VTES: A critical review on BoardGameGeek

I've posted my personal responses to this article: http://www.geekdo.com/article/4547095 What would you add?

[ quoted text not captured ] What is this guy's problem? The linked article is not a review at all. It doesn't explain what the game is about or how it works; it is simply a smear piece. It's also pretty clear that the author has little to no idea what he's even talking about. He refers to a 3-4 player game taking two hours, which neither size usually does, and 3 player VTES is not part of the standard format. He refers to cards as old as Sabbat and Dark Sovereigns as new, while comparing them incorrectly to other cards, such as the comparison between Bonding and Fata Morgana or between Obfuscate and Obtenebration. He also claims that preconstructed starters for other games are more competetive than are VTES ones, which I have a very hard time believing. Does anyone have any data on the last point? I don't have a BGG account, and don't intend to create one. If anyone wants to point out any of what I just did, feel free. This guy probably just sucks at VTES, and doesn't like it for that reason. Jesse

[ quoted text not captured ] First of all, what the hell is this guy's motivation for writing this? The title of his article should be "I think VTES sucks, and this is why". Did he get fired from WW recently? Was his ex girlfriend a VTES player? Anyway, it's clear he's writing the article through MTG-goggles. If MTG is exactly what you like, and ONLY what you like, then yeah, this is what you'd likely say about VTES. Turning this around, i.e. watching MTG through VTES-goggles: 1. - He says no changes in 'paradigm' happen in VTES. Uhm, this is a good thing. I guess intruducing 20 new mechanics and keywords every 3 sets, while totally ignoring the ones from all previous groups of 3 is a good thing? It's what made me stop buying MTG years ago. 2. - He says 30-45 minute games are good, and 2hr games are bad. Again, the MTG goggles. I say, games that could be over in 2 minutes, by mere design of the cards/luck of pitting one deck type against another, suck b.a.l.l.s. (except games that are meant to be short, like Anachronism). When I play VTES, unless luck is -very- much against me, I'll always have a chance. In MTG, my opponent could go first and kill me before I even get a turn. Oh what fun. 3. - Discipline bleed: what he says here is not true at all. I think the design team do an excellent job at keeping the disciplines' 'unique' flavors intact. Again, again: play type 1 (or whatever it's called now) MTG and you CAN do everything with every color. Just be ready to spend a shitload of money. 4.& 5. - Toolbox precons: Well, it's kinda true about the decks not being equally powerful, but I fully believe the design team try to make decks of equal power within each set. Here again, the writer names the MTG decks as an example of 'good' so there's the goggles again. And I disagree that MTG precons are as good as 'common constructed decks', unless he means 'decks constructed out of commons' (cause 90% of the good MTG cards are rare). 6. - Power creep (?): Total BS. This guy totally ignores the fact that a lot of old school G1/2 decks are still able to kick ass. One of the big merits of VTES (IMO) is that you DON'T NEED to keep buying to stay competetive. The writer (and that other guy with the short reply) are 100% wrong here. The last bit: Again, what this guy is (I think) referring to, is exactly what made me quit MTG*. Instead of producing expansions that actually, y'know, EXPAND the game, he'd rather have a system that throws all the old stuff you paid dearly for out the window every x months, and have the game make a 180 except for the very basics and make us all start over paying and collecting, because our old decks are not legal anymore. I own over 20000 MTG cards (like, 15 or so complete sets) but I know I wouldn't be able enter a tournament now, without buying lots of new stuff and completely re-learning the rules/'current' mechanics. ..... (....Raaah! pretty pissed after reading this shite. Need some herbal tea.) ...So uhm, Jozxyqk, use what you want of this... - Teeka * I still play (with 5th Ed. rules), but I'll never buy a MTG booster again in my life.

[ quoted text not captured ] I lol'd at that review :) It is however a sad thing if potential players looking at the game sees it in such an incredibly wrong way. //Alex

[ quoted text not captured ] That's what pisses me off so much. It's on a renowned (non-computer) game-website, and chances are people will read it when trying to see if VTES is a game for them.

On Jan 26, 10:08 am, Teeka <teeka_dra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > That's what pisses me off so much. It's on a renowned (non-computer) > game-website, and chances are people will read it when trying to see > if VTES is a game for them. I think that's a bit overreacting, but it highlights a good point: if BGG's a renowned game-website, more of us should be more active there, if nothing else than to offer a better picture. But remember to act as good will ambassadors, not conquering dictators.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, that's why I wrote my stream-of-angry-consciousness here, instead of there. I thought if Jozxyqk wanted use a part of my rant, he could (as I'm only preaching to the choir here), but I wouldn't do much good blowing up like that on BGG. ... I'm ok now.

> I think that's a bit overreacting, but it highlights a good point: if > BGG's a renowned game-website, more of us should be more active there, > if nothing else than to offer a better picture. But remember to act as > good will ambassadors, not conquering dictators. No crushing, driving and hearing lamentation? Awwww.

On Jan 26, 11:30 am, Orange Devil <orangede...@home.nl> wrote: > No crushing, driving and hearing lamentation? > > Awwww. If your goal is actually to make the game's community look attractive to those on the outside of it, "winning of hearts and minds" is going to be a much better means to that end. John Eno

On Jan 26, 9:35 am, cthulukitty <jcrossnicker...@gmail.com> wrote: > This guy probably just sucks at VTES, and doesn't like it for that > reason. Something like that. I definitely get a strong vibe that the writer has been told that VTES is good, and has played it, and hasn't been able to understand why other people like it. Something about the tone of the review makes me think that it was written, at least in part, in order to try to draw out some responses from fans of the game about ways to deal with what he perceives as its problems. (Or maybe I'm just applying close reading where there isn't any call for it.) John Eno

I don't think the criticism is that wildly wrong. It's the standard set of laments that one hears about VTES from people who want <i>a game that they can play</i> rather than <i>a way of life that they can live</i>. VTES, for all of its strengths, requires an enormous commitment of time JUST TO LEARN THE RULES. People with less than perfect vision can't even use the discipline index cards anymore because the writing is too small. Complaint #1 isn't really about the lack of paradigm changes... it's about how complex the game has become. (And when your best counter to the claim is "But what about the Imbued?" I think it's clear that we're in trouble.) Games of VTES typically do last longer than, say, Monopoly or even Axis and Allies. That's just a fact. And that's if you have players who know exactly what they are doing. So we get complaints like Claim #2. (*FN*) The precons do kind of suck for introducing people to the game. It's not an excuse that they can be customized or mashed together to be made better: people want to go buy a few decks and PLAY THE DAMN GAME. The precons don't give this type of experience, although I do have to say they've at least been getting better over the years. So claims 4 and 5 are at least reasonable, too, if you approach them from the position of someone who wants to be a casual player. (But see the footnote below.) Claims 3 and 6 are a different type of claim -- the claims of someone who has been playing for a while. But they are also claims that might be made by someone who is trying to teach casual players to play. Discipline bleed is annoying: It's hard to describe what "Protean" is in terms of its game effects now, because it has so many damn game effects. You can still mostly get away with "Auspex is mostly intercept" and "Obfuscate is mostly stealth", and things like "Potence, Celerity, and Fortitude are for combat -- doing damage, making additional strikes and maneuvering, and preventing damage." But things are getting awfully thin on the ground for explaining the game to someone in thematic terms anymore. And power creep... well, it's just hard to explain to someone who is learning to play the game why they should really give Silvia Giovanni a chance when they can see other decks have cards like The Unnamed for the same cost. (OK, so no one has The Unnamed yet, You know damn well what I mean.) Power creep really is less of a problem in VTES than in a lot of other games, so I'm inclined to give this claim less credulity than the others. But it is an issue, if a minor one. Love the game. Play the game. But let's not be blinded to its obvious and glaring faults. *FN* Of course, we might say that we can safely assume that players know what they are doing. But that's the grounds for a totally separate complaint. Perhaps most damning to a casual approach to VTES, the player "base" for the game is generally far more interested in the tournament scene and the VEKN rules set than they are in the recreational scene. I think it's telling that the very first reply to this thread claims: "...and 3 player VTES is not part of the standard format." Now I've been playing this game since 1994, and I don't actually know what the "standard format" is in this context. I assumed that the "standard format" was the 3 rounds + final format used in tournaments, and indeed Google will bear up this take on it. (That's at least 9 hours of playing, by the way, for the "standard format". Not a casual game.) But that's clearly not what is being referenced here, so I suppose what we're talking about it (put on my most unctious, officious bureaucratic voice) is: "In the 2010 VEKN Tournament Rules, Section 3, Subsection 1, Subsubsection 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, where it is clearly stated that the standard format calls for tables of 4 or 5 players." Meanwhile, I'd like to quote from the VERY FIRST SENTENCE of the rulebook: "Vampire: The Eternal Struggle is a trading card game in which two or more players take on the roles of ancient vampires known as Methuselahs. " It's not, really -- a game for two or more players, that is -- but that's what the first sentence of the 17,000 word rulebook says. I *love* VTES, but the fact is, the game as it currently exists and is marketed exists and is designed for the dedicated tournament player, not for the casual player. I've done my damndest to create casual play groups -- I've got simple two-page (i.e., one page double-sided) handouts that I've worked on over the years to make the game playable. I've got a special set of 24 "introductory" decks that I use to teach people to play the game, decks that demonstrate a few simple game concepts and gradually build in complexity. I've managed to build a little casual player base of about 8 of my friends locally that I've very gently coaxed into the game over the years, and about 6 more who have moved away but who still like to play when we visit each other. It was really hard bringing them all into the game, and it probably would have been impossible if I had taken them to the tournament-minded local playgroup first. Some of the people there are wonderful, but it would be as intimidating as hell to play there as someone new to the game. Anyway, I'm just saying that the complaints in the linked article are the typical complaints I here even from people who don't play Magic. It's the set of complaints (with the exception of 6, probably, at least at first) that you get from people who just want a game to play. And for them, that game is not VTES.

[ quoted text not captured ] Complaints about precons I would take at face value unless proved otherwise. They suck in terms of functionality. Basic cards have needed re-printing for a long time and have not been(we'll see about deflection in HttB, spiritual intervention, sensory deprivation, and alamut were missed), strategies employed in the precons are disjointed (i.e. wall decks with few wakes, 16+ pieces of equipment for their fatty vampires, minimal bounce and bad combat defense for bleed decks), and they are just not balanced enough(if that is indeed a consideration when they are made). Every precon should include 1+ copies of the Barrens to discard all the crap that's put in them, if you are foolish enough to play with a sealed precon. Precons to not serve as a good way to teach the game, which is hard enough in VTES. Aside from the precon arguments, I think that the review is fairly baseless. Brandon

On Jan 26, 12:44 pm, Legendre <glav...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think the criticism is that wildly wrong. It's not the individual points that make the article problematic, though. The two problems are that 1) It claims to be a review, but isn't. A review that doesn't attempt to do anything other than discuss the problems with a game isn't a review, it's a list of gripes. and 2) Many of those gripes are of the "this cat isn't as good as a dog, because it's a cat and not a dog" variety. The aspects of the game that he paints as objectively bad aren't; had he pointed them out as parts of the game that he personally dislikes rather than stuff that's universally negative, this wouldn't have been an issue. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, while his style is didactic, since it's a review, we can assume that everything in there is to some degree an opinion. I'm glad he posted it, folks can come out and defend VTES. Heck, nothing stopping any of us posting positive reviews on BGG in response. best - chris

brandonsantacruz wrote: > > > Precons to not serve as a good way to teach the game, which is hard > enough in VTES. > > Aside from the precon arguments, I think that the review is fairly > baseless. > > Brandon Ever played with him Brandon? His profile lists him in San Francisco. best - chris

> Ever played with him Brandon? His profile lists him in San > Francisco. I doubt it. The SF players that I know I've played with are Brad, Ira, Henri, and Alex O. Not sure where Alex Con Hon is from(East Bay?). They're talking about restarting their play group out there on http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/BAvtes/ Maybe they can go visit this guy and set him straight ;) By the way, I'm glad SoCal is making such a big appearance at Vegas. 22 players coming so far! How about some more NorCalers? Brandon

On Jan 26, 9:44 am, Legendre <glav...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... > Anyway, I'm just saying that the complaints in the linked article are > the typical complaints I here even from people who don't play Magic. > It's the set of complaints (with the exception of 6, probably, at > least at first) that you get from people who just want a game to > play. And for them, that game is not VTES. I agree with your entire post, which was well-thought out. VTES does have some problems, which any game has. I especially don't like discipline bleed, myself. But as you mentioned, these are the complaints of the casual gamer or MTG player looking at VTES. VTES is not really for casual gamers, as far as I can tell.

On Jan 26, 3:50 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Well, while his style is didactic, since it's a review, we > can assume that everything in there is to some degree an > opinion. Sure. The issue is that he's listing the backbone elements of the game as things which are inherently problematic, rather than game mechanics he generally doesn't like. For example, he doesn't like having to build decks in order to play, but rather than saying, "I'm not a fan of CCGs," he says, "It's bad for the game that I can't play it out of the box." That's complaining that a cat is stupid because it's not a dog. John Eno

On Jan 26, 12:44 pm, Legendre <glav...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think the criticism is that wildly wrong. Some of it is certainly coming from a valid starting point. A lot of it is, however, based in "this game isn't what I think it should be", which is kind of a dubious place to argue from. > It's the standard set of laments that one hears about VTES from people > who want <i>a game that they can play</i> rather than <i>a way of life > that they can live</i>. Sure. Some games are complicated. And have trouble attracting new players as a result. Heck, *bridge* is virtually impossible to be good at for years and years. And yet people love the game. VTES is complicated. And dense. And not a game that one can pick up easily. And intimidating to new players. All of these things are true. But that is what the game is. And criticizing it for this is kind of beyond the point. > it's about how complex the game has > become. (And when your best counter to the claim is "But what about > the Imbued?" I think it's clear that we're in trouble.) The game is a complex one. Lots of games are complex. That doesn't mean that they are bad games. It just means that they are complex games. Lots of people like complex games (it is no surprise at all that there is an incredibly high crossover rate between "people who used to play Star Fleet Battles" and "People who play VTES"...). > The precons do kind of suck for introducing people to the game. I don't think that is remotely true. I agree that pre-cons are not good for, like, sitting down with and expecting to be competitive with constructed decks. But they are perfectly fine for sitting down with some new players, everyone having a different pre-con, and playing/ learning the game. > But things are getting awfully thin on the ground for explaining the > game to someone in thematic terms anymore. Gah. That is a vast overstatement. Yes. There is certainly discipline slosh. Even more than I'm particularly comfortable with. But that Obfuscate has a S:CE card and Protean has some intercept in no way invalidates the basic "what do these disciplines do" set ups from the original set--Obfuscate gives you stealth, has some light combat, and a few weird effects (this was true in Jyhad and is true now); Auspex gives you intercept, has some light combat, and a few weird effects (this was true in Jyhad and is true now); etc. > Love the game. Play the game. But let's not be blinded to its > obvious and glaring faults. VTES certainly has faults. But i don't think "complexity" is one of them. Yes. VTES is a complex game. And hard to get into. But that is what it is. And wanting it to be something else is wanting it to be a different game than it is. > I *love* VTES, but the fact is, the game as it currently exists and is > marketed exists and is designed for the dedicated tournament player, > not for the casual player. Which is certainly a valid viewpoint. But I also don't think this is a problem. I mean, if your hope for VTES is that it is a casually picked up, quickie game, it will fail at that. But what it *is* good at it is very good at. -Peter

On Jan 26, 2:14 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > VTES certainly has faults. But i don't think "complexity" is one of > them. Yes. VTES is a complex game. And hard to get into. But that is > what it is. And wanting it to be something else is wanting it to be a > different game than it is. > > > -Peter I disagree. VTES is too complex. I got back into the game a 16- months ago ago after a hiatus of 12 years. Even after that time of playing regularly there are many, many cards I do not know. I consistently make poor decisions because I do not know fine details about other players' cards, cards which I do not own and which came out 5-8 years ago. Like in my last game I learned a detail about the Sniper Rifle I hadn't known before: it can't be used at short range. My Brujah with one blood could have pressed and dunked a Sniper Rifle- using vamp, still avoiding torpor himself. The Sniper Rifle is a good example of a card that is too complex - there are six distinct clauses in its explanatory text. I have seen long-time players, including some who have contributed to published players' guides, play cards from their decks incorrectly. I like the complexity because it keeps the game from growing boring and it keeps my mind active, but when people start bringing out card after card with fine text (text that I cannot read because it is small and the cards upon which it is printed are placed far away from me physically), it's Mind Numb time. The game's complexity even creates a kind of metagame tactic in which some long-time players try to gain an advantage by not announcing all, if any, of the details of their cards. Since it's possible not everyone at the table is intimately familiar with every card, there's advantage to be gained.

Aaron Clark wrote: > Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> VTES certainly has faults. But i don't think "complexity" is one >> of them. Yes. VTES is a complex game. And hard to get into. But >> that is what it is. And wanting it to be something else is wanting >> it to be a different game than it is. > > I disagree. VTES is too complex. [snip Sniper Rifle-Complexity comment] I don't see how, after reading Sniper Rifle, which you do when it hits the table, you didn't know it could only be used at long range. Are there a lot of cards available for use? Yes. Are there a lot of cards used in each game? No. > The game's complexity even creates a kind of metagame tactic in > which some long-time players try to gain an advantage by not > announcing all, if any, of the details of their cards. Since it's > possible not everyone at the table is intimately familiar with > every card, there's advantage to be gained. If any cheating cheater tries this, just do what I do: "Could you read the card out loud, please?" Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html Please attend my qualifier! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/

> [snip Sniper Rifle-Complexity comment] > > I don't see how, after reading Sniper Rifle, which you do when it > hits the table, you didn't know it could only be used at long range. > > Are there a lot of cards available for use? Yes. > Are there a lot of cards used in each game? No. > > > The game's complexity even creates a kind of metagame tactic in > > which some long-time players try to gain an advantage by not > > announcing all, if any, of the details of their cards. Since it's > > possible not everyone at the table is intimately familiar with > > every card, there's advantage to be gained. > > If any cheating cheater tries this, just do what I do: > "Could you read the card out loud, please?" Why didn't you invent VTES, Kevin, your answers are so simple! Brandon

[ quoted text not captured ] I've been told I'm too aggressive and abrasive! ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Jan 26, 6:31 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I disagree. VTES is too complex. I play a lot of complex games. VTES is *far* from the most complex of them. It is relatively simple, compared to a lot of games. Are there a lot of different components (i.e. cards)? Sure. But individually, they are all completely reasonable and manageable. And you don't use most of the different components in any given game. > Even after that time of playing regularly there are many, many cards I do not know. Sure. But when something comes up that you have never seen before, it takes seconds to figure it out. > Like in my last game I learned a detail about the > Sniper Rifle I hadn't known before: it can't be used at short range. > My Brujah with one blood could have pressed and dunked a Sniper Rifle- > using vamp, still avoiding torpor himself. If you were unsure of what the card did, you should read it. > The Sniper Rifle is a good example of a card that is too complex - > there are six distinct clauses in its explanatory text. I'm really not clear on what is complex about Sniper Rifle. It has some words. It does some stuff. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but it is just an example of a card that is pretty straight forward, but maybe not everyone knows exactly what it does all the time. Which is easily solved by reading the card if you aren't sure of what it does. > I have seen long-time players, including some who have contributed to > published players' guides, play cards from their decks incorrectly. Sure. There is a lot of stuff going on. And a lot of things that do a lot of stuff. Yet it doesn't make the game unplayable. > The game's complexity even creates a kind of metagame tactic in which > some long-time players try to gain an advantage by not announcing all, > if any, of the details of their cards. Since it's possible not > everyone at the table is intimately familiar with every card, there's > advantage to be gained. Yeah, that's called "cheating" not "a metagame tactic". If you don't know what a card does, say "Huh. Can I see that?" Which will happen, as the game has a lot of stuff in it, but individually, no particular element is all that complicated. And as all the various components have their individual rules written on them, if there is confusion as to what a given piece does, you can just look at it and discover what it does. -Peter

On Jan 27, 7:31 am, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I disagree. VTES is too complex. I got back into the game a 16- > months ago ago after a hiatus of 12 years. Even after that time of > playing regularly there are many, many cards I do not know. I > consistently make poor decisions because I do not know fine details > about other players' cards, cards which I do not own and which came > out 5-8 years ago. Like in my last game I learned a detail about the > Sniper Rifle I hadn't known before: it can't be used at short range. > My Brujah with one blood could have pressed and dunked a Sniper Rifle- > using vamp, still avoiding torpor himself. Guy joins the gaming group after not having played since *gasps* V:tES edition. Didn't know that the text on Fame has changed, got ousted real fast. Came back a week later with the same deck modified to make use of the current Fame text, got a few VPs. My point? Yes, text may change, erratas may have been issued, cards got banned, new cards were printed. New players go 'huh?' when old (not reprinted) cards are played, and I tell them to always ask what the card does if unsure. Ditto to old players for new cards. Adapt and improve. We learn new things everyday. > > The Sniper Rifle is a good example of a card that is too complex - > there are six distinct clauses in its explanatory text. > Erm... Sniper Rifle [FN:R2, LoB:PO, KoT:U/PT3] Cardtype: Equipment Cost: 2 pool Weapon, gun. 2R damage each strike. Only usable at long range. If the bearer blocks an action, he or she may, before range is determined, set the range for the first round of the resulting combat to long; if he or she does so, skip the determine range step that round, and the bearer's initial strike that round must be with this weapon. Artist: Jeff Holt compare to the Headlock from the 'Lunch Money' non-collectible card game Rules for card: (Grab + Headlock) or (Block + Grab + Headlock) A HEADLOCK card is only played after a GRAB card (assuming the GRAB wasn’t avoided, the only immediate defense against the HEADLOCK is HUMILIATION or FREEDOM). The HEADLOCK card renders the victim completely helpless and entitles the attacker to as many free JAB, UPPERCUT and STOMP cards as she has in her hand every round. As long as the HEADLOCK remains, the victim is helpless and cannot defend herself from attacks by other players. Cards that will break a HEADLOCK when the victim’s turn comes are FREEDOM, STOMP, and HUMILIATION. On her own turn, the victim can only play one of those cards (to escape the HEADLOCK ), or discard cards from her hand in an attempt to draw one of those cards she needs. The attacker may choose to release the HEADLOCK at any time; for instance, she may engage a HEADLOCK, deliver the appropriate attacks, and then release the HEADLOCK in the same turn. While the HEADLOCK is in place, the attacker may not attack players other than the HEADLOCK’s victim. Actual text on card: Headlock *flavour text* Now *that* is a card that's too complex. > I have seen long-time players, including some who have contributed to > published players' guides, play cards from their decks incorrectly. > Well, if you know that it was an incorrect play, point it out (assuming you are not prohibited from doing so). Then all who witness that will learn something to take to future games. Also, with so many factors involved (forgetfulness, didn't RTFC, prior erroneous knowledge, tiredness, simple mistake, etc), how can you pin- point the complexity (or lack thereof) of the card text as the reason for the incorrect play? > I like the complexity because it keeps the game from growing boring > and it keeps my mind active, but when people start bringing out card > after card with fine text (text that I cannot read because it is small > and the cards upon which it is printed are placed far away from me > physically), it's Mind Numb time. > Have to agree that some of the cards have waaaaaaaaaay too much text for my liking (see Tome of Ramses III, Rotschrek). Most cards are fine though. I also like to take a look at the card, decide there's too much text, hand it back to the player, and ask him/her to read it out loud in its entirety. You might want to try that too (if necessary). > The game's complexity even creates a kind of metagame tactic in which > some long-time players try to gain an advantage by not announcing all, > if any, of the details of their cards. Since it's possible not > everyone at the table is intimately familiar with every card, there's > advantage to be gained. Umm... See Kevin's and Peter's replies. That's cheating. Call it like you see it. - YY

> > The game's complexity even creates a kind of metagame tactic in which > > some long-time players try to gain an advantage by not announcing all, > > if any, of the details of their cards. Since it's possible not > > everyone at the table is intimately familiar with every card, there's > > advantage to be gained. > > Yeah, that's called "cheating" not "a metagame tactic". If you don't > know what a card does, say "Huh. Can I see that?" Which will happen, > as the game has a lot of stuff in it, but individually, no particular > element is all that complicated. And as all the various components > have their individual rules written on them, if there is confusion as > to what a given piece does, you can just look at it and discover what > it does. > > -Peter >Umm... See Kevin's and Peter's replies. That's cheating. Call it like >you see it. >- YY I think we all like to move the game along. It can get clunky or slow down when you need to read every card. I think this was one of our "critical reviewer's" points (or close to it). However, I think you will find this in every ccg (If you don't, you have a game like Marvel Overpower or Xena!! If you've played those games you know what I am talking about!). Let me see if I can give an example of what Aaron is talking about. Early game one player equips with Sniper Rifle. His prey, let's call him Aaron, asks what does it do. The equipping player says," If I block, I can set the range to long. It shoots for 2R." Aaron doesn't block as he has no Intercept and feels he is completely aware of what is on the table. Flash-forward: Aaron, now in combat with the minion w/ sniper rifle, First round, Aaron uses immortal grapple the vamps exchange pleasentries with their fists. Aaron's vamp has one blood and he has no more immortal grapples in hand. but he does have a potence strike which will send the opposing minion to torpor. He chooses not to press with the grapple knowing range will be close but thinking the other vamp will be able to use the sniper rifle at short range. Is this cheating as Peter, Kevin, and YY have said it is? Especially since you can't tell if the other person left out the tidbit about the rifle not usable at short range on purpose? But lets take it further, what if player A equips with a kevlar vest. The other player, player B, has two minions with desert eagle. Player B asks,"what does it do?" or "Tell me what it does?" Player A responds, "It prevents one damage in combat." Is this cheating? Player A knows it is more than likely that the Kevlar ability to prevent 2 damage from a gun will come into play at some point. Before you say player B should RTFC, which so many veteran players are more than happy to remind others of, shouldn't player A read the card or let the other player read it or for speed sake just say exactly what the card does? I don't think this makes vtes too complex, but if I was a new player or an old player returning after a long period away and got this treatment I would not continue to play too long. Then again, I do get this from time to time but I am still playing. I wonder if our "critical reviewer" has had experiences like this. -Andy

[ quoted text not captured ] here's another hypothetical situation: Player A puts Smiling Jack on the table. Player B asks what it does. Player A responds, "Oh, it makes me lose 1 pool every turn." Then Player A makes a crude remark about Player B's girlfriend. Player C interrupts by peeing all over Player B's cards. Player B decides to never play with this group again. In conclusion, VTES needs less power creep and more paradigms.

"Aaron Clark" <aama...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1b718b73-04a5-4964...@g29g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > I like the complexity because it keeps the game from growing boring > and it keeps my mind active, but when people start bringing out card > after card with fine text (text that I cannot read because it is small > and the cards upon which it is printed are placed far away from me > physically), it's Mind Numb time. While I have to say this doesn't damage the game hugely in my eyes, it does tend to make me kind of testy when players are just plain sloppy about reading their cards to me! I've had a guy say, "...oh, I thought you knew that" when I pointed out to him that the card effect he had announced during the game we just got done playing was actually not a permanent effect but specficially expired at the end of his turn. Grrrrrr.... But that's fixed by just getting people to be diligent about explaining how their cards work as they play them. Fred

On Jan 26, 6:31 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I disagree. VTES is too complex. ...for you. It's the nature of the game that it's complex. That's a totally viable reason to dislike the game, but complaining that its complexity is a bad thing just doesn't make sense, any more than complaining that the game lacks a bidding system or character sheets or styrofoam landscape. John Eno

On Jan 27, 1:00 pm, TorranceCircle <torrance.cir...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think we all like to move the game along. It can get clunky or slow > down when you need to read every card. I think this was one of our > "critical reviewer's" points (or close to it). However, I think you > will find this in every ccg (If you don't, you have a game like Marvel > Overpower or Xena!! If you've played those games you know what I am > talking about!). Let me see if I can give an example of what Aaron is > talking about. Early game one player equips with Sniper Rifle. His > prey, let's call him Aaron, asks what does it do. The equipping player > says," If I block, I can set the range to long. It shoots for 2R." > Aaron doesn't block as he has no Intercept and feels he is completely > aware of what is on the table. Flash-forward: Aaron, now in combat > with the minion w/ sniper rifle, First round, Aaron uses immortal > grapple the vamps exchange pleasentries with their fists. Aaron's vamp > has one blood and he has no more immortal grapples in hand. but he > does have a potence strike which will send the opposing minion to > torpor. He chooses not to press with the grapple knowing range will be > close but thinking the other vamp will be able to use the sniper rifle > at short range. Is this cheating as Peter, Kevin, and YY have said it > is? Especially since you can't tell if the other person left out the > tidbit about the rifle not usable at short range on purpose? > If it was on purpose, yes, it's cheating (which was the context that Kevin, Peter and I were responding to). Can you really tell if it was on purpose? No, not really. However, the way I see it, if it is in a casual game, *shrugs*, whatever. If it is in a tournament, then I'll kick myself for not asking for the full text to be announced (there's also something about reverting the game state if the sequence of play was a result of incomplete or erroneous information, IIRC, even though I can't seem to find a reference for it). > But lets take it further, what if player A equips with a kevlar vest. > The other player, player B, has two minions with desert eagle. Player > B asks,"what does it do?" or "Tell me what it does?" Player A > responds, "It prevents one damage in combat." Is this cheating? Player > A knows it is more than likely that the Kevlar ability to prevent 2 > damage from a gun will come into play at some point. If it's intentional, yes. If you re-read the bit that was referred to as cheating, it was about intentionally leaving out information with the intent to mislead, not accidentally left out information, or just laziness on the player's part. >Before you say > player B should RTFC, which so many veteran players are more than > happy to remind others of, shouldn't player A read the card or let the > other player read it or for speed sake just say exactly what the card > does? Yes, player A should, but if not asked to do so, many of us will not read out the full text, thinking that the other players are familiar enough to know the rest of the text. So if player B decided to not ask again, well no pointing of fingers later then. > > I don't think this makes vtes too complex, but if I was a new player > or an old player returning after a long period away and got this > treatment I would not continue to play too long. Fair enough. - YY

"Haze" <headle...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dfaa0f6d-c193-49c3...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... > here's another hypothetical situation: Player A puts Smiling Jack on > the table. Player B asks what it does. Player A responds, "Oh, it > makes me lose 1 pool every turn." Then Player A makes a crude remark > about Player B's girlfriend. Player C interrupts by peeing all over > Player B's cards. Player B decides to never play with this group > again. OMFG!!! We lose more new players that way... > In conclusion, VTES needs less power creep and more paradigms. Having an extra upstairs bathroom available helps, too. Fred

TorranceCircle wrote: > Let me see if I can give an example of what Aaron is talking about. > Early game one player equips with Sniper Rifle. His prey, let's > call him Aaron, asks what does it do. The equipping player says, > "If I block, I can set the range to long. It shoots for 2R." Aaron > doesn't block as he has no Intercept and feels he is completely > aware of what is on the table. Flash-forward: Aaron, now in combat > with the minion w/ sniper rifle, First round, Aaron uses immortal > grapple the vamps exchange pleasentries with their fists. Aaron's > vamp has one blood and he has no more immortal grapples in hand. > but he does have a potence strike which will send the opposing > minion to torpor. He chooses not to press with the grapple knowing > range will be close but thinking the other vamp will be able to use > the sniper rifle at short range. Is this cheating as Peter, Kevin, > and YY have said it is? Especially since you can't tell if the > other person left out the tidbit about the rifle not usable at > short range on purpose? To be clear: this example is not what we stated was cheating. In Aaron's example, someone was deliberately not announcing the card. Obviously, there is no way to tell from this singular example whether or not the player is cheating. Further examples would bear that out, which is always the way to deal with someone you believe is cheating. > But lets take it further, what if playerA equips with a kevlar vest. > The other player, playerB, has two minions with desert eagle. > PlayerB asks,"what does it do?" or "Tell me what it does?" PlayerA > responds, "It prevents one damage in combat." Is this cheating? As above: Who knows? Only further examples of this kind of behavior from playerA will bear out if they are cheating or just dumb. > PlayerA knows it is more than likely that the Kevlar ability to > prevent 2 damage from a gun will come into play at some point. > Before you say playerB should RTFC, which so many veteran players > are more than happy to remind others of, shouldn't playerA read the > card or let the other player read it or for speed sake just say > exactly what the card does? 'Whatever works for you' is the best thing to do. Either seems fine. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] > In conclusion, VTES needs less power creep and more paradigms.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Ah, sarcasm, I love it! Although my post was longwinded, I don't think it was off topic. I think Aaron was trying to suggest that the multitude of playable cards combined with the large amounts of text on some of those cards makes the game more complex than a casual gamer would want. I think the person on board game geek is one of these players. -Andy

> To be clear: this example is not what we stated was cheating. In > Aaron's example, someone was deliberately not announcing the card. > Obviously, there is no way to tell from this singular example whether > or not the player is cheating. Further examples would bear that out, > which is always the way to deal with someone you believe is cheating. > > > But lets take it further, what if playerA equips with a kevlar vest. > > The other player, playerB, has two minions with desert eagle. > > PlayerB asks,"what does it do?" or "Tell me what it does?" PlayerA > > responds, "It prevents one damage in combat." Is this cheating? > > As above: Who knows? Only further examples of this kind of behavior > from playerA will bear out if they are cheating or just dumb. > > > PlayerA knows it is more than likely that the Kevlar ability to > > prevent 2 damage from a gun will come into play at some point. > > Before you say playerB should RTFC, which so many veteran players > > are more than happy to remind others of, shouldn't playerA read the > > card or let the other player read it or for speed sake just say > > exactly what the card does? > > 'Whatever works for you' is the best thing to do. Either seems fine. > > Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas > "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles > you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* > "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier > Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ > Please buy my cards!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html > Please attend my qualifier!http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Hi Kevin, Yes, this has happened to me enough times. Now, I simply say, "Please let me read the card." -Andy

You may be right that my impression of the game's complexity stems from my limited mental abilities. I thought I knew what the Sniper Rifle did, and I was wrong. I had missed one of the six different details in the rules description, which was once read to me many months prior, causing me to make a poor decision. I thought, "It's like a .44 Magnum, except you get to set the range to long on the first round if you block." Close, but no cigar. Frankly I am sometimes slow when it comes to grasping new, heavily worded cards. As I said, I have seen errors in card interpretation even from VERY experienced players, errors which may stem from having to keep track of huge numbers of unique cards, many of which have complicated and non-intuitive writing. And it is so easy to miss one of the clauses on a card for anyone; I was once ousted because a more experienced player told me that Psychomachia made his bleed unblockable, even though my blocking vampire was older. I didn't own the card, and I believed what he told me. The mistake was discovered after I'd left the table, but come on - I would have my head taken off if I insisted on reading every new card that I didn't know every time one is played. Both Kevin and Peter have played VTES constantly since its inception, I believe. You have a different perspective than me, who is a newbie compared to you. You own copies of every card, which you purchased when they came out. You have a much greater capacity to manage complexity, since you have had many more chances to play and study every card. My response is the response of a newer player: sometimes the complexity of the game is daunting. From my perspective, it is TOO complex. I don't feel that way every time I play, but I do feel that way consistently. At least I had played from Jyhad through Sabbat before I stopped back in 1996. I have no idea where a complete newbie would start today. The complexity of the game is an advantage to older players over newer players. I am frustrated at some recent experiences in which a more experienced player seems to have tried to deliberately take advantage of people's ignorance of card text. It's very subtle though - again, am I going to read every new card to make sure someone isn't obfuscating or making a mistake with what they're telling me? I get it that the model of this CCG is to continue to produce new cards often and to not have limited environments, but I can't say that having to learn hundreds of new cards every year improves my enjoyment of the game. As for the Lunch Money example, "YY" failed to mention the fact that the Lunch Money game consists of only 29 unique cards. I don't know exactly how many unique cards VTES has, but it is far more than 29. Learning 29 unique cards to play a game, albeit complicated ones, pales in comparison to learning every non-standard special possessed by VTES vampires, for example.

Oh , I didn't see the second page of posts before responding - my post is in reponse to Kevin, Peter, and YY. See, poor attention skills! Sorry, Andy!

On Jan 27, 4:34 pm, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Frankly I am sometimes slow when it comes to grasping new, heavily > worded cards. Me too, to be honest. I always end up asking the other guy to explain with a quick example. > As I said, I have seen errors in card interpretation > even from VERY experienced players, errors which may stem from having > to keep track of huge numbers of unique cards, many of which have > complicated and non-intuitive writing. > > And it is so easy to miss one of the clauses on a card for anyone; I > was once ousted because a more experienced player told me that > Psychomachia made his bleed unblockable, even though my blocking > vampire was older. I didn't own the card, and I believed what he told > me. The mistake was discovered after I'd left the table, but come on > - I would have my head taken off if I insisted on reading every new > card that I didn't know every time one is played. A lot of players in the playgroups that I've played in tend to ask to read cards that they are unsure of. Most times play just goes on while that player reads. I would like to believe that V:tES players tend to have enough patience not to flip every time the game pauses so someone can read a card they've never seen before. Never believe that a more experienced player instinctively knows what they are doing (with regards to card effects). And I think it's not true that because you've played the game before, you must play like you know every card. <snip bits pertaining directly to Kevin and Peter> > > My response is the response of a newer player: sometimes the > complexity of the game is daunting. From my perspective, it is TOO > complex. I don't feel that way every time I play, but I do feel that > way consistently. At least I had played from Jyhad through Sabbat > before I stopped back in 1996. I have no idea where a complete newbie > would start today. Wait. Are we talking about the complexity of the game mechanics and card interactions or the cards as individual units? > > The complexity of the game is an advantage to older players over newer > players. I am frustrated at some recent experiences in which a more > experienced player seems to have tried to deliberately take advantage > of people's ignorance of card text. It's very subtle though - again, > am I going to read every new card to make sure someone isn't > obfuscating or making a mistake with what they're telling me? You can, and I think you should. All the players (new and old and returning) in my current playgroup do that. And they ask for explanations when the text seems complicated to them (even when they're the ones playing the card). > > As for the Lunch Money example, "YY" failed to mention the fact that > the Lunch Money game consists of only 29 unique cards. I don't know > exactly how many unique cards VTES has, but it is far more than 29. > Learning 29 unique cards to play a game, albeit complicated ones, > pales in comparison to learning every non-standard special possessed > by VTES vampires, for example. There's an issue with the fact that *all* the cards have *no text* on them (other than the card name and some flavour text), which was my point (that the text for each card in V:tES is on the card itself). My apologies if I didn't put that through more clearly. Just ask to read the card if you are unsure of what it does. I do that almost every game, and I get asked to explain cards I play fairly often. I'm sure that as long as you don't ask to read every Pursuit, Bewitching Oration, or Computer Hacking, or keep asking about a card that you've just asked 5 minutes ago, you wouldn't annoy the table. I do get help from the local metagame, though. Most players here are willing to chip in bits of information that they feel is important that the player of the card missed in his/her explanation. - YY

Aaron Clark wrote: > Frankly I am sometimes slow when it comes to grasping new, heavily > worded cards. As I said, I have seen errors in card interpretation > even from VERY experienced players, errors which may stem from > having to keep track of huge numbers of unique cards, many of which > have complicated and non-intuitive writing. No player I know "keeps track" of anything on the cards. What they do is memorize the rules of the game (and perhaps the associated rulings if they choose to take the game seriously) and then play. When cards are played, they are either aware of what they do -- due to massive repetition, and not any mental powers -- or they read the card or ask to have it read. Then they know for that game, which is sufficient. > And it is so easy to miss one of the clauses on a card for anyone; > I was once ousted because a more experienced player told me that > Psychomachia made his bleed unblockable, even though my blocking > vampire was older. I didn't own the card, and I believed what he > told me. The mistake was discovered after I'd left the table, but > come on - I would have my head taken off if I insisted on reading > every new card that I didn't know every time one is played. If the people you're gaming with are that offended when you ask to read (or have read) the gaming materials, you may be playing with the wrong people. Gaming should be a fun, social activity. > Both Kevin and Peter have played VTES constantly since its > inception, I believe. You have a different perspective than me, > who is a newbie compared to you. You own copies of every card, > which you purchased when they came out. You have a much greater > capacity to manage complexity, since you have had many more chances > to play and study every card. While it is possible that I have at one time owned every card, I know for a fact that Peter hasn't, and he asks to read cards just as I do. As stated above, we know the RULES not the CARDS. > My response is the response of a newer player: sometimes the > complexity of the game is daunting. From my perspective, it is TOO > complex. I don't feel that way every time I play, but I do feel > that way consistently. At least I had played from Jyhad through > Sabbat before I stopped back in 1996. I have no idea where > a complete newbie would start today. You may feel that it's complex, and while there are many parts to the game, I've never felt that many moving parts necessarily equals complexity, especially from the perspective of not needing to know all the parts in order to play. fr. ex. My car has over a thousand distinct parts, but all I need to know to drive it are about a dozen. When I have to look under the hood, I do one of two things -- I educate myself on what I need to know, and fix it, or I take it to someone that can educate me, and have them fix it. > The complexity of the game is an advantage to older players > over newer players. Well, you could say this about Chess, or Checkers, or even Connect Four or Uno. Most everything is complex at the start. > I am frustrated at some recent experiences in which a more > experienced player seems to have tried to deliberately take > advantage of people's ignorance of card text. It's very subtle > though - again, am I going to read every new card to make sure > someone isn't obfuscating or making a mistake with what they're > telling me? If you think you're being cheated, yes! Why wouldn't you? > I get it that the model of this CCG is to continue to produce new > cards often and to not have limited environments, but I can't say > that having to learn hundreds of new cards every year improves my > enjoyment of the game. You don't have to learn them, as I've explained. > As for the Lunch Money example, "YY" failed to mention the fact that > the Lunch Money game consists of only 29 unique cards. I don't know > exactly how many unique cards VTES has, but it is far more than 29. > Learning 29 unique cards to play a game, albeit complicated ones, > pales in comparison to learning every non-standard special possessed > by VTES vampires, for example. But why would you ever need to "learn" every ability on every vampire? I know players that had played VTES for 10 years and just snapped and quit when Events came out. I didn't quit, but I'm still learning about the complexities and concepts Events have created. I know players that had played VTES for 10 years and just snapped and quit when Imbued came out. I didn't quit, but I still have difficulties when someone brings them to the table. I know players that had played VTES for 10 years and just snapped and quit when they got married, had a kid or three, and couldn't keep up with 2.5 expansions per year. I didn't quit, but I'm still learning uses for the cards that were printed from 5 years ago. If learning hundreds of new cards is challenging, then don't. Use one of the computerized tool to create decks so you don't EVER have to read a single card unless necessary. If misunderstanding a card is disappointing, ask to read the card when someone plays it or ask them to read it out loud for you. Then the threat of cheating is rendered meaningless. If you can't afford to buy every set that comes out, don't. Focus on one set, one of the base sets would be best, and buy a box of that and only that when you are able. Post your deck on the newsgroup and the White Wolf and other forums and ask for help making it better. Let people know your card limitations if you want, or trade or buy the few cards that you don't have for your deck. Complexities are relative. Don't let them overwhelm your love of VTES. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier [ quoted text not captured ]

For what it's worth, my girlfriend and I started playing VTES about 16 months ago and we now own quite a lot of different cards (over half) and have seen a pretty decent amount of them played as well. Sure, sometimes some obscure card gets played nobody has seen played before, I don't think that's ever going to change, as some people really like to invent decks that play cards that many players deemed not worth playing. Sure, sometimes you misremember some card text someone announced earlier or just plain play something wrong. Those are the best learning moments IMO. I don't think that is a real downside of the game, as it seems pretty hard to prevent something like that from occuring every now and again in any complex game. I like complex games though, so you take those few times something goes wrong (most commonly and disastrously, contesting a city title for half the game without anyone noticing) with all the upsides of playing such an enjoyable, complex, game. For our playgroup though, we have given up reading whole cards out loud, we pretty much announce the cardname and the most pertinent effect, like "govern bleed you for 3". If someone wants more information about a card, they can ask whenever they want, and we right away just give the card to them to read for themselves. We've found that very often after reading a card out loud, people still had questions, as it is harder for them to soak up all the info through listening as opposed to reading it themselves. If people still have questions after reading the card, which happens much less frequently, everyone on the table pitches in to help fully explain the card. That's one of the biggest upsides of the social aspect of VTES IMO, it's hard to get cheated by improperly announced cards when there's 3 others players at the table who want to make sure you completely understand what a card does. It also helps us to always have internet access handy to search the newsgroup in case nobody knows exactly what a card does in a certain situation, or people have different ideas about what the card will do. I understand that that's not always possible though, but you can still look it up say a day later and then inform everyone of what went wrong (or right) during the next game session.

On Jan 27, 12:00 am, TorranceCircle <torrance.cir...@gmail.com> wrote: > However, I think you > will find this in every ccg (If you don't, you have a game like Marvel > Overpower or Xena!! If you've played those games you know what I am > talking about!). Hey! Xena was awesome! > Let me see if I can give an example of what Aaron is > talking about. Sure. But that isn't what we were calling "cheating" it was the "players will intentionally leave out information in an attempt to gain an advantage from it". Sometimes people don't know what cards do. This is possible is games less complex than VTES and possible in games more complex than VTES. That sort of thing happens. And can happen with relatively simple cards (i.e. Mirror Walk is an incredibly simple card--+1 stealth. But it is really easy to not realize that it is "do not replace till end of turn", even though it is still an incredibly simple card). That happens. And not 'cause the game is too complex. Just 'cause that is one of the pitfalls of this sort of game. > But lets take it further, what if player A equips with a kevlar vest. > The other player, player B, has two minions with desert eagle. Player > B asks,"what does it do?" or "Tell me what it does?" Player A > responds, "It prevents one damage in combat." Is this cheating? Maybe, maybe not. If the player is saying "it prevents 1 damage" 'cause he is trying to gain an advantage by obscuring info? Yes. It is cheating. If it is 'cause they are also new to the game and didn't read the card all the way, then no it isn't. But can be avoided by reading unfamiliar cards out loud. I mean, it isn't difficult to say (assuming you know what is going on and aren't trying to cheat) "It prevents 1 damage, or 2 from a gun." > Before you say > player B should RTFC, which so many veteran players are more than > happy to remind others of, shouldn't player A read the card or let the > other player read it or for speed sake just say exactly what the card > does? This isn't an issue with game complexity. This is an issue with cheating. Or not knowing the rules. Or something. Things like this are just as capable of happening in games far less complext than VTES. And the complexity of VTES isn't the problem here. Either: A) Someone is intentionally obscuring information. or B) Someone is not following the rules (i.e. give out pertinent info when asked for). -Peter

On Jan 27, 3:34 am, Aaron Clark <aamacl...@gmail.com> wrote: > You may be right that my impression of the game's complexity stems > from my limited mental abilities. Gah. No one is saying that. > I thought I knew what the Sniper > Rifle did, and I was wrong. I had missed one of the six different > details in the rules description, which was once read to me many > months prior, causing me to make a poor decision. I thought, "It's > like a .44 Magnum, except you get to set the range to long on the > first round if you block." Close, but no cigar. Sure. But in a situation where it is important, you can always just look at the card. The card could be an incredibly simple one, and if you don't completely know what it does, or are unsure, or if it is important at the time, you can look at it. It is just as easy to misunderstand a simple card (see: Mirror Walk) as it is a complicated one. > And it is so easy to miss one of the clauses on a card for anyone; I > was once ousted because a more experienced player told me that > Psychomachia made his bleed unblockable, even though my blocking > vampire was older. I didn't own the card, and I believed what he told > me. The mistake was discovered after I'd left the table, but come on > - I would have my head taken off if I insisted on reading every new > card that I didn't know every time one is played. I don't think that is true. Unless you play with a bunch of dicks. If you are newish to the game/unsure of what things do, you can read the cards. And should do so. Heck. *I'm* not sure of what Psychomachia does. Still. And have seen it in play many times. When someone plays it and it is important (i.e. they are bleeding me with it), I'll read the card. -Peter

"YY" <the1an...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message news:ca7282fb-7c7b-4424...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Well (not to agree that VtES is too complex - but let's be fair, here) the thing about a non-CCG card game is that we're not assured to get another two or three hundred new cards dumped on Lunch Money every year. So, although you can find a single example or two like that in the game, there's no limit on how many new Sniper-Rifle-level complexity cards get printed each new year. And it's actually _better_ that the rules for the card are in the rulebook and not the game. I can have the rulebook in front of me. My opponent's Sniper Rifle (or whatever it is) will be across the table in front of him. I think the rulebook is the better place for rules, hands down. But in CCGs, it's basically impossible to put all the rules related to individual cards there. Fred

On Jan 27, 9:26 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > And it's actually _better_ that the rules for the card are in the > rulebook and not the game. I can have the rulebook in front of me. > My opponent's Sniper Rifle (or whatever it is) will be across the > table in front of him. I think the rulebook is the better place for > rules, hands down. But in CCGs, it's basically impossible to put all > the rules related to individual cards there. Have each expansion come with a "expansion rulebook" that doesn't reiterate the base rules at all, but instead has a Lunch Money-style encyclopedia of each card with the rules for each. The actual card has nothing but its name (and perhaps cost and requirement icons). And full-card artwork (yay!). Doesn't sound hands-down better to men, but it's certainly an option.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Have each expansion come with a "expansion rulebook" that doesn't > reiterate the base rules at all, but instead has a Lunch Money-style > encyclopedia of each card with the rules for each. The actual card has > nothing but its name (and perhaps cost and requirement icons). And > full-card artwork (yay!). Or QR codes so you can scan them for quick online text lookups. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_Code ) > Doesn't sound hands-down better to men, but it's certainly an option. How does it sound to women?

Hey guys, The pot is black -Kettle Seriously, post over there, NOT just here, we already drank the cool aid.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:fb69156f-2a2f-4b95...@e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Again, to be fair, I meant that it's hands down better for a game that doesn't expect to be revised twice a year with a huge number of cards. No, I don't think the "revised rulebook" concept would work for CCGs because that rulebook would become a set of rules encylopedias after enough expansions came out. It works as a little rulebook because the game started out modest in scope and stayed that way. And, in that context, it's certainly better. I suppose you could put the rules both on the card and in the rulebook, though. Seems a bit redundant but why not? Fred

Aaron Clark wrote: > The complexity of the game is an advantage to older players over newer > players. I am frustrated at some recent experiences in which a more > experienced player seems to have tried to deliberately take advantage > of people's ignorance of card text. It's very subtle though - again, > am I going to read every new card to make sure someone isn't > obfuscating or making a mistake with what they're telling me? You should have been there on Friday, I played Imbued! See you at Orccon. best - chris

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:57:40 +0000 (UTC), Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > I've posted my personal responses to this article: > > http://www.geekdo.com/article/4547095 > > What would you add? I think the review isn't so bad (and the fanboy trolling responses will hurt V:tES reputation far more than that review ever could). Maybe the guy is disillusioned? Could be. He may not be right in everything he writes but I can certainly see where he may be coming from with most of them. My cents (and I'm not gonna add to the chat on BGG). Paradign changers -> Not sure if V:tES has too many or too few. I'm definitely feeling that there are too many keywords / keyphrases / etc. flying around. Disciplines / clans are not such a big deal because for the most part all you need to do is match icons. Except where you seem to be running out of original concept art (I do tend to forget which way the Gangrel wolf head turns and which way the Ahrimanes does). It's true that we have a difficulty moving away from old concepts but this is not a duel game, deck interactions make any sort of F2F balancing rather pointless. Length -> Agree. Faster the better. Game length, elimination mechanic, or lack of control over other players spending game time is an issue. But again, this is a multiplayer game. You'd need to change the players (or introduce some sort of chess-clock mechanism that would kill weenie decks & solitaire decks like the Imbued). Disciplines becoming less characteristic -> I used to complain a lot about this, but now I'm not against this. As others said - Auspex will still be Auspex becuase it has best Intercept cards, even if Protean now can generate intercept. So this is OK I think. Precons -> yeah they suck as precons. They are a reprinting tool primarily. But I'm not sure any balancing here would matter - in V:tES you have a significant freedom (vs. duel games) to create tournament winning decks, because so much depends on how the decks and players at a table interact with eachother. Power creep -> There is no power creep. These are not the droids you are looking for. There are no orbital mind control lasers. Etc. The original 11-caps were quite good (ok, some of them), so there is definitely no power creep there. Some cards do get beefed up, but overall the creep is very slow and is more a result of 1) previous poor design choices (e.g. miscosting allies), and 2) changes in designer intent (e.g. giving more stuff to bigger guys) than a ploy to sell more NOW even if it kills the game in the long run. I hope at least. :) And yeah, V:tES is like chicken with peanut butter and sour cream. A bit of everything, as through its years of history it went quite a few directions (and it bears the signs of all previous intents as mostly all cards are usable). With hindsight, a lot of stuff should have been done differently (I can go on an on about this). But now that all those things were screwed up, I think V:tES is generally going for the smaller loss in trying to discourage as few players as possible, with maybe even attracting some new folks in the process. -- Regards, Daneel

Jozxyqk schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] And Software for Playstations and the like which scans which cards are played through a USB camera and then renders a live 3D playback of what is happening. It has been done before: The Eye of Judgement. For the old cards you could print sticker boosters with full card artwork and code to glue over the old cards. Awesome.

[ quoted text not captured ] Dear Aaron, you are in certain way right. You have to be extremely curious and pay full attention to every detail in the game. The players always try to play cards in their advantage and only experience and knowledge over the game can combat this situations. I remember perfectly a month ago a new player tried to "convince" me that dual form copied all the text of the vampire. !!! His argument was that he read it somewhere on the web !!! Luckyly when KMW was released I was there to ask how that card worked, and said him NO WAY. In general, I say to you to be a little skeptic about what another player says a card makes. In Vtes to trust is not bad, to check is far better. About the subtle manipulation you are also right. Another example...on a later game this evening a player played Ministry, afterwards I asked him how many cards he did have in his hand. OHH, amazing, seven cards !!!! To know that Ministry (a Black Hand card) is not replaced and if you can´t manage to block, your vampire gets tapped is an upper- knowledge over the game. If you haven´t played with/against Black Hand tech, you probably won´t know it. Experience players can try to take advantage over cards which have not to be replaced, and is impossible to proof it is on purpose. This is a fact.

On Jan 29, 6:14 am, "Dr.Mafrune" <tristan.endr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Experience players can > try to take advantage over cards which have not to be replaced, and is > impossible to proof it is on purpose. This is a fact. Yes it is also cheating, and cheating does not come from the game being overly complex. It comes from people cheating. The game could be incredibly simple, and if someone wanted to cheat, they'd find a way to cheat. Yes, it is difficult to know all the cards by memory. I play this game all the time, and have for a very long time. I don't know what all the cards do (as noted, I don't know what Psychomachia actually does. Nor did I recall that you tap if you fail to block when playing Ministry). No one ever knows what all the cards do. So when someone plays one that has a lot of words, or you don't see much, you read it. If someone is deliberately trying to take advantage of this (i.e. people not knowing what cards do), they are cheating. Which isn't something that one can avoid by having a less complex game. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] True. You play with rats, you're gonna get plague. You lie down with dogs... But it can be an awful lot easier to tell who the rats and the dogs are in a game of Candyland than it can be in VTES. The decision to cheat isn't necessarily purely binary -- the chances of getting caught do matter.

On Jan 31, 11:15 am, Legendre <glav...@gmail.com> wrote: > But it can be an awful lot easier to tell who the rats and the dogs > are in a game of Candyland than it can be in VTES. The decision to > cheat isn't necessarily purely binary -- the chances of getting caught > do matter. Yeah, people keep saying this when the issue of cheating comes up in this game. And my question is "Who are you people?" Like, I play this game 'cause I like playing the game, and I don't cheat, as cheating is stupid. It is very cut and dry. Are there actually people out there who are measuring the odds of being caught cheating in a silly card game and saying "Huh. 'Cause this game is complicated, I can get away with X cheating, but not Y cheating, as I won't likely get caught doing X but will likely get caught doing Y..." Really? Don't they have, like, *actual* crime to commit rather than play pretend games with cards about vampires? -Peter