Once again, congratulations!
While I assume that all posts you give from the WotC account will be
official in their capacity, when you do give posts specifically on
opinion (for example, on the usefullness of proposed cards etc.), will
they be from your own account? It might be useful to change the name you
use on the WotC account to "LSJ - Netrep", and leave your personal account
"L. Scott Johnson" for clarity when browsing.
In any case, some concerns:
Floating concerns regarding our previous requests for answers:
You had compiled a long list of as-of-yet unmet questions regarding
game play. If you can tell us the current status on these, that would be
wonderful.
DCI rules:
Simply put, the new DCI rules might require some modification given the
Sabbat, and also with Vote Pushing.
After _extensive_ playtesting, my group has found that the new Vote
Push rules only moderately hinder Weenie Vote Push. While you or others
may disagree, I think it might be worthwhile looking into other
solutions to Weenie Vote Push besides current DCI.
Secondly, the banned list could possibly be increased to cards that are
nearly (though not quite) universally accepted as "problem" cards:
Jyhad: None
VTES: Archon Investigation, Justicar Retribution, Protrected Resources
DS: Thoughts Betrayed
AH: Tomb of Ramses, The Return to Innocence
Sabbat: Direct Intervention, The Sleeping Mind
Vampires: All vampires that are specifically undercosted by 2 or more.
While not all of these choices will be necessarily liked by all,
investigation into them might be a good idea.
Finally, it would be great if you could give us some idea of the scope of
your position, so that we can better understand what we should get
unhappy with you about. ;)
In any case, I look forward to the reign of LSJ.
@#$ The Corrupter $#@ @#$ Adrian Lee Sullivan $#@ Truth is as
@#$ Game Theory - Coffee - Opinion - Hedonism $#@ subjective as
@#$ <http://upl.cs.wisc.edu/~adrian/jyhad> $#@ Reality ...
GAT/CS/WS C(+++) USX+ P++ N++ PS++@ PE@ b++(+++) X+++ R+++* r+ z++**?
The Corrupter wrote:
>
> Once again, congratulations!
>
> While I assume that all posts you give from the WotC account will be
> official in their capacity, when you do give posts specifically on
> opinion (for example, on the usefullness of proposed cards etc.), will
> they be from your own account? It might be useful to change the name you
> use on the WotC account to "LSJ - Netrep", and leave your personal account
> "L. Scott Johnson" for clarity when browsing.
I plan on refraining from posting from my "civilian" account for
the duration of my stint as Net.Rep, for exactly that reason.
> In any case, some concerns:
>
> Floating concerns regarding our previous requests for answers:
> You had compiled a long list of as-of-yet unmet questions regarding
> game play. If you can tell us the current status on these, that would be
> wonderful.
I believe I have answered all of those yesterday, except
for damage-dealing S:CE and Goth Band, which I don't understand
enough to answer questions about.
> DCI rules:
> Simply put, the new DCI rules might require some modification given the
> Sabbat, and also with Vote Pushing.
> After _extensive_ playtesting, my group has found that the new Vote
> Push rules only moderately hinder Weenie Vote Push. While you or others
> may disagree, I think it might be worthwhile looking into other
> solutions to Weenie Vote Push besides current DCI.
> Secondly, the banned list could possibly be increased to cards that are
> nearly (though not quite) universally accepted as "problem" cards:
> Jyhad: None
> VTES: Archon Investigation, Justicar Retribution, Protrected Resources
> DS: Thoughts Betrayed
> AH: Tomb of Ramses, The Return to Innocence
> Sabbat: Direct Intervention, The Sleeping Mind
> Vampires: All vampires that are specifically undercosted by 2 or more.
>
> While not all of these choices will be necessarily liked by all,
> investigation into them might be a good idea.
I'll pass this along. The DCI is a separate unit, and I cannot
speak for them. You may reach them directly at d...@wizards.com
> Finally, it would be great if you could give us some idea of the scope of
> your position, so that we can better understand what we should get
> unhappy with you about. ;)
I am a messenger. I can pass along rulings made by the Rules Team,
and (in the case of questions which have not been addressed) give
answers based on precedents set by the Rules Team, as I interpret them.
The latter are subject to review by the Rules Team, and may be
overturned. But, what's new about that?
I cannot issue non-obvious errata, nor change Rules Teams rulings.
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
(*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:39:12 -0600, The Corrupter
<sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote:
>Once again, congratulations!
From me too, do WotC pay you at all?
>While I assume that all posts you give from the WotC account will be
>official in their capacity, when you do give posts specifically on
>opinion (for example, on the usefullness of proposed cards etc.), will
>they be from your own account? It might be useful to change the name you
>use on the WotC account to "LSJ - Netrep", and leave your personal account
>"L. Scott Johnson" for clarity when browsing.
>>In any case, some concerns:
>
>Floating concerns regarding our previous requests for answers:
> You had compiled a long list of as-of-yet unmet questions regarding
>game play. If you can tell us the current status on these, that would be
>wonderful.
>>DCI rules:
> Simply put, the new DCI rules might require some modification given the
>Sabbat, and also with Vote Pushing.
> After _extensive_ playtesting, my group has found that the new Vote
>Push rules only moderately hinder Weenie Vote Push. While you or others
>may disagree, I think it might be worthwhile looking into other
>solutions to Weenie Vote Push besides current DCI.
In our playgroup Caitiff are now considered Independent, so making
them Princes will be a lot harder. But then we never did have that
much problems with weenie vote pushing (we always play weird decks :).
But anywayz, my question is would it solve the weenie vote problem?
Come to think of it, you will still have problems with the cheap 2 cap
vamps.
> Secondly, the banned list could possibly be increased to cards that are
>nearly (though not quite) universally accepted as "problem" cards:
> Jyhad: None
> VTES: Archon Investigation, Justicar Retribution, Protrected Resources
Still haven't played with/against these cards. Though I can imagine
the impact they can have.
> DS: Thoughts Betrayed
Agree strongly with this one. Though I had a very cool game once when
my sister played a deck with 6 Thoughts Betrayed in them and I played
a combat deck :-(
Anyway the fun part was I managed to steal her Monocle of Clarity from
her. And yes, every turn I asked the question: 'Do you have a Thoughts
Betrayed in your hand?' :-)
> AH: Tomb of Ramses, The Return to Innocence
Agree. My Lasombra contesting deck hasn't got any problems with the
Tomb. Political Seizure is cool. Though we're not sure what to do when
the opponent yields
> Sabbat: Direct Intervention, The Sleeping Mind
Don't see why Direct Intervention is such a big deal. Sleeping Mind
helps to avoid Wake-abuse but increases Misdirection-abuse
> Vampires: All vampires that are specifically undercosted by 2 or more.
But the art is so pretty!!! :-)
> While not all of these choices will be necessarily liked by all,
>investigation into them might be a good idea.
>>Finally, it would be great if you could give us some idea of the scope of
>your position, so that we can better understand what we should get
>unhappy with you about. ;)
Especially curious about Rule Team meetings? I.e. do they occur at
all?
>In any case, I look forward to the reign of LSJ.
>
>@#$ The Corrupter $#@ @#$ Adrian Lee Sullivan $#@ Truth is as
> @#$ Game Theory - Coffee - Opinion - Hedonism $#@ subjective as
> @#$ <http://upl.cs.wisc.edu/~adrian/jyhad> $#@ Reality ...
>GAT/CS/WS C(+++) USX+ P++ N++ PS++@ PE@ b++(+++) X+++ R+++* r+ z++**?
>
Remove * to mail to me personally (avoid SPAM)
PHI * j.p.a....@student.utwente.nl * www.cs.utwente.nl/~baalman
"ego is beast, ego is evil,
but ego knows best, at least he says so" --- The God Machine
esm...@unix.amherst.edu (your friendly tax-supported elitist) writes:
>The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote:
>: Once again, congratulations!>Ditto.>: In any case, some concerns:>: Secondly, the banned list could possibly be increased to cards that are>: nearly (though not quite) universally accepted as "problem" cards:
>: Jyhad: None
>: VTES: Archon Investigation, Justicar Retribution, Protrected Resources>: DS: Thoughts Betrayed
>: AH: Tomb of Ramses, The Return to Innocence
>: Sabbat: Direct Intervention, The Sleeping Mind
>: Vampires: All vampires that are specifically undercosted by 2 or more.
Quickly, what ever happened to the debate on Kiss of Ra?
>: While not all of these choices will be necessarily liked by all,>: investigation into them might be a good idea.>Proof is always a good thing.>: In any case, I look forward to the reign of LSJ.>As do I.
I think everyone will be happy for quite a while now...
--Xian
The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote:
: Once again, congratulations!
Ditto.
: In any case, some concerns:: Secondly, the banned list could possibly be increased to cards that are
: nearly (though not quite) universally accepted as "problem" cards:
: Jyhad: None
: VTES: Archon Investigation, Justicar Retribution, Protrected Resources
: DS: Thoughts Betrayed
: AH: Tomb of Ramses, The Return to Innocence
: Sabbat: Direct Intervention, The Sleeping Mind
: Vampires: All vampires that are specifically undercosted by 2 or more.
This is some really shaky ground here. I sincerely hope that LSJ will
not make any directives as to which cards are "abusive" and should be
banned. In my view, none (that's right, *none*, particularly "under-
costed* vampires) of these cards have been conclusively proven to be
"broken". LSJ has admitted that he does not represent DCI, and he has
been pretty neutral on the card-banning issue, so I hope he continues
to follow this course. I will not argue over the contents of this list
here.
: While not all of these choices will be necessarily liked by all,
: investigation into them might be a good idea.
Proof is always a good thing.
: In any case, I look forward to the reign of LSJ.
As do I.
--
Eric Manch (esm...@unix.amherst.edu)
http://www.amherst.edu/~esmanch
"To learn which questions are unanswerable, and not to answer them:
this skill is most needful in times of stress and darkness."
-Ursula K. LeGuin, "The Left Hand of Darkness"
On 25 Feb 1997 22:34:26 -0600, herr...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Christian S
Herro) wrote:
>esm...@unix.amherst.edu (your friendly tax-supported elitist) writes:
>>>The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote:>>: In any case, some concerns:>>>: Secondly, the banned list could possibly be increased to cards that are
>>: nearly (though not quite) universally accepted as "problem" cards:
>>: Jyhad: None
Fame, even unique, can be abused rather badly, as can DBR, Pulled
Fangs, and Society of Leopold, which is totally cracked.
>>: VTES: Archon Investigation, Justicar Retribution, Protrected Resources
>>: DS: Thoughts Betrayed
>>: AH: Tomb of Ramses, The Return to Innocence
I still feel that Seeds of Corruption is overpowered, due to a Tremere
Deck abusing it I pulled off.
>>: Sabbat: Direct Intervention, The Sleeping Mind
>>: Vampires: All vampires that are specifically undercosted by 2 or more.>>Quickly, what ever happened to the debate on Kiss of Ra?
Mmm. That too.
>>: While not all of these choices will be necessarily liked by all,
>>: investigation into them might be a good idea.>>>Proof is always a good thing.
Hey, want to meet a fairly unhappy Tremere deck abusing a good number
of the cards I just named? It would need to become nastier just to
provide proof(I chose not to push the cards too far, as the deck was
unfair as it was...), but I'm sure that something could be arranged.
>>: In any case, I look forward to the reign of LSJ.>>>As do I.>>I think everyone will be happy for quite a while now...
One hopes.
Any debate on the brokeness of cards, along with criteria for what is
"broken" and what is not?
Alec Chang
your friendly tax-supported elitist wrote:
> The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote:
>
> : Secondly, the banned list could possibly be increased to cards that are
> : nearly (though not quite) universally accepted as "problem" cards:
> : Jyhad: None> : VTES: Archon Investigation, Justicar Retribution, Protrected Resources
> : DS: Thoughts Betrayed
> : AH: Tomb of Ramses, The Return to Innocence> : Sabbat: Direct Intervention, The Sleeping Mind
> : Vampires: All vampires that are specifically undercosted by 2 or more.
>> This is some really shaky ground here. I sincerely hope that LSJ will
> not make any directives as to which cards are "abusive" and should be
> banned. In my view, none (that's right, *none*, particularly "under-
> costed* vampires) of these cards have been conclusively proven to be
> "broken". LSJ has admitted that he does not represent DCI, and he has
> been pretty neutral on the card-banning issue, so I hope he continues
> to follow this course. I will not argue over the contents of this list
> here.
Heh. No card can ever be "proven" broken.
Proof of balance is not a commodity of CCGs.
Some cards, even obviously broken ones like
Tomb of Ramses, cannot be proven "Broken".
Uniqueness can always be used to justify it,
although the argument isn't valid. It's
simply a matter of opinion or taste.
The following card cannot be "proven" broken,
although it clearly is:
Fate: Unique Master: 3 pool.
Put 1 fate counter on Fate during each of
your untap phases. Tap Fate and burn two
Fate counters to have your Prey lose all
her pool. Any minion may burn 1 Fate
counter from this card as a (D) action.
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:
: Heh. No card can ever be "proven" broken.: Proof of balance is not a commodity of CCGs.
My point exactly. I believe that the term "broken" is meaningless. I don't
really want proof, just less whining over personal preference.
: Some cards, even obviously broken ones like: Tomb of Ramses, cannot be proven "Broken".
Obviously broken? Ahhh, never mind. I don't want to get into it.
: The following card cannot be "proven" broken,
: although it clearly is:: Fate: Unique Master: 3 pool.
: Put 1 fate counter on Fate during each of
: your untap phases. Tap Fate and burn two
: Fate counters to have your Prey lose all
: her pool. Any minion may burn 1 Fate
: counter from this card as a (D) action.
Too true. In fact, *no* theory can truly be proven, only disproven.
: --: L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
: Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
: (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
--
[ quoted text not captured ]
your friendly tax-supported elitist wrote:
> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:
> : Heh. No card can ever be "proven" broken.
> : Proof of balance is not a commodity of CCGs.
>
> My point exactly. I believe that the term "broken" is meaningless. I don't
> really want proof, just less whining over personal preference.
My point was actually that even the most Broken card
cannot be "proven" to be broken. The term "broken" is
not meaningless, just as the term "gravity" is not
meaningless, even though you can't "prove" that
gravity is what keeps me from falling off the Earth.
Gravity is just a widely accepted theory that has
never been disproven.
Asking to have a broken card fixed is not whining.
A broken ruling (e.g., A demeted Malkavian can be contested
and yielded before being returned) cannot be proven.
But pointing out that it is broken can often lead to having
the game improved. This improvement comes as errata or new
rulings that reverse the old ones (as was the case in
the Malk Dementia ruling).
The Rules Team has been looking into ways to fix Tomb of
Ramses for quite some time. But the nature and degree of
its brokeness makes fixing it without banning it or
changing the very nature of the card very difficult.
[ quoted text not captured ]
L. Scott Johnson <vte...@regency.wizards.com> wrote in article
<3315BE...@regency.wizards.com>...
(snip)
> The Rules Team has been looking into ways to fix Tomb of
> Ramses for quite some time. But the nature and degree of
> its brokeness makes fixing it without banning it or
> changing the very nature of the card very difficult.
The easiest way IMO to limit Tomb abuse is to state that the Tomb only
matches transfers to the vamp with the Tomb on it. This prevents the trick
of putting the Tomb on a I.C., and doing transfers to another I.C. to get a
an almost free I.C. out quickly. This wouldn't require banning or changing
the nature of the card, and would make it much more reasonable.
--
Steve Bucy
I'd be better off undead...
"Hmmm. I notice the number of conditional phrases in there... _seems_ to
indicate a weakness, _may_ be vulnerable in theory." - G'Kar
Steven Bucy wrote:
> The easiest way IMO to limit Tomb abuse is to state that the Tomb only
> matches transfers to the vamp with the Tomb on it. This prevents the trick
> of putting the Tomb on a I.C., and doing transfers to another I.C. to get a
> an almost free I.C. out quickly. This wouldn't require banning or changing
> the nature of the card, and would make it much more reasonable.
I feel compelled to voice my agreement, especially after a game I played
last night where, due to an unbelievable draw, my predator brought out
Stanislava and Alexandra by turn 3 (3 +4 +4 transfers). He then
proceeded to play an Art Museum and bring out Francois Villon by turn 5!
So here the ToR can be shown to be abusive; I agree with Steven's fix.
BTW, I did proceed to get my Brujah/Ravnos deck ready to pound the two
Toreador freaks and had some fun with Gwendolyn equipped with Talbot's
Chainsaw and a big Mass Reality in play. Did you know that it's possible
to do over twenty-five points of damage in one round with a blur and
some potence? It torporizes annoying IC members *real* fast...
Later,
Sean
In article <3315BE...@regency.wizards.com>,
L. Scott Johnson <vte...@regency.wizards.com> wrote:
>
>The Rules Team has been looking into ways to fix Tomb of
>Ramses for quite some time. But the nature and degree of
>its brokeness makes fixing it without banning it or
>changing the very nature of the card very difficult.
>
As a side note, I have a dumb? question. I've seen various posts
discussing cards that need to be fixed and I'm curious why Tomb of
Ramses is considered to be a "broken" card. I'm not trying to start
an argument or anything, I just don't see how it's much worse
than Art Museum or Arcane Library. I'm assuming that there's some
really nasty use for this card that I'm missing - could someone fill me
in?
-Scott
aum...@io.com
esm...@unix.amherst.edu wrote:
>L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote:>: Some cards, even obviously broken ones like
>: Tomb of Ramses, cannot be proven "Broken".>Obviously broken? Ahhh, never mind. I don't want to get into it.
It looks like I missed this discussion during my extended absence from this group. Could someone please elaborate on the discussion of this "broken" card? A few people in my playgroup have managed to get this card out reliably, and I grant that it is powerful, but I haven't gotten the feeling that it's broken. I hope I'm not opening old wounds or anything!
8-)
Bullfrog
Bullfrog wrote:
"It looks like I missed this discussion during my extended absence from
this group. Could someone please elaborate on the discussion of this
"broken" card?" (re. Tomb of Ramses)
Well, the jist of the problem with the Tomb is that is a card that:
A) Improves almost ANY deck it goes in.
B) Has absolutely no risk to play.
C) Is Rare, and thus hard to get.
The Tomb will improve any deck it goes into (arguably even a "weenie"
deck, as it can be used for pool gain rather than transfer/vampire
production benefits). I am hard pressed to think of a single deck I could
build that would not benefit from a Tomb or two, and I cannot think of a
single other card that fits that bill ( many people build many decks that
do not use a single Wake With Evenings Freshness...). It speeds up the
deck just like an Info Highway (but better, as the Highway effectively
gives you 6 transfers and the Tomb gives you 8), but also generates pool,
often in obscene ammounts ("Hey, Look! Another IC Member!"). No deck
cannot benefit from pool gain and speed.
The Tomb has no risk to play. Zero. During your Master Phase you pay 3
pool to get it out and during the same turn's Transfer Phase you get 4
pool back on the vampire who has the Tomb on them. Even if on the next
players turn they Arson/Rampage/Unatural Disaster it, you still have
gained a net of 1 pool. If nothing happens to the Tomb, the net gain
increases very quickly. If there was some sort of appreciable risk in
playing it (Like you can't use it until the next turn or if it is
destroyed you burn the Vamp it is on and all the pool that is on that
Vamp), it would be much less offensive, but as it stands the advantages it
gives far outweight the almost nonexistant disadvantage (the cost of 3
pool, which again is imediately refunded with no risk of loss).
The fact that it is Rare has no bearing on it as a broken card in a game
design sense, but it does in a practical sense. It is one of those cards
that goes in every deck (ok, maybe only 95% of them), you lose nothing by
including it in a deck, and are at a substantial disadvantage if your
opponents have them and you do not (Almost every CCG has some of these.
Magic has the Lotus. L5R has the Inheritence. Rage has half the cards in
the set...). Because it is Rare, not many people are likely to have them
(making the Unique aspect even less likely to be important), and the
people that do will have an advantage over the people that do not. In our
group of Jyhad players of about 8-10 players, there are only 2 Tombs in
circulation (one of which is owned by me...), and every game that I get my
Tomb out, I do much better than when I do not.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
"AHA! I'll bounce off that broad flat surface
and be is alot of pain!"
-The Tick
L. Scott Johnson wrote:
> snip!>
> The Rules Team has been looking into ways to fix Tomb of
> Ramses for quite some time. But the nature and degree of
> its brokeness makes fixing it without banning it or
> changing the very nature of the card very difficult.
>> --
> L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com)
> Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
> (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team
How about not allowing transfers from the vampire with
the tomb on it? That makes it a card that is mostly
useful in the beginning of the game and only with a large
vampire in the uncontrolled region. It does not change
the nature of the card either.
I agree that the Tomb of Ramses can be a difficult card to handle,
though
it would obviously differ in other play groups. It's suceptible to
Sudden
Reversal, and the multitude of cards that apply to locations
(burning,
stealing, etc..). I do agree that the rules team SHOULD investigate
all
cards determined by many to be "broken", and evaluated without
predjudice.
Personally I'd like to see Archon Investigation "fixed" by adding a text
modifier
which would say something like "Vampire targeted can counter this effect
by
burning X pool equal to half of that vampires capacity rounded up".
It's still a painful card, but makes sense to me that the controlling
methuselah
could spend some of it's influence (represented by pool) to save it's
minions
from persecution.
-- Bernie Bresnahan
(snip)
> The Rules Team has been looking into ways to fix Tomb of
> Ramses for quite some time. But the nature and degree of
> its brokeness makes fixing it without banning it or
> changing the very nature of the card very difficult.
The easiest way IMO to limit Tomb abuse is to state that the Tomb
only
matches transfers to the vamp with the Tomb on it. This prevents the
trick
of putting the Tomb on a I.C., and doing transfers to another I.C.
to get a
an almost free I.C. out quickly. This wouldn't require banning or
changing
the nature of the card, and would make it much more reasonable.
--
Steve Bucy