. If there is nothing on the line, no tournament involved, do whatever you want to solve the problem. The tournament rules are what need to adapt and change, not the regular game rules. House rules have been fixing this for years, with simple things like announcing your clan or deck preference for a particular game before players select their decks, or moving all of your transfers to another minion so that the other non-contesting players aren't unduly advantaged. Thus, I provided the example of tournament play.

Ira Fay wrote: > The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Legendre wrote: >>> If we want to change the rules based on the fact that most players >>> don't find desperately fighting from behind a contested vampire fun, >>> then that's one thing. >> >> Nope. >> Fun isn't the point. >> Competition is the point. > > I disagree with your second sentence. Fun is definitely the point. > Competition is a subset of fun, since it's fun to compete. But fun > is definitely the point. FWIW I've said almost the opposite. VTES is a game -> Games require competition -> Competition and/or game design may lead to Fun -> Fun = Game Success Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

[ quoted text not captured ] Kevin, I'm a little different: VTES = Game Games are done for fun/enjoyment/social activity. If for Player X, Fun = Success ===> VTES requires strong competition If for Player X, Fun = enjoyable experience with friends but success is not required ===> VTES does not always require strong competition.

Juggernaut1981 wrote: > On Aug 26, 7:14 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Ira Fay wrote: >>> The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> Legendre wrote: >>>>> If we want to change the rules based on the fact that most players >>>>> don't find desperately fighting from behind a contested vampire >>>>> fun, then that's one thing. >> >>>> Nope. >>>> Fun isn't the point. >>>> Competition is the point. >> >>> I disagree with your second sentence. Fun is definitely the point. >>> Competition is a subset of fun, since it's fun to compete. But fun >>> is definitely the point. >> >> FWIW I've said almost the opposite. >> >> VTES is a game -> >> Games require competition -> >> Competition and/or game design may lead to Fun -> >> Fun = Game Success > > Kevin, > I'm a little different: > > VTES = Game > Games are done for fun/enjoyment/social activity. > If for Player X, Fun = Success ===> VTES requires strong competition > If for Player X, Fun = enjoyable experience with friends but success > is not required ===> VTES does not always require strong competition. Is there a Game which doesn't require competition?

On Aug 26, 10:06 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Is there a Game which doesn't require competition? My wife and I play some games that don't really require it, and which we don't play competitively. Gloom, particularly, doesn't require competition to be quite fun to play. We don't play VTES, though, specifically because it's not a very compelling game if its players aren't competitive. (And I say that as someone who played VTES with a group of people possessing a non- competitive mindset for about a year and a half.) John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] > Is there a Game which doesn't require competition?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There are few games that do not require any competition (solitaire?) But there is a difference between "competitive tournament style play" and "games which pit players against each other to determine a winner". Ludo is a competitive game but I don't think people want to play "competitive tournament Ludo". Clue/Cluedo is again a competitive game, but does not require players to be "aggressively at each other" to win. Similarly for a number of other board games and card games. If your idea of "competition" is "there is some kind of tension between players vying to win" then YES VTES is a competitive game. If your idea of "competition" is "everyone plays every game as if this was the NACs" then no, VTES is not a competitive game in all cases.

On Aug 26, 10:06 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Is there a Game which doesn't require competition? There are plenty of cooperative board games out there (Pandemic!, Space Alert, etc.). I suppose one could define those as "competing as a team against the game," but that feels like a stretch... - D.J.

Johann von Doom wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Is there a Game which doesn't require competition? > > My wife and I play some games that don't really require it, > and which we don't play competitively. Gloom, particularly, > doesn't require competition to be quite fun to play. I guess I'd say that when you're playing slapjack-Gloom, it ceases to be a "game" anymore and becomes more of an exercise in trying to follow the rules. I'd put Fluxx, etc., in this same category -- if you don't consider your plays, i.e. play competitively, the exersice becomes incredibly dry and is reduced to following the rules of said exercise. That isn't a game anymore, I don't think. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] > Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ > Please buy my cards!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html I would stick the classic game Munchkin down as a game that involves competition but that it is more about having a lot of fun for most players than being able to claim glorious bragging rights. I am not saying VTES = Munchkin, but if you play VTES because it's a multiplayer interactive game that can be a good fun way to spend a few hours... GREAT! Some people want to play VTES the same way people play Chess. Comparative silence, challenge of skills/wits, Success almost outweighs the experience of reaching that goal (or is so heavily intellectual that you love it because you are that way...)

On Aug 26, 11:16 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I guess I'd say that when you're playing slapjack-Gloom, it ceases > to be a "game" anymore and becomes more of an exercise in trying > to follow the rules. I'd put Fluxx, etc., in this same category -- > if you don't consider your plays, i.e. play competitively, the > exersice becomes incredibly dry and is reduced to following the > rules of said exercise. That isn't a game anymore, I don't think. Those examples are advertised as games, sold in game stores, and played by gamers. I think you may be starting to beg the question of what a "game" is here. If, to you, competition is required for an activity to be a game, then yeah, there aren't any non-competitive games. As a counterexample, when my wife and I play Carcassonne, she doesn't really care about keeping score, yet when she wants to play she asks if I'd like to play a game. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] If all you want to do is flip tiles over and make a map, then you aren't playing Carcassonne, you're playing with Carcassonne tiles. Gloom, Fluxx, and Carcassonne all specify in their rules victory conditions whereby a winner is determined. Of course, anyone is welcome to use the pieces of the game for other purposes. So: something between your position and Kevin's position (even slapjack has victory conditions, IIRC).

On Aug 27, 11:20 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Gloom, Fluxx, and Carcassonne all specify in their rules victory conditions > whereby a winner is determined. Sure. And when we play Gloom and Carcassonne, we do determine who the winner is. But she's not invested in that outcome, so it's safe to say that she's not playing competitively, even though she's playing as well as she can (and does win about as much as she loses). John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Playing as well as she can means that she's maximizing her score to the best of her ability. Not much, if anything, would separate that from playing competitively. Underlying motivations notwithstanding. When I play chess with my kids, I'm not invested in the outcome, but that is very different than saying we don't play competively. What would make the game less fun is if one of us decided to just play silly (conforming to the mechanics of chess, but playing Malkavian Knights or something) -- ignoring the victory conditions specified in the rules. Or, at least, that would be less fun for the other person (assuming the other person was playing with the full rules set, victory conditions included).

On Aug 27, 11:55 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Playing as well as she can means that she's maximizing her score to the best of > her ability. > > Not much, if anything, would separate that from playing competitively. > Underlying motivations notwithstanding. Okay. It seems that "competition" has a much harder-edged connotation in my head than it does in yours. A person who lacks strong investment in outcome, in the sense of how much effort they're willing to expend on winning, is a person who isn't playing competitively, as far as I'm concerned. Or to put it another way, someone who plays as well as they can but isn't trying to play very hard isn't playing competitively. It also occurs to me that Kevin and I may have been talking past each other. I assumed he was talking about games in terms of the process of playing games; he may very well have meant games in the sense of a set of rules and components. In which case I agree with him that there are few if any non-competitive games. John Eno

Johann von Doom wrote: > On Aug 27, 11:55 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Playing as well as she can means that she's maximizing her score to the best of >> her ability. >> >> Not much, if anything, would separate that from playing competitively. >> Underlying motivations notwithstanding. > > Okay. It seems that "competition" has a much harder-edged connotation > in my head than it does in yours. A person who lacks strong investment > in outcome, in the sense of how much effort they're willing to expend > on winning, is a person who isn't playing competitively, as far as I'm > concerned. And yet you say she's playing as well as she can. Not that she's putting in a lower level of effort and therefore coming up with plays that are below her ability. > It also occurs to me that Kevin and I may have been talking past each > other. Well, this is the place for that, of course. :-)

On Aug 27, 12:21 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > And yet you say she's playing as well as she can. > > Not that she's putting in a lower level of effort and therefore coming up with > plays that are below her ability. Heh. Okay, okay. I can't articulate what I intuitively sense is the point I'm trying to get at here. "You may have won this round, Johnson..." *shakes fist* > > It also occurs to me that Kevin and I may have been talking past each > > other. > > Well, this is the place for that, of course. :-) That does sometimes seem to be the reason for our electronical fellowship to gather. John Eno

Howdy, > It also occurs to me that Kevin and I may have been talking past each > other. I assumed he was talking about games in terms of the process of > playing games; he may very well have meant games in the sense of a set > of rules and components. In which case I agree with him that there are > few if any non-competitive games. Thinking about it a bit myself, it seems to me that most 'games' that are seemingly non-competitive (solitaires of various stripes, collaborative games [e.g. Arkham Horror], etc.) are probably more properly termed 'puzzles', in the sense that you're trying to 'solve' them, rather than 'play' them. You can always turn a puzzle into a competition, though, by finding some method of scoring it (time to complete, optimality/efficiency of solution, etc.). Hope that helps, Alex

There are many games that have "winners" but which have no real competition except maybe inside people's heads: Candyland. Roulette. War (the card game with a standard 52-card deck) On the other extreme, there are games like chess and other games of zero chance/perfect information. Those games are pure competition: the whole point is that it's a measure of the players' skill at the game. Then there's Tag -- a game with no winner, ever. It doesn't stop until people get tired of it. It's still a competition, but the "winning" (if you want to call it that) is so transient that it really does just sort of fade away into the play. Now let's talk about VTES. VTES is somewhere between Candyland and Chess. People want "competition"... and from what I've read here, that means that people want the game to be a test between players that somehow reflects their skill. But it's also got huge elements of random chance in it. Think about the way people like Lasombra are talking about this contesting issue... the complaint is that somehow having to contest a big vampire is a matter of chance. It's something "bad" that happens to you that you don't deserve. On that basis, the argument goes, we should amend the rules so that VTES is more like chess and less like Candyland. But people also don't deserve to have all of their master cards on the bottom of their deck, either. The most perfectly designed deck in the world can still run into that problem -- and will. Now, Magic has decided that the way to deal with that is the Paris/Mulligan system. The idea is to steepen the card-distribution curve, reducing the extreme ends of "all land" and "no land" and swell up that nice fat middle part where you get a good balance if your deck is constructed soundly. More like chess. Less like Candyland. A lot of poker players I know *hate* no-limit five card draw. They prefer Texas Hold 'em. Now, some of them just prefer it because it's popular and on TV and such. But some of them prefer it because it has more information -- you don't get absolutely blindsided by someone's full house. You at least know when it's more and less likely. Does that mean that Texas Hold 'em is more *competitive* than No-Limit Five Card Draw? I can't see that that's true. Mike Caro loved his Five Card draw, and no one would say he wasn't a competitive card player. A lot of players I know like the game, too, and several of us prefer it, considering it a much purer form of poker: a game where there's less in the cards and more in the psychology. But I digress. Back to VTES. VTES is "competitive" in a way that tag isn't because there's a winner. The question that we need to ask ourselves is, "What is it that we want winning to be representative of?" If winning is representative of pure skill in deck building, then people should not be allowed to play a deck that they didn't design. That's clearly NOT what we want. We don't care if someone comes to a tournament with someone else's deck. They get less bragging rights, perhaps, but they still win if they win. If we want winning to be representative of pure "playing" then we need to radically redesign the game to make it into a game of perfect information and eliminate the random elements. Since the whole game is premised on drawing unknown cards from a randomly shuffled deck, that might be hard to do. So obviously, then, we are going to have to accept a certain amount of Candyland in our Chess. "Winning" is going to be representative of a mixture of good luck and good play. The question then becomes where we want the balance to be. To shift things more towards Chess, we can have rules like: * You get your pool back when you yield a minion in a contest. * You get to shuffle your master card deck separately and then you get to choose which library you draw from depending on whether you judge that you need a master card or not. (I seem to recall seeing this variant on one of the boards somewhere.) * A neutral representative goes through your deck at the start of the tournament and gives you as close to a perfectly entropic distribution of cards as possible, dispersing clumps. * Everyone declares their deck type at the beginning of the tournament and we program the Archon to avoid sitting someone between two dedicated combat wall decks. * Everyone plays with an open hand. All the time. If we want to move things more towards the Candyland model instead, we can: * Have the Edge be a six-sided die that you roll to determine whether you gain 1, 2, or 3 pool. * Pick one person at each table to be the Scumpot, and another to be the Blessedprettylight. The Scumpot starts with 5 less pool, but gets to put two master cards in play at the beginning of the game and all his minions get +1 stealth. THe Blessedprettylight's minions can all take actions to burn a vampire. * Everyone picks their crypt, and brings 50 library cards. At a particular table, everyone's library is combined into one central library from which everyone draws. Everyone gets one additional discard phase action. The ash heap is communal, too. The point is just this: when people say that they want "Competition" what they *usually* mean is that they'd like the winning of the game to be representative of a greater degree of skill, and less a matter of random chance. The idea is something like "a Competition is something that you can TRY to win". You can't *try* to win Candyland. You can only play it. I personally think this is a poor definition of competition, but that's neither here nor there. But two things, I think, should be kept in mind: (1) VTES has huge elements of random chance built structurally into it (not even counting the Malk cards) and that's one of the reason that most of its players like to play it; (2) Contesting ISN'T ACTUALLY an entirely random thing, at least on a macro scale. People have a decent idea of what types of decks are going to be contested more and less often, and the fact that some deck types are played more often and thus run a higher risk of being contested is a *check* on their power. It helps maintain game balance in the long run by encouraging people to play a wider variety of decks.