[report] 5th Annual VTES Orgy of Mystery!

So with a good turnout of 11 total players (Howard swapped in for Sackett in the draft round), Keith Rice came out of VTES retirement to bring Evil Vampire Barbie back to Binghamton for the second time in 5 years, securing victory with a devestating "win the tie breaker die roll" gambit that no one saw coming!. In 3 rounds of play (2 rounds of constructed, 1 round of 4 booster pack Jyhad draft), the 11 players and their total VPs were: -Keith Rice: 10 VP -Josh Duffin: 10 VP -Jon Darbro: 4 VP -Dave (who's last name I can never remeber): 2 VP -Luke Gabriel: 1 VP -Howard Sanders: 1 VP -Eric Howd; 0 -Jay Davis: 0 -Jason Dettman: 0 -Andrew Sackett; 0 -Peter Bakija: 0 Keith kicked ass with total old school decks, including a Nosferatu Prince Rush deck and a Brujah Prince breed/vote deck. I don't think he had even any Sabbat cards in his decks, and was heard saying in some game "What kinda vampire is Sacha Viklos? I don't think I have ever even seen that clan..." Josh kicked ass with new school decks, including an Arika Zillah's Valley/Parity Shift deck and a Pistolero Cel/Disguised Magnum deck. At the end of the three rounds, Josh and Keith were tied with 10 VPs each (and according to Josh, they had the same theoretical tournament point score) and rather than coming up with a better way to determine the winner, they rolled a die, and Keith rolled a 6 vs Josh's 2. The theme for the evening, however, seemed to be "Josh drove 6 hours to come and hose me!" In the first round, Josh was my predator, and he beat me down pretty well with Parity Shifts, PTO'ed my Cicatriz, and then Kindred Restructured the table so that he was my prey allowing Jon's Cryptic Mission deck ("I must bring this cheese to Washington! Immediately!) to oust me and eventually win the table with a 3 VP withdraw (Jon is, after all, the master of withdrawing!). Game 2, due to the wonders of my fabulous random seating procedure (I rolled dice...), Josh is my prey, and manages to convince his prey, Jason, to rush cross table and mess me up a bunch (through the judicious use of the "I give him 2 pool through his Succubus Club" manuver, which somehow convinced Jason that Rushing cross table to hose me was a good idea), which tools my already tenious position. Later that game, Jason attempts to fix his earlier error by giving me all of his pool and permanents with the Succubs Club after Josh was about to oust him, but it didn't really help. In the third round of draft, 'cause the Fates weren't done being amused, Josh sat across table from me, and with his very first action in the game was to Disputed Territory my Backways away from me. And it just went down hill from there. The big observations from the evening: -Why is Succubus Club still allowed in competetive play? The card is just stoopid. -Why does Protect Thine Own still exist in its current form? The card is just stoopid. -Why is Josh still allowed in competetive play? He's broken. Thanks to everyone who showed up, and now Keith needs to make sure and come back next year so he can defend Evil Vampire Barbie. Luckily, he apprently won't need to practice in the interm. -Peter

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:aadbb36b.03110...@posting.google.com... [snip] > At the end of the three rounds, Josh and Keith were tied with 10 VPs > each (and according to Josh, they had the same theoretical tournament > point score) and rather than coming up with a better way to determine > the winner, they rolled a die, and Keith rolled a 6 vs Josh's 2. Yeah, I may have been wrong about the tournament points, but it wasn't a sanctioned tournament anyway, and it was one in the morning, so rolling a die seemed like a good idea. Since I didn't think I could play rock paper scissors with any competence at that point in the evening. :-) My strategy in rolling a 2 was clearly misguided, though. I should have thought of rolling a 6. > The theme for the evening, however, seemed to be "Josh drove 6 hours > to come and hose me!" That hadn't really been my plan initially, but it just kept working out that way somehow. > In the third round of draft, 'cause the Fates > weren't done being amused, Josh sat across table from me, and with his > very first action in the game was to Disputed Territory my Backways > away from me. And it just went down hill from there. Heh heh heh. Obviously you would have won if you'd been allowed to keep Backways. Instead my unstoppability remained unstoppable. :-) > The big observations from the evening: > > -Why is Succubus Club still allowed in competetive play? The card is > just stoopid. Yeah, Succubus Club is just not a good idea at all. Even with only one trade allowed per turn, its "legitimate" uses (eg Assamites selling rushes) don't justify the incredible game-screwing that it enables. This case even *was* an Assamite selling a rush, it just turned out that it was really bad for him to sell that particular rush at that particular time. > -Why does Protect Thine Own still exist in its current form? The card > is just stoopid. Yeah, it really is. I never got to abuse this card before Camarilla Edition came out since I didn't own any, but it's just wrong. Burning a vampire should cost more than a blood, an action, and a card. A lot more. And it should be easier to counter other than by not playing non-Camarilla vampires. > -Why is Josh still allowed in competetive play? He's broken. I should retire. If only there were a decent pension plan. Thanks to everyone for being fun to play with, especially Peter who is fun to toy with. ;-) Josh may find a new victim next year

Josh wrote: > Yeah, I may have been wrong about the tournament points, but it wasn't a > sanctioned tournament anyway, and it was one in the morning, so rolling > a die seemed like a good idea. Since I didn't think I could play rock > paper scissors with any competence at that point in the evening. :-) Yeah, I figured that was a good plan. That, and now that Keith has Evil Vampire Barie, you aren't automatically compelled to come back next year :-) > My strategy in rolling a 2 was clearly misguided, though. I should have > thought of rolling a 6. That was a poor decision. What were you thinking? > That hadn't really been my plan initially, but it just kept working out > that way somehow. I blame my inability to roll dice such that you were in one game and I was in the other. KInd of like your clever "roll a 2" strategy. > Heh heh heh. Obviously you would have won if you'd been allowed to keep > Backways. Instead my unstoppability remained unstoppable. :-) Man. That Backways was to be the key to my eventual victory. Well, that and the Sub Machine Gun that Luke decided to eat with dogs when I was deflected at him. But then, if I had the Backways, I could have snuck by Luke, now couldn't I have? :-) > Yeah, Succubus Club is just not a good idea at all. Even with only one > trade allowed per turn, its "legitimate" uses (eg Assamites selling > rushes) don't justify the incredible game-screwing that it enables. > This case even *was* an Assamite selling a rush, it just turned out that > it was really bad for him to sell that particular rush at that > particular time. That Succubus Club is just dumb. Once I got it, I really should have just traded all my pool and in play cards to Jay, just to spite you the VP. Which is why Succubus Club is so bad--it enables too much spite. > Yeah, it really is. I never got to abuse this card before Camarilla > Edition came out since I didn't own any, but it's just wrong. Burning a > vampire should cost more than a blood, an action, and a card. A lot > more. And it should be easier to counter other than by not playing > non-Camarilla vampires. Well, I'm certainly throwing Vox Dominis in more decks now. But even then, PtO is just wrong. What would make it less wrong? > I should retire. > > If only there were a decent pension plan. > > Thanks to everyone for being fun to play with, especially Peter who is > fun to toy with. ;-) Bwa! Just wait till Origins... :-) -Peter

Peter D Bakija expounded: > Well, I'm certainly throwing Vox Dominis in more decks now. But even > then, PtO is just wrong. What would make it less wrong? I would rather see it send vamps to torpor (possibly minus some/all blood) or do them agg dmg. (Disclaimer: I don't think it's that bad but I do think it would be worth changing so something like above -the dmg could be related to the votes it passes by. I'd quite like to see some votes that require either a 2/3 majority -or similar- to pass or are powered by the votes they pass by).

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 23:19:12 -0000, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] you could make the blood cost a pool cost. that'd be a start. But i do like the idea of some votes having more effect if they pass by a certain number... salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a260ad07...@news.freeserve.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] HEY it needs a Justicar or IC to even call... leave the poor card alone already! *chortles* sorry, couldn't keep a straight face. It might need some toning down, then again it might not, as more Sabbat Vote/anti-vote is created. Besides the metagame issues with the thing are horrid. You sit down playing a deck with 15 of them and the only non-camarilla deck is cross table. And this was before you could just mind rape a vampire, have them go anarch, and then burn them... and we had to walk to school up hill both ways. *walks away casually burning things with PTO, having played a deck with to many of them* Cameron, purveyor of PTO

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > That Succubus Club is just dumb. Once I got it, I really should have > just traded all my pool and in play cards to Jay, just to spite you > the VP. Which is why Succubus Club is so bad--it enables too much > spite. If I had been judging, and if you had tried to do it, I'd have declared the above play illegal under VEKN 5.1 and VEKN 5.2, so I'm still not sure how the Succubus club is "so bad". > -Peter Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "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

Kevin wrote: > If I had been judging, and if you had tried to do it, I'd have declared the > above play illegal under VEKN 5.1 and VEKN 5.2, so I'm still not sure how > the Succubus club is "so bad". In the particular situation in question, I had, like, 6 pool left, most of my minions were in torpor, and the one I had left had no blood. My prey (Josh) had, like, 10+ pool, 4 or 5 minions, and the ability to stop any action I took. I wasn't getting any more VPs. Ever. How is it illegal to choose the form of my death? How would giving all my stuff to my predator be any more illegal than simply transfering myself out of the game? -Peter

> > > Well, I'm certainly throwing Vox Dominis in more decks now. But even > > > then, PtO is just wrong. What would make it less wrong? > > > > I would rather see it send vamps to torpor (possibly minus some/all > > blood) or do them agg dmg. > > > are powered by the votes they pass by). > > HEY it needs a Justicar or IC to even call... leave the poor card > alone already! > > *chortles* Hiya, Why o why will people refuse to play Delaying Tactics/Direct Intervention/intercept/the new master card which makes referendums fail/... and stop whining about the overpoweredness of PTO? Example: in a game I played at the Europeans in Barcelona, over the whole of the game there were 7 PTO's called *in one game*. Not by me, but by my prey, who had Leandro out at the end of turn 2. Most (all)of them on my vampires, as he needed some defense. (ALso,on a side note, during that same game,my surviving Greta Kircher took a dominate skill card/Derange/Malkavian Dementia/Golconda in the face. ) It took me every card in my deck, but I walked away from that table with 4VP. So could you indeed leave that card alone already? It's (relatively) easy enough to handle. Greetz Jo

In article <aadbb36b.03111...@posting.google.com>, pdb6 @lightlink.com says... > That Succubus Club is just dumb. Once I got it, I really should have > just traded all my pool and in play cards to Jay, just to spite you > the VP. Which is why Succubus Club is so bad--it enables too much > spite. Signed. Can we ban this card already? A card that says "Any additional terms can be established, but none are enforced by the rules." should probably not be in the game. > Well, I'm certainly throwing Vox Dominis in more decks now. But even > then, PtO is just wrong. What would make it less wrong? "If the acting vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, you may choose any Non-Camarilla vampire with capacity less than 8 instead". Seems like it'd be a whole lot more fair then. -- -Snapcase

Snapcase wrote: > Can we ban [Succubus Club] already? A card that says "Any additional > terms can be established, but none are enforced by the rules." should > probably not be in the game. That's reminder text. All cards can be treated as if they have such text. Shall we ban all cards, then? -- 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/

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Joshua Duffin wrote: > "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message > news:aadbb36b.03110...@posting.google.com... > > The theme for the evening, however, seemed to be "Josh drove 6 hours > > to come and hose me!" At least he comes to you. I have to drive the four hours to him, with a near-certainty of disaster. ;) > > -Why is Succubus Club still allowed in competetive play? The card is > > just stoopid. > > -Why does Protect Thine Own still exist in its current form? The card > > is just stoopid. You forgot DI. > Josh > may find a new victim next year That's something to look forward to, anyway. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

Snapecase wrote: > Signed. Can we ban this card already? A card that says "Any additional > terms can be established, but none are enforced by the rules." should > probably not be in the game. Yeah, see--the Succubus Club simply allows too much outside influence into the game, such that *every* action allowed by The Succubus Club probably needs to be inspected by a Judge, and arbitrarily determined to be inside or outside the bounds of the rules for cheating or sportsmanlike conduct. Increased need for judgement in any game is an undesireable thing, and Succubus Club simply screams for the need to have a judge stand by every game and make a ruling on the use of the card. -Peter

>Why o why will people refuse to play Delaying Tactics/Direct >Intervention/intercept/the new master card which makes referendums >fail/... >and stop whining about the overpoweredness of PTO? So, let's see, based on this: There are only a limited number of viable options for decks that play any important vampires that aren't Camarilla. Then, if I don't have the counter in hand at the right time or if by some miracle one of the IC members with Obfuscate stealths by my intercept, I still lose? Wow, that makes for such a balanced card. Sorry, but it's incomprehensible to me how anyone could think Protect Thine Own is okay. (If you still don't understand what I'm getting at, because I don't want to hear about how PTO decks don't dominate, the problem isn't that it guarantees victory but that it's an action that can guarantee that someone loses.) As for fixing the card, the suggestions I've seen don't stop making it grossly unfair. Maybe I could see a super FSR effect (Justicar burn 4 blood off a nonCammie, IC burn 6) or maybe a temporary remove from game effect (like, one turn). But, when there's no easy errata, I'd rather just see a card banned. Speaking of cards that should never have been made, I was talking to somebody about how to fix RtI. We wondered if something like pay 4 blood to bleed for +2, remove the acting vampire from the game, gain pool equal to half its capacity would work (maybe require an 8+ cap) to make it not broken while still worth playing.

In article <3FBCE7A0...@white-wolf.com>, vte...@white-wolf.com says... > Snapcase wrote: > > Can we ban [Succubus Club] already? A card that says "Any additional > > terms can be established, but none are enforced by the rules." should > > probably not be in the game. > > That's reminder text. > All cards can be treated as if they have such text. > Shall we ban all cards, then? Fair enough. The "none are enforced by.." clause just seems to be the exclamation point on how bad of an idea this card is to me. Peter's post pretty much sums up all the issues I have with it. -- -Snapcase

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] My apologies. It wasn't clear in the situation that you weren't ever getting any more VPs. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin wrote: > My apologies. It wasn't clear in the situation that you weren't ever > getting any more VPs. Heh. If I could have killed Josh, I would have in a second :-) The situation was this (which I am mostly describing to illustrate my issues with the Succubus Club): The table was Me (CEL/+1 strength deck); Josh (weenie cel/pistols Rush); Jason (Assamite long range Rush); Jay (Toreador bleed). Jason plays Succubus Club. On Josh's next turn, he says "Jason, I'll give you 2 pool if you mess up Peter's Aziz." Jason is Josh's prey. I am Jason's cross table "ally". Jay is in the middle, not really going anywhere, but not really getting ousted soon. Jason agrees. On Jason's turn, he takes the 2 pool from Josh, Rushes and torporizes Aziz. In terms of overall table dynamic, this did nothing to help Jason (except get him the 2 pool from his predator), did everything to help Josh (Josh's prey wasted an action to kill his predator's vampire), and totally tooled me (and I was in a tenious position to begin with). Was this cheating? Collusion? 'Cause I was playing with people I know, it I know it wasn't collusion, it was just Jason being Jason. But if I were playing with strangers, I'd have been far more irritated by this action that was basically permited by the Succubus Club. Right. I get tooled. The game moves on, Josh is clearly winning. I convince Jason to rush back at Josh (by offering him 2 pool...). Jason does so, and gets most of his vampires torpored. Jason becomes hoplessly crippled. In an act of remorse, he uses Succubus Club to give me all of his vampires, stuff, and all but 1 of his (5 or 6 remaining) pool. Sadly, it doesn't help me much, as I am already in a horrible position and not going anywhere, but the stuff Jason gives me keeps me in the fight a couple extra turns. At this point, realizing I was hosed, I should have used Succubus Club (which I had inherreted from Jason) to give Jay (who was still alive, but mostly a non issue at this point) all my pool, vampires, and stuff, to put Jay back in the game. All this silliness was allowed by the Succubus Club. Yeah, one could claim that the problem was that Jason is broken, and not the Succubus Club, but we can't fix him :-) Succubus Club is not broken 'cause it is too "powerful". It is simply inappropriate for competetive play, as it allows for too many outside factors to come into play, and requires too much arbitration--every time I have seen the Succubus Club used, it has been used in a way that could be argued to be collusive (i.e. cheating). I don't think I have ever seen the Succubus Club used for any mundane purpose (i.e. "Hey--I'll trade you a Blood Doll for a Potence Master..."). It is always something very game affecting, and always something questionable, bordering on collusive. Jason taking pool from his predator to demolish his predator's predator in an action that is clearly detrimental to his position is something that, if it happened in a serious competetive environment, would end up having a Judge called over. Jason then driving the last nail into his coffin by giving away all his stuff and all but 1 of his pool would result in the same. Me deciding to oust myself to then give all my pool to my predator as I wasn't going anywhere anyway, and I was filled with spite, would similarly result in arbitration I'm sure. How is it good to have a card in serious competition that results in such a need for arbitration? Again, I have seen *far* more disputes and post game accusations of collusion result from the use of Succubus Club than anything else in this game. Yeah, we could simply call for a judge in every possible instance where we feel that Succubus Club is being used inappropriately, but that then requires far more judgement than simple rules disputes--"Can this card be used for X?" is a much easier issue to deal with than "My opponent's are cheating! I want them ejected! They did X with the Succubus Club...", and requires arbitrary decisions to be made that there is only the most vague guidance for. Again, any game suffers from the need for too much arbitration. Succubus Club potentially requres more arbitration than any other card in the game. It strikes me that it would be far more beneficial to remove it as a source of conflict than leave it in. -Peter

On 21 Nov 2003, Peter D Bakija wrote: > The table was Me (CEL/+1 strength deck); Josh (weenie cel/pistols > Rush); Jason (Assamite long range Rush); Jay (Toreador bleed). Now *that's* a metagame. ;) <snip SC abortion> Agreed and seconded. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Jason plays Succubus Club. On Josh's next turn, he says "Jason, I'll > give you 2 pool if you mess up Peter's Aziz." Jason is Josh's prey. I I've taken these sort of deals more than once cross-table. The deal in and of itself is not inappropriate in my opinion. > am Jason's cross table "ally". Jay is in the middle, not really going > anywhere, but not really getting ousted soon. Jason agrees. On Jason's Given the game state described, Jason probably shouldn't have rushed your Aziz. However, we don't know what was in Jason's hand. Maybe he needed to cycle into cards that would let him deal with his predator or his prey? Maybe he wanted his prey to feel safe so he could pounce on him with a Fame next turn. It's hard to say what was the smart move without knowing more about the game state and Jason's deck in particular. > turn, he takes the 2 pool from Josh, Rushes and torporizes Aziz. In > terms of overall table dynamic, this did nothing to help Jason (except > get him the 2 pool from his predator), did everything to help Josh Again, I think the cycling and the possibility of luring his prey into spending his pool down for a Fame pounce-move may have been a good motive for this move, but on its face it does look as bad as you describe. > (Josh's prey wasted an action to kill his predator's vampire), and > totally tooled me (and I was in a tenious position to begin with). Was > this cheating? Collusion? 'Cause I was playing with people I know, it > I know it wasn't collusion, it was just Jason being Jason. But if I > were playing with strangers, I'd have been far more irritated by this > action that was basically permited by the Succubus Club. There has always been and will always be stupid players and decks that just can't get moving. Nothing described so far is "cheating", it's simply an example of poor play. That Succubus Club allows more stupidity than normal isn't a problem of Succubus Club, it's the problem with having bad players in the game. Stupid people bounce cross-table, or do the extra 1 damage from a KRC to someone who really can't afford it... are those cards broken, or is the player just not so smart? > Right. I get tooled. The game moves on, Josh is clearly winning. I > convince Jason to rush back at Josh (by offering him 2 pool...). Jason > does so, and gets most of his vampires torpored. Jason becomes > hoplessly crippled. In an act of remorse, he uses Succubus Club to > give me all of his vampires, stuff, and all but 1 of his (5 or 6 > remaining) pool. Sadly, it doesn't help me much, as I am already in a > horrible position and not going anywhere, but the stuff Jason gives me > keeps me in the fight a couple extra turns. At this point, realizing I > was hosed, I should have used Succubus Club (which I had inherreted > from Jason) to give Jay (who was still alive, but mostly a non issue > at this point) all my pool, vampires, and stuff, to put Jay back in > the game. Once you're not getting any more VPs, you can choose the manner of your ousting. Again, Succubbus Club allows more spite, but spite will always exist in the game. How can we change Succubus Club to prevent spiteful play? Should we change vote/bounce as well so it can't be used for spite? > All this silliness was allowed by the Succubus Club. Yeah, one could > claim that the problem was that Jason is broken, and not the Succubus > Club, but we can't fix him :-) You can try to educate Jason as to why what he was doing was poor play. Tabletalk is a big part of this game. If when the deal to take on Aziz was being discussed, you could have offered 3 pool to rush one of your preadator's minions, or otherwise explained rationally why rushing your vampire wasn't worth the 2 pool. > Succubus Club is not broken 'cause it is too "powerful". It is simply > inappropriate for competetive play, as it allows for too many outside > factors to come into play, and requires too much arbitration--every > time I have seen the Succubus Club used, it has been used in a way > that could be argued to be collusive (i.e. cheating). I don't think I > have ever seen the Succubus Club used for any mundane purpose (i.e. > "Hey--I'll trade you a Blood Doll for a Potence Master..."). It is > always something very game affecting, and always something > questionable, bordering on collusive. Succubus Club increases the value of tabletalk and deal-making. That's why I play it... well, that and I like extorting people for "protection" when I play a combat deck...it's so fun! *looks at clock* Okay, gotta run, but to summarize I think the problem isn't Succubus Club, it's the tabletalk that already exists in the game and the poor players who get manipulated into doing dumb things by better players. All things that suck when you're on the receiving end, but hey alot of cards have that sucking effect on the recipient (like PTO). Aramis

Succubus Club is totally useful. In a final round at OrcCon out here in Los Angeles earlier this year I used Succubus Club to give my failing predator 6 of my seven remaining pool, just to keep her in the game for an extra turn or two so that the table could unify and go against my grand-predator (former predator but he skipped around the table). It didn't work -- all the other players were too interested in covering their own hinies to recognize the threat, and said grand-predator ended up pretty much sweeping the table. But them's the breaks. Succubus Club is STILL cool.

pd...@lightlink.com (Peter D Bakija) wrote: > I don't think I have ever seen the Succubus Club used for any > mundane purpose I'm surprised. I would have thought you would have used it with a rush deck by now. "Give me 3 pool or I squash your 11 cap like a bug." I've done hit men decks before with it. However, I do agree 100%. Even though there are legitimate uses for the Suck Club, it's abused far more often than it's used fairly. Regards, Noal

Yaa! I finally got my Outlook to work! No more stinking dejanews! Aramis wrote: > I've taken these sort of deals more than once cross-table. The deal > in and of itself is not inappropriate in my opinion. It was a dumb deal. It was a deal that was detrimental to the player who made it--Jason put himself out to mangle me, who was in no way a threat to him, and by doing so, made his own predator stronger, where if Jason had simply attacked his prey instead of getting embroiled in silly cross table antics, he would have in all likelyhood ousted his preyand done just fine. Could this have happened without the Succubus Club? Sure, but it was less likely to, as Josh would not have been able to pay Jason pool directly. > Given the game state described, Jason probably shouldn't have rushed > your Aziz. Of course he shouldn't have. It did nothing to help him and everything to hurt him. Yet he did it anyway, and was encouraged to do so by use of the Succubus Club. > However, we don't know what was in Jason's hand. Irrelevant. > Maybe he > needed to cycle into cards that would let him deal with his predator > or his prey? By making his predator stronger? This is the sort of common but misplaced logic that leads to all sorts of foolish cross table antics that are always a bad idea. The Succubus Club is just the enabling force. > Maybe he wanted his prey to feel safe so he could pounce > on him with a Fame next turn. It's hard to say what was the smart > move without knowing more about the game state and Jason's deck in > particular. Exactly. But if I were in a serious competetive situation, I would have called a judge and called collusion, as the deal was completely absurd, really. And only existed as the result of the Succubus Club, well, and foolish play, but again, Succubus Club exists to do nothing but reward and encourage foolish play. > Again, I think the cycling and the possibility of luring his prey into > spending his pool down for a Fame pounce-move may have been a good > motive for this move, but on its face it does look as bad as you > describe. Yeah, the reasons for Rushing cross table are very few and far between. Few of them revolve around making yourself weaker so you can make your predator stronger... > There has always been and will always be stupid players and decks that > just can't get moving. Nothing described so far is "cheating", it's > simply an example of poor play. See, the rules for tournament play specifically say that unsportsmanlike behavior and collusion are cheating. The examples above could arguably be either. Which means a judge needs to arbitrate the decisions of the players involved. Which means more arbitration. Which is bad for the game. > That Succubus Club allows more > stupidity than normal isn't a problem of Succubus Club, it's the > problem with having bad players in the game. But we can't remove stupid players. But on the other hand, we can remove a card that allows for more stupidity than normal. I've never once seen a Succubus Club in competetive play that was not used for arguably collusive or unsportsmanlike conduct. Yeah, the card is funny in casual play, but in competetive play, it simply will (and should) over tax the judge, if all the players are paying attention. More so than any other card in the game. > Stupid people bounce > cross-table, or do the extra 1 damage from a KRC to someone who really > can't afford it... are those cards broken, or is the player just not > so smart? Yes, stupid play happens. But Succubus Club does *nothing* but encourage stupid/collusive/unsportsmanlike play. That is all the card does. KRC *usually* just damages your prey (and then does a point of random damage, which is fairly minor). Succubus Club *usually* facilitates actions that are arguably cheating and require constant arbitration. The difference strikes me as very clear. > Once you're not getting any more VPs, you can choose the manner of > your ousting. Again, Succubbus Club allows more spite, but spite will > always exist in the game. How can we change Succubus Club to prevent > spiteful play? By removing it from the environment, as it is simply inappropriate. > Should we change vote/bounce as well so it can't be > used for spite? It can be. Many things can be. But their primary use is not to facilitate spite. Succubus Club does nothing but. > You can try to educate Jason as to why what he was doing was poor > play. Tabletalk is a big part of this game. The game would benefit from less table talk, too. > Succubus Club increases the value of tabletalk and deal-making. Which is also bad for the game, for my money. > That's why I play it... well, that and I like extorting people for > "protection" when I play a combat deck...it's so fun! Sure--in casual play, I am in no way opposed to Succubus Club--it is a funny and entertaining card. But in serious competetive play, it simply allows too much outside influence on the game, and can over tax judges to no good end. Peter D Bakija PD...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "The gun is good! The penis is bad!" -Zardoz

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BBE3DEBD.11ED0%pd...@lightlink.com... > Yaa! I finally got my Outlook to work! No more stinking dejanews! Wheee-ha! > Aramis wrote: > > > I've taken these sort of deals more than once cross-table. The deal > > in and of itself is not inappropriate in my opinion. > > It was a dumb deal. It was a deal that was detrimental to the player who > made it--Jason put himself out to mangle me, who was in no way a threat to > him, and by doing so, made his own predator stronger, where if Jason had > simply attacked his prey instead of getting embroiled in silly cross table > antics, he would have in all likelyhood ousted his preyand done just fine. > Could this have happened without the Succubus Club? Sure, but it was less > likely to, as Josh would not have been able to pay Jason pool directly. Despite being the person who benefited most from the deal, I agree with Peter: it was probably not a beneficial deal for Jason to make. But he put the Succubus Club out there so I felt like I had to try to offer him a deal before someone else did. :-) That said, I don't think it was *totally* unreasonable of Jason to rush cross-table at that point. His prey was quite low on pool and Jason might well have ousted him in another two turns if he had a Fame or started really taking advantage of my Tension in the Ranks or something. But as it turned out, in the long run it really didn't pay off for Jason to have done that. (His position wasn't entirely sunk until he took *your* deal, Peter, and rushed *my* guys, because that left him with like three vampires in torpor and very low pool due to my Tension. :-) > > You can try to educate Jason as to why what he was doing was poor > > play. Tabletalk is a big part of this game. > > The game would benefit from less table talk, too. This is true in some ways. Especially, it would (presumably) reward the players who are better at the deckbuilding/hand-playing/table-decision-making parts of the game, reducing the influence of the table-talking/player-influencing parts of the game. Whether that would be a good thing depends on taste, but it would certainly make the game more "VTES-essentials-based" (as opposed to "player-interaction based") than it is now. Maybe you should try to get Madness of the Bard re-legalized. It did tend to cut down quite a bit on table talk. :-) Josh crazy... like a turkey!

"Aramis" <came...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d9925496.03112...@posting.google.com... > There has always been and will always be stupid players and decks that > just can't get moving. Nothing described so far is "cheating", it's > simply an example of poor play. That Succubus Club allows more > stupidity than normal isn't a problem of Succubus Club, it's the > problem with having bad players in the game. Stupid people bounce > cross-table, or do the extra 1 damage from a KRC to someone who really > can't afford it... are those cards broken, or is the player just not > so smart? I think it *is* a problem of Succubus Club, though. As you say, it allows more stupidity than normal. You can't eliminate stupidity entirely, no, but something that really facilitates stupidity turns out to really be bad for the game. > Succubus Club increases the value of tabletalk and deal-making. > That's why I play it... well, that and I like extorting people for > "protection" when I play a combat deck...it's so fun! I've seen you play decks that did this, Dave, and they are funny and clever. But I honestly don't think that that relatively appropriate use can make up for all the seriously unhelpful things that Succubus Club brings to the game. Josh

"Legendre" <mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu> wrote in message news:fb4469c.03112...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] To me, Life Boon is a far more appropriate solution to the situation you describe. It doesn't have the plethora of unpleasant side effects that Succubus Club does - it just lets you keep someone in the game. Josh not saying it can't be useful, just that it's not a good thing for the game to have

Joshua Duffin expounded: > Maybe you should try to get Madness of the Bard re-legalized. It did > tend to cut down quite a bit on table talk. :-) I'm certainly in favour!

Noal McDonald wrote: > I'm surprised. I would have thought you would have used it with a rush > deck by now. "Give me 3 pool or I squash your 11 cap like a bug." I've > done hit men decks before with it. Ya'd think so, but in reality, that has never really struck me as a viable strategy--I mean, who are you going to extort? I'm not going to extort my predator or prey, as they aren't going to pay me not to kill their vampires, as I'm going to kill them whether or not they pay me. If I try and extort the people across table, if they don't pay me, I'm then stuck rushing cross table and destroying the table dynamic (and wasting my effort and probably making myself lose, as well as they guy I rush). If I don't Rush them for not paying, then I'm not really accomplishing anything in the long run. Thus, including the Succubus Club in a Rush deck strikes me as kind of counter productive, more than anything else. -Peter

Legendre wrote: > Succubus Club is totally useful. No one is saying it can't be useful. Cheating can be useful, too. That doesn't mean it is a good idea to cheat while playing. The problem with Succubus Club is that more often than not, it results in actions that are arguably cheating (collusion or unsportsmanlike conduct) and require arbitration at every turn, which is bad for the game. > In a final round at OrcCon out here in Los Angeles earlier this year > I used Succubus Club to give my failing predator 6 of my seven > remaining pool, just to keep her in the game for an extra turn or two > so that the table could unify and go against my grand-predator (former > predator but he skipped around the table). And anyone paying attention could have claimed that you were acting in a collusive or unsportsmanlike manner (as per the VEKN Tournament rules), and called a judge to arbitrate the situation. I'm not saying that you were, but I'm sure someone could have argued the point, such that a judgement was necessary. While I can't speak for everyone, I know that when I judge this game, I do so to answer rules disputes and make sure the game runs smoothly, not to try and second guess the motives of questionable play that is only furthered by Succubus Club. > Succubus Club is STILL cool. For casual play, it strikes me as perfectly reasonable and entertaining. For serious competetive play, however, it is completely inappropriate. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com [ quoted text not captured ]

> Agreed and seconded. I also agree that Succubus Club shouldn't be allowed in tournament play. The tournament game would be improved if it was disallowed. In the meantime, I just refuse to play with the card, and I think many players also choose that path. Maybe I'm hurting my chances a little by refusing to use a card, but I'll take that cost in exchange for a chance to improve the game and lead by example. Ira

Ira wrote: > In the meantime, I just refuse to play with the card, and I think > many players also choose that path. Maybe I'm hurting my chances a > little by refusing to use a card, but I'll take that cost in exchange > for a chance to improve the game and lead by example. You aren't really losing out on anything, as the card isn't really that powerful, but that isn't the point. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn't, but when it does, it is usually the result of a questionable deal that is arguably cheating (i.e collusive or unsportsmanlike play). But most of the time, people don't call over the judge to arbitrate such a deal (which they should), as it is a pain in the ass. As a result, more often than not I'd surmise, people who benefit from the Succubus Club are doing so by, essentially, cheating (intentional or no). [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <BBE3ED81.11EE3%pd...@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> mumbled something about: >Noal McDonald wrote: > >> I'm surprised. I would have thought you would have used it with a rush >> deck by now. "Give me 3 pool or I squash your 11 cap like a bug." I've >> done hit men decks before with it. > >Ya'd think so, but in reality, that has never really struck me as a viable >strategy--I mean, who are you going to extort? I'm not going to extort my >predator or prey, as they aren't going to pay me not to kill their vampires, >as I'm going to kill them whether or not they pay me. If I try and extort Actually, I sort of like the idea of extorting your predator and prey. "Give me 2 pool or I kill Ozmo" is not a good idea, of course, since Ozmo can cover that immediately. But less threatening minions are good extortion targets, I'd think. And from your prey, of course, there's always the hope that he'll actually PAY you. That'd be funny. =) -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BBE3FC18.11EF5%pd...@lightlink.com... > Ira wrote: > > > In the meantime, I just refuse to play with the card, and I think > > many players also choose that path. Maybe I'm hurting my chances a > > little by refusing to use a card, but I'll take that cost in exchange > > for a chance to improve the game and lead by example. > > You aren't really losing out on anything, as the card isn't really that > powerful, but that isn't the point. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it > doesn't, but when it does, it is usually the result of a questionable deal > that is arguably cheating (i.e collusive or unsportsmanlike play). I've usually seen it used by a player who is basically dead and who just sends their remaining stuff to a player of their choosing. As long as they are close enough to death, there's not much that can be said about the legality of the play. When players gang up--even when one of them is very weak--it is difficult for one player to defend again them. I'd say that many games reach a point where 2 or more players realize that one particular person is waaay ahead and will almost certainly win. They may even wish to gang up on the leader. The pred/prey relationship keeps the amount of ganging-up that is possible to a limit. The SC, IMO, just takes the desire to gang-up and instantly enables the kinds of sharing of resources that makes squashing the leader much easier. > As a result, more often > than not I'd surmise, people who benefit from the Succubus Club are doing so > by, essentially, cheating (intentional or no). I think that's going a bit far in my experience. I really don't like the card but I think this is a little strong. BTW, I did play the club in my qualifying deck and my Weenie Potence deck that got to the GenCon finals a couple years ago. It was included basically to contest other SC's--which I did twice. I also rampaged one of them. I also got bit in the arse once when David Tatu played one and his predator passed all his remaining pool and minions to David just before I was going to oust him. Without the Club, my wounded prey would have helped Tatu by just dying slowly and maybe refusing to do anymore transfers. With the Club, he passed 6 or 8 pool and, IIRC, a toropored minion or two to David. -Robert

Derek Ray wrote: > Actually, I sort of like the idea of extorting your predator and prey. It is certainly funny. I dunno if it is actually a good idea, but absolutely entertaining :-) > "Give me 2 pool or I kill Ozmo" is not a good idea, of course, since > Ozmo can cover that immediately. But less threatening minions are good > extortion targets, I'd think. You'd have a much better time trying to extort your predator, but then they are giving you pool, which is counter productive to their goal. On the other hand, getting all their vampires whacked is also counter productive to their goal. But then, if they do anything to you, you are going to kill their vampires anyway. > And from your prey, of course, there's always the hope that he'll > actually PAY you. That'd be funny. =) Yeah, that would be pretty good :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Robert Goudie wrote: > I've usually seen it used by a player who is basically dead and who just sends > their remaining stuff to a player of their choosing. Sure--me too. But this is where the arguable collusion comes in. Yeah, once you are "dead", you can do anything you want, but you are then randomly acting against your own best interest (i.e. staying alive and trying to oust your prey) in the name of someone else, which someone could always argue to be collusion. Say I sit down at a game with a friend of mine who is across the table. I'm losing and close to ousted, so I use my Succubus Club to give my friend all my stuff. I could argue that I'm doing it to help the table against the guy in the lead. Everyone else at the table could argue that I'm doing it 'cause he is my friend, and I'm acting on out of game consideration ("If I can't win, at least my freind can..."), which falls under the VEKN rules on collusion, which is a form of cheating. Yeah, this sort of thing can happen without the Succubus Club, sure, but generally to a much less tangible/significant/concrete effect. > As long as they are > close enough to death, there's not much that can be said about the legality of > the play. I'm sure someone could argue about the legality of anything. And most actions facilitated by SC are something that someone could (and probably should) argue. Yeah, if I'm dying, and I give all my stuff to someone across the table, that may or may not be collusion. What if I give all my stuff to my predator? That is clearly against the spirit of the rules (getting myself killed to bolster my main opponent?), yet may or may not be collusion. What if he is a play group mate of mine? > I'd say that many games reach a point where 2 or more players realize that one > particular person is waaay ahead and will almost certainly win. They may even > wish to gang up on the leader. The pred/prey relationship keeps the amount of > ganging-up that is possible to a limit. The game was specifically designed to minimize king-makerness, which is one of the reasons that VTES is such a good game... > The SC, IMO, just takes the desire to > gang-up and instantly enables the kinds of sharing of resources that makes > squashing the leader much easier. ...yet the Succubus Club is thrown into the mix and its only purpose is to completely circumvent all the anti-king-maker safeguards in the game. VTES is a good multi player game 'because it was designed specifically to minimize the main hazzards of multi player games. Succubus Club just goes and aggrivates them again. How is this good? > I think that's going a bit far in my experience. I really don't like the card > but I think this is a little strong. Certainly my statement was hyperbolic, but not that far off. The VEKN tournament rules include pretty detailed rules to prevent cheating and unsportsmanlike conduct (5.1 and 5.2), including "collusion to alter the results of a game". Acting against your own best interests to aid someone else across the table (or next to you) by giving them all your stuff through the Succubus Club is certainly something that could be argued to be "collusion to alter the results of a game"--why is it ok that if, say, I am winning the game by virtue of good play and a good deck, that someone use the Succubus Club to ruin their own game help someone else defeat me? What if those two people are friends (i.e. have a pre-existing relationship)? What if the guy giving away all the stuff was someone that I had ousted and beat in a previous game? Would I not be justified in calling a judge to arbitrate the deal? Is this something we want to saddle judges with in the first place? > BTW, I did play the club in my qualifying deck and my Weenie Potence deck that > got to the GenCon finals a couple years ago. It was included basically to > contest other SC's--which I did twice. I also rampaged one of them. I also > got bit in the arse once when David Tatu played one and his predator passed > all his remaining pool and minions to David just before I was going to oust > him. Which is what the SC facilitates. It pretty much does nothing *but* facilitate this sort of tom-foolery. If the Succubus Club allowed for very limited trades (say, you could trade 1 vampire for 1 vampire or 1 card in hand for 1 card in hand or 1 non vampire card in play for 1 non vampire card in play), it would still be useful and fun, but it wouldn't allow for the "Hmm. I'm losing. I'm going to randomly give all my pool, vampires, and master cards in play to my predator in exchange for nothing, just 'cause I don't like the guy who is currently in the lead..." that is more often than not the end result of a Succubus Club use. The card is simply inappropriate for serious competetive play. It allows for too concrete an effect to king-making and facilitates/encourages collusion, which the VEKN rules (and the basic VTES rules) go out of their way to limit. The use of the card should be completely over taxing and irritating the hell out of judges, which is something they don't need. It is just a bad card for competetive play. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Ira wrote: > > >>In the meantime, I just refuse to play with the card, and I think >>many players also choose that path. Maybe I'm hurting my chances a >>little by refusing to use a card, but I'll take that cost in exchange >>for a chance to improve the game and lead by example. > > > You aren't really losing out on anything, as the card isn't really that > powerful, but that isn't the point. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it > doesn't, but when it does, it is usually the result of a questionable deal > that is arguably cheating (i.e collusive or unsportsmanlike play). But most > of the time, people don't call over the judge to arbitrate such a deal > (which they should), as it is a pain in the ass. As a result, more often > than not I'd surmise, people who benefit from the Succubus Club are doing so > by, essentially, cheating (intentional or no). "Most of the time" it is used for straightforwardly-legal trades like a pool for a Deflection in hand (for an Ascendance in retrurn) or a pool for a Leather Jacket in play. At least, for some values of "most of the time". If anyone has official stats for "most of the time", let me know. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > "Most of the time" it is used for straightforwardly-legal trades like a > pool for a Deflection in hand (for an Ascendance in retrurn) or a pool for > a Leather Jacket in play. While it is just as likely that your anecdotal evidence is just as valid (or not) as mine, this just isn't my experience (and apprently the collective experience of many folks I have communicated with). I've seen most uses of the Succubus Club border on (if not completely cross) the hairy edge of legality. People don't put the Succubus Club in their deck to trade a card for a pool--they put the Succubus Club in their deck to make significant, game affecting trades (otherwise, the card is generally better off replaced by something else). And if, in fact, the card is used primarily in the way that you seem to observe, how would it be problematic to errata/reprint the card with more significant restrictions, so it could still be used for the legitimate purposes you describe but be greatly limited in its ability to drastically effect a given game (which is what most critics of the card seem to object to--I don't think anyone has a problem with using the Succubus Club to trade a pool for a Deflection card). Perhaps word it such that no single trade can include more than 1 pool, a single card from your hand, or a single card from in play (with all cards that are attatched). Such restrictions would allow using the Succubus Club to trade a pool for a Deflection or a Leather Jacket; it could be used to make "hired hits" (for a single pool or a card or both); it could be used to aid a cross table ally (by giving them a needed defensive card or location). But then it couldn't be used to oust ones self out of spite or collusion. It couldn't be used to make drastic deals that tremendously effect the game. Which is the problem with the card--not the trading of 1 pool for a Leather Jacket. I can't think of a single instance in competetive play where I have seen the Succubus Club used for a mundane, minimal trade (i.e. a pool for a Deflection). I can think of multiple instances where I have seen the Succubus Club used to oust ones-self while giving all of ones stuff and remaining pool to another player. But that is me. > At least, for some values of "most of the time". If anyone has official > stats for "most of the time", let me know. When I come up with the statistics, I'll be sure to forward them :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BBE51218.11F45%pd...@lightlink.com>... > LSJ wrote: > > > "Most of the time" it is used for straightforwardly-legal trades like a > > pool for a Deflection in hand (for an Ascendance in retrurn) or a pool for > > a Leather Jacket in play. I second this observation. However, there is much more to the skillful use of this card that just deals for single pool or single card trades. > While it is just as likely that your anecdotal evidence is just as valid (or > not) as mine, this just isn't my experience (and apprently the collective > experience of many folks I have communicated with). I've seen most uses of > the Succubus Club border on (if not completely cross) the hairy edge of > legality. Again, I think the line you refer to is merely poor play or bad taste and not one of legality. The rules permit such self-ousting Succubbus Club deals if the suiciding Meth has no better alternative (zero vps or zero vps). > People don't put the Succubus Club in their deck to trade a card > for a pool--they put the Succubus Club in their deck to make significant, > game affecting trades (otherwise, the card is generally better off replaced > by something else). I don't understand your point here. I expect all the cards in my deck to have significant game effects otherwise I wouldn't put them in. <snip suggested fix> > I can't think of a single instance in competetive play where I have seen the > Succubus Club used for a mundane, minimal trade (i.e. a pool for a > Deflection). I can think of multiple instances where I have seen the > Succubus Club used to oust ones-self while giving all of ones stuff and > remaining pool to another player. But that is me. Well, allow me to share my wealth of worthless anecdotal experience to counter yours... I have sold on numerous occasions: extra equipment cards on minions, rushes (cross-table and otherwise), "protection" (paying for not rushing your vampire), reactions, and cards from hand (rushes, disciplineless dodges, etc.) I have also made benevolent use of the Succubbus Club by simply donating pool or cards to Methuselahs to help balance the table so one deck doesn't collapse the whole table. For a competitive example: I played Succubbus Club at the 2001 North American Qualifier (see the Path of Blood deck archive, Assamite Sorcerors deck) and I can tell you it got me at least 2 vps that day through careful negotiation and skill, not blind spiteful or stupid trades by a Meth on their way out. As for the self-ousting or spiteful trades, again, I'd submit that most people have a recall bias and only remember the bad times. God knows I only remember when PTO torches Thetmes or Ur-Shulgi and can't think of a single time anyone complained that these PTO's were clogging their hand even though I'm sure it happens with regular occurence.

Aramis wrote: > I second this observation. However, there is much more to the > skillful use of this card that just deals for single pool or single > card trades. Yes, that is true. But the card could still work if it only allowed much more restricted trades. And be less ripe for abuse. > Again, I think the line you refer to is merely poor play or bad taste > and not one of legality. Often it is a question of legality. Or should be. And yes, often it is simply bad play. But the card is one that does nothing but encourage bad play, and is more often than not (according to my own questionable experience) used for nothing but bad play. > The rules permit such self-ousting Succubbus > Club deals if the suiciding Meth has no better alternative (zero vps > or zero vps). That the rules allow such things doesn't mean that it is good for the game. When someone is in an unwinnable situation, the rules say they can kill themselves. Which is *very* different than killing themselves by giving another player everything they own in the process of dying. The card allows for simply too huge a swing, and arbitrarily so. > I don't understand your point here. I expect all the cards in my deck > to have significant game effects otherwise I wouldn't put them in. My point was that LSJ was indicating that most uses of the Succubus Club, in his experience, were completely minimal and mundane (i.e. a pool for a Deflection). If that were what Succubus Club were used for most often, the card would never show up, as that just isn't that useful. People who put Succubus Club in their deck, generally, seem to do so to make vast, sweeping deals; to oust themselves to spite the leader; or to fuel endless table talk discussions about how to balance the table by trading things around. None of these things are good for the game, for my money. > Well, allow me to share my wealth of worthless anecdotal experience to > counter yours... I have sold on numerous occasions: extra equipment > cards on minions, rushes (cross-table and otherwise), "protection" > (paying for not rushing your vampire), reactions, and cards from hand > (rushes, disciplineless dodges, etc.) I have also made benevolent use > of the Succubbus Club by simply donating pool or cards to Methuselahs > to help balance the table so one deck doesn't collapse the whole > table. For a competitive example: I played Succubbus Club at the 2001 > North American Qualifier (see the Path of Blood deck archive, Assamite > Sorcerors deck) and I can tell you it got me at least 2 vps that day > through careful negotiation and skill, not blind spiteful or stupid > trades by a Meth on their way out. I don't doubt that the card gets used for legitimate purpose. I'd gander, however, just as often as not, it does not. And when it does not, it tends to ruin games. It doesn't strike me that the legitimate uses of the card justify the abuses of the card. I accept that the card can be and is often used for completely reasonable trades. But the card allows for, and often gets used for, completely unreasonable trades. While I would be prefectly happy just to see the card removed from competetive play, I'm sure that there is a wording that the card could have that would allow for and encourage "legitimate" trades while greatly reducing the ability to abuse the card. How would this be bad? [ quoted text not captured ]

> Thus, including the Succubus Club in a Rush deck strikes me as kind of > counter productive, more than anything else. I've found it to be useful in Rush decks, more often than not. In a 4 player environment, perhaps less so, but 5 player games open the doors to all kinds of extortion efforts and "hired hits". I'm actually surprised at how easy it is to extort pool with the SC. The choice between losing a minion and losing a couple of pool isn't really a choice at all for most people. However, for what it's worth, more often than not i too have seen the SC used for spiteful self ousts and deals that turn the table completely on it's head. Whether i'm the guy who gets shafted in this deal or not, it inevitably leaves a bad taste in my mouth. noodleboy

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BBE3ED81.11EE3%pd...@lightlink.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] One of the local players has a Thetmes rush deck that uses Succubus club in the reverse way - he'll start his turn and say 'I'm now taking bids for where my next rush goes - who wants to pay me to have Thetmes go pound the vamp of their choice?' He even tells people he'll give discounts if they pick a vamp of his prey or predator. (Though when he decides that Thetmes needs to go obliterate someone of his choosing, he'll refuse to take bids entirely, and he refunds pool the next turn if his rush gets totally thwarted to give people incentive to pay for the service.) While it doesn't always work, it is pretty amusing to watch, and it's a solid deck without the SC - the SC just gets people to pay him pool to go cycle his hand full of combat cards, which seems like a useful trick. > -Peter John Flournoy

John Flournoy wrote: > One of the local players has a Thetmes rush deck that uses Succubus > club in the reverse way - he'll start his turn and say 'I'm now taking > bids for where my next rush goes - who wants to pay me to have Thetmes > go pound the vamp of their choice?' He even tells people he'll give > discounts if they pick a vamp of his prey or predator. (Though when he > decides that Thetmes needs to go obliterate someone of his choosing, > he'll refuse to take bids entirely, and he refunds pool the next turn > if his rush gets totally thwarted to give people incentive to pay for > the service.) I mean, yeah, entertaining and funny and all, but: A) Does it win? B) Does it not just screw up the table dynamic? Even without the Succubus Club, a Rush deck can Rush all over the table as a deal maker. But when they do that, it usually results in the Ruch deck not winning, and someone completely random arbitrarily winning, 'cause the Rush deck helped them do it. While this sort of thisng can certainly be entertaining in casual play, in competetive play, it is just disruptive and tends to ruin games. And the Succubus Club just encourages it. My suggestion for all Rush decks in all situations using Succubus Club or no: KILL YOUR PREY. That is my public service announcement for today. That is all. :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

> My suggestion for all Rush decks in all situations using Succubus Club or > no: > > KILL YOUR PREY. With the Succubbus Club you can kill your prey and get paid for it by his prey (or your predator who doesn't want your minions pointed at him). I think the key lesson to be learned about the Succubbus Club is that you use it, don't let it determine what you do. Ideally you can use the Succubbus Club to get paid for rushes you were going to do anyways. It doesn't always work out that way, but I think you'd be surprised how much *free* pool the SC can generate.

Aramis wrote: > With the Succubbus Club you can kill your prey and get paid for it by > his prey (or your predator who doesn't want your minions pointed at > him). While if it works, more power to you, but I simply can't understand why either of these people would pay you pool to do what you are going to do anyway. Say I'm your grand prey. You say "Give me 2 pool, and I'll attack your predator (i.e. your prey)..." I'm not giving you pool--you are going to attack them anyway. If you say "Hey, predator--give me pool and I won't attack your minions...", your predator will ignore you, as you are going to attack his minions anyway as soon as he starts to hurt you, which is his job in the forst place. If your grand prey *doesn't* give you pool to attack your prey, what are you going to do? Attack *his* vampires? All that does is waste your actions and make it easier for your prey to oust him (i.e. it is counter productive) In the end, I'd think that most people that you threaten will (or should) simply ignore you. > I think the key lesson to be learned about the Succubbus Club > is that you use it, don't let it determine what you do. Ideally you > can use the Succubbus Club to get paid for rushes you were going to do > anyways. How? Jedi mind tricks? If someone says "Hey--give me pool and I'll attack my prey's vampires", I'm not giving them pool. If they threaten to attack me cross table unless I give them pool, I also ignore them (or at least appeal to their sense of logic)--attacking across table to punish people for not paying is not a strategy that leads to winning. It is a strategy that leads to someone else winning. > It doesn't always work out that way, but I think you'd be > surprised how much *free* pool the SC can generate. I'd be surprised if it generated any pool at all. I can't for the life of me figure out why people would pay up in the situations you describe. Rush decks are difficult to win with. They are even more difficult to win with if you waste effort rushing cross table, especially as you are simply making it easier for someone else to win at the same time. Yeah, you could threaten to do this unless people pay you, but if they don't pay, what do you do? If you live up to your threat, you are probably hurting yourself in the long run (wasting actions, incurring wrath, strengthening the position of other players in a way that doesn't benefit you). Are you then going to kill *all* of their vampires? Now that you threatened some guy across the table, he didn't pay up, and you killed his vampire, you don't think for a second that he is now, out of spite, going to Deflect every bleed he can at you or target you with every damaging vote? This is the key to a winning strategy? Make *everyone* mad at you? Again, Rush decks can do this without Succubus Club. And it usually makes them lose. Adding Succubus Club does little more than encourage reckless play, and still doesn't make you win. -Peter

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BBE7E042.12013%pd...@lightlink.com>... > John Flournoy wrote: > > > One of the local players has a Thetmes rush deck that uses Succubus > > club in the reverse way - he'll start his turn and say 'I'm now taking > > bids for where my next rush goes - who wants to pay me to have Thetmes > > go pound the vamp of their choice?' He even tells people he'll give > > discounts if they pick a vamp of his prey or predator. (Though when he > > decides that Thetmes needs to go obliterate someone of his choosing, > > he'll refuse to take bids entirely, and he refunds pool the next turn > > if his rush gets totally thwarted to give people incentive to pay for > > the service.) > > I mean, yeah, entertaining and funny and all, but: > > A) Does it win? Enough to be competitive. The deck is built around Thetmes and a handful of dom/DOM weenies that bleed with Thetmes either cloaking or crushing enough potential blockers to give him numbers or both. Early on, Thetmes gets rented out as a means of his bloating to get more pool while he builds the horde up. It's amazing how often he can convince people to pay him pool. :P The deck's built with the SC as added fun anyway; it's a solid deck even if he doesn't draw the SC. > B) Does it not just screw up the table dynamic? > > Even without the Succubus Club, a Rush deck can Rush all over the table as a > deal maker. But when they do that, it usually results in the Ruch deck not > winning, and someone completely random arbitrarily winning, 'cause the Rush > deck helped them do it. He (Boris) does pay attention to table balance and say 'okay, no rent-a-rush this turn' when he feels it's in his interest not to. (However, this does not make me a fan of SC; I'm with you that it's just generally disruptive in a bad way.) > Peter D Bakija -John Flournoy

On 25 Nov 2003, Peter D Bakija wrote: > Say I'm your grand prey. You say "Give me 2 pool, and I'll attack your > predator (i.e. your prey)..." I'm not giving you pool--you are going > to attack them anyway. If you say "Hey, predator--give me pool and I > won't attack your minions...", your predator will ignore you, as you > are going to attack his minions anyway as soon as he starts to hurt > you, which is his job in the forst place. I don't agree with this. Again, I think your arguments are being limited by a particular playstyle that you can't see past. Of course *ultimately* you will do whatever it is that your deck does to oust your prey (discounting moving the table around, which you really can't discount), but that doesn't mean that you will necessarily do it *right now*. I'm not saying that your way of playing, the "rabid auto-crush", can't be successful, but it is *not* the One True Way. Same deal with the predator. Personally, I *don't* erase my predator backwards at the first sign of a hard bleed. If he's amassed enough resources to go for the one turn kill then, sure, he's due for some trimming. But accepting the fact that your predator is going to do predator things, and that you are going to lose some pool because of it, and being able to not tilt the table out of whack just because you can, is an important step in developing successful rush strategies. Perhaps you have a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy going on? > In the end, I'd think that most people that you threaten will (or > should) simply ignore you. Did you know that the early work in game theory was flawed by the assumption of perfectly rational participants? That it was also flawed by an assumption of perfect knowledge of an opponent's moves and resources? > How? Jedi mind tricks? If someone says "Hey--give me pool and I'll > attack my prey's vampires", I'm not giving them pool. If they threaten > to attack me cross table unless I give them pool, I also ignore them > (or at least appeal to their sense of logic)--attacking across table > to punish people for not paying is not a strategy that leads to > winning. It is a strategy that leads to someone else winning. So you don't think the "carrot and the stick" exist? Have you never extracted a little something from that spare point of KRC damage? You get those things because you are in a position of strength and the stick exists. Other players pretending the stick *doesn't* exist are, arguably, playing in an irrational manner that you claim to dislike. Say I've got rushes out the wazoo, one way or another. Say my prey is *not* playing a weenie deck. In fact, there are no weenie decks on the table, so I've got rushes to spare. If I can expend something I have in abundance, and in return take something away from someone who can't afford to lose it, how is it not "rational" for them to deal? Maybe they don't like it, maybe they think I'm a thug, but other players getting pissy and throwing the game on those grounds is not *my* fault. Nobody throws a hissy about KRC damage, or Parity Shift pool, spreading around outside the pred-prey triangle. What you've got isn't a rational argument, it's an irrational reaction to rush. Once we've shown that irrationality is at the heart of the whole issue, I think you need to go back and re-examine your strategy in light of the possibility that people are going to behave that way. That, and the timing issue, which is probably more key and more objective, but I gotta go. Look forward to your thoughts, David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

Peter D Bakija expounded: > Aramis wrote: > > With the Succubbus Club you can kill your prey and get paid for it by > > his prey (or your predator who doesn't want your minions pointed at > > him). > > While if it works, more power to you, but I simply can't understand > why either of these people would pay you pool to do what you are going > to do anyway. > > Say I'm your grand prey. You say "Give me 2 pool, and I'll attack your > predator (i.e. your prey)..." I'm not giving you pool--you are going > to attack them anyway. If you say "Hey, predator--give me pool and I > won't attack your minions...", your predator will ignore you, as you > are going to attack his minions anyway as soon as he starts to hurt > you, which is his job in the forst place. > > If your grand prey *doesn't* give you pool to attack your prey, what > are you going to do? Attack *his* vampires? All that does is waste > your actions and make it easier for your prey to oust him (i.e. it is > counter productive) > > In the end, I'd think that most people that you threaten will (or > should) simply ignore you. Why should you rush someone other than the person you would rush anyway? Because you will receive pool for it. This could be the way you intend to turn Rush into a game-winning strategy. Why should I pay someone pool to rush someone/not rush me? Maybe I'm playing a very bloaty but slow deck. Maybe I'm all set to do something ver potent next turn but don't have defensive cards right now. Maybe I *want* to give that rush-player some more pool. When the extortion attempt comes I will decide whether I would rather give them some pool or face the rush (if I think the threat is genuine). Suppose someone across the table is looking strong? Should I rush them? I'm not really sure.. let's see if I can extort some pool... no? oh well rush it is then. Perhaps I could threaten to rush someone cross table and lower their blood considerably before they can MTap. Then again maybe I want to pay someone to vote my way in a BloodHunt or PA. Suppose I try to extort someone X-table at the beginning and they refuse? If I then carry out my threat then they won't like me and perhaps everyone will turn against me... then again their predator will be pleased and their prey won't be upset. Meanwhile that's a rush My pred+prey are glad not to have faced. They *might* all gang up on me.. or they might just start paying. The possible uses are endless. Whether they make the card worth having in its current form is a different issue. I'd like to see at least a %- of-pool limit I think but tbh I have never even seen this card.

David Cherryholmes wrote: > I don't agree with this. Again, I think your arguments are being limited > by a particular playstyle that you can't see past. Of course *ultimately* > you will do whatever it is that your deck does to oust your prey > (discounting moving the table around, which you really can't discount), > but that doesn't mean that you will necessarily do it *right now*. I'm > not saying that your way of playing, the "rabid auto-crush", can't be > successful, but it is *not* the One True Way. In terms of use of the Succubus Club, this (i.e. playstyle) strikes me as kind of irrelevant. If I am the predator of a deck that is using SC to try and get me to pay pool lest he attack me, why would I give him pool? He is my prey. It is in my best interest to try and oust him (which giving him pool won't help me do) and his best interest to try and stop me from doing that. Even if I *do* give him pool to not attack his minions, he is just going to sit idly by as I try and oust him and *not* attack my minions, just 'cause I paid him a couple pool? Of course not--as soon as I become inconvinient, he is going to Rush me anyway. And if he doesn't Rush me when I become inconvinient, why am I worred about him rushing me at all? > Same deal with the predator. Personally, I *don't* erase my predator > backwards at the first sign of a hard bleed. Neither do I, but regardless, I can't see how Succubus Club is going to get my predator to give me pool to not attack him. If he gives me pool, and he then becomes a threat, I'm going to attack him. If I don't, I get ousted. I'm going to make a deal with the SC to get myself ousted? Again, what this is going back to is that use of the Succubus Club to generate pool through extortion strikes me as unlikely at best and foolish at worst. I simply can't see why your predator or prey are going to give you pool, and if you are extorting the folks across the table and they don't pay up (and you decide to live up to your threat), you are stuck demolishing the table balance while fending off the wrath of extra players. > Perhaps you have a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy going on? I'm not here discussing Rush strategy. I'm here discussing how I can't see for the life of me why anyone would pay someone with a Succubus Club to not attack them. > Did you know that the early work in game theory was flawed by the > assumption of perfectly rational participants? That it was also flawed by > an assumption of perfect knowledge of an opponent's moves and resources? I figure if I point out that they are being irrational, they might notice :-) > So you don't think the "carrot and the stick" exist? Have you never > extracted a little something from that spare point of KRC damage? You get > those things because you are in a position of strength and the stick > exists. Other players pretending the stick *doesn't* exist are, arguably, > playing in an irrational manner that you claim to dislike. Say I've got > rushes out the wazoo, one way or another. Say my prey is *not* playing a > weenie deck. In fact, there are no weenie decks on the table, so I've got > rushes to spare. If you have actions to spare, why aren't you simply using them to oust your prey? > If I can expend something I have in abundance, and in > return take something away from someone who can't afford to lose it, how > is it not "rational" for them to deal? 'Cause then they are just encouraging you. It strikes me as much more prudent to simply say "Umm, yeah. Kill your prey and leave me alone." And if you go and hose me anyway, I'll do my darndest to make sure you lose with me. I'd do the same to the guy who spends all of his effort randomly (or trying to extort me) hitting me with KRC damage from across the table. > Maybe they don't like it, maybe > they think I'm a thug, but other players getting pissy and throwing the > game on those grounds is not *my* fault. But if you randomly incur the wrath of someone across the table by being a thug, it striks me as perfectly rational for them to throw the game just to make you lose. I know I would. I have before. If I am in a good position, and some random loon from across the table screws my position through either foolish play, spite, or general randomness, I'll certainly punish them in hopes that they won't try it again next time to the next guy. > Nobody throws a hissy about KRC damage, or Parity Shift pool, spreading > around outside the pred-prey triangle. Where did "hissy fit" enter the equation? This being said, I've certainly seen games that completely fell apart due to random KRC damage or Parity Shifting (i.e. the only guy to Paritiy Shift is someone across the table, who then gets parity shifted, and consequently ousted by his predator, who goes on to sweep the table). Happens all the time. > What you've got isn't a rational > argument, it's an irrational reaction to rush. It strikes me as perfectly rational, m'self. I gain nothing by encouraging the random and destructive behavior of people across the table. I gain quite a bit by discouraging it (i.e. maybe it won't effect me). If I have to discourage it through long term strategy, so be it. > Once we've shown that > irrationality is at the heart of the whole issue, I think you need to go > back and re-examine your strategy in light of the possibility that people > are going to behave that way. Giving pool to SC extortionists does little more than encourage them. And probably screws up the whole table in the process. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "The gun is good! The penis is bad!" -Zardoz

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In terms of use of the Succubus Club, this (i.e. playstyle) strikes me as > kind of irrelevant. If I am the predator of a deck that is using SC to try > and get me to pay pool lest he attack me, why would I give him pool? He is > my prey. It is in my best interest to try and oust him (which giving him > pool won't help me do) and his best interest to try and stop me from doing > that. Even if I *do* give him pool to not attack his minions, he is just > going to sit idly by as I try and oust him and *not* attack my minions, just > 'cause I paid him a couple pool? Of course not--as soon as I become > inconvinient, he is going to Rush me anyway. And if he doesn't Rush me when > I become inconvinient, why am I worred about him rushing me at all? Just to take a specious example, but if I'm a vote/bloat predator of a Fatima multirush deck, and good ol' Fatima has an assault rifle, I may very well take the oppurtunity to offer pool to that player to rush my predator, whilst I bloat some. Then, I can either wait until I have... a) enough minions from my bloat to swarm, b) a Protect Thine Own with Fatima's name on it, or c) a Dramatic Upheaval/Kindred Restructure. --Colin McGuigan

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:47:30 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled: [snip] > >Neither do I, but regardless, I can't see how Succubus Club is going to get >my predator to give me pool to not attack him. If he gives me pool, and he >then becomes a threat, I'm going to attack him. If I don't, I get ousted. >I'm going to make a deal with the SC to get myself ousted? I think it's a matter of information. Say your prey is the SC guy. during your discard phase you draw into one of the two Conditionings in your deck. Your prey then asks if you want to pay 1 pool for him to not rush Kurt Strauss. you aggree, because you know next turn you can whack in a solid bleed. Your prey offers this deal because he doesn't know you're a threat yet, and he wants to rush _his_ prey. He only has finite rush, so he can't rush everyone he'd like to. so he gets a pool to not rush one of those potential targets, thus leaving him to go rush one other of those targets. It's a matter of limited information and scarcity of resources (actions). Not everyone can read the minds and hands of other players. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:58:16 -0600, Colin McGuigan <maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> wrote: >Just to take a specious example, but if I'm a vote/bloat predator of a >Fatima multirush deck, and good ol' Fatima has an assault rifle, I may >very well take the oppurtunity to offer pool to that player to rush my >predator, whilst I bloat some. Then, I can either wait until I have... > >a) enough minions from my bloat to swarm, >b) a Protect Thine Own with Fatima's name on it, or >c) a Dramatic Upheaval/Kindred Restructure. Exactly. What you're selling with SC is the guarantee of time, a precious commodity in Jyhad. David Cherryholmes VEKN Prince of Durham, NC

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:47:30 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >In terms of use of the Succubus Club, this (i.e. playstyle) strikes me as >kind of irrelevant. If I am the predator of a deck that is using SC to try >and get me to pay pool lest he attack me, why would I give him pool? You give your prey pool via his SC exactly so that you can continue to flow your bleed or vote game, which he then passively absorbs with this new, phantom pool. Perhaps not totally, but enough that he can focus his rush on his prey, where it belongs, and not waste time rushing backwards. This way you are left with minions, you get to flow your deck, *you actually get to generate pool damage*, and you hope to get lucky/him to get unlucky and do enough to oust him. The alternative is having no minions and thus no game, and you sit there while somebody else kills you, and probably him. >He is >my prey. It is in my best interest to try and oust him (which giving him >pool won't help me do) and his best interest to try and stop me from doing >that. It will help maintain you chance of ousting him hovering somewhere above "zero", which are typically what you get with a back-rushing prey and a predator doing *anything to you at all*. > Even if I *do* give him pool to not attack his minions, he is just >going to sit idly by as I try and oust him and *not* attack my minions, just >'cause I paid him a couple pool? If he were perfectly rational, yes. Of course not when you are in the postition to kill; any sane person defends in that case. If he can't kill his prey, before your deck can kill him even with this bonus pool flowing in, then either his deck sucks and deserves to die, or he had the misfortune to sit next to "anti-x", in which case he wasn't going to win anyway. >Of course not--as soon as I become >inconvinient, he is going to Rush me anyway. And if he doesn't Rush me when >I become inconvinient, why am I worred about him rushing me at all? If your capabilities are so on your sleeve that he can calculate with certainty i.e. no modifiers to bleed, no god-knows-what-vote, no multi-action.... in short, if you are a weenie deck yourself bleeding for one a lot, then yes, it's probably not a workable deal for you. Even then, though, the prey's deck may not be so dully mechanistic. >Neither do I, but regardless, I can't see how Succubus Club is going to get >my predator to give me pool to not attack him. If he gives me pool, and he >then becomes a threat, I'm going to attack him. If I don't, I get ousted. >I'm going to make a deal with the SC to get myself ousted? Look at it this way: how do you feel when a minion bleeds you for one on a turn? I'm usually pretty damn glad, unless I know there are, like, six more coming just like it. So if you cut some deal, whereby you aren't *worse off* than that... like, say, minus that spiffy six cap you just transformed from pool-stuff, then it's a good deal. It's a deal for pool, not minion actions.... you get to do whatever it is you planned to do with that guy. If the dealer wants pool *and* a guarantee of not taking actoins against him, then he might as well say the words "don't be a predator to me" and look like the fool he is. >Again, what this is going back to is that use of the Succubus Club to >generate pool through extortion strikes me as unlikely at best and foolish >at worst. I simply can't see why your predator or prey are going to give you >pool, and if you are extorting the folks across the table and they don't pay >up (and you decide to live up to your threat), you are stuck demolishing the >table balance while fending off the wrath of extra players. Not "demolishing". That hyperbolic attitude is half the problem here. How about whacked for three, or done one point of pool damage to. If that jus auto-decimates their game, then their deck sucked, or they were doomed, it's not your problem. Otherwise, it's no different than KRC, which happens *all the damn time*. >> Perhaps you have a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy going on? > >I'm not here discussing Rush strategy. I'm here discussing how I can't see >for the life of me why anyone would pay someone with a Succubus Club to not >attack them. You can't see it, yet it happens. I also think that stupid shit like "have all my stuff" also happens, which is why I want it nerfed. For example, Joe Churchill played it in the Charleston, SC Storyline in a manner that pretty much exemplifies what a great card it can be i.e. with purpose and moderation. >> So you don't think the "carrot and the stick" exist? Have you never >> extracted a little something from that spare point of KRC damage? You get >> those things because you are in a position of strength and the stick >> exists. Other players pretending the stick *doesn't* exist are, arguably, >> playing in an irrational manner that you claim to dislike. Say I've got >> rushes out the wazoo, one way or another. Say my prey is *not* playing a >> weenie deck. In fact, there are no weenie decks on the table, so I've got >> rushes to spare. > >If you have actions to spare, why aren't you simply using them to oust your >prey? Playing the long game. It's legit, as long as you don't fall victim to your own psychic-ness. >'Cause then they are just encouraging you. It strikes me as much more >prudent to simply say "Umm, yeah. Kill your prey and leave me alone." And if >you go and hose me anyway, I'll do my darndest to make sure you lose with >me. Where's the "lose" coming from, Peter? Do you freak out when you take even a plink from someone cross table? What about when they had to ho it out for the votes? Everybody understands that, why should the rush deck doing what it can, and may have, to do be any different? >I'd do the same to the guy who spends all of his effort randomly (or trying >to extort me) hitting me with KRC damage from across the table. OK, you chuck in the towel a lot quicker than I do. Personally, I look at each turn as a whole new game. [insert Josh chiming in about here] ;) >But if you randomly incur the wrath of someone across the table by being a >thug, it striks me as perfectly rational for them to throw the game just to >make you lose. I know I would. I have before. If I am in a good position, >and some random loon from across the table screws my position through either >foolish play, spite, or general randomness, I'll certainly punish them in >hopes that they won't try it again next time to the next guy. Then you are playing for out of game considerations. Surely you are speaking about casual play? Everything I'm saying is intended in the context of a tournament game. >Where did "hissy fit" enter the equation? The part where you auto-destruct when anything bad happens to you that you didn't account for. Still, it's not really that bad, as I've tried to describe it in terms of mutual benefit and keeping all the decks flowing. >This being said, I've certainly >seen games that completely fell apart due to random KRC damage or Parity >Shifting (i.e. the only guy to Paritiy Shift is someone across the table, >who then gets parity shifted, and consequently ousted by his predator, who >goes on to sweep the table). Happens all the time. Straw Man. Extreme, dumb shit happens all the time. A few pool here, a few there, to avert some greater loss -- the loss you would inflict on them anyway -- is not dumb play. Remember, I started this out saying there was a playstyle you can't see past. >It strikes me as perfectly rational, m'self. I gain nothing by encouraging >the random and destructive behavior of people across the table. I gain quite >a bit by discouraging it (i.e. maybe it won't effect me). If I have to >discourage it through long term strategy, so be it. Your forcing this into a narrower consideration of SC cross-table action. We started out talking about getting pool out of your predator and prey. Shifting goal posts? >Giving pool to SC extortionists does little more than encourage them. And >probably screws up the whole table in the process. I hope I've shown that you can use the SC to construct reasonable strategies. Non-knee jerks would actually be engaging in smart play, at least often enough to warrant its play, if they went along with deals like that, rather than force both decks into extreme postures, all because you pride says you are getting pushed around, even though it's generally less painful that shots straight to the pool. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <sq49svsnj369er1gk...@4ax.com>, david.che...@duke.edu says... Butting in... > You give your prey pool via his SC exactly so that you can continue to > flow your bleed or vote game, which he then passively absorbs with > this new, phantom pool. Perhaps not totally, but enough that he can > focus his rush on his prey, where it belongs, and not waste time > rushing backwards. This can be accomplished by making other sorts of deals though... "Don't bleed me with that guy for 2 turns and he doesn't get rushed." "Send the extra point of KRC damage to my prey or else... " etc. True, unofficial deals don't allow the easy transfer of pool/card control that Succubus Club does, but they also don't allow the "AHAHAHAH I GIVE ALL MY GUYS AND POOL TO MY PREDATOR OWNZOR3D!!!11!!!" I guess if someone can come up with a wording to eliminate the above crap... Suggestions/brainstorms of good wording (just checked and don't seen any in the thread yet)? -- -Snapcase

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Exactly. What you're selling with SC is the guarantee of time, a > precious commodity in Jyhad. But there is no gaurantee. You give them pool, and they may very well kill you anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

Colin McGuigan wrote: > Just to take a specious example, but if I'm a vote/bloat predator of a > Fatima multirush deck, and good ol' Fatima has an assault rifle, I may > very well take the oppurtunity to offer pool to that player to rush my > predator, whilst I bloat some. Then, I can either wait until I have... > > a) enough minions from my bloat to swarm, > b) a Protect Thine Own with Fatima's name on it, or > c) a Dramatic Upheaval/Kindred Restructure. Other than option (c), I can't see why I'd want to give my predator the opportunity to do any of these. And it is perfectly likely that (c) will result in my predator stealing my next VP. Given this, I can't see why I would want to make such a deal, nor can I see why my predator would expect me to live up to such a deal. [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: > I think it's a matter of information. Say your prey is the SC guy. > during your discard phase you draw into one of the two Conditionings > in your deck. Your prey then asks if you want to pay 1 pool for him to > not rush Kurt Strauss. you aggree, because you know next turn you can > whack in a solid bleed. > Your prey offers this deal because he doesn't know you're a threat > yet, Of course you are a threat. You are his predator. It is your job to oust him. It is his job to prevent you from ousting him. [ quoted text not captured ]

Snapcase wrote: > Suggestions/brainstorms of good wording (just checked and don't seen any > in the thread yet)? I like the idea of strictly limiting what can be traded. Something like: "...No trade may include more than 2 pool, 1 card in hand for 1 card in hand, or 1 card in play for 1 card in play." The Succubus Club could then be used for nice, mundane trades (1 pool for a Deflection, say, or 2 pool to not kill my predator's vampire :-), but would not be useable to give all your vampires and pool to your predator. Which would be nice. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Other than option (c), I can't see why I'd want to give my predator the > opportunity to do any of these. And it is perfectly likely that (c) will > result in my predator stealing my next VP. Given this, I can't see why I > would want to make such a deal, nor can I see why my predator would expect > me to live up to such a deal. Continuing the specious example, you may want to do that because you're sure that you'll oust before your predator can do something damaging to you. Perhaps you feel you can oust your prey, but not if you have to split your rushes between your predator and prey. Perhaps your prey is also a vote/bloat deck, and you know that if you don't take down those minions as soon as they pop up, you won't be able to contain it. All sorts of possibilities. Now, if you are truly in a situation where you can take on your predator, and your prey, and perhaps for good measure your grandpredator to keep from ousting your weakened predator, and your grandprey because they're not getting pressure from your prey...then, no, you wouldn't want to make the above deal. Or any deals, for that matter. --Colin McGuigan

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Not "demolishing". That hyperbolic attitude is half the problem here. > How about whacked for three, or done one point of pool damage to. If > that jus auto-decimates their game, then their deck sucked, or they > were doomed, it's not your problem. Otherwise, it's no different than > KRC, which happens *all the damn time*. There is a significant difference between losing 1 pool to a KRC from cross table, and getting minion torpored cross table (which is what you seem to be comparing here). Or are you suggesting that it is common (and sane) to see people randomly focusing maximum KRC damage across the table? > You can't see it, yet it happens. I'm not saying it dosen't happen. I'm just saying I don't understand why people fall for it. One way or the other. If you (my prey) make a deal that I feel is beneficial to me (your predator), sure, I'll take it. By why are you making a deal that is beneficial to me? I'd only expect that you make a deal that is beneficial to you. And if the deal is beneficial to you (my prey), why am I taking it? And once I make the deal, what is to make you keep it? I give you 3 pool to not attack my vampire. You decide that it is in your best interest, for whatever reason, to break the deal immediately. You have gained 3 pool *and* done whatever it is you think is going to help you best. Sounds like a cracking plan to me. Why am I setting myself up for this again? > For example, Joe Churchill played it in the Charleston, SC Storyline > in a manner that pretty much exemplifies what a great card it can be > i.e. with purpose and moderation. I also think the card can be used with purpose and moderation. I don't, however, think that the fact that it can be used with purpose and moderation justifies that stupid crap that it can be used for. > Where's the "lose" coming from, Peter? From being put into a situation where you are losing. Sure, if some SC enabled whack job decides to rush me cross table, and it doesn't really do anything to my game, I'll probably just go on about my buisness (although I'll certainly encourage his death, if for no other reason than to tie down a loose cannon). But if I'm suddenly in a losing position due to the random, arbitrary actions from some whack job across the table, I'll certainly take him with me. > Do you freak out when you take > even a plink from someone cross table? If I think it will help my position, I might very well... > What about when they had to ho > it out for the votes? Everybody understands that, why should the rush > deck doing what it can, and may have, to do be any different? 'Cause again, taking a 1 pool hit from a KRC is vastly different than having a vampire torporized. > OK, you chuck in the towel a lot quicker than I do. Personally, I > look at each turn as a whole new game. I chuck in the towel when it is time to chuck in the towel. If it isn't time to chuck in the towel, there is no chucking. > Then you are playing for out of game considerations. Surely you are > speaking about casual play? Everything I'm saying is intended in the > context of a tournament game. In the context of a tournament game, if some wack job across the table demolishes my position, I'll take him down with me. The pure in game consideration is "spite". I'm a big fan. > The part where you auto-destruct when anything bad happens to you that > you didn't account for. Which was indicated where, exactly? > Your forcing this into a narrower consideration of SC cross-table > action. We started out talking about getting pool out of your > predator and prey. Shifting goal posts? Nah. We started out talking about how Succubus Club is inappropriate for competeive play. Getting pool out of your predator and prey was used as an example of how it might be key to a viable strategy--I don't buy it is a viable strategy, as I don't think it could or should work. But that is me. But regardless, that SC *can* be used for a viable, reasonable strategy (which I do not discount as a possibility) doesn't mean that it is good thing in competetive play. > I hope I've shown that you can use the SC to construct reasonable > strategies. I never disputed that it could be used to construct a reasonable strategy (this being said, I don't think using it to try and extort pool from your predator/prey with a Rush deck is such a strategy). Trading 1 pool for a Deflection is a reasonable strategy. If the card allowed this while not allowing "I give all my pool and vampires to my predator!", it would still be useable to construct a reasonable strategy. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:27:19 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled: >salem wrote: > >> I think it's a matter of information. Say your prey is the SC guy. >> during your discard phase you draw into one of the two Conditionings >> in your deck. Your prey then asks if you want to pay 1 pool for him to >> not rush Kurt Strauss. you aggree, because you know next turn you can >> whack in a solid bleed. >> Your prey offers this deal because he doesn't know you're a threat >> yet, > >Of course you are a threat. You are his predator. It is your job to oust >him. It is his job to prevent you from ousting him. so are you going to pound every single vampire of your predator every time just because they're there? i thought you favoured going full-forward, and not really backward unless you see someone that needs to have a terrible accident? if you are playing full-forward, but your predator doesn't know that's how you're going to play, why not ask him for a pool to do what you're going to do anyway? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:31:22 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled: >Snapcase wrote: > >> Suggestions/brainstorms of good wording (just checked and don't seen any >> in the thread yet)? > >I like the idea of strictly limiting what can be traded. Something like: > >"...No trade may include more than 2 pool, 1 card in hand for 1 card in >hand, or 1 card in play for 1 card in play." it should be written so that i can trade a card in play for a pool, etc. maybe "...No trade may include more than 2 pool, and/or 2 cards in play total from either methuselah". or something. that way i could actually swap an ivory bow for a Laptop computer, or sell an ivory bow and IR goggles for 2 pool, or make some such convoluted combination including cards from hand (which i don't think need to be limited). and at most i can give some guy 2 pool and 2 vampires. which is still harsh but not as bad as what i imagine has been happeneing (but i haven't been seeing...i suddened the SC last time i saw it played in a tournament. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:23:30 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled: >David Cherryholmes wrote: > >> Exactly. What you're selling with SC is the guarantee of time, a >> precious commodity in Jyhad. > >But there is no gaurantee. You give them pool, and they may very well kill >you anyway. once. and then it's unlikely that anyone at that table will take the deal again. not to mention the amount of those crazy 'mah word is mah bond' people out there... [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: > once. and then it's unlikely that anyone at that table will take the > deal again. not to mention the amount of those crazy 'mah word is mah > bond' people out there... Sure. It works once. That is all it has to work. Get ~3 pool for playing a Master card, which isn't a bad deal. And maybe it'll work to trade something later that doesn't require an issue of trust. And still, when it all goes in the crapper, you can give all your remaining pool and stuff to someone else :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: > so are you going to pound every single vampire of your predator every > time just because they're there? Nope. > i thought you favoured going > full-forward, and not really backward unless you see someone that > needs to have a terrible accident? Correct. > if you are playing full-forward, but your predator doesn't know that's > how you're going to play, why not ask him for a pool to do what you're > going to do anyway? 'Cause he has no incentive to give it to me. So I have no incentive to use the card in my deck for such purposes. If my prey the Rush deck asks me for 3 pool to not kill my vampires, I'm not giving it to him, as he is going to kill my vampires anyway as soon as I become a significant threat. I'd expect him to realize this and thus not bother asking. [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: > it should be written so that i can trade a card in play for a pool, > etc. Agreed. I'm sure there is much better wording than that I suggested that would accomplish pretty much what we all seem to think it should. [ quoted text not captured ]

> on, Thetmes gets rented out as a means of his bloating to get more > pool while he builds the horde up. It's amazing how often he can > convince people to pay him pool. :P Ah, I miss games at D&B in Chicago! :) So many creative decks and a strong playgroup! Boris definitely makes some crazy decks. "Why do you want a bunch of Siren's Lures, Boris?" "Because I'm making a DoC combat deck." Peter, you must play with the best players in the world, because you seem to think that players don't make mistakes nor act irrationally/stupidly. From my experience playing this game, many of the wins are attributable to someone making a mistake. My personal goal regarding Succubus Club is to get it banned from tournament play, or at least reigned in. In my mind, it's clear that tournament games would be improved with its absence. Ira

> once. and then it's unlikely that anyone at that table will take the > deal again. not to mention the amount of those crazy 'mah word is mah > bond' people out there... It is not crazy to always keep one's word. There are tangible short-term and long-term benefits of everyone knowing that you'll oust yourself if that's part of the deal. It allows for better dealmaking opportunities, and also will generally cause someone in a dead or already won position to be favorable to you (or at least not spiteful.) I have gotten many extra VPs because someone in a dead position decided not to spite me, because I have played "honorably." Of course, I probably also could have gotten some extra VPs by breaking my word at some point, but how many times can I do that before it stops working? Lying will just get weaker and weaker, yet always telling the truth will just make my reputation stronger and stronger. On that note, Robert Goudie and Stuart Smith are both willing to break their word to get a GW. :) A rules question: if I have a leather jacket in play and I use Succubus Club to give it to another Methuselah, how do they make use of it? They don't get to put it on one of their minions, do they? Perhaps they can take an action to move it to one of their minions? Ira

Ira wrote: > A rules question: if I have a leather jacket in play and I use > Succubus Club to give it to another Methuselah, how do they make use > of it? They don't get to put it on one of their minions, do they? > Perhaps they can take an action to move it to one of their minions? When control of an equipment card, a retainer, or an on-minion location changes, in an ambiguous fashion (that is, the effect that changes control doesn't also explicitly say where to move the card, as in the case of a Succubus Club trade), the new controller puts the card on one of her ready minions. When control of any other card is changed, the card doesn't move (unless the effect changing control says to move it). -- 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/

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Snapcase wrote: > > >>Suggestions/brainstorms of good wording (just checked and don't seen any >>in the thread yet)? > > > I like the idea of strictly limiting what can be traded. Something like: > > "...No trade may include more than 2 pool, 1 card in hand for 1 card in > hand, or 1 card in play for 1 card in play." > > The Succubus Club could then be used for nice, mundane trades (1 pool for a > Deflection, say, or 2 pool to not kill my predator's vampire :-), but would > not be useable to give all your vampires and pool to your predator. Which > would be nice. Two pool seems pretty low for, say, Arika with a Flamethrower. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ira wrote: > Peter, you must play with the best players in the world, because you > seem to think that players don't make mistakes nor act > irrationally/stupidly. From my experience playing this game, many of > the wins are attributable to someone making a mistake. Oh, sure. Mine too. This is just one of those things that strikes me as really just something that wouldn't happen if everyone was moderately logical (i.e. your predator or prey giving you pool for SC extortion). > My personal goal regarding Succubus Club is to get it banned from > tournament play, or at least reigned in. In my mind, it's clear that > tournament games would be improved with its absence. Yup. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Two pool seems pretty low for, say, Arika with a Flamethrower. You mean to trade 2 pool for Arika with a Flame Thrower? Yes, yes it would be. I don't want people trading Arika with a Flame Thrower. If you want an Arika with a Flame Thower, make your own. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > LSJ wrote: >>Two pool seems pretty low for, say, Arika with a Flamethrower. > I don't want people trading Arika with a Flame Thrower. Is the line being drawn for purposes of preventing abuse or for purposes of what Peter doesn't want? [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Is the line being drawn for purposes of preventing abuse or > for purposes of what Peter doesn't want? Apparently, no line is being drawn at all. But assuming that a line can be drawn, it needs to be drawn somewhere. My suggestion of 2 pool was just that--an arbitrary suggestion that, clearly, is based on what *I* think would stop abuse. What I want is the prevention of abuse. So yes, the hypothetical line being drawn is being drawn for the purposes of what I don't want. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I thought you were trying to find a solution that would stop what you consider abuse but not restrict legit use. Paying 10 for Arika is a legit trade. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > There is a significant difference between losing 1 pool to a KRC from cross > table, and getting minion torpored cross table (which is what you seem to be > comparing here). Or are you suggesting that it is common (and sane) to see > people randomly focusing maximum KRC damage across the table? I'm not defending cross-table actions. It happens, and sometimes it's even defensible, but it's so imbedded in the specifics of the game that it's difficult to talk about in general terms. Extracting pool from your predator or prey, OTOH, seems to lend itself better to a general treatment. Perhaps I did wander off into the cross-table analysis in responding to you, but I think it's safe to agree that it's generally a bad idea. > I'm not saying it dosen't happen. I'm just saying I don't understand why > people fall for it. One way or the other. Because paying a pool or two to not be rushed *right now* is reasonable. I know you don't accept that, but plenty of people do, and I doubt they are all just playing poorly. > If you (my prey) make a deal that I feel is beneficial to me (your > predator), sure, I'll take it. By why are you making a deal that is > beneficial to me? I'd only expect that you make a deal that is beneficial to > you. And if the deal is beneficial to you (my prey), why am I taking it? Because the game occurs in discrete steps. If you insist on reducing it to an overall description then, yes, overall dealing with your prey and predator is futile. But if you are willing to reduce your level of description to individual turns, then negotiating a particular turn to go one or the other is reasonable. > And once I make the deal, what is to make you keep it? I give you 3 pool to > not attack my vampire. You decide that it is in your best interest, for > whatever reason, to break the deal immediately. You have gained 3 pool *and* > done whatever it is you think is going to help you best. Sounds like a > cracking plan to me. Why am I setting myself up for this again? This has more to do with dealing in general than anything specific to Succubus Club. I'm not a huge fan of deals myself, but some people are, and they *definitely* happen in the game. Given that they happen anyway, SC enabling deals that otherwise couldn't be made (the "reasonable" kind) isn't intrinsically bad. > I also think the card can be used with purpose and moderation. I don't, > however, think that the fact that it can be used with purpose and moderation > justifies that stupid crap that it can be used for. Just to reiterate, neither do I. > From being put into a situation where you are losing. This is semantical, but it's pointing to what might be an interesting feature of how people view the game. "Are losing" is a process, "lost" is a state. Certainly no one will accept "lost" as a condition for anything, but "losing" is really nothing more than a perception, and one that you might even find benefit in having other people percieve. Further, since you are playing towards a state, which by definition hasn't been readched yet, there's always the possiblity of turning "moving towards losing" to "moving towards winning". Therefore, it is not inherently irrational to deal in such a way that you appear to be "losing". I respect you highly as a player, but not everyone plays with decks, or in metagames, where it is clear what each deck is going to be capable of. A lot of your arguments seem predicated upon that belief. It's another form of falling victim to your own psychic-ness. > Nah. We started out talking about how Succubus Club is inappropriate for > competeive play. Getting pool out of your predator and prey was used as an > example of how it might be key to a viable strategy--I don't buy it is a > viable strategy, as I don't think it could or should work. But that is me. Exactly. Cross-table highjinks aren't within the scope of the discussion. > But regardless, that SC *can* be used for a viable, reasonable strategy > (which I do not discount as a possibility) doesn't mean that it is good > thing in competetive play. It's bad for competitive play b/c of the "have all my stuff" effect. Getting a pool not to rush someone is perfectly reasonable. -- David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

(Ira) wrote: > It is not crazy to always keep one's word. There are tangible > short-term and long-term benefits of everyone knowing that you'll oust > yourself if that's part of the deal. It allows for better dealmaking > opportunities, and also will generally cause someone in a dead or > already won position to be favorable to you (or at least not > spiteful.) I have gotten many extra VPs because someone in a dead > position decided not to spite me, because I have played "honorably." > Of course, I probably also could have gotten some extra VPs by > breaking my word at some point, but how many times can I do that > before it stops working? Lying will just get weaker and weaker, yet > always telling the truth will just make my reputation stronger and > stronger. *shakes head* You people really need to play Diplomacy a few times. Here's the thing. If someone wants to make a deal that involves a mutually beneficial, simple transaction than I'm game. However, if someone tries VP splitting or some such nonsense or some cockamamie, one-sided deal, then they're putting their ass in the wind and I'll screw them every time as soon it serves me to do so. > On that note, Robert Goudie and Stuart Smith are both willing to > break their word to get a GW. :) As well they should be. The goal of the game is to win, not to prove how honest you are. Regards, Noal

> I also think the card can be used with purpose and moderation. I don't, > however, think that the fact that it can be used with purpose and moderation > justifies that stupid crap that it can be used for. Most cards that can be used with purpose and moderation can also be used irrationally/stupidly, again, the problem is with the player, not the card. For example... If someone PTO's cross-table so they can voter-cap it, I would say that was a stupid play, but is PTO not appropriate for competitive play simply because it allows such a big cross-table move (burning a vampire instead of just combat)? If PTO is appropriate for competitive play despite the above example, why is the SC inappropriate for competitive play when it allows the same cross-table action for a couple of pool (just like voter-cap)? Also if the self-ousting is your problem with the card... If someone calls Dramatic Upheaval and then transfers out to their new predator, just to spite someone at the table who worked hard for their VP, is that any less inappropriate for competitive play than SC? At least when they give their pool to someone else, the predator still gets the VP. Other cards are capable of just as big effects as SC (although it is up there in the power curve), but we allow them in competitive play. I'm not seeing a rational distinction yet between these cards and SC.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3FC4C277...@white-wolf.com>... > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > What I want is the prevention of abuse. So yes, the hypothetical line being > > drawn is being drawn for the purposes of what I don't want. > > I thought you were trying to find a solution that would stop what > you consider abuse but not restrict legit use. Paying 10 for Arika is a > legit trade. Not necessarily... for vampires like Arika, there may not be any legitimate trades. It's certainly possible to argue that no trade for anything worth more than 2 (or 3 or 4, perhaps) pool is really legitimately good for the game, in that trading things that are that valuable is pretty likely to screw up the balance of the game. Yes, there are always ways for players to make foolish decisions and do things that are bad for the game. But as Pete has been saying, that doesn't mean we need cards like Succubus Club around to make it even easier for dumb things to happen. Josh (posting from google for a few days (when posting at all))

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:52:38 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> scrawled: >Peter D Bakija wrote: >> Snapcase wrote: >> >> >>>Suggestions/brainstorms of good wording (just checked and don't seen any >>>in the thread yet)? >> >> >> I like the idea of strictly limiting what can be traded. Something like: >> >> "...No trade may include more than 2 pool, 1 card in hand for 1 card in >> hand, or 1 card in play for 1 card in play." >> >> The Succubus Club could then be used for nice, mundane trades (1 pool for a >> Deflection, say, or 2 pool to not kill my predator's vampire :-), but would >> not be useable to give all your vampires and pool to your predator. Which >> would be nice. > >Two pool seems pretty low for, say, Arika with a Flamethrower. You could run the trade over several turns, if someone for some reason was happy to sell off their Arika with a Flamethrower. (Not that i see the need for change, but i am happy to voice opinions about how to clarify any changes that might be made :) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:bb705c59.03112...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Ira, if ever you needed an example that deal-making reputation isn't ruined by deal-breaking, remember that I broke a deal with you and ousted you and then two rounds later, in the finals, you made a deal with me. End of story. Noal has it exactly right. The first time I broke a deal is when Paul Johnson threatened to life boon my first prey (Paul was my grand-prey) and oust himself in the process if I didn't give him 3 turns before I started on him. I didn't appreciate the threat. So I accepted his deal and then ousted him right after ousting my prey. What you haven't realized yet is that your good reputation can be a problem for you. In my above example, Paul could always bully you with such threats because he knows you'll keep your word. With me, he won't bother threatening because he can't gain by it. -Robert

Joshua Duffin wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3FC4C277...@white-wolf.com>... >>I thought you were trying to find a solution that would stop what >>you consider abuse but not restrict legit use. Paying 10 for Arika is a >>legit trade. > > Not necessarily... for vampires like Arika, there may not be any > legitimate trades. It's certainly possible to argue that no trade for > anything worth more than 2 (or 3 or 4, perhaps) pool is really > legitimately good for the game, in that trading things that are that > valuable is pretty likely to screw up the balance of the game. It's "possible" to argue anything, as evidence on this group will bear out. The argument above is spurious, however. Paying 11 pool for Arika is Legit (that's what the first player to bring her out does, typically). Making transfers does no screw up the balance of the game. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > I thought you were trying to find a solution that would stop what > you consider abuse but not restrict legit use. Correct. The only reasonable way to do this, as far as I can see (as by reasonable, I mean non ambigiously and with limited wordage) is by rewording the card to include hard, strict limits on what could be traded, including a maximum pool limit (as one of the largest abuses of SC seems to stem from arbitrarily ousting one's self by giving away all your pool when you are in a losing position). With hard, unambigious limits, there is no SC hanky-panky that results in needing arbitration and taxing the judges. Or at least much less. >Paying 10 for Arika is a > legit trade. As Josh pointed out, not necessarily. Giving someone Arika with a flame thrower could be a *huge* swing in power that could be seen as nothing more than collusion. And if 10 pool is legitimate for such a trade, and the SC allows for such a trade, how do you keep someone from trading 10 pool for, say, a Short Term Investement when it only has 1 counter and they only have 10 pool? Yes, limiting trades to a maximum of, say, 2 pool (or 1 or 3 or whatever) would prevent trading Arika with a Flamethrower for 10 pool (which could be argued to be a legitimate trade). But that strikes me as perfectly reasonable--large legitimate trades are removed as a possibility, which is sad, but large, preposterous trades that completely throw the balance of the game and are arguably the result of collusion are removed as a possibility too. Which is only good. If strict limits are put on the card, there is always going to be a trade that seems legitimate, yet is outside the realm of what the card permits. If the upper limit of pool being traded is, say, 2, then yeah, you can't make the arguably legitimate trade of Arika and a Flamethrower for 10 pool. But if the upper limit of pool being traded away is set at 10, then you couldn't make the arguably legitimate trade of Arika, a Flame Thrower, The Rack, a Flak Jacket, The Eye of Hazimel, a Sport Bike, The Soul Gem, and a Assault Rifle for 15 pool, which also seems like a legitimate trade. Which is sad, but an unambigious line needs to be set somewhere if the card is to be reigned in. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > LSJ wrote: >>I thought you were trying to find a solution that would stop what >>you consider abuse but not restrict legit use. > > Correct. The only reasonable way to do this, as far as I can see (as > by reasonable, I mean non ambigiously and with limited wordage) is by > rewording the card to include hard, strict limits on what could be > traded, including a maximum pool limit (as one of the largest abuses > of SC seems to stem from arbitrarily ousting one's self by giving away > all your pool when you are in a losing position). With hard, > unambigious limits, there is no SC hanky-panky that results in needing > arbitration and taxing the judges. Or at least much less. And so I was pointing out how your proposed line failed at that - that it failed to allow some instances of legit use. Restricting trades to "one card in hand for one card in hand" only would also curb what you perceive as abuse, but it would also disallow some instances of legit use. >>Paying 10 for Arika is a >>legit trade. > > As Josh pointed out, not necessarily. Giving someone Arika with a > flame thrower could be a *huge* swing in power that could be seen as > nothing more than collusion. And if 10 pool is legitimate for such a > trade, and the SC allows for such a trade, how do you keep someone > from trading 10 pool for, say, a Short Term Investement when it only > has 1 counter and they only have 10 pool? 1) As I pointed out to Josh, paying 11 for Arika with 11 blood is legit, unambiguously. 2) The proposed line doesn't prohibit paying 1 pool for Arika with 11 blood and a Flamethrower. 3) The problem you note with STI is exactly the problem being illustrated: that you cannot make a "hard, explicit" limit on what you perceive as abusive trades without also disallowing some instances of legit trades. > Yes, limiting trades to a maximum of, say, 2 pool (or 1 or 3 or > whatever) would prevent trading Arika with a Flamethrower for 10 pool > (which could be argued to be a legitimate trade). But that strikes me > as perfectly reasonable--large legitimate trades are removed as a > possibility, which is sad, but large, preposterous trades that > completely throw the balance of the game and are arguably the result > of collusion are removed as a possibility too. Which is only good. So trading 1 pool for Arika with a Flamethrower is legit in your eyes, but trading 10 pool for her is not? > If strict limits are put on the card, there is always going to be a > trade that seems legitimate, yet is outside the realm of what the card > permits. If the upper limit of pool being traded is, say, 2, then That's the point, yes. > yeah, you can't make the arguably legitimate trade of Arika and a > Flamethrower for 10 pool. But if the upper limit of pool being traded > away is set at 10, then you couldn't make the arguably legitimate > trade of Arika, a Flame Thrower, The Rack, a Flak Jacket, The Eye of > Hazimel, a Sport Bike, The Soul Gem, and a Assault Rifle for 15 pool, > which also seems like a legitimate trade. Which is sad, but an > unambigious line needs to be set somewhere if the card is to be > reigned in. Unambiguous line that actually restricts all trades that would be perceived as abusive in your eyes: "only cards in hand for an equal number of cards in hand." That way, paying 1 pool for Arika with a Flamethrower is not possible. I can't think of many other hard limits that would restrict it. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3FC77169...@white-wolf.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] The question is also: what do we prefer? Do we prefer to have a card that _can_ be abused, or do we prefer to have that card restricted, even at the cost of "legitime" possibilities of the card? Personally, i prefer the second. At least, in this case. For me, the problem is not only that it _can_ be abused. Another problem for me is that every game i have yet been in with this card being played turned into ... somewhat different, but not VTES, if you know what i mean. I would be very glad if only card(s) in hand could be exchanged. Not too bad either for a location that costs 0 pool anyway.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3FC740D3...@white-wolf.com>... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3FC4C277...@white-wolf.com>... > >>I thought you were trying to find a solution that would stop what > >>you consider abuse but not restrict legit use. Paying 10 for Arika is a > >>legit trade. > > > > Not necessarily... for vampires like Arika, there may not be any > > legitimate trades. It's certainly possible to argue that no trade for > > anything worth more than 2 (or 3 or 4, perhaps) pool is really > > legitimately good for the game, in that trading things that are that > > valuable is pretty likely to screw up the balance of the game. > > It's "possible" to argue anything, as evidence on this group will bear out. > > The argument above is spurious, however. > > Paying 11 pool for Arika is Legit (that's what the first player to bring > her out does, typically). Making transfers does no screw up the balance > of the game. Oh, now who's being spurious? :-) Spending 11 pool to influence out Arika is not equivalent to paying *another player* 11 pool for an Arika already in the ready region. And making transfers *can* screw up the balance of a game. Have you never seen a player transfer himself out? Anyway, I think you're right that it's not possible to rewrite Succubus Club so as to only prohibit illegitimate uses, without affecting fair uses at all. But I agree with Peter and Angus that Succubus Club has so much abusive potential that it's worth losing "some" legitimate uses of the card in order to restrict the abusive possibilities. Josh stupid google groups, somehow crashing internet explorer... probably the lazy computer's fault... or, might as well blame microsoft...

LSJ wrote: > I can't think of many other hard limits that would restrict it. All things being equal, I think you are probably correct. So just ban the damn thing. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Because paying a pool or two to not be rushed *right now* is > reasonable. I know you don't accept that, but plenty of people do, and > I doubt they are all just playing poorly. I suppose that I'm constantly looking that this from the angle of "I could give you pool not to Rush me, but you are eventually going to Rush me anyway", but I figure if you are going to trust your prey not to break a deal for the short term, it might be reasonable. > It's bad for competitive play b/c of the "have all my stuff" effect. > Getting a pool not to rush someone is perfectly reasonable. Ok. Seems like a valid argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3FC740D3...@white-wolf.com>... >>Joshua Duffin wrote: >>>LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3FC4C277...@white-wolf.com>... >>>>I thought you were trying to find a solution that would stop what >>>>you consider abuse but not restrict legit use. Paying 10 for Arika is a >>>>legit trade. >>> >>>Not necessarily... for vampires like Arika, there may not be any >>>legitimate trades. It's certainly possible to argue that no trade for >>>anything worth more than 2 (or 3 or 4, perhaps) pool is really >>>legitimately good for the game, in that trading things that are that >>>valuable is pretty likely to screw up the balance of the game. >> >>It's "possible" to argue anything, as evidence on this group will bear out. >> >>The argument above is spurious, however. >> >>Paying 11 pool for Arika is Legit (that's what the first player to bring >>her out does, typically). Making transfers does no screw up the balance >>of the game. > > Oh, now who's being spurious? :-) Not I. > Spending 11 pool to influence out Arika is not equivalent to paying > *another player* 11 pool for an Arika already in the ready region. It is equivalent to transfering Arika out yourself instead of the player whom you are paying. Net: You are down 11 pool and have Arika. The only difference is that someone is down a master phase action and a card slot (to play Succubus Club) and someone (possibly the same person) is down 11 transfers. Those two combined are hardly in the league of unbalanced, esp. when they are divided among the two players. > And making transfers *can* screw up the balance of a game. Have you > never seen a player transfer himself out? Different topic. But, as players are allowed to transfer out in the game (ptw stuff here), paying 11 for Arika would have to rise above that level of disturbance to qualify as upsetting the balance of a game in which transferring out is part of the notion of the balance ofthe game. > Anyway, I think you're right that it's not possible to rewrite > Succubus Club so as to only prohibit illegitimate uses, without > affecting fair uses at all. But I agree with Peter and Angus that > Succubus Club has so much abusive potential that it's worth losing > "some" legitimate uses of the card in order to restrict the abusive > possibilities. That's the point. Just tyring to get the conversation on the constructive level. Big picture and all that. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 26 Nov 2003 09:10:19 -0800, came...@hotmail.com (Aramis) wrote: >> I also think the card can be used with purpose and moderation. I don't, >> however, think that the fact that it can be used with purpose and moderation >> justifies that stupid crap that it can be used for. > >Most cards that can be used with purpose and moderation can also be >used irrationally/stupidly, again, the problem is with the player, not >the card. For example... > >If someone PTO's cross-table so they can voter-cap it, I would say >that was a stupid play, but is PTO not appropriate for competitive >play simply because it allows such a big cross-table move (burning a >vampire instead of just combat)? Yes. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

Peter D Bakija expounded: > LSJ wrote: > > > I can't think of many other hard limits that would restrict it. > > All things being equal, I think you are probably correct. So just ban the > damn thing. You can limit the pool transferred as a proportion of total pool. You can include any of the following criteria: Pool/Blood Cost of Cards Pool Cards Type of Cards Capacity of Vampires Blood on Vampires Life of Allies/Retainers I'm sure there are more. "No vampires over capacity 6 and no equipment that costs more than 3 pool" -would cover the Arika+Flamethrower very thoroughly without completely annihilating legitimate trades. I agree that it would restrict some *currently* legitimate trades but I agree that this is a worthwhile cost; if people really want to it is possible to contruct trades over multiple turns. I'd also like to see some limit on giving things away "the total pool cost cards in play and pool given by one player my not exceed the total received by more than X pool" or something. I don't think it can be made to 'work' without a lot of text.

"Timlagor" <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> kirjoitti viestissä news:MPG.1a39420ac...@news.freeserve.com... > Pool/Blood Cost of Cards > Pool > Cards > Type of Cards > Capacity of Vampires > Blood on Vampires > Life of Allies/Retainers > > I'm sure there are more. How about unique items? Hard to imagine Lambach trading the Femur of Toomler away for a shiny piece of 44. magnum., really. Or anything else, for that matter.