Table Balance and the New Banned List

I'm starting a new thread because I know the announcement thread is just going to keep filling up with both complaints and praise, and I want to take the discussion in another (less argumentative) direction. I'm also thinking about a reason given by LSJ on the Conclave list and bringing it here because that's not the place for ongoing discussion. Specifically, he said that DU and KR violate the fundamental structure of the game: the predator/prey relationship. Now in my mind, V:TES is about much more than this relationship - it has always been and will continue to be a game about table balance because of its multi-player nature. Table balance as a game structure does not go away because of the banning of table-switch cards, but it does change SIGNIFICANTLY (or at least I think so). So I want to hear discussion about how table-balancing strategy changes. Here are some initial thoughts to spark discussion: In a 5-player game, if you can survive and oust your prey before time, you can still come in 2nd as opposed to 1st, but there are now fewer ways for this to happen. A 3/2 split only occurs if you allow your prey to run away with the table (and if you do, you're not likely to split 3/2), and there are just a couple of ways to end up with 1.5 while someone else has 2 or 2.5. How much less will people worry about really strong decks across the table? Does deal-making become more formulaic? (e.g. - always favoring your grandpredator over your grandprey because of the point spread) Because of the more pressing need to specifically slow down your prey more than you slow down others, I wonder if we'll see a resurgence in Life Boon. And perhaps this even makes Extremis Boon a more viable prayer card. Or does it? Were those cards more often tied to table-switching? Does this update redeem or make worse some of the classic "bad play" styles (such as irresponsible bleed)? I can see arguments both ways, so I'm curious what others think. What are some of the other strategies that change or improve because of this new environment? Eric Simon Prince of Chicago

On 4 Dec 2004 06:09:20 -0800, Eric Simon <vol...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I'm also thinking about a reason given by LSJ on the Conclave list and > bringing it here because that's not the place for ongoing discussion. > Specifically, he said that DU and KR violate the fundamental structure > of the game: the predator/prey relationship. That's a good argument. I think however that the next step will be to allow the targets of political actions to block those actions instead of the neighbors, because having a meat shield in between also violates the predator-prey relationship (basically a crippled prey cannot and will not defend against actions directed against his or her current prey, even if he or she no longer has a chance of winning said game). -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> a écrit dans le message de news:opsihmfm...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] sorry but i think it's one of the worst argument ever. so many things already break the predator / prey relationship. Why penalize politics, rather than bum's rush or kindred spirits ? i'm curious to know. i like politics because it requires skill and timing and not just the consecutive slapping of 4 obf cards to make a bleed through.

Reyda wrote: > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> a écrit dans le message de > news:opsihmfm...@news.chello.hu... >> >>That's a good argument. I think however that the next step will be to >>allow the targets of political actions to block those actions instead >>of the neighbors, because having a meat shield in between also violates >>the predator-prey relationship (basically a crippled prey cannot and >>will not defend against actions directed against his or her current >>prey, even if he or she no longer has a chance of winning said game). > > > sorry but i think it's one of the worst argument ever. > so many things already break the predator / prey relationship. > Why penalize politics, rather than bum's rush or kindred spirits ? > i'm curious to know. > Huh? In what way is a Parity Shift/Kine/Conservative crossable less crossable than Bum's/Nose/Ambush crossable? To make it worse, how much more often don't we see pool-damaging votes go crossable than rushes? Main reason being too many titles hitting the table creating the need for dealing with those votes. "Two in your prey and two in mine." Been there, done that, got the Game Win. Sten During

Sten During wrote: > votes go crossable than rushes? Main reason being too many titles > hitting the table creating the need for dealing with those votes. > "Two in your prey and two in mine." Been there, done that, got the > Game Win. > > Sten During And my spell checker sucks :) Sten

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 15:57:20 +0100, Reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > sorry but i think it's one of the worst argument ever. Well, that's something, at least. ;) > so many things already break the predator / prey relationship. > Why penalize politics, rather than bum's rush or kindred spirits ? > i'm curious to know. Theoretical reason: You can block Bum's Rush. You can also block Kindred Spirits. You cannot block a cross-table vote even if it kills your game or ousts you. Practical reason: Because rush decks still belong to the weakest group of the trinity (bleed, vote, combat). You seldom have excess capacity when playing rush. Kindred Spirits concerns a single discipline (of the two dozen) whereas political actions in general still present the second best winning deck alternative. > i like politics because it requires skill and timing and not just the > consecutive slapping of 4 obf cards to make a bleed through. I like stealth bleed because it requires careful deck construction (maintain cycling), tactical playing (how much to bleed, where it might end up, does prey have Archon Investigation, do I look strong, how many cards do I have left, etc.) and a straightforward mentality. Instead of just screwing someone crosstable with a single political action card. I'm sure we could go on with this. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

Reyda wrote: > sorry but i think it's one of the worst argument ever. > so many things already break the predator / prey relationship. > Why penalize politics, rather than bum's rush or kindred spirits ? > i'm curious to know. Those do not circumvent predator/prey. You still have the same players for your prey and predator after a Bum's Rush. -- 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/

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:xRlsd.26712$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:2Olsd.89500$7i4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > Reyda wrote: > > > sorry but i think it's one of the worst argument ever. > > > so many things already break the predator / prey relationship. > > > Why penalize politics, rather than bum's rush or kindred spirits ? > > > i'm curious to know. > > > > Those do not circumvent predator/prey. > > You still have the same players for your prey and predator after > > a Bum's Rush. > > > You can have the same player as your prey even > after a DU or a KR, you know After a KR i mean (not DU of course), my fault

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:2Olsd.89500$7i4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Reyda wrote: > > sorry but i think it's one of the worst argument ever. > > so many things already break the predator / prey relationship. > > Why penalize politics, rather than bum's rush or kindred spirits ? > > i'm curious to know. > > Those do not circumvent predator/prey. > You still have the same players for your prey and predator after > a Bum's Rush. > You can have the same player as your prey even after a DU or a KR, you know Emiliano

vol...@yahoo.com (Eric Simon) wrote in message news:<6f81fa2c.04120...@posting.google.com>... > What are some of the other strategies that change or improve because > of this new environment? One of the most significant random factors in V:tES is table seating. Good or bad seating often decides a game, and with the exception of the final round of a tournament, players now have no control over it. I know that a lot of top-notch tourney players liked to include table-switching votes as a way of reducing the impact of this random factor. Perhaps we'll see more toolbox decks played now, since those decks seem to be less affected by seating than focused decks.

Sorry Eric, I'm still in the "I can't believe that just happened" phase and am not really ready to make a reasoned assessment of the impact of this change on the game, but I do have one observation/question. Why would you ever use Kindred Spirits to bleed anyone but your prey now? Maybe you can get the pool for the successful bleed easier by bleeding someone other than your prey, but I think that's probably a poor reason. Kindred Spirits seems like it was intentionally designed to take advantage of seat-switching, so now that seat-switching is gone, is KS just another boring bleed card? It seems like V:EKN is trying to lock us into the predator-prey relationship and turn VTES into a series of 2-player duels instead of the multiplayer balancing act that I loved. David "Aramis" Buerger

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:<opsihqu4...@news.chello.hu>... > Theoretical reason: > You can block Bum's Rush. And then there is no combat? Are we playing a different game? > You can also block Kindred Spirits. And the Kindred Spirits has no stealth? Weird deck. And i have enough wakes for my predator and the crosstable KS? > You > cannot block a cross-table vote even if it kills your game or ousts you. You can play Eagle Sight. You can have more votes from titles. You can play vote reaction cards. You can play Delaying tactics. > I like stealth bleed because it requires careful deck construction > (maintain cycling), tactical playing (how much to bleed, where it might > end up, does prey have Archon Investigation, do I look strong, how many > cards do I have left, etc.) and a straightforward mentality. Instead of > just screwing someone crosstable with a single political action card. But Stealth Bleed cannot be intercepted by your predator who wants to kill you. In the name of all wall decks make that possible. The game is broken because no one (except the target) can block bleeds.

Tetragrammaton wrote: > You can have the same player as your prey even > after a DU or a KR, you know If it doesn't change anyone's pred/prey, what's the point? If it does, then there you go. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote in message news:aTlsd.26713$C94....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... [ quoted text not captured ] Um, I think you're kind of ignoring his obvious point. He's saying that the type of issue that they care about was cards that allow players to specifically effect a _change_ of the predator/prey releationship. A simple ability to interact with players besides one's predator or prey was not deemed sufficiently problematic. If you Bum's Rush a player who isn't your neighbor, you have to deal with the fact that you've used an action (and potentially other resources) that don't directly get you an oust or prevent you from being ousted. I would speculate that the assumption is that it's OK for players to make that judgement, as long as they're truly playing to win. However, allowing players the (potential) ability to change seats in pursuit of victory was what was deemed too disruptive. YMMV - but at least respond to the point Scott is making and not a straw man. Fred

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:<opsihqu4...@news.chello.hu>... > On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 15:57:20 +0100, Reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > sorry but i think it's one of the worst argument ever. > > Well, that's something, at least. ;) > > > so many things already break the predator / prey relationship. > > Why penalize politics, rather than bum's rush or kindred spirits ? > > i'm curious to know. > > Theoretical reason: > You can block Bum's Rush. You can also block Kindred Spirits. You > cannot block a cross-table vote even if it kills your game or ousts you. > > You can block a vote crosstable, granted you have to have AUS. But usually you need that against a Kindred Spirits too. So you will need a Deflection/Telep. Misdirection vs. the bleed. You need an Obedience vs. the Rush. AND YOU NEED A DElAYING TACTICS (or similar) VS. A VOTE. There is nothing special in that. You don't have to weaken votedecks. They are no bigger threat or weapon than other decktypes. (First they tried just to ban PTO, now they're even trying to make votes blockable to all? Ah come on.)

vol...@yahoo.com (Eric Simon) wrote in message news:<6f81fa2c.04120...@posting.google.com>... > I'm starting a new thread because I know the announcement thread is > just going to keep filling up with both complaints and praise, and I > want to take the discussion in another (less argumentative) direction. > > I'm also thinking about a reason given by LSJ on the Conclave list and > bringing it here because that's not the place for ongoing discussion. > Specifically, he said that DU and KR violate the fundamental structure > of the game: the predator/prey relationship. Now in my mind, V:TES is > about much more than this relationship - it has always been and will > continue to be a game about table balance because of its multi-player > nature. Table balance as a game structure does not go away because of > the banning of table-switch cards, but it does change SIGNIFICANTLY > (or at least I think so). So I want to hear discussion about how > table-balancing strategy changes. > I don't think the changes will be so great. Votedefence is not that vital anymore because two of the strongest votes are gone (although there are still PS and PTO to worry). Maybe combat decks don't have to worry that much anymore, that their weakened prey gets eaten by some Bigcapvoter. If that is for good or bad we shall see. I just dislike limiting the possibilities of the game without real need (IMHO of course). Maybe I missed it but was there any complaints over losing the predator/prey relationship at this Group? Nobody who I know was ever in favour of banning DU/KR. Actually these cards were somewhere in the middle of most-annoying-card lists. And that discussion of weakening the votedecks altogether is ridiculous (again of course only in my opinion!) Hi Daneel ;o)

News flash: Eagle's sight: Reaction [aus] blabla +1 intercept [AUS] This reacting vampire attempts to block (...) ignoring the normal prey, predator or target restrictions for blocking actions. IS THIS GOING TO BE BANNED TO ???

Aramis wrote: > Why would you ever use Kindred Spirits to bleed anyone but your prey > now? Maybe you can get the pool for the successful bleed easier by > bleeding someone other than your prey, but I think that's probably a > poor reason. Kindred Spirits seems like it was intentionally designed > to take advantage of seat-switching, so now that seat-switching is > gone, is KS just another boring bleed card? I never though coupling KS with DU or KR was a notable part of its strength. The main thing is being able to instantly give any deck besides your prey two predators, and oust it, if you think it stands between you and the game win. It's not that far off from the same tools rush decks use, when you look at the overall effect. Less significantly, it gives an otherwise one dimensional deck something to work deals around and make threats with. -- David Cherryholmes

In message <75bdf7ed.04120...@posting.google.com>, Emmit Svenson <emmits...@hotmail.com> writes: >One of the most significant random factors in V:tES is table seating. >Good or bad seating often decides a game, and with the exception of >the final round of a tournament, players now have no control over it. I'm not sure that this line of argument is entirely productive. The problem is - a lot of deck styles simply can't pass those votes without a hell of a lot of good-will from the table. Obviously, some can - but I'm completely adrift in a stealth-bleed deck, a combat deck, a breed-and-bleed deck and so on. I basically can't ever rely on passing either, even slightly. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

In message <31e1sbF...@individual.net>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se> writes: >In what way is a Parity Shift/Kine/Conservative crossable less >crossable than Bum's/Nose/Ambush crossable? If I Bum's Rush you (say, you're my grand-prey), you can defend against it. A number of common defences aren't available against a cross-table Parity Shift (e.g. intercept), or aren't things people typically do (e.g. a cross-table rush to take out your voter to stop him calling the vote) to a cross-table person but which would be perfectly reasonable for a predator or prey to do. Of course, other defences are available (Delaying Tactics, anti-vote). Delaying Tactics needs to be in your hand right now, however, and anti- vote generally seems to be much weaker than pro-vote. I'm not sure what I think of the change, but I can see the reasoning behind it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joscha Duell wrote: > Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:<opsihqu4...@news.chello.hu>... > >>On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 15:57:20 +0100, Reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>sorry but i think it's one of the worst argument ever. >> >>Well, that's something, at least. ;) >> >> >>>so many things already break the predator / prey relationship. >>>Why penalize politics, rather than bum's rush or kindred spirits ? >>>i'm curious to know. >> >>Theoretical reason: >>You can block Bum's Rush. You can also block Kindred Spirits. You >>cannot block a cross-table vote even if it kills your game or ousts you. >> >> > > You can block a vote crosstable, granted you have to have AUS. But > usually you need that against a Kindred Spirits too. So you will need > a Deflection/Telep. Misdirection vs. the bleed. You need an Obedience > vs. the Rush. AND YOU NEED A DElAYING TACTICS delaying tactics doesn´t burn the vote it just postpones it. stefan

came...@hotmail.com (Aramis) wrote in message news:<d9925496.04120...@posting.google.com>... > Sorry Eric, I'm still in the "I can't believe that just happened" > phase and am not really ready to make a reasoned assessment of the > impact of this change on the game, but I do have one > observation/question. Understood. And thank you for one of the calmer negative responses I've seen, Dave. > Why would you ever use Kindred Spirits to bleed anyone but your prey > now? Maybe you can get the pool for the successful bleed easier by > bleeding someone other than your prey, but I think that's probably a > poor reason. Kindred Spirits seems like it was intentionally designed > to take advantage of seat-switching, so now that seat-switching is > gone, is KS just another boring bleed card? > > It seems like V:EKN is trying to lock us into the predator-prey > relationship and turn VTES into a series of 2-player duels instead of > the multiplayer balancing act that I loved. > > David "Aramis" Buerger I actually think you're addressing the critical issue quite reasonably. When I posted, I had a sense that we would be seeing exactly this kind of concern - that removing seat-switch takes away from the need to table balance. Myself, I'm not sure it does. The game win conditions still require you to make sure no one else is running away with the table, and ideally that you're setting everything up for a sweep. Perhaps Kindred Spirits becomes less important as a balancing tool because you're not really going to take DIRECT advantage of someone else's pool loss, but it can still be an excellent carrot or stick to try to set the table up for yourself. I think what I'm getting at here is that a lot of what we've seen in the past has been OFFENSIVE table balance. This can still be useful in keeping an individual deck from overpowering everyone. However, maybe what we'll start to see now is more DEFENSIVE table balance, such as boons. I'm not sure, of course, and I think it'll take time to see how this affects play, but this is certainly a possibility. [ quoted text not captured ]

"sorry but i think it's one of the worst argument ever. so many things already break the predator / prey relationship. Why penalize politics, rather than bum's rush or kindred spirits ? i'm curious to know." Because these kinds of cards don't quarentee a VP quite as securely as DU and KR. Duh. How many people KS cross table? How many people BR across table? Ok... now of those people, how many times has it DIRECTLY led them to a VP? ~SV

"Why would you ever use Kindred Spirits to bleed anyone but your prey now? Maybe you can get the pool for the successful bleed easier by bleeding someone other than your prey, but I think that's probably a poor reason. Kindred Spirits seems like it was intentionally designed to take advantage of seat-switching, so now that seat-switching is gone, is KS just another boring bleed card?" You've just supported the fact that KS is NOT a card that severly wrecks pred/prey relationships. Furthermore, don't knock the versatility of the card (KS). Want to bleed? Do it? Need to gain pool, but know its not going to happen on your prey? Sorry pred or Xtable buddy... you're taking one for the ME team. ~SV

> Why would you ever use Kindred Spirits to bleed anyone but your prey > now? If someone who isn't your prey has a deck that is slowly killing you, you can put them on the ropes our oust them just to stay in the game (I've been killed cross table by a vote deck just because he needed my predators votes, I have also been ousted cross-table by an Anarch Revolt deck). You can bleed your grandprey to make it easier to set up a 1-2 oust with cards like Smiling Jack or Anarch Revolt (prey's at one pool, there's a Revolt in front of your predator, and your grandprey's at three). Spite. Sweet, sweet spite. KS doesn't seem any less powerful to me. The only real difference I percieve in the game with these changes is that gameplay speeds up because we don't have to stop for five minutes while everybody shuffles around their stuff. kelly

"Stefan Ferenci" <a95+NO+58+NO+60no@SP+.unet.univie.+AM+.ac.at> wrote in message news:41b23397$0$11352$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at... [ quoted text not captured ] Well, you could use a Vox Domini cross-table. For that matter, you can just vote against it and if you have enough votes, that'll kill it. I think the essence of the guy's point is clear enough - I really don't think that fact you can block a cross-table Bum's Rush vs. what you can or can't do against a vote called by someone across the table makes a good argument for differentiating between the two. (But I think there are clearly other good arguments, OTOH.) Fred

James Coupe wrote: > In message <31e1sbF...@individual.net>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se> > writes: > >>In what way is a Parity Shift/Kine/Conservative crossable less >>crossable than Bum's/Nose/Ambush crossable? > > > If I Bum's Rush you (say, you're my grand-prey), you can defend against > it. > > A number of common defences aren't available against a cross-table > Parity Shift (e.g. intercept), or aren't things people typically do > (e.g. a cross-table rush to take out your voter to stop him calling the > vote) to a cross-table person but which would be perfectly reasonable > for a predator or prey to do. > Eh, that was kind of what I was after. The previous poster tried to make as if Bum's etc were more efficient for going cross table compared to any remaining political cards after the ban on two cards. As if Kine couldn't be used cross table *shake head* Sten During

In message <31fa76F...@individual.net>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se> writes: <comparison of (D) actions vs political actions, cross-table> >Eh, that was kind of what I was after. Sorry, I wasn't 100% sure if the question was rhetorical or not, even going back to your post. It was on a Saturday night though. [ quoted text not captured ]

Stefan Ferenci <a95+NO+58+NO+60no@SP+.unet.univie.+AM+.ac.at> wrote in message news:<41b23397$0$11352$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... [ quoted text not captured ] Look, I know that. It is a stand in for anticards. If you Tel. Misdirect a bleed on somebody, who can deflect it back to you you are having the same problems. If you are rushed by Beast, one Obedience might not be enough. Maybe the delaying tactic gives you enough time to get rid of the minion with votes. Otherwise play with DI, Dread Gaze, Vox Domini, Esgrima (not that good), or voty minions. Or even more DTs, to delay once more. All I want to say is there are already plenty of ways to defend against all types of decks. No single decktype has any real advantage above the others until now (thanks to the good work of LSJ and the others). Let's keep that up! And stop that "make votes blockable by all"-thing.

> I don't think the changes will be so great. Votedefence is not that > vital anymore because two of the strongest votes are gone (although > there are still PS and PTO to worry). Maybe combat decks don't have to > worry that much anymore, that their weakened prey gets eaten by some > Bigcapvoter. If that is for good or bad we shall see. I just dislike > limiting the possibilities of the game without real need (IMHO of > course). > How is allowing combat decks to earn their VPs "limiting" the possibilities of the game?? As far as i understand it, what the new rule actually does is allowing combat decks to win tournaments, something that does not happen that much. AFAIK, bleed and vote are the two best options to win, setting aside the warghoul-"i.have.10.minions.that.can.rush.for.free"-decks that cost a helluva lot in $ or €. Giving a bit more options to the weakest of the three basic strategies (bleed, vote, combat) makes the game less limiting, imho. Now you can have 3 reliable options instead of two. OTOH, votes STILL can oust their preys easily. It is just that they cant get "free VP" from other people's preys. KRC +bewitching orations in a vote deck is, often the same than govern the unaligned +faceless knight in a bleed deck. three pool to your prey with +1 stealth. Bleeding has the adventage that can do more damage in a single turn (with, say, conditioning), but has the disventage that your minion can be burned (archon investigation), or your bleed can be bounced (so you may give your prey 1 VP and six pool instead of ousting him), while the vote has de disventage that can be blocked by both your prey or your predator, and the adventage that cant be reduced, or bounced, and has an inherent +1 stealth, plus often better pool gain through voter captivations.

joscha...@gmx.de (Joscha Duell) wrote in message news:<8b87b6c9.04120...@posting.google.com>... > I don't think the changes will be so great. Votedefence is not that > vital anymore because two of the strongest votes are gone (although > there are still PS and PTO to worry). Maybe combat decks don't have to > worry that much anymore, that their weakened prey gets eaten by some > Bigcapvoter. Yes, and playing big combat monsters does become now more uninteresting. It was always an argument to have bigg vampires with votes, because even if you didnt play political you had some defence against politics. The bad part is, that you now need fewer crosstable defence and this is bad. My 1 cap Computer Hacking deck has only lost his first VP, if there was a table change. It really needed a rule change. A ruling that with a succesful DU and KR you automatically lose your turn had been absolutely enough to stop VP snipping. And remember: DU and KR are votes. They have to pass two steps (blocking and referendum) to have an effect.

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<$COMewO3...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <75bdf7ed.04120...@posting.google.com>, Emmit > Svenson <emmits...@hotmail.com> writes: > >One of the most significant random factors in V:tES is table seating. > >Good or bad seating often decides a game, and with the exception of > >the final round of a tournament, players now have no control over it. > > I'm not sure that this line of argument is entirely productive. It wasn't meant as an arguement, really. I thought this thread was about how the environment is likely to change due to the ban. I was saying I think the tourney scene might become more toolboxy at the highest levels to compensate for the now unmitigated randomness of seating. I've been using another thread for discussing the necessity of the ban and possible card revisions. How do you think the environment will change?

On 4 Dec 2004 11:14:16 -0800, Decebalus <x5m...@gmx.de> wrote: > Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > news:<opsihqu4...@news.chello.hu>... >> Theoretical reason: >> You can block Bum's Rush. > > And then there is no combat? Are we playing a different game? You can usually choose to sacrafice a 2-cap when a 10-cap is rushed. And the rusher needs more than a rush card to screw you. >> You can also block Kindred Spirits. > > And the Kindred Spirits has no stealth? Weird deck. And i have enough > wakes for my predator and the crosstable KS? Kindres spirits is still one card. Plus, you might expect to get bled every now and then - every deck bleeds once in a while. Even a vote or combat deck. Bleed defence is always useful. >> You >> cannot block a cross-table vote even if it kills your game or ousts you. > > You can play Eagle Sight. You can have more votes from titles. You can > play vote reaction cards. You can play Delaying tactics. That is a very populat yet ultimately inane argument. I mean, based on it the single most powerful card in the game is currently Port Authority. Right? Of course not. >> I like stealth bleed because it requires careful deck construction >> (maintain cycling), tactical playing (how much to bleed, where it might >> end up, does prey have Archon Investigation, do I look strong, how many >> cards do I have left, etc.) and a straightforward mentality. Instead of >> just screwing someone crosstable with a single political action card. > > But Stealth Bleed cannot be intercepted by your predator who wants to > kill you. In the name of all wall decks make that possible. The game > is broken because no one (except the target) can block bleeds. Dumbass. I'm not gonna reply "but there is eagle's sight". Instead, I'll say that I'd be pretty cool if every action that directly affects someone could only be blocked by the target. Think about it... Block, target... Ring a bell? -- Bye, Daneel

On 4 Dec 2004 11:59:31 -0800, Joscha Duell <joscha...@gmx.de> wrote: >> Theoretical reason: >> You can block Bum's Rush. You can also block Kindred Spirits. You >> cannot block a cross-table vote even if it kills your game or ousts you. > > You can block a vote crosstable, granted you have to have AUS. See my reply to the other like-minded poster. > But usually you need that against a Kindred Spirits too. Not necessarily. I mean, ANI and CHI are both decent blocking disciplines. Plus there are locations and stuff. Lots of options. > So you will need a Deflection/Telep. Misdirection vs. the bleed. Not necessarily. You can have Intercept if it's at stealth, you can reduce the stealth, reduce the bleed, bounce, play AI, but you are basically reacting to something that is perhaps the most fundamental part of the game - being bled. > You need an Obedience vs. the Rush. Not necessarily. You can have prevent, S:CE, obedience, maneuver, you could block with a weenie, etc. > AND YOU NEED A DElAYING TACTICS (or similar) VS. A VOTE. > There is nothing special in that. You don't have to weaken votedecks. > They are no bigger threat or weapon than other decktypes. The problem is that you are denied the ability to block it. Sure, a SB deck might have lots of stealth, but then you might have lots of Intercept. Not so with politics. You can have a zillion Intercept if you don't have Anneke, Superior Auspex or Superior Spiritus. Meaning, by virtue of politics you can shove your wall deck up your ass because someone calls a vote az +1 stealth to screw you. Intercept is designed to allow you to prevent actions that harm or meddle with you (all actions directed at you), whereas politics simply escapes that. Not good, IMHO. > (First they tried just to ban PTO, now they're even trying to make > votes blockable to all? Ah come on.) Not by all. Just the targets. Is that sooo much problematic? Like this: I call KRC. You (prey) burn 3 pool and you (predator) burn 1 pool. Do either of you block? Sure, you told the terms in advance but, I call PTO on your 10-cap (grandprey with 10 Intercept). <- I'm not sure this is fun. -- Bye, Daneel

Reyda wrote: > so many things already break the predator / prey relationship. > Why penalize politics, rather than bum's rush or kindred spirits ? > i'm curious to know. 'Cause using Bum's Rush and Kindred Spirits cross table DOESN'T MAKE YOU WIN. In fact, it usually makes you not win. Cross table shenanigins, like Rushing or KRCing or Kindred Spiriting the guy across the table usually: A) Weakens your own position, as you are using your resources and actions to negatively effect someone who is not directly related to you via standard table relationships. B) Strengthens someone elses position, as you are harming their predator or prey. Yes, yes. Sometimes, due to table politics or whatever, that cross table Rush/KRC/Whatever does the exact right thing and wins you the game. But usually this just isn't going to happen. As a result, there is built in disincentive to partake in cross table shenanigins. It is usually a bad idea to Rush cross table. That is what prevents people from doing it (assuimg that they are interested in winning the game, as opposed to, like, just screwing around and pissing off their friends). Looking at the new banned table switching cards, these, more often than not (as opposed to, say, a cross table Rush) result in someone doing something specifically related to winning the game and specifically strengthening their position--it steals a VP (specifically getting you closer to winning the game) and gets you 6 pool (strengthening your position), by switching seats and VP sniping. Do you see where the difference lies? A) Cross table Rush. Usually not a good idea. Usually weakens your position. Usually strengthens someone elses position. Usually works *against* you actually winning the game. B) Cross table VP sniping. Usually a good idea. Usually strengthens your position. Usually works directly in favor of you winning the game. This strikes me as incredibly easy to differentiate. Can we move past the faulty comparisions between DU and a Bum's Rush? I mean, yeah, ok, I can see people argiung that table switch votes weren't a problem and shouldn't have been banned for whatever reason, but trying to draw a parallel between DU and Bum's Rush is just stupid. So let's all stop and come up with a rational reason why you think that DU and KR shouldn't have been banned. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

Joscha Duell wrote: > I don't think the changes will be so great. Well, why don't we just play and see? If it turns out that the game is suffering wildly from the lack of table switch cards, they can always be unbanned. Or replaced by different cards with a similar effect. The environment has just changed significantly. Rather than freaking out, we could just try it for a while and see how it works. Heck, we might even like it better. No, wait, again, more crazy talk. [ quoted text not captured ]

Fernando Costa wrote: > IS THIS GOING TO BE BANNED TO ??? Umm, no. 'Cause playing an Eagle's Sight doesn't change who your prey or predator is. Why are people continually drawing incredibly faulty comparisions in an attempt to defend their standpoint? If you are unhappy that DU and KR are banned, fine. I can understand that. But if you are going to argue about it, at least have a valid argument to make. I'm sure they exist. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <fb7de752.04120...@posting.google.com>, Decebalus <x5m...@gmx.de> writes: >Yes, and playing big combat monsters does become now more >uninteresting. It was always an argument to have bigg vampires with >votes, because even if you didnt play political you had some defence >against politics. You still do. Horrendous votes that you really need to fail now are not just limited to DU and KR. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <75bdf7ed.04120...@posting.google.com>, Emmit Svenson <emmits...@hotmail.com> writes: >I've been using another thread for discussing the necessity of the ban >and possible card revisions. > >How do you think the environment will change? For a while, a lot of the vote decks generated from "Ooh, I can switch the tables around when I do badly against my prey" vote decks will disappear. Just as any "Oooh, that's shiny" tends to attract magpies, I believe that a number have been attracted to such simply for that.[0] So in some circles, vote decks may well become relegated to a few players trying them every now and then, or whatever. At least for a while, and assuming that KMW doesn't bring its own magpie cards. In such circles, this may allow for some kick-ass vote decks to be formed when they suddenly find that "everyone" has dumped their DTs and so on. The decks that are left will have to up their game somewhat - they can't rely on a "lucky"[1] vote pass putting them into a good position. However, between Banishment, KRC and PTO, there are still some *extremely* powerful votes left. Voting also has some significant pool- gain options. Okay, pool gain/bloat isn't as sexy as uber-damage and table-switching but it's still very useful. Rumors of Gehenna still has a lot of mileage - even if a number of its primary uses are trick/master-heavy decks, or subsumed by (say) Anson. Brinksmanship seems to have its fans - though it's not a card I personally like, as I think I've mentioned before. (I believe - like the predator/prey relationship - that the push/pull of pool/defence was also a fundamental facet of the game.) For specific decks (hybrid vote/rush, usually) there are things like Alastor, Templar and Archon have uses, as does Anathema. The First Tradition used to be quite popular, but its time seems to have passed. I'd quite like to see it come back. And there are a random assortment of other vote cards that are still usable in lots of decks, even if not "primary" cards. (Cue someone saying "But you missed out how useful Regaining the Upper Hand is in this deck! How could you?") I don't think vote is dead by any stretch. It will go into a lull in places, but I think this will discourage some of the players who were really only playing it for Dramatic Upheaval's power. [0] See also, say, new players being attracted to stealth bleed because it looks easy and powerful - which it is, when playing against other new players. [1] Lucky in the sense that it requires a bit of luck to ensure that other players aren't about to throw down Lords knows what, rather than casting any doubt on the vote-deck player's skill. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BDD8F1DC.1B6C1%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Reyda wrote: > > > so many things already break the predator / prey relationship. > > Why penalize politics, rather than bum's rush or kindred spirits ? > > i'm curious to know. > > 'Cause using Bum's Rush and Kindred Spirits cross table DOESN'T MAKE YOU > WIN. In fact, it usually makes you not win. Cross table shenanigins, like > Rushing or KRCing or Kindred Spiriting the guy across the table usually: > > A) Weakens your own position, as you are using your resources and actions to > negatively effect someone who is not directly related to you via standard > table relationships. Yes, in fact it would SEEM that you're wasting your resources. The truth is dealing to splith table VP are pretty much based on this type of deal. As we all know! > B) Strengthens someone elses position, as you are harming their predator or > prey. And rushing cross table ? or even predator ? > Yes, yes. Sometimes, due to table politics or whatever, that cross table > Rush/KRC/Whatever does the exact right thing and wins you the game. But > usually this just isn't going to happen. as USUALLY a KR or DU does not suceed at all. (...) I mean, yeah, ok, I can see people argiung that table switch votes weren't a problem and shouldn't have > been banned for whatever reason, but trying to draw a parallel between DU > and Bum's Rush is just stupid. So let's all stop and come up with a rational > reason why you think that DU and KR shouldn't have been banned. POLITICAL deck. Politics=make/change the laws ?

Daneel wrote: Meaning, > by virtue of politics you can shove your wall deck up your ass because > someone calls a vote az +1 stealth to screw you. Intercept is designed > to allow you to prevent actions that harm or meddle with you (all > actions directed at you), whereas politics simply escapes that. Daneel, obviously you want to have politics like bleed. All your argument about targets and so on point in these direction. But politics in VTES is not bleed. The most important thing in politics is, that every player is involved. If your mentioned wall deck has enough titles it will be able to vote every vote down.

On 6 Dec 2004 02:37:57 -0800, <x5m...@gmx.de> wrote: > Daneel, obviously you want to have politics like bleed. No. Bleed is completely direct (starts at 0 stealth and its target can be altered). Politics can start at +1 stealth, but it still should be blockable by those whom it affects. That is important for a competitive multiplayer game. > All your argument about targets and so on point in these direction. If that is the case, I did not realize it. > But politics in VTES is not bleed. The most important thing in politics > is, that > every player is involved. If your mentioned wall deck has enough titles > it will be able to vote every vote down. Yeah, and there is DT and shit. To phrase it nice and simple, I see no reason why a cross-table PTO should be blockable by the prey and predator instead of the target. If you need VOTES with your wall deck, then your wall deck obviously fails to do its purpose in protecting you from avtions that harm you. It is your vampire that gets PTOed. It is your Pool that gets shifted. Etc. You cannot base the argument on "why would anyone want to go crosstable" because frankly that is inane. People do it time to time for reasons of misjudgement, dealing or (veiled) collusion, to name just a few. If you want to play competitively than you need to reconsider the implications of having a whole mechaninc in the game that can unblockably screw any meth cross-table if for some reason its player chooses to do so. -- Bye, Daneel

Fernando Costa wrote: > Yes, in fact it would SEEM that you're wasting your resources. 'Cause, ya know, you are. > The > truth is dealing to splith table VP are pretty much based on this type > of deal. Uh, yeah. Ok. > As we all know! If you say so. > And rushing cross table ? or even predator ? What are you talking about? > as USUALLY a KR or DU does not suceed at all. Again, what are you talking about? Why does a KR or DU not succeed? 'Cause vote decks have trouble calling votes? Arika with a Forgotten Labyrinth and an Awe is going to have trouble passing a Dramatic Upheval? Uh, yeah. Ok. > POLITICAL deck. > Politics=make/change the laws ? You are totally losing me here. Still. [ quoted text not captured ]

I wrote: > Arika with a Forgotten Labyrinth and > an Awe is going to have trouble passing a Dramatic Upheval? Uh, yeah. Ok. Ya know, unless DU is the one that Arika can't 'call 'cause she is not a Prince or Justicar, but the point still stands... [ quoted text not captured ]

I think that the only thing we can do is: "we just play and see" Because the change will take effect from jan 2005 and we can't do nothing about this fact. But if the change is to avoid affecting predator-prey relationship during a game there is another change that must happen: BAN table splitting pacts! Particularly between nearby players. (and it' s against my way of playing.... because I like to make those deals if I'm not in a "winning position") Andrea "RavATwoFaces" RAVERA

I regard the new banlist as a rejection of table balance manipulation as an ousting strategy. Manipulation is a Tom Sawyer strategy, and has been the most effective strategy in the game. Table balance will improve after removing this strategy, as the manipulators are forced to focus on their prey to acquire VP. It is false to say the 2005 banlist has killed voting. I believe those that offer that opinion weren't playing real vote decks in the first place, and were instead using votes to implement the manipulation strategy.

> The only real difference I percieve in the game with these changes is > that gameplay speeds up because we don't have to stop for five minutes > while everybody shuffles around their stuff. Hear, hear! To post on topic, I think the biggest impact this change will have on gameplay is to make combat decks more viable. Frequently combat decks destroy their prey's vampires, but their prey still has several turns worth of pool. Removing DU and KR allows the combat deck to actually get the VP that it earned. Ira, who had been playing with a personal banned list of SC, DU, and KR for years.

Daneel wrote: > To phrase it nice and simple, I see no reason why a cross-table PTO > should be blockable by the prey and predator instead of the target. Requiring Methuselahs to declare the terms of a referendum before blocking attempts are declared would be a pretty major change that hurt all voting decks.

[ quoted text not captured ] "Change" is absolutely adequate. "Hurt" is not necessarily. Especially since I've seen countless issues of calling a damaging/hurting vote and promising not to damage/hurt one's prey or predator (if he or she has intercept). So you lose the uncertainty of knowing exact terms before blocking (which is a strong mood element, yes, but hardly a surprise in most cases - ever heard of 3-1?), but for it you can gain the option to tune the game towards a more balanced multiplayer environment. Worth the trouble? Undecided. Worth to consider? I think so. -- Bye, Daneel

In message <opsivy0a...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >"Change" is absolutely adequate. "Hurt" is not necessarily. Especially >since I've seen countless issues of calling a damaging/hurting vote and >promising not to damage/hurt one's prey or predator (if he or she has >intercept). Some people lie about things like this. They negotiate to do one thing, then backtrack on the deal a few seconds later - once the block declaration gaps have all gone. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:19:05 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <opsivy0a...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> "Change" is absolutely adequate. "Hurt" is not necessarily. Especially >> since I've seen countless issues of calling a damaging/hurting vote and >> promising not to damage/hurt one's prey or predator (if he or she has >> intercept). > > Some people lie about things like this. They negotiate to do one thing, > then backtrack on the deal a few seconds later - once the block > declaration gaps have all gone. Ah, I always forget, the beauty of the game. ;) Anyway, that does not rule out the consideration. People wishing for their daily dose of dishonesty can still lie about "not calling any offensive votes" and then calling them anyway, kind of like it works for bleed. However, there would also be a gain for vote decks - after setting the terms, only those could make the attempt who were targeted. Meaning in the extreme case that a completely helpless Methuselah could be pummeled further (to reduce blockers), by say the 1 of the KRC. -- Bye, Daneel

In message <opsiw001...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >Anyway, that does not rule out the consideration. People wishing for >their daily dose of dishonesty can still lie about "not calling any >offensive votes" and then calling them anyway, kind of like it works >for bleed. Erm... The point here is that they can negotiate not being blocked, and then backtrack on this. This has *always* been possible, and the very explicit way in which this was set up in the original rules suggests it was entirely intentional. Being able to lie about not calling an offensive vote is... strangely bizarre. They see you call it, they block it. Nothing like the current situation. Please bear in mind that your personal dislike of people lying and back- stabbing is not a reason to change the rules in a way that disadvantages such tactics, whether overtly or covertly, intentional or accidental. These were fundamental facets of the game. One tangential example is Richard Garfield's example of a (real) playtest game where two people supporting a vote threw down political backlash when it failed. (So yeah, they were using sucky cards but that's not quite the point.) >However, there would also be a gain for vote decks - after >setting the terms, only those could make the attempt who were targeted. >Meaning in the extreme case that a completely helpless Methuselah could >be pummeled further (to reduce blockers), by say the 1 of the KRC. Who is the target of Rumors of Gehenna? (The people not getting MPAs will probably want to block!) Who is the target of Autarkis Persecution? (Everyone gets pool - everyone can block?) Who is the target of Political Flux? (No-one is targeted - no-one can block?) This also seriously, seriously affects the ability of intercept decks to move forward. 3-1 on a KRC very commonly goes prey/predator - but you also see it go prey, grand-prey and prey/myself when necessary. That the intercept deck now cannot intercept what were previously undirected actions by its prey weakens it a great deal, both in terms of forward momentum and bargaining power. "I'll block that PTO vote[0] for you, if you rush his other vampire next turn" etc. are perfectly reasonable bargaining chips that are currently available. I've certainly seen a predator and prey negotiate about who should block, whilst they're in the "Is my prey blocking?" step of the action. (I've been one of those people, for example.) Ditto, intercept/wall decks often use such tactics to prevent an ousting vote or 'control' their prey in other ways. I can't see that weakening non-Auspex decks (Animalism, Chimerstry, equipment, locations etc.) in this regard is valid. [0] Or any other single target vote that is almost certain to go on your prey, or any vote that isn't going to kill me etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 22:27:53 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <opsiw001...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> Anyway, that does not rule out the consideration. People wishing for >> their daily dose of dishonesty can still lie about "not calling any >> offensive votes" and then calling them anyway, kind of like it works >> for bleed. > > Erm... > > The point here is that they can negotiate not being blocked, and then > backtrack on this. This has *always* been possible, and the very > explicit way in which this was set up in the original rules suggests it > was entirely intentional. No change is possible without actually *changing* something. ;) Alas, the net results seem balanced to me. > Please bear in mind that your personal dislike of people lying [...] ...is of no relevance here. Yes, true, I approached this issue from a strictly "competitive multiplayer game" angle. > Who is the target of Rumors of Gehenna? (The people not getting MPAs > will probably want to block!) > > Who is the target of Autarkis Persecution? (Everyone gets pool - > everyone can block?) > > Who is the target of Political Flux? (No-one is targeted - no-one can > block?) My original post said something about "votes directly affecting someone". There would be a line drawn somewhere, with cards like KRC and PTO falling on the "target may block" side. The necessity of consideration does not eliminate the possibility of implementation, IMHO. > This also seriously, seriously affects the ability of intercept decks to > move forward. That is perhaps an issue. Though the very same Intercept decks would now be at an edge when they would be targetted cross-table. I say, this is a fair trade-off, having myself been on the recieving end of a technically cross- table PTO once too often when I had like 6+ Intercept available. Also note that with this proposed alteration intercept decks would not be any worse off with political decks, than with say bleed decks. > 3-1 on a KRC very commonly goes prey/predator - but you > also see it go prey, grand-prey and prey/myself when necessary. That > the intercept deck now cannot intercept what were previously undirected > actions by its prey weakens it a great deal, both in terms of forward > momentum and bargaining power. I feel a bit of conservative agitation here... In all sincerity, I'm quite against change, but I really see this issue as something that is perhaps worthy of consideration. I know the current target system does not support multiple targets, but I'm not sure that's impossible. > "I'll block that PTO vote[0] for you, if > you rush his other vampire next turn" etc. are perfectly reasonable > bargaining chips that are currently available. But in return a well-played intercept deck gains almost complete immunity from votes. > I've certainly seen a predator and prey negotiate about who should > block, whilst they're in the "Is my prey blocking?" step of the action. > (I've been one of those people, for example.) Non-sequitur. The necessity to negotiate because the rules deny one the option to block an action targeting him (but not in the rules-defined way of being the (D) target) is perhaps less intrinsic to the game than convention would let us believe. > Ditto, intercept/wall decks often use such tactics to prevent an ousting > vote or 'control' their prey in other ways. I can't see that weakening > non-Auspex decks (Animalism, Chimerstry, equipment, locations etc.) in > this regard is valid. Non-Auspex decks are weakened because by the current system to begin with, because they cannot block votes that affect them. You can basically oust a wall grandprey, burn/banish his vampires, without him being able block without AUS/SPI/Ann. An Intercept deck is theoretically about preventing things; I'm not sure it should not be best at preventing things that harm it directly. -- Bye, Daneel

[Daneel] > Non-Auspex decks are weakened because by the current > system to begin with, because they cannot block votes > that affect them. Not true. *Most* votes that detrimentally effect (especially oust) a particular deck will have been called by their predator or prey. These are easily blockable by any intercept deck. > You can basically oust a wall grandprey, > burn/banish his vampires, without him > being able block without AUS/SPI/Ann. Do you mean to say that a "wall" is a weak strategy, especially without AUS? Who would have thought? Anyway, not all non-auspex decks are wall decks, some are rush and / or vote decks themselves. Such decks can do something about hostile votes. Blocking is not the only solution to a hostile cross-table vote. Just goes to show that it's always a good idea to include rush in an intercept deck? If your particular deck implodes under the pressure of cross-table votes, then I guess that's just bad luck. Or possibly it's a crap deck. * lehrbuch

As already pointed by others, yours is a faulty comparison. You can play a KRC crosstable to do pool damage to someone just like a kindred spirit does, and you can protect thine own crosstable to burn a vampire just like you do with a bum rush. What you cant do now is to win another people VP, or change who is your predator or prey. That is what DU did, and that is what BROKE the predator/prey relationship.

in article 1102908703.2...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, gustavo....@eresmas.net at gustavo....@eresmas.net wrote on 12/12/04 7:31 PM: [ quoted text not captured ] The predator prey relationship still exists after a DU or KR. Simply because it is not the original order does not "break" the predator/prey relationship. I choose to believe that Scott either had nothing to do with this decision and is simply echoing the rational given to him by edict, or he lost his mind for a moment. I am not alone in feeling this is a slippery slope of dumbing down the game. I regret that we have no joined the ranks of several games before this one in this error. Several methods of dealing with this supposedly "game breaking" dynamic were already in place (IE block, DI, delaying tactics, etc etc etc.). It is truly a sad day to see the squeaky desires of the masses caved into.

On 12 Dec 2004 17:18:29 -0800, lehrbuch <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote: > [Daneel] >> Non-Auspex decks are weakened because by the current >> system to begin with, because they cannot block votes >> that affect them. > > Not true. *Most* votes that detrimentally effect (especially oust) a > particular deck will have been called by their predator or prey. These > are easily blockable by any intercept deck. Indeed. My (sort-of) proposed alteration would not address that; in fact, the bright news would be that any detrimental vote (regardless of who called it) could now be blocked by a deck. >> You can basically oust a wall grandprey, >> burn/banish his vampires, without him >> being able block without AUS/SPI/Ann. > > Do you mean to say that a "wall" is a weak strategy, especially without > AUS? Who would have thought? I'm not necessarily saying that. I've seen good Ravnos walls after FN, for example. > Anyway, not all non-auspex decks are wall decks, some are rush and / or > vote decks themselves. Such decks can do something about hostile > votes. Blocking is not the only solution to a hostile cross-table > vote. Just goes to show that it's always a good idea to include rush > in an intercept deck? Blocking is the inherent option present in the game to thwart a malevolent effect. The ability to block is very important, especially since a lot of decks pack at least casual Intercept, like, in the form of 2nd Traditions. Such a deck would in a fair share of the cases be better off by blocking than by allowing politics to decide the issue (except, of course, if they have a DT or similar card in hand). > If your particular deck implodes under the pressure of cross-table > votes, then I guess that's just bad luck. > Or possibly it's a crap deck. Or maybe it's just that a brain-eater bug just dies in your skull after being starved to death. You could study more from your books instead of posting, if you can only echo this inane argument. This can be replied to anything (I mean, why did they ban DU or KR? Decks whose preys and VPs were stolen were crap decks, anyway. Why did they ban RTI? Decks that would fall for it were crap decks. Duh, I said it, you can thank me for my contribution later.) Anyway, that's not the point. -- Bye, Daneel

> Several methods of dealing with this supposedly "game breaking" dynamic > were already in place (IE block, DI, delaying tactics, etc etc etc.). > It is truly a sad day to see the squeaky desires of the masses caved > into. > Note that none of those cards actually deal with the game breaking dynamic.

scott christofersen wrote: > The predator prey relationship still exists after a DU or KR. Simply > because it is not the original order does not "break" the predator/prey > relationship. I choose to believe that Scott either had nothing to do with It undermines the predator-prey mechanism on which the game is founded. > this decision and is simply echoing the rational given to him by edict, or > he lost his mind for a moment. I am not alone in feeling this is a slippery I support the V:EKN's position on this. If I had lost my mind, it is a state that continues through today at least, not just a momentary slip. > slope of dumbing down the game. I am not alone (as long as we're inflating our "IMO"s) in realizing that this is not the case. -- 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/

In message <opsiw5ek...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 22:27:53 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >wrote: >> Please bear in mind that your personal dislike of people lying [...] > >...is of no relevance here. Yes, true, I approached this issue from >a strictly "competitive multiplayer game" angle. Jyhad has an inherent social element - which includes the ability to lie. Changes which detract from that possibly disrupt that element. That this would suit you is certainly relevant. You may care to re-read what I wrote, particularly the "intentional or accidental" line. People may support changes for reasons that suit them, without realising it. >> "I'll block that PTO vote[0] for you, if >> you rush his other vampire next turn" etc. are perfectly reasonable >> bargaining chips that are currently available. > >But in return a well-played intercept deck gains almost complete immunity >from votes. If nothing else in your post set alarm bells ringing, this should. Why should a well-played intercept deck suddenly gain "immunity from votes"? What's balanced about that? Why is that needed? >> Who is the target of Rumors of Gehenna? (The people not getting MPAs >> will probably want to block!) >> >> Who is the target of Autarkis Persecution? (Everyone gets pool - >> everyone can block?) >> >> Who is the target of Political Flux? (No-one is targeted - no-one can >> block?) > >My original post said something about "votes directly affecting >someone". >There would be a line drawn somewhere, with cards like KRC and PTO >falling on the "target may block" side. The necessity of consideration >does not eliminate the possibility of implementation, IMHO. This is a *lot* of change, for a very low tangible benefit (if any). If large swathes of votes requires errata to determine who the 'target' is, that's a problem. This is particularly the case in very nebulous votes like Rumors of Gehenna and Autarkis Persecution. Who is targeted by Consanguineous Boon? Why should they want to block if it's giving them pool? Isn't it more likely that their predators or prey will want to block? Do I have to reveal/give details of what vampires I have before I can block Honor the Elders? You don't know anything about my uncontrolled region at the moment. Archon? That directly affects me - or another Methuselah. But other people will want to block. Reinforcements - just like Rumors of Gehenna. It's not the people who are targeted who will typically want to block. (Since "up to" can mean "zero", so they can just ignore it if they need to for whatever reason.) And so on, and so on, and so on. I can't see any of this meeting the threshold required for such upheaval. >> I've certainly seen a predator and prey negotiate about who should >> block, whilst they're in the "Is my prey blocking?" step of the action. >> (I've been one of those people, for example.) > >Non-sequitur. The necessity to negotiate because the rules deny one the >option to block an action targeting him (but not in the rules-defined >way of being the (D) target) is perhaps less intrinsic to the game than >convention would let us believe. Predator and prey always have the option to block. You appear to be thinking that by "predator and prey" I am talking about "not predator and not prey", as your comment only applies to cross-table votes. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:45:45 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <opsiw5ek...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 22:27:53 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >> wrote: >>> Please bear in mind that your personal dislike of people lying [...] >> >> ...is of no relevance here. Yes, true, I approached this issue from >> a strictly "competitive multiplayer game" angle. > > Jyhad has an inherent social element - which includes the ability to > lie. Jyhad is also a multiplayer game. it is also played competitively. These two points are more important than the social aspect of the game for competitive play (which social element, by the way, would probably lose less than you believe). > Changes which detract from that possibly disrupt that element. That > this would suit you is certainly relevant. You may care to re-read what > I wrote, particularly the "intentional or accidental" line. People may > support changes for reasons that suit them, without realising it. And oppose them too for similar reasons. Guess we've discussed that in depth... ;) >>> "I'll block that PTO vote[0] for you, if >>> you rush his other vampire next turn" etc. are perfectly reasonable >>> bargaining chips that are currently available. >> >> But in return a well-played intercept deck gains almost complete >> immunity >> from votes. > > If nothing else in your post set alarm bells ringing, this should. How about a post saying "A well-played wall deck is completely immune to its predator"? Is that alarming? Or "prey"?!? I mean, why is it more logical for a blocking deck to block an action of his predator that does not affect it in any way, than to block a cross table effect that affects it significantly? I'd say even directly, except for the (D) game term directedness? > Why should a well-played intercept deck suddenly gain "immunity from > votes"? What's balanced about that? Why is that needed? And lose the ability to block its predator or prey if they directly harm someone else. Kind of balanced. >>> Who is the target of Rumors of Gehenna? (The people not getting MPAs >>> will probably want to block!) >>> >>> Who is the target of Autarkis Persecution? (Everyone gets pool - >>> everyone can block?) >>> >>> Who is the target of Political Flux? (No-one is targeted - no-one can >>> block?) >> >> My original post said something about "votes directly affecting >> someone". >> There would be a line drawn somewhere, with cards like KRC and PTO >> falling on the "target may block" side. The necessity of consideration >> does not eliminate the possibility of implementation, IMHO. > > This is a *lot* of change, for a very low tangible benefit (if any). The perception of the benefit is subjective. I'd value it highly (for the "multiplayer" and "competitive" angles). > If large swathes of votes requires errata to determine who the 'target' > is, that's a problem. This is particularly the case in very nebulous > votes like Rumors of Gehenna and Autarkis Persecution. I'd say... Without getting too harshly into it, that there could be two kinds of votes. "Harmless" votes would include most votes that do not directly affect anyone, or whose effects are not detrimental (as defined by another set of votes). This would be an excluded set, as no special definition would be needed. Any vote would be "harmless" (or "general", "generic", "undirected", etc.), unless it was indicated otherwise. The rules for these votes could remain. Harmful votes could be indicated and be blockable by their targets. Even the (D) symbol could be used, with the special rulebook provision that the (D) symbol indicated on a vote card means that every methuselah who is directly affected may block (but in return the predator and prey may not, unless they are also targetted). Like: rev. Kine Resources Contested Cardtype: Political Action Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. (D) Allocate 4 points between two or more Methuselahs. Successful referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point assigned. Sure, you'd need to specify the targets before getting to the block opportunities window, for what it's worth. That's mostly a bad thing, probably, but it can also serve as a benefit (you won't be blocked "just in case"; you can also choose targets who cannot block). [snip examples] These would probably all fall under "Harmless". > And so on, and so on, and so on. Indeed. > I can't see any of this meeting the threshold required for such > upheaval. You induced much of the hype yourself. If you stay reasonable at least long enough to sincerely ponder the idea you might contribute some constructive criticism. Understand that my primary concern is a shifting emphasis onto competitive play. You need more "fair" rules for that kind of thing. You will never eliminate the ability to collude and/or play poorly, and for a multiplayer game such issues probably warrant consideration. This is so far a hypothetical change. Not as if LSJ or anyone would be considering it. It's just something to ponder with the limitless freedom the lack of responsibility places on one. >>> I've certainly seen a predator and prey negotiate about who should >>> block, whilst they're in the "Is my prey blocking?" step of the action. >>> (I've been one of those people, for example.) >> >> Non-sequitur. The necessity to negotiate because the rules deny one the >> option to block an action targeting him (but not in the rules-defined >> way of being the (D) target) is perhaps less intrinsic to the game than >> convention would let us believe. > > Predator and prey always have the option to block. Undirected actions, yes. > You appear to be thinking that by "predator and prey" I am talking about > "not predator and not prey", as your comment only applies to cross-table > votes. I was referring to the reference you referred to (in which I referred to your prior reference). -- Bye, Daneel

[Daneel] > ...why is it more logical for a blocking deck to block > an action of his predator that does not affect it in > any way, than to block a cross table effect that > affects it significantly? *Everything* my predator does effects me, as it is advancing their game. If they are advancing their game they are closer to ousting me - especially now since DU/KR are banned. Thus it is logical for a blocking deck to consider blocking anything that its predator does. It's also logical for the reason that blocking and torporing/burning/hurting the acting minion is (generally) advancing the blocking deck's game. A blocking deck doesn't block actions because the actions affect it, that's incidental and irrelevant. A blocking deck blocks actions because it effects the Methuselah whose minions are trying to act (normally prey or predator of the blocking deck). > And lose the ability to block its predator or prey > if they directly harm someone else. Kind of > balanced. I call Disputed Territority to steal a cross table hunting ground. Who does this directly harm? Who do you think should be able to block this? Why should it be different to who can block KRC (if you think it is)? > rev. Kine Resources Contested > ...(D) Allocate 4 points between two or > more Methuselahs. So I call a KRC that will oust my prey and do one point of damage to, say my grand-predator, and my predator can't block it? I'd say me getting an oust will directly effect my predator. * lehrbuch

[Daneel] > Blocking is the inherent option present in the game to > thwart a malevolent effect. The ability to block is very > important, especially since a lot of decks pack at least > casual Intercept, like, in the form of 2nd Traditions. > > Such a deck would in a fair share of the cases be better > off by blocking than by allowing politics to decide the > issue (except, of course, if they have a DT or similar > card in hand). A deck with casual intercept will never have the intercept when it wants it anyway. However, a wall deck, that is a deck that blocks "offensively" will in fact be screwed by your proposal. For example, I am a wall deck and my prey is a vote deck. Under your proposal the vote deck can go ahead and carefully call many KRCs that do not cause damage to me (their predator), but do cheerfully oust their prey. There is nothing I do about this. The wall deck is fucked *unless* it includes Eagles Sight. Exactly the situation you were purporting to avoid. Being able to block a prey that advances by voting is much more important to an intercept based deck than worrying about being hit by the odd wildly aimed PTO. * lehrbuch

On 13 Dec 2004 17:43:14 -0800, lehrbuch <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Such a deck would in a fair share of the cases be better >> off by blocking than by allowing politics to decide the >> issue (except, of course, if they have a DT or similar >> card in hand). > > A deck with casual intercept will never have the intercept when it > wants it anyway. True, luck plays a very significant role in this game (as it is a card game). But that is possible with tons of intercept anyway, so assuming at least a decent draw, a good player will skillfully use any card to his or her advantage, regardless of quantity. I'm not one and I still manage to wreak havoc with carefully played casual intercept. > However, a wall deck, that is a deck that blocks "offensively" will in > fact be screwed by your proposal. For example, I am a wall deck and my > prey is a vote deck. For example consider a wall deck with a bleeder prey under the current system. 'Nuff said. -- Bye, Daneel

On 13 Dec 2004 17:27:18 -0800, lehrbuch <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote: > [Daneel] >> ...why is it more logical for a blocking deck to block >> an action of his predator that does not affect it in >> any way, than to block a cross table effect that >> affects it significantly? > > *Everything* my predator does effects me, as it is advancing their > game. If they are advancing their game they are closer to ousting me - I see the merit of this statement. In fact, I agree that it is technically true. However, scratching under the surface we find that it is not true in reality. As the game rules fall short of identifying subtle collusion, and as no rule can prevent poor play, plus given the abundance of deals we end up with a situation where it is quite debatable. Especially given how this is a competitively played multiplayer game. So no, I do not believe in that statement. > A blocking deck doesn't block actions because the actions affect it, > that's incidental and irrelevant. A blocking deck blocks actions > because it effects the Methuselah whose minions are trying to act > (normally prey or predator of the blocking deck). That is an interesting, if somewhat odd point. It is even true as long as your previous statement stands (which is, as long as everyone is being a good boy and going forward). >> And lose the ability to block its predator or prey >> if they directly harm someone else. Kind of >> balanced. > > I call Disputed Territority to steal a cross table hunting ground. Who > does this directly harm? Who do you think should be able to block > this? Why should it be different to who can block KRC (if you think it > is)? Attributing exact cards is a long and tiresome process I do not wish to take upon me. I do not want to change the system, I merely point out something I percieve sooner or later will evolve into necessity. In fact, that may be sooner than later. >> rev. Kine Resources Contested >> ...(D) Allocate 4 points between two or >> more Methuselahs. > > So I call a KRC that will oust my prey and do one point of damage to, > say my grand-predator, and my predator can't block it? I'd say me > getting an oust will directly effect my predator. Not any more than you bleeding for three. But, your grandpredator can instead block. I see little problem with this, as your prey will probably want to block it anyway. To sum it up: none of your arguments seem to escape the "but the predator won't be able to block" issue (already there for bleeds and other (D) stuff like rushes), or go beyond the "but you did not present me with a comprehensive list of all affected political cards" strawman. You have some good points but neither of them address the real problem I refer to - that in the case of a competitive multiplayer game it is highly beneficial if all players can directly interact with things that directly interact with them. Note that in casual play I don't mind the current system at all. It works fine and any change won't bring about enough benefit. However, we're also talking about tournaments here - and that's a different issue. -- Bye, Daneel

In message <opsizp28...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >On 13 Dec 2004 17:27:18 -0800, lehrbuch <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> *Everything* my predator does effects me, as it is advancing their >> game. If they are advancing their game they are closer to ousting me - > >I see the merit of this statement. In fact, I agree that it is >technically true. > >However, scratching under the surface we find that it is not true in >reality. As the game rules fall short of identifying subtle collusion, >and as no rule can prevent poor play, plus given the abundance of >deals we end up with a situation where it is quite debatable. >Especially given how this is a competitively played multiplayer game. >So no, I do not believe in that statement. Rules are not just made for bad players. Bear in mind that - for example - many bad players will not be able to abuse the possibilities that NRA (and the new NRA-style rules) address, or that Return to Innocence presented. Everything a *good* player does advances their position in some fashion. And the game is designed to be balanced so that good players can be dealt with, just as much as bad players. >Attributing exact cards is a long and tiresome process I do not wish to >take upon me. I do not want to change the system, I merely point out >something I percieve sooner or later will evolve into necessity. In fact, >that may be sooner than later. Why? It may also be worthwhile pointing out that "Here's a controversial idea but I'm not going to put in the effort to support it when it comes across significant problems" generally doesn't work out well, for a variety of reasons. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 14 Dec 2004 14:11:35 -0800, lehrbuch <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote: > This argument makes no sense. > > Are you suggesting that players collude often and hence are not always > advancing their own game? Or that players are frequently so crap that > they are only advancing their game by accident? Trying to put words in my mouth, are you? The subtle table dynamic can be disrupted by minor misjudgements or secondary considerations of preference. Not to mention the more blatant possibilities. Given how a judge decides upon limited information, in a limited way and based on limited experience, I'd rather have the rules support my game than the judges. > Surely, if you think these are problems then they are a consequence of > *casual* play not *competitive* play? In casual I can choose whom I sit down to play with. There is also no stake. In competitive play both are quite different. > I'd say it's more because there is no equitable way of attributing the > cards that is better than: "Votes are undirected actions". Which is a > reason I'm saying the proposed change is useless. There are probably many. I suggested one. > You seem to want to make votes and bleeds more equivalent. How is this > helping the game? You seem to forget that only the announcing of the terms would change. Otherwise, a KRC played in a "logical" way would still be blockable by predator and prey. Of course, if we are getting near "illogical" play (either due to misjudgement or other factors) we are left with two options: either go with the current system whose idealist motto is "why would anyone not optimize their chances to win", and instead go with the more realistic it is against you, you can block it". >> "but you did not present me with a comprehensive >> list of all affected political cards" strawman. > > You can't even present us with a single card that is unequivocally > better under your proposed system. rev. Protect Thine Own Cardtype: Political Action Cost: 1 blood Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any justicar or Inner Circle member at +1 stealth. (D) Choose a non-Camarilla vampire with a capacity below 6. If the acting vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, you may choose any non-Camarilla vampire instead. If this referendum is successful, burn that vampire. -- Bye, Daneel

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:30:45 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Rules are not just made for bad players. Bear in mind that - for > example - many bad players will not be able to abuse the possibilities > that NRA (and the new NRA-style rules) address, or that Return to > Innocence presented. I see. But even the top ranking players make mistakes. Not to mention newbies. The rules should - IMHO - at least allow players to "defend" themselves. I'm not necessarily trying to promote defensive play though. > Everything a *good* player does advances their position in some fashion. Unless it is based on misjudgement, is itself a mistake, or is influenced by out of game considerations (or something). > And the game is designed to be balanced so that good players can be > dealt with, just as much as bad players. No. The game is balanced so that the good, honest and unerring players are perfectly dealt with. Which kind of leaves a lot of mist here and there... ;) The rules IMHO should take into consideration both the unskilled, unfair and absent minded player _and_ the good, honest and unerring one. > It may also be worthwhile pointing out that "Here's a controversial idea > but I'm not going to put in the effort to support it when it comes > across significant problems" generally doesn't work out well, for a > variety of reasons. I can't take the developers' work. I've suggested enough cornerstones to set the idea in place. My "job" is done after I have successfully illustrated my point. -- Bye, Daneel

[Me] > > *Everything* my predator does effects me, as it > > is advancing their game. If they are advancing > > their game they are closer to ousting me - [Daneel] > However, scratching under the surface we find that > it is not true in reality. As the game rules fall > short of identifying subtle collusion, and as no > rule can prevent poor play, plus given the abundance > of deals we end up with a situation where it is > quite debatable. Especially given how this is a > competitively played multiplayer game. So no, I > do not believe in that statement. This argument makes no sense. Are you suggesting that players collude often and hence are not always advancing their own game? Or that players are frequently so crap that they are only advancing their game by accident? Surely, if you think these are problems then they are a consequence of *casual* play not *competitive* play? [Daneel] > Attributing exact cards is a long and tiresome > process I do not wish to take upon me. I'd say it's more because there is no equitable way of attributing the cards that is better than: "Votes are undirected actions". Which is a reason I'm saying the proposed change is useless. > To sum it up: none of your arguments seem to escape > the "but the predator won't be able to block" issue > (already there for bleeds and other (D) stuff like > rushes)... That's a major difference between bleeds and votes. Votes are not meant to be effectively just crappy bleeds. Votes have the advantages of: being at + 1 stealth, being more flexible than bleeding, and *occasionally* highly interested parties are unable to block them. These are balanced by the disadvantages: that a referendum needs to pass to be effective, and that two *normally* highly interested parties have the opportunity to block them. You seem to want to make votes and bleeds more equivalent. How is this helping the game? > "but you did not present me with a comprehensive > list of all affected political cards" strawman. You can't even present us with a single card that is unequivocally better under your proposed system. * lehrbuch

[Me] > > *Everything* my predator does effects me, as it > > is advancing their game. If they are advancing > > their game they are closer to ousting me - [Daneel] > However, scratching under the surface we find that > it is not true in reality. As the game rules fall > short of identifying subtle collusion, and as no > rule can prevent poor play, plus given the abundance > of deals we end up with a situation where it is > quite debatable. Especially given how this is a > competitively played multiplayer game. So no, I > do not believe in that statement. This argument makes no sense. Are you suggesting that players collude often and hence are not always advancing their own game? Or that players are frequently so crap that they are only advancing their game by accident? Surely, if you think these are problems then they are a consequence of *casual* play not *competitive* play? [Daneel] > Attributing exact cards is a long and tiresome > process I do not wish to take upon me. I'd say it's more because there is no equitable way of attributing the cards that is better than: "Votes are undirected actions". Which is a reason I'm saying the proposed change is useless. > To sum it up: none of your arguments seem to escape > the "but the predator won't be able to block" issue > (already there for bleeds and other (D) stuff like > rushes)... That's a major difference between bleeds and votes. Votes are not meant to be effectively just crappy bleeds. Votes have the advantages of: being at + 1 stealth, being more flexible than bleeding, and *occasionally* highly interested parties are unable to block them. These are balanced by the disadvantages: that a referendum needs to pass to be effective, and that two *normally* highly interested parties have the opportunity to block them. You seem to want to make votes and bleeds more equivalent. How is this helping the game? > "but you did not present me with a comprehensive > list of all affected political cards" strawman. You can't even present us with a single card that is unequivically [ quoted text not captured ]

[Daneel] > Trying to put words in my mouth, are you? No. I still have no idea what you are saying here. You still seem to be arguing that the current system doesn't work because players are not playing to win? [lehrbuch] > > You can't even present us with a single card that > > is unequivocally better under your proposed > > system. [Daneel] > rev. Protect Thine Own... > (D) Choose a non-Camarilla vampire ... What values of "unequivocal" and "better" are you using? I thought you were concerned about PTO being overpowered already. This makes Protect Thine Own *more* powerful as typically only one player can now block it. Whereas under the old system usually two players could block it, one of whom typically controlled the selected vampire, anyway. Nice one. * lehrbuch

In message <1103071114.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, lehrbuch <lehr...@gmail.com> writes in response to Daneel: >> rev. Protect Thine Own... >> (D) Choose a non-Camarilla vampire ... > >What values of "unequivocal" and "better" are you using? I thought you >were concerned about PTO being overpowered already. > >This makes Protect Thine Own *more* powerful as typically only one >player can now block it. Whereas under the old system usually two >players could block it, one of whom typically controlled the selected >vampire, anyway. This will most likely be even more "typically" now, given the lack of DU/KR - unless someone spends the entire time looking like the threat, which is a skill you should be working against, so far as is possible. [ quoted text not captured ]