Golden Tennets and Vote decks. Advice?

Our group has been playing with the SPTR (NL/GT Jyhad) for some time now, and it is just great (All you CL people out there-Convert! Convert! We played 4CL for a year and a half before switching to NL/GT, and we're never goin back!), but as I just built a Stealth Vote deck (Nosferatu and Malkavian), I have noticed that without the Vote pushing rules (which I am perfectly happy to play without, mind you), vote decks without Presence are at a great disadvantage due to the lack of any other vote card that aproximates Bewitching Oration. The Jyhad card set was designed with both vote pushing and NL in mind, so as a result there was no reason to duplicate the effects of Bewitching Oration with a redundant card. Surprise Influence is clearly a card designed to allow vote defense in non voting decks, as there is no reason to have it in a deck with either Presence or a vote deck where vote pushing is alowed. When vote pushing is removed from the equation, vote decks without Presence suddenly have a great disadvantage when compared to vote decks with Presence, as they need to have titles on the table, either by passing Praxis Seizures or having Titled Vampires. The problem here is that Titled Vampires are all big, and thus slow and expensive to get out (and expensive to lose as your combat defense probably isn't that good, unless you have Presence for Majest...oops, wait a minute.), and if you have no titles on the table and no Bewitching Orations it is very difficult to pass a Praxis Seizure with just the one vote on the vote card, as it is likely that either someone will have either the Edge, a Primogen, or a Political Action in their hands. As an example, my current political deck is a Nos/Malk deck with Rake and Volker thrown in (for obvious reasons) that has many small vamps (Normal, Dimple, Duck) to call votes at stealth to avoid interception, and a few Princes as vote back up. In a game I played last night, the Toreador across the table got a lucky Info Superhighway and as a result got Anson out before I got to call any Praxis Seizures (my deck is 10% Prexis Seizures, mind you), and as a result, my deck was completely shut down until I got out both Rake and Gilbert Dwane. Luckily, every other deck at the table was a slow reactive intercept deck (by sheer chance), so my inability to act for 4 or 5 turns did not cost me too much, but if my Predator was, say, a S+B deck (which my defense against is voting Pool gain and racing to kill my prey), I would have been ousted very quickly. Because of the lack of vote pushing and a action modifier version of Surprise Influence (which will never be printed as there is no need for it in the actual rules), vote decks have the following options: A) Have Presence. This negates a HUGE chunk of vote deck designs, mostly the ones that can't be intercepted (and with no repeat actions, if all of your votes are intercepted and you survive due to Majesty, you are still shut down.) B) Have Obfuscate and no Presence, and have to rely either on sheer luck (winning a Praxis Seizure vote with ONE vote), or rely on slow, expensive, and vulnerable Princes. Again, this negates a huge chunk of vote decks, mostly ones that don't have to worry about it's little expendable vampires getting killed, or are speedy enough to out race it's S+B preadator. C) Use the Settites. This would be good, but the Settites are non-Camarilla and thus can't be Princes (removing the Prince voting angle), have fev Vamps with votes to begin with, and there are very few smallish vamps with both Obfuscate and Presence (I can think of 1 four-Nepata, and then some sixes). This makes the Vote Settite deck slow and unreliable. If there were a action modifier version of Surprise Influence (and again, there never will be), this would not be a problem, and if vote pushing were allowed, this would also not be a problem (although it would re-open a whole other set of problems, i.e. the 90 KRC weenie vote deck) [if you are reading this and unfamilliar with the SPTR (NL/GT) rules, they don't use the DC 6 card limit on restricted cards, but don't allow the unrestricted throwing of Political Actions as votes. This is regarded by many as the best way to play Jyhad, as the DC rules make very few people happy. They alienate both the no limit camps and the card limit people]. What are ways to fix this that I am yet to think of? Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "We've lost our chance, we're the fist and last After the blast" -Kate Bush

In a game I just played, Darius Styx was burned, his former controler played Redeam the lost Soul. Then, he put out a Tomb of Ramses on an uncontroled Darius (Actually I'm unsure of the timing, he may have played Redeam the Lost Soul after the ToR was played). My question is this: What happens when he transfers enough blood on another uncontrolled vampire that would cause enough blood to be put on Darius and bring him into the controlled region? 1. Does he come into play? I think not--Redeam the Lost Soul removes the Vampire from the game. 2. Is the player unable to make the transfers to his other uncontrolled vampire, because it would create an illegal situation?-- Unlikely, I don't see anything to support this view. 3. Is he able to do his transfers, but the blood on Darius stops at some point?--?? 4. Is he able to build up an undefined amount of blood on Darius?--?? Any possibilities I've overlooked? Thanks in advance for your responses. Rich Take life with a grain of salt.

Peter, I'll try not to beat a dead horse and just stick to new areas of the discussion. I do think that it would be easier to produce a vote deck without Presence under a vote pushing environment than it is under GT. The ability to use vote cards to gain votes would probably come in handy for decks without Bewitching Oration or the other Presence cards. But under the original game environment, where vote pushing is legal, would a vote deck without Presence be able to stand up to one _with_ Presence? I suspect that building such a deck might be a purely academic exercise unless there were never any Presence based vote decks in play. Under the original rules it would be possible to build the deck but it might not be any more successful than it is now: if another vote deck with Presence was at the table it would rule and even if there weren't any, all the other decks' Surprise Influences and titles might be too much for the vote pusher unless he was a weenie-vote-pusher. I like your idea for an action modifier version of Surprise Influence. I would make the "I'm So Cool" card with one modification however. It wouldn't be replaced until after the current action. That would bring it in line with the other non-discipline based cards that do the same job as Discipline cards. The card wouldn't bother me at all so I don't care if WotC makes it for the Sabbat and we can try it out. I still thaink that any vote deck without Presence will be largely ineffective unless it's a weenie deck. But it would be interesting to see. Doug Dunaway (An Artistically Inept Torreador)

Peter, I don't think there is a way to fix this. But then, I don't necessarilly think that is bad. There are not many options to making a vote deck without Presence. I agree with you on that one. One can try to use Praxis Seizures or Titled Vampires or those few vote granting Masters. It would be very tough though to make a vote deck without Presence. But is this in need of a fix? It is also difficult to make a Sneak and Bleed deck without Obfuscate. You could use a couple of cards from other disciplines that grant some stealth but they are not very numerous or as effective as the Obfuscate cards. If you want a Sneaky Bleed deck you just use Obfuscate. Same with vote decks. If you want to build one, use Presence. If you don't want to use a clan with natural Presence you will have to use Master skill cards. Not every clan should be able to do every strategy as well as any other. That would be pretty boring to me. I like the idea that if you want to build a deck to do certain things well, you have to pick the disciplines carefully. You can choose not to use Presence for a vote deck but your deck will not be as good at politics as one using clans that have Presence. Just my opinion, but I think this is one fix that is not needed. Presence is there to use if you want it. Good luck finding a solution to your dilemma. Let me know if you think of something. Doug Dunaway

(Part 2 of a monsterous post) C) 4 Four (or whatever) card limit Jyhad: A common attempt to fix what are percieved as problems in the game with a blanket card limit. This enviornment, while avoiding many foibles of the above enviornments, is basically cutting off a hand to cure a hangnail. Under CL, most decks that are not Stealth and Bleed decks are at a great disadvantage due to the lack of redundancy in certain Disciplines. Obfuscate and Dominate have tons of redundancy because most of those cards are Action Modifiers, and thus need redundancy, while combat decks are screwed by the lack of redundant Bums Rush cards, and Animalism intercept decks are screwed by the lack of reduntant Animalism intercept cards, ect. A while ago, during one of the periodic NL/CL debates, there were countless attempts to post a satisfactory "Brujah Pitch" deck (basically a perfectly reasonable Brujah deck that uses all long range Potence combat and Celerity to Blur Sewer Lids and Thrown Gates) under a 4CL, and it constantly failed, as you could only have 4 Sewer Lids, 4 Gates, and 4 Cars, which does not a Pitch deck make. No one (who was not a 4CL advocate) ever responded to this by saying "Well, how is it a bad thing that you can't make this deck?" (that was not meant in any way as an attack at Doug, just making a point :-). The general response was "Well, under NL rules, you can make any deck, and have it work.", and thus was developed... D) No limit Golden Tenents Jyhad (or the Sensible Persons Tourney Rules), a common rule set that fixes all of the above foibles by disallowing vote pushing (only one vote from Political Actions per vote) and repeat actions (a single vamp can only try to bleed once per turn, regadless of subsiquent untaps). This is regarded by many (including myself) as the best way to play. It eliminates all degenerate combos (and The Corrupter has a undefeated long standing challange to come up with a degenerate deck in this enviornment), and allows almost all decks to compete on equal standing. Which brings me to my point about Presence and votes. (Again, continued below. Gosh, I hope these showed up in order...) [ quoted text not captured ]

(Part 3 of my monsterous post. Thanks for sticking around this long :-) Because of a complete anomaly, decks that want to vote without Presence are screwed, because the card set is designed under envornment A, and as a result, there are no need for non Discipline cards providing votes for vote decks. With vote pushing, all vote decks have a good supply of fluid votes, and Presence just gives an additional edge. Because of this, there was no need to make a non Reaction version of Surprise Influence, as it would be deemed as "useless and redundant" under enviornement A, and no one would use it (much like Concealed Weapon). Surprise influence exists as a card to provide vote defense for non voting decks. An Action Mod version of Surprise Influence, while incredibly obvious, is not absent because it would be too powerful or broken, It does not exist because it is not needed as the game is designed. Because of this, a huge chunk of decks (vote decks without Presence) which were perfectly viable under all of the above enviornments, are greatly disadvantaged under NL/GT, and there is no good reason for it. It is good and all to compare Presence and vote decks to Stealth and Bleed as an example of how some clans are good at it and some aren't, but this is not an intententional result of NL/GT, and is only the case due to the lack of a very obvious card (Action Mod Surprise Influence). If Stealth Vote, Gangrel Vote, or basically any non Presence based vote deck were unduly powerful under non NL/GT rules and needed to be hamstrung, and this was intentional, then that would be just fine. My point is that this deficiency is unintentional, and as a result these decks are just as screwed under NL/GT as "Brujah Pitch" (or any combat deck) is under 4CL, and any number of perfectly reasonable decks are under DC rules, and not for any good reason. Again, the inclusion of a perfectly reasonable and obvious card would fix this completely, but the card in question (Action Mod Surprise Influence) will never be produced. If I could convince my group that Surprise Influence should be able to be played as either a Action Mod or a Reaction, or we invented our own card to use ("Boy I'm cool": Only usable during a political action. Gain 2 votes. Non Discipline Action Mod."), that would fix all of this, but that probably won't happen, barring overwhelming local and/or net support, due to the "Aww, quit whining, you're just pissed cause YOUR deck is screwed..." aspect of this sort of problem. Oh, well. What to do. (That's the end.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Yeah, I guess that you are right about not being able to make a good vote deck without Presence in NL/GT, but that seems to me to be somewhat opposed to the intent of NL/GT Jyhad as I see it is, namely the ability to make any deck you want and have them be balanced (excepting the well known degenerates). As the various play enviornments go, they all seem to put various limits on worthwhile deck designs, and while NL/GT seems to have the fewest limits, as I have pointed out, it effectively neuters a huge chunk of deck designs (i.e. vote decks without Presence), primarily by accident more than design. Take the following common play enviornments: A) No card limits, no other restrictions (how the game was envisioned): You can make any deck to do anyhting at all, and while most decks are balanced and no deck designs are more powerful than any others, there are a few degenerate designs that came up that the designers had never even concieved of, like the Weenie Vote deck (crypt of all Catiff, lybrary of 90 KRC) and the Freaky Bleed deck (Using Freak Drive to untap and Bleed/S:CE/5th Tradition infintely). Barring some exeptions, combat decks are just as good as bleed decks which are just as good as vote decks. In this enviornment, a non Presence stealth vote deck is just as compettitve as any other design (except maybe the "all Gird Minions" deck :-), and baring intenional degeneration and the use of acceptable numbers of cards (i.e. 10 KRC, 10 Praxis, 10 Con Boon, a bunch of Masters, some combat, a bunch of stealth+whatever), is perfectly ballanced and non degenerate. B) DC sanctioned tourney rules (what the designers have decided is the best way to fix things): The 6 card restricted list attempts to fix the above problems by limiting the "broken" cards to 6 of each. While it is somewhat sucsessful in fixing things like Weenie Vote and Freaky Bleed, it hamstrings some perfectly legitimate decks (like a deck that relies on its 10 Majsties for combat defense, or a perfectly reasonable vote deck that wants to use 9 Conservative Agitations). It has also been noted that it is still perfectly possible to build a nigh degenerate Weenie Vote deck in this enviornment that is still almost as effective as it used to be, negating the main fix that this enviornment attempts to impliment. In this envornment, again baring a few close to degenerate decks, you can make almost any deck, as long as you don't want more than 6 of any restricted card, and again, a non Presence Stealth/Vote deck is perfectly playable and is just as good and balanced as all other deck designs (assuming the builder is attempting to avoid degeneracy). (This monsterous post is continued below, please bear with me :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Rich, it seems to me that redeem the lost soul removes the CARD from the game, not the vampire. Therefore even if Darius is redeemed, another copy of Darius is perfectly playable and legal. Chick...@aol.com 3930 Cody Road Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 day 714-558-9444 eve 818-784-8476

True, with vote pushing, a vote deck with Presence will generally beat out a vote deck without Presence (much like a plain Potence combat deck does just fine until it runs into a Potence/Celerity deck). On the other hand, a vote deck without presence at a table without other main line vote decks will do just fine in a vote pushing enviornment, but in NL/GT, a vote deck without Presence is very hard pressed to get its foot on the first rung of the ladder, as it is almost impossible to pass a Praxis Seizure on a smallish (i.e. first turn) vampire with only the one vote from th Political Action card, as at a table with 5 other players it is highly likely that someone will have either the Edge or a single vote in their hand. Thus, the deck needs to wait to get out a Prince or two, and expensive and slow process compared to other strategies (any type of combat can start killing imediately, and any type of bleed deck can start bleeding with its first vampire). My point about the hypothetical Action Mod version of Surprise Influence is that while it would be a perfectly acceptable card, and would happen to fix this entire problem in the NL/GT arena, it will never ever be printed, because the in the standard Jyhad/VTES rules there is absolutely no need for it. With vote pushing (the actual rules), this sort of card is completely unneeded and redundant. It would only be needed (and produced) if the Jyhad rules officially switched to "No vote pushing", at which point the card would be produced imediately. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter, I understand your point about the action modifier version of Sudden Influence not being needed under vote push rules. It probably will never be printed by WotC. But why not make your own Boy Am I Cool cards from that stack of Concealed Weapons and Chainsaws? I have made a couple of my own cards and played them at the table to the surprise of everyone. One was Bifocals Of Obscurity which allowed you to ask another methuselah any question during your Master phase to which he had to answer "Wibble." Another was Roll In Something Stinky, a Gangrel action card that prevented the Gangrel who used it from ever doing any actions at stealth and made him immune to Directed Actions. I suggest that your group try an experiment wherein some of these cards are made up and you all agree to recognize them. Introduce them to your card mix in decks as you like and gather some information about the relative efficacy of the non-Presence based vote decks under GT then. I think this would be an interesting study. I'd be curious to learn of your results. Let me know if you try it. Good luck. Doug Dunaway

WHONK! I think you've hit the nail on the head here, Peter. Regardless of the rules used, it's hard to see a reason why not to have a discipliness action modifier to gain 2 votes. Perhaps you would say it could not be used in conjunction with Bewitching Oration, but that's a side issue. In my usual fashion, I've tried to build a vote deck without Presence. Here are the tricks I've found: 1) The edge is one vote, if you can filch it (Night Moves, or a 1 pt Gangrel bleed). 2) In monoclan decks, Justicars usually pass (unlike Praxis Seizures). 3) Telepathic Vote Counting (TVC) at superior (cancel a vampire's vote) is effectively 2 more votes in almost any situation. 4) Theoretically, rushing hostile voters can help. I haven't yet made this work, though. 5) Bribes (the card) helps. Buying votes by calling things for other players can help too. That said, all these tricks are basically inadequate. I have one vote/bleed deck that only grazes on Presence - my auspex-centered Visionaries deck - but it's only mediocre, and its success is critically dependent on table position. If you're playing with the Mask allowing unlimited uses of a specific action modifier, I think you could get somewhere with a semi-degenerate deck built around Masks and TVC. But that is, well, kind of icky. I'm aware of your fondness for Nosferatu; and certainly, in this case, a Nosferatu blackmail-and-trickery political deck is outrageously appropriate. In addition to the disciplineless gain votes card, there should be an action card Blackmail to "(D) Place this card on a vampire. You may burn this card during a vote to force that vampire to cast its votes either for or against the measure. This can result in the vampire changing its votes." This might be a Nossie-specific card, or be disciplineless. But I digress. A disciplineless action modifier to gain votes is one of those lacunae that cries out to be filled. IMO, of course. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

On 21 Jul 1996, PDB6 wrote: > True, with vote pushing, a vote deck with Presence will generally beat out > a vote deck without Presence (much like a plain Potence combat deck does > just fine until it runs into a Potence/Celerity deck). On the other hand, > a vote deck without presence at a table without other main line vote decks > will do just fine in a vote pushing enviornment, Is this necessarily a good thing, if you are running a straight vote deck (no funky tricks, like my Nossie vote deck torping opposing voters before voting)? To have a focus of a deck in disciplineless format be able to compete well with the disciplined format seems ludicrous. All things being equal, a Brujah deck fighting with Lucky Blows should be hard pressed against a Brujah deck fighting with Potence strikes. In general, it should be outclassed. Similarly, a vote deck without presence should be outclassed (barring funky tricks :) against a presence vote deck. > but in NL/GT, a vote deck > without Presence is very hard pressed to get its foot on the first rung of > the ladder, as it is almost impossible to pass a Praxis Seizure on a > smallish (i.e. first turn) vampire with only the one vote from th > Political Action card, as at a table with 5 other players it is highly > likely that someone will have either the Edge or a single vote in their > hand. 2nd round, you bleed (they will not likely have a blocker). You now have the Edge. Your other vamp seizures (2 votes). Given that a third of the table will be vote decks (say, 25% vote cards) and the other two-thirds will not (say, 2.5% vote cards), you should have on average 1.6 votes to deal with. You will typically win. > Thus, the deck needs to wait to get out a Prince or two, and > expensive and slow process compared to other strategies (any type of > combat can start killing imediately, and any type of bleed deck can start > bleeding with its first vampire). See the above. > My point about the hypothetical Action Mod version of Surprise Influence > is that while it would be a perfectly acceptable card, and would happen to > fix this entire problem in the NL/GT arena, it will never ever be printed, > because the in the standard Jyhad/VTES rules there is absolutely no need > for it. With vote pushing (the actual rules), this sort of card is > completely unneeded and redundant. It would only be needed (and produced) > if the Jyhad rules officially switched to "No vote pushing", at which > point the card would be produced imediately. Likely analysis of the printing of the proposed card. However, you neglect to think about weenie voters and Justicars (often giving _far_ more votes than any action modifier can), the use of bribes and cryptic riders, and the use of bizarre sub-forms of voting (vote-rush, malkavian rider decks, etc). I have seen many a non-Presence vote deck do extremely well in a GT environment. They just voted in slightly different ways. @ 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 22 Jul 1996, CurtAdams wrote: > In my usual fashion, I've tried to build a vote deck without Presence. > Here are the tricks I've found: > 1) The edge is one vote, if you can filch it (Night Moves, or a 1 pt > Gangrel bleed). Especially useful in a heavy seizure deck. That first Seizure should pass, more than half the time (given "standard" table dynamics, which of course, do not exist except as a theoretic). > 2) In monoclan decks, Justicars usually pass (unlike Praxis Seizures). Yes. > 3) Telepathic Vote Counting (TVC) at superior (cancel a vampire's vote) is > effectively 2 more votes in almost any situation. Clunky, though. I like this one the least. > 4) Theoretically, rushing hostile voters can help. I haven't yet made > this work, though. I have found this to be _extremely_ doable. Obfuscate is a must, though (others might step in the way, Hidden Lurker to punish those S:CE-vamps) > 5) Bribes (the card) helps. Buying votes by calling things for other > players can help too. This usually gets the fence-sitters, but not the rest. > That said, all these tricks are basically inadequate. Funny. My Nossie deck would disagree. It uses 4 of the above 5 methods, and is extremely good. > I have one > vote/bleed deck that only grazes on Presence - my auspex-centered > Visionaries deck - but it's only mediocre, and its success is critically > dependent on table position. I'd like to see it. Care to send me it for my deck archive? > If you're playing with the Mask allowing unlimited uses of a specific > action modifier, I think you could get somewhere with a semi-degenerate > deck built around Masks and TVC. But that is, well, kind of icky. Could you describe what you mean? I'm not sure I understand and am curious. [snip] > But I digress. A disciplineless action modifier to gain votes is one of > those lacunae that cries out to be filled. > IMO, of course. As LSJ pointed out, most disciplineless cards of this nature are responsive rather than active. I think they are more appropriate (and balanced) that way. [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) writes: >L. Scott, >Yes, that the Action Modifier version of Surprise Influence will never >exist due to the structure of the actual rules has been part of my point >all along (I guess you missed it in my missaligned and segmented massive >post :-) I gathered, from the post that I replied to, that you were of the opinion that ActionMod-SurpriseInfluence (AM-SI) didn't exist because the rules structure supported Vote pushing. My post (no longer quoted) was attempting to clarify that "This is not the case (IMHO)." It (vote push) did not exist even back when the rules were first written, when 1-PA-per-action was painfully (sloppily) part of the rules. But, you are correct in the opinion that, given the current official ruling (and explicit counter-wording in the VtES rulebook), there is no need for an AM-SI. Any clan (or random mix of vampires) can vote effectively by stacking a library full of vote cards. Whether that is a good thing or not is apparently a matter of taste. There are no "generic" stealth gainers for the same reason. Self votes and stealth are used for offense, and offense requires a coherent strategy. There are, by contrast, generic reply-votes (1 for a PA, 2 for Surprise), as well as generic intercept (KRCG, Sport Bike, Winthrop, Atonement (special restriction on youth of vampire, but close enough), etc.) Someone, somewhere (Richard Garfield, probably), did this intentionally. Adding vote pushing disrupts this balance. Why stock any Surprise Influences when you can achieve a much more adaptable ploy with Political Action cards? PA - doesn't require an untapped vampire (or even a vampire at all) to burn for a vote. And, if no one is voting to begin with, you can convert your PA to an action. Any deck can use a Disputed Territory, or KRC. And it can be used during a bloodhunt, to boot. And, last and least, it can be used to boost a vote that you call to burn a card in play (Like Archon, Arboretum, Gehenna, Legendary Vampire, Archon Revolt, etc.) Surprise - requires an untapped vampire (who can only play one). Can't be used to call a vote. Can't be used during a blood hunt. Can't be used during a vote you call. The only benefit SI has is that it gives two votes instead of one. The benefits of including 2 PAs far outperform this. >Given that it does not and will not ever exist, non Presence vote decks >are at a vast disadvantage under NL/GT, that they were not under in any >other play enviornment. Yes, vote decks with Presence have always beat >out vote decks without Presence, but without vote pushing, non Presence >vote decks are now easily shut down by non vote decks all together, as >they can never sucessfully pass that first Praxis Seizure they need to get >going with only one (or two, with the Edge) votes. Why can't they pass the first one? Promise the would-be princes' votes to someone (the other vote deck, or the person with the edge, etc.). Politics isn't *supposed* to be a sure thing (ask Dole). And bleed decks without stealth are easily blocked. If you've got the house rules (no-vote-pushing) already, and this is creating a problem for your decks, then the suggestion (was it yours?) to add further house rules (such as aliasing your Chainsaws to be this needed new card) shouldn't be a problem. But, someone may ask to alias her Concealed Weapon to a disciplineless Voter Captivation (since only presence has such a card). And someone else may ask for a disciplineless Cat's Guidance, since no other discipline has access to an "untap after block" effect. I don't perceive the lack of AM-SI as detrimental to the game, tho. I don't build Gangrel Bleed decks, and I have built Brujah vote decks that contained no Orations (and won). A Gangrel Rush Vote deck could be made - threaten to rush any Prince who doesn't vote for your votes, etc.) Politics should be a table-dynamic situation, not a dictatorship. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | "Criminal Lawyer" is redundant. http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

In article <4t0mmj$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: >WHONK! > >I think you've hit the nail on the head here, Peter. Regardless of the >rules used, it's hard to see a reason why not to have a discipliness >action modifier to gain 2 votes. Perhaps you would say it could not be >used in conjunction with Bewitching Oration, but that's a side issue. I think Bribes is the unskilled analog to Bewitching Oration. The other way to get those Princes passed is to use Cryptic Rider, and give a juicy reward for the Meth who helps you pass the first vote. Works especially well in a sneak-and-vote deck. [Other good ways to get votes clipped for brevity] The Golden Tenets are just a little too restrictive on vote tossing, IMO -- I think the Meth who has the vote called should be able to toss one vote card, too, for a total of 2 votes. A non-presence/no-prince deck should have to rely on interplayer politics and deal-making, and not be able to 'force' a vote. It should be harder, just like trying combat or bleeding without the appropriate skills. -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu

On 22 Jul 1996, Thomas Doehne wrote: > I think Bribes is the unskilled analog to Bewitching Oration. The other > way to get those Princes passed is to use Cryptic Rider, and give > a juicy reward for the Meth who helps you pass the first vote. Works > especially well in a sneak-and-vote deck. Agreed. > [Other good ways to get votes clipped for brevity] > The Golden Tenets are just a little too restrictive on vote > tossing, IMO -- I think the Meth who has the vote called should > be able to toss one vote card, too, for a total of 2 votes. Note the above. > A non-presence/no-prince deck should have to rely on > interplayer politics and deal-making, and not be able to > 'force' a vote. It should be harder, just like trying > combat or bleeding without the appropriate skills. You contradict this part in your preceding statement. I agree, it should be harder to 'force' votes through without the appropriate skills, but the main reason for this Golden Tenet is too increase fairness. Not allowing any push (the calling Meth. gets 1 vote from the PA) makes card cycling _much_ more difficult, and places it in line with other strategies. In addition, if all titles on a table of 5 players equal out (so that all other players titles are equal to your own amount of titles) the opposing 4 Methuselahs will typically have ~1.4 votes, on average. Two votes can be gained from the Edge and the Political Action if the vote is to pass (this requires more versatility, a good thing). With one vote push, the two votes can be gained by throwing down the extra political action. Alan Kwan's original article on this mentions how fundamental the difference between one push and one political action are. I hope the above example makes it clear: that one extra push is too much (dropping the necessity of broad deck design and increasing card cycling in unfair ways). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4su48q$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, PDB6 <pd...@aol.com> wrote: >(Part 3 of my monsterous post. Thanks for sticking around this long :-) > >Because of a complete anomaly, decks that want to vote without Presence >are screwed, because the card set is designed under envornment A, and as a The Jyhad card set (which includes Bewitching Oration, Dread Gaze, and Surprise Influence, but no ActMod version of Surprise Influence) was designed under the "no vote pushing" rule. Vote pushing came around later - after the cards were finished. (Just like (D)-symbol as omni-directability-granting came around after Cat Burglary was printed). Sorry.

Im already trying to convince them that this card should exist, and when I do...Bwahahaahah. Oh, sorry. Anyway, thanks for the input :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott, Yes, that the Action Modifier version of Surprise Influence will never exist due to the structure of the actual rules has been part of my point all along (I guess you missed it in my missaligned and segmented massive post :-) Given that it does not and will not ever exist, non Presence vote decks are at a vast disadvantage under NL/GT, that they were not under in any other play enviornment. Yes, vote decks with Presence have always beat out vote decks without Presence, but without vote pushing, non Presence vote decks are now easily shut down by non vote decks all together, as they can never sucessfully pass that first Praxis Seizure they need to get going with only one (or two, with the Edge) votes. Saying that only decks with Presence should be able to make vote decks is like saying that only the Brujah should make hand to hand comabt decks, as without Celerity, you can't compete. This sentement makes my Nosferatu heart sad, as I field perfectly good (and moderately scary) combat decks with Potence and without Celerity, but yes, I have trouble fighting other Potence decks with Celerity. I should be able to make acceptable vote decks without Presence, that while it will have trouble against other vote decks with Presence, will do just fine in other situations. If the said card existed, all would be good, as while it would bulk out a deck, and would be unneeded by decks with Presence, it would make a whole mess of vote decks viable again (Gangrel or Tremere Vote, Stealth Vote, Speed Vote, Nosferatu Bruise+Vote...). [ quoted text not captured ]

Doh. I just re-read L.Scotts response about the origins of Vote Pushing and Surprse Influence. Damn that Lysdexia of mine. So L.Scott, please completely disregard the first paragraph of my response, but the rest still makes sense anyway. Oh well. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 20 Jul 1996, PDB6 wrote: > I have noticed that without the Vote pushing rules (which I am > perfectly happy to play without, mind you), vote decks without Presence > are at a great disadvantage due to the lack of any other vote card that > aproximates Bewitching Oration. True, but in Jyhad's base card set, Protean was the only other way besides Obfuscate to get stealth. Does this mean that there is an unfair advantage in Obfuscate? Not really, just that if you wanted Stealth your options were limited to those skills(disciplines) that provided stealth. However, there were other ways to attempt "stealth" with Blood Bonding, Seduction, etc., which approximated the effect of having stealth, without doing the same thing. In the case of voting under GT (which is how the game was originally written), this means other means of gaining votes must be looked at. [snip] > Because of the lack of vote pushing and a action modifier version of > Surprise Influence (which will never be printed as there is no need for it > in the actual rules), vote decks have the following options: > A) Have Presence. This negates a HUGE chunk of vote deck designs, mostly > the ones that can't be intercepted (and with no repeat actions, if all of > your votes are intercepted and you survive due to Majesty, you are still > shut down.) > B) Have Obfuscate and no Presence, and have to rely either on sheer luck > (winning a Praxis Seizure vote with ONE vote), or rely on slow, expensive, > and vulnerable Princes. Again, this negates a huge chunk of vote decks, > mostly ones that don't have to worry about it's little expendable vampires > getting killed, or are speedy enough to out race it's S+B preadator. > C) Use the Settites. This would be good, but the Settites are > non-Camarilla and thus can't be Princes (removing the Prince voting > angle), have fev Vamps with votes to begin with, and there are very few > smallish vamps with both Obfuscate and Presence (I can think of 1 > four-Nepata, and then some sixes). This makes the Vote Settite deck slow > and unreliable. D) Think of another way. My own Nosferatu vote deck usually wins on a table of voters. Why? Tons of relatively small Nossies make the Justicar vote easy to pass. Bribes makes all the votes more likely to pass. Cryptic Rider makes the bribed votes follow ups pass. But here is the most important factor: I do something out of the ordinary. My Nossie vote deck _rushes_ the other voters and beats them up (Hidden Lurker applenty to stop S:CEnders). With no voters on the table, my votes pass relatively easily. With the threat of rush, people are reluctant to vote against me. I use no presence. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hi PDB6, On 22 Jul 1996, PDB6 wrote: [Stuff about generic (non presence) action mod for votes deleted] > > Given that it does not and will not ever exist, non Presence vote decks > are at a vast disadvantage under NL/GT, that they were not under in any > other play enviornment. Yes, vote decks with Presence have always beat > out vote decks without Presence, but without vote pushing, non Presence > vote decks are now easily shut down by non vote decks all together, as > they can never sucessfully pass that first Praxis Seizure they need to get > going with only one (or two, with the Edge) votes. > I have only two things to say to this, Bribes and Cryptic Rider. Neither one is as efficient as presence action modifiers, but they can work, and they are generic.... Algustas *****VOTE, n. The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself and a wreak of his country.***** Ambrose Bierce, the Devil's Dictionary

What a great deal of good discussion this has become. Thanks, everyone :-) I still think that the world of NL/GT would be a better place given the existence of an Action Mod version of Surprise Influence, but hey, I can deal. I guess I just need to get more Cryptic Riders and Consanguineous Boons... Again, I certainly am not pushing (or even implying) for the ability to make non Presence vote decks that can compete on even terms with Presence vote decks, just hoping to find a way to give non Presence vote decks a kick start. Many very good suggestions have been made (boy do I feel dumb that I traded away all my Justicar votes now...), and I will have to make due. Still, I will continue to attempt to con my group into allowing my homemade Vote card with a picture of a Chainsaw on it to be implimented, and if I am sucessful, I will let you all know how it works out. BTW, what does Malkavian Rider Clause do? I have never seen one, and it would probably fit in my deck perfectly. [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) writes: >BTW, what does Malkavian Rider Clause do? I have never seen one, and it >would probably fit in my deck perfectly. From Shane's compiled AH list: Malkavian Rider Clause Reaction Malkavian 1 Blood Only usable during a political action before voting occurs. If the vote passes, then the next vote you successfully call passes automatically. Artist: Steve Casper [ quoted text not captured ]

On 23 Jul 1996, PDB6 wrote: > What a great deal of good discussion this has become. Thanks, everyone > :-) I agree... > BTW, what does Malkavian Rider Clause do? I have never seen one, and it > would probably fit in my deck perfectly. Malkavian Rider Clause - Reaction - Malkavian - 1 Blood Only usable during a political action before votes are cast. If this vote passes the next vote you call passes. A fun card... [ quoted text not captured ]

Here's an answer to this thread: GT2 (Surprise influence is also usable as an action modifier.) [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >On 23 Jul 1996, Eric Pettersen wrote: >> An alternative rule to the "no vote push" half of the Golden Tenets was >> originally suggested by Curt Adams: no deck can consist of more than 40% >> (or 50% perhaps) vote cards. This rule is designed to eliminate exactly >> the problem decks (Weenie Vote Push) and leave others unaffected. The >> rule works because WVPs jam badly after the first few votes if non-votes >> are 50-60% of their library. >Agreed. WVP will jam with that few votes in their library. However... >I think that many non-degenerate vote decks could do well with 40-50% >votes, and have seen and made such decks (without vote pushing, there is >no degenerate vote passing). I don't like the idea that I can only put >so many of a card in a deck (too CL-ish). Jyhad was not designed that >way, and Jyhad was originally designed with the first GT (no vote push). Yes, you can make viable decks with over 40% votes. But most vote decks haven't so much. It's a relatively painless fix in that you can pull any Jyhad player off the street, and even if they've never heard of WVP or any fix for it, they will understand % vote restriction, and likely have no deck affected by it. >I feel that the no vote pushing has a decent chance of being reintroduced >into the rules set by the Design Team (based on articles in the duelist, >general support here and in conventions I've been to, and the way the >rules were originally written). I suggested the percentage restriction as the DC is *very* reluctant to change rules interpretations but downright eager to put on card limits. WVP requires a fix. Limits on pushing are stylish (and as I've said before, I personally prefer rules changes for problems like this), but % restriction will do, without greatly harming the game. Although the Jyhad rules prohibited vote pushing, the V:tES rules don't, so for our friends at WotC, original intent is complicated. Besides, how can they admit they made such a goof? >To me, the Percentage idea begs the >question: How many combat cards should a combat decks have? How many >bleed cards? Etc... Seems a slippery slope to me... Vote Push is a special situation in Jyhad in that one card type only fulfills all your needs. All-combat or all-bleed decks just don't create that kind of problem. It's true that somebody might see % restriction on vote cards as a reason to put % restrictions on combat cards, but there will be no game need driving them. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >I write: >> If you're playing with the Mask allowing unlimited uses >>of a specificaction modifier, I think you could get >>somewhere with a semi-degeneratedeck built around >>Masks and TVC. But that is, well, kind of icky. >Could you describe what you mean? I'm not sure I >understand and am curious. Sure. Vampire A calls a vote. If a vampire casts a vote against, cancel with a Telepathic Vote Counting, and Mask over to another vampire (to do it again, if necessary). It certainly feels abusive, as vote cards are clearly not meant to be stackable. Multiple Masks can also provide heavy stealth if somebody is trying to intercept. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > Our group has been playing with the SPTR (NL/GT Jyhad) for some time > now, and it is just great (All you CL people out there-Convert! Convert! > We played 4CL for a year and a half before switching to NL/GT, and we're > never goin back!), but as I just built a Stealth Vote deck (Nosferatu > and Malkavian), I have noticed that without the Vote pushing rules (which > I am perfectly happy to play without, mind you), vote decks without > Presence are at a great disadvantage due to the lack of any other vote > card that aproximates Bewitching Oration. > > The Jyhad card set was designed with both vote pushing and NL in mind, > so as a result there was no reason to duplicate the effects of Bewitching > Oration with a redundant card. Surprise Influence is clearly a card > designed to allow vote defense in non voting decks, as there is no reason > to have it in a deck with either Presence or a vote deck where vote > pushing is alowed. > > When vote pushing is removed from the equation, vote decks without > Presence suddenly have a great disadvantage when compared to vote decks > with Presence, as they need to have titles on the table, either by > passing Praxis Seizures or having Titled Vampires. The problem here is > that Titled Vampires are all big, and thus slow and expensive to get > out (and expensive to lose as your combat defense probably isn't that > good, unless you have Presence for Majest...oops, wait a minute.), and > if you have no titles on the table and no Bewitching Orations it is very > difficult to pass a Praxis Seizure with just the one vote on the vote > card, as it is likely that either someone will have either the Edge, a > Primogen, or a Political Action in their hands. An alternative rule to the "no vote push" half of the Golden Tenets was originally suggested by Curt Adams: no deck can consist of more than 40% (or 50% perhaps) vote cards. This rule is designed to eliminate exactly the problem decks (Weenie Vote Push) and leave others unaffected. The rule works because WVPs jam badly after the first few votes if non-votes are 50-60% of their library. I personally have never seen a non-weenie, non-theme vote deck that had anywhere near 40% vote cards. The Corrupter has had decks with 35% vote cards and felt that 40% could be a constraint on a real vote deck. My feeling is that if it is a constraint, it isn't a major one. The Corrupter and I had a long thread that discussed the pros and cons of percentage restriction vs. no vote push. I never responded to his last article in the thread because he asserted that a 50% WVP with Misdirection / Computer Hacking / Anarch Revolt would still be degenerate and it took me a while to test the assertion. I did eventually test it and it turned out not to be true. The 50% WVP earned about 10% more VPs than an average deck. It actually did best when a vote deck was one of it's direct opponents (prey/predator), because real vote decks are slow starters and have no quick defense to WVP _or_ Misdirection bleed. The principal advantage of No Vote Push is that you can't throw "useless" vote cards on lopsided agendas and thereby easily dispose of them. I personally don't feel this is of major concern, but to some people this is quite important. As I see it, the Percentage Restriction has two advantages: it changes the rules least while still addressing the problem, and (since it is a deck composition rule) it has the best chance of actually being adopted by the Duelist Convocation for tournament decks. --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

On 23 Jul 1996, Eric Pettersen wrote: > pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: [Re: Vote Push problems and GT effects on vote pushing] > An alternative rule to the "no vote push" half of the Golden Tenets was > originally suggested by Curt Adams: no deck can consist of more than 40% > (or 50% perhaps) vote cards. This rule is designed to eliminate exactly > the problem decks (Weenie Vote Push) and leave others unaffected. The > rule works because WVPs jam badly after the first few votes if non-votes > are 50-60% of their library. Agreed. WVP will jam with that few votes in their library. However... > I personally have never seen a non-weenie, non-theme vote deck that had > anywhere near 40% vote cards. The Corrupter has had decks with 35% vote > cards and felt that 40% could be a constraint on a real vote deck. My > feeling is that if it is a constraint, it isn't a major one. I think that many non-degenerate vote decks could do well with 40-50% votes, and have seen and made such decks (without vote pushing, there is no degenerate vote passing). I don't like the idea that I can only put so many of a card in a deck (too CL-ish). Jyhad was not designed that way, and Jyhad was originally designed with the first GT (no vote push). > The Corrupter and I had a long thread that discussed the pros and cons of > percentage restriction vs. no vote push. I never responded to his last > article in the thread because he asserted that a 50% WVP with Misdirection > / Computer Hacking / Anarch Revolt would still be degenerate and it took > me a while to test the assertion. I did eventually test it and it turned > out not to be true. The 50% WVP earned about 10% more VPs than an average > deck. It actually did best when a vote deck was one of it's direct > opponents (prey/predator), because real vote decks are slow starters and > have no quick defense to WVP _or_ Misdirection bleed. It would likely do best against political prey/predator, simply because it would be off and running before they could get started. Other prey I found equally hurt. The deck I would run: 50% votes; 25% Master Cards (Infohighway/Anarch Revolt); 5% Change of Target; 5% Bribes; 5% Computer Hacking; 10% Wake with Evening's Freshness I did my own test after our debate, and found that it won at a horribly disproportionate rate against skilled opponents. It was only shut down by anti-weenie vote strategies (decks designed for them, above all other defenses), contesting other weenie voters, and a table after it from turn 1. In total, it won roughly 40% more than others. Not quite as scary as pure WVP, but still bad. > The principal advantage of No Vote Push is that you can't throw "useless" > vote cards on lopsided agendas and thereby easily dispose of them. I > personally don't feel this is of major concern, but to some people this > is quite important. :) As Eric knows, I am one of those concerned. No other deck has the ability to cycle its cards in a similar way. It lessons the skill it takes to create a deck, as well. > As I see it, the Percentage Restriction has two advantages: it changes the > rules least while still addressing the problem, and (since it is a deck > composition rule) it has the best chance of actually being adopted by the > Duelist Convocation for tournament decks. I feel that the no vote pushing has a decent chance of being reintroduced into the rules set by the Design Team (based on articles in the duelist, general support here and in conventions I've been to, and the way the rules were originally written). To me, the Percentage idea begs the question: How many combat cards should a combat decks have? How many bleed cards? Etc... Seems a slippery slope to me... the end result seems to be either a lack of fairness for strategy choices or creating a percentage for everything. [ quoted text not captured ]

>An alternative rule to the "no vote push" half of the Golden Tenets was >originally suggested by Curt Adams: no deck can consist of more than 40% >(or 50% perhaps) vote cards. This rule is designed to eliminate exactly >the problem decks (Weenie Vote Push) and leave others unaffected. The >rule works because WVPs jam badly after the first few votes if non-votes >are 50-60% of their library. > >I personally have never seen a non-weenie, non-theme vote deck that had >anywhere near 40% vote cards. The Corrupter has had decks with 35% vote >cards and felt that 40% could be a constraint on a real vote deck. My >feeling is that if it is a constraint, it isn't a major one. > >The Corrupter and I had a long thread that discussed the pros and cons of >percentage restriction vs. no vote push. I never responded to his last >article in the thread because he asserted that a 50% WVP with Misdirection >/ Computer Hacking / Anarch Revolt would still be degenerate and it took >me a while to test the assertion. I did eventually test it and it turned >out not to be true. The 50% WVP earned about 10% more VPs than an average >deck. It actually did best when a vote deck was one of it's direct >opponents (prey/predator), because real vote decks are slow starters and >have no quick defense to WVP _or_ Misdirection bleed. > >The principal advantage of No Vote Push is that you can't throw "useless" >vote cards on lopsided agendas and thereby easily dispose of them. I >personally don't feel this is of major concern, but to some people this >is quite important. > >As I see it, the Percentage Restriction has two advantages: it changes the >rules least while still addressing the problem, and (since it is a deck >composition rule) it has the best chance of actually being adopted by the >Duelist Convocation for tournament decks. Here's another random idea... No more than one of any vote card may be played by a Methuselah during a vote. It's in line with the action modifier / reaction rules, but I don't know how effective it would be. It would kill a deck of 90 KRC, but I don't know if you could put in enough other votes to still consistently get off a KRC or conservative agitation and be able to push 4 or so votes on it. Somehow no vote push has always bugged me. I like a percentage restriction better, but this is just another idea. -Dave Gausebeck

In a previous article, lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) says: > >The Jyhad card set (which includes Bewitching Oration, Dread Gaze, and >Surprise Influence, but no ActMod version of Surprise Influence) was >designed under the "no vote pushing" rule. Vote pushing came around later > - after the cards were finished. (Just like (D)-symbol as >omni-directability-granting came around after Cat Burglary was printed). > >Sorry. > You know, I've really never bought that argument. Sure, it'd be nice to think that we have the Holy Authority of the Game Designer on our side, but the idea that the rulebook meant to say no vote push and directed actions don't go just wherever you want has virtually no support. I mean, look at the text in the Jyhad rulebook on voting: "A political card always provides one vote for the Methuselah playing it. This card is immediately replaced after being played. Additional political cards can also be used by any of the other Methuselahs for votes. The actual effects of these cards are ignored..." The basis for "they meant no vote push" is "..can also be used by any of the other Methuselahs..", which is taken to mean that "other" means only the ones who did not call the vote. But, it seems far more likely to me that this is simply poor writing and substandard proofreading (what, at Wizards?? Never!). Note that it says "also" and not just "can be used". Besides, there are numerous examples of bad and unclear writing in the Jyhad rulebook. (I cite 'ally, equipment, and retainer cards' on page 16: "These a minion are brought into play as an action...") Plus, the Jyhad cardset also included Concealed Weapon and Chainsaw. ;-) (I'm afraid I don't really have much useful to say on directed actions, except that the whole thing is completely fuzzy in the Jyhad rulebook.) Josh -- inet: ev...@cleveland.freenet.edu |My other account or jt...@cornell.edu |is a Porsche.

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960722183435.2807J-100000@pentose> The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >On 22 Jul 1996, Thomas Doehne wrote: [snippage] Thesis: >> The Golden Tenets are just a little too restrictive on vote >> tossing, IMO -- I think the Meth who has the vote called should >> be able to toss one vote card, too, for a total of 2 votes. [snippage] >I agree, it should be harder to 'force' votes through without the >appropriate skills, but the main reason for this Golden Tenet is too >increase fairness. Not allowing any push (the calling Meth. gets 1 vote >from the PA) makes card cycling _much_ more difficult, and places it in >line with other strategies. I think the difference between one tossed and no votes tossed is not that great. Curt Adams, in an excellent article, classifies Jyhad cards into three classes: ephemerals, transients, and permanents. Permanents are the most difficult to cycle, transients less so, and ephemerals easiest. The current VTES/DC rules allowing unlimited vote push turn vote cards into ephemerals. They flow through your hand like water (or combat cards). We all agree, this is broken. With a one-vote-toss (in addition to the card being used to call the vote), votes are merely transients. In effect, a vote card is a three-class card: it's an action, a limited reaction, or an action modifier. In all three cases, it's a transient, not an ephemeral. At most, you'll be able to cycle only two per (unblocked) action. This hardly compares to the ability of a combat deck to cycle cards. Under the GT rules, vote cards are still transients, but only actions and reactions. They're slightly less flexible - you can only cycle one per action. There are quite a few cards which have more than one class to give them added flexibility. I have yet to see complaints about the multiple classes of those cards on the newsgroup. If you allow vote cards to be action modifiers in addition to being an action or reaction, how does it break the game? They are still transients, and only slightly easier to cycle. Is there a qualitative difference? I'd also note that the thing starting this discussion was Peter calling for an action modifier version of Surprise Influence. (Which Bribes is, IMO). >In addition, if all titles on a table of 5 players equal out (so that all >other players titles are equal to your own amount of titles) the opposing 4 >Methuselahs will typically have ~1.4 votes, on average. Two votes can be >gained from the Edge and the Political Action if the vote is to pass (this >requires more versatility, a good thing). With one vote push, the two votes >can be gained by throwing down the extra political action. To turn this on its head, since your opponents will usually have 1.4 votes, you *must* have the Edge to give your vampires a decent chance of passing a vote. Do we want to make either presence or sneak a necessity for vote decks? >Alan Kwan's original article on this mentions how fundamental the >difference between one push and one political action are. I hope the >above example makes it clear: that one extra push is too much (dropping >the necessity of broad deck design and increasing card cycling in unfair >ways). I don't find the argument compelling, so far. I agree that unlimited push allows unfair card cycling. I don't agree that precluding a focussed deck design (the opposite of a broad deck design) is a good idea. (And after all, these vote decks *still* have to have ways to deal with combat and bleed.) I read through the articles by Alan that I could find on the Net, and didn't see this. Could you point me to the article? (And for anyone who hasn't read them, both Curt Adams' articles and Alan's are excellent and useful. They're available at: http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu

[snip: Jyhad (not?) designed with no vote push] : "A political card always provides one vote for the Methuselah playing : it. This card is immediately replaced after being played. Additional : political cards can also be used by any of the other Methuselahs for : votes. The actual effects of these cards are ignored..." Well, another part of the same section confused me to no end. Do you automatically get 1 vote when you call a vote? Sure the card says "worth one vote", but that could just mean when it is ditched for vote pushing. Also, if you take a PA that doesn't require a card, do you still get the vote? If I remember correctly, the Jyhad rules are completely unhelpful, and the V:tES rules seem to answer yes to the second. Regardless... have no fear, I know the answer to these questions, but the point is that the rules are darned ambiguous all over the place. Face it; if the rules were completely clear on all points, no one would post questions to this group. I'm not aware of a single game (card or otherwise) whose rules are completely unambiguous and clear on all points. What I'm saying is that it is difficult to determine what the designers of the original game had in mind since the rulebook was (is) difficult to interpret. Who knows? Maybe Blood Rage was supposed to be a Fortitude card... James -- James Hamblin | jham...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu -------------------------------------------------------------- "Don't panic; base 8 is just like base 10, really -- if you're missing two fingers." -- Tom Lehrer, "New Math"

On Wed, 24 Jul 1996, David Gausebeck wrote: [Re: Vote push fixes] > Here's another random idea... > No more than one of any vote card may be played by a Methuselah during a vote. > It's in line with the action modifier / reaction rules, but I don't know how > effective it would be. About a year ago, I proposed this "fix", and it does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. The sheer variety of damaging votes, and the fact that Praxis Seizures will be peppered throughout will not let this work. I withdrew my proposal after trying it out. > It would kill a deck of 90 KRC, but I don't know if you could put in enough > other votes to still consistently get off a KRC or conservative agitation and be > able to push 4 or so votes on it. See above. > Somehow no vote push has always bugged me. > I like a percentage restriction better, but this is just another idea. Percentage seems slippery-slope-ish to me. Will there then be percentages on other cards? How easy is it to enforce? What percent? The last question is perhaps the most telling. Finally, vote push still allows discrepancy in card cycling. Offensive cycling becomes far easier and intelligent deck construction falls by the wayside. Allowing vote push just gives too many things to voters, and breaks the system in the face of WVP (even under "high" percentages). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, The Corrupter wrote: [Edit out GT/vote push debate] [ quoted text not captured ] My Brujah/Ventrue deck works the same way with minimal amount of presence (only the 4 bewitching orations). The idea of vote decks should not be universal. Just like you can't do rush combat with malkavians without serious modification. Sure, I can add skill cards, weapons, Thoughts betrayed, etc. but it will still not measure up to a Brujah or Gangrel combat deck in combat. Especially in the opening game. > @ 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*+? > > > > > ********************************************************************** "...I'm just a hard-working girl trying to make it in a man's world." -Catwoman (Issue #30) *************************************** Dharia McGrew damc...@mhc.mtholyoke.edu and of course.....(in other words, LOOK AT IT!!!!) http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~damcgrew **********************************************************************

L. Scott, Actually, the suggestion that some wallpaper cards could be made into the action modifier disciplineless vote card was mine. I suggested it as a way of doing an experiment to see if non-Presence-based vote decks would be competitive under GT with the card in the mix. I was apparently short-sighted in not anticipating that others who needed a custom built card to make their pet strategies work would then lobby for its inclusion in the environment. I can see this happening and it is a can of worms I would rather not open in my play group. I did use two cards that I made in a play group ( "Bifocals of Obscurity" and "Roll In Something Stinky") and nobody else ever tried to do the same while I was there. Nor did I ever have any problems with the other players who always had a good laugh when those cards hit the table. The cards were meant to be funny and they were certainly not powerful (or even useful.) I wonder if cards that were useful would have caused others to create their own. I still think that as a _limitted_ experiment a group could try the cards and see how they effect balance (sort of an aftermarket play testing) but your comments have convinced me that only a very mature group could undertake this without the idea mushrooming into a wild environment. As I've always maintained, the guy who points out the flaws in the plan is the most important member of the group. Thanks for pointing out the flaws. :-) Doug Dunaway (An Artistically Inept Torreador)

The Corrupter wrote: > > On 23 Jul 1996, PDB6 wrote: > > > What a great deal of good discussion this has become. Thanks, everyone > > :-) > > I agree... > Me too, it has been most infomative. I do have some questions about your GT though. (See another post) > > BTW, what does Malkavian Rider Clause do? I have never seen one, and it > > would probably fit in my deck perfectly. > > Malkavian Rider Clause - Reaction - Malkavian - 1 Blood > Only usable during a political action before votes are cast. If this > vote passes the next vote you call passes. > > A fun card... Just to clarify. If my predator calls a vote and I react to it with MRC, on my turn I get to call a vote that automatically passes? -- Dirk. Is that a dagger I see before me? Well, no, its just a small fruit knife really.

James, I don't understand the part of your post about taking a PA (Political Action for you new folks) without a card. Can you take a PA without a card? I know you can take _votes_ without cards such as blood hunts and votes to burn locations. But I can't think of any PA's that can be taken that don't require a card. Am I missing something? Thanks in advance for the clarification? Doug Dunaway

J. Hamblin wrote: [Claims that the Jyhad rulebook was difficult deleted for brevity] Well, if you want difficult, try Ani-mayhem or Battlelords instead... :-) Actually, the WotC rulebooks _can_ be hard to interpret, possibly because a Ph. D. in mathematics can have a hard time "writing down" to ordinary people. Since I am a CS "Diploma engineer" I can read the rules quite easily, and try not to make assumptions that are not directly supported by the text. Therefore, I interpret the rules to say that you _don't_ get the "free" vote unless 1) The vote is started by the political card, or 2) You burn the card to gain a vote in another political action. WotC rulebooks _have_ become better: The Ice Age rulebok for M:tG, the V:tES and Netrunner ones... Hopefully, the Battletech rulebooks will be even better. > > Who knows? Maybe Blood Rage was supposed to be a Fortitude card... > Doubtful, if you look at the "theme", or style, of the Fortitude cards versus the Thaum ones. It's quite apparent it's Thaum, more so (I believe) if you look at the V:tM rulebook (which I don't have here right now). - Tor Iver

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: > I'm aware of your fondness for Nosferatu; and certainly, in this case, a > Nosferatu blackmail-and-trickery political deck is outrageously > appropriate. In addition to the disciplineless gain votes card, there > should be an action card Blackmail to "(D) Place this card on a vampire. > You may burn this card during a vote to force that vampire to cast its > votes either for or against the measure. This can result in the vampire > changing its votes." This might be a Nossie-specific card, or be > disciplineless. I know you boycott V:TES/DS/AH, but Kindred Coercion from DS, though not Nossie-specific, is very close to your suggested "Blackmail" card: Kindred Coercion Reaction Dominate X blood BOLD: Only usable during a political action. Normal: This reacting minion may cancel the votes of X minions. The affected minions cannot be older than the than the reacting vampire. Superior: As above, but you may change the votes of the affected minions to votes of your choice. Artist: Stuart Beel Rarity: Uncommon

pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Eric Pettersen) writes: >curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: >>In addition to the disciplineless gain votes card, there >> should be an action card Blackmail to "(D) Place this card on a vampire. >> You may burn this card during a vote to force that vampire to cast its >> votes either for or against the measure. This can result in the vampire >> changing its votes." This might be a Nossie-specific card, or be >> disciplineless. >I know you boycott V:TES/DS/AH, but Kindred Coercion from DS, though not >Nossie-specific, is very close to your suggested "Blackmail" card: >Kindred Coercion Reaction Dominate X blood > BOLD: Only usable during a political action. > Normal: This reacting minion may cancel the votes of X minions. The > affected minions cannot be older than the than the reacting vampire. > Superior: As above, but you may change the votes of the affected minions > to votes of your choice. > Artist: Stuart Beel Rarity: Uncommon Not similar at all: a) cannot be used for your own vote. b) Dominate, and hence largely unusable by Nossies c) not a blockable action, and hence not favoring stealthy clans. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <4t5l2f$j...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>, Joshua T. Duffin <ev...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote: > >In a previous article, lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) says: > >> >>The Jyhad card set (which includes Bewitching Oration, Dread Gaze, and >>Surprise Influence, but no ActMod version of Surprise Influence) was >>designed under the "no vote pushing" rule. Vote pushing came around later >> - after the cards were finished. (Just like (D)-symbol as >>omni-directability-granting came around after Cat Burglary was printed). >> >>Sorry. >> > >You know, I've really never bought that argument. Sure, it'd be nice to I'm not selling. It is the only rules set that can be read from the original Jyhad rules without typos/errors. You can believe that the errors are just that (not a hard argument to win, given the state of proofing), or you can believe that the section was written correctly albeit not clearly. It makes no difference to me, I have only the official rulings (and the new VtES rulebook) to keep track of (plus a hefty dose of house rules). I make no claim to the title of historian. The argument, however, is sound. Whether you believe it or not doesn't change the fact that it is a valid argument.

The Corrupter wrote: (Percentage discussion snipped for brevity) > > The principal advantage of No Vote Push is that you can't throw "useless" > > vote cards on lopsided agendas and thereby easily dispose of them. I > > personally don't feel this is of major concern, but to some people this > > is quite important. > > :) As Eric knows, I am one of those concerned. No other deck has the > ability to cycle its cards in a similar way. It lessons the skill it > takes to create a deck, as well. > > > As I see it, the Percentage Restriction has two advantages: it changes the > > rules least while still addressing the problem, and (since it is a deck > > composition rule) it has the best chance of actually being adopted by the > > Duelist Convocation for tournament decks. > > I feel that the no vote pushing has a decent chance of being reintroduced > into the rules set by the Design Team (based on articles in the duelist, > general support here and in conventions I've been to, and the way the > rules were originally written). To me, the Percentage idea begs the > question: How many combat cards should a combat decks have? How many > bleed cards? Etc... Seems a slippery slope to me... the end result > seems to be either a lack of fairness for strategy choices or creating a > percentage for everything. Well... I'm not sure if this idea has been proposed before, but it might(might only, mind) be a step towards a compromise. Set the same restrictions on Vote Pushing that stealth and Intercept have; ie. no playing more vote cards than you need for the vote to pass as of Now. That should stop any excessive cycling, and if that still proves to be a problem, one can always make political action cards not replaced until after the vote is done(We've been doing this for a long time in my playgroup; probably due to yet another misreading of the rules. Ah, well). Of course, this kind of thing might irritate people who want to burn huge amounts of cards out of their hands for a voter captivation, but I think that they'd prefer this kind of thing to a No vote push enviroment. (Probably the worst candidate for peacemaker ever) Alec Chang

Derick Lyle wrote: > > The Corrupter wrote: > > > > On 23 Jul 1996, PDB6 wrote: > > > > > What a great deal of good discussion this has become. Thanks, everyone > > > :-) > > > > I agree... > > > > Me too, it has been most infomative. I do have some questions about your > GT though. (See another post) > > > > BTW, what does Malkavian Rider Clause do? I have never seen one, and it > > > would probably fit in my deck perfectly. > > > > Malkavian Rider Clause - Reaction - Malkavian - 1 Blood > > Only usable during a political action before votes are cast. If this > > vote passes the next vote you call passes. > > > > A fun card... > > Just to clarify. If my predator calls a vote and I react to it with MRC, > on my turn I get to call a vote that automatically passes? > Um, well, it's somewhat better than that. The Next vote you successfully get to the voting stage has the "automatically passes" clause tacked onto it; and this does not have to occur during your next turn. If you want, and if you only have one vote in the deck, you could wait for dozens of turns before you called that vote w/ enough stealth to get it through. But anyway, I digress. Alec Chang

In a previous article, lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) says: >In article <4t5l2f$j...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu>, >> >>You know, I've really never bought that argument. Sure, it'd be nice to > >I'm not selling. It is the only rules set that can be read from the >original Jyhad rules without typos/errors. You can believe that the >errors are just that (not a hard argument to win, given the state of >proofing), or you can believe that the section was written correctly >albeit not clearly. It makes no difference to me, I have only the >official rulings (and the new VtES rulebook) to keep track of (plus >a hefty dose of house rules). I make no claim to the title of >historian. The argument, however, is sound. Whether you believe it >or not doesn't change the fact that it is a valid argument. > > Fine, if you're not trying to convince anyone using the argument, I have no problem with your believing it, either. But I disagree that it's the only way to read the rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

PDB6 wrote: > > What a great deal of good discussion this has become. Thanks, everyone > :-) > > I still think that the world of NL/GT would be a better place given the > existence of an Action Mod version of Surprise Influence, but hey, I can > deal. I guess I just need to get more Cryptic Riders and Consanguineous > Boons... > Just a thought: Doesn't the introduction of an action modifier version of surprise influence improve the power of presence based vote decks also? > Again, I certainly am not pushing (or even implying) for the ability to > make non Presence vote decks that can compete on even terms with Presence > vote decks, just hoping to find a way to give non Presence vote decks a > kick start. Many very good suggestions have been made (boy do I feel dumb > that I traded away all my Justicar votes now...), and I will have to make > due. Still, I will continue to attempt to con my group into allowing my > homemade Vote card with a picture of a Chainsaw on it to be implimented, > and if I am sucessful, I will let you all know how it works out. > > BTW, what does Malkavian Rider Clause do? I have never seen one, and it > would probably fit in my deck perfectly. > > Peter D Bakija > PD...@aol.com > > "We've lost our chance, we're the fist and last > After the blast" > -Kate Bush -- [ quoted text not captured ]

On 25 Jul 1996, Eric Pettersen wrote: > The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: [Re: passing votes in a non-presence vote deck] > > 2nd round, you bleed (they will not likely have a blocker). You now > > have the Edge. Your other vamp seizures (2 votes). Given that a third > > of the table will be vote decks (say, 25% vote cards) and the other > > two-thirds will not (say, 2.5% vote cards), you should have on average > > 1.6 votes to deal with. You will typically win. [In an earlier thread I said 1.4 votes, whereas 1.6 (as above) is correct] > You're assuming he's playing a weenie deck (2 vamps out his first turn). > He didn't say he was. Weenies are one of the easiest ways to play non-presence vote. Otherwise, by the time you get your votes castable, there are titles on the table stopping you. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > On 21 Jul 1996, PDB6 wrote: > > but in NL/GT, a vote deck without Presence is very hard pressed to > > get its foot on the first rung of the ladder, as it is almost impossible > > to pass a Praxis Seizure on a smallish (i.e. first turn) vampire with > > only the one vote from th Political Action card, as at a table with > > 5 other players it is highly likely that someone will have either the > > Edge or a single vote in their hand. > > 2nd round, you bleed (they will not likely have a blocker). You now > have the Edge. Your other vamp seizures (2 votes). Given that a third > of the table will be vote decks (say, 25% vote cards) and the other > two-thirds will not (say, 2.5% vote cards), you should have on average > 1.6 votes to deal with. You will typically win. You're assuming he's playing a weenie deck (2 vamps out his first turn). He didn't say he was. --Eric

On 24 Jul 1996, Thomas Doehne wrote: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960722183435.2807J-100000@pentose> The > Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: > >On 22 Jul 1996, Thomas Doehne wrote: > Thesis: > >> The Golden Tenets are just a little too restrictive on vote > >> tossing, IMO -- I think the Meth who has the vote called should > >> be able to toss one vote card, too, for a total of 2 votes. > [snippage] > > >I agree, it should be harder to 'force' votes through without the > >appropriate skills, but the main reason for this Golden Tenet is too > >increase fairness. Not allowing any push (the calling Meth. gets 1 vote > >from the PA) makes card cycling _much_ more difficult, and places it in > >line with other strategies. [Snipped Curt Adams article quote.] > The current VTES/DC rules allowing unlimited vote push turn > vote cards into ephemerals. They flow through your hand > like water (or combat cards). We all agree, this is broken. > With a one-vote-toss (in addition to the card being used to > call the vote), votes are merely transients. In effect, > a vote card is a three-class card: it's an action, a > limited reaction, or an action modifier. In all three cases, > it's a transient, not an ephemeral. At most, you'll be > able to cycle only two per (unblocked) action. This hardly > compares to the ability of a combat deck to cycle cards. > Under the GT rules, vote cards are still transients, but only > actions and reactions. They're slightly less flexible - > you can only cycle one per action. This is quite important. Useless cards can't merely be tossed. With the allowed tossing, it can be useful many times to throw the vote, but allowing the additional toss can greatly facilitate card-cycling for a vote deck. Try both variations. In our playgroup, I noticed that one vote push (as you propose) as compared to one PA per vote (as the GT) gives extreme variation in how quickly a vote deck can cycle. Useless cards can be removed in a vote deck (which typically only needs to drop that one card to cycle to necessary ones) while non-vote decks rarely have this ability, and when they do, dropping the vote is rarely more useful than having had the ability to call it. > There are quite a few cards which have more than one class to > give them added flexibility. I have yet to see complaints about > the multiple classes of those cards on the newsgroup. The complaint about allowing 1 push isn't about it multi-classing the card, but it allowing the vote deck much more flexibility in dropping useless cards then most other decks can do. While a deck can cycle a WwEF relatively easily, the card is typically more valuable when used for a purpose. The same is true for a non-vote deck pushing its one vote uselessly in response to a vote. In a vote deck, however, that one additional push gives more value tossed than the card played in far too many situations, because the votes are an expendible and plentiful resource. > If you allow vote cards to be action modifiers in addition to > being an action or reaction, how does it break the game? They > are still transients, and only slightly easier to cycle. Is > there a qualitative difference? Try both versions in actual game play. You'll find vote decks get an extreme boost. > I'd also note that the thing starting this discussion was > Peter calling for an action modifier version of Surprise > Influence. (Which Bribes is, IMO). I agree. > >In addition, if all titles on a table of 5 players equal out (so that all > >other players titles are equal to your own amount of titles) the opposing 4 > >Methuselahs will typically have ~1.4 votes, on average. Two votes can be > >gained from the Edge and the Political Action if the vote is to pass (this > >requires more versatility, a good thing). With one vote push, the two votes > >can be gained by throwing down the extra political action. > To turn this on its head, since your opponents will usually > have 1.4 votes, you *must* have the Edge to give your vampires > a decent chance of passing a vote. Do we want to make either > presence or sneak a necessity for vote decks? Not a necessity, but a definite advantage. To finish the arguement however, and return it again, one can milk out those votes by calling a vote. If they push towards 1.4 votes, they are likely to have redrawn 0.3 votes. If you have another vote in hand, it will likely pass. > >Alan Kwan's original article on this mentions how fundamental the > >difference between one push and one political action are. I hope the > >above example makes it clear: that one extra push is too much (dropping > >the necessity of broad deck design and increasing card cycling in unfair > >ways). > I don't find the argument compelling, so far. I agree that unlimited push > allows unfair card cycling. I don't agree that precluding a > focussed deck design (the opposite of a broad deck design) is a > good idea. (And after all, these vote decks *still* have to > have ways to deal with combat and bleed.) Of course. By broad deck design being lost, I mean that decks can ensure that their votes are likely to pass, and they will not have to take imaginative ways to get them to pass (bribes, etc) and merely have in a slight more quantitative vote advantage. > I read through the articles by Alan that I could find on the Net, > and didn't see this. Could you point me to the article? (And for > anyone who hasn't read them, both Curt Adams' articles and > Alan's are excellent and useful. They're available at: I can't find the reference, but if I can, I will let you know. I remember originally proposing what you suggested and his retort was that one vote push is fundamentally different for card cycling and vote passing than 1 PA per PA. [ quoted text not captured ]

Tom wrote: >I'd also note that the thing starting this discussion was >Peter calling for an action modifier version of Surprise >Influence. (Which Bribes is, IMO). I agree that while in theory Bribes has the possibility to work in this manner, it is still completely up to the whims of the other players. If I am playing a non Presence vote deck and have a couple smallish non titled vamps out, one of whom wants to call a Praxis Seizure, and the only other vote on the table is Gitaine St Claire, controlled by my prey, all the bribes in the world are not going to help me pass that Praxis Seizure. If I were playing a deck with Presence, I would just use a Bewitching Oration and it would pass. Vote decks with Presence are pretty much unaffected by the surrounding vote enviornment. If you can get +4 votes on every vote you call, then you will pretty much pass every vote you call. There is no need for diplomacy, favor games, or scratching someone elses back with Presence. You can just pass all the votes you want, with very little resistance, unless there is another vote deck that happens to be packing a good supply of Dread Gaze, which is fairly unlikely. Vote decks without Presence are WAY to affected by the surrounding vote enviornment, and way too dependent on diplomacy. With the said card available (the Action Mod of Surprise Influence), non Presence vote decks would still not be as good ad Presence vote decks, but they would be able to work as intended and not get shut down completely by a couple of random votes. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Gausebeck wrote: > > >An alternative rule to the "no vote push" half of the Golden Tenets was > >originally suggested by Curt Adams: no deck can consist of more than 40% > >(or 50% perhaps) vote cards. This rule is designed to eliminate exactly > >the problem decks (Weenie Vote Push) and leave others unaffected. The > >rule works because WVPs jam badly after the first few votes if non-votes > >are 50-60% of their library. > > > >I personally have never seen a non-weenie, non-theme vote deck that had > >anywhere near 40% vote cards. The Corrupter has had decks with 35% vote > >cards and felt that 40% could be a constraint on a real vote deck. My > >feeling is that if it is a constraint, it isn't a major one. > > > >The Corrupter and I had a long thread that discussed the pros and cons of > >percentage restriction vs. no vote push. I never responded to his last > >article in the thread because he asserted that a 50% WVP with Misdirection > >/ Computer Hacking / Anarch Revolt would still be degenerate and it took > >me a while to test the assertion. I did eventually test it and it turned > >out not to be true. The 50% WVP earned about 10% more VPs than an average > >deck. It actually did best when a vote deck was one of it's direct > >opponents (prey/predator), because real vote decks are slow starters and > >have no quick defense to WVP _or_ Misdirection bleed. > > > >The principal advantage of No Vote Push is that you can't throw "useless" > >vote cards on lopsided agendas and thereby easily dispose of them. I > >personally don't feel this is of major concern, but to some people this > >is quite important. > > > >As I see it, the Percentage Restriction has two advantages: it changes the > >rules least while still addressing the problem, and (since it is a deck > >composition rule) it has the best chance of actually being adopted by the > >Duelist Convocation for tournament decks. > As I see it percentage restriction has two disadvantages. First, its a pain to enforce, because you have to go and count all the cards, whereas no vote push is very easy to control. Secondly, with percentage restriction it becomes easy to fill up a deck with every political action card you own, and given enough useful cards, the other less useful political cards can actually be used, whereas in no vote push they will be truly dead cards. I agree with the corruptor on this one. Anything that encourages thoughtful deck composition is to be applauded. The main reason I stopped playing Magic: The Card Counting was because of the stupid "I'm allowed four of this card so I'll put in four" mentality. I think any form of card restiction tends to encourage this mentality, because its easy to be lazy. If you read Curt Adam's articles on card limits and how they apply (or really don't apply) to Vampire. I think the game was designed reasonably well without card limits in mind and that card limits restrict intelligent deck composition. > Here's another random idea... > No more than one of any vote card may be played by a Methuselah during a vote. > It's in line with the action modifier / reaction rules, but I don't know how > effective it would be. > The problem with this is that there are many political action cards around with more to come in each new expansion. Since most cards are not *completely* useless it becomes easy to put decks together that can still vote push without having to play the same card twice. > It would kill a deck of 90 KRC, but I don't know if you could put in enough > other votes to still consistently get off a KRC or conservative agitation and be > able to push 4 or so votes on it. > > Somehow no vote push has always bugged me. > I like a percentage restriction better, but this is just another idea. > > -Dave Gausebeck And that's my two cents worth.... [ quoted text not captured ]

Dirk wrote: >Just a thought: Doesn't the introduction of an action >modifier version of surprise influence improve the power >of presence based vote decks also? Actually, not really, as while you could stack one on top of a Bewitching Oration for six votes, the difference between six votes and four votes is much less significant than the difference between two votes and zero votes. Six votes just means that you win the vote even more, and other than a few cards (Voter Captivation is the only one I can think of off hand, as Elder Kindred Network is mostly unaffected by Action Modifiers as it is a Reaction card. The two extra votes could save you 2 pool in a pinch, but the person playing the Kindred Network has no controll over that), winning the vote by 2 more is fairly insignificant in the long run, and even with those exeptions, the benefit is fairly negligible. On the other hand, if you have only limited vote power (due to lack of Presence), the 2 extra votes can easily mean the difference between your deck working more or less as planned as opposed to it being completely shut down by a random Primogen or two on the other side of the table. [ quoted text not captured ]

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: > pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Eric Pettersen) writes: > >I know you boycott V:TES/DS/AH, but Kindred Coercion from DS, though not > >Nossie-specific, is very close to your suggested "Blackmail" card: > > >Kindred Coercion Reaction Dominate X blood > > Not similar at all: > > a) cannot be used for your own vote. Oops, me bad. You are right here. > b) Dominate, and hence largely unusable by Nossies > c) not a blockable action, and hence not favoring stealthy clans. I was thinking more of the effect of the card rather than who, exactly, could play it. In that regard, KC is similar to Blackmail. --Eric

You mentioned that it would be a good idea to not replace vote cards after vote pushing with them until after the turn...which is something you've been doing with your play group for some time... Well, that's the RULE. We're glad you stumbled on it...but it is the rule already, and YES people thing that vote pushing should stop at one too. dustin

In article <31F6D9...@colly.com.au>, Derick Lyle <dl...@colly.com.au> wrote: > > > BTW, what does Malkavian Rider Clause do? I have never seen one, and it > > > would probably fit in my deck perfectly. > > > > Malkavian Rider Clause - Reaction - Malkavian - 1 Blood > > Only usable during a political action before votes are cast. If this > > vote passes the next vote you call passes. > > > > A fun card... > > Just to clarify. If my predator calls a vote and I react to it with MRC, > on my turn I get to call a vote that automatically passes? Right--the next time you call a vote, it will pass as soon as the action to call it goes unblocked. (It appears to me that this could be used to guarantee a successful bloodhunt--that's not a good thing.) J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com> PGP keys by request

In article <4t6tqs$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, doug...@aol.com (DOUGDWISE) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] A vote to burn Elysium (eg) is a political action. Any vote called (except a bloodhunt) is called by a political action. [ quoted text not captured ]

Dirk wrote: >I would still say though that this >card would improve presence based decks also, where you >don't have access to that many presence based vote >modifiers anyway, You don't need that many Presence based vote modifiers, one Bewitching Oration is all you need. It gives you 4 votes for one card (which is usually enough to pass any vote in a vote deck), and if you have 10 or so in your deck, you will draw them fairly regularly. On the other hand, if you are playing in a card limit enviornment, then the Action Mod Surprise influence would be very helpful as it would double the available vote modifiers to a Presence deck. However, this thread is taking into account the use of the No Limit/Golden Tenents rules enviornment, where card limits are not a factor. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 25 Jul 1996, PDB6 wrote: > I agree that while in theory Bribes has the possibility to work in this > manner, it is still completely up to the whims of the other players. If I > am playing a non Presence vote deck and have a couple smallish non titled > vamps out, one of whom wants to call a Praxis Seizure, and the only other > vote on the table is Gitaine St Claire, controlled by my prey, all the > bribes in the world are not going to help me pass that Praxis Seizure. If > I were playing a deck with Presence, I would just use a Bewitching Oration > and it would pass. True, but if you control the Edge, the vote will pass. If you can convince someone else to give up the Edge the vote will pass. If you Cryptic Rider after a beneficial vote, the vote will pass. If you attempt a Justicar vote (in a primarily one-clan deck) the vote will pass. There are still numerous other options. Without a doubt, presence is far easier and will not need to worry about Gitane's vote, but Presence is a skill. To give that same ease to everyone would be a detriment to Presence. One of the reasons the no-vote push GT is made more justifiable is that it requires skill and forethought to get votes to pass, and not just mass throwing down of political actions. (I do realize, Peter, that you agree with no-vote-push...) > Vote decks with Presence are pretty much unaffected by the surrounding > vote enviornment. If you can get +4 votes on every vote you call, then > you will pretty much pass every vote you call. There is no need for > diplomacy, favor games, or scratching someone elses back with Presence. The same can be said of a combat deck at a table without combat defense. Or a bleed deck at a table without bleed defense. Every deck should have political defense, whether it be Surprise Influence, Titled Vampires, Telepathic Vote Counting, Kindred Coercion, or Rush (or anything else, for that matter). Most political decks with presence that I've seen _always_ have to wheel and deal. Two nights ago, my prey (a Toreador vote deck) had to constantly deal with me (Animalism/Chimerstry intercept) to get any vote to the board. Last week, my own deck had to curry favors with the Rush deck acrossed the table who threatened to eat me alive if I didn't put a point of damage on his prey for every KRC I called. Even given that there is only political wheeling and dealing, most decks (excepting all weenies) have titled or voting vampires. Of the 22 decks currently on my deck archive (see .sig below URL: <*/dealer>), there are 145 votes. This gives ~6.6 votes per deck. Given that about 1/4th to 1/6th of those voters will comes out, that is about ~1.1 votes per deck. At a five player table, that is 4.4 votes to 6.6 opposing votes. This has a _huge_ margin of error, but at least shows that, on rough average, a presence deck still has to wheel and deal, at least occasionally, on a purely political level. > You can just pass all the votes you want, with very little resistance, > unless there is another vote deck that happens to be packing a good supply > of Dread Gaze, which is fairly unlikely. See the above. While I feel it is definately easier than a non-Presence deck, there is still doubt. > Vote decks without Presence are > WAY to affected by the surrounding vote enviornment, and way too dependent > on diplomacy. With the said card available (the Action Mod of Surprise > Influence), non Presence vote decks would still not be as good ad Presence > vote decks, but they would be able to work as intended and not get shut > down completely by a couple of random votes. I've never had my non-Presence vote deck get shut down by random voters or votes. A non-presence vote deck (or even a presence based one, for that matter) should have ways around a table that will not allow it to pass its votes. I use Rush, bribes, and Cryptic Riders, with a heavy emphasis on Rush. Other decks must make their own design considerations... [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: On 26 Jul 1996, CurtAdams wrote: > I've found CR to be a serious IMPEDIMENT to passing votes. Whenever > somebody is known to have CR in a deck, the whole table votes against > every vote they call (even players greatly benefiting), for fear of CR. > (Same effect from Voter Captivation). Not logical, but that doesn't stop > them. >However, well timed Cryptic Riders are a serious method of Passing key >votes. In a non-Presence vote deck, a Cryptic Rider that causes a >successful Praxis Seizure or Justicar vote to pass will often no longer >need to rely on the rest of the tables good will >While Cryptic Riders discourage passing of many votes by the rest of the >table, well-timed Cryptic Riders should set up the table so that the >Ridering Methuselah doesn't care. Which works, once (or maybe a few times), but in my group at least the player population is pretty stable and people replay decks frequently. Hence the next time you play that deck, people oppose your votes from the get-go. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

[ quoted text not captured ] I guess to truly answer this question, the commonality of the new card and its cost would have to be known. I would still say though that this card would improve presence based decks also, where you don't have access to that many presence based vote modifiers anyway, therefore yielding a greater chance of having a vote increasing card in your hand (for an extra two) as opposed to another vote increasing card to throw on top. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] So long as you see that it is the only way to read the rules (voting section) without typos in the rules. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | "Criminal Lawyer" is redundant. http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

On 25 Jul 1996, PDB6 wrote: > I agree that while in theory Bribes has the possibility to work in this > manner, it is still completely up to the whims of the other players. If I > am playing a non Presence vote deck and have a couple smallish non titled > vamps out, one of whom wants to call a Praxis Seizure, and the only other > vote on the table is Gitaine St Claire, controlled by my prey, all the > bribes in the world are not going to help me pass that Praxis Seizure. If > I were playing a deck with Presence, I would just use a Bewitching Oration > and it would pass. > > Vote decks with Presence are pretty much unaffected by the surrounding > vote enviornment. If you can get +4 votes on every vote you call, then > you will pretty much pass every vote you call. There is no need for > diplomacy, favor games, or scratching someone elses back with Presence. > You can just pass all the votes you want, with very little resistance, > unless there is another vote deck that happens to be packing a good supply > of Dread Gaze, which is fairly unlikely. Vote decks without Presence are > WAY to affected by the surrounding vote enviornment, and way too dependent > on diplomacy. With the said card available (the Action Mod of Surprise > Influence), non Presence vote decks would still not be as good ad Presence > vote decks, but they would be able to work as intended and not get shut > down completely by a couple of random votes. I agree that it's close to impossible to make an overpowering vote deck without presence. I disagree that vote decks with presence can just push everything through at will. If this is happening then it's opponents aren't putting in enough vote defence. In games with a small number of players (less than 5 or 6 say) it's easier to stop them with intercept, but in big games (the way Jyhad was meant to be played in my opinion) it's very hard to just ram votes down peoples throats. If you see somebody bring out a prince and then start calling votes, it's a pretty safe bet that they're playing a vote deck so unless you've got intercept or a Bum's Rush, you better bring out a titled vamp. If everyone else brings out a titled vampire you will probably get an average of at least two more votes per person and that should make the presence vote guy start to sweat. It probably won't shut him down completely unless people start bringing out IC's, but it will force him to either make deals with people to pass his votes or call votes that at least one or two others will vote for. Obviously presence gives vote decks an advantage, but that's mostly what presence is for so that's as it should be. It doesn't give vote decks any more of an advantage than the other skills do for what they specialize in. --------- Paul Schaaf sch...@u.washington.edu

On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Alec Chang wrote: > The Corrupter wrote: > > I feel that the no vote pushing has a decent chance of being reintroduced > > into the rules set by the Design Team (based on articles in the duelist, > > general support here and in conventions I've been to, and the way the > > rules were originally written). To me, the Percentage idea begs the > > question: How many combat cards should a combat decks have? How many > > bleed cards? Etc... Seems a slippery slope to me... the end result > > seems to be either a lack of fairness for strategy choices or creating a > > percentage for everything. > Well... I'm not sure if this idea has been proposed before, but it > might(might only, mind) be a step towards a compromise. Set the same > restrictions on Vote Pushing that stealth and Intercept have; ie. no > playing more vote cards than you need for the vote to pass as of Now. Okay. I play one vote for, one against... etc.. > That should stop any excessive cycling, and if that still proves to > be a problem, one can always make political action cards not replaced > until after the vote is done(We've been doing this for a long time in > my playgroup; probably due to yet another misreading of the rules. Ah, > well). Actually, no cards can be redrawn once the voting process begins. Officially speaking... > Of course, this kind of thing might irritate people who want to burn > huge amounts of cards out of their hands for a voter captivation, but > I think that they'd prefer this kind of thing to a No vote push enviroment. After playing in it, most people have no problem with a no vote push environment, mostly because it straightens out all the problems a Weenie Vote Push deck presents, and returns voters to having to make card decisions regarding handjam (as compared to now, officially). People like a fair environment. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 26 Jul 1996, CurtAdams wrote: > Algustas <arob...@efn.org> writes: > (In regard to passing votes w/o PRE) > > I have only two things to say to this, Bribes and Cryptic > >Rider. Neither one is as efficient as presence action > >modifiers, but they can work, and they are generic.... > I've found CR to be a serious IMPEDIMENT to passing votes. Whenever > somebody is known to have CR in a deck, the whole table votes against > every vote they call (even players greatly benefiting), for fear of CR. > (Same effect from Voter Captivation). Not logical, but that doesn't stop > them. However, well timed Cryptic Riders are a serious method of Passing key votes. In a non-Presence vote deck, a Cryptic Rider that causes a successful Praxis Seizure or Justicar vote to pass will often no longer need to rely on the rest of the tables good will. Example: In a recent game (SPTR), I was playing a Weenie Vote Deck (to show how WVP is non-degenerate in SPTR), my prey was playing Bruise&Bleed, my grand-prey was playing WVP, and my predator playing Brujah rush. I got my votes out early and was able to get about 4 titles out. My prey got out a prince, my predator 2 princes and a primogen. My grandprey wheeled and dealed to get his one Praxis Seizure passed ("If I get this title, we can stop [the Corrupter's] votes") by 1 vote. He then Cryptic Ridered 5 times to get 6 titles out (two Justicars, 4 princes). The game ended up being won by the Brujah Rush (held occasional swing votes, our vote decks were ineffectual in combat), but the Cryptic Rider(s) made further debate with the rest of us relatively unnecessary. Example 2: Total of the rest of table's votes <= non-Presence Voters votes. If a Cryptic Rider passes a Praxis Seizure, given that most non-Presence vote decks have other ways of winning votes (Cryptic Riders, Bribes, Inherent titles), this should provide the early edge needed. While Cryptic Riders discourage passing of many votes by the rest of the table, well-timed Cryptic Riders should set up the table so that the Ridering Methuselah doesn't care. @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ [ quoted text not captured ]

Algustas <arob...@efn.org> writes: (In regard to passing votes w/o PRE) > I have only two things to say to this, Bribes and Cryptic >Rider. Neither one is as efficient as presence action >modifiers, but they can work, and they are generic.... I've found CR to be a serious IMPEDIMENT to passing votes. Whenever somebody is known to have CR in a deck, the whole table votes against every vote they call (even players greatly benefiting), for fear of CR. (Same effect from Voter Captivation). Not logical, but that doesn't stop them. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

J.Andrew, Of Course! Now I see it. What was I thinking? My mistake. Yes, any vote called as an action is a _Political Action_. Thanks for keeping me honest. Doug Dunaway

In article <4t6tqs$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, doug...@aol.com (DOUGDWISE) writes: > >James, >I don't understand the part of your post about taking a PA (Political >Action for you new folks) without a card. Can you take a PA without a >card? I know you can take _votes_ without cards such as blood hunts and >votes to burn locations. But I can't think of any PA's that can be taken >that don't require a card. Am I missing something? Thanks in advance for >the clarification? >Doug Dunaway > > > Doug, There are no PAs callable without a card, but some PAs may be called without a card being played by the acting minion, for instance the PAs called to get rid of an Elysium or an Archon. Those cards allow any vamp to call a vote to get rid of them. Rich Take life with a grain of salt.

PDB6 wrote: > > Dirk wrote: > >I would still say though that this > >card would improve presence based decks also, where you >don't have > access to that many presence based vote >modifiers anyway, > > You don't need that many Presence based vote modifiers, one Bewitching > Oration is all you need. It gives you 4 votes for one card (which is > usually enough to pass any vote in a vote deck), and if you have 10 or so > in your deck, you will draw them fairly regularly. > Not forgetting the cost limitation. Not everyone can afford to buy hundreds and hundereds of cards, or trade their way to 10 Bewitching Orations without giving up some other cards they may wish to hang onto. > On the other hand, if you are playing in a card limit enviornment, then > the Action Mod Surprise influence would be very helpful as it would double > the available vote modifiers to a Presence deck. However, this thread is > taking into account the use of the No Limit/Golden Tenents rules > enviornment, where card limits are not a factor. > Since I'm not really disagreeing with you, just expanding I think we could safely presume this thread dead now :). [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > On 23 Jul 1996, Eric Pettersen wrote: > > > An alternative rule to the "no vote push" half of the Golden Tenets > > was originally suggested by Curt Adams: no deck can consist of more > > than 40% (or 50% perhaps) vote cards. This rule is designed to > > eliminate exactly the problem decks (Weenie Vote Push) and leave others > > unaffected. The rule works because WVPs jam badly after the first > > few votes if non-votes are 50-60% of their library. > > Agreed. WVP will jam with that few votes in their library. However... > > > I personally have never seen a non-weenie, non-theme vote deck that > > had anywhere near 40% vote cards. The Corrupter has had decks with > > 35% vote cards and felt that 40% could be a constraint on a real vote > > deck. My feeling is that if it is a constraint, it isn't a major one. > > I think that many non-degenerate vote decks could do well with 40-50% > votes, and have seen and made such decks (without vote pushing, there > is no degenerate vote passing). I don't like the idea that I can only > put so many of a card in a deck (too CL-ish). Jyhad was not designed > that way, and Jyhad was originally designed with the first GT (no vote > push). We must play in totally different deck environments. In my group, I've never seen a non-theme vote deck anywhere near 50% votes. A vote-heavy deck _might_ get to 35% votes. Maybe. 40% would present no real constraint in my play group. I suppose people could decide for themselves if a 40% or 50% vote limit would present any constraint in their environment. I'd be interested to see you post one of your GT 50% vote decks. I can't imagine how you fit viable combat defense, masters, permanents, action modifiers, reactions, and miscellaneous actions in the remaining 50% in such a way that it is clear that the deck is actually best with 50% votes. You frequently assert that Jyhad was designed with the first GT. I don't know how recently you've read the original Jyhad voting rules, but as a quick reminder: they were a mess. Without help from others who played Jyhad, or rules team rulings, someone reading the original Jyhad voting rules strictly as they were written would be playing: A) The vote caller could not add any vote cards from his hand to the vote. B) Other methuselahs could use as many vote cards as they liked for or against the vote (non-GT) C) Only the meth calling the vote got votes for titled vamps or from burning the Edge (which is non-anything-anybody-plays) To assert that the original rules were designed as single-vote-push when only part of the badly written original rules partially support this is clearly sophistry. The Rules Team also has denied that SVP was the design intent. > > The Corrupter and I had a long thread that discussed the pros and cons > > of percentage restriction vs. no vote push. I never responded to his > > last article in the thread because he asserted that a 50% WVP with > > Misdirection / Computer Hacking / Anarch Revolt would still be degenerate > > and it took me a while to test the assertion. I did eventually test > > it and it turned out not to be true. The 50% WVP earned about 10% > > more VPs than an average deck. It actually did best when a vote deck > > was one of it's direct opponents (prey/predator), because real vote > > decks are slow starters and have no quick defense to WVP _or_ Misdirection > > bleed. > > It would likely do best against political prey/predator, simply because > it would be off and running before they could get started. Other prey > I found equally hurt. The deck I would run: Before we get into your new proposed deck, here's the one you suggested before: - WVP Library under 50% Vote Limits: - Crypt: Uma Hatch 3, 2 Igo the Hungry, 2 Delilah Easton, 2 Gideon Fontaine, - Roland Loussarian, 2 Antoinette DuChamp, 1 of each of the remaining 7 - Caitiff - Library: 10% Effective Management; 5% Information Highway; 5% Anarch - Revolt; 5% Misdirection; 10% Praxis Seizures (no duplicates if possible); - 35% KRC; 5% Dramatic Upheaval and 1st Tradition; 5% Bewitching Oration; - 5% Cryptic Rider; 5% Bribes; 10% Computer Hacking. I played the above deck in 8 simulated 4-player games. In the 4 games with a vote deck as the direct prey or predator of the WVP, the WVP scored a total of 6 VPs (4 would be average) or 50% higher than normal. In the other 4 games, the WVP scored 4 VPs: exactly average. Combining the two, the win rate is 25% higher than average. Considering that in one game where the WVP got 3VPs, it just barely avoided being ousted with 0 VPs, I don't know that I'm that concerned with the 25% rate. This is just a guess, but I get the feeling that light intercept is more common in my play environment than yours, and Vote Decks Don't Like Intercept. Especially WVP, where every intercepted weenie is a dead weenie. I don't want to go into excruciating detail (unless someone wants to hear it) but briefly the deck worked well when it started with greater than 50% votes in its initial deal and could push more than one vote early. The deck would then frequently work as you would envision it given the deck composition. It did poorly when it started with fewer than 50% votes and: got jammed, had key votes intercepted, got delayed enough for titled vamps to hit the table, faced permanent rush (e.g. Muddled VH), or Misdirect bled a prey with a lot of untaps. Quite a few ways to go wrong. Overall, it did somewhat better than average but certainly not well enough to be called degenerate. > 50% votes; 25% Master Cards (Infohighway/Anarch Revolt); 5% Change of > Target; 5% Bribes; 5% Computer Hacking; 10% Wake with Evening's Freshness This deck proposal isn't as detailed as your previous one (no crypt for instance). No masters besides those two? So an 80 card deck would be, say, 4 IH and 16 AR? My group plays with a house rule that if you Wake you have to either block or play a reaction card. Since I don't see any reaction cards in the proposed deck, that would mean that the Wakes are for blocking? Weenies usually die when they block, and you've got 8 wakes in an 80 card deck. The wakes are for sacrifices against big non-stealthed bleeds or rushed princes? I don't know if I want to spend a lot of time testing another proposed "degenerate" deck, but if you flesh it out, I'll consider it. > I did my own test after our debate, and found that it won at a horribly > disproportionate rate against skilled opponents. It was only shut down > by anti-weenie vote strategies (decks designed for them, above all other > defenses), contesting other weenie voters, and a table after it from turn 1. > > In total, it won roughly 40% more than others. Not quite as scary as > pure WVP, but still bad. As I said earlier, I suspect our play environments differ. Given that we can't even agree on something that one can supposedly "objectively" measure, I don't know if there's much point in continuing discussion. I don't feel that SVP is bad, but I suggest that Percentage Restriction is a viable alternative for some play groups It accomplishes some of the same objectives (eliminating WVP degeneracy). SVP has the advantage that vote cycling is minimized. For certain play groups (those that never see non-WVP 40% vote decks) PR has the advantage of effectively not changing the rules at all. PR also has a better chance of being adopted by the Duelist's Convocation, since it is a deck composition restriction rather than a rule change. > > The principal advantage of No Vote Push is that you can't throw "useless" > > vote cards on lopsided agendas and thereby easily dispose of them. I > > personally don't feel this is of major concern, but to some people this > > is quite important. > > :) As Eric knows, I am one of those concerned. No other deck has the > ability to cycle its cards in a similar way. It lessons the skill it > takes to create a deck, as well. We discussed this in the earlier thread. By and large you are correct. However, under PR you won't have that many "useless" vote cards in hand to throw. Cycling _does_ go on in other decks to a lesser extent, but has the important advantage that the cycled card is replaced _immediately_. You can Undead Strength strike someone who has dodged in the hope of pulling that Blur and really giving him/her a world of hurt. You can Mighty Grapple against that Majesty in the hope of pulling that Psyche that will let you pummel the weasel. You can Skin of Rock when you have a perfectly serviceable Flak Jacket, looking for the Pulled Fangs that will really teach your enemy a lesson. The immediately replacement is really a fairly important advantage for the other strategies that cycle at a lesser rate than vote decks do. Hoping for a shorter thread this time. :-) --Eric

Derick Lyle <dl...@colly.com.au> wrote: > Eric Pettersen wrote: > >An alternative rule to the "no vote push" half of the Golden Tenets > >was originally suggested by Curt Adams: no deck can consist of more > >than 40% (or 50% perhaps) vote cards > > > >As I see it, the Percentage Restriction has two advantages: it changes > >the rules least while still addressing the problem, and (since it is > >a deck composition rule) it has the best chance of actually being > >adopted by the Duelist Convocation for tournament decks. > > > > As I see it percentage restriction has two disadvantages. First, its a > pain to enforce, because you have to go and count all the cards, whereas > no vote push is very easy to control. It's a very rare deck that's anywhere near close enough to 40% votes that it would require a count. > Secondly, with percentage restriction it becomes easy to fill up a deck > with every political action card you own, and given enough useful cards, > the other less useful political cards can actually be used, whereas in > no vote push they will be truly dead cards. This is a difference, not a disadvantage. > I agree with the corruptor on this one. > Anything that encourages thoughtful deck composition is to be applauded. In SVP, the principal thought required for deck composition is straining to get your votes passed (particularly in non-Presence vote decks). In PR, that is still a main concern, but you have flexibility to put in highly situational votes that would be lunacy under SVP. In PR, I might put in 4 Lextalionis and thereby have a decent chance of having one available when it's needed. Given some vote push and not too much opposing intercept, I may be able to dispose of it in the early game when it is otherwise useless. There are many votes that are quite situational. If you like game environments where you'll rarely ever see those votes played, that's your perogative. --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

On 30 Jul 1996, Eric Pettersen wrote: > Derick Lyle <dl...@colly.com.au> wrote: > > I agree with the corruptor on this one. > > Anything that encourages thoughtful deck composition is to be applauded. > In SVP, the principal thought required for deck composition is straining > to get your votes passed (particularly in non-Presence vote decks). ...Via throwing in cards that increase your political power (presence, bribes, cryptic rider, inherent titles) or reducing the political power of your opponents (via presence, delaying tactics, bum's rush). In short, you have to consider how you will get your political actions passed in a political deck. > In > PR, that is still a main concern, but you have flexibility to put in highly > situational votes that would be lunacy under SVP. In PR, I might put in > 4 Lextalionis and thereby have a decent chance of having one available > when it's needed. As could be done with Golden Tenets and SVP. > Given some vote push and not too much opposing intercept, > I may be able to dispose of it in the early game when it is otherwise > useless. There are many votes that are quite situational. If you like > game environments where you'll rarely ever see those votes played, that's > your perogative. Those situational votes are still useful in reaction to others votes or in protecting things such as an Elysium, etc. To use your own phrase, under PR, if you like game environments where political decks don't _necessarily_ need to consider how they will get their actions passed, that's your perogative. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 30 Jul 1996, Eric Pettersen wrote: > The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > > I think that many non-degenerate vote decks could do well with 40-50% > > votes, and have seen and made such decks (without vote pushing, there > > is no degenerate vote passing). I don't like the idea that I can only > > put so many of a card in a deck (too CL-ish). Jyhad was not designed > > that way, and Jyhad was originally designed with the first GT (no vote > > push). > We must play in totally different deck environments. In my group, I've > never seen a non-theme vote deck anywhere near 50% votes. A vote-heavy > deck _might_ get to 35% votes. Maybe. 40% would present no real constraint > in my play group. I suppose people could decide for themselves if a 40% > or 50% vote limit would present any constraint in their environment. > I'd be interested to see you post one of your GT 50% vote decks. I can't > imagine how you fit viable combat defense, masters, permanents, action > modifiers, reactions, and miscellaneous actions in the remaining 50% in > such a way that it is clear that the deck is actually best with 50% votes. I don't have the deck currently around, but basicly I had no bleed defense, and only minimal combat defense (Majesties). Weenie presence vote, that hoped to clear the table before it could be hurt by a) combat decks able to deal with Majesty, b) bleeders. There were few action modifiers, few reactions, and almost all offense. Majesty was about the only defensive card. > You frequently assert that Jyhad was designed with the first GT. I don't > know how recently you've read the original Jyhad voting rules, but as a > quick reminder: they were a mess. Agreed. > Without help from others who played > Jyhad, or rules team rulings, someone reading the original Jyhad voting > rules strictly as they were written would be playing: > A) The vote caller could not add any vote cards from his hand to the vote. Basicly an offensive no vote-push... > B) Other methuselahs could use as many vote cards as they liked for or > against the vote (non-GT) ...while it is non-GT, the fact that it is used in a reactionary sense makes this only marginally important. In this case, since non-callers are not as likely to need to push so many votes, they are almost always losing more than they gain, the primary reason why no vote push is a problem in a vote deck (the expendable resource gives more tossed than in hand) > C) Only the meth calling the vote got votes for titled vamps or from > burning the Edge (which is non-anything-anybody-plays) I've never seen this assertion. Without the original Jyhad rulebook nearby, I can't comment on this yet, but in _all_ the interpretations of the original text that I have seen, this has never come up. > To assert that the original rules were designed as single-vote-push when > only part of the badly written original rules partially support this is > clearly sophistry. The Rules Team also has denied that SVP was the design > intent. The original rules held a basic first GT-like place. Pushing could only be done as a reaction to someone else, and could thus only be done from a position of nothing to really gain (barring cross-table dealmaking, very common of course) besides failing a vote. In this case, those votes give less power as pushes than as votes, in a general sense, and really isn't as useful for cycling (though it is still useful, but it can't be used immediately to take you to cards you want to use now). [snip, Re: WVP with pushing under %-vote CL environment] > > It would likely do best against political prey/predator, simply because > > it would be off and running before they could get started. Other prey > > I found equally hurt. The deck I would run: > Before we get into your new proposed deck, here's the one you > suggested before: > - WVP Library under 50% Vote Limits: > - Crypt: Uma Hatch 3, 2 Igo the Hungry, 2 Delilah Easton, 2 Gideon Fontaine, > - Roland Loussarian, 2 Antoinette DuChamp, 1 of each of the remaining 7 > - Caitiff This would be updated to include more weenie-presence... > - Library: 10% Effective Management; 5% Information Highway; 5% Anarch > - Revolt; 5% Misdirection; 10% Praxis Seizures (no duplicates if possible); > - 35% KRC; 5% Dramatic Upheaval and 1st Tradition; 5% Bewitching Oration; > - 5% Cryptic Rider; 5% Bribes; 10% Computer Hacking. > I played the above deck in 8 simulated 4-player games. In the 4 games > with a vote deck as the direct prey or predator of the WVP, the WVP scored > a total of 6 VPs (4 would be average) or 50% higher than normal. In the > other 4 games, the WVP scored 4 VPs: exactly average. Combining the two, > the win rate is 25% higher than average. Considering that in one game > where the WVP got 3VPs, it just barely avoided being ousted with 0 VPs, > I don't know that I'm that concerned with the 25% rate. > This is just a guess, but I get the feeling that light intercept is more > common in my play environment than yours, and Vote Decks Don't Like > Intercept. Especially WVP, where every intercepted weenie is a dead > weenie. While your play group may indeed have more light intercept than mine, WVP doesn't care. The need card atonement would do wonders, but other than that, the deck should still be bringing out 1 to 2 vamps a turn. > I don't want to go into excruciating detail (unless someone wants to hear > it) but briefly the deck worked well when it started with greater than > 50% votes in its initial deal and could push more than one vote early. > The deck would then frequently work as you would envision it given the > deck composition. It did poorly when it started with fewer than 50% votes > and: got jammed, had key votes intercepted, got delayed enough for titled > vamps to hit the table, faced permanent rush (e.g. Muddled VH), or Misdirect > bled a prey with a lot of untaps. Quite a few ways to go wrong. Overall, > it did somewhat better than average but certainly not well enough to be > called degenerate. > > 50% votes; 25% Master Cards (Infohighway/Anarch Revolt); 5% Change of > > Target; 5% Bribes; 5% Computer Hacking; 10% Wake with Evening's Freshness > This deck proposal isn't as detailed as your previous one (no crypt for > instance). No masters besides those two? So an 80 card deck would be, > say, 4 IH and 16 AR? My group plays with a house rule that if you Wake > you have to either block or play a reaction card. Since I don't see any > reaction cards in the proposed deck, that would mean that the Wakes are > for blocking? Weenies usually die when they block, and you've got 8 wakes > in an 80 card deck. The wakes are for sacrifices against big non-stealthed > bleeds or rushed princes? Wakes were there for pure card cycling and occasional sacrifices. The deck was thrown together off the top of my head, and could be more detailed, but I've found that the Anarch Revolts in larger numbers distract the table (which is usually already gunning for you) into acting against the Anarch Revolts rather than minions. > I don't know if I want to spend a lot of time testing another proposed > "degenerate" deck, but if you flesh it out, I'll consider it. I'm not sure when I'll do it, but I will soon. > > I did my own test after our debate, and found that it won at a horribly > > disproportionate rate against skilled opponents. It was only shut down > > by anti-weenie vote strategies (decks designed for them, above all other > > defenses), contesting other weenie voters, and a table after it from turn 1. > > In total, it won roughly 40% more than others. Not quite as scary as > > pure WVP, but still bad. > As I said earlier, I suspect our play environments differ. Given that we > can't even agree on something that one can supposedly "objectively" measure, > I don't know if there's much point in continuing discussion. I don't feel > that SVP is bad, but I suggest that Percentage Restriction is a viable > alternative for some play groups It accomplishes some of the same objectives > (eliminating WVP degeneracy). SVP has the advantage that vote cycling is > minimized. For certain play groups (those that never see non-WVP 40% vote > decks) PR has the advantage of effectively not changing the rules at all. > PR also has a better chance of being adopted by the Duelist's Convocation, > since it is a deck composition restriction rather than a rule change. This slant of the debate is answered in an earlier thread, but I will lightly reitereate: The problem I have with a Percent Restriction is that it still allows card cycling (always a problem) and doesn't make vote decks without presence have to have a political presence in their deck. They can just toss votes haphazardly. What percent? Is 30% degenerate, is 40%, is 50%? What about combat or bleed? Should these be limited? (I don't think that experienced players will say yes, but others might call for it) > > :) As Eric knows, I am one of those concerned. No other deck has the > > ability to cycle its cards in a similar way. It lessons the skill it > > takes to create a deck, as well. > We discussed this in the earlier thread. By and large you are correct. > However, under PR you won't have that many "useless" vote cards in hand > to throw. Cycling _does_ go on in other decks to a lesser extent, but has > the important advantage that the cycled card is replaced _immediately_. And the important restriction that you actually have to be in a relatively dangerous environment to cycle, or you have to have _worked_ to get into that position. Merely getting a vote to the table shouldn't be reason to cycle. > You can Undead Strength strike someone who has dodged in the hope of pulling > that Blur and really giving him/her a world of hurt. You can Mighty Grapple > against that Majesty in the hope of pulling that Psyche that will let you > pummel the weasel. You can Skin of Rock when you have a perfectly serviceable > Flak Jacket, looking for the Pulled Fangs that will really teach your enemy > a lesson. The immediately replacement is really a fairly important advantage > for the other strategies that cycle at a lesser rate than vote decks do. > Hoping for a shorter thread this time. :-) In any case, even should we agree to disagree (again), it's always good debating with you. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960725210926.1294E-100000@pentode> The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >On 24 Jul 1996, Thomas Doehne wrote: >> >> The Golden Tenets are just a little too restrictive on vote >> >> tossing, IMO -- I think the Meth who has the vote called should >> >> be able to toss one vote card, too, for a total of 2 votes. [much snippage] >This is quite important. Useless cards can't merely be tossed. With the >allowed tossing, it can be useful many times to throw the vote, but >allowing the additional toss can greatly facilitate card-cycling for a >vote deck. Try both variations. In our playgroup, I noticed that one [snip] >The complaint about allowing 1 push isn't about it multi-classing the >card, but it allowing the vote deck much more flexibility in dropping >useless cards then most other decks can do. While a deck can cycle a >WwEF relatively easily, the card is typically more valuable when used for >a purpose. The same is true for a non-vote deck pushing its one vote >uselessly in response to a vote. In a vote deck, however, that one >additional push gives more value tossed than the card played in far too >many situations, because the votes are an expendible and plentiful resource. I'm convinced. Allowing one push for the calling meth does put vote cards on par with Wakes as far as making them easily cycled. And the long list of house rules to fix WwEF and long arguments on this list show that some people think the card (WwEF) is broken. I just haven't seen the problem in play yet -- prob because the group I play with uses too many Princes and lots of intercept. (And at the moment uses DC rules. Sigh.) Anyone have some good suggestions for building a Tap&Vote deck without going Weenie Vote, under DC? -- Tom Doehne

Eric Pettersen wrote: > > Derick Lyle <dl...@colly.com.au> wrote: > > Eric Pettersen wrote: > > >An alternative rule to the "no vote push" half of the Golden Tenets > > >was originally suggested by Curt Adams: no deck can consist of more > > >than 40% (or 50% perhaps) vote cards > > > > > >As I see it, the Percentage Restriction has two advantages: it changes > > >the rules least while still addressing the problem, and (since it is > > >a deck composition rule) it has the best chance of actually being > > >adopted by the Duelist Convocation for tournament decks. > > > > > > > As I see it percentage restriction has two disadvantages. First, its a > > pain to enforce, because you have to go and count all the cards, whereas > > no vote push is very easy to control. > > It's a very rare deck that's anywhere near close enough to 40% votes that > it would require a count. Ahhh yes, but isn't it the degenerate decks you're trying to catch that are going to be close to the limit and therefore have to be counted? But I do see your point about not having to count every deck. > > > Secondly, with percentage restriction it becomes easy to fill up a deck > > with every political action card you own, and given enough useful cards, > > the other less useful political cards can actually be used, whereas in > > no vote push they will be truly dead cards. > > This is a difference, not a disadvantage. > > > I agree with the corruptor on this one. > > Anything that encourages thoughtful deck composition is to be applauded. > > In SVP, the principal thought required for deck composition is straining > to get your votes passed (particularly in non-Presence vote decks). In > PR, that is still a main concern, but you have flexibility to put in highly > situational votes that would be lunacy under SVP. In PR, I might put in > 4 Lextalionis and thereby have a decent chance of having one available > when it's needed. Given some vote push and not too much opposing intercept, > I may be able to dispose of it in the early game when it is otherwise > useless. There are many votes that are quite situational. If you like > game environments where you'll rarely ever see those votes played, that's > your perogative. > > --- > Eric Pettersen > pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable) -- [ quoted text not captured ]

On 30 Jul 1996, Thomas Doehne wrote: > Anyone have some good suggestions for building a Tap&Vote deck > without going Weenie Vote, under DC? As a Tap&Vote, you really have three options: S:CE (protean), S:CE (Presence), Faceless Night (obfuscate). The trick is, how to get the votes in their as well. Gangrel/Ventrue (Going with Fortitude, Presence, Protean) will allow you quite a few titles, 6 Majesty, 6 Earth Meld, 6 Form of Mist, and Presence voting. There are a few Gangrel with Presence, and you always have access to Master Skills. Gangrel/Malkavian (Going with Obfuscate, Protean) will allow you funky vote methods (Wolf Claw Rush, with Malkavian Rider Clauses, Cryptic Riders, maybe throw in Dominate reactions to get votes to pass) and Faceless Night to continue to tap people out in addition to the Protean S:CE and stealth cards. Setites (Going with Presence and Obfuscate) is probably the most efficient method, and currently, one Writ of Acceptance can go a long way. Use a Writ to make a vampire a Camarilla (then a Prince) and give the Writ to someone else. The current (mis)ruling allows them to stay Camarilla. More specific than that? You'll have to do on your own... [ quoted text not captured ]

On 30 Jul 1996, Thomas Doehne wrote: > Anyone have some good suggestions for building a Tap&Vote deck > without going Weenie Vote, under DC? I have a Tap&Bleed Brujah/Toreador deck. It uses a large supply of medium vampires, lots of runaway Celerity cards, Distraction, Consanguinous Condemnations, 2 Anarch Troublemakers, and a moderate amount of Majesty. Bewitching Oration helps pass the votes. I think similar tactics would work well for Tap&Vote. Indeed, focusing on votes would help CC pass. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960731125354.4369A-100000@pentode> The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: I wrote >> Anyone have some good suggestions for building a Tap&Vote deck >> without going Weenie Vote, under DC? >As a Tap&Vote, you really have three options: S:CE (protean), S:CE >(Presence), Faceless Night (obfuscate). > >The trick is, how to get the votes in their as well. Corrupter gives three good alternatives: >Gangrel/Ventrue (Going with Fortitude, Presence, Protean) will allow you [snip] >Gangrel/Malkavian (Going with Obfuscate, Protean) will allow you funky [snip] >Setites (Going with Presence and Obfuscate) is probably the most [snip] I notice that Toreador Tap&Vote isn't there. My impression (having tried to build one under DC) is that Toreador Tap&Vote is yet another casualty of card limits. <sigh> My best effort has been a Change 0f Target/Majesty Tap&Vote, using Aching Beauty to help 'bleed'. The Change of Target helps draw out Wakes and intercept cards, and I use Alacrity to get a little bit extra stealth. Blood Bonds and Toreador Grand Ball help. Combat Defense is Dodge (and Majesty). Bleed defense: Auspex Bleed Bounce. Any other suggestions? (BTW, I have a rules question: What happens to the Toreador Grand Ball when the 'host (tapped vampire)' goes to torpor? What happens to it when they're burned? -- Tom Doehne

On 2 Aug 1996, Thomas Doehne wrote: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960731125354.4369A-100000@pentode> > The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: [Re: Making a tap and vote deck (below snipped)] > Corrupter gives three good alternatives: > >Gangrel/Ventrue (Going with Fortitude, Presence, Protean) will allow[...] > >Gangrel/Malkavian (Going with Obfuscate, Protean) will allow you[...] > >Setites (Going with Presence and Obfuscate) is probably the most[...] > I notice that Toreador Tap&Vote isn't there. My impression (having > tried to build one under DC) is that Toreador Tap&Vote is yet > another casualty of card limits. <sigh> Yep. I can't imagine making a reliable DC tap and X deck, without having it be just a sideline, rather than a main strategy. > My best effort has been a Change 0f Target/Majesty Tap&Vote, > using Aching Beauty to help 'bleed'. The Change of Target > helps draw out Wakes and intercept cards, and I use Alacrity > to get a little bit extra stealth. Blood Bonds and > Toreador Grand Ball help. > Combat Defense is Dodge (and Majesty). > Bleed defense: Auspex Bleed Bounce. Sounds okay for DC. > Any other suggestions? I might include in combat defense both Sideslips (for light damage prevention or dodge) and acrobatics if not already included in your dodge figures. Political defenses: Titles. > (BTW, I have a rules question: What happens to the Toreador > Grand Ball when the 'host (tapped vampire)' goes to torpor? > What happens to it when they're burned? Rulemonger? [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > On 30 Jul 1996, Eric Pettersen wrote: [PR == Percentage Restriction of the number of vote cards in a deck] [SVP == Single Vote Push] > > In PR, that is still a main concern, but you have flexibility to put > > in highly situational votes that would be lunacy under SVP. In PR, > > I might put in 4 Lextalionis and thereby have a decent chance of having > > one available when it's needed. > > As could be done with Golden Tenets and SVP. You can't have it both ways. Are you saying that a SVP deck would be just as likely to put in 4 Lextalionis as a PR deck? The library is a fixed resource. Under PR, situational votes that would be dead weight under SVP can instead be used to assist other votes. Under SVP, those situational votes can only be discarded, and take library space away from cards needed to pass votes (Bewitching Oration, etc.) or other necessary parts of the strategy. You assert that under SVP, vote decks have to work hard to get their votes passed. I don't disagree with that assertion. When I state that under PR, you have more flexibility to include situational vote cards in your deck, I don't see how you can disagree with that -- it seems obvious. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 4 Aug 1996, Eric Pettersen wrote: > The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > > On 30 Jul 1996, Eric Pettersen wrote: > [PR == Percentage Restriction of the number of vote cards in a deck] > [SVP == Single Vote Push] > > > In PR, that is still a main concern, but you have flexibility to put > > > in highly situational votes that would be lunacy under SVP. In PR, > > > I might put in 4 Lextalionis and thereby have a decent chance of having > > > one available when it's needed. > > As could be done with Golden Tenets and SVP. > You can't have it both ways. Are you saying that a SVP deck would be just > as likely to put in 4 Lextalionis as a PR deck? I withdraw the statement, as I misundertand what you were saying at the time (lack of sleep...). In any case, I can't imagine anyone putting 4 Lextalionis in a deck unless they exploit Lextalionis somehow in their deck, or the cost of Lextalionis being in their deck is near-zero (and how good is it too have any card cost near zero? see below...). To answer your own question, my favorite vote deck has 2. > The library is a fixed > resource. Under PR, situational votes that would be dead weight under > SVP can instead be used to assist other votes. Under SVP, those situational > votes can only be discarded, and take library space away from cards needed > to pass votes (Bewitching Oration, etc.) or other necessary parts of the > strategy. Your keying in on situational cards strikes me as interesting. My basic point would be, if vote decks should have the leeway to put in situational cards without, _real_ _cost_ in hand (they can be tossed on a vote), why can't other decks have the limitations on situational cards removed? When cards hold space in a deck, if that space they hold is meaningless (as is the case with WwEF and virtually the case with pushable votes in a vote deck), you have achieved a bad environment. Cards can be freely put in without cost to the deck on the hope that they will prove useful, but with the knowledge that if they don't they can be tossed and replaced immediately with a useful card (or at least a card that can be tossed for a useful card). Vote pushing allows vote decks _alone_ to do this. If vote decks can do this, why not allow everyone to be able to put in cards that do, things that work like Malkavian Dementia, or Brujah Frenzy, but with one exception, they can be tossed if useless with costless ease (i.e., not loosing a discard phase). This environment leads down (one of) Magic's failing point(s): decks often beat each other not on their own merit, but because they have "screw" cards thst trump their opponent. Currently, if someone puts in Malkavian Dementias, the cost in a typical game of having a MD in hand is a Master Phase or a Discard Phase (both limited resources). The card might be useful, but might not, and is usually included in those decks that feel they are deficient in defending against Malkavians. To put it in for any other reason is to waste card space in the deck. In GT (SVP), vote decks have the same restriction with Conditional cards that the Malkavian Dementia has, it uses up a limited resource: vampire actions. Your suggestion is tantamount to saying that clan screw cards should be able to be put into everyone's deck at no cost, tossable during the Master Phase if useless for no cost, and tossable at other times for no cost. The only difference is that you limit this ability to vote decks. > You assert that under SVP, vote decks have to work hard to get their votes > passed. I don't disagree with that assertion. When I state that under > PR, you have more flexibility to include situational vote cards in your > deck, I don't see how you can disagree with that -- it seems obvious. Your right. It is obvious (as I said, I misunderstood your earlier assertion), but it is also unfair. [ quoted text not captured ]