Lemme start a flame war by asking...

...what do you think of the new Tournament Rules? -- >>> Shawn F. Carnes Game Designer and Developer, Wizards of the Coast, Inc WotC NetRep for rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad ************************************************************* "Which one of you claims to be the craziest? Which one the biggest loony? Who runs these card games? Who's the bull goose loony here?" --McMurphy, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"

"Shawn F. Carnes" <sw...@castle.wizards.com> writes: >...what do you think of the new Tournament Rules? Great going! Nice to see you guys listen to some suggestions. The Vote Pushing section needs some of work, however, since it is completely unclear as to what happens when you push is response to a vote (or if you push a Madness Network vote). Clear the whole thing up by saying "until the end of the current turn" instead of "until the end of your turn". Plus the whole mechanic of not replacing until the end of (*)'s turn feels very odd. How do you keep track? Keep the PAs in front of you? Are they still in the Ash Heap? If you tap the FragNod (and discard to you "maximum hand size", do the burned PAs count against hand size? While it's nice to see that you're trying to fix vote pushing (without card limits), this one really seems like it'll lead to more and more headaches in the future. Why not just go straight to the heart of it and disallow vote pushing, as the original Jyhad rules do. (Or allow each Meth to burn only one PA - effectively giving the caller an extra for the PA used to call the vote in addition to the one burned - a house rule used in JOL). -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Clap on! <clap> <clap> http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | Clap off! <clap> <cla+W." Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | ^Ejq#xe>4NO CARRIER

"Shawn F. Carnes" <sw...@castle.wizards.com> wrote: >...what do you think of the new Tournament Rules? >-- I'm quite sure it won't be a flame war... :) We Jyhad players tend to have low tolerance for flames. Anyway... 1st comment is sort of genric... unless you left a post about it that I haven't seen yet, I would have expected to have heard about it the day you put it up on the web site... which is another thing you should have mentioned... :) The new DC tourney rules are at: http://www.wizards.com/DCI/VTES_Rules.html My opinion of the rules... definately a step in what I feel is the right direction. I'm not whole hog into the SPTR, but I almost wish you had just adopted that set instead of maiking something a little wierd.. :) The card back thing is good to bee gone for the library, not so good for the crypt. The crypt fix could just be letting people double pack cards in sleeves. Of course, now I can do that and not cheat unless someone wants me to pull the sleeves. In which case I'll go through and match backs with vamps. Just about anyone could have what they consider "key" vamps of a different back type. The new play rules... I've never played in a "no repeat action" enviroment... but I know that currently the repeat action rule can be abused. So, I'm happy to see that rule. However so quick questions must be asked... such as is "Employ Retainer" a "particular type of action" or is it specific to card. The same can be asked about votes, allies, and equipment. I would assume all the cards that say "bleed" are considered the same "particualr type of action." :) Vote replenishment... if I push not on my turn, when do I replenish? By the rules it seems to be at the end of my next turn, which I don't like much at all. I'd rather see it be the end of every turn, or both at the beginning and end of my turn. That way if my predator forces me to push defensively, I won't be hamstrung on my turn. But maybe thats what was intended. But, like I already said, my gut feeling is that this is better then the old rules. However, I'm sure others will come up with the reasons why the SPTR are "better" than this. Of course, whether it is or not remains to be seen. So who's going to try to come up with the 1st degenrate deck under these rules? Charles -- Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.

c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) writes: >"Shawn F. Carnes" <sw...@castle.wizards.com> wrote: >>...what do you think of the new Tournament Rules? > The new play rules... I've never played in a "no repeat action" >enviroment... but I know that currently the repeat action rule can be >abused. So, I'm happy to see that rule. However so quick questions >must be asked... such as is "Employ Retainer" a "particular type of >action" or is it specific to card. The same can be asked about votes, >allies, and equipment. I would assume all the cards that say "bleed" >are considered the same "particualr type of action." :) All "employ retainer" actions are the same types of actions. All "equip" actions are the same types of actions. All "recruit ally" actions are the same types of actions. All cardless actions belong to their own individual types (hunt, leave torpor, rescue from torpor, encounter in torpor to diablerize) All "call a vote" actions are the same types of actions. This is from the VtES rulebook section 6.3 (and re-iterated in 6.4), except for the political action part, which is treated as an "action" card (in contrast to section 12.3.1 of the Jyhad rulebook, which lists the "call a vote" action type separately in the same fashion as the others). Also, even though "Rescue Igo from Torpor" is not the same as "Rescue Rake from Torpor" for purposes of Change of Target, they are still the same type of action, name "rescue from torpor". Also, By virtue of rulings on Change of Target et. al., All actions taken with a "name" action card are the same actions. All actions granted by a "name" card in play are the same action but are distinct from other actions granted by other cards in play of the same name. (So, a Bum's Rush is the same as any other Bum's Rush, even if the target changes. However, an attack against a vampire via Haven Uncovered is unique to that Haven Uncovered card, and would not count as the same action as a different Haven Uncovered (even if both Haven Uncovereds are on the same vampire). [ quoted text not captured ]

jam...@dgii.com (James Puzzo) writes: >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: >: All "employ retainer" actions are the same types of actions. >: All "equip" actions are the same types of actions. >: All "recruit ally" actions are the same types of actions. >: All cardless actions belong to their own individual types (hunt, >: leave torpor, rescue from torpor, encounter in torpor to diablerize) >: All "call a vote" actions are the same types of actions. >: This is from the VtES rulebook section 6.3 (and re-iterated in 6.4), >: except for the political action part, which is treated as an "action" >: card (in contrast to section 12.3.1 of the Jyhad rulebook, which >: lists the "call a vote" action type separately in the same fashion as >: the others). >Call me clueless... ;) >Does this mean: >Calling a KRC and calling a Praxis Seizure are two different actions? >Calling a praxis seizure venice and a praxis seizure miami are two different >actions? Either, depending on your interpretation, and the references you choose. (Cluelessness is in this case a state of having conflicting clues). It is /probably/ the same action, since "call a vote" is an action type in Jyhad, and the list of changes from Jyhad to VtES doesn't include a change in the nature of political actions. The discrepancy is therefore most likely a(nother) oversight in the VtES rulebook. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Puzzo (jam...@dgii.com) wrote: : L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : : All "employ retainer" actions are the same types of actions. : : All "equip" actions are the same types of actions. : : All "recruit ally" actions are the same types of actions. : : All cardless actions belong to their own individual types (hunt, : : leave torpor, rescue from torpor, encounter in torpor to diablerize) : : All "call a vote" actions are the same types of actions. : : : This is from the VtES rulebook section 6.3 (and re-iterated in 6.4), : : except for the political action part, which is treated as an "action" : : card (in contrast to section 12.3.1 of the Jyhad rulebook, which : : lists the "call a vote" action type separately in the same fashion as : : the others). : : Call me clueless... ;) Hi, CLueless, I'm Joe. :) : Does this mean: : : Calling a KRC and calling a Praxis Seizure are two different actions? : : Calling a praxis seizure venice and a praxis seizure miami are two different : actions? No, they're all "Call A Vote" actions, and therefore a vampire who untaps after completing one cannot call another vote. I suspect your confusion comes from LSJ's last statement. All he means is that that section of the book lists Call A Vote as a cardless action. Therefore, a vamp who's called a Praxis siezure and untaps can't go on to call a vote to burn Elyesium. : -spongy Hey, you said call you cluless! :) LSJ, how does this effect A Malkavian (Impersonating) Masika under a Madness Network? I asumme he can bleed between every Meth's turn then? Joe, Rulemonger-In-Training -- Joe Helfrich, Managing Editor, CPI | Certainly the games is rigged. Don't j...@dimensional.com | let that stop you; if you don't bet, http://www.dimensional.com/~jbh | you can't win. --Lazarus Long *** Dum vivimus, vivamus! (While we live, let us _live_!) ***

In article <51ma33$o...@superb.csc.ti.com>, c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) writes: > "Shawn F. Carnes" <sw...@castle.wizards.com> wrote: > > >...what do you think of the new Tournament Rules? > >-- > The card back thing is good to bee gone for the library, not so good > for the crypt. The crypt fix could just be letting people double pack > cards in sleeves. Of course, now I can do that and not cheat unless > someone wants me to pull the sleeves. In which case I'll go through > and match backs with vamps. Just about anyone could have what they > consider "key" vamps of a different back type. I am in favor of the change to the card back rule. I have had no problems making a legal library, but for whatever reason, there remain 2-3 vamps that I am partial to, that I have yet to get in a V:TES booster, and thus only have with the old back. It seems to me that the judge should have the option of the 40-60% rule on crypts. Simply *knowing* that the next crypt card is a Jyhad vamp doesn't tell you *which*, unless you already have all of the Jyhad vamps, minus one, out or burned. > Vote replenishment... if I push not on my turn, when do I replenish? > By the rules it seems to be at the end of my next turn, which I don't > like much at all. I'd rather see it be the end of every turn, or both > at the beginning and end of my turn. That way if my predator forces > me to push defensively, I won't be hamstrung on my turn. But maybe > thats what was intended. This bothers me, as well. The thought of being almost defenseless not just until my turn comes around again but until the *end* of that turn, this is bad. While I can see the need to curtail heavy vote pushes, one can be put in that position defensively, as well. Randy -- =============================================================================== Randy J. Ray -- U S WEST Technologies IAD/CSS/DPDS Phone: (303)595-2869 Denver, CO rj...@uswest.com "It's not denial. I'm just very selective about the reality I accept." --Calvin ===============================================================================

Paul Johnson (paragon...@worldnet.att.net) wrote: : Joe Helfrich wrote: : > : > James Puzzo (jam...@dgii.com) wrote: : > : L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : > : : All "employ retainer" actions are the same types of actions. : > : : All "equip" actions are the same types of actions. : > : : All "recruit ally" actions are the same types of actions. : > : : All cardless actions belong to their own individual types (hunt, : > : : leave torpor, rescue from torpor, encounter in torpor to diablerize) : > : : All "call a vote" actions are the same types of actions. : > : : Is blocking an action? Is it now illegal for one stinking Gangrel to : block 27 times and stop all my bleeds with its Rats and Cats and : Gnats? Blocking is not, and never was, an action. So that Gangrel can still untap all he likes under the new DCI rules. -spongy

James Puzzo wrote: > Does this mean: > > Calling a KRC and calling a Praxis Seizure are two different actions? > > Calling a praxis seizure venice and a praxis seizure miami are two different > actions? No, they are all "call a vote" actions. All the same type. James -- | James Hamblin | "It's not Magic, kid. It's evil." | | je...@cornell.edu | -- Tom Servo, "MST3K: Pod People" |

Paul Johnson <paragon...@worldnet.att.net> writes: >Is blocking an action? Is it now illegal for one stinking Gangrel to > block 27 times and stop all my bleeds with its Rats and Cats and Gnats? Blocking is not an action. This is legal both under the new DCI and SPTR. I also find this problematic, but I expect this debate will be carried out in tournament situations. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Joe Helfrich wrote: > > James Puzzo (jam...@dgii.com) wrote: > : L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: > : : All "employ retainer" actions are the same types of actions. > : : All "equip" actions are the same types of actions. > : : All "recruit ally" actions are the same types of actions. > : : All cardless actions belong to their own individual types (hunt, > : : leave torpor, rescue from torpor, encounter in torpor to diablerize) > : : All "call a vote" actions are the same types of actions. > : Is blocking an action? Is it now illegal for one stinking Gangrel to block 27 times and stop [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : All "employ retainer" actions are the same types of actions. : All "equip" actions are the same types of actions. : All "recruit ally" actions are the same types of actions. : All cardless actions belong to their own individual types (hunt, : leave torpor, rescue from torpor, encounter in torpor to diablerize) : All "call a vote" actions are the same types of actions. : This is from the VtES rulebook section 6.3 (and re-iterated in 6.4), : except for the political action part, which is treated as an "action" : card (in contrast to section 12.3.1 of the Jyhad rulebook, which : lists the "call a vote" action type separately in the same fashion as : the others). Call me clueless... ;) Does this mean: Calling a KRC and calling a Praxis Seizure are two different actions? Calling a praxis seizure venice and a praxis seizure miami are two different actions? -spongy

Paul Johnson (paragon...@worldnet.att.net) wrote: : Is blocking an action? Nope--it's a reaction to your action. : Is it now illegal for one stinking Gangrel to block 27 times and stop : all my bleeds with its Rats and Cats and Gnats? Nope. Joe [ quoted text not captured ]

I have not played with the new DCI rules so I can't say for certain what my opinion is, However my first impressions are not good. I don't like totally eleminating repeat actions. I think this really hurts (if not nukes) many deck strategies. If this is the direction the DC wanted to go in why didn't they just use the SPTR and avoid a lot of confusion. Steve Bucy

Paul Johnson <paragon...@worldnet.att.net> writes: >Joe Helfrich wrote: >> >> James Puzzo (jam...@dgii.com) wrote: >> : L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: >> : : All "employ retainer" actions are the same types of actions. >> : : All "equip" actions are the same types of actions. >> : : All "recruit ally" actions are the same types of actions. >> : : All cardless actions belong to their own individual types (hunt, >> : : leave torpor, rescue from torpor, encounter in torpor to diablerize) >> : : All "call a vote" actions are the same types of actions. >> : >Is blocking an action? Is it now illegal for one stinking Gangrel to block 27 times and stop >all my bleeds with its Rats and Cats and Gnats? No. Blocking and Acting are two diametrically opposed events. Nothing anywhere suggests that blocking should be considered an action. The only thing they have in common is tapping the minion (and blocking only taps if successful, acting taps regardless). [ quoted text not captured ]

Paul Johnson <paragon...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >Is blocking an action? Is it now illegal for one stinking Gangrel to block 27 times and stop >all my bleeds with its Rats and Cats and Gnats. Blocking is not an action. Gangrel can use wakes, rats, and cats to endlessly block your one bleed from each minion each turn. Not to mention endless earth melds. I think we are going to see lots of Gangrel. Steve Bucy

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: > Paul Johnson <paragon...@worldnet.att.net> writes: > >Joe Helfrich wrote: > >> > >> James Puzzo (jam...@dgii.com) wrote: > >> : L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: > >> : : All "employ retainer" actions are the same types of actions. > >> : : All "equip" actions are the same types of actions. > >> : : All "recruit ally" actions are the same types of actions. > >> : : All cardless actions belong to their own individual types (hunt, > >> : : leave torpor, rescue from torpor, encounter in torpor to diablerize) > >> : : All "call a vote" actions are the same types of actions. > >> : It's an advanced Entrancement the same action that an advanced Far Mastery? It's a basic Kine Dominance (Dominate Kine?) the same action that an advanced Kine Dominance? (They have the same name but one is a Bleed action and the other is a take-control-of-a-Location action.) I.C.C. Have a nice night.

On 17 Sep 1996, L. Scott Johnson wrote: [re: The new DCI tourney rules] > The Vote Pushing section needs some of work, however, > since it is completely unclear as to what happens when > you push is response to a vote (or if you push a > Madness Network vote). Clear the whole thing up by > saying "until the end of the current turn" instead of > "until the end of your turn". I hope that they clearly say that it is "end of _your_ turn". This could be done by explicitly saying "Vote cards used for additional votes are not replaced until the end of your turn (not necessarily the end of the current turn)". If done as you suggest, L. Scott, I can see ways in which the rules can be broken. > Plus the whole mechanic of not replacing until the > end of (*)'s turn feels very odd. How do you keep > track? Keep the PAs in front of you? Are they still > in the Ash Heap? If you tap the FragNod (and discard > to you "maximum hand size", do the burned PAs count > against hand size? I would guess no. > While it's nice to see that you're trying to fix vote > pushing (without card limits), this one really seems > like it'll lead to more and more headaches in the > future. > Why not just go straight to the heart of it and > disallow vote pushing, as the original Jyhad rules do. > (Or allow each Meth to burn only one PA - effectively > giving the caller an extra for the PA used to call the > vote in addition to the one burned - a house rule > used in JOL). I prefer this as well, and agree that it causes less headaches. If things are done along the current lines, however, please clarify what exactly the intent of "end of your turn" is. Hopefully (at least in my mind), this will mean as it says and _not_ at the end of the current turn. [Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu] @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?

On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Charles T. Schwope wrote: [Re: new DCI tourney rules] > But, like I already said, my gut feeling is that this is better then > the old rules. However, I'm sure others will come up with the reasons > why the SPTR are "better" than this. Of course, whether it is or not > remains to be seen. So who's going to try to come up with the 1st > degenrate deck under these rules? Still testing the vote push stuff (of which I know the SPTR fix works, but I don't know whether the replenishment does), but otherwise, most of the differences are cosmetic. "Better" is almost purely subjective in that sense. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 17 Sep 1996, Steve Bucy wrote: > I have not played with the new DCI rules so I can't say for certain what > my opinion is, However my first impressions are not good. > I don't like totally eleminating repeat actions. I think this really > hurts (if not nukes) many deck strategies. Name them. Most likely you'll name the "tap out and Bleed strategy" of Majesty or other S:CE decks... Look to Jyhad On Line 4 (http://shangrila.cs.ucdavis.edu:1234/gfink/jol/jol4/index.html) for a specific counterexample. It doesn't nullify the Force of Will deck, either, just makes it be more broad. My version bleeds and votes with Gangrel, and was quite effective in a SPTR environment. Likely it would be moreso in this environment (with limited vote pushing). Please be specific. > If this is the direction the DC wanted to go in why didn't they just use > the SPTR and avoid a lot of confusion. If that had happened, I'd be smiling... :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Shawn F. Carnes wrote: > ...what do you think of the new Tournament Rules? Well, I think it would be easiest to go about doing this point by point: [From <http://www.wizards.com/DCI/VTES_Rules.html>]: | IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING ALL OPTIONAL RULES: Tournament Organizers, | Tournament Officials, and Judges who choose to use any rule marked | "OPTIONAL" must provide adequate notice to participants prior to the | beginning of the tournament. Optional rules may not be invoked or | altered either by Tournament Officials or players at any other time. | I. DECK CONSTRUCTION The Optional Rule on card backs should be dropped. At this point, with the new Ancient Hearts backs (for those unaware of it, look at an AH back and compare it to another "VtES" back. You'll notice the difference between the "R" and "TM", and the color is quite different), it has simply become impossible to regulate card backs. Either enforce same card back _showing_ (via sleeves), card "shoes", or drop the idea entirely. 2. The crypt must contain a minimum of 12 (twelve) Vampire cards. There is no maximum on the number of Vampires that can be in your crypt. The library will contain a minimum of 60 (sixty) cards and maximum of 90 (ninety) cards total. Why? There is no need to make a minimum of 60 cards. While there are effective 40 card decks, without the Lightning Bolt like effects of Magic (closest thing being available in a vote deck), there is no need to worry about whether a tight deck will be significantly better. While they get the cards they want far more often, they _need_ permanents to maintain longevity. If they use permanents, they are more vulnerable. Explanation? | Optional Rule: The Judge may declare that players may build their crypts | with cards from either Vampire: The Eternal Struggle or Jyhad, but not | both. Kill this one. The small size of most crypts easily allows a "same back _showing_" rule. | 3. The Banned List: The following cards are banned from tournament play: | | Rowan Ring (Jyhad) | Stake (Jyhad) | Monocle of Clarity (Jyhad) | {and ante-cards) While I understand the banning of Monocle, Stake and Rowan Ring need not be banned. Either issue errata to make Stake = Wooden Stake or allow them with an explanation of Paralyze. In addition, Succubus Club should be banned in tourneys. In a multiplayer scenario, if two friends get a table they can already help each other out quite a bit. With Succubus Club, it can get really obscene. One tournament (non-sanctioned, non-SPTR) that an SPTR supporter sent to me made my decision in the original SPTR easy: the two players had decided that they would put all their eggs in the one basket and split the prize afterwords. At certain key points, player A would give player B extra minions, pool, cards from hand, etc. When they mutually eliminated Player A's prey (B's Predator), B cashed in everything he could for pool, and then traded it _all_ to A (net gain of A - 24 pool). | IV. SPECIAL FLOOR RULES | 1. Repeat Action rule: No single vampire can repeat an action in a turn. | This refers to the particular action type. For example, a | vampire which successfully bleeds its prey via Computer Hacking, then | untaps via Freak Drive, cannot perform any bleeding | action again whatsoever that turn, regardless of whether or not it is a | Computer Hacking action. You might want to make a list of same actions for Judges. While I (and othes) might understand what that means, I've been to tournaments run by clueless newbies... | 2. Vote Replenishment rule: Players do not replenish their hands as a | result of using political action cards as extra votes until | the end of their turn. My playgroup is still testing this out. So far results have been mixed... (though mostly positive). I have sent my resident dog (high Sterling) to see if he can do what he does best: exploit this rule to the breaking point. | VI. ROUNDS | 1. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle tournaments shall consist of a minimum | of three (3) rounds. Each round must have a time limit declared by the | Judge, with a minimum time limit of two (2) hours. This is still too short. 2.5 hours is the least that would really be acceptable. Combat decks will be hurt heavily by a 2 hour time limit. | The tournament coordinator must announce and | advertise this time limit prior to the tournament. Very good. | When only 5 (five) | minutes remain in the allotted tournament time, the Judge | should issue a five-minute warning. Warnings each 30 minutes might be good. | 3. Each tournament must consist of a number of rounds determined by the | Judge, with a minimum of 3 (three) rounds. The 5 | (five) players with the highest total victory points from all three | rounds advance to the final round. In a tie, the player with | more tournament points from prior rounds advances to the final | (first-degree tiebreaker). Finalists will be rated First through | Fifth by victory points. You might want to add the "blood-count" as a third degree tie-breaker and allow more than five players if this still results in ties. | VII. FINALS | 1. Table positions are not assigned in the final round. Instead, the | first finalist has his or her choice of position, then the | second finalist, and so on. Play for the final round commences normally. You do realize that this puts the top player at a disadvantage? | 2. At the conclusion of the final round, the player with the most | victory points from the final round alone is the winner of the | tournament, with other players ranked accordingly by victory points. In | case of ties, blood points from the final round alone | are used as the tiebreaker. Perhaps, as Robert Goudie suggested, more tie-breakers might be in order in the finals (based on previous rounds). While the final should decide the match, if one player sweeps in the finals, the top-seeded player with a better record will place the same as the 5th-seeded player who (maybe) had half as many Victory Points. ----- Overall, my opinions are favourable. In summary: - I'm uncertain on the Vote Push fix you use, but am in the process of testing it. Early results are (kind of) good. - Card backs... Always a problem, that at this point can't be handled by 40/60. Try something else, or drop it. - Repeat actions. List what these are explicitly for clueless newbies. - Succubus club. A must for the restricted list in a tourney (adds _way_ to much out of game element) - Tie breaks. Need more. - Finals _need_ to be redone. As is, it gives the top-seed a disadvantage. Overall, a relatively good job. [ quoted text not captured ]

In response to the Corrupter's post dated September 20, 1996 The strategy I feel is hurt by no repeat actions is non stealth bleed. Majestic, freaky, and force of will are all seriously hampered. Now you are forced to put in a bunch of actions you don't really need (because they don't fit in with the primary purpose of the deck) to try and get people tapped so you can bleed. I don't want to add equipment, votes, or allies to my Ventrue, Toreador, or Gangrel bleed decks because I have to. IMO this really hampers deck construction. You don't want to have to play with intercept, but I don't want to have to play with this stuff unless it fits with my deck plans. Right now it doesn't, so I have to come up with new deck ideas or force myself to shove it in. As for your Gangrel force of will and vote deck: I am curious how this deck works. Does it ever win? In my experiece mixing two major strategies usually results in a deck that does neither well. In my game group it is usually almost impossible (without help) to pass a vote with less than 10 votes. Puting in a few (say 12) vote cards in is usually nothing more than a complete waste of space. For example on Tuesday I played two 5 player games with my political deck. In the first game there where 14 (yes 14) votes in titles amongst the other 4 players. In the second there where 11. Anything less than a dedicated political deck wouldn't have a chance without having to help someone else to get some votes. In my group with the new DCI rules they would let me call the vote, vote it down, and then block my bleed when I force of will or freak drive. Not very useful. Obviously there are ways to make a majestic deck work with these rules. I am working on a presence vote deck that uses all vamps with +bleeds built in. I will have enough votes to make them block, and when they do (if they can) I can untap and bleed for 2 or three. It just takes a lot of jumping through hoops to make one work now. What troubles me more is the fact that most really obnoxious decks are not affected by these rules. WVP is hurt, but WPV and weenie bleed are not. I expect to see lots of weenie presence bleed and vote decks now. Steve Bucy

In article <521hqs$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Thetmes <the...@aol.com> wrote: >In response to the Corrupter's post dated September 20, 1996 > >The strategy I feel is hurt by no repeat actions is non stealth bleed. >Majestic, freaky, and force of will are all seriously hampered. Exactly. Now we won't see Democritus using Freak Drive to Govern the Underlined 4, 5 times in a turn. I won't weep. A tap/bleed deck can bleed as seriously as a stealth/bleed deck -- only with offensive untaps, notably Freak Drive and Force of Will, they can do it over and over again in a single turn. This is, as they say in the industry, a Bad Thing (tm). >Now you >are forced to put in a >bunch of actions you don't really need (because they don't fit in with the >primary >purpose of the deck) to try and get people tapped so you can bleed. Of *course* they fit the primary purpose of the deck. A stealth/bleed deck has two primary purposes -- stealth, and bleed. A tap/bleed deck, by analogy, has two primary purposes -- tap and bleed. Anything that'll get the opposing minion tapped fits the purpose of the deck. > I >don't want >to add equipment, votes, or allies to my Ventrue, Toreador, or Gangrel >bleed decks >because I have to. Equipment? Allies? Why bother? Vote tapping's much more effective. Consanguineous Condemnation/Disarming Presence. If they don't vote agin it, they're tapped -- if they *do*, they're tapped. Win/win. With Toreador or Ventrue, this option is open, as well as Mime Numb, Distraction and the Louvre for the Toreador, and Freak Drive for the Ventrue that called the vote, so she can bleed. And Gangrel bleed hardly relies on tapping out -- there's Form of Mist, Earth Control, and the Backways, with retainers and Craptops if you want to get the extra mileage. Gangrel also fit nicely with bruise/ bleed, a classic Tremere configuration. But I digress. > IMO this really hampers deck construction. You don't >want to >have to play with intercept, but I don't want to have to play with this >stuff unless >it fits with my deck plans. Right now it doesn't, so I have to come up >with new >deck ideas or force myself to shove it in. I'm not sure how tap/bleed is intrinsically connected to repeated same actions. My Toreador tap/bleed deck works fine without repeating actions -- it taps with votes, uses Voter Captivation to fuel Misdirections, and uses Majesty and Celeritous dodges/presses to get out of trouble (as has been mentioned before, it's a little dangerous to rely exclusively on S:CE for combat defense). >As for your Gangrel force of will and vote deck: I am curious how this >deck works. Force of Will's a crock; it's too weak when it's not abused, and too powerful when it is -- that's what they tell me, anyway, since I haven't seen anyone in the San Francisco Bay using it, at least not to any discernible effect. >Does it ever win? In my experiece mixing two major strategies usually >results in a >deck that does neither well. In my experience, they're quite robust when you get the ratios right. Bruise decks (block this, and you're in trouble. don't and you're in trouble) traditionally mix bleed and other nasties like graverobbing with combat, and bleed/vote works well, especially with votetapping as described above. > In my game group it is usually almost >impossible >(without help) to pass a vote with less than 10 votes. Puting in a few This is why you use your pretty Presence face. That and Telepathic Vote Counting, not to mention Business Pressure, Bribes, Scorn of Adonis, Ventrue HQ, and Cryptic Rider, can go a long way towards making the viability of your vote deck independent from the quantity of votes at the table. And the beauty of votes, of course, is that you can flush excess vote mods even if you don't need em, unlike stealth. >example on >Tuesday I played two 5 player games with my political deck. In the first >game >there where 14 (yes 14) votes in titles amongst the other 4 players. I'm sure your grandprey would be happy to help you vote to put pressure on his predator. Wheel and deal -- not that you should have to that often with a good vote/bleed deck. Two votes in titles, 4 from an Oration, 1 from the vote itself -- That's 7. Wheedle/Bribe/Threaten someone for 4 extra votes, and you're there. Grand predators and Grand prey typically are quite accessible to prestation. >Obviously there are ways to make a majestic deck work with these rules. I >am >working on a presence vote deck that uses all vamps with +bleeds built in. >I will >have enough votes to make them block, and when they do (if they can) I can >untap >and bleed for 2 or three. It just takes a lot of jumping through hoops to 2 or 3? +1 bleed, +2 from Legal Manip, +3 from Aire of Elation -- who needs Dominate? >What troubles me more is the fact that most really obnoxious decks are not >affected by these rules. WVP is hurt, but WPV and weenie bleed are not. I >expect >to see lots of weenie presence bleed and vote decks now. Weenie presence vote isn't more of a threat than any other well-honed deck, really. Especially not with all the anti-weenie cards in the expansions. And weenie bleed is just barely viable if you pack Obfuscate and Computer Snacking. Both of them are incredibly boring, so we won't seem them in many play groups, and there are significantly more effective strategies, so we won't see them in tourneys. gomi -- 'spend a day and a half dead and the lettuce runs amok.' -babs woods

Hi Corrupter, On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, theCorrupter wrote: > | 2. Vote Replenishment rule: Players do not replenish their hands as a > | result of using political action cards as extra votes until > | the end of their turn. > > My playgroup is still testing this out. So far results have been mixed... > (though mostly positive). I have sent my resident dog (high Sterling) to > see if he can do what he does best: exploit this rule to the breaking > point. > My group has decided that this is just too restrictive, and are going to allow players to replace vote cards at the end of the acting Methuselah's turn (which is probably what was intended anyway. Shawn? > | VII. FINALS > > | 1. Table positions are not assigned in the final round. Instead, the > | first finalist has his or her choice of position, then the > | second finalist, and so on. Play for the final round commences normally. > > You do realize that this puts the top player at a disadvantage? > I agree, when I ran a DCI tournament with the old rules, I had all the finalists rank their seating position choices (1 to 5) secretly, then awarded the highest rank player his choice, the next ranking player his highest choice still available, etc. In general, all of my concerns were addressed. My only remaining problem is with the unrestricted cycling of Wake With Evenings Freshness. Is there any way we can get a rulling (errata?) on the card stating that when you play it you must actually attempt to block or play a reaction card? Algustas *****In our own lives, let each of us ask - not just what government will do for me, but what can I do for myself?***** Richard M. Nixon

c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) wrote: >The card back thing is good to bee gone for the library, not so good >for the crypt. The crypt fix could just be letting people double pack >cards in sleeves. Of course, now I can do that and not cheat unless >someone wants me to pull the sleeves. In which case I'll go through >and match backs with vamps. Just about anyone could have what they >consider "key" vamps of a different back type. > Has anyone noticed the difference in the Ancient Hearts card backs? First of all the border is slightly wider and has a slight bluish tinge to it compared to V:tES and DS card backs. Secondly, down the bottom Deckmaster tm, has been replaced with Deckmaster r. Small changes I know, but they really stick out if you know what to look for (what the heck, they've totally redesigned the card backs once, why not make a few changes here and there again). I wonder what the Sabbat backs will be like..............

On 19 Sep 1996, Ignacio Colunga Cantero wrote: > It's an advanced Entrancement the same action that an advanced Far > Mastery? > It's a basic Kine Dominance (Dominate Kine?) the same action that an > advanced Kine Dominance? > (They have the same name but one is a Bleed action and the other is a > take-control-of-a-Location action.) The cards which say "Take control of an ally" are different actions than "take control of a retainer". The Bleeds are different, irregardless of the same card name, than the superior version (examples in Govern the Unaligned and Kine Dominance) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 18 Sep 1996, Steve Bucy wrote: > Blocking is not an action. Gangrel can use wakes, rats, and cats to > endlessly block your one bleed from each minion each turn. Not to mention > endless earth melds. > I think we are going to see lots of Gangrel. Endless earth melds are easily screwed by any sophisticated combat decks. Stealth gets passed the obsessive S:CE deck. Unblocked votes rarely have to worry about the obsessive S:CE deck. Having played in an environment (NL/GT, SPTR) where this was the status quo for _some_ time now, I can tell you that the deck you propose is effective, but hardly degenerate. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 21 Sep 1996, Algustas wrote: > On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, theCorrupter wrote: [Re: Vote Replenishment rule] > > My playgroup is still testing this out. So far results have been mixed... > > (though mostly positive). I have sent my resident dog (high Sterling) to > > see if he can do what he does best: exploit this rule to the breaking > > point. > My group has decided that this is just too restrictive, and are > going to allow players to replace vote cards at the end of the acting > Methuselah's turn (which is probably what was intended anyway. Shawn? Our reaction was the opposite: not restrictive enough. The Weenie Vote Push deck using Anarch Revolts can cycle too easily and allows no cost to pushing on other people's turns (a la WwEF). With only 1 vote card allowed (as per pure Golden Tenets), full cycling won't happen. [snip] > In general, all of my concerns were addressed. My only remaining > problem is with the unrestricted cycling of Wake With Evenings Freshness.. > Is there any way we can get a rulling (errata?) on the card stating that > when you play it you must actually attempt to block or play a reaction card? I personally like LSJ's answer: make it an OOT-Master, though your suggestion works as well. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 21 Sep 1996, Thetmes wrote: > In response to the Corrupter's post dated September 20, 1996 > The strategy I feel is hurt by no repeat actions is non stealth bleed. Seductive bleed and Bruise'n'bleed are both unaffected. This leaves Freaky or Majestic Bleed (addressed by you below). > Majestic, freaky, and force of will are all seriously hampered. For S:CE bleed, note TJ Hulls deck on Jyhoad On-Line 4, which did quite well. Now you are left with Freaky and Force of Will. To put it bluntly, in a NL setting, without restricting Repeat Actions, these deck are just too devastating. There are good decks, and then there are decks which oust a player or two by turn 5. Consistently. And then, top it off with a few more players in the next turn. > are forced to put in a bunch of actions you don't really need (because > they don't fit in with the primary purpose of the deck) to try and get > people tapped so you can bleed. Might I suggest Misdirection? All the +bleed permanents (block or pay later)? Might I especially suggest Inverary Scotland, where they have the opportunity (and especially the desire) to block. Arson. A _huge_ number of other actions that fit the deck. > I don't want to add equipment, votes, or allies to my Ventrue, Toreador, > or Gangrel bleed decks because I have to. Who says you have to? The Ventrue and Toreador might want to, however. Even withtout that, they can both bounce bleeds to help tap out their prey. The Fortitude clans have Kiss of Ra. Toreador have distraction. Want to use Force of Will? It's wonderful if you hunt, fill up Inverary, or get a laptop first. Want to tap them out some other way? Use The Embrace or Progeny to create weenies who can S:CE to tap out your prey. If they don't block, they are being nickled and dimed to death. If they do, the door is open for your bigger bleeders. There are really _So_ many ways to do it. > IMO this really hampers deck construction. You don't > want to have to play with intercept, but I don't want to have to play > with this stuff unless it fits with my deck plans. Right now it doesn't, > so I have to come up with new deck ideas or force myself to shove it > in. Have you tried playing with No Repeat actions? Over the long haul, I've found that it works _very_ well. I've played in pretty much every environment besides some psycho ones described to me via e-mail (1 CL !!!). If found that Repeat Actions is the best solution to an otherwise broken set of fixes to NL Jyhad (CL ruins S:CE as a reliable defense, no solution allows a set of brokenness). > As for your Gangrel force of will and vote deck: I am curious how this > deck works. Does it ever win? Its probably my most effective deck to date. I've swept tables with it by turn 9 or 10 (tables of 4 or 5). These results are relatively consistent, as well. > In my experiece mixing two major strategies usually results in a > deck that does neither well. My favorite decks mix archetypes. Many common decks do as well (Bruise and Bleed). >In my game group it is usually almost impossible (without help) to pass > a vote with less than 10 votes. In such a vote-heavy environment, intercept is probably a great strategy. Play the meta-game. Knowing what is common, play something different that exploits the environment. You're likely to win more. Eventually, the stagnation will die away, and you'll have a varied environment where it becomes near impossible to play the metagame and the best decks rise to the top (instead of the best meta-game deck). > Puting in a few (say 12) vote cards in is usually nothing more than a > complete waste of space. For example on Tuesday I played two 5 player > games with my political deck. In the first game there where 14 (yes 14) > votes in titles amongst the other 4 players. In the second > there where 11. Anything less than a dedicated political deck wouldn't > have a chance without having to help someone else to get some votes. In > my group with the new DCI rules they would let me call the vote, vote it > down, and then block my bleed when I force of will or freak drive. Not > very useful. In that environment, I would probably go with intercept combat, or runaway intercept (guarding armies of rats and Smiling Jack, for example). Rush'n'politics might be good as well (vote for me, or I beat your vampires up). > Obviously there are ways to make a majestic deck work with these rules. I > am working on a presence vote deck that uses all vamps with +bleeds built in. > I will have enough votes to make them block, and when they do (if they > can) I can untap and bleed for 2 or three. It just takes a lot of > jumping through hoops to make one work now. See the above. > What troubles me more is the fact that most really obnoxious decks are not > affected by these rules. WVP is hurt, but WPV and weenie bleed are not. I > expect to see lots of weenie presence bleed and vote decks now. WPV and weenie bleed were never a bleed. They were _moderately_ effective, and mostly boring, but they were never degenerate like WVP. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.GUL.3.95.96092...@yar.cs.wisc.edu>, theCorrupter <adr...@yar.cs.wisc.edu> wrote: >On 17 Sep 1996, L. Scott Johnson wrote: >[re: The new DCI tourney rules] >> The Vote Pushing section needs some of work, however, >> since it is completely unclear as to what happens when >> you push is response to a vote (or if you push a >> Madness Network vote). Clear the whole thing up by >> saying "until the end of the current turn" instead of >> "until the end of your turn". > >I hope that they clearly say that it is "end of _your_ turn". This could >be done by explicitly saying "Vote cards used for additional votes are not >replaced until the end of your turn (not necessarily the end of the >current turn)". If done as you suggest, L. Scott, I can see ways in which >the rules can be broken. I can see how it ("until the end of the current turn") is more powerful than "until the end of _your_ turn"), but fail to see how this will lead to breaking the rules. Please elaborate for my benefit. > >> Plus the whole mechanic of not replacing until the >> end of (*)'s turn feels very odd. How do you keep >> track? Keep the PAs in front of you? Are they still >> in the Ash Heap? If you tap the FragNod (and discard >> to you "maximum hand size", do the burned PAs count >> against hand size? > >I would guess no. > Of course, guessing doesn't help in a tournament situation :-). (Which is why I brought it up). -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text

theCorrupter <adr...@yar.cs.wisc.edu> wrote: >On 17 Sep 1996, Steve Bucy wrote: >> If this is the direction the DC wanted to go in why didn't they just use >> the SPTR and avoid a lot of confusion. >If that had happened, I'd be smiling... :) In this line of thought... I was wondering of Shawn could explain to the group on whole why this particular set of rules was adopted instead of the SPTR. I know I remember Shawn making a comment about there being things in the SPTR that he didn't like. I for one would like to hear them, just so we can see what the thought process was in the decisions. Charles -- Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.

On 23 Sep 1996, L. Scott Johnson wrote: > In article <Pine.GUL.3.95.96092...@yar.cs.wisc.edu>, > theCorrupter <adr...@yar.cs.wisc.edu> wrote: > >I hope that they clearly say that it is "end of _your_ turn". This could > >be done by explicitly saying "Vote cards used for additional votes are not > >replaced until the end of your turn (not necessarily the end of the > >current turn)". If done as you suggest, L. Scott, I can see ways in which > >the rules can be broken. > I can see how it ("until the end of the current turn") is more > powerful than "until the end of _your_ turn"), but fail to see how > this will lead to breaking the rules. Please elaborate for my > benefit. :) One of the problems of Vote Pushing is the ability to cycle cards without real cost. In a deck (and most WVP decks I've seen do this) that forces other people to call votes, the pusher-deck can toss all of its non-damaging votes without any real fear. After all, it's not as if they had those hand slots as protective resources like Dodge, anyway. Once they are replaced, the likelihood of drawing both protective cards and offensive ones increases. This gives even more cycling than I feel comfortable with (easily exploitable). Of course, my playgroup is going to see if this is just a theoretical concern or not. [ quoted text not captured ]

Corrupter, Just a quick word about WWEF. I am not bothered by the card as it is played but even if I was I don't think I would want it restricted too much. Without Wakes as they exist, I think Misdirection would become a bit too powerful. There isn't much untap ability out there and without a way to wake a blocker the Misdirection decks would make sneak and bleed obsolete. Any fixes to WWEF have to take Misdirection into account. Doug Dunaway

>> In general, all of my concerns were addressed. My only remaining >> problem is with the unrestricted cycling of Wake With Evenings Freshness.. >> Is there any way we can get a rulling (errata?) on the card stating that >> when you play it you must actually attempt to block or play a reaction card? >I personally like LSJ's answer: make it an OOT-Master, though your >suggestion works as well. Although I have never seen people cycle through with WWEFs but if it gets changes at all, I would like to see it changed to be able to only be used in an attempt to block. I do not like the OOT-Master suggestion. Then, you could only use one and you would lose your master phase next turn. Not really fair given the nature of the card. Sorrow

[ quoted text not captured ] That is a very important point. The more I think about it, here are the two fixes I most like: ... Do Not replace until your discard phase. ... Only usable by a minion who attempts to block or play a reaction card. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, theCorrupter wrote: > On 24 Sep 1996, DOUGDWISE wrote: > > Without Wakes as they exist, I think Misdirection would become a > > bit too powerful. [...] > > Any fixes to WWEF have to take Misdirection into account. > That is a very important point. The more I think about it, here are the > two fixes I most like: > ... Do Not replace until your discard phase. > ... Only usable by a minion who attempts to block or play a reaction card. Come to think of it, though, the second fix would need to be redone to read: Only usable by a minion who attempts to play a reaction card or can currently block. Otherwise I can see Wakes being cycled against opponent's votes (I can't block, but I try). Cheese must be kept to a minimum. [ quoted text not captured ]

theCorrupter (adr...@yar.cs.wisc.edu) wrote: > On 19 Sep 1996, Ignacio Colunga Cantero wrote: > > It's an advanced Entrancement the same action that an advanced Far > > Mastery? > > > It's a basic Kine Dominance (Dominate Kine?) the same action that an > > advanced Kine Dominance? > > (They have the same name but one is a Bleed action and the other is a > > take-control-of-a-Location action.) > The cards which say "Take control of an ally" are different actions than > "take control of a retainer". But an advanced Entrancement take control of an ally and an advanced Far Mastery too. > The Bleeds are different, irregardless of the same card name, than the > superior version (examples in Govern the Unaligned and Kine Dominance) > [Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu] > @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ > irregardless?? I can't understand. (I forget my Diccionary) I supose you say that they're diferent actions. aren't they? (basic govern and advanced govern)

On 25 Sep 1996, Ignacio Colunga Cantero wrote: > theCorrupter (adr...@yar.cs.wisc.edu) wrote: > > The cards which say "Take control of an ally" are different actions than > > "take control of a retainer". > But an advanced Entrancement take control of an ally and an > advanced Far Mastery too. My reply was an attempt to get around not remembering the card text. Since they both take control of an ally, they should both be the same action (though Shawn might revise what he means by that). > > The Bleeds are different, irregardless of the same card name, than the > > superior version (examples in Govern the Unaligned and Kine Dominance) > I supose you say that they're diferent actions. aren't they? > (basic govern and advanced govern) Yes. [Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu] @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ [ quoted text not captured ]

Well, from what I understand of the new DCI rules (NL, No Repeat Actions, Limited vote push), I think they made a good choice. As a supporter of SPTR, though, I still think the DCI vote push rules are somewhat unweildy and still possibly a bit busted, but hey, at least it is a compromise. It does not, however, do enough to limit the "free hand cycle" aspect of vote cards, as you can still manage to ditch an entire hand of usless vote cards just to cycle your cards, either on your turn or on someone elses turn, and while it will slow down weenie voting on their active turns, it will not curtail the hand cyclage. Our group will have to try it out and see, though. All in all, I am pleased with the DCI decision to rework the tourney rules. Perhaps we will all be able to meet in the wasteland and say "any of you strangers want to play Jyhad? Yeah, good, I use the DCI rules as well...". Good work, Sean :-) Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "...and this Perpetual Motion Machine is a joke. It just keeps going faster and faster!" -Homer J Simpson