Inspired by this thread: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/382753
I searched for different 2 player variants and couldnt find anything
really good.
If no one knows any good variants already, then maybe we could make
sort of a community design process?
Or it could be a challenge for players to invent and present at some
big events?
I know the game isnt designed for 2 player games, but there could be
some simple and brilliant things out there, that could make up a cool
2 player variant.
What do you think?
> What do you think?
Some times there are just not enough players for a normal game, so I
actually play 1 on 1 from time to time. We play with the rule that the
edge doesnt give pool to the controling player. And the rule that
allows you to discard any deflections or any of those cards when you
draw them.
This is usually not enough to make it intresting for long, but it
shows very fast the card flow of a deck (although it is not really
representative with the real game).
I hope it helps.
Greetz,
Oortje
[ quoted text not captured ]
To me the game is built on the dynamic of a group setting. It is hard
to play a vote deck at a 2 person stand off. Some votes can't be
called or aren't worth calling. It would get to the point of which it
becomes who has the fastest deck. If I play a weenie horde, shark
bleed, breed/boon, etc. then I will win most of the time just due to
the natural offensive power of the deck and the fact that no one else
can help keep me under control.
You would almost have to play under rules of no big bleed or breed/
boon to eliminate the almost instant loss if someone decided to play
one of those decks. And if you did play that deck it would almost have
to be a consensus likely resulting in the other player using a similar
deck.
It is def. tough. Doing as I suggested by limiting the number of
certain cards like con boon, limiting max amount of bleed or bleed
pump cards, etc. You could even decide that the crypt can have only so
many X capacity vamps if you are worried about weenie horde and if
that is too much work then for every 1 capacity vampire that one
brings out the next 1 capacity vamp costs an additional pool. Or the
overwhelming threat of a small cap deck could be taken care of by the
limitation of bleed pump and breed/boon cards as stated above.
Perhaps there could be some added rules or even a small community
stack of cards to balance the game as well (or something like a small
number of lifelines that you can use in a given instance). Might even
make some major staple cards have alternate text like on draft
versions of the cards in real VTES. For instance a Con Boon could be
changed to gain a pool for every 2 vampires you control. Of course
there only so many staple cards so this should be fairly easy.
However, I still like my first listed method better, but you asked for
ideas.
With house rules you could do anything, but in a potential official 2
player format it would be more likely that certain cards were
restricted so there weren't over powered decks and maybe something
that could change the rules like influencing small vamps like I sited
above so there is minimal confusion.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I can see how that works, but yeah, probably not interesting for too
long.
Question is if its possible to easily make a two player variant that
is fun, entertaining and preparing you for the "real" game, without
comprimising the key functionality of the game.
If possible it might even be able to make the game more accessible to
new players. I find that they often can't round up 4-5 people for
these games, and I am afraid that alot of people only experience the
"official" 2 player version, and get turned off by it.
If someone comes up with something amasing, who knows, maybe it could
get added to the rulebook inserted in the starter decks. Sort of a
"Just started? Don't you have 4 other players you can play with? Try
these alternative rules to get a good feeling for the game before you
try the "true" game".
[ quoted text not captured ]
No. Didn' start there, but read through them. I find that these three
change the basic rules too much, and as such do not "prepare" a new
player for the actual VTES that is to come later.
The End-Game 2/3 player variant by Legbiter.
V:TES for Two Players by Mike Perlman.
Toy Chest Test by L. Scott Johnson.
The "Deckbot 2 player variant" is probably oversimplified, but could
be a good basis.
Do you think either of these could be the official 2 player ruleset
for VTES. I realised that this is probably what I am looking for with
all of this.
And I do realise that VTES wasnt designed as a two-player game, but I
dont feel that is reason enough to not make an official ruleset for
that particular situation. Especially since it seems to be how many
people are introduced to the game, if not trying it out at
conventions.
Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt wrote:
> On 10 Sep., 15:27, The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote:>> http://www.TheLasombra.com/variants.htm>
> The End-Game 2/3 player variant by Legbiter.
>
> V:TES for Two Players by Mike Perlman.
>> The "Deckbot 2 player variant" is probably oversimplified, but could
> be a good basis.
>
> Do you think either of these could be the official 2 player ruleset
> for VTES. I realised that this is probably what I am looking for with
> all of this.
> And I do realise that VTES wasnt designed as a two-player game, but I
> dont feel that is reason enough to not make an official ruleset for
> that particular situation. Especially since it seems to be how many
> people are introduced to the game, if not trying it out at
> conventions.
The basic rules for VTES apply to 2-player games already. That is the official
2-player rules set.
Any other 2-player format will just be a variant.
The way I play it with the following variations to the game:
1. You must burn the edge to gain a pool at your untap.
2. any bleed redirection costs an at least 1 blood and makes the bleed
action fail.
3. Any X referring to the number of players is =3 (or 4). (eg for Con
ag, parity shift etc.)
4. Start with 40 pool (so that agressive decks dont win by nature)
It can be interesting epecially for playtesting, but a 5 player game
will always be more fun!
Ruben
[ quoted text not captured ]> Any other 2-player format will just be a variant.- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
Alright, let me refrase that if you insist.
I believe the official rules should suggest another rules set to be
used for 2 player games, as the basic rules are not suited for it.
Reasons:
- I have yet to meet someone who thinks that the strength of VTES lies
in the two player games. In fact it seems to be the general opinion in
this thread as well.
- Most new players (maybe barring the ones that try it out at
conventions) by a couple of starter decks and try it out with a couple
of friends. If the two player version of the game doesn't appeal to
them, they are less likely to spend the energy trying to find 4 other
players to try the game for "real".
- As the publisher/developer I am sure you have an interest in
revitalising the playerbase (I know for sure that the community would
want that), and from a sales and marketing perspective you need people
to get hooked right away, in order to accomplish that.
It is fairly common for games to include alternative rulesets in case
the number of players falls outside the suggested for the game.
An example is the cardgame Citadels - http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/13291#files
I found the rules here for easy reading (if you like light text on
black background..hehe): http://chadweisshaar.com/weissoft/citadels/Citadels.html
Would it be possible to include something similar for the VTES rules?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hey, thats a good start! Did you come across any cards or situations
that caused complications while playing it like that?
1: Seems very cool, simple and takes care of the problem.
2: Sounds reasonable. Only cornercase I can think of is other
redirection effects like Aksinya Daclaus.
3: 3 sounds good. When would you make it 4?
4: Are the games still short or does this drag them out? Have you
tried this with a wall deck?
On Sep 11, 4:51 am, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
[ quoted text not captured ]
2. There is my ennemy's ennemy, redirection and some others.
3. You could make it 3 or 4. 3 is better i think since a parity shift
for 4 on a two player toable is too powerful.
4. The games are still short but you have just as many if not more
turns than in a 4-5 player game
Swarm decks do tend to have an advantage in this mode (although they
tend to have it in multiplayer games too!)
There are some cards that are troublesome. Basically they are all the
cards that you pass to your predator at the end of your turn (coven,
milicent smith, scourge of the enochians, informant (just kidding
about this one :P) etc.). These cards should either be removed from
the deck or you can play them but you pass them to an imaginary player
on your right (so like a 4 player table, hence your opponent gets it
in two turns).
On Sep 10, 8:19 am, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
[ quoted text not captured ]
Use the regular rules. Build decks specifically appropriate to a two-
player game. (Deflection is out, Telepathic Counter is in; Reckless
Agitation is out, Free States Rant is in.) This approach is great
for introducing new players to the basic game mechanics. Obviously,
it doesn't solve 'we got together to play Jyhad but only two of us
showed up'.
After a game, exchange decks and play again. If one player wins both
games, they win the match. This can be pretty fun, especially when
the two decks interact a lot -- combat vs combat, stealthbleed vs
wall, ...
[ quoted text not captured ]> in two turns).- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn ->
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
True. I'll give it some thought to find a way around these things. It
seems that maybe trying to take every type of card into consideration
and make specific rules is the wrong way. Maybe the approach should be
more "global".
[ quoted text not captured ]
This is not for me to play (well, I would of course and would hope to
enjoy it) as much as it is for two new players who buy a starter each
and try out the game. Then feeling that playing 2 players with the
standard rules is lame, and concludes that the game isnt good, after
which they never return again.
I would like the community to grow, and from my experience a couple of
years back as the prince in a city, there are a lot of these little
"enclaves" or groups of 2-3 players, who never get to experience the
real game. Just this year, we stumbled upon two groups of 2 and 3
players respectively, who had tried out the game but hadnt had any
succes in finding more players to play with.
I feel that a "if you are trying the game out with a friend, use this
ruleset instead of the regular 3-5 player ruleset" addition to the
rulebooks, would help the game in the long run.
[ quoted text not captured ]
First turn, start with 30 Anarch Revolts in play. Then go find 2 other
people to play, and have some real fun.
best -
chris
Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt wrote:
> I feel that a "if you are trying the game out with a friend, use this
> ruleset instead of the regular 3-5 player ruleset" addition to the
> rulebooks, would help the game in the long run.
insert a dummy 'poolsack' player in between the players with, say, 15 or
20 pool. or 30. would need to try it out to see. no cards, no minions,
no library.
so, player A and C are real, B and D are poolsacks.
play as normal.
fixes the 'cards that get passed around the table' issue. as well as the
deflection-class cards, and choose X = players in the game cards.
combat decks (which by nature can more easily go cross table) should be
advantaged in that they can get to the other player's minions directly.
but that should be offset by bleed decks getting through the poolsacks
quicker, and vote decks having less table votes to worry about.
just an idea.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
Salem <kell...@hotmail.com> writes:
[ quoted text not captured ]
A big problem: All your defensive cards (wakes, bleed reduce, intercept,
second tradition, etc.) will be useless, hand jamming wallpaper until the
poolsacks are gone.
HG
[ quoted text not captured ]
well, only until _your_ predator poolsack is gone.
and wakes you can cycle on your cross-table buddy's actions.
[ quoted text not captured ]