Why doesn't VTES have some kind of crypt mulligan rule? Why didn't one ever
get made in this entire time? A bad crypt draw, more than anything else,
causes players to lose quickly and have absolutely no fun whatsoever.
Is it because that, even with a "bad" crypt draw, you still have your 30
pool available for the vampires which you did draw, so the attitude towards
mulliganing is different than in other CCGs? Is it because we are a no-card
limit game? Is it some other reason?
What would be wrong with a rule, something like this:
[2.3.1] Crypt Mulligan Rule
"Once per game, after drawing her initial crypt cards, a Methuselah may pay
1 pool to shuffle the vampires in her uncontrolled region back into her
crypt and redraw four vampires."
Or, if you feel that because library cards exist which target the amount of
pool each Methuselah has (e.g. Parity Shift) how about this instead:
[2.3.1] Crypt Mulligan Rule
"Once per game, after drawing her initial crypt cards, a Methuselah may
shuffle the vampires in her uncontrolled region back into her crypt and
redraw three vampires."
Or, a more friendly alternative (and my personal favorite) using transfers
as the "payment", e.g. a "lost" turn, something like this:
[2.3.1] Crypt Mulligan Rule
"Once per game, after drawing her initial crypt cards, a Methuselah may
shuffle the vampires in her uncontrolled region back into her crypt and
redraw four vampires, and lose all her transfers for her first turn."
Thoughts?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Las Vegas NAQ 2009! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/
On Feb 17, 10:20 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Thoughts?
While on one hand, I completely agree with you, and occasionally call
"crypt mulligan" in casual play (i.e. you build a deck around a single
vampire, have 5 in the crypt, and the first time you sit to play the
deck, you don't draw the superstar...), having a crypt mulligan rule
makes playing superstar decks that much stronger, which may or may not
be something that anyone wants to support :-)
-Peter
On 17 helmi, 17:20, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Why doesn't VTES have some kind of crypt mulligan rule? Why didn't one ever
> get made in this entire time? A bad crypt draw, more than anything else,
> causes players to lose quickly and have absolutely no fun whatsoever.
Why should VTES have some kind of crypt mulligan rule?
>
> Is it because that, even with a "bad" crypt draw, you still have your 30
> pool available for the vampires which you did draw, so the attitude towards
> mulliganing is different than in other CCGs? Is it because we are a no-card
> limit game? Is it some other reason?
>
Even with a "bad" crypt draw, you still have your deck.
It's no one elses fault if your "Ibn Khaldun Inspires Greatness
Lorrie, Assamite bloat/breed"* doesn't work out, and you get shut down
when you miss your key vamps.
One of the flaws of a superstar deck is, that you can get screwed from
the getgo, not having Enkidu in your initial crypt. And I say
superstar decks, because I see those decks suffering the most from
lack of mulligan, whereas healthily roundedup crypts, do not.
> What would be wrong with a rule, something like this:
> [2.3.1] Crypt Mulligan Rule
> "Once per game, after drawing her initial crypt cards, a Methuselah may pay
> 1 pool to shuffle the vampires in her uncontrolled region back into her
> crypt and redraw four vampires."
>
> Or, if you feel that because library cards exist which target the amount of
> pool each Methuselah has (e.g. Parity Shift) how about this instead:
> [2.3.1] Crypt Mulligan Rule
> "Once per game, after drawing her initial crypt cards, a Methuselah may
> shuffle the vampires in her uncontrolled region back into her crypt and
> redraw three vampires."
>
> Or, a more friendly alternative (and my personal favorite) using transfers
> as the "payment", e.g. a "lost" turn, something like this:
> [2.3.1] Crypt Mulligan Rule
> "Once per game, after drawing her initial crypt cards, a Methuselah may
> shuffle the vampires in her uncontrolled region back into her crypt and
> redraw four vampires, and lose all her transfers for her first turn."
>
> Thoughts?
>
Magic-crypt. I'm certain someone can crunch the chances behind "dial-a-
crypt" of three perfect vampires for a single deck, which will be
achieved when mulliganing always.
Beyond that - if it's plausible -, if it ain't broken, why fix it?
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'm not opposed to a mulligan rule but it seems that such a rule would
make crypt building less calculated. "Well I really need this vamp
but what are the odds I won't get him twice", kinda thing.
And we're getting closer to having cards that fix broken crypts
such as Soul Scan.
The construction of oddball crypts that require a certain
opening draw is a calculated risk. If the benefits do not outweigh
the risk of getting screwed, play a more robust crypt.
John P.
Winnipeg
[ quoted text not captured ]
At the risk of having some dweeb saying something obvious, I'd suggest
looking at the TDWA for the true "power" of superstar decks, if the
information available helps us to determine if a Crypt Mulligan would be a
good rule or not.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Feb 17, 5:36 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> At the risk of having some dweeb saying something obvious, I'd suggest
> looking at the TDWA for the true "power" of superstar decks, if the
> information available helps us to determine if a Crypt Mulligan would be a
> good rule or not.
The "power" (or, as you suggest, lack thereof) of superstar deck
doesn't have much to do with a nonexistant crypt mulligan rule.
On Feb 17, 9:20 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Why doesn't VTES have some kind of crypt mulligan rule? Why didn't one ever
> get made in this entire time? A bad crypt draw, more than anything else,
> causes players to lose quickly and have absolutely no fun whatsoever.
>
> Is it because that, even with a "bad" crypt draw, you still have your 30
> pool available for the vampires which you did draw, so the attitude towards
> mulliganing is different than in other CCGs? Is it because we are a no-card
> limit game? Is it some other reason?
>
> What would be wrong with a rule, something like this:
> [2.3.1] Crypt Mulligan Rule
> "Once per game, after drawing her initial crypt cards, a Methuselah may pay
> 1 pool to shuffle the vampires in her uncontrolled region back into her
> crypt and redraw four vampires."
I'm not sure if you're suggesting a new official rule that would be in
effect for tournaments as well, but that I don't think is a good
idea. In "competitive" play, it's not about having fun (well, it's
not *strictly* about having fun), it's about building a deck that will
win, and you have to build/play to minimize luck-related elements that
cause you to not win.
If you're suggesting a sort of "universal house rule" for casual play,
then I 100% agree. I think players should be allowed to crypt
mulligan in casual games, especially when you're trying out a new deck
and want to see how it works and you draw the worst possible opening
crypt. I would definitely be in favor of a generally accepted crypt-
mulligan rule for non-tournament play.
I think my rule would be that a methuselah can declare a crypt
mulligan by showing all 4 vampires in his opening crypt to all other
players (along with obligatory complaining about how "I didn't draw a
single Arika!"), after which any other methuselah may shuffle his own
crypt back together without having to show his vampires. I kind of
like the idea of having some sort of condition required for a mulligan
(like the Magic "all-land or no-land" rule), but if one player has
that condition and chooses to take advantage of it, then the other
players can take advantage too without penalty. Since there's no good
way to do it for the crypt (all the same vamp is almost never going to
happen unless you built your deck like that on purpose, and saying
none of the "star vamp" would require you to reveal your whole crypt
to show that there are at least 4 of the vamp you drew none of), I
think showing your crypt to all is a sufficient condition to trigger
the "mulligan for all".
Oko wrote:
[snip "that"]
> Beyond that - if it's plausible -, if it ain't broken, why fix it?
Because well-balanced, well-thought out changes to the game have the
potential to change the game *for the better* and the ideas should therefore
be pursued.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
But it has everything to do with Peter's discussion, which you snipped,
which is what I was replying to.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Chris Berger wrote:
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:>> Why doesn't VTES have some kind of crypt mulligan rule? Why didn't
>> one ever get made in this entire time? A bad crypt draw, more than
>> anything else, causes players to lose quickly and have absolutely no
>> fun whatsoever.>> I'm not sure if you're suggesting a new official rule that would be in
> effect for tournaments as well, but that I don't think is a good
> idea. In "competitive" play, it's not about having fun (well, it's
> not *strictly* about having fun), it's about building a deck that will
> win, and you have to build/play to minimize luck-related elements that
> cause you to not win.
What about other CCGs that use a mulligan rule which accomplishes what you
seem to not want within our game? Are they lesser CCGs than VTES, somehow,
because they use a mulligan rule? Are they so different from VTES that they
need a mulligan rule?
> If you're suggesting a sort of "universal house rule" for casual play,
Nope, a new, general rule. But at the *very least, for competitive play.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Feb 17, 11:01 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Oko wrote:
>
> [snip "that"]
>
> > Beyond that - if it's plausible -, if it ain't broken, why fix it?
>
> Because well-balanced, well-thought out changes to the game have the
> potential to change the game *for the better* and the ideas should therefore
> be pursued.
The trick is finding a balance.
Because your original argument was "A bad crypt draw, more than
anything else,
causes players to lose quickly and have absolutely no fun whatsoever."
Okay, therefore the better your crypt draw, the more fun you
potentially will have.
So why not just let everyone stack their crypts! Because that clearly
reduces the amount of non-fun crypt draws to zero, right?
And yet I don't think anyone would suggest that's a good idea as the
default rule.
> Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
-John Flournoy
On Feb 17, 6:06 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> henrik wrote:
> > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> >> At the risk of having some dweeb saying something obvious, I'd
> >> suggest looking at the TDWA for the true "power" of superstar decks,
> >> if the information available helps us to determine if a Crypt
> >> Mulligan would be a good rule or not.
>
> > The "power" (or, as you suggest, lack thereof) of superstar deck
> > doesn't have much to do with a nonexistant crypt mulligan rule.
>
> But it has everything to do with Peter's discussion, which you snipped,
> which is what I was replying to.
Possible. I don't see how, but that doesn't really matter. And your
reply has nothing to do with my answer to you suggestion.
The information provided by TWDA would not help anyone to determine
whether a crypt mylligan rule would be good or not.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, you could balance it out:
A player who still has 12 or more cards in his or her crypt can take a mulligan
by removing the four crypt cards in his or her uncontrolled region from the game
and drawing four new cards from his or her crypt to his her her uncontrolled
region. He or she may do this as many times as she likes until he or she is
satisfied with his or her uncontrolled region or his or her crypt has fewer than
12 cards remaining in it.
That is, allow a player to take a probability hit in exchange for each potential
mulligan.
On Feb 17, 9:20 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Why doesn't VTES have some kind of crypt mulligan rule? Why didn't one ever
> get made in this entire time? A bad crypt draw, more than anything else,
> causes players to lose quickly and have absolutely no fun whatsoever.
>
> Is it because that, even with a "bad" crypt draw, you still have your 30
> pool available for the vampires which you did draw, so the attitude towards
> mulliganing is different than in other CCGs? Is it because we are a no-card
> limit game? Is it some other reason?
>
> What would be wrong with a rule, something like this:
> [2.3.1] Crypt Mulligan Rule
> "Once per game, after drawing her initial crypt cards, a Methuselah may pay
> 1 pool to shuffle the vampires in her uncontrolled region back into her
> crypt and redraw four vampires."
Okay. Assuming you are playing a crypt with 4 key vampires (where you
need at least one of them to not have it be a 'bad draw') in a 12 vamp
crypt:
86% chance to see a key in your opening draw. 93% that he'll be in
your uncontrolled region after drawing the top card from it. And a 98%
chance that he'll be in your opening draw if you get to mulligan and
redraw 4.
With 3 vampires out of 12, it becomes: 75% opening, 84% opening+1, 93%
opening w/mulligan.
With 5/12: 93% opening. 97% opening+1, 99.5% opening + mulligan.
Going the other way: 2/12: 58% opening, 68% opening+1, 82% opening +
mulligan
1/12: 33% opening, 42% opening+1, 55.5% opening+mulligan
> Or, if you feel that because library cards exist which target the amount of
> pool each Methuselah has (e.g. Parity Shift) how about this instead:
> [2.3.1] Crypt Mulligan Rule
> "Once per game, after drawing her initial crypt cards, a Methuselah may
> shuffle the vampires in her uncontrolled region back into her crypt and
> redraw three vampires."
Okay, with a 3-card redraw:
1/12: 50%
2/12: 76%
3/12: 90%
4/12: 91% (note: lower chance than if you simply drew the top card)
5/12: 98.8%
> Or, a more friendly alternative (and my personal favorite) using transfers
> as the "payment", e.g. a "lost" turn, something like this:
> [2.3.1] Crypt Mulligan Rule
> "Once per game, after drawing her initial crypt cards, a Methuselah may
> shuffle the vampires in her uncontrolled region back into her crypt and
> redraw four vampires, and lose all her transfers for her first turn."
This greatly benefits people going first, second, or third, because
they effectively lose far less transfers than a person going 4th
would.
So basically, here's the problem:
1) If you're playing a deck that wants one of 4 or 5 key vampires,
allowing a mulligan makes the difference between randomizing your
crypt and simply automatically choosing your key vampire negligible
(98% chance of seeing one of four vampires in a draw plus a mulligan.)
2) If you're playing a deck looking an even more scarce vampire, the
improvement to your odds is substantial - to the point where playing
with only 2 key vampires (plus a mulligan) is only slightly worse than
with 4 vampires would have given you on the opening draw.
Which means that providing a mulligan effectively either lets you play
4-key-vampire crypts with no concern about having a bad draw, and/or
play a deck with almost no key vampires yet be reasonably assured of
seeing them.
And this in turn makes cards that help you search your crypt pretty
meaningless - why spend your limited resources (card slots in your
deck) on cards that help insure you see the right vampire(s) when
you're pretty much guaranteed to see them with minimal difficulty in
deckbuilding?
-John Flournoy
[ quoted text not captured ]
That's a more reasonable proposal, IMO.
Let's say you had 4/12 key vampires. Taking the mulligan (because you
didn't get any on your opening draw) means that you're 99% likely to
see him on the redraw - but also reducing your non-key vamps to 4.
You're about 51% to see a 2/2 split, and only 23% to see one key/three
support (and 23% to see 3 key/1 support.)
If you were playing 2/12, and trashed 4 to see a new 4, you're looking
at:
57% to see exactly one of the 2 on the redraw
21% to draw them both.
at 1/12: 50% chance to see him on the redraw from your 8-card crypt.
At 3/12:
93% chance of seeing at least one copy on the mulligan
43% of seeing exactly one copy on the redraw
43% of seeing exactly two copies
7% chance of seeing all three
So basically, i'd expect that this particular option makes 3/12 decks
pretty automatically viable - your chance of seeing at least 1 copy on
your opening draw or on the remove-4-and-redraw is pretty much
identical to '5 key vamps of 12 on an opening draw'.
-John Flournoy
On Feb 17, 11:15 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Chris Berger wrote:
> > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> >> Why doesn't VTES have some kind of crypt mulligan rule? Why didn't
> >> one ever get made in this entire time? A bad crypt draw, more than
> >> anything else, causes players to lose quickly and have absolutely no
> >> fun whatsoever.
>
> > I'm not sure if you're suggesting a new official rule that would be in
> > effect for tournaments as well, but that I don't think is a good
> > idea. In "competitive" play, it's not about having fun (well, it's
> > not *strictly* about having fun), it's about building a deck that will
> > win, and you have to build/play to minimize luck-related elements that
> > cause you to not win.
>
> What about other CCGs that use a mulligan rule which accomplishes what you
> seem to not want within our game? Are they lesser CCGs than VTES, somehow,
> because they use a mulligan rule? Are they so different from VTES that they
> need a mulligan rule?
>
I'm not aware of any. Please elaborate.
Back when I was playing Magic, the mulligan rule was not a tournament
rule and was not in the rulebook. Maybe it is one now? Other than
that, I've never played a CCG that had a mulligan rule, as far as I
know... I haven't played as many as some on here probably have, but
the mostly complete list (minus any I've blocked out of my memory or
that I only tried once as a demo) would be: Magic, V:TES, L5R,
Warhammer 40K, Doomtown, Wyvern, Rage (original), that Marvel CCG that
sucked, something involving Space where the only thing I really
remember is a T1 Timewarp card and sequential deckbuilding rules,
something involving Tarot cards that wasn't technically collectible
because you bought a whole set at a time, something based on D&D that
wasn't Spellfire (maybe it was called Blood Wars?), Lord of the Rings,
and (sigh) Harry Potter because my wife wanted to give it a try.
Maybe one of those that is still alive has a mulligan rule that's
fairly new, or maybe it always had one that I don't remember or was
not aware of. I'm guessing that maybe you just play different CCG's
than me?
"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:a1f0a734-c7e5-41bc...@e22g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> I'm not sure if you're suggesting a new official rule that would be in
> effect for tournaments as well, but that I don't think is a good
> idea. In "competitive" play, it's not about having fun (well, it's
> not *strictly* about having fun), it's about building a deck that will
> win, and you have to build/play to minimize luck-related elements that
> cause you to not win.
>
> If you're suggesting a sort of "universal house rule" for casual play,
> then I 100% agree. I think players should be allowed to crypt
> mulligan in casual games, especially when you're trying out a new deck
> and want to see how it works and you draw the worst possible opening
> crypt. I would definitely be in favor of a generally accepted crypt-
> mulligan rule for non-tournament play.
This is where I'd have to disagree vehemently. I'm sort of mildly opposed
to messing with the rules to fix crypt-screw problems because I think the
crypt cards were designed with that possibility in mind so if you allow
redraws, it throws the balance off. But I if a penalty is thrown in to
compensate for it, I understand that the overall balance shouldn't be that
heavily affected, hence it doesn't bother me a great deal.
What you're talking about results in something I really dislike, though.
Casual games should be played under the same rules as tournament games.
I guarantee you, no such "house rule" would ever be universal. No group I
play in will ever use it, at least. And I'd go sermonize against it
whenever I could. I think the last rule that was significant different
between common non-tournament and tournament play was NRA and I was
grateful when NRA was formally added to the VtES rulebook for just this
reason. Let's not slip back into such a dichotomy between the two
again...please!
Fred
[ quoted text not captured ]
Just to clarify for myself: In LSJ's rule up there, he says if you have
12 or more in your crypt. The uncontrolled region is not your crypt, is
it? So you would need 16+ vamps in your original crypt to take
advantage of this Mulligan rule as proposed by LSJ. Right?
Which would mean you would need to go back and do those calculations again.
best -
chris
PS, LSJ's rule had "his or her" or "he or she" in it 8 times, and an
additional instance missed, when he just used "she". Could have saved
almost 28 characters if "xer" or "xe" was used. Multiplied out over all
future rulebooks, that would result in a lot of ink saved for White
Wolf, a considerable cost savings.
Or, he could do like Kevin did in the original post, and just use "she"
as the default pronoun.
Or "he", as many who write English do.
Chris Berger wrote:
> On Feb 17, 11:15 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:>> What about other CCGs that use a mulligan rule which accomplishes what you
>> seem to not want within our game? Are they lesser CCGs than VTES, somehow,
>> because they use a mulligan rule? Are they so different from VTES that they
>> need a mulligan rule?>
> I'm not aware of any. Please elaborate.
Pokemon has a mulligan rule: if you have no Pokemon in your opening hand, you
show it to your opponent and redraw. You may also take a mulligan, I believe, if
your opening hand has no basic power cards.
[ quoted text not captured ]
There are no banned cards other than ante cards in casual play.
Granted, we play by a house rule that you cannot play banned cards,
but that's not official. In fact, it seems to be a mostly-universal
house rule. Pray tell... do you play by *that* universal house rule?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Yes, in LA, no cards on the banned list allowed in play, regardless of
tournament or no. Also, no proxies, even in "casual" play. In LA, we
try to play all of our games with the tournament rules, even timing them.
best -
chris
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:BIBml.4920$_U5....@newsfe20.iad...
> Peter D Bakija wrote:>> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:>>> Thoughts?>>
>> While on one hand, I completely agree with you, and occasionally call
>> "crypt mulligan" in casual play (i.e. you build a deck around a single
>> vampire, have 5 in the crypt, and the first time you sit to play the
>> deck, you don't draw the superstar...), having a crypt mulligan rule
>> makes playing superstar decks that much stronger, which may or may not
>> be something that anyone wants to support :-)>
> At the risk of having some dweeb saying something obvious, I'd suggest looking at the TDWA for the true "power" of superstar
> decks, if the information available helps us to determine if a Crypt Mulligan would be a good rule or not.
I'm not sure it's relevant, though. Even if superstar decks are underrepresented,
that may be a good thing as is. I'm not sure I'd want to increase, for instance,
the use of Enkidu. Deliberately encouraging radical power shifts between deck
archetypes is risky.
Fred
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message
news:IBAml.156$Sv4...@newsfe15.iad...
> What would be wrong with a rule, something like this:
> [2.3.1] Crypt Mulligan Rule
> "Once per game, after drawing her initial crypt cards, a Methuselah may pay 1 pool to shuffle the vampires in her uncontrolled
> region back into her crypt and redraw four vampires."
If you're going to let a player do this at any time during the game, I think
the rule would have to be "...redraw as many vampires as were in his
uncontrolled region". You shouldn't be able to use this rule to simply
repopulate your crypt.
> Or, a more friendly alternative (and my personal favorite) using transfers as the "payment", e.g. a "lost" turn, something like
> this:
> [2.3.1] Crypt Mulligan Rule
> "Once per game, after drawing her initial crypt cards, a Methuselah may shuffle the vampires in her uncontrolled region back into
> her crypt and redraw four vampires, and lose all her transfers for her first turn."
>
> Thoughts?
I would prefer this rule over the first one. But, to answer John Flournoy's
point about it being a greater advantage to the earlier players (who have to
pay fewer transfer under the rule above), I would charge all players four
transfers but allow players who didn't have four transfers in their first
turn to "borrow" the remaining transfers from their second turn.
Fred
"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:e1c87486-0970-494d...@q25g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'm not sure what "house rule" you're talking about here. Banned cards
are a tournament rule. Does our play group diverge from the rulebook
rules by way of using tournament rules (banned cards, time limits, etc.)?
Yes it does. But I wouldn't call these "house rules" because they're
not local in nature.
Fred
[ quoted text not captured ]
Playing tournament rules outside of a tournament is a house rule as
much as NRA was, even if it's not local in nature. I'm just saying
that there's already a different between casual play and tournament
play, and just because you use one mostly-universal house rule and
wouldn't use another mostly-universal house rule if it were ever
agreed upon, doesn't mean there's no value at all in the second.
Lots of places allow proxying in casual play because it allows someone
to see if a deck works before buying the cards needed for it, or lets
them avoid the tedium of switching cards between decks. Does it
really make people happier if I spend 5 minutes before every game
moving my Anarch Converts around, instead of 10 seconds before each
game saying that Franciscus is a proxy? Similarly, I could see if
lots of places allowed a crypt mulligan in casual play because it lets
someone try out a deck concept without getting screwed by a 5% (or 10%
or whatever) chance of a bad draw. It's not particularly fun to spend
your first 3 turns decrypting, and it's only marginally more fun to
beat up on someone who has to do that, and with nothing on the line
other than macho pride, why not make things more fun without grossly
affecting the game rules?
I'm saying I'd rather have that than have crypt mulligans become an
official rule that's active at tournaments because I don't think it's
necessary and the chance of a bad crypt draw is the price you pay for
playing such a focused crypt.
On Feb 17, 12:22 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 11:15 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Chris Berger wrote:
> > > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> > >> Why doesn't VTES have some kind of crypt mulligan rule? Why didn't
> > >> one ever get made in this entire time? A bad crypt draw, more than
> > >> anything else, causes players to lose quickly and have absolutely no
> > >> fun whatsoever.
>
> > > I'm not sure if you're suggesting a new official rule that would be in
> > > effect for tournaments as well, but that I don't think is a good
> > > idea. In "competitive" play, it's not about having fun (well, it's
> > > not *strictly* about having fun), it's about building a deck that will
> > > win, and you have to build/play to minimize luck-related elements that
> > > cause you to not win.
>
> > What about other CCGs that use a mulligan rule which accomplishes what you
> > seem to not want within our game? Are they lesser CCGs than VTES, somehow,
> > because they use a mulligan rule? Are they so different from VTES that they
> > need a mulligan rule?
>
> I'm not aware of any. Please elaborate.
>
> Back when I was playing Magic, the mulligan rule was not a tournament
> rule and was not in the rulebook. Maybe it is one now? > Maybe one of those that is still alive has a mulligan rule that's
> fairly new, or maybe it always had one that I don't remember or was
> not aware of. I'm guessing that maybe you just play different CCG's
> than me?
Magic currently has a mulligan rule for their constructed tournaments.
Back in 1997, they made a _change_ to their mulligan rules (they went
from 'one redraw if you have 0 or 7 land' to 'any number of redraws
for any reason, but each one costs you a starting hand size'.) So they
had mulligans earlier than that, even. (I'm pretty sure MTG had
mulligan rules in the very first DCI set of tournament rules, even.)
-John Flournoy
Chris Berger wrote:
> On Feb 17, 12:53 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:>> "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>>
>> news:e1c87486-0970-494d...@q25g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 17, 12:30 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>>>>>> What you're talking about results in something I really dislike, though.
>>>> Casual games should be played under the same rules as tournament games.
>>>> I guarantee you, no such "house rule" would ever be universal. No group I
>>>> play in will ever use it, at least. And I'd go sermonize against it
>>>> whenever I could. I think the last rule that was significant different
>>>> between common non-tournament and tournament play was NRA and I was
>>>> grateful when NRA was formally added to the VtES rulebook for just this
>>>> reason. Let's not slip back into such a dichotomy between the two
>>>> again...please!>>> There are no banned cards other than ante cards in casual play.
>>> Granted, we play by a house rule that you cannot play banned cards,
>>> but that's not official. In fact, it seems to be a mostly-universal
>>> house rule. Pray tell... do you play by *that* universal house rule?>> I'm not sure what "house rule" you're talking about here. Banned cards
>> are a tournament rule. Does our play group diverge from the rulebook
>> rules by way of using tournament rules (banned cards, time limits, etc.)?
>> Yes it does. But I wouldn't call these "house rules" because they're
>> not local in nature.
Banned cards being legal for "casual" play? Are there actually groups
that do that? I've rarely heard of it until this thread.
>>> Playing tournament rules outside of a tournament is a house rule as
> much as NRA was, even if it's not local in nature. I'm just saying
> that there's already a different between casual play and tournament
> play, and just because you use one mostly-universal house rule and
> wouldn't use another mostly-universal house rule if it were ever
> agreed upon, doesn't mean there's no value at all in the second.
>
Is there another "mostly-universal" house rule? The only one I can
think of is CL, and it's fare from "mostly universal" anymore.
> Lots of places allow proxying in casual play because it allows someone
> to see if a deck works before buying the cards needed for it, or lets
> them avoid the tedium of switching cards between decks. Does it
> really make people happier if I spend 5 minutes before every game
> moving my Anarch Converts around, instead of 10 seconds before each
> game saying that Franciscus is a proxy?
What would make us happier is if you went out and got the cards you
needed before play in order to not have us wait for you... :-)
Part of the challenge of playing without proxies is to play within your
resources. This is a Collectible Card Game, and people with larger
collections, who have invested real money into it, have an advantage.
Allowing proxies removes that advantage (that people have literally paid
for). I'm not sure that's fair. If people are uncomfortable with
advantages paid for by cash, they should play draft.
That advantage of course is very easily overcome by clever play. For
instance Robert Scythe and Matt Wedge do not have huge collections
compared to mine, but they are both very good players and regularly beat
me in play.
Similarly, I could see if
> lots of places allowed a crypt mulligan in casual play because it lets
> someone try out a deck concept without getting screwed by a 5% (or 10%
> or whatever) chance of a bad draw. It's not particularly fun to spend
> your first 3 turns decrypting, and it's only marginally more fun to
> beat up on someone who has to do that, and with nothing on the line
> other than macho pride, why not make things more fun without grossly
> affecting the game rules?
>
I disagree somewhat with your assertion that it's not fun to deal with a
bad crypt draw. The part I agree with is: yes it does mess with your
game. However, I think it is fun that you have to try and fight your way
past the adversity luck has presented you and try to get a vp, or maybe
even a gw. It's even fun to complain about it. I think trying to work
through that bad crypt draw increases your strength as a player. To
paraphrase a bumper sticker: A bad game of VTES is better than a good
day of work.
One thing about mulligans if they were legal - they would take away many
people's excuse for bad play - they could no longer blame bad crypt
draws as a reason they lost. FWIW.
best -
chris
[ quoted text not captured ]
Let's see... what year is it now? =)
Umm... I think the last time I played in a Magic Tournament was 1995
or so. There *may* have been a tournament rule for mulligans at that
point, but I don't think so (I'd say I am 55% sure that there was no
tournament mulligan rule at the last M:TG tournament I played... which
is to say not very sure at all). There was no such rule in the
Revised rulebook (or any other rulebook in my recollection up to about
Ice Age), so it was presumably *just* a tournament rule, which again
may have changed more recently. I know that I played in M:TG
tournaments with no mulligan rule, and I always thought it was just an
unofficial house rule.
So, anyway, that's one. Kevin, you didn't answer... One of the
reasons (and I'm not claiming it was your main or only reason) for
suggesting a mulligan was that other CCG's have one. Are we talking
about just M:TG and Pokemon, or do you know of others? Just curious,
not basing a big counter-argument on it or anything...
"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:c5ae3571-32ff-47a9...@e25g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 17, 12:53 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> > news:e1c87486-0970-494d...@q25g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 17, 12:30 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > What you're talking about results in something I really dislike, though.
> > > > Casual games should be played under the same rules as tournament games.
> > > > I guarantee you, no such "house rule" would ever be universal. No group I
> > > > play in will ever use it, at least. And I'd go sermonize against it
> > > > whenever I could. I think the last rule that was significant different
> > > > between common non-tournament and tournament play was NRA and I was
> > > > grateful when NRA was formally added to the VtES rulebook for just this
> > > > reason. Let's not slip back into such a dichotomy between the two
> > > > again...please!
> >
> > > There are no banned cards other than ante cards in casual play.
> > > Granted, we play by a house rule that you cannot play banned cards,
> > > but that's not official. In fact, it seems to be a mostly-universal
> > > house rule. Pray tell... do you play by *that* universal house rule?
> >
> > I'm not sure what "house rule" you're talking about here. Banned cards
> > are a tournament rule. Does our play group diverge from the rulebook
> > rules by way of using tournament rules (banned cards, time limits, etc.)?
> > Yes it does. But I wouldn't call these "house rules" because they're
> > not local in nature.
> >
> Playing tournament rules outside of a tournament is a house rule as
> much as NRA was, even if it's not local in nature.
Not as far as I care. The critical difference between the two concepts
are that "house rules" are local and may differ from one place to the next.
But tournament rules are well know and many, if not all, players have decks
built for tournaments. If I travel to Boston and they play by local "house
rules", my decks may not be well designed for such an environment. But if
they play by VEKN tournament rules, I already know them and I have decks
built for that purpose.
> I'm just saying
> that there's already a different between casual play and tournament
> play, and just because you use one mostly-universal house rule and
> wouldn't use another mostly-universal house rule if it were ever
> agreed upon, doesn't mean there's no value at all in the second.
Note that, by my lexicon, a "mostly-universal house rule" is mostly an
oxymoron. The differences between rulebook rules and tournament rules
aren't negligiable, admittedly. But few playgroups use ante cards or
allow banned cards (for the most part) and the only real difference that
is commonly encountered is use of time limits. And time limit use in
tournaments isn't even universal. Proxying has little effect, IMHO, on
the actual play of a game. It's mainly a rule that exists in deference
to the manufacturer.
...
> Similarly, I could see if
> lots of places allowed a crypt mulligan in casual play because it lets
> someone try out a deck concept without getting screwed by a 5% (or 10%
> or whatever) chance of a bad draw. It's not particularly fun to spend
> your first 3 turns decrypting, and it's only marginally more fun to
> beat up on someone who has to do that, and with nothing on the line
> other than macho pride, why not make things more fun without grossly
> affecting the game rules?
Maybe. But I believe it affects the viability of certain kinds of decks
and would never want such a dichotomy to exist between tournament and non-
tournament games. It's not the same thing at all as courtesy WRT to proxied
cards. It's sort of analogous to using banned cards, which is tolerated to
some degree in most non-tournament games but generally frowned on, in my
observation.
Fred
On Feb 17, 2:38 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
> Is there another "mostly-universal" house rule? The only one I can
> think of is CL, and it's fare from "mostly universal" anymore.
I've yet to encounter a playgroup that actually uses the "library size
based on number of players in the game" rule, though somebody at
TempleCon was telling me that he'd run into a group that used that
rule.
John Eno
Kevin M. wrote:
> Why doesn't VTES have some kind of crypt mulligan rule? Why didn't one ever
> get made in this entire time? A bad crypt draw, more than anything else,
> causes players to lose quickly and have absolutely no fun whatsoever.
>
>
One argument I could see in favor of a mulligan rule: VTES is a long
game. Having a bad crypt draw apparently is not-fun for many players.
This may cause the game to lose potential players. Maybe.
Of course this could be averted with proper deck-building mentoring.
best -
chris
librarian wrote:
> John Flournoy wrote:>> On Feb 17, 11:28 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>>> A player who still has 12 or more cards in his or her crypt can take
>>> a mulligan
>>> by removing the four crypt cards in his or her uncontrolled region
>>> from the game
>>> and drawing four new cards from his or her crypt to his her her
>>> uncontrolled
>>> region. He or she may do this as many times as she likes until he or
>>> she is
>>> satisfied with his or her uncontrolled region or his or her crypt has
>>> fewer than
>>> 12 cards remaining in it.
>>>
>>> That is, allow a player to take a probability hit in exchange for
>>> each potential
>>> mulligan.>> Just to clarify for myself: In LSJ's rule up there, he says if you have
> 12 or more in your crypt. The uncontrolled region is not your crypt, is
> it? So you would need 16+ vamps in your original crypt to take
> advantage of this Mulligan rule as proposed by LSJ. Right?
Correct.
And you could have 20 in order to take (potentially) two mulligans.
Or 24 to allow 3.
28 to allow 4.
And so on.
Allowing the player to choose for himself or herself how much of a probability
trade he or she was willing to make for the added mulligan options.
> PS, LSJ's rule had "his or her" or "he or she" in it 8 times, and an
And one time I misspelled "or" as "her": "his her her".
On Feb 17, 12:37 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote in messagenews:BIBml.4920$_U5....@newsfe20.iad...[ quoted text not captured ]
Mulligan != Radical Power Shifts between deck archtypes
You might not even notice it.
I pro for a rule such as the one LSJ posted is it might allow new
players a slightly lager learning curve.
A con might be abuse of Might of the Camarilla, Possession type decks.
Just some thoughts.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Those cards are pretty meaningless as it is. It is a silver bullet
when you are planning to fail.
The problem with playing with the recommended 5x of a vampire is that
while you virtually guarantee to see them in the opening draw, your
probabilities of drawing duplicates is also fairly high, which makes
it not unlike Kevin's suggestion where you mulligan but get to only
redraw 3 vampires.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"A player who still has 12 or more cards in his or her crypt can take a
mulligan by removing the four crypt cards in his or her uncontrolled
region from the game and drawing four new cards from his or her crypt to
his her her uncontrolled region. He or she may do this as many times as
she likes until he or she is satisfied with his or her uncontrolled
region or his or her crypt has fewer than 12 cards remaining in it."
Well, your rule as stated doesn't specify beginning of the game.
Perhaps add a clause, "during a player's first untap phase of the game",
or "before the first untap phase begins" or something like that? Or
define that a "mulligan" takes place before the game begins.
(From Dictionary.com:
mul?li?gan
/?m?l?g?n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [muhl-i-guhn] Show IPA
Pronunciation
–noun
1. Also called mulligan stew. a stew containing meat, vegetables, etc.,
esp. one made of any available ingredients.
2. Golf. a shot not counted against the score, permitted in unofficial
play to a player whose previous shot was poor.)
At some tournaments where there is no meal break, I might want to "take
a mulligan" using the first definition...
best -
chris
Chris Berger wrote:
> So, anyway, that's one. Kevin, you didn't answer... One of
> the reasons (and I'm not claiming it was your main or only reason)
> for suggesting a mulligan was that other CCG's have one. Are we
> talking about just M:TG and Pokemon, or do you know of others?
> Just curious, not basing a big counter-argument on it or anything...
Magic and Pokemon are in the rules. L5R's old rules had one, before you
could just search your deck at the start of the game for your temple (or
whatever that was). Several CCGs which either had no tournament system or a
very loose one had mulligans: Galactic Empires, the original Marvel Super
Heroes, Highlander, Rage, Harry Potter. I think Buffy had one, too, but
Rehlow can settle that for us.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:29ca578a-eade-419f...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'm not so sure that's true. There are certain decks in this game which can be
insanely difficult to stop when they flow well. Thus, their main form of
balance is self-balance - they flow badly enough often enough as to make it a
difficult decision whether they're worth playing. This can be a matter of library
deck or crypt deck or both. So tinkering with the rules about crypt mulligan may
change that and make something which self-limits itself through its crypt flow
suddenly become a lot more attractive than it should be. Like I said, it's risky.
I don't know of anything suspect right off. And it's true that every expansion
is risky in the same way. But expansions get lots of playtest and comment from
players actively engaged in breaking them. At the very least, any mulligan
rule proposals should get the same scrutiny.
Fred
On Feb 17, 11:36 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> At the risk of having some dweeb saying something obvious, I'd suggest
> looking at the TDWA for the true "power" of superstar decks, if the
> information available helps us to determine if a Crypt Mulligan would be a
> good rule or not.
True, true. I mean, it isn't like they are tearing up the pea patch or
anything. But other than Superstar decks, I think a better example of
a crypt where a significant advantage would be gained from a crypt
mulligan rule are Tupdog decks (which *are* quantifyably strong)--the
more Tupdogs you have in your crypt, the better you are. But the more
Tupdogs in your crypt, the higher a chance that you won't draw an !
Tremere, even with appropriate ratios. So with a mulligan rule,
Tupdogs would become stronger. Just as an example. Again, I don't know
that this is a reason to kill the idea outright, but worth
considering.
-Peter
On Feb 17, 1:05 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > Pullen wrote:
> >> I pro for a rule such as the one LSJ posted is it might allow new
> >> players a slightly lager learning curve.
>
> >> A con might be abuse of Might of the Camarilla, Possession type decks.
>
> > How does removing crypt cards from the game prior to the start of the
> > game help Might of the Camarilla or Possession?
>
> "A player who still has 12 or more cards in his or her crypt can take a
> mulligan by removing the four crypt cards in his or her uncontrolled
> region from the game and drawing four new cards from his or her crypt to
> his her her uncontrolled region. He or she may do this as many times as
> she likes until he or she is satisfied with his or her uncontrolled
> region or his or her crypt has fewer than 12 cards remaining in it."
>
> Well, your rule as stated doesn't specify beginning of the game.
> Perhaps add a clause, "during a player's first untap phase of the game",
> or "before the first untap phase begins" or something like that? Or
> define that a "mulligan" takes place before the game begins.
That's what I was thinking, that it would have to take place in your
first untap phase. Here are some variations...
1) On their first untap phase of the game, any player may take a
mulligan action, shuffling their uncontrolled region into their crypt
and re-drawing the same number of vampires. Any player who takes a
mulligan may not use any transfers that turn.
2) At the beginning of their first influence phase of the game, any
player may use all of their transfers to.... (see above)
3) Like 1, but you remove the vampires from the game instead of
shuffling them back into your crypt
4) Like 2, but you remove the vampires from the game instead of
shuffling them back into your crypt
These have varying amounts of opportunity costs to try and balance
what a player might gain from drawing a new crypt.
Brandon
Kevin M. wrote:
> Chris Berger wrote:>> So, anyway, that's one. Kevin, you didn't answer... One of
>> the reasons (and I'm not claiming it was your main or only reason)
>> for suggesting a mulligan was that other CCG's have one. Are we
>> talking about just M:TG and Pokemon, or do you know of others?
>> Just curious, not basing a big counter-argument on it or anything...>
> Magic and Pokemon are in the rules. L5R's old rules had one, before you
> could just search your deck at the start of the game for your temple (or
> whatever that was). Several CCGs which either had no tournament system or a
> very loose one had mulligans: Galactic Empires, the original Marvel Super
> Heroes, Highlander, Rage, Harry Potter. I think Buffy had one, too, but
> Rehlow can settle that for us.
I think most of those (MtG, Pokemon, L5R) had single decks and critical
resources (land, power, Pokemon, temples) that you had to have in order to do
anything at all.
VTES offers an alternative to the mulligan system by having two decks. So your
initial hand is guaranteed to be 7 library cards and 4 crypt cards (by
separating the decks, you avoid the possibility of starting with no crypt cards
in your opening 11-card hand. Secondarily, you also avoid the possibility of
starting with no library cards in the opening 11 cards).
librarian wrote:
> LSJ wrote:>> Pullen wrote:>>> I pro for a rule such as the one LSJ posted is it might allow new
>>> players a slightly lager learning curve.
>>>
>>> A con might be abuse of Might of the Camarilla, Possession type decks.>>
>> How does removing crypt cards from the game prior to the start of the
>> game help Might of the Camarilla or Possession?>
> "A player who still has 12 or more cards in his or her crypt can take a
> mulligan by removing the four crypt cards in his or her uncontrolled
> region from the game and drawing four new cards from his or her crypt to
> his her her uncontrolled region. He or she may do this as many times as
> she likes until he or she is satisfied with his or her uncontrolled
> region or his or her crypt has fewer than 12 cards remaining in it."
>
> Well, your rule as stated doesn't specify beginning of the game.
Context helps. Yes, the rule is a before-game-commences rule, just like the
other mulligan rules.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I agree that it helps the problem it was designed to help (bad crypt draws). It
does so at the expense of more difficult odds on the first draw (and on the
second, if you do all the math with the removal of the initial four).
How does it help Might of the Camarilla or Possession?
[ quoted text not captured ]
That was more of an example, poorly written one at that, really any
deck that would want a bunch of important vamps instead of one star
would get a boost as they would have a better chance at getting them
all on turn one and not have to spend pool to dig or use card slots
for cards to do the same, not that this is some horrible advantage, I
just couldn't think of some major con's to the argument against it
other then "Change is Bad", hell, I think it might help create a new
way of building decks that could add a layer of strategy to the game.
> Pokemon has a mulligan rule: if you have no Pokemon in your opening hand, you
> show it to your opponent and redraw. You may also take a mulligan, I believe, if
> your opening hand has no basic power cards.
LotR had a mulligan rule too. Presumably because you were essentially
playing two decks mixed together (goodies and baddies) and if you drew
nothing but Shadow cards in your opening hand, but had bid to open
play as Fellowship, you'd be boned.
You played the game with an 8 card hand. On a mulligan you only drew 6.
[ quoted text not captured ]
VTES has attempted to mitigate the issue of "No Superstar" for
Superstar decks. Prime example being Recruitment. If you have to
have a key vampire, you "dig them up" so to speak.
I honestly see little need for a mulligan rule in VTES. Crypt design
is its own skill. If you must have your Superstar, stick 5 in the
crypt and wear the fact that you have a better-than-even chance of
doubles, a fairly good chance of triples and a not remote chance of 4
copies. It's the price you pay for needing your Superstar.
The MtG Rule penalises bad deck construction with its Mulligan rule.
You only draw one card per turn automatically (other cards allow more
cards to be drawn) so by forcing you to draw a smaller hand you are
being noticeably penalised.
Most of the rules above do not penalise bad crypt construction. LSJ's
forces you to play the odds with more crypt cards. The "recycle"
options do not penalise the player for bad crypt construction (put
them into your crypt and draw X) because you are not significantly
hampered by their side effects, they are just fancy versions of "pay 1
to see 1". Isn't that why "pay 1 to see 1" is around?
It just doesn't make a great deal of sense to me why there should be a
mulligan for a crypt and not for the hand or even at all. I can't see
a mulligan rule being of benefit for the skills base of players or
otherwise helping the game in the broader sense.
On Feb 17, 3:06 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Chris Berger wrote:
> > So, anyway, that's one. Kevin, you didn't answer... One of
> > the reasons (and I'm not claiming it was your main or only reason)
> > for suggesting a mulligan was that other CCG's have one. Are we
> > talking about just M:TG and Pokemon, or do you know of others?
> > Just curious, not basing a big counter-argument on it or anything...
>> L5R's old rules had one, before you
> could just search your deck at the start of the game for your temple (or
> whatever that was).
>
I don't think that's strictly true... Maybe I'm misremembering, but
I'm pretty sure I got into L5R towards the beginning of the game when
they were giving out decks for free at Gen Con. At that time, your
Stronghold was your box (you played with the deck box in play, as if
it were a card), and I believe that only later did they actually print
Stronghold cards (which had different backs so they wouldn't get
accidentally shuffled into your deck). I believe that early sets had
only 1 gold-producing holding that didn't cost gold itself, so if your
stronghold was shuffled in, you would have had to hope to draw 1 of 4
cards (your 3 Small Farms, and 1 Stronghold) that could produce gold.
That doesn't seem right....
The other games, even the ones I've played before, I'm willing to
believe I just didn't know about the mulligan rules... Never really
needed them, either, though... Some games, of course, like Doomtown
and Rage - you start with your characters and/or home base card
already in play, so you had the resources you needed and didn't have
to worry about drawing the right ones. V:TES's system is kind of a
compromise on that, and a pretty good one...
"Juggernaut1981" <brassc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4d2d189-e9e7-4eeb...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 10:09 am, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote:
> > > Pokemon has a mulligan rule: if you have no Pokemon in your opening hand, you
> > > show it to your opponent and redraw. You may also take a mulligan, I believe, if
> > > your opening hand has no basic power cards.
> >
> > LotR had a mulligan rule too. Presumably because you were essentially
> > playing two decks mixed together (goodies and baddies) and if you drew
> > nothing but Shadow cards in your opening hand, but had bid to open
> > play as Fellowship, you'd be boned.
> >
> > You played the game with an 8 card hand. On a mulligan you only drew 6.
>
> VTES has attempted to mitigate the issue of "No Superstar" for
> Superstar decks. Prime example being Recruitment. If you have to
> have a key vampire, you "dig them up" so to speak.
Yea, but if Recruitment was intended as a solution to crypt-screw, it fails
in the same way Seattle Committee fails to solve the problem of how to make
all your Vampires anarch in a single card: you can't reasonably put enough
of them in the deck to assure drawing one early so it's not worth it to bother
using at all. I think Recruitment should be considered a failed card, on the
whole. Or maybe people use it for other purposes productively, that's fine.
But it doesn't solve the problem Kevin set out to solve.
(I don't have strong opinions about your other point.)
Fred
On Feb 17, 7:01 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> I don't think that's strictly true... Maybe I'm misremembering, but
> I'm pretty sure I got into L5R towards the beginning of the game when
> they were giving out decks for free at Gen Con. At that time, your
> Stronghold was your box (you played with the deck box in play, as if
> it were a card), and I believe that only later did they actually print
> Stronghold cards (which had different backs so they wouldn't get
> accidentally shuffled into your deck).
Correct--originally in L5R, your stronghold (which was your starting
resource provider) was printed on the back of your deck box, so when
you started the game, you always had your Stronghold in play. I
stopped playing way before they made anything like a Stronghold card,
so I don't know what happened mid-late with the game. Dune (which was
a hooorrrrrriiiible game, although DJ will rightfully defend the
original design, which got super dumbed down right before production)
also had a "stronghold" card on the back of the deck box (although I
don't remember what it did. But it had numbers and got tapped/turned/
used/whatever).
Shadowfist is a game that was designed early in CCG evolution, so
suffered from the "you need enough basic resources in your deck to
draw then early and often, but not so many that you draw them all the
time" problem, just like Magic (you need Feng Shui sites, which are
recommended to be about 20% of your deck), so it could have used a
mulligan rule, but never had one either; if your opening hand,
including some first turn discards and re-draws, doesn't include a
Feng Shui Site and a Foundation character (also about 20% of the
deck), you are kind of hosed from the get go.
-Peter
On Feb 17, 12:27 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> Do you really think that superstar decks are that strong in the first
> place, relative to weenies and midcaps?
Oh, no. 'Cause they are self balancing in many ways, and occasional
crypt failure is one of those self balancing measures (along with
contestation, things like Pentex Subversion, etc.). As Fred mentioned,
I don't know that I'd *want* superstar decks to be any more attractive
than they are now, if that meant that I'd see Enkidu more often :-)
But along with superstar decks, look at how this would impact Tupdog
decks.
I'm not saying that I know one way or the other that this is
necessarily a bad idea; I'm just pointing out that it would certainly
have an impact on certain decks. Which may or may not be a good thing
in the long run.
-Peter
Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Most of the rules above do not penalise bad crypt construction. LSJ's
> forces you to play the odds with more crypt cards. The "recycle"
> options do not penalise the player for bad crypt construction (put
> them into your crypt and draw X) because you are not significantly
> hampered by their side effects, they are just fancy versions of "pay 1
> to see 1". Isn't that why "pay 1 to see 1" is around?
Yeah, if there's going to be crypt mulligans then there needs to be a
real penalty... otherwise we might as well just allow smaller crypts
and no mulligans, because the effect would be the same (improved
chances of getting exactly what you need).
As for "pay 1 to see 1", on the first round the real cost is the 4
transfers, because most players can't meet that cost until the second
round. Personally, I'd be happy with a rule that somehow allowed
anyone the ability to draw a new crypt card on the first round...
perhaps by paying additional pool to make up for the missing
transfers.
Brent Ross
On Feb 17, 8:28 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 7:01 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > I don't think that's strictly true... Maybe I'm misremembering, but
> > I'm pretty sure I got into L5R towards the beginning of the game when
> > they were giving out decks for free at Gen Con. At that time, your
> > Stronghold was your box (you played with the deck box in play, as if
> > it were a card), and I believe that only later did they actually print
> > Stronghold cards (which had different backs so they wouldn't get
> > accidentally shuffled into your deck).
>
> Correct--originally in L5R, your stronghold (which was your starting
> resource provider) was printed on the back of your deck box, so when
> you started the game, you always had your Stronghold in play. I
> stopped playing way before they made anything like a Stronghold card,
> so I don't know what happened mid-late with the game.
L5R never had a mulligan rule, at least through Diamond Edition (2003?
4?).
> Dune (which was
> a hooorrrrrriiiible game, although DJ will rightfully defend the
> original design, which got super dumbed down right before production)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUGH. Every now and then, I manage to block Dune out
for a while, and then Peter goes and brings it up again. :-)
The biggest issue is that, in simplifying the game at the last minute,
cards weren't re-thought and re-balanced to fit the new rules; non-
applicable text just disappeared. This meant that some of the rarer
cards, which were "stronger but with penalties on other things,"
sometimes had those penalties disappear, leaving them just...
stronger.
That, and about 1/3 to 1/2 the strategy options disappeared, and the
routes to victory got unbalanced.
If the feedback at GAMA (from a questionable audience) says you need
to change the game and make it simpler, that may be just fine - but
that does necessarily mean the start date should be pushed back, so
that you know the changes make for a playable game.
> also had a "stronghold" card on the back of the deck box (although I
> don't remember what it did. But it had numbers and got tapped/turned/
> used/whatever).
Hmm. Yeah, I can't honestly recall at this point either. It had the
"bring stuff into play + power + starting stats" feel of L5R to an
extent, with its own spin.
- D.J.
its all more or less about wether every deck should always be able to
play its gameplan or if its a good thing for the game that sometimes
you just srcewed. always beeing able to play your gameplan helps decks
that currently suffer from inconsictency but are otherwise great to
play when they work. on the other hand it also helps decks that are
great in power even when they arent run perfect (yes tupdog is a good
example).
if it would help diversify the game even further (an idear i'd realy
like) or if it would lead to a few "über-decks" to rule them all only
playtesting can show.
what i dont understand is that when talking about mulligans there has
been no thoughts on hand mulligans. too many master cards, all stealth
an no bleed etc. can cause one to lose tempo in the margain of several
turns and hence cause a you to lose the game too.
any kind of hand mulligan brings along the same potential porblems as
cryp mulligans of course. may be even more so. so its down to
playteting to see if it could enhance the game.
i understand that playtesting is something that causes costs to a
company and if its mearly to see if something could enhance a well
running game it probably wont be done. understandably.
if you want this discussion to be more than just a discussion for the
sake of discussion i propose some playgroups step up to the task and
simply playtest potentail mulligan rules to see what impact the realy
have. after all no other game on the marke that i know off profits
that much from comunity involvment and feedback.
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:20:56 -0800, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org>
wrote:
> Why doesn't VTES have some kind of crypt mulligan rule? Why didn't one
> ever
> get made in this entire time? A bad crypt draw, more than anything else,
> causes players to lose quickly and have absolutely no fun whatsoever.
>
> Is it because that, even with a "bad" crypt draw, you still have your 30
> pool available for the vampires which you did draw, so the attitude
> towards
> mulliganing is different than in other CCGs? Is it because we are a
> no-card
> limit game? Is it some other reason?
In the CCGs I know Mulligan is there to ensure you have access to a
required resource. E.g. in Magic the lands, in Guardians the shields
- stuff you need to include in your deck to be able to play the game.
In V:tES this would equate to minions. However, as you have a separate
deck for crypt cards, you are guaranteed to have minions.
Imagine the following Rule for V:tES: you have only 1 deck (library
+ crypt). At any time, you may place a crypt card in your uncontrolled
region (and draw to replace). If V:tES would work like this, we'd for
sure have a mulligan rule.
--
Regards,
Daneel
On Feb 17, 3:06 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Chris Berger wrote:
> > So, anyway, that's one. Kevin, you didn't answer... One of
> > the reasons (and I'm not claiming it was your main or only reason)
> > for suggesting a mulligan was that other CCG's have one. Are we
> > talking about just M:TG and Pokemon, or do you know of others?
> > Just curious, not basing a big counter-argument on it or anything...
>
> Magic and Pokemon are in the rules. L5R's old rules had one, before you
> could just search your deck at the start of the game for your temple (or
> whatever that was). Several CCGs which either had no tournament system or a
> very loose one had mulligans: Galactic Empires, the original Marvel Super
> Heroes, Highlander, Rage, Harry Potter. I think Buffy had one, too, but
> Rehlow can settle that for us.
>
I'm not remembering a a mulligan rule for Buffy. You always started
with your Main Character in play, your Challenges were in a separate
deck and you can discard as many cards in your hand as you want before
drawing back up to 5 near the beginning of each turn so it wasn't too
hard to fix a bad hand.
I would like a mulligan rule in Vtes since I like to play decks
centered around a single vampire. Include enough copies to guarantee
seeing them and you'll limit the number of support vamps you will also
see in your starting uncontrolled region. Star vamp decks aren't that
good to begin with, so I wouldn't mind the boost in power. :)
Later,
~Rehlow
[ quoted text not captured ]
Rehlow,
One of the points made above is that the weaknesses of most Superstar
Decks are these:
1) There is only one vampire you need to neutralise to shut down the
deck
2) To ensure they see the vampire, a deck will have to stack itself
and muscle out other vampires who could appear
Weenie decks both advantage and disadvantage themselves with small
vampires. There are a number of techniques available to larger
vampires to happily ignore smaller vampires: Obedience, Minor
Irritation, Snipe Hunt, Anarchist Uprising, etc.
Middle-sized decks have the advantage of more minions to perform the
majority of actions, but the issue of only being able to gain limited
numbers of vampires.
The VTES design team appear to have been mitigating the power
imbalances of deck formats, particularly by increasing the power
against "weenie" decks. So why should they be changing the game to
include something that, to a number of people's opinons, favours
Superstar Decks?
I can see the value in ensuring that most crypt strategies are
approximately equivalent in power (i.e. the "Balanced" Crypt, Weenie
Crypt, Mid-cap Crypt (5-8s), Superstar, Fatty Crypt). For most of
those crypt strategies it centers around the vampire's power-to-action
output ratio...
Fatty Crypt = Powerful vampires cost more, so you often don't bring
out that many, so consequently you don't have so many actions/blocks
available to your minions.
Weenie Crypt = more minions = more actions = each vampire is less
powerful
Midcap Crypt = halfway between them
Balanced Crypt = a mix of both ends
Superstar = one super-powerful mojo master, who works predominantly on
their own
By mitigating the downside of Superstar Crypts, you in turn power it
up in relation to other crypt strategies.
Pullen schrieb:
> On Feb 17, 4:53 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> Pullen wrote:>>> On Feb 17, 3:57 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>>>> Pullen wrote:>>>>> I pro for a rule such as the one LSJ posted is it might allow new
>>>>> players a slightly lager learning curve.
>>>>> A con might be abuse of Might of the Camarilla, Possession type decks.>>>> How does removing crypt cards from the game prior to the start of the game help
>>>> Might of the Camarilla or Possession?>>> Its not the removal that help its the two tries at a crypt were you
>>> would want several key vamps that could help>> I agree that it helps the problem it was designed to help (bad crypt draws). It
>> does so at the expense of more difficult odds on the first draw (and on the
>> second, if you do all the math with the removal of the initial four).
>>
>> How does it help Might of the Camarilla or Possession?>
> That was more of an example, poorly written one at that, really any
> deck that would want a bunch of important vamps instead of one star
> would get a boost as they would have a better chance at getting them
> all on turn one and not have to spend pool to dig or use card slots
> for cards to do the same,
I do not think that is actually the case. You are trading worse
probabilities for the initial (and any subsequent) draw against the
option to draw again. It will not help decks where you 4 copies of each
IC and want them all in your starting crypt. It will help however decks
where you have, let´s say 8 worthwile vamps. You double up on all of
them and have a better chance of hitting a non 2,2 case (that is 2
copies of 2 vamps).
--
If playing against Cock all you need to
remember is: Don´t get caught by Cock.
On Feb 19, 9:44 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> By mitigating the downside of Superstar Crypts, you in turn power it
> up in relation to other crypt strategies.
>
Exactly. I feel that Superstar Crypts are so underpowered compared to
other crypts that a power boost would help bring them inline with
other crypts while still not overpowering them. Sure, it does nothing
to mitigate other problems of a Superstar Crypt (take out the
Superstar take out the deck).
Later,
~Rehlow
Rehlow wrote:
> Star vamp decks aren't that
> good to begin with, so I wouldn't mind the boost in power. :)
>
I heard Turbo Arika/Stanislava/Una/The Baron/etc/etc are quite weak...
best -
chris
[ quoted text not captured ]
Having written this and thinking about it for a couple of hours, turbo
decks would not benefit at all from a Mulligan rule, since they will
only have copies of 1 vamp in their crypt.
So, nm on my comment then.
best -
chris
[ quoted text not captured ]
Turbo Baron would definitely benefit, and depending on starting hand
might want to shuffle every vamp back into the crypt (under the
version that let you shuffle them back in and draw fewer), using
Coroner's Contact to fetch the man himself and have the potential to
get all crypt members in one turn.
If you don't have Coroner's Contact, you try to mulligan until you
draw the Baron or run out of chances.
-witness1
[ quoted text not captured ]
Any half-way decent superstar deck uses a vampire that can be a
superstar. There is no point making a superstar deck out of an
"influenced out Anarch Convert" (not used to convert another
vampire). There is a reason why the Superstar decks are: Arika,
Stanislava, Una, Enkidu, Saulot, The Baron... because those vampires
can often handle themselves well enough to prevent being "shut down"
in the long term. Pentex them sure, but other than that you don't
have many great options to trash a Superstar without funnelling more
resources into the shut down than the owner of the vampire spent on
the vampire.
There one significant weakness is crypt draw. I don't mind the idea
of modifying the rules to allow "pay 1 to see 1" in the first round.
It could be written something like:
Moving Crypt Cards to your Uncontrolled Region
During your first influence phase, you may spend 1 pool and make no
other transfers for this turn, to move a crypt card from the top of
your crypt to your uncontrolled region. In your next influence phase,
you will have the same number of Transfers that you were entitled to
have during this turn.
You could adjust that so it instead read "During your influence
phase,..." but that would potentially penalise the Effective
Management/Kindred Intel + Info Highway deck strategy.