confused: is this still valid?

354 messages from 45 participants · 11 December 2006 – 03 February 2007
original thread on Google Groups

Jeroen#

11 December 2006, 17:46

12 December 2006, 21:58

[ quoted text not captured ] How is the action any more or less resolved if you can play a bounce but can't announce a block if you haven't declined to block"? If the action isn't completed by the obvious playing of an action modifier then why are you disallowed from blocking? If the acting player can wait until you have pitched a pool to announce his action modifier then why can't a player who has not been asked "Do you block?" not try and block? It seems remarkably parallel to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ#

12 December 2006, 22:02

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > Damnans wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> By deciding to (attempt to) cancel the whole current block window and replace it >>> with a new one (the new block window resulting from the alteration of the >>> target), one is clearly deciding not to (attempt to) block in the current window >>> (the window one is attempting to cancel). >> If playing Deflection implies you are declining to block, then, if your >> Deflection is DI'ed, your declination not to block is cancelled too. > > Is that correct, LSJ? From the discussion thus far, I believe Damnans > is wrong. Right. > I'll add my voice to the cacophony as someone who thought that you > could Deflect, get DI'd, and still attempt to block (assuming you > didn't explicitly declare "I don't block.") > > LSJ, if one ruling isn't inherently better than the other, but a lot > players seem to prefer it a certain way, why not make the rules in > accordance with player wishes? "A lot"? Anyway, popular vote might be OK for choosing between two equal alternatives for a ruling, but it is seldom the case that the alternatives are equal. > It seems like a reversal of the current > ruling would actually cause no change in the way players have been > playing, and enforcing the current ruling would be a change for most > players. "Most"?

Damnans#

12 December 2006, 22:10

gpett...@gmail.com#

12 December 2006, 22:10

On Dec 12, 3:26 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > A ruling doesn't try to prove itself. It simply is. That is inherent in the idea > of a ruling. > Yes, yes, a ruling ends a dispute over two (or more) possible interpretations of card play, presumably using logic or reason. I understand the reasoning you're using, but I think it's inferior to the alternative in addition to its being counterintuitive. Your ruling creates an implicit card effect that is somehow not cancelled when the entire card effect is cancelled. The closest thing you've come to showing a parallel is mentioning cards with explicit requirements (i.e. timing issues) that are commonly left implicit due to speed of play and yet the effect you're trying to rule *implicit* has repeatedly been deemed to be *required* to be *explicit*. The fundamental rule for order of card and effect play is that everything is explicit, but you're trying to rule one particular effect to be implicit. [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans#

12 December 2006, 22:14

LSJ wrote: [...] > > LSJ, if one ruling isn't inherently better than the other, but a lot > > players seem to prefer it a certain way, why not make the rules in > > accordance with player wishes? > > "A lot"? > > Anyway, popular vote might be OK for choosing between two equal alternatives for > a ruling, but it is seldom the case that the alternatives are equal. > > > It seems like a reversal of the current > > ruling would actually cause no change in the way players have been > > playing, and enforcing the current ruling would be a change for most > > players. > > "Most"? For what it is worth, most players I know and I have always misplayed the Deflection & Direct Intervention issue. [ quoted text not captured ]

Bram Vink#

12 December 2006, 22:27

LSJ schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] I wonder why we get an change of deflection card text, and/or rules addition, where none, to me, seems to be neccessary, wanted, convenient, or intuitive. Deflection, as is, can be played before the blocking declaration like all other non-blocking-relevant reaction cards. It usually will not be, and forcing it to be will change the game in a minimal amount, make older copies have faulty text, confuse newer players (although possibly making them play better) and just generally add unneccessary text to the game. The ruling as such doesn't bother me much. (As personally, for my gameplay, it wouldn't change a thing) What bothers me is that there's no basis on cardtext, gameplay, or rulebook for this to be a neccessary change. I personally don't think it is neccessary to make a change in the rules/cardtext for such a pedantic issue, making the effect additionally counterintuitive. Could you please explain your reasoning behind this LSJ? I dont see the implied denial of blocking when a bleed's target is changed. Nor do I understand why it, when being canceled, would continue to imply such a denial without a specific statement towards the denial of blocking. Thanks in advance, B

witness1#

12 December 2006, 22:29

XZealot wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > If you're trying to communicate ("flesh out in the mind") that you're not > > blocking in order to draw out the modifier that the acting Methuselah intends to > > play after you decline to block, then your communication of "no block" counts as > > your declaration of "no block". > > > > You can always bounce after a modifier, of course. > > How is the action any more or less resolved if you can play a bounce > but can't announce a block if you haven't declined to block"? The 'your communication of "no block"' means that you have declined to block, even if you didn't use the English language to convey that message. > If the action isn't completed by the obvious playing of an action > modifier then why are you disallowed from blocking? Because you declined to block. Y'know, because you aren't just throwing your pool into the blood bank for kicks. > If the acting player can wait until you have pitched a pool to announce > his action modifier then why can't a player who has not been asked "Do > you block?" not try and block? You have sped past several steps in the action sequence by pitching that pool, only some of which you have control over. You have sped past the "I decline to block" step, impicitly declaring as you did so that you did not wish to block. That's legal, because you're allowed to decide for yourself if you want to block or not. You have also sped past the "allow acting minion to play further modifiers". That's the illegal part, because you haven't allowed the other player the option to play his cards. That's where you should rewind to. > It seems remarkably parallel to me. It's not. If you speed past your own option to play a card or effect, you lose your window (see also, gaining pool for the edge). If you speed past someone else's opportunity to play effects, then you don't rewind all the way to the start of the phase, you rewind to window that you illegally sped through. Similarly, if someone had a Madness Network in play and you started your transfers without allowing him to take actions, you should rewind and let him take actions, but not (generally) rewind far enough to allow you to take more actions first (you implicitly declared that you were done with actions by moving on to influence). witness1 -believe the lie.

Bram Vink#

12 December 2006, 22:34

LSJ schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] Would not the target actually being changed end the entire block window, instead of the attempt? I thought the actual fact of the target being changed initiated an another blocking possibility, not the playing of a deflection. Which would be simultaneous with the successful resolving of deflection, resulting in ending of current blocking window, and initiation of another. Does the actual attempt end the blocking window?

Bram Vink#

12 December 2006, 22:42

Bram Vink schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] Just to clarify what I'm trying to say: The actual changing of the target initiates another blocking window. With this ruling, the attempt of changing the target ends the current blocking. It seems hard to rhyme to me. Hope that clarifies things, Bram

CthuluKitty#

12 December 2006, 22:56

The weird inconsistency I'm seeing with this ruling is that it causes a step in the timing sequence to be skipped. At present a minion can play Deflection before the player explicitly states that he is not blocking. If the play of Deflection automatically implies the latter, then two things are happening at once. Under all other circumstances, the declination to block passes priority to the acting player. This ruling on bounce cards causes that window to be skipped, as the reacting player simultaneously declines to block and plays a reaction, without giving the acting player a chance to play action modifiers. At present there are no cards in the game that would care if they were played in this window, but the timing issue is very bizarre. Ultimately this would seem to require an actual text modification of all four bounce effects to say that they cannot be played until after blocks have been declined, or else there's a gaping exception in the timing rules. This whole affair strikes me not so much as a ruling, but as a change to card text.

Joshua Duffin#

12 December 2006, 23:08

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:JfEfh.27542$qO4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net... > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>> Yes, the rulings set could be different such that the result is >>> different (and is as you describe). That doesn't mean that the ruling >>> set couldn't be the way it is. >> >> Ah, I see. It would seem that I'm denying that parallel because it takes >> as given what it's trying to prove. :-) > > ? > A ruling doesn't try to prove itself. It simply is. That is inherent in > the idea of a ruling. No, the parallel I was denying was the analogy, not the ruling. You gave a number of analogies over the course of this discussion, all of which appeared to be intended to *show* that the ruling that playing Deflection = "I already declined to block" made sense, but they only worked as analogies if one already *accepted* that playing Deflection = "I already declined to block". Sure, as you say, a ruling can exist simply by fiat. But normally (IMO) there should be some good logic and reasons behind it. A ruling that exists only by fiat, and would be better the other way, is not a good ruling. > Unless you have the ruling as it is: that the Deflection case is also an > example of a card play that occurs in a defined separate step of the game > (after the > "I don't block" declaration). Except that there's no reason for that ruling to exist, as far as I can see. Nor have you provided such a reason, as yet. Nor is there card-text on Deflection making it so, nor, as Greg and Bram have pointed out, would it be a worthwhile project to add such card-text to make it so, since the effect is unnecessary and therefore undesirable to add to the game. As far as I can discover through Google-groups, the idea arose on August 30, 1999, that Deflection implicitly required you to have made a decision not to block, in a description of when you would burn blood for failing to block for Forced Awakening. I don't know why this implicit "obviously I'm not blocking because now I'm not the target anymore" side-effect of Deflection should be such a big deal, and apparently neither did you when you answered a different post on December 6, 2001, saying that Deflection could be played and canceled with Direct Intervention before the decision to decline blocks had been made. There has been presented no motivation for why Deflection should now have to appear after (or create) the "I don't block" step of the game. There has been no reason presented that the description of how Deflection operated once upon a time in an interaction with Forced Awakening (for all of two days!) should stand, but the description of how Deflection interacted once upon a time with Faceless Night should not. There's just no apparent reason for this ruling to exist and require putting new card text on the bleed-bounce cards that we've had for twelve years. Unless you know of some such reason, it seems to me that leaving the bleed-bounce texts as they are and dropping the ruling would be the far better course of action. Josh decontextualized

Joshua Duffin#

12 December 2006, 23:25

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:wNEfh.27546$qO4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net... > ira...@gmail.com wrote: >> I'll add my voice to the cacophony as someone who thought that you >> could Deflect, get DI'd, and still attempt to block (assuming you >> didn't explicitly declare "I don't block.") >> >> LSJ, if one ruling isn't inherently better than the other, but a lot >> players seem to prefer it a certain way, why not make the rules in >> accordance with player wishes? > > "A lot"? > > Anyway, popular vote might be OK for choosing between two equal > alternatives for a ruling, but it is seldom the case that the alternatives > are equal. I find only one other person in this thread (Dorrinal) who thinks that this ruling makes sense (and even he noted that he found it "damned counter-intuitive"). I count fifteen people who've posted to this thread with the opinion that the ruling you've described is the worse of the two alternatives. I think the relative prevalence of these considered opinions gives some credence to the notion that the other alternative is the more logical of the two. Indeed, much more so than a mere vote (without reasoning attached). Josh who am i? why am i here?

tigernat1#

12 December 2006, 23:49

LSJ wrote: > > Is there any reason in particular it's not on the rulings page? It seems we > > were not the only people who played it wrong. > > No reason at all. It simply hadn't been added, since the confusion over the > issue had not been raised until now, as far as I know. > > I'm adding it now (and adding clarifications to the bounce cards' texts). NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Why are you adding clarification to a card that has been in existence for 12 years AND adding a ruling regarding when it need be played? What happened to KISS? This makes no sense and is overly confusing. I am not as eloquent or research-happy as Mr. Duffin, but why can you NOT see the error in the logic on this? Playing a reaction card is NOT the same as saying "No Block"!!! Why are you artficially trying to make it so? Is this an imposter LSJ? Will the real LSJ please stand up! I am just dumbfounded how someone who has seen things so clearly in the past could totally miss this one! Vegas gNat

XZealot#

13 December 2006, 00:09

[ quoted text not captured ] It is only implicit that I have declined to block the current amount. It is less implicit when he plays an action modifier as I may want to block that. Nothing is stopping the acting player from asking "Do you block?" > > It seems remarkably parallel to me. > > It's not. If you speed past your own option to play a card or effect, > you lose your window (see also, gaining pool for the edge). If you > speed past someone else's opportunity to play effects, then you don't > rewind all the way to the start of the phase, you rewind to window that > you illegally sped through. > And yet when someone bleeds me for 1 and doesn't ask "Do you block", aren't you allowed to reserve your blocking? Honestly, what is the difference between the various forms of "gamesmanship" presented in this thread: pitching the pool, whining, passing your hand over your pool. They are all doing the same thing in tryuing to fish out an action modifier. Why don't we just make it simple and polite? Simply ask "Are you blocking?" [ quoted text not captured ]

gpett...@gmail.com#

13 December 2006, 00:37

XZealot wrote: > > You have sped past several steps in the action sequence by pitching > > that pool, only some of which you have control over. You have sped past > > the "I decline to block" step, impicitly declaring as you did so that > > you did not wish to block. That's legal, because you're allowed to > > decide for yourself if you want to block or not. You have also sped > > past the "allow acting minion to play further modifiers". That's the > > illegal part, because you haven't allowed the other player the option > > to play his cards. That's where you should rewind to. > > It is only implicit that I have declined to block the current amount. > It is less implicit when he plays an action modifier as I may want to > block that. Nothing is stopping the acting player from asking "Do you > block?" > But you can't do that. When the acting player looks at you, he is expecting you to play an effect or pass. But when you're the target of a directed action, you can only pass once you've declared No Block. > Honestly, what is the difference between the various forms of > "gamesmanship" presented in this thread: pitching the pool, whining, > passing your hand over your pool. They are all doing the same thing in > tryuing to fish out an action modifier. Why don't we just make it > simple and polite? Simply ask "Are you blocking?" > Yes, they're all trying to fish an action modifier. But some are aware that they've passed on blocking and would rather Deflect a bleed of 5 than block a bleed of 2, and some are cheating. [ quoted text not captured ]

Preston#

13 December 2006, 01:10

LSJ wrote: > sutekh_23 wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > >> sutekh_23 wrote: > >>> Ok now that ruling does seem more than a little abritrary, what > >>> paramaters are used to determine what is or what isn't playable in the > >>> the block window? > >> As given earlier in this thread, the bit you see as "arbitrary" stems from the > >> fact that attempting to change the target of the action implies that you've > >> already decided not to block in this block-opportunity window. > > > > And yes I see the difference between redirect and reduce, just > > wondering why one inherently ends the block window whilst another does > > not > > Because changing the target ends the entire block window (in order to begin > another block window). Clearly this ruling signals that White Wolf is caving to the radical gay agenda. Preston

James Coupe#

13 December 2006, 00:57

In message <zGyfh.27480$qO4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >Well, that ruling is obsolete. It was based on the old wording of >Faceless (as quoted above). The ruling is obsolete, but that doesn't avoid the fact that it shows how the play closes/closed the window, rather than there being distinct close window and play card steps. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Wookie813#

13 December 2006, 03:09

Merlin wrote: > gpett...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Dec 12, 1:18 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > Meaining that you think DI is too strong/prevalent in the tourney scene, but > > > Deflection is not? > > > > Meaning that Deflection should not be weakened by making DI stronger. > > > > -- > > - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew > > Why not? If DI is strengthened by this ruling, then perhaps it will get > the magic-card recognition it deserves and be banned from tournament > play. <snip> > Merlin Fret not, everyone. You can cancel the DI with Wash. New Dom defense module: 6x Wake 6x Deflection 3x Wash See? Everything will be juuu-uuust fine.

LSJ#

13 December 2006, 03:25

[ quoted text not captured ] Sure. It is no change to Deflection's card text neither/nor a rules addition. Deflection, as is, cannot be played before declaring "no block". At the time the observation was first made, it was made as a simple clarification. Given the traffic in this thread, it seems that it might be a ruling. > I dont see the implied denial of blocking when a bleed's target is > changed. Nor do I understand why it, when being canceled, would > continue to imply such a denial without a specific statement towards > the denial of blocking. Well, for that, see my other messages in this thread. > Thanks in advance, > > B >

LSJ#

13 December 2006, 03:28

CthuluKitty wrote: > The weird inconsistency I'm seeing with this ruling is that it causes a > step in the timing sequence to be skipped. At present a minion can > play Deflection before the player explicitly states that he is not > blocking. If the play of Deflection automatically implies the latter, > then two things are happening at once. Under all other circumstances, No more than other plays that seem to skip steps. The two things don't happen at once, technically. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ#

13 December 2006, 03:29

[ quoted text not captured ] Considered opinions, all, were they? OK. That still doesn't address the issue of agreers being prone to lurking. Nor does it address the idea that 15 is not "a lot" in the scheme of VTES players.

Joshua Duffin#

13 December 2006, 03:38

LSJ wrote: > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> I think the relative prevalence of these considered opinions gives some >> credence to the notion that the other alternative is the more logical of the >> two. Indeed, much more so than a mere vote (without reasoning attached). > > Considered opinions, all, were they? Mostly, yes. > OK. > > That still doesn't address the issue of agreers being prone to lurking. > > Nor does it address the idea that 15 is not "a lot" in the scheme of VTES players. I'm not appealing to the numbers themselves. I'm saying that, given the people who think otherwise, maybe you should reconsider whether your take on the situation is the right one. Josh listener to the voice of reason

LSJ#

13 December 2006, 03:45

Joshua Duffin wrote: > I'm not appealing to the numbers themselves. I'm saying that, given the > people who think otherwise, maybe you should reconsider whether your > take on the situation is the right one. I listen to all arguments, well-reasoned or otherwise, on this forum and others, of course. That hasn't changed since August 1999, either. :-)

LSJ#

13 December 2006, 03:46

Joshua Duffin wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Considered opinions, all, were they? > > Mostly, yes. ? My dictionary must have a different definition of "all" than yours. :-)

gpett...@gmail.com#

13 December 2006, 03:50

On Dec 12, 9:29 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Nor does it address the idea that 15 is not "a lot" in the scheme of VTES players. I'm not one for mob rule, but I'm pretty sure we're talking about a vast proportion here. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin#

13 December 2006, 03:55

[ quoted text not captured ] Or a different definition of "rhetorical device" maybe. :-P Josh taking dictation

librarian#

13 December 2006, 06:52

Preston wrote: > > Clearly this ruling signals that White Wolf is caving to the radical > gay agenda. > Thank you John Stewart. now back to your regularly scheduled rules-quiddling. best - chris

Salem#

13 December 2006, 08:16

Joshua Duffin wrote: > There's just no apparent reason for this ruling to exist and require putting > new card text on the bleed-bounce cards that we've had for twelve years. > Unless you know of some such reason, it seems to me that leaving the > bleed-bounce texts as they are and dropping the ruling would be the far > better course of action. for what it's worth, I have never seen it played as per the '99 ruling. I don't recall seeing DI (or like effects) actually happening too much on 'bounce' cards, and when they are it has usually been after an EXPLICIT decline to block, there the bouncer tried to draw out an action modifier before bouncing. But the one or two times where it was played before a decline to block, and then cancelled, we played as if they can still try and block. And it had never occurred to me that playing a Deflection could only happen after you've declined to block, that I can recall (hence the situations as above). I, personally, would like to see the '99 ruling reversed and the '01 one re-instated, for what it's worth. _That_ state of affairs to me seems more intuitive (and wouldn't, to the best of my knowledge, violate any card texts or rulebook rules). -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

James Coupe#

13 December 2006, 09:23

In message <jMyfh.27482$qO4...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >Jeroen Rombouts wrote: >> Is there any reason in particular it's not on the rulings page? It >>seems we were not the only people who played it wrong. > >No reason at all. It simply hadn't been added, since the confusion over >the issue had not been raised until now, as far as I know. > >I'm adding it now (and adding clarifications to the bounce cards' texts). How's this likely to be worded? There's at least a good chance that any extra wording on the bounce cards will only fuel the fire of what DI does - because then when that card text (say, "And you can no longer block") is cancelled by DI, people will argue that the prohibition on blocking was also cancelled by DI. Because DI wiped out all the card text except the name of the bounce card. I'm not sure that this will help end the confusion. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Jeroen Rombouts#

13 December 2006, 09:52

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> schreef in bericht news:f7JI02aR...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <jMyfh.27482$qO4...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ > <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >>Jeroen Rombouts wrote: >>> Is there any reason in particular it's not on the rulings page? It >>>seems we were not the only people who played it wrong. >> >>No reason at all. It simply hadn't been added, since the confusion over >>the issue had not been raised until now, as far as I know. >> >>I'm adding it now (and adding clarifications to the bounce cards' texts). > > How's this likely to be worded? > > There's at least a good chance that any extra wording on the bounce > cards will only fuel the fire of what DI does - because then when that > card text (say, "And you can no longer block") is cancelled by DI, > people will argue that the prohibition on blocking was also cancelled by > DI. Because DI wiped out all the card text except the name of the > bounce card. > well, instead of= "Only usable when you are being bled" you could use "Only usable when you are being bled, playable after blocking attempts, if any" and avoid the DI issue.

Petri Wessman#

13 December 2006, 10:53

Merlin wrote: > Maybe Major Boon will see some more play when Deflection gets totally > nerfed by this ruling! I don't follow you. This ruling is pretty much the way we've always played things over here (well, usually we just explicitly ask "are you blocking or not", but still...). Deflection is and has always been very popular. //Petri

Johannes Walch#

13 December 2006, 10:58

LSJ schrieb: > That still doesn't address the issue of agreers being prone to lurking. > > Nor does it address the idea that 15 is not "a lot" in the scheme of > VTES players. When we were discussing about the merits of the rule change you stated that you find this forum most representative of the players and there you thought that the opinion from a similiar number of people who posted in the "Withdrawal rules for tournaments" thread was representative enough to justify a tournament rules change, the chance of lurkers disagreeing didn´t seem to be a problem for you. Now that same "majority" isn´t enough to justify a rules changed regarding a specific play situation. Not a very consistent behaviour in my opinion. You could just say that you don´t care what people say (sometimes), if that IS actually the case (which I don´t really assume, just a little guessing). Saves a lot of typing. -- johannes walch

Salem#

13 December 2006, 12:21

[ quoted text not captured ] "*Only* playable after block attempts", else it's no different to how we all thought it worked up till now. [ quoted text not captured ]

Merlin#

13 December 2006, 14:25

[ quoted text not captured ] It's popular because it works, and because your playgroup obviously isn't playing the 12x DI in their decks that they should be. I'd suggest upping your DI count now to thwart that Deflection rampage. Of course, the bouncers could mix in Redirection/T-Mis/etc. They're kinda funny that way. For those who are of the opinion that this newgroup is representative of some percentage of the playerbase, i support LSJ's ruling based on the fact that i hate the proliferance of bounce and _anything_ that weakens it in _any_ way gets my support. My playgroup has been playing the "other" way, tho: Canceled bounce cards didn't mean "no-block." So chalk me down for both sides of the argument. It's not intuitive AND it's totally righteous! Long live polysemy! Merlin

Bram Vink#

13 December 2006, 15:08

LSJ schreef: > Bram Vink wrote: > > LSJ schreef: > > > >> witness1 wrote: > >>> LSJ wrote: > >>>> Unless you have the ruling as it is: that the Deflection case is also an example > >>>> of a card play that occurs in a defined separate step of the game (after the > >>>> "I don't block" declaration). > >>> Can we get text to that effect added to Deflection, then? > >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5b82e0c1f3967b59 > > > > I wonder why we get an change of deflection card text, and/or rules > > addition, where none, to me, seems to be neccessary, wanted, > > convenient, or intuitive. Deflection, as is, can be played before the > > blocking declaration like all other non-blocking-relevant reaction > > cards. > > It usually will not be, and forcing it to be will change the game in a > > minimal amount, make older copies have faulty text, confuse newer > > players (although possibly making them play better) and just generally > > add unneccessary text to the game. > > > > The ruling as such doesn't bother me much. (As personally, for my > > gameplay, it wouldn't change a thing) What bothers me is that there's > > no basis on cardtext, gameplay, or rulebook for this to be a neccessary > > change. > > > > I personally don't think it is neccessary to make a change in the > > rules/cardtext for such a pedantic issue, making the effect > > additionally counterintuitive. > > > > Could you please explain your reasoning behind this LSJ? > > Sure. > > It is no change to Deflection's card text neither/nor a rules addition. > > Deflection, as is, cannot be played before declaring "no block". This is because of this ruling only, right? Because neither explicit card text, nor the rules, support this clarification. (as far as I can see) > At the time the observation was first made, it was made as a simple > clarification. Given the traffic in this thread, it seems that it might be a ruling. > > > I dont see the implied denial of blocking when a bleed's target is > > changed. Nor do I understand why it, when being canceled, would > > continue to imply such a denial without a specific statement towards > > the denial of blocking. > > Well, for that, see my other messages in this thread. After reading your replies, it's still not clear to me why the attempt of changing the target, would imply denial to block. I would appreciate it if you could help me clear things up :) Just from rules (apart from the specific ruling under question) and strictly cardtext, this is not explicitly stated, right? Nowhere does it say: "You can only change the target of a bleed, or play a card that does so after declaring wether or not you attempt to block" or similarily "Playing a card that can change the target of a bleed means you deny to block" nor "to attempt to open a new blocking window, there may not be a current one" Your argument is based on, correct me if I'm wrong: If the target of a bleed changes, a new blocking window is opened. Therefore: If you *attempt* to change the target of a bleed, you are implicitly closing the current blocking window to allow for the next one to be opened. The thing I do not understand is: Why would the *attempt* part come into play? It to me seems far more logical and consistent if the following would be true: "when the target of a bleed (or any directed action) is (successfully) changed, the current blocking window is closed, and a new one opened." Could you clarify your reasoning why you feel the attempt per se (playing the card - instead of it successfully resolving) closes the blocking window? To me it seems incongruous with the explicit rules or cardtext. Thanks in advance, B

LSJ#

13 December 2006, 15:15

Bram Vink wrote: > Your argument is based on, correct me if I'm wrong: > > If the target of a bleed changes, a new blocking window is opened. > Therefore: If you *attempt* to change the target of a bleed, you are > implicitly closing the current blocking window to allow for the next > one to be opened. The basis is: if you are attempting to close the window without blocking, then it is true that you are declining to block in that to-be-closed-without-you-blocking window.

LSJ#

13 December 2006, 15:26

LSJ wrote: > Jeroen wrote: >> I was searching the NG and I found this: >> http://groups.google.be/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f4e7d18691d047b3?dmode=source&hl=nl >> >> "Declaring that one is not blocking is implicit in playing Deflection >> (unlike playing Telepathic Counter). [LSJ 30-AUG-1999] >> >> I can't find that ruling on the the clarifications and rulings page. > > Yes. > >> And the question: If you play deflection (and therefor implicitly say >> that you are not blocking) and the deflection is 'Direct >> Interventioned' does that mean that you don't get a new opportunity to >> block? > > Correct. Since this old ruling seems new to so many, it seems a good time to remind everyone of the other implication of the ruling: You can't play Deflection during a block attempt. That is, you can't try to draw out stealth by "John attempts to block" and, when no stealth is forthcoming, play Deflection.

Merlin#

13 December 2006, 15:53

[ quoted text not captured ] I saw this exact situation at a (storyline) tournament, and it seemed shady to me. Especially since the bleeding minion was The Great Beast and could have kicked the blocker to pieces. Then the blocking Meth says..."Oh, i meant to bounce it." If i'd been judging i would have made the block/combat happen. The judge at the time didn't, so this sort of thing does happen. Merlin

gpett...@gmail.com#

13 December 2006, 16:06

On Dec 13, 9:15 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Bram Vink wrote: > > Your argument is based on, correct me if I'm wrong: > > > If the target of a bleed changes, a new blocking window is opened. > > Therefore: If you *attempt* to change the target of a bleed, you are > > implicitly closing the current blocking window to allow for the next > > one to be opened > The basis is: if you are attempting to close the window without blocking, then > it is true that you are declining to block in that > to-be-closed-without-you-blocking window. If attempting to make me unable to block means I decline to block, *Determine - if cancelled, I cannot attempt to block *Direct Intervention - if cancelled (and I was DIing an action card), I cannot attempt to block *Mistaken Identity - if cancelled, I cannot attempt to block *The Mole [dom] - if cancelled, I cannot attempt to block *Rewind Time [tem] - if cancelled, I cannot attempt to block *Scry the Hearthstone [VIS] - if cancelled, I cannot attempt to block *Unseen Hibernation [abo/ABO] - if cancelled, I cannot attempt to block If attempting to make me unable to vote means I decline to vote, *Delaying Tactics - if cancelled, I (and my minions) cannot vote *Direct Intervention - if cancelled (and I was DIing a political action or Delaying Tactics or a card that would render a political action blocked), I (and my minions) cannot vote If attempting to make me unable to act in a given phase of combat means I decline to act in that phase of combat... Do you want to see how far down this rabbit hole goes? *IF MY ATTEMPT IS SUCCESSFUL* (emphasis added :), I will be unable to block. That's what we call contingency. You don't forfeit your main plan just because you have a contingency. I'm not declining to block by playing Deflection, I'm doing something orthogonal to blocking. I'm not trying to close the blocking window, I'm trying to change the nature of the window. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

Joshua Duffin#

13 December 2006, 16:11

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:d4Ufh.23014$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] That fact isn't really related to the "attempting to play Deflection means you have already declined to block" ruling though. Only appropriate effects are allowed during an action; when a block attempt is declared, if the acting minion passes on adding stealth, the block succeeds and only effects that are legal on a successful block (e.g. Obedience) can be played. Whether attempting to play Deflection means that you have already declined to block is only relevant in that, if you are currently succeeding in blocking, you can't play Deflection (just as you can't play Precognition). Josh

Joshua Duffin#

13 December 2006, 16:18

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:nWTfh.23012$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] But that's not the cause of your ruling, it's the outcome of your ruling. It is at least as sensible (of course, I would say more sensible) that you may wish to *continue* your (currently failing) block attempt if you *attempt* to change the target of the bleed but fail to actually change the bleed's target. Much like you might wish to add more intercept if you attempt to add intercept to block an action, but fail to actually gain the intercept. Josh no continuation on the foul

Merlin#

13 December 2006, 17:37

gpett...@gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 13, 9:15 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Bram Vink wrote: > > > Your argument is based on, correct me if I'm wrong: > > > > > If the target of a bleed changes, a new blocking window is opened. > > > Therefore: If you *attempt* to change the target of a bleed, you are > > > implicitly closing the current blocking window to allow for the next > > > one to be opened > > The basis is: if you are attempting to close the window without blocking, then > > it is true that you are declining to block in that > > to-be-closed-without-you-blocking window. > > If attempting to make me unable to block means I decline to block, > Which isn't the case. Attempting to change the target of the action means you decline to block. > *Determine - if cancelled, I cannot attempt to block Only for the bounce version. The "cancel an action *as it is played*" part doesn't imply a non-block. How does this change the target of the action? The reason bounce implies a non-block is because of the attempt to change thetarget of the bleed. > *Direct Intervention - if cancelled (and I was DIing an action card), I > cannot attempt to block Not so much, see above. Canceling != retargeting (or, by your examples, attempting to cancel != attempting to retarget) > *Mistaken Identity - if cancelled, I cannot attempt to block Tough one...again, target has not changed, so probably you'd still be able to block, or play Foul Blood. > *The Mole [dom] - if cancelled, I cannot attempt to block See above. > *Rewind Time [tem] - if cancelled, I cannot attempt to block And again. > *Scry the Hearthstone [VIS] - if cancelled, I cannot attempt to block What? > *Unseen Hibernation [abo/ABO] - if cancelled, I cannot attempt to block Huh? > > If attempting to make me unable to vote means I decline to vote, > *Delaying Tactics - if cancelled, I (and my minions) cannot vote > *Direct Intervention - if cancelled (and I was DIing a political action > or Delaying Tactics or a card that would render a political action > blocked), I (and my minions) cannot vote > Uh...the target of the votes changes how? Ya lost me. > If attempting to make me unable to act in a given phase of combat means > I decline to act in that phase of combat... > A combat in which the minions are retargeted? Maybe with Blissful Agony. DI the BA and...card text from DI kicks in on choosing a new strike. So, not so much. > Do you want to see how far down this rabbit hole goes? > Looks like "not so far" to me. > *IF MY ATTEMPT IS SUCCESSFUL* (emphasis added :), I will be unable to > block. That's what we call contingency. You don't forfeit your main > plan just because you have a contingency. I'm not declining to block by > playing Deflection, I'm doing something orthogonal to blocking. I'm not > trying to close the blocking window, I'm trying to change the nature of > the window. > > -- > - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew You lose the contingency according to the ruling. Merlin

gpett...@gmail.com#

13 December 2006, 17:50

Merlin wrote: > gpett...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Dec 13, 9:15 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > Bram Vink wrote: > > > > Your argument is based on, correct me if I'm wrong: > > > > > > > If the target of a bleed changes, a new blocking window is opened. > > > > Therefore: If you *attempt* to change the target of a bleed, you are > > > > implicitly closing the current blocking window to allow for the next > > > > one to be opened > > > The basis is: if you are attempting to close the window without blocking, then > > > it is true that you are declining to block in that > > > to-be-closed-without-you-blocking window. > > > > If attempting to make me unable to block means I decline to block, > > > > Which isn't the case. Attempting to change the target of the action > means you decline to block. > I quoted LSJ for a reason. Here he is again: > The basis is: if you are attempting to close the window without blocking, then > it is true that you are declining to block in that > to-be-closed-without-you-blocking window. If A, then B. A: If you are attempting to close the window B: you are declining to act in it. > > *Determine - if cancelled, I cannot attempt to block > > Only for the bounce version. The "cancel an action *as it is played*" > part doesn't imply a non-block. How does this change the target of the > action? The reason bounce implies a non-block is because of the attempt > to change thetarget of the bleed. > Either version. By attempting to close the block window (i.e. cancelling the action), you are declining to block. [snipping the rest as they are all the same]. > > > > If attempting to make me unable to vote means I decline to vote, > > *Delaying Tactics - if cancelled, I (and my minions) cannot vote > > *Direct Intervention - if cancelled (and I was DIing a political action > > or Delaying Tactics or a card that would render a political action > > blocked), I (and my minions) cannot vote > > > > Uh...the target of the votes changes how? Ya lost me. > By attempting to close the voting window (i.e. cancelling the referendum), you are declining to vote. > > *IF MY ATTEMPT IS SUCCESSFUL* (emphasis added :), I will be unable to > > block. That's what we call contingency. You don't forfeit your main > > plan just because you have a contingency. I'm not declining to block by > > playing Deflection, I'm doing something orthogonal to blocking. I'm not > > trying to close the blocking window, I'm trying to change the nature of > > the window. > > > > -- > > - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew > > You lose the contingency according to the ruling. > No, the ruling says that by losing the contingency, you lose the whole kit 'n caboodle. [ quoted text not captured ]

Merlin#

13 December 2006, 18:12

gpett...@gmail.com wrote: > Merlin wrote: > > gpett...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Dec 13, 9:15 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > Bram Vink wrote: > > > > > Your argument is based on, correct me if I'm wrong: > > > > > > > > > If the target of a bleed changes, a new blocking window is opened. > > > > > Therefore: If you *attempt* to change the target of a bleed, you are > > > > > implicitly closing the current blocking window to allow for the next > > > > > one to be opened > > > > The basis is: if you are attempting to close the window without blocking, then > > > > it is true that you are declining to block in that > > > > to-be-closed-without-you-blocking window. > > > > > > If attempting to make me unable to block means I decline to block, > > > > > > > Which isn't the case. Attempting to change the target of the action > > means you decline to block. > > > > I quoted LSJ for a reason. Here he is again: > > > The basis is: if you are attempting to close the window without blocking, then > > it is true that you are declining to block in that > > to-be-closed-without-you-blocking window. > > If A, then B. > A: If you are attempting to close the window > B: you are declining to act in it. > That's your logic, but it doesn't follow from LSJ's post, as far as i can deduce. This is especially true because your examples are "cancel a card as it it played" examples, which by definition have no "window," they must be played as the card is played to stop the effect. But the issue at hand is the retargeting one, _not_ the "window" one. If you play bounce _at all_ you're declaring a non-block, according to the ruling. Whether or not you dig it or you find it intuitive is no longer an issue: If you play it (even if cancelled) it is defined as a non-block. > > > *Determine - if cancelled, I cannot attempt to block > > > > Only for the bounce version. The "cancel an action *as it is played*" > > part doesn't imply a non-block. How does this change the target of the > > action? The reason bounce implies a non-block is because of the attempt > > to change thetarget of the bleed. > > > > Either version. By attempting to close the block window (i.e. > cancelling the action), you are declining to block. > > [snipping the rest as they are all the same]. > Canceling a card as it is played does not denote a non-block. It doesn't close the window as it doesn't really allow the window to open. But playing a bounce card (again, DI'd or no) declares a non-block. Whoop. Just had an evil thought. Better write it down. "This makes Soul Decoration a little more nasty...and pull the moon into the earth." > > > > > > If attempting to make me unable to vote means I decline to vote, > > > *Delaying Tactics - if cancelled, I (and my minions) cannot vote > > > *Direct Intervention - if cancelled (and I was DIing a political action > > > or Delaying Tactics or a card that would render a political action > > > blocked), I (and my minions) cannot vote > > > > > > > Uh...the target of the votes changes how? Ya lost me. > > > > By attempting to close the voting window (i.e. cancelling the > referendum), you are declining to vote. > Again, retargeting != canceling. The bounce cards have explicit text regarding (non-)blocking as of now, so...why reword everything that doesn't actually change targets? How much errata do you really want? > > > *IF MY ATTEMPT IS SUCCESSFUL* (emphasis added :), I will be unable to > > > block. That's what we call contingency. You don't forfeit your main > > > plan just because you have a contingency. I'm not declining to block by > > > playing Deflection, I'm doing something orthogonal to blocking. I'm not > > > trying to close the blocking window, I'm trying to change the nature of > > > the window. > > > > > > -- > > > - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew > > > > You lose the contingency according to the ruling. > > > > No, the ruling says that by losing the contingency, you lose the whole > kit 'n caboodle. > > -- > - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew I think your issue is really with the concept of "windows". The online rulebook doesn't have the word "window" in it at all. Is this some new third edition thing? Do we need an update? Is it a convenient metaphor? Can we do away with convenient metaphors while we're at it? Merlin

gpett...@gmail.com#

13 December 2006, 18:33

On Dec 13, 12:12 pm, "Merlin" <hallofhadesco...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > I quoted LSJ for a reason. Here he is again: > > > > The basis is: if you are attempting to close the window without blocking, then > > > it is true that you are declining to block in that > > > to-be-closed-without-you-blocking window. > > > If A, then B. > > A: If you are attempting to close the window > > B: you are declining to act in it. > That's your logic, but it doesn't follow from LSJ's post, as far as i > can deduce. This is especially true because your examples are "cancel a > card as it it played" examples, which by definition have no "window," > they must be played as the card is played to stop the effect. > But the > issue at hand is the retargeting one, _not_ the "window" one. The issue is entirely about the blocking window. I'm sorry I can't highlight LSJ's text and make it blink over usenet or anything, but his *entire argument* is that, by attempting to make yourself unable to block, you are choosing not to block, and forfeit the right to block in the event the card is cancelled. When you cancel an action card, you attempt to make yourself unable to block. Ergo, if your cancel card is cancelled, you cannot block. When you cancel the referendum, you attempt to make yourself unable to vote. Ergo, if your cancel card is cancelled, you cannot vote. > If you > play bounce _at all_ you're declaring a non-block, according to the > ruling. But the reason isn't that it's *bounce*. The reason is that the card makes you unable to block. So any card that attempts to make you unable to block would have the same repurcussions. > Whether or not you dig it or you find it intuitive is no longer > an issue: If you play it (even if cancelled) it is defined as a > non-block. > Only if you assume that LSJ is infallible. For the rest of us, we will continue to argue what makes sense. We will continue to argue the standing ruling that's been on the books since 2001 and has only come under fire because someone reminded LSJ of the (rapidly rescinded) '99 ruling first. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ#

13 December 2006, 20:01

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:d4Ufh.23014$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >> LSJ wrote: >> Since this old ruling seems new to so many, it seems a good time to remind >> everyone of the other implication of the ruling: >> >> You can't play Deflection during a block attempt. That is, you can't try >> to draw out stealth by "John attempts to block" and, when no stealth is >> forthcoming, play Deflection. > > That fact isn't really related to the "attempting to play Deflection means > you have already declined to block" ruling though. Only appropriate effects > are allowed during an action; when a block attempt is declared, if the > acting minion passes on adding stealth, the block succeeds and only effects > that are legal on a successful block (e.g. Obedience) can be played. By what text? The arguments against the 1999 ruling apply here as well. > Whether attempting to play Deflection means that you have already declined > to block is only relevant in that, if you are currently succeeding in > blocking, you can't play Deflection (just as you can't play Precognition). Precognition is restricted by the restriction on adding intercept.

LSJ#

13 December 2006, 20:08

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:nWTfh.23012$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >> Bram Vink wrote: >>> Your argument is based on, correct me if I'm wrong: >>> >>> If the target of a bleed changes, a new blocking window is opened. >>> Therefore: If you *attempt* to change the target of a bleed, you are >>> implicitly closing the current blocking window to allow for the next >>> one to be opened. >> The basis is: if you are attempting to close the window without blocking, >> then it is true that you are declining to block in that >> to-be-closed-without-you-blocking window. > > But that's not the cause of your ruling, it's the outcome of your ruling. Incorrect. That fact is the basis of the original clarification, as stated given in the Aug 30, 1999 post (which I thought you had quoted already in this thread). > It is at least as sensible (of course, I would say more sensible) that you > may wish to *continue* your (currently failing) block attempt if you > *attempt* to change the target of the bleed but fail to actually change the > bleed's target. What current block attempt? > Much like you might wish to add more intercept if you attempt to add > intercept to block an action, but fail to actually gain the intercept. Um? How is this relevant? Adding intercept in no way implies an "I don't block" or other moving-to-next-phase step (other than resetting the sequencing order).

Bram Vink#

13 December 2006, 21:47

LSJ schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] If this is truly your basis of your argument, you do not mention another window being opened at all as relevant. George seems to be correct in that trying to cancel the action (lets not mention referenda - irrelevant) would also mean you decline to block, as you are attempting to close the window without blocking. Is this what you mean to say? My argument would be the following. Without the above addition or intepretation to/of the rules: (Relevant rulebook text 6.2.2. "If the action targets another Methuselah (or something controlled by another Methuselah), then the action is called directed, and the Methuselah who is the target (or controls the target) of the action may use her ready untapped minions to attempt to block the action.") The quoted text states an action directed at you has to have changed target to another methuselah before he gets the opportunity to block. Similarily, it states you can block an action directed at you unless said action does no longer target you. (or until you specifically decline to block - I cannot see attempting to cancel the opportunity to block interpretable as explicitly stating not to block.) I would say if you play a deflection, you are attempting to change the target of a (D) action, and as soon as the target is successfully changed the current window closes, and another opens. As the quoted text out of the rulebook seems to acknowledge. ie. unless you are not the target of a (D) action, you may attempt to block unless stated otherwise. (which neither sec cardtext, rulebook, nor semantics seem to imply) Thanks in advance, Bram

LSJ#

13 December 2006, 21:58

Bram Vink wrote: > LSJ schreef: > >> Bram Vink wrote: >>> Your argument is based on, correct me if I'm wrong: >>> >>> If the target of a bleed changes, a new blocking window is opened. >>> Therefore: If you *attempt* to change the target of a bleed, you are >>> implicitly closing the current blocking window to allow for the next >>> one to be opened. >> The basis is: if you are attempting to close the window without blocking, then >> it is true that you are declining to block in that >> to-be-closed-without-you-blocking window. > > If this is truly your basis of your argument, you do not mention > another window being opened at all as relevant. George seems to be > correct in that trying to cancel the action (lets not mention referenda > - irrelevant) would also mean you decline to block, as you are > attempting to close the window without blocking. > Is this what you mean to say? No. Canceling an action as the action card is played doesn't close the window. It cancels the action before it is begun -- before the blocking window even opens. Even before the "as action is announced" window opens.

Bram Vink#

13 December 2006, 22:07

LSJ schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] Your example is not clear, as that's covered between 1.6.1.5 (sequencing) and 6.2.2 (attempting to block is an event) Wouldnt something like this ruling: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/ea8ee540a538da77 Be clear enough to cover all outs? Cheers, Bram

LSJ#

13 December 2006, 22:12

[ quoted text not captured ] Since it says the same thing as I said above, I can't see how it would be any clearer than the above.

Bram Vink#

13 December 2006, 22:14

Bram Vink schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/eea955040519d25e is clearer, and explains it fully. Cheers, Bram

Bram Vink#

13 December 2006, 22:17

LSJ schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] It is most eminently not based on attempting to close a blocking window implying you do not block. That would require a bit more explanation. I'd assume it's based on not being allowed to play reactions aside from those specifically allowed in the timing slot of successfully blocking an action. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/eea955040519d25e Cheers, B

Joshua Duffin#

13 December 2006, 22:21

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:6dYfh.23093$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >> news:nWTfh.23012$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >>> The basis is: if you are attempting to close the window without >>> blocking, then it is true that you are declining to block in that >>> to-be-closed-without-you-blocking window. >> >> But that's not the cause of your ruling, it's the outcome of your ruling. > > Incorrect. > > That fact is the basis of the original clarification, as stated given in > the Aug 30, 1999 post (which I thought you had quoted already in this > thread). No matter how many times I read it or quote it, it has yet to become more of an established fact. :-) It is still the outcome of your "clarification" and not an a priori obvious fact of the world (to anyone but you). It makes more sense to everyone else to say that it is true that, after you have *succeeded* in closing the window of your possibility to block by changing the target of the action, you have *then* declined to block in your normal blocking window. >> It is at least as sensible (of course, I would say more sensible) that >> you may wish to *continue* your (currently failing) block attempt if you >> *attempt* to change the target of the bleed but fail to actually change >> the bleed's target. > > What current block attempt? The one that Anson is attempting to make against Ozmo's bleed. But Ozmo adds stealth, so his block is no longer succeeding. So he tries to Deflect the bleed, but the Deflection is canceled with Direct Intervention. So he would like to continue his block attempt, but unfortunately you've told him that he can't, because his window closed when he tried to change the target. I guess he should have known better. Do, or do not, there is no try. This is why your ruling doesn't seem sensible to me. It seems illogical that your vampire can be trying to block, fail to currently block, then try to Deflect, have the Deflection canceled, and then be unable to resume attempting to block. Since the target never actually changed (see Banishment vs Diamond Thunderbolt for a similar "change never occurred" situation), it seems only natural that the original (and only) target would still be able to try to block. Josh

Joshua Duffin#

13 December 2006, 22:27

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:R5Yfh.23091$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >> news:d4Ufh.23014$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >>> LSJ wrote: >>> Since this old ruling seems new to so many, it seems a good time to >>> remind everyone of the other implication of the ruling: >>> >>> You can't play Deflection during a block attempt. That is, you can't try >>> to draw out stealth by "John attempts to block" and, when no stealth is >>> forthcoming, play Deflection. >> >> That fact isn't really related to the "attempting to play Deflection >> means you have already declined to block" ruling though. Only >> appropriate effects are allowed during an action; when a block attempt is >> declared, if the acting minion passes on adding stealth, the block >> succeeds and only effects that are legal on a successful block (e.g. >> Obedience) can be played. > > By what text? > > The arguments against the 1999 ruling apply here as well. No, that would be a whole different argument. Are you trying to tell me that because you spelled out the details of timing of a successful block on the newsgroup, rather than in the rulebook, it is therefore the same ruling as the one about attempting to change the target of an action? I don't see how that follows... my argument against the 1999 ruling isn't that you made it with your authority as rulemonger. My argument is that it's not the most logical ruling. :-) I mean, it would be fine if Deflection had been printed originally with text saying "only usable after you have declined to block this action". But since it wasn't, I don't think it's a good idea to add such text to the card twelve years later. Josh

LSJ#

14 December 2006, 03:14

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:6dYfh.23093$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >> Joshua Duffin wrote: >>> It is at least as sensible (of course, I would say more sensible) that >>> you may wish to *continue* your (currently failing) block attempt if you >>> *attempt* to change the target of the bleed but fail to actually change >>> the bleed's target. >> What current block attempt? > > The one that Anson is attempting to make against Ozmo's bleed. But Ozmo > adds stealth, so his block is no longer succeeding. So he tries to Deflect > the bleed, but the Deflection is canceled with Direct Intervention. So he > would like to continue his block attempt, but unfortunately you've told him > that he can't, because his window closed when he tried to change the target. > I guess he should have known better. Do, or do not, there is no try. You would want Deflection playable during a block attempt? For instance, when Ozmo doesn't add stealth, and Anson really wanted to bounce anyway? > This is why your ruling doesn't seem sensible to me. It seems illogical > that your vampire can be trying to block, fail to currently block, then try > to Deflect, have the Deflection canceled, and then be unable to resume > attempting to block. Since the target never actually changed (see That would be a second block attempt (by the same minion), not a block that was "current" when you tried to interject Deflection. [ quoted text not captured ]

Johannes Walch#

14 December 2006, 09:35

LSJ schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] And so does D.I cancel the Deflection before the blocking window is even closed. -- johannes walch

Azel#

14 December 2006, 10:04

fascinating, big caps bleeding with PRE get quite a nice boost from this. Approximation of Loyalty kicks this much more ass now. bleed, boost, approx the bounce to (likely) force through the bleed. neat! :)

Salem#

14 December 2006, 10:34

[ quoted text not captured ] technically, they're not getting a boost, as it always worked like that (since 99 for sure, but even before then, as the clarification/ruling should have just shown *everyone* how the game should have been being played all along). However, more players being aware of the way things were supposed to be working all along NOW mean the PRE big bleeders are likely to be more prevalent. I know that my big baali deck that i thought was a bit iffy i now feel slightly better about (but it still haemorrhages pool like a haemophiliac with epilepsy lying on a giant cheese grater). -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

Salem#

14 December 2006, 10:43

[ quoted text not captured ] it would if playing Deflection actually closed the window. but it doesn't. the player closes the window by declining to block, and then they are allowed to play deflection. it's just that if they skip the bit where they close the window and move straight on to playing deflection, then all players (and the game state) assume that they have closed the window prior to the play, else they couldn't have played the deflection in the first place.[0] I don't actually like the ruling, but it does hold up to scrutiny if the axiom, that you must close the blocking window before you can even attempt to open a new one elsewhere, holds. If this axiom did not hold, you'd be able to play Deflection during a block attempt. I'd like to unaxiate (I am sure that's a word. shut up), this one, and have a new axiom that allowed you to play deflection before or after block attempts, but not during. I don't know how you'd phrase it, technically (maybe in the way i just did, as a ruling?), but it would then align the rules to the way people actually play. [0] Parallel, as stated elsewhere, to ditching pool for a bleed without explicitly declining to block. It implies you have declined to block. [ quoted text not captured ]

Bram Vink#

14 December 2006, 10:49

LSJ schreef: > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > news:6dYfh.23093$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > >> Joshua Duffin wrote: > >>> It is at least as sensible (of course, I would say more sensible) that > >>> you may wish to *continue* your (currently failing) block attempt if you > >>> *attempt* to change the target of the bleed but fail to actually change > >>> the bleed's target. > >> What current block attempt? > > > > The one that Anson is attempting to make against Ozmo's bleed. But Ozmo > > adds stealth, so his block is no longer succeeding. So he tries to Deflect > > the bleed, but the Deflection is canceled with Direct Intervention. So he > > would like to continue his block attempt, but unfortunately you've told him > > that he can't, because his window closed when he tried to change the target. > > I guess he should have known better. Do, or do not, there is no try. > > You would want Deflection playable during a block attempt? No, he says he doesn't want Deflection to imply denial of blocking. > For instance, when Ozmo doesn't add stealth, and Anson really wanted to bounce > anyway? Which is covered by the fact that deflection (or other reactions without text to the contrary) is not playable in case of a successful block, and has little to do with blocking windows being closed. > > This is why your ruling doesn't seem sensible to me. It seems illogical > > that your vampire can be trying to block, fail to currently block, then try > > to Deflect, have the Deflection canceled, and then be unable to resume > > attempting to block. Since the target never actually changed (see > > That would be a second block attempt (by the same minion), not a block that was > "current" when you tried to interject Deflection. Correct, still it would be resuming to attempt to block, though. A block that's current cannot be interrupted (as you stated earlier) by cards that are not playable in the specific timing window of a successful block. > > Banishment vs Diamond Thunderbolt for a similar "change never occurred" > > situation), it seems only natural that the original (and only) target would > > still be able to try to block. Cheers, B

Bram Vink#

14 December 2006, 10:56

Salem schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] You are correct that this holds true because of this specific ruling. However, the wether this ruling is based on rational grounds is what's discussed. Personally I find the ruling to be counterintuitive and seemingly based on whim rather than neccessity, cardtext, or rulebook. Johannes seems to agree that the attempt of closing the blocking window without you blocking, doesn't neccessarily imply you denying to block further attempts if that closing would be insuccessful, aside from it being stated as so because of this specific ruling. > -- > salem > http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ > (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email) Cheers, B

LSJ#

14 December 2006, 13:50

Bram Vink wrote: > LSJ schreef: > >> Joshua Duffin wrote: >>> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>> news:6dYfh.23093$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >>>> Joshua Duffin wrote: >>>>> It is at least as sensible (of course, I would say more sensible) that >>>>> you may wish to *continue* your (currently failing) block attempt if you >>>>> *attempt* to change the target of the bleed but fail to actually change >>>>> the bleed's target. >>>> What current block attempt? >>> The one that Anson is attempting to make against Ozmo's bleed. But Ozmo >>> adds stealth, so his block is no longer succeeding. So he tries to Deflect >>> the bleed, but the Deflection is canceled with Direct Intervention. So he >>> would like to continue his block attempt, but unfortunately you've told him >>> that he can't, because his window closed when he tried to change the target. >>> I guess he should have known better. Do, or do not, there is no try. >> You would want Deflection playable during a block attempt? > > No, he says he doesn't want Deflection to imply denial of blocking. By way of using an example in which Deflection is played during a block attempt. As quoted above. >> For instance, when Ozmo doesn't add stealth, and Anson really wanted to bounce >> anyway? > > Which is covered by the fact that deflection (or other reactions > without text to the contrary) is not playable in case of a successful > block, and has little to do with blocking windows being closed. Which has just as much basis in rules and card text as the ruling that Deflection is not playable before blocks are declined. >>> This is why your ruling doesn't seem sensible to me. It seems illogical >>> that your vampire can be trying to block, fail to currently block, then try >>> to Deflect, have the Deflection canceled, and then be unable to resume >>> attempting to block. Since the target never actually changed (see >> That would be a second block attempt (by the same minion), not a block that was >> "current" when you tried to interject Deflection. > > Correct, still it would be resuming to attempt to block, though. "Resume" as in "start a new block attempt with a minion who had previously attempted to block" rather than "continue the block attempt". > A block that's current cannot be interrupted (as you stated earlier) by > cards that are not playable in the specific timing window of a > successful block. Similarly, a block window cannot be interrupted by cards that are not playable in the specific timing window of a block window. [ quoted text not captured ]

Bram Vink#

14 December 2006, 15:08

LSJ schreef: > Bram Vink wrote: > > LSJ schreef: > > > >> Joshua Duffin wrote: > >>> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > >>> news:6dYfh.23093$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > >>>> Joshua Duffin wrote: <snip duplicate> > >>> This is why your ruling doesn't seem sensible to me. It seems illogical > >>> that your vampire can be trying to block, fail to currently block, then try > >>> to Deflect, have the Deflection canceled, and then be unable to resume > >>> attempting to block. Since the target never actually changed (see > >> That would be a second block attempt (by the same minion), not a block that was > >> "current" when you tried to interject Deflection. > > > > Correct, still it would be resuming to attempt to block, though. > > "Resume" as in "start a new block attempt with a minion who had previously > attempted to block" rather than "continue the block attempt". True, exactly. That's how things are right now without this ruling. You fail to block, then can attempt to again if your deflection is canceled. > > A block that's current cannot be interrupted (as you stated earlier) by > > cards that are not playable in the specific timing window of a > > successful block. > > Similarly, a block window cannot be interrupted by cards that are not playable > in the specific timing window of a block window. It's much more sensible to just stick to: 1.6.1.5, 6.2.2, "Can't interrupt a successful block effect" and "Your block fails when you cannot block" (because, say, the target has changed) than this "you implicitly deny to block when you play deflection" argument. There are no reaction cards without specific timing text (barring deflection errata.) that are required to be played before or after the block window. I think it's a good idea to keep things that way without a good reason to change. "Attempting to remove your ability to block" is in no way the same as "Denying the possibility to block" which seems to be the whole basis of your argument in favor of this ruling, as any other parts of the game where you said this ruling is involved are already covered by the rulebook and an intuitive ruling instead. B

Jeroen#

14 December 2006, 16:08

Bram Vink schreef: > > I think it's a good idea to keep things that way without a good reason > to change. The ruling i quoted was from '99. 'keeping' and 'changing' are not the words you're looking for.... > > "Attempting to remove your ability to block" is in no way the same as > "Denying the possibility to block" which seems to be the whole basis of > your argument in favor of this ruling, as any other parts of the game > where you said this ruling is involved are already covered by the > rulebook and an intuitive ruling instead. That's not what he said. He said that: - you cannot play deflection during a blocking attempt. - ergo: it has to be before or after the blocking attempt. - because reaction cards have an instant effect when played and they close your time window for blocking, bounce cards have been clarified to be played after blocking attempts. - therefore playing a bounce card without attempting to block means that you fast forward the game state to 'after blocking attempts' The fact that DI has a strange effect on this, is not a reason to change the clarification... It is, however, another good reason to nerf DI. Something that should have happened years ago, IMO :-) (only usable on Action Cards, fr.ex)

Petri Wessman#

14 December 2006, 16:15

Jeroen wrote: > It is, however, another good reason to nerf DI. Something that should > have happened years ago, IMO :-) (only usable on Action Cards, fr.ex) All too true. DI is one of those cards that, in retrospect, should never have been introduced into the game in the first place. //Petri

Joshua Duffin#

14 December 2006, 16:21

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:ns2gh.5745$Gr2....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net... > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> The one that Anson is attempting to make against Ozmo's bleed. But Ozmo >> adds stealth, so his block is no longer succeeding. So he tries to >> Deflect the bleed, but the Deflection is canceled with Direct >> Intervention. So he would like to continue his block attempt, but >> unfortunately you've told him that he can't, because his window closed >> when he tried to change the target. I guess he should have known better. >> Do, or do not, there is no try. > > You would want Deflection playable during a block attempt? > > For instance, when Ozmo doesn't add stealth, and Anson really wanted to > bounce anyway? Of course not. This block attempt is currently failing. Sure, I could have said he would like to "renew" his block attempt, rather than "continue". >> This is why your ruling doesn't seem sensible to me. It seems illogical >> that your vampire can be trying to block, fail to currently block, then >> try to Deflect, have the Deflection canceled, and then be unable to >> resume attempting to block. Since the target never actually changed (see > > That would be a second block attempt (by the same minion), not a block > that was "current" when you tried to interject Deflection. True. It seems illogical that the initial blocker can't re-attempt to block ("If one attempt to block fails, another can be made as often as the blocking Methuselah wishes", 6.2.2.1 rulebook) after failing to change the target of the bleed. After all, the target never changed. The original blocking Methuselah is still the same blocking Methuselah. As far as I know, when a block attempt has been declared (is active) but is currently not succeeding (not enough intercept vs stealth), general-case effects are legal. It is possible to gain intercept at this point by playing a card of your own; it is possible for someone else to give intercept to you whether you want it or not (e.g. by London Evening Star); it is possible for you to reduce the bleed amount with Telepathic Counter; it is possible for you to attempt to change the target of the bleed with Deflection. In all of these cases except, according to you, the attempt to change the target of the bleed, it is obviously still legal to renew (or continue, take your pick) your would-be blocker's efforts to block after playing those other effects (even if the other effects have no benefit to the blocker's ability to block). I don't see any logical reason why Deflection should be so different and, even when canceled and *not* changing the target of the bleed, have the unexpected effect of still requiring an irreversible declination of blocking. Josh welcome to oz

LSJ#

14 December 2006, 16:29

[ quoted text not captured ] Nerfing or banning? If nerfing, how? Random examples: Once per game vs. action cards (incl. PA, Equipment, &c.) only vs. acting minion's cards only (which would not include Mask) Not usable if you have more DI's in ash heap than each other Meth

Jeroen#

14 December 2006, 16:45

LSJ schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] First one: don't like it. once per game for each meth, maybe. This way it has too big a chance component. I'd say the second option. Because it makes for less confusing situations. Di-ing an action is fairly straightforward (like Louhi's ability.) All confusion comes from Di-ing Action Modifiers and Reactions. And it wouldn't make DI completely unusable.

Frederick Scott#

14 December 2006, 16:47

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:ns2gh.5745$Gr2....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net... > You would want Deflection playable during a block attempt? > > For instance, when Ozmo doesn't add stealth, and Anson really wanted to bounce anyway? Why couldn't a bleed redirecter be playable only when the block is not currently succeeding? >> This is why your ruling doesn't seem sensible to me. It seems illogical that your vampire can be trying to block, fail to >> currently block, then try to Deflect, have the Deflection canceled, and then be unable to resume attempting to block. Since the >> target never actually changed (see > > That would be a second block attempt (by the same minion), Only because of the circular logic of insisting that a block attempt ends by use of a bleed redirecter. They can be thought of perfectly well as being the same block attempt. Fred

LSJ#

14 December 2006, 16:48

[ quoted text not captured ] What confusion from modifiers?

LSJ#

14 December 2006, 16:50

Frederick Scott wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:ns2gh.5745$Gr2....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net... >> You would want Deflection playable during a block attempt? >> >> For instance, when Ozmo doesn't add stealth, and Anson really wanted to bounce anyway? > > Why couldn't a bleed redirecter be playable only when the block is not > currently succeeding? For the same reason a bleed redirector couldn't be playable only when blocks have been declined. That is, no reason at all. >>> This is why your ruling doesn't seem sensible to me. It seems illogical that your vampire can be trying to block, fail to >>> currently block, then try to Deflect, have the Deflection canceled, and then be unable to resume attempting to block. Since the >>> target never actually changed (see >> That would be a second block attempt (by the same minion), > > Only because of the circular logic of insisting that a block attempt ends > by use of a bleed redirecter. Incorrect, as Josh noted. > They can be thought of perfectly well as > being the same block attempt. Perhaps, but moot.

Jeroen#

14 December 2006, 17:04

LSJ schreef: > What confusion from modifiers? How many times have you had to answer questions like: If i play conditioning and it gets DI'd, can I play threats If i play ["once per combat card] and it gets DI'd, can I play it again? If i play [action mod] and it gets DI'd, can I play it again? If i play [reaction] and it gets DI'd, can I play it again? Why I know that the answers are obvious when you read them, they keep on coming up. Hence the word 'confusion'. Even this very thread seems to indicate that a lot of experienced people have been playing wrong for 7 years. All because of 1 card....

LSJ#

14 December 2006, 17:27

Jeroen wrote: > LSJ schreef: > > >> What confusion from modifiers? > > How many times have you had to answer questions like: > > If i play conditioning and it gets DI'd, can I play threats > > If i play ["once per combat card] and it gets DI'd, can I play it > again? > > If i play [action mod] and it gets DI'd, can I play it again? > > If i play [reaction] and it gets DI'd, can I play it again? > > Why I know that the answers are obvious when you read them, they keep > on coming up. Hence the word 'confusion'. Ah. A confusion on what is "played". The "confusion" would still be there for, say, Ancient Influence. And for Pseudo-Blindness, Scry the Hearthstone, and Shape Mastery, for instance, though. So possibly better to have it on the more general-use DI, so that players will be exposed to it and will subsequently know how to handle the less common cases. > > Even this very thread seems to indicate that a lot of experienced > people have been playing wrong for 7 years. Well, some experienced players have also been playing the "pitch in a pool to draw out the modifier" wrong as well, apparently.

Bram Vink#

14 December 2006, 17:58

Jeroen schreef: > Bram Vink schreef: > > > > > > I think it's a good idea to keep things that way without a good reason > > to change. > > The ruling i quoted was from '99. 'keeping' and 'changing' are not the > words you're looking for.... > > > > > "Attempting to remove your ability to block" is in no way the same as > > "Denying the possibility to block" which seems to be the whole basis of > > your argument in favor of this ruling, as any other parts of the game > > where you said this ruling is involved are already covered by the > > rulebook and an intuitive ruling instead. > > That's not what he said. He said that: > - you cannot play deflection during a blocking attempt. > - ergo: it has to be *before or after* the blocking attempt. > - because reaction cards have an instant effect when played and they > close your time window for blocking, bounce cards have been clarified > to be played *after blocking* attempts. That's where this ruling/clarification is irrational and counterintuitive. > - therefore playing a bounce card without attempting to block means > that you fast forward the game state to 'after blocking attempts' If it would be after blocking, sure. It doesn't show on cardtext, nor in regular play. > The fact that DI has a strange effect on this, is not a reason to > change the clarification... > > It is, however, another good reason to nerf DI. Something that should > have happened years ago, IMO :-) (only usable on Action Cards, fr.ex) Cheers, B

Johannes Walch#

14 December 2006, 18:13

LSJ schrieb: >> All too true. DI is one of those cards that, in retrospect, should never >> have been introduced into the game in the first place. Like Kindred Spiris? Or KRC? Sudden Reversal? Or any card with cross-table potential? I think we should think of the fact that a multiplayer game is only fun if you can interact with all of the people. > Nerfing or banning? > If nerfing, how? > > Random examples: > Once per game > vs. action cards (incl. PA, Equipment, &c.) only > vs. acting minion's cards only (which would not include Mask) > Not usable if you have more DI's in ash heap than each other Meth I think it is a perfectly balanced card. It costs you a MPA, it costs a pool. It can be used for great effect but there are lots of situations where it just sits dead in your hand. There are plenty of other cards on the same power level. I cannot see a strong prevalance of D.Is in the TWD archive so I can´t really consider it broken. Any "fix" that limits it to certain type of cards would be absolutely arbitrary. Why actions? Why not reactions? Also I don´t like the theme of wallpapering a power-house card (remember , among others) that has just been reprinted to the delight of almost everybody. Some of us have spent monetary resources and time to acquire those D.Is, "I don´t like it" is not a good reason to make that investment a waste. Also true for banning of course. And I don´t like that the possible nerfing/banning is brought up in a completely different thread, so far down the tree that my newsreader doesn´t even display the complete subject. If you really consider it an option please bring it up as a top-level thread and give some time for discussion (assuming that it doesn´t need to be changed immediately). -- johannes walch

Joshua Duffin#

14 December 2006, 18:16

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:25egh.2391$yC5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Oh sure. Try to distract us from the Deflection ruling by bringing up something even more controversial. :-) I would prefer not to change anything. It's too late to go around changing cards just because the game would be slightly better if they had been printed differently (or not printed at all) in the first place. The benefit would have to be very large to justify making changes of this sort at this point. And as long as the larger problems (e.g. the existence of weenies, disciplined or non-, the existence of horde-breeders, etc.) exist in VTES, I don't see changing Direct Intervention as producing a very large relative benefit to the game. That said, I think banning would be preferable to altering the card (there are zillions of printed cards out there with the current text and it frustrates people every time a card-text is changed). Within card-alteration possibilities, I think "once per game per Methuselah" would be reasonable, but "play to cancel an action card as it is played" would probably be the most appropriately balanced version. Oh, and if you do happen to find yourself changing the card-text on DI, you ought to add another couple words and let it "cancel an action card or event card as it is played." Not To Be isn't good enough vs events, but Direct Intervention would be. Josh look, shiny!

tigernat1#

14 December 2006, 18:22

> >> For instance, when Ozmo doesn't add stealth, and Anson really wanted to bounce > >> anyway? > > > > Which is covered by the fact that deflection (or other reactions > > without text to the contrary) is not playable in case of a successful > > block, and has little to do with blocking windows being closed. > > Which has just as much basis in rules and card text as the ruling that > Deflection is not playable before blocks are declined. > Then instead of errata-ing Deflection to say it cannot be used until blocks are declined, why not add errata that says you cannot play Deflection during a currently succeeding block attempt? Would that solve this issue and allow the VTES world to continue playing bounce as we have since 1994? Vegas gNat

LSJ#

14 December 2006, 18:29

Johannes Walch wrote: > Any "fix" that limits it to certain type of cards would be absolutely > arbitrary. Why actions? Why not reactions? Um. Because it's an out-of-turn master, of course. > Also I don´t like the theme of wallpapering a power-house card (remember > , among others) that has just been reprinted to the delight of almost > everybody. Some of us have spent monetary resources and time to acquire > those D.Is, "I don´t like it" is not a good reason to make that > investment a waste. Also true for banning of course. Investment would also have been an argument against the reprinting that you seem to place in the plus column above. Investment is not a good reason to ignore balance. See also Return to Innocence, Freak Drive, Immortal Grapple, &c.

LSJ#

14 December 2006, 18:31

[ quoted text not captured ] How did you get your Deflection canceled in 1994?

tigernat1#

14 December 2006, 19:14

[ quoted text not captured ] Nowhere in my argument did I mention cancelling Deflection in 1994. I alluded to the fact that in 1994 and whenever Sabbat came out, I could attempt to block (or not) and play deflection knowing I never declined my block phase. I simply played a reaction card. But why are you not answering my REAL question? I am trying to present alternative solutions to the issue at hand and you are pointing out my lack of knowledge when it comes to expansion release years. And the issue at hand is deflection...not cancelling a card. Would my suggested errata work? Your main concern seems to be that (without errata) you could play Deflection while currently succeeding at a block attempt. So why, instead of adding textual changes reducing the timing window for deflection to only AFTER block declination), add textual changes to prevent the 1 thing you seem concerned with? My goal is to preserve the flexibility of the card, allowing it to be played both before block declination AND after block declination. Vegas gNat

Merlin#

14 December 2006, 19:25

[ quoted text not captured ] This seems to be the goal of a majority of posters in this thread. I'm not sure why Deflection "deserves" this versatility, however. I'm in favor of "nerfing" the bounce (so that Approximation of Loyalty, Terra Incognita, Soul Decoration, etc. become more playable, note that all of these have a limitation as to what they can cancel regarding discipline, sect, or capacity) AND dropping DI to actions only, myself. Merlin

gpett...@gmail.com#

14 December 2006, 19:37

On Dec 13, 2:08 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> The basis is: if you are attempting to close the window without blocking, > >> then it is true that you are declining to block in that > >> to-be-closed-without-you-blocking window. > > > But that's not the cause of your ruling, it's the outcome of your ruling. > > That fact is the basis of the original clarification Still not a fact. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

gpett...@gmail.com#

14 December 2006, 19:41

On Dec 14, 1:25 pm, "Merlin" <hallofhadesco...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > tigernat1 wrote: > > My goal is to preserve the flexibility of the card, allowing it to be > > played both before block declination AND after block declination. > > This seems to be the goal of a majority of posters in this thread. I'm > not sure why Deflection "deserves" this versatility, however. > > I'm in favor of "nerfing" the bounce (so that Approximation of Loyalty, > Terra Incognita, Soul Decoration, etc. become more playable, note that > all of these have a limitation as to what they can cancel regarding > discipline, sect, or capacity) AND dropping DI to actions only, myself. > > Merlin My goal is to preserve the idea that cancelling a card cancels all of its effects and to preserve the idea that the "No block" must be explicitly declared. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeroen#

14 December 2006, 19:56

Johannes Walch schreef: > LSJ schrieb: > >> All too true. DI is one of those cards that, in retrospect, should never > >> have been introduced into the game in the first place. > > Like Kindred Spiris? Or KRC? Sudden Reversal? Or any card with > cross-table potential? I think we should think of the fact that a > multiplayer game is only fun if you can interact with all of the people. > > > Nerfing or banning? > > If nerfing, how? > > > > Random examples: > > Once per game > > vs. action cards (incl. PA, Equipment, &c.) only > > vs. acting minion's cards only (which would not include Mask) > > Not usable if you have more DI's in ash heap than each other Meth > > I think it is a perfectly balanced card. It costs you a MPA, it costs a > pool. It can be used for great effect but there are lots of situations > where it just sits dead in your hand. There are plenty of other cards on > the same power level. I cannot see a strong prevalance of D.Is in the > TWD archive so I can´t really consider it broken. > > Any "fix" that limits it to certain type of cards would be absolutely > arbitrary. Why actions? Why not reactions? Because actions can be played again. The rest can't. > > Also I don´t like the theme of wallpapering a power-house card (remember > , among others) that has just been reprinted to the delight of almost > everybody. Some of us have spent monetary resources and time to acquire > those D.Is, "I don´t like it" is not a good reason to make that > investment a waste. Also true for banning of course. DI is an effect that doesn't really fit the game. Hasn't fitted since ages. Just because everyone got used to it being there doesn't make it alright. See also Govern the unaligned (imo) If money was an excuse not to ban/nerf anything you could never do that, because it is always the cards that are most sought after that might require the banning/nerfing. Your argument is: i spent a lot of money on DI, it's a power card, so I don't want it nerfed. Which card did you have in mind that is more powerful or at least as powerful as DI? > > And I don´t like that the possible nerfing/banning is brought up in a > completely different thread, so far down the tree that my newsreader > doesn´t even display the complete subject. If you really consider it an > option please bring it up as a top-level thread and give some time for > discussion (assuming that it doesn´t need to be changed immediately). When was the last time that a post on the newsgroup led to immediate banning of a card? It doesn't matter how far down the tree it is, LSJ will do what he pleases. I'm just stating my opinion. And, for the record, I've loathed DI since the first time I saw it. (Sabbat, iirc)

rdco...@gmail.com#

14 December 2006, 19:59

Merlin wrote: > This seems to be the goal of a majority of posters in this thread. I'm > not sure why Deflection "deserves" this versatility, however. It appears that the goal of almost ALL the posters in the thread (including LSJ) is actually to preserve the status quo. Its just that the fair majority of the posters in this thread hold a distinctly different view of what was the status quo from LSJ. (I've not noted anyone pipe up to say "I knew this all along, how come you lot didn't?", but they may have - I have only skim-read the posts that appear to degenerate too far into pedantry) As such, I suspect nobody feels that deflection "deserves" the versatility, but rather that the majority are working from a point of deflection currently HAVING that versatility and doesn't necessarily deserve to lose it, unless there's a reason for the ruling that goes somewhat beyond "the ruling exists because the ruling exists".

Merlin#

14 December 2006, 20:01

[ quoted text not captured ] Cancelling a Freak Drive cancels all of its effects, but another FD cannot be played according to "1-per" rule on A-Mods, so cancelling a card (and its effects) does not cancel the _play_ of the card. So the effect thing is moot. The issue at hand for you, then, is whether playing bounce = "no block." This is not an "effect" of playing bounce, it's just that playing bounce means you've skipped over the "no block" declaration (it's still there, but you didn't acknowledge it). Which mirrors the "flexibility" post by tigernat1. So your goals are the same. I guess i don't get the vehemence with which people are arguing for the flexibility of bounce in response to the cancelling of cards, when the cancelling of cards seems to be the real issue. Bounce isn't versatile enough as it is? The way i see it, this could lead to brave new world with bounce and DI, two of the most powerful reactive bullets in the arsenal, are worth just a wee bit less (not much in the case of bounce). That's a step in the right direction for the game imo. Take the soma. Take it. Merlin

Merlin#

14 December 2006, 20:15

rdcot...@gmail.com wrote: > Merlin wrote: > > This seems to be the goal of a majority of posters in this thread. I'm > > not sure why Deflection "deserves" this versatility, however. > > It appears that the goal of almost ALL the posters in the thread > (including LSJ) is actually to preserve the status quo. > > Its just that the fair majority of the posters in this thread hold a > distinctly different view of what was the status quo from LSJ. (I've > not noted anyone pipe up to say "I knew this all along, how come you > lot didn't?", but they may have - I have only skim-read the posts that > appear to degenerate too far into pedantry) > One of the Finnish posters, Petri, has had a handle on this all along, post #47 if they're sorted by date on google groups. > As such, I suspect nobody feels that deflection "deserves" the > versatility, but rather that the majority are working from a point of > deflection currently HAVING that versatility and doesn't necessarily > deserve to lose it, unless there's a reason for the ruling that goes > somewhat beyond "the ruling exists because the ruling exists". I think it deserves to lose it. I've got to go dust off my copies of DI so i can break it and get it banned, tho. Merlin

gpett...@gmail.com#

14 December 2006, 20:24

On Dec 14, 2:15 pm, "Merlin" <hallofhadesco...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > rdcot...@gmail.com wrote: > > It appears that the goal of almost ALL the posters in the thread > > (including LSJ) is actually to preserve the status quo. > > > Its just that the fair majority of the posters in this thread hold a > > distinctly different view of what was the status quo from LSJ. (I've > > not noted anyone pipe up to say "I knew this all along, how come you > > lot didn't?", but they may have > One of the Finnish posters, Petri, has had a handle on this all along, > post #47 if they're sorted by date on google groups. > Actually, I'm not 100% certain that he does. He says that he usually sees "Do you block?" asked, meaning that he's used to seeing "No Block" explicity declared, not implicitly as LSJ wants to see in this one AND ONLY ONE instance. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott#

14 December 2006, 22:38

"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1166122616.6...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > DI is an effect that doesn't really fit the game. Hasn't fitted since > ages. Huh?!? Could you defend that statement rather than just injecting it into the conversation without any basis? I think DI fits into the game just fine. Your satisfaction level with the card depends on how much you like it when someone's dastardly card combo gets broken up by well-timed DI but that's neither here nor there as far as whether it "fits the game". In fact, I'm not even sure what you could mean by a card "fitting the game" anyway. Direct Interventions are two and a half by four inches, just like all the other cards. They totally fit the game. Fred

ira...@gmail.com#

14 December 2006, 22:50

> > LSJ, if one ruling isn't inherently better than the other, but a lot > > players seem to prefer it a certain way, why not make the rules in > > accordance with player wishes? > > "A lot"? > Anyway, popular vote might be OK for choosing between two equal alternatives for > a ruling, but it is seldom the case that the alternatives are equal. OK, I have no way to support my claim of "a lot of players." I revise it to be, "An overwhelming majority of players who have replied to this thread." > > It seems like a reversal of the current > > ruling would actually cause no change in the way players have been > > playing, and enforcing the current ruling would be a change for most > > players. > > "Most"? OK, I have no way to support my claim of "most players" (though I believe it's true based on evidence included in this thread.) I revise it to be, "An overwhelming majority of players who have replied to this thread." It's not scientific, but I think feedback from players on this newsgroup is useful for helping you make more informed decisions. Given your interpretation of this thread, what do *you* believe most players prefer? How do you believe most players are currently playing this ruling? Please consider changing the ruling. The cost is minimal and the benefit is large. Ira

Joshua Duffin#

14 December 2006, 23:33

"Merlin" <hallofha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:1166120705....@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Well, for me, Deflection doesn't particularly deserve anything except a swift kick in the pants. But I very much prefer not to see any textual changes made to cards at all in these latter days. And I also prefer that we not have any unintuitive rulings, so that cards don't need more text explaining how they work. In a vacuum, I'd be fine with bounce being nerfed. Unfortunately it is not 1994 and we are not designing a new game from the ground up. (Though I wouldn't particularly mind if LSJ *did* design a new VTES from the ground up, using the Vampire: The Requiem background, for example, and printing a balanced card universe instead of the somewhat shambolic one we have... ;-) Josh has not too much trouble with obsolescence

Joshua Duffin#

14 December 2006, 23:44

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:2vjgh.12940$un3....@newsfe14.phx... > "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1166122616.6...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> DI is an effect that doesn't really fit the game. Hasn't fitted since >> ages. > > Huh?!? Could you defend that statement rather than just injecting it > into the conversation without any basis? He could, but it's so appropriately analogous to the way Direct Intervention just injects itself into a game without any basis. ;-) > I think DI fits into the game just fine. Your satisfaction level with > the card depends on how much you like it when someone's dastardly > card combo gets broken up by well-timed DI but that's neither here nor > there as far as whether it "fits the game". In fact, I'm not even > sure what you could mean by a card "fitting the game" anyway. Direct > Interventions are two and a half by four inches, just like all the other > cards. They totally fit the game. It doesn't fit the game in that it's a master card with no requirements that can cancel something like 80% of the cards in print, rather than a more-specialized minion card with narrower effects. For the most part VTES is built around minion cards and most of them have requirements to play. For the most part, it is not built around such broad general effects. That's what I assume Jeroen means when he says Direct Intervention doesn't really fit the game. It's a very out-of-character card design for the game of VTES. Josh see also: iron heart?

chr...@comcen.com.au#

15 December 2006, 00:07

LSJ wrote: > Petri Wessman wrote: > > Jeroen wrote: > > > >> It is, however, another good reason to nerf DI. Something that should > >> have happened years ago, IMO :-) (only usable on Action Cards, fr.ex) > > > > All too true. DI is one of those cards that, in retrospect, should never > > have been introduced into the game in the first place. > > Nerfing or banning? Banning, please. I agree with Petri that it doesn't belong in the game. I don't like the idea that minion cards can be cancelled by master cards. The success or otherwise of minion actions should be resolved by the interaction between minions and not be influenced by the direct intervention of the methusalehs. I realise there are a few other cards that would satisfy this criterion e.g. Left for Dead however DI is by far the stand-out as it can cancel any minion card whereas the others are very specific in their effect. I understand this is not a traditionally good reason for banning a card but i can't help but feel that something wrong has happened every time someone plays that damn card. Chris Never plays with DI and traded all of his away (except those that complete his collection)

chr...@comcen.com.au#

15 December 2006, 00:20

[snip] > > It doesn't fit the game in that it's a master card with no requirements that > can cancel something like 80% of the cards in print, rather than a > more-specialized minion card with narrower effects. For the most part VTES > is built around minion cards and most of them have requirements to play. > For the most part, it is not built around such broad general effects. > That's what I assume Jeroen means when he says Direct Intervention doesn't > really fit the game. It's a very out-of-character card design for the game > of VTES. Agreeing lurker. Chris.

rdco...@gmail.com#

15 December 2006, 00:38

chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > I don't like the idea that minion cards can be cancelled by master > cards. The success or otherwise of minion actions should be resolved by > the interaction between minions and not be influenced by the direct > intervention of the methusalehs. There's a little trilogy of masters that kind of go together in this aspect, for my money: Sudden Reversal Direct Intervention Personal Involvement Sudden reversal has the virtue of being a master card that cancels master cards (like for like), and when introduced (jyhad) was the sole defense against master cards being played. Personal Involvement kind of has the virtue of requirement and caveat, but in principle I think it was a poor design decision, for the "direct methuselah action" reason, I particularly dislike it in that it is such direct and transient offensive action from a master card. Direct Intervention lacks the like for like concept, lacks the "sole defense" requirement, and has nary a caveat nor requirement to reign it in. Its only vague step back from being utterly unreasonable is that its an out of turn master; meaning that its only "offensive" use is in cross-table meddling (though it would make a great tool for collusion...), which is somewhat scant virtue, IMO. To me its quite clear that the art for DI should really have been a nice bullet surrounded by little sparkles of magicalness, its flavour text: "better than penicillin, baby"

James Coupe#

15 December 2006, 00:27

In message <1166121707.8...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>, "gpett...@gmail.com" <gpett...@gmail.com> writes: >My goal is to preserve the idea that cancelling a card cancels all of >its effects and to preserve the idea that the "No block" must be >explicitly declared. It's never been the case that "No block" must be explicitly declared. As described in this thread, and many others, there are lots of ways of implicitly declining to block. If you're trying to hold on to that as an idea, it's a non-starter. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Joshua Duffin#

15 December 2006, 01:12

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1166121707.8...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>, > "gpett...@gmail.com" <gpett...@gmail.com> writes: >>My goal is to preserve the idea that cancelling a card cancels all of >>its effects and to preserve the idea that the "No block" must be >>explicitly declared. > > It's never been the case that "No block" must be explicitly declared. > As described in this thread, and many others, there are lots of ways of > implicitly declining to block. > > If you're trying to hold on to that as an idea, it's a non-starter. Uh... if you're referring to "tossing a pool into the blood bank" and things of that ilk, those are not legal ways of implicitly declining to block. They are incorrect plays and are solved by correcting them, not by simply accepting that implicit declination of blocking as being proper to the game. Unless there are other implicit declinations to block that you haven't specified which *are* proper to the game? Josh

XZealot#

15 December 2006, 02:34

LSJ wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > Petri Wessman wrote: > >> LSJ wrote: > >> > >>> Similarly, at a tournament game at Gen*Con this year, a player pitched in > >>> a pool for a bleed (an implicit declaration of "no block", just as > >>> Deflection has been ruled to include an implicit declaration of "no > >>> block"). > >>> > >>> The acting minion played a bleed modifier to increase the amount of the > >>> bleed. > >>> > >>> The blocking player said "but I didn't explicitly say 'I don't block'". > >> Ok, just to be clear: the above was ruled to be "pitching in a pool means > >> you didn't block, even though you didn't explicitly declare it", right? > >> > >> So the following all would be ruled as "declarations of not blocking": > >> > >> 1) implicit "no block" (or some such) from player > >> 2) playing a card that would retarget the bleed > >> 3) paying pool for the bleed > >> > >> If yes, this should maybe be clarified in a web-available clear ruling > >> somewhere, since it's quite obvious that player groups play this in quite a > >> variety of ways -- which can bite you when you're playing in a tournament, > >> or running one. > > > > I have to agree with you on that one. Our playgroup plays that the > > blocking player reserves the right to block unless he has specifically > > stated "I don't block" (so pitching a pool is retrieved if the acting > > minion then modifies his bleed). > > You cannot pitch a pool for the bleed until resolution. > > So you should either stop violating the rules by pitching it early or accept the > relatively obvious implication of the pitch. Again you haven't addressed the point of implied resolution. Reprinted from Presence.vekn.org You make an assumption that the pitching of a pool implicitly leads to a decline to block. You then have specifically constructed a contrived scenario to encompass only that which proves your point. The reality of the situation is that action modifiers may be played before block attempts are made. You conveniently left that out of your scenario above. For example, you have specifically ruled that a player may play a Conditioning on an action before the defender, who just so happens to have a Blessings of Chaos which would prevent the acting player from being able to do so, may declare a block. So in your own rulings you have stated that action modifiers that modify the amount of the bleed can be played before block attempts are declared. So it is, in fact, more complicated than the scenario you laid down is. A) action is announced B) Action modifiers are played C) Reactions are played D) Block attempts are declared E) Action Modifiers are played F) Reactions are played G) Combat ensues from a successful block. H) If blocking minion fails, then other block attempts are solicited. I) Barring another minion successfully blocking 1) You decline to block 2) All other non-acting Meths (cw) decline to block 3) The acting Methuselah declines to play modifiers 4) You decline to play reactions 5) All other non-acting Meths (cw) decline to play reactions 6) You pitch a pool into the bank Now what constitutes resolution of the action? It is in fact an agreement between players that the action is resolved and no other effects are in play. This is why ruling that pitching a pool is an automatic block decline is anti-thetical to the basic nature of VTES. Pitching a pool is fundamental to the aquiecence that the action is resolved. When the acting player plays an action modifier it fundamentally represents a disagreement between the players that the action is not resolved. This would then reset the chain of interaction to a point agreed upon by the players involved. The most fair point to reset it is to point B not to point 3. As players can agree that everything that follows point B has not been resolved. _________________ Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Frederick Scott#

15 December 2006, 03:02

"Joshua Duffin" <joshdu...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message news:4ue2fqF...@mid.individual.net... > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:2vjgh.12940$un3....@newsfe14.phx... >> I think DI fits into the game just fine. Your satisfaction level with >> the card depends on how much you like it when someone's dastardly >> card combo gets broken up by well-timed DI but that's neither here nor >> there as far as whether it "fits the game". In fact, I'm not even >> sure what you could mean by a card "fitting the game" anyway. Direct >> Interventions are two and a half by four inches, just like all the other >> cards. They totally fit the game. > > It doesn't fit the game in that it's a master card with no requirements that > can cancel something like 80% of the cards in print, rather than a > more-specialized minion card with narrower effects. For the most part VTES > is built around minion cards and most of them have requirements to play. "For the most part" != "all the time". There are other master cards which are uncharacteristically broad. Ascendance is a no-requirements card that just hands you a pool, for instance, without regard to whether you have any vampires or any permanents at all. Sudden Reversal is a very comparable no-requirements master card which cancels master cards and Not To Be is a no-requirements master card which cancels event cards, and so forth. The 80% thing is interesting, I suppose, but ultimately not an argument by itself. > For the most part, it is not built around such broad general effects. I don't think you can make such a broad, general statement. Taste, of course, is reasonable enough argument for liking or not liking a given card - as far as it goes. But uniqueness of a particular game component is not. Any card game which has one and only one wild card (e.g. some Hoyle deck card game in which only the jokers are wild) is a counterexample to such logic. Chess has one and only one king, a piece that must always be defended at peril of game loss as opposed to all the other pieces which may be readily sacrificed. And it works quite well, I'm told. > That's what I assume Jeroen means when he says Direct Intervention doesn't > really fit the game. It's a very out-of-character card design for the game > of VTES. It's somewhat out of character, I'll grant you. But that by itself doesn't make it bad. The assertion needs more justification behind it for a reader to decide whether he can agree with it or not. Otherwise it has to be judged baseless. Fred

Frederick Scott#

15 December 2006, 03:02

<chr...@comcen.com.au> wrote in message news:1166138425.9...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] So noted. :-)

Kevin M.#

15 December 2006, 03:42

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Petri Wessman wrote: >> Jeroen wrote: >>> It is, however, another good reason to nerf DI. Something that >>> should have happened years ago, IMO :-) (only usable on Action >>> Cards, fr.ex) >> >> All too true. DI is one of those cards that, in retrospect, should >> never have been introduced into the game in the first place. > > Nerfing or banning? > If nerfing, how? PLEASE let's not start a discussion on how to 'fix' or 'ban' a card that isn't a threat to the current game state or tournament scene. If we are not going to change/ban PTO -- which I am in favor of, as it doesn't rise to the level of needing to be changed/banned -- then we certainly shouldn't do anything to Direct Intervention. 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

Kushiel#

15 December 2006, 05:43

rdco...@gmail.com wrote: > Sudden reversal has the virtue of being a master card that cancels > master cards (like for like), and when introduced (jyhad) was the sole > defense against master cards being played. And it's still the only way to stop many, many master cards in the game. As much as I've heard it described as a magic bullet, it still seems like a reasonable magic bullet to me. > Personal Involvement kind of has the virtue of requirement and caveat, > but in principle I think it was a poor design decision, for the "direct > methuselah action" reason, I particularly dislike it in that it is such > direct and transient offensive action from a master card. I've never really considered this before, though it seems to be true. Having never seen one played, I'm not sure that it really counts as offensive in practice, though I can see the objection to it in theory. > Direct Intervention lacks the like for like concept, lacks the "sole > defense" requirement, and has nary a caveat nor requirement to reign it > in. Its only vague step back from being utterly unreasonable is that > its an out of turn master; meaning that its only "offensive" use is in > cross-table meddling (though it would make a great tool for > collusion...), which is somewhat scant virtue, IMO. Totally agreed.

librarian#

15 December 2006, 06:39

Kevin M. wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Petri Wessman wrote: > >> Jeroen wrote: > >>> It is, however, another good reason to nerf DI. Something that > >>> should have happened years ago, IMO :-) (only usable on Action > >>> Cards, fr.ex) > >> > >> All too true. DI is one of those cards that, in retrospect, should > >> never have been introduced into the game in the first place. > > > > Nerfing or banning? > > If nerfing, how? > > PLEASE let's not start a discussion on how to 'fix' or 'ban' a card that > isn't a threat to the current game state or tournament scene. > > If we are not going to change/ban PTO -- which I am in favor of, as it > doesn't rise to the level of needing to be changed/banned -- then we > certainly shouldn't do anything to Direct Intervention. > Agreeing non-lurker. (except the part about PTO - I don't think it should be banned, unless that is what you meant, then we agree entirely). best - chris

Petri Wessman#

15 December 2006, 10:03

Merlin wrote: > One of the Finnish posters, Petri, has had a handle on this all along, > post #47 if they're sorted by date on google groups. Well, almost but not quite. We haven't explicitly been playing by any "playing a bleed bounce closes your block window" idea, so if someone had cancelled a bounce card we probably would have ruled that he would still be able to block, *if* he had not declared "no block" before. But that would be very rare, since pretty much everyone first asks for "block or no" before game continues, and it's rare to see a bleed bounce played before this. So this change/clairification changes very little in the way we play over here, in practice. //Petri

James Coupe#

15 December 2006, 10:14

In message <4ue7jkF...@mid.individual.net>, Joshua Duffin <joshduff...@SPAM.gmail.com> writes: >Uh... if you're referring to "tossing a pool into the blood bank" and >things of that ilk, those are not legal ways of implicitly declining to >block. They are incorrect plays and are solved by correcting them, not >by simply accepting that implicit declination of blocking as being >proper to the game. LSJ has explicitly pointed out that such can be a legitimate communication of "no block", in this thread. <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/99cefd 050208031f> [ quoted text not captured ]

rdco...@gmail.com#

15 December 2006, 13:41

Kushiel wrote: > > Personal Involvement kind of has the virtue of requirement and caveat, > > but in principle I think it was a poor design decision, for the "direct > > methuselah action" reason, I particularly dislike it in that it is such > > direct and transient offensive action from a master card. > > I've never really considered this before, though it seems to be true. > Having never seen one played, I'm not sure that it really counts as > offensive in practice, though I can see the objection to it in theory. I meant offensive as in "used for attack", rather than "causes offense" there - since it strips pool from your prey, it is clearly offensive in any case where it is played. A large part of the reason it doesn't noticeably cause offense to players is that its crap.

Cooper#

15 December 2006, 13:50

LSJ schreef: > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > news:wNEfh.27546$qO4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net... > >> ira...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >>> I'll add my voice to the cacophony as someone who thought that you > >>> could Deflect, get DI'd, and still attempt to block (assuming you > >>> didn't explicitly declare "I don't block.") > >>> > >>> LSJ, if one ruling isn't inherently better than the other, but a lot > >>> players seem to prefer it a certain way, why not make the rules in > >>> accordance with player wishes? > >> "A lot"? > >> > >> Anyway, popular vote might be OK for choosing between two equal > >> alternatives for a ruling, but it is seldom the case that the alternatives > >> are equal. > > > > I find only one other person in this thread (Dorrinal) who thinks that this > > ruling makes sense (and even he noted that he found it "damned > > counter-intuitive"). I count fifteen people who've posted to this thread > > with the opinion that the ruling you've described is the worse of the two > > alternatives. > > > > I think the relative prevalence of these considered opinions gives some > > credence to the notion that the other alternative is the more logical of the > > two. Indeed, much more so than a mere vote (without reasoning attached). > > Considered opinions, all, were they? > OK. > > That still doesn't address the issue of agreers being prone to lurking. > > Nor does it address the idea that 15 is not "a lot" in the scheme of VTES players. Lurking and not agreeing here, W

Jeroen#

15 December 2006, 13:54

Frederick Scott schreef: > "Joshua Duffin" <joshdu...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message > news:4ue2fqF...@mid.individual.net... > > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > > news:2vjgh.12940$un3....@newsfe14.phx... > >> I think DI fits into the game just fine. Your satisfaction level with > >> the card depends on how much you like it when someone's dastardly > >> card combo gets broken up by well-timed DI but that's neither here nor > >> there as far as whether it "fits the game". In fact, I'm not even > >> sure what you could mean by a card "fitting the game" anyway. Direct > >> Interventions are two and a half by four inches, just like all the other > >> cards. They totally fit the game. Well, i don't feel DI fits the game: mechanically nor thematically. > > > > It doesn't fit the game in that it's a master card with no requirements that > > can cancel something like 80% of the cards in print, rather than a > > more-specialized minion card with narrower effects. For the most part VTES > > is built around minion cards and most of them have requirements to play. what he said. > > "For the most part" != "all the time". There are other master cards which are > uncharacteristically broad. Ascendance is a no-requirements card that just > hands you a pool, for instance, without regard to whether you have any vampires > or any permanents at all. 1 pool vs stop someone's uber combo? you seriously mean that is a valid comparison? >Sudden Reversal is a very comparable no-requirements > master card which cancels master cards and Not To Be is a no-requirements > master card which cancels event cards, and so forth. The 80% thing is > interesting, I suppose, but ultimately not an argument by itself. not *interesting* It the heart of the matter. SR is obviously balanced: play a master to cancel a master. And most (all except for turbo Arika) decks have master cards in them. Not To Be is, IMO underpowered: While the trade-off (MPA for DPA) seems nice, not everybody plays with Events. DI cancels every other card in existence for 1 pool and an MPA, how is that balanced? It's always playable, mostly to good effect. You see: no requirements, can mean different things: somebody else playing a certain card is a requirement. > > > For the most part, it is not built around such broad general effects. > > I don't think you can make such a broad, general statement. Yes, we can. Because the whole set-up that V:TES 'better' than magic is the absence of power-rares. All other -above the curve- cards have been nerved (most of them were reduced to wallpaper, which was not ideal), why not DI. It has always been an above the curve card, it's not one that became above the curve because the rest was wallpapered or banned. >Taste, of course, > is reasonable enough argument for liking or not liking a given card - as far > as it goes. But uniqueness of a particular game component is not. Any > card game which has one and only one wild card (e.g. some Hoyle deck card game > in which only the jokers are wild) is a counterexample to such logic. Chess > has one and only one king, a piece that must always be defended at peril of > game loss as opposed to all the other pieces which may be readily sacrificed. > And it works quite well, I'm told. This logic doesn't work in a CCG. Because cards need to be balanced. In a luck-based game that doesn't really matter. It's poor design. > > > That's what I assume Jeroen means when he says Direct Intervention doesn't > > really fit the game. It's a very out-of-character card design for the game > > of VTES. > > It's somewhat out of character, I'll grant you. But that by itself doesn't > make it bad. Not only out of character (and not somewhat, it's completely out-of-character for this game) it's unbalanced and overpowered. It's like the joker card you mentioned above. That has no place in a CCG. >The assertion needs more justification behind it for a reader > to decide whether he can agree with it or not. Otherwise it has to be judged > baseless. I've done it multiple times in the past. Please note that I don't like text changes myself, I am not a big fan of changing cards. But this one has been bugging me for ages.

LSJ#

15 December 2006, 14:06

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > OK, I have no way to support my claim of "most players" (though I > believe it's true based on evidence included in this thread.) I revise > it to be, "An overwhelming majority of players who have replied to this > thread." > > It's not scientific, but I think feedback from players on this > newsgroup is useful for helping you make more informed decisions. Of course. Feedback from players (in any forum) is invaluable. > Given your interpretation of this thread, what do *you* believe most > players prefer? How do you believe most players are currently playing > this ruling? Well, I don't spend many cycles on analyzing ratios like that. It is the substance of the feedback that I find useful. > Please consider changing the ruling. The cost is minimal and the > benefit is large. Everything is open for such consideration, in the broad sense, depending (in the fine sense) on substance.

LSJ#

Kushiel#

15 December 2006, 19:12

rdco...@gmail.com wrote: > I meant offensive as in "used for attack", rather than "causes offense" > there - since it strips pool from your prey, it is clearly offensive in > any case where it is played. Yep, I got that. It doesn't seem to be "usable for attack" to me, since it'll likely just get canceled (and is a really crappy offense even if it doesn't). > A large part of the reason it doesn't > noticeably cause offense to players is that its crap. Right. :) John Eno

Joshua Duffin#

15 December 2006, 19:21

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:Roo7gyhp...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <4ue7jkF...@mid.individual.net>, Joshua Duffin > <joshduff...@SPAM.gmail.com> writes: >>Uh... if you're referring to "tossing a pool into the blood bank" and >>things of that ilk, those are not legal ways of implicitly declining to >>block. They are incorrect plays and are solved by correcting them, not >>by simply accepting that implicit declination of blocking as being >>proper to the game. > > LSJ has explicitly pointed out that such can be a legitimate > communication of "no block", in this thread. > > <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/99cefd050208031f> In that post, Scott describes the *intent* to communicate the decision to not block. When the intent is not there, it is far from clear that the defending Methuselah has declined to block. Thus the disagreements that arise in such circumstances. See also Norm Brown's recent posts on the topic. I don't know if Scott really intends to endorse vagueness here. I guess he seems to feel that in the game of VTES, as long as people know what's going on, everything is fine. "The player must announce everything that needs to be announced. What exactly needs to be announced is primarily a function of the environment --- the players. If one of the players doesn't realize that Lucita's ability affects younger vampire's intercept, then that ability needs to be announced. If someone doesn't know that Faceless Night will leave them tapped if they fail to block, then that fact needs to be announced. When in doubt, announce. If there's an oversight, rewind and/or correct as appropriate. " groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/50e4464dfe330ee0 Josh

Joshua Duffin#

15 December 2006, 19:31

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:ucxgh.10$x6...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Those are ways of skipping lots of steps in the interest of saving time. They are rarely done in tournaments, in my experience, precisely because they skip important steps. Even if what's meant is understood by both parties, in tournament play it's generally considered important to stick to playing by the actual formal rules of the game. As you may have also observed in numerous tournaments, it is quite common for disagreement to arise about whether someone has implicitly declined to block or not when they haven't explicitly said one way or the other. To me this suggests that it's not a step that can be legitimately skipped. I mean, if you can legally ignore the steps defined in the rules of the game, are those really the rules of the game...? Josh maybe you should write the real rules of the game when you get a chance :-)

LSJ#

15 December 2006, 19:31

[ quoted text not captured ] That post addresses the issue nicely, and points out that pitching in a pool is a legal way of implicitly declining to block, yes.

Joshua Duffin#

15 December 2006, 19:37

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166192415....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Oh, it's not that I don't see the problem with Direct Intervention. (Though it's true that I don't have that many experiences with sitting in games containing as many as 8 to 20 copies of the card.) I just think it's still less of a problem in the world of VTES than the weenie problem. Possibly also less than the Event problem. Possibly also less than the Imbued problem. Beyond those, it's definitely one of the problems - but (a) I don't like changing card-texts and (b) if we're not going to fix the bigger problems in the game environment, I'd rather not start with the smaller problems. Josh banning would be pretty much fine with me though

LSJ#

15 December 2006, 19:40

Joshua Duffin wrote: > As you may have also observed in numerous tournaments, it is quite common > for disagreement to arise about whether someone has implicitly declined to > block or not when they haven't explicitly said one way or the other. To me > this suggests that it's not a step that can be legitimately skipped. I have indeed observed many tournaments. Those disagreements are uncommon. Even rare. It is in fact common for the implicit declination to be given and understood. > I mean, if you can legally ignore the steps defined in the rules of the > game, are those really the rules of the game...? Non sequitur. No one said anything about ignoring the steps. > Josh > > maybe you should write the real rules of the game when you get a chance :-) ? I have.

bluedevil#

15 December 2006, 20:04

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Oh, it's not that I don't see the problem with Direct Intervention. (Though > it's true that I don't have that many experiences with sitting in games > containing as many as 8 to 20 copies of the card.) I just think it's still > less of a problem in the world of VTES than the weenie problem. Possibly > also less than the Event problem. Possibly also less than the Imbued > problem. Beyond those, it's definitely one of the problems - but (a) I > don't like changing card-texts and (b) if we're not going to fix the bigger > problems in the game environment, I'd rather not start with the smaller > problems. It's not #1 on my list either, but some problems are tractible and others aren't. It may be that DI fits in the former category while lots of printed vampires and/or the influence rules sit in the latter. P.S. I'm about due to dust off the "DC Ravnos deck" and make a road-trip up your way. Keep me posted! -- David Cherryholmes

Kevin M.#

15 December 2006, 20:07

Daniel al-Autistiqui <gove...@hotmail.invalid> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>I realize that D.I. is somewhat different, in that it DISallows you to >>play the game to a very minor extent (and you have to agree, it *is* >>to a very minor extent), but I just don't see it as an issue, just as >>I don't see PTO as an issue (outside of the very rare circumstance >>where it totally obliterates your game). > > Why did you say "rare"? Because in the thousands of games I have played, I have gotten screwed by PTO only a few times and D.I. even less than that. Neither are an issue, even with this impending Deflection debate/change. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin#

15 December 2006, 20:17

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:o%Bgh.29$x67...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net... > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> As you may have also observed in numerous tournaments, it is quite common >> for disagreement to arise about whether someone has implicitly declined >> to block or not when they haven't explicitly said one way or the other. >> To me this suggests that it's not a step that can be legitimately >> skipped. > > I have indeed observed many tournaments. Those disagreements are uncommon. > Even rare. > It is in fact common for the implicit declination to be given and > understood. It sounds like we're thinking of different levels of rarity and commonness here. By "common" I mean that, in many tournaments, it comes up at least once. (I can think of one example just from the three games I played - out of over sixty that were played - in Day One of the European Championships this year.) Perhaps by "rare" you mean that, most of the times that implicitly declining to block is done in a game, there is no problem with it? If it comes up on a regular basis in tournaments, I would say it's a common occurrence. Something that people see happen frequently (in time, rather than compared to the number of opportunities for it to occur). >> I mean, if you can legally ignore the steps defined in the rules of the >> game, are those really the rules of the game...? > > Non sequitur. No one said anything about ignoring the steps. Um. Yes they did. That's exactly what we're talking about. Remember your current discussion with Norm Brown? You know, the one where he said that pitching a pool meant a bunch of steps had been skipped, and you said that yes they had, but that the pitcher of pool only controlled skipping the steps through "declining to block"? That is ignoring the defined steps of the game. >> maybe you should write the real rules of the game when you get a chance >> :-) > > ? > I have. Maybe you've written them down in your head... :-) The available compilations of rules of the game certainly don't include descriptions of what methods of implying things are legal and how to handle them. The tournament rules don't have details on this either. The tournament rules say, in general, for the judge to use judgment - which is fine, but if you're saying that some "unstated decisions" are actually tournament-legal, that wouldn't be a matter for the judge to use judgment on, right? I'm pretty sure that the rules of Magic tournaments don't leave much of anything "implicit", for example. It's fine for players to assume they're on the same page with each other in casual play, but in tournaments, well, you know, formal play needs formally defined rules. Josh no coat, no tie, no tournament

LSJ#

15 December 2006, 20:23

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:o%Bgh.29$x67...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net... >> Joshua Duffin wrote: >>> As you may have also observed in numerous tournaments, it is quite common >>> for disagreement to arise about whether someone has implicitly declined >>> to block or not when they haven't explicitly said one way or the other. >>> To me this suggests that it's not a step that can be legitimately >>> skipped. >> I have indeed observed many tournaments. Those disagreements are uncommon. >> Even rare. >> It is in fact common for the implicit declination to be given and >> understood. > > It sounds like we're thinking of different levels of rarity and commonness > here. By "common" I mean that, in many tournaments, it comes up at least > once. (I can think of one example just from the three games I played - out > of over sixty that were played - in Day One of the European Championships > this year.) Perhaps by "rare" you mean that, most of the times that > implicitly declining to block is done in a game, there is no problem with > it? Of course. Just like other procedural problems. Not a problem at all, and certainly much better than the alternative. > If it comes up on a regular basis in tournaments, I would say it's a common > occurrence. Something that people see happen frequently (in time, rather > than compared to the number of opportunities for it to occur). > >>> I mean, if you can legally ignore the steps defined in the rules of the >>> game, are those really the rules of the game...? >> Non sequitur. No one said anything about ignoring the steps. > > Um. Yes they did. That's exactly what we're talking about. Remember your > current discussion with Norm Brown? You know, the one where he said that > pitching a pool meant a bunch of steps had been skipped, and you said that > yes they had, but that the pitcher of pool only controlled skipping the > steps through "declining to block"? That is ignoring the defined steps of > the game. No. The steps aren't skipped, unless you're using "skip" in a different context to mean a different thing, like implicit (as in that thread). But never skipped. See that thread.

LSJ#

15 December 2006, 20:29

[ quoted text not captured ] "Never skipped meaning ignored as in 'ignore the steps defined in the rules'", that is. (For those with faulty context-holders.) > > See that thread.

Joshua Duffin#

15 December 2006, 20:35

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:smngh.24416$B42....@newsfe12.phx... > "Joshua Duffin" <joshdu...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message > news:4ue2fqF...@mid.individual.net... >> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message >> news:2vjgh.12940$un3....@newsfe14.phx... >>> I think DI fits into the game just fine. Your satisfaction level with >>> the card depends on how much you like it when someone's dastardly >>> card combo gets broken up by well-timed DI but that's neither here nor >>> there as far as whether it "fits the game". In fact, I'm not even >>> sure what you could mean by a card "fitting the game" anyway. Direct >>> Interventions are two and a half by four inches, just like all the other >>> cards. They totally fit the game. >> >> It doesn't fit the game in that it's a master card with no requirements >> that >> can cancel something like 80% of the cards in print, rather than a >> more-specialized minion card with narrower effects. For the most part >> VTES >> is built around minion cards and most of them have requirements to play. > > "For the most part" != "all the time". Well of course! > There are other master cards which are > uncharacteristically broad. Ascendance is a no-requirements card that > just > hands you a pool, for instance, without regard to whether you have any > vampires > or any permanents at all. Sudden Reversal is a very comparable > no-requirements > master card which cancels master cards and Not To Be is a no-requirements > master card which cancels event cards, and so forth. The 80% thing is > interesting, I suppose, but ultimately not an argument by itself. Your comparisons don't exemplify the same kind of broadness. Being playable all the time without requirements (Ascendance) is not the same as "affecting a vast swath of other cards" (Direct Intervention). Nor is "being playable against a smaller set of cards" (Sudden Reversal, Not To Be) the same as "being playable against the largest set of cards in the game". As Jeroen pointed out, the fact that DI is usable against 74.3% of the game's printed library cards is exactly the point. There are 30 Event cards, 3 Convictions, and 406 masters, versus 1269 different minion cards in my ARDB file. And the usual deckbuilding rules of thumb put no more than 20% master cards into any given VTES deck (often less). The fact that Direct Intervention is able to cancel *any* of those is a very large window of applicability. Far more than other cards that can cancel much smaller subsets of the cardpool - e.g. Iron Heart, which is only able to cancel 27 different Presence or Dominate cards. >> For the most part, it is not built around such broad general effects. > > I don't think you can make such a broad, general statement. heh! I think I can! Are there a lot of other similarly broad and general effects you can use in VTES? Not that I can see. > Taste, of course, > is reasonable enough argument for liking or not liking a given card - as > far > as it goes. But uniqueness of a particular game component is not. Any > card game which has one and only one wild card (e.g. some Hoyle deck card > game > in which only the jokers are wild) is a counterexample to such logic. > Chess > has one and only one king, a piece that must always be defended at peril > of > game loss as opposed to all the other pieces which may be readily > sacrificed. > And it works quite well, I'm told. The game of VTES was built without Direct Intervention; DI was added later, in the Sabbat expansion. If you look at the game as a whole, and the evolution of the game over time, I think it's clear that the game was not built on broad, general effects, but on small, narrow effects. It's the adding up of many such small and narrow effects that normally accomplishes things in VTES. That's why Direct Intervention is outside the normal paradigm. I agree that the fact there's only one card named Direct Intervention isn't the point - its *effect* is the point. >> That's what I assume Jeroen means when he says Direct Intervention >> doesn't >> really fit the game. It's a very out-of-character card design for the >> game >> of VTES. > > It's somewhat out of character, I'll grant you. But that by itself > doesn't > make it bad. The assertion needs more justification behind it for a > reader > to decide whether he can agree with it or not. Otherwise it has to be > judged > baseless. Uh... the justification was right there. Out of character -> doesn't really fit the game. That is, an out of character card design isn't in-character with the game as a whole, which is pretty much what it means to "not really fit the game". That doesn't necessarily mean it's *bad*, no, but I wasn't necessarily describing it as *bad*. I was describing it as being out of character for the game. Hopefully that clarifies what I'm trying to say a little? This turned into a kind of rambly post as I wrote it... :-) Josh minion card of darkness

James Coupe#

15 December 2006, 20:43

In message <Kqxgh.14$x67...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >The players making the suggestion would therefore, one could reason, >find that DI is a threat. > >(Of course, my inquiring as to the details of their suggestion should >not be inferred to be an agreement with that conclusion -- more of the >"seeking input" bit). Actually, Direct Intervention is one of those awkward cards that a lot of players have asked to have banned over time for a lot of reasons *other than* being a threat to the tournament scene. I would posit that pretty much everyone who asked for Return to Innocence to be (radically) altered or banned was asking for it to be banned because of the state of the tournament scene at the time. I imagine that many of the substantial changes in the 7/7 would have similar support, from those asking to ban/change/alter it - for example, Thoughts Betrayed killing combat decks dead. Direct Intervention has a long, long history of people wanting it banned because they think it's wrong for the game, rather than unbalanced or broken. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe#

15 December 2006, 20:29

In message <4ug81mF...@mid.individual.net>, Joshua Duffin <joshdu...@SPAM.gmail.com> writes: >Those are ways of skipping lots of steps in the interest of saving time. >They are rarely done in tournaments, in my experience, precisely because >they skip important steps. I've seen this sort of thing skipped many times. One good example would be if you're bleeding LSJ and he bounces it to me (your grand-prey, 5 player table). I ask "Hands for one?" after I've blocked, assuming you want to keep it civil - there's no particular reason for you to beat me up, though you might want to cycle cards. It's quite common, IME, for the player in your position to respond "Hands for one" and implicitly handle every step in the whole combat, with no confusion. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ#

15 December 2006, 21:02

James Coupe wrote: > In message <Kqxgh.14$x67...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ > <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >> The players making the suggestion would therefore, one could reason, >> find that DI is a threat. >> >> (Of course, my inquiring as to the details of their suggestion should >> not be inferred to be an agreement with that conclusion -- more of the >> "seeking input" bit). > > Actually, Direct Intervention is one of those awkward cards that a lot > of players have asked to have banned over time for a lot of reasons > *other than* being a threat to the tournament scene. And remember, the threat context was not just "tournament scene". Quote: "threat to the current game state or tournament scene".

ira...@gmail.com#

15 December 2006, 21:17

LSJ wrote: > ira...@gmail.com wrote: > > Given your interpretation of this thread, what do *you* believe most > > players prefer? How do you believe most players are currently playing > > this ruling? > > Well, I don't spend many cycles on analyzing ratios like that. It is the > substance of the feedback that I find useful. Please spend 30 seconds considering it now. I'm confident you'll conclude that: 1) Most players were, until this thread began, playing the ruling (about deflection+DI+block attempts) wrong. 2) Of the players who have a preference, most of them would prefer to play it the way they were playing it (which conflicts with the current ruling.) > > Please consider changing the ruling. The cost is minimal and the > > benefit is large. > > Everything is open for such consideration, in the broad sense, depending (in the > fine sense) on substance. Restated: please actually change the ruling, now. :) Ira

J. Hunter Johnson#

15 December 2006, 21:27

Joshua Duffin wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > In message <1166121707.8...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>, > > "gpett...@gmail.com" <gpett...@gmail.com> writes: > >>My goal is to preserve the idea that cancelling a card cancels all of > >>its effects and to preserve the idea that the "No block" must be > >>explicitly declared. > > > > It's never been the case that "No block" must be explicitly declared. > > As described in this thread, and many others, there are lots of ways of > > implicitly declining to block. > > > > If you're trying to hold on to that as an idea, it's a non-starter. > > Uh... if you're referring to "tossing a pool into the blood bank" and > things of that ilk, those are not legal ways of implicitly declining to > block. They are incorrect plays and are solved by correcting them, not > by simply accepting that implicit declination of blocking as being > proper to the game. I believe the difference here is that the play was incorrect because it encapsulated multiple steps, some of which rightfully belong to other players (and are therefore illegal for this player). So (without using details), I do X, which encapsulates steps 1-6. Only steps 1 and 6 of that sequence actually belong to me though, so my play was illegal. The ruling says that the fix is to break apart the encapsulated steps, and unwind through all the illegal steps. So steps 2-6 are undone, but step 1 remains "done". The alternative is to leave all of the encapsulated steps encapsulated, and undo them as a block. While nicer to the casual player who innocently erred, it is more open to abuse, as more sophisticated players can use it to "fish" for information they shouldn't have when making their step 1 decision. So declining to block and prematurely pitching a blood in is corrected by unwinding it so that the block is still declined. Hunter -- http://www.hunterandlori.com/ <><

XZealot#

15 December 2006, 21:40

J. Hunter Johnson wrote: > Hunter > -- > http://www.hunterandlori.com/ <>< Hey, aren't you LSJ's twin? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

J. Hunter Johnson#

15 December 2006, 22:05

XZealot wrote: > Hey, aren't you LSJ's twin? He and I are twins, yes. I'm the good-looking one. Hunter -- http://www.hunterandlori.com

James Coupe#

15 December 2006, 21:54

In message <ObDgh.34$x67...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ [ quoted text not captured ] Wanting a card to be unprinted because it's a counterspell and Magic is the game for counterspells isn't anything to do with the card being a threat to anything. But it has been a commonly offered opinion about DI and why it should be unprinted. [ quoted text not captured ]

Kushiel#

15 December 2006, 22:28

Joshua Duffin wrote: > I just think it's still > less of a problem in the world of VTES than the weenie problem. Possibly > also less than the Event problem. Possibly also less than the Imbued > problem. I don't really want to get into a debate about this, but I'm curious. I think I know what all the other problems you list are, but I'm not sure what the imbued problem is? Just that you think that they're too powerful, or is there something more to it than that? John Eno

XZealot#

15 December 2006, 23:07

LSJ wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > >> You cannot pitch a pool for the bleed until resolution. > >> > >> So you should either stop violating the rules by pitching it early or accept the > >> relatively obvious implication of the pitch. > > > > Again you haven't addressed the point of implied resolution. > > > > Reprinted from Presence.vekn.org > > > > You make an assumption that the pitching of a pool implicitly leads to > > a decline to block. > > Incorrect. > > Pitching a pool implicitly *follows* an implicit decline to block. Pitching a pool follows the resolution of a bleed for 1. Any interuption in that resolution resets the action to the earliest possible moment that the interuption could occur. > > You then have specifically constructed a contrived > > scenario to encompass only that which proves your point. The reality of > > the situation is that action modifiers may be played before block > > attempts are made. You conveniently left that out of your scenario > > above. > > You are mistaken. The omission has no bearing whatsoever, so the omission, while > a matter of brevity, is not a matter of convenience (other than the convenience > of brevity, which has now been lost). It has huge bearing. It eliminates the earlier steps in the action that play reverts. > > For example, you have specifically ruled that a player may play a > > Conditioning on an action before the defender, who just so happens to > > have a Blessings of Chaos which would prevent the acting player from > > being able to do so, may declare a block. > > This is true. And irrelevant. Actually it is relevant. This ruling benchmarks the earliest point in an action that a action modifier may play, and therefore marks the point to which an action reverts when a player plays an action modifier after a defending player has "pitched a pool". > > So in your own rulings you have stated that action modifiers that > > modify the amount of the bleed can be played before block attempts are > > declared. > > Still true. ....and incredibly relavent. > > So it is, in fact, more complicated than the scenario you laid down is. > > > > A) action is announced > > B) Action modifiers are played > > C) Reactions are played > > D) Block attempts are declared > > E) Action Modifiers are played > > F) Reactions are played > > G) Combat ensues from a successful block. > > H) If blocking minion fails, then other block attempts are solicited. > > I) Barring another minion successfully blocking > > 1) You decline to block > > 2) All other non-acting Meths (cw) decline to block > > 3) The acting Methuselah declines to play modifiers > > 4) You decline to play reactions > > 5) All other non-acting Meths (cw) decline to play reactions > > 6) You pitch a pool into the bank > > This is missing the point. No it is not missing the point. This is how actions resolve and the various non-combat steps which are skipped/omitted on every single action. When there is a misplay (i.e. a player pitching a pool) the play reverts to the earliest possible step not the latest. > The bits of the action that went before the pause in which you pitch a pool were > not listed, as they are not relevant, yes. > > At the pause (a "pass" from the acting Methuselah, awaiting a reaction or a > block attempt or a declaration of "no block" from you, the target), which occurs > between steps I and 1 above, you pitched a pool. > > By doing so, you express, implicitly, steps 1 through 6 above. Of those, the > continuous parts you actually have control of ends right after step 1. So step 1 > is the only one you force to happen. You cannot force others to skip their steps. Incorrect, by pitching a pool without declaring a no block attempt you are agreeing to resolve the action in its current state. When the acting player plays an action modifier it becomes a misplay and play rewinds to the earliest possible point. Since the reacting player has not explicitly declared a "no block", it rewinds to step B not step 3. > > Now what constitutes resolution of the action? It is in fact an > > agreement between players that the action is resolved and no other > > effects are in play. > > Yes. > > You show that agreement (your part and the part you assume on others) by > pitching in a pool. > And the first step of that agreement, by the rules, is your declination to block. > > If, after making that first step, the acting Methuselah declines to modify, > fine. But if she does not, but rather chooses to play a Conditioning, well, > that's her prerogative. Doing so won't cause the state to rewind to the point > before your declination. If a player plays an action modifier on a action that has resolved (i.e. pool has been lost), then it is a misplay. Play is at that point rewound to the earliest point that both players can agree upon (i.e. step B in a situation where there is an absence of a "no block" declaration), or barring that the misplay is disallowed (i.e. the acting player can not play the action modifier). > > This is why ruling that pitching a pool is an > > automatic block decline is anti-thetical to the basic nature of VTES. > > > Pitching a pool is fundamental to the aquiecence that the action is > > resolved. When the acting player plays an action modifier it > > fundamentally represents a disagreement between the players that the > > action is not resolved. This would then reset the chain of interaction > > to a point agreed upon by the players involved. > > Correct. To step 2, above. To step B as per the misplay guidelines. > > The most fair point to reset it is to point B not to point 3. As > > players can agree that everything that follows point B has not been > > resolved. > > Agreement is not simultaneous. It is a sequence, as prescribed by the rulebook. Agreement by definition is simultaneous. Both player do it at the same time otherwise agreement does not occur. That is the nature of the word. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot#

15 December 2006, 23:23

J. Hunter Johnson wrote: > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > James Coupe wrote: > > > In message <1166121707.8...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>, > > > "gpett...@gmail.com" <gpett...@gmail.com> writes: > > >>My goal is to preserve the idea that cancelling a card cancels all of > > >>its effects and to preserve the idea that the "No block" must be > > >>explicitly declared. > > > > > > It's never been the case that "No block" must be explicitly declared. > > > As described in this thread, and many others, there are lots of ways of > > > implicitly declining to block. > > > > > > If you're trying to hold on to that as an idea, it's a non-starter. > > > > Uh... if you're referring to "tossing a pool into the blood bank" and > > things of that ilk, those are not legal ways of implicitly declining to > > block. They are incorrect plays and are solved by correcting them, not > > by simply accepting that implicit declination of blocking as being > > proper to the game. > > I believe the difference here is that the play was incorrect because it > encapsulated multiple steps, some of which rightfully belong to other > players (and are therefore illegal for this player). So (without using > details), I do X, which encapsulates steps 1-6. Only steps 1 and 6 of > that sequence actually belong to me though, so my play was illegal. The misplay isn't caused by the defending player pitching a pool. It is caused by the acting player playing an action modifier on an action which is resolved. The defending player shouldn't be penalized for the misplay of another player. [ quoted text not captured ]

crispyfloss#

16 December 2006, 01:53

On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > The misplay isn't caused by the defending player pitching a pool. It > is caused by the acting player playing an action modifier on an action > which is resolved. The defending player shouldn't be penalized for the > misplay of another player. Maybe I missed something along the way - does anyone seriously think that if you let a bleed of one resolve (by pitching a pool) and then the acting player adds an action modifier, you are able to go back and decide to block because they had to declare the action modifier earlier? This may have been some kind of a counter-example to show why this DI->Deflection situation is such a thorny pickle, but characterizing failing to play an action modifier before the defender skips steps to resolve the bleed as a "misplay" makes no sense to me. It might just be a question of world view, but I imagine the "expedient" of pitching a pool should actually, you know, speed the game up by advancing the state of the game to "let's just get to the modifier/reaction part" as opposed to "would you like to ask me if i'd like to block?"

XZealot#

16 December 2006, 03:36

crispyfloss wrote: > On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > The misplay isn't caused by the defending player pitching a pool. It > > is caused by the acting player playing an action modifier on an action > > which is resolved. The defending player shouldn't be penalized for the > > misplay of another player. > > Maybe I missed something along the way - does anyone seriously think > that if you let a bleed of one resolve (by pitching a pool) and then > the acting player adds an action modifier, you are able to go back and > decide to block because they had to declare the action modifier > earlier? Yes, it is common in many playgroups across the United States. It helps speed the game up immensely. > This may have been some kind of a counter-example to show why this > DI->Deflection situation is such a thorny pickle, but characterizing > failing to play an action modifier before the defender skips steps to > resolve the bleed as a "misplay" makes no sense to me. This is separate from the DI->Deflection scenario. > It might just be a question of world view, but I imagine the > "expedient" of pitching a pool should actually, you know, speed the > game up by advancing the state of the game to "let's just get to the > modifier/reaction part" as opposed to "would you like to ask me if i'd > like to block? It is certainly a matter of view, and how groups play. I am not issuing a supeona for your imagination. :) The actual arguement is about 100 threads up. Look for XZealot and LSJ. [ quoted text not captured ]

J. Hunter Johnson#

16 December 2006, 04:23

[ quoted text not captured ] The defending player doesn't get to dictate that the acting player is done playing action modifiers. Doing so is a misplay on the defender's part. The acting player is allowed to wait for the defender's block (or lack thereof) before playing action modifiers, so he hasn't misplayed anything. Hunter -- http://www.hunterandlori.com <><

XZealot#

16 December 2006, 04:35

[ quoted text not captured ] He has misplayed if he is rewinding the action back before resolution to play his action modifier. Action modifiers may not be played on actions that have already resolved. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp It's like debating with 2 LSJs

James Coupe#

16 December 2006, 11:48

In message <1166240108....@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >He has misplayed if he is rewinding the action back before resolution >to play his action modifier. Action modifiers may not be played on >actions that have already resolved. The defending player is not allowed to say "Hey, we just got to resolution, no mods from you" when the acting Methuselah declares a bleed by pitching a pool. Players cannot force each other to skip steps by running ahead. This is a long-established principle. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ankur Gupta#

16 December 2006, 13:41

>> I believe the difference here is that the play was incorrect because it >> encapsulated multiple steps, some of which rightfully belong to other >> players (and are therefore illegal for this player). So (without using >> details), I do X, which encapsulates steps 1-6. Only steps 1 and 6 of >> that sequence actually belong to me though, so my play was illegal. > > The misplay isn't caused by the defending player pitching a pool. It is > caused by the acting player playing an action modifier on an action > which is resolved. The defending player shouldn't be penalized for the > misplay of another player. Um, I don't think I like that. Does that mean that if every time my predator bleeds me, if I quickly throw in the pool amount before anyone can do anything else that then the mistake is the person who *declared* the action if he chooses to modify it? What if I go ahead and pitch in the pool for a vote when there are 1467 votes on the table and the vampire calling the vote has 29 action modifiers he wants to play on this action? That seems remarkably fishy, because I promise I could get any predator disqualified with repeated warnings. . . . . It would improve my tournament rating, without my having to learn how to build better decks, that's for sure. However, it would be a hell of a lot less fun than playing the game. But I don't really believe in playing the game. That's a bunch of horseshit. :) I think your earlier arguments about "step-skipping" (oh for the love of god, the context needed to understand that is huge) are more solid. Stick to those. Ankur Play. The. Game. Don't. Advocate. Horseshit. It. Smells. Bad.

witness1#

17 December 2006, 02:28

[ quoted text not captured ] No, the misplay was moving your pool to the blood bank before the action was resolved. The defending methuselah doesn't get to decide when the action ends, only whether or not he's blocking or playing reaction cards. Pitching the pool can only reasonably be interpreted as a declaration of "I intend not to block or play reaction cards at this time." witness1 -believe the lie.

XZealot#

17 December 2006, 07:09

[ quoted text not captured ] Incorrect. By the rules declaring "not blocking" is an event and as such may not be implicitly skipped. Copied from 6.2.2. Resolve Any Block Attempts >>Note that this declaration is an event and so allows the acting Methuselah (and others) to play more cards and effects. Sarah announces that Quentin is bleeding Alexis. Sarah has no effects that she wishes to play before Alexis decides whether to block, so Sarah says "Do you block?" Alexis decides not to block, so then Sarah plays Confusion (an action modifier that adds 1 to the bleed). Alexis is bled for 2 pool.<< As in all examples of play in VTES it is reliant upon the acting player to ask, "Do you block?" Barring that the defending player always reserves the right to block. [ quoted text not captured ]

Wookie813#

17 December 2006, 10:06

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1166240108....@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: > >He has misplayed if he is rewinding the action back before resolution > >to play his action modifier. Action modifiers may not be played on > >actions that have already resolved. > > The defending player is not allowed to say "Hey, we just got to > resolution, no mods from you" when the acting Methuselah declares a > bleed by pitching a pool. > > Players cannot force each other to skip steps by running ahead. This > is a long-established principle. This is not a point or counter-point to anything that has been said, rather an observation: It might be that some players extrapolate the rules governing card play into this situation. In many facets of the game, card play goes back and forth until one player declares they have no further plays to make. Pitching in the Pool for the bleed of 1 is an acceptance of that bleed, but the play of the action mod to increase it triggers the conditioned 'option returns to me' behavior. While it is incorrect, it might be the cause in some cases. When one considers a different action modifier, like Freak Drive, the absurdity becomes self evident: MethA: Fatima bleeds for 1. MethB: [Pitches Pool] MethA: Fatima will Freak Drive MethB: In that case, I'll block the action. The only difference is the effect of the action mod, but intuition in the case of FD is that a block attempt would not be possible at the time of it's playing, due largely to the qualifier text on it. Putting such text ("only usable after all block attempts have failed or been declined") on bleed mods would be cumbersome and limiting (I would think the intent is that they can be played as the action is announced if desired). What some players seem to be forgetting is that you either block or don't after the action is declared, much like you must decide whether or not to block a Political Action before terms are officially declared (though they are often discussed while the threat of a block exsists). The onus should not be on the acting player to call for block attempts, though it is a good habit to acquire. Still, some players will simply pitch the Pool before the acting meth can finish the declaration of the action, because they believe that they can still block if they see a mod they don't like.

witness1#

17 December 2006, 17:06

XZealot wrote: > witness1 wrote: > > No, the misplay was moving your pool to the blood bank before the > > action was resolved. The defending methuselah doesn't get to decide > > when the action ends, only whether or not he's blocking or playing > > reaction cards. > > > > Pitching the pool can only reasonably be interpreted as a declaration > > of "I intend not to block or play reaction cards at this time." > > Incorrect. > > By the rules declaring "not blocking" is an event and as such may not > be implicitly skipped. If this were correct, then moving your pool to the blood bank without declaring "no block" would be illegal play and/or misrepresentation of game state. Rather than assuming you're attempting illegal play or misrepresentation, we charitably assume you are instead attempting to nonverbally communicate your declaration of "no block". witness1 -believe the lie.

LSJ#

17 December 2006, 18:48

XZealot wrote: > crispyfloss wrote: >> On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: >>> The misplay isn't caused by the defending player pitching a pool. It >>> is caused by the acting player playing an action modifier on an action >>> which is resolved. The defending player shouldn't be penalized for the >>> misplay of another player. >> Maybe I missed something along the way - does anyone seriously think >> that if you let a bleed of one resolve (by pitching a pool) and then >> the acting player adds an action modifier, you are able to go back and >> decide to block because they had to declare the action modifier >> earlier? > > Yes, it is common in many playgroups across the United States. It > helps speed the game up immensely. It's uncommon, actually. Commonly, the majority playgroups play it properly, as an implicit declination of blocking, which it is (or as explicitly stated). There is nothing to be gained, except aiding cheating, by allowing it to "draw out" a modifier that the acting player doesn't intend to play until after blocks are declined.

Blooded Sand#

17 December 2006, 20:13

On Dec 17, 9:48 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > crispyfloss wrote: > >> On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > >>> The misplay isn't caused by the defending player pitching a pool. It > >>> is caused by the acting player playing an action modifier on an action > >>> which is resolved. The defending player shouldn't be penalized for the > >>> misplay of another player. > >> Maybe I missed something along the way - does anyone seriously think > >> that if you let a bleed of one resolve (by pitching a pool) and then > >> the acting player adds an action modifier, you are able to go back and > >> decide to block because they had to declare the action modifier > >> earlier? > > > Yes, it is common in many playgroups across the United States. It > > helps speed the game up immensely.It's uncommon, actually. > > Commonly, the majority playgroups play it properly, as an implicit declination > of blocking, which it is (or as explicitly stated). > > There is nothing to be gained, except aiding cheating, by allowing it to "draw > out" a modifier that the acting player doesn't intend to play until after blocks > are declined. plus, while i think deflect and DI both exceed their needed power to cost ratio, they are a part of the game, a true trump you can hold back on. Didn't the original printing's text say something like "may only be blayed after all block attempts" or similar?

James Coupe#

17 December 2006, 20:31

In message <1166382812.0...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> writes: >plus, while i think deflect and DI both exceed their needed power to >cost ratio, they are a part of the game, a true trump you can hold back >on. Didn't the original printing's text say something like "may only be >blayed after all block attempts" or similar? Card text from the WotcJyh.txt file I have from some years back, from the WotC website: Deflection 1 blood Dominate Reaction A minion bleeding you is now bleeding a Methuselah of your choice, other than that minion's Methuselah. The Methuselah you chose can attempt to block. Tap the reacting vampire. (S) As Above, but doesn't tap the reacting vampire. Larry MacDougall Common 1 [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ#

17 December 2006, 23:43

Blooded Sand wrote: > plus, while i think deflect and DI both exceed their needed power to > cost ratio, they are a part of the game, a true trump you can hold back > on. Didn't the original printing's text say something like "may only be > blayed after all block attempts" or similar? Well, the post to which your followed up wasn't about DI or deflection, but... No. Neither Deflection nor DI has been printed with such a restriction given explicitly in card text.

rdco...@gmail.com#

17 December 2006, 23:48

Blooded Sand wrote: > Didn't the original printing's text say something like "may only be > blayed after all block attempts" or similar? No, it most certainly did not. Most of the deflections I own are original Jyhad printing. There is no restriction on the card regarding when Deflection can be played apart from an implied 'when a minion is bleeding you'. Which would make the timing fall back to the rule book: "Action modifiers and reaction cards can be played AT ANY TIME during an action (unless otherwise noted on card text), with the acting Methuselah getting the opportunity to play first." (6.2, emphasis mine) Hence LSJ's intention to alter card text to give the ruling some basis in the actual rules :)

XZealot#

18 December 2006, 01:18

witness1 wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > witness1 wrote: > > > No, the misplay was moving your pool to the blood bank before the > > > action was resolved. The defending methuselah doesn't get to decide > > > when the action ends, only whether or not he's blocking or playing > > > reaction cards. > > > > > > Pitching the pool can only reasonably be interpreted as a declaration > > > of "I intend not to block or play reaction cards at this time." > > > > Incorrect. > > > > By the rules declaring "not blocking" is an event and as such may not > > be implicitly skipped. > > If this were correct, then moving your pool to the blood bank without > declaring "no block" would be illegal play and/or misrepresentation of > game state. Correct, it is an illegal play for the action to resolve without a declaration of "no block". Note in the example that the acting player asks, "Do you block?" There has been no such interogation in the pitching the pool example. The acting player has misplayed by skipping this event. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot#

18 December 2006, 02:05

LSJ wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > crispyfloss wrote: > >> On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > >>> The misplay isn't caused by the defending player pitching a pool. It > >>> is caused by the acting player playing an action modifier on an action > >>> which is resolved. The defending player shouldn't be penalized for the > >>> misplay of another player. > >> Maybe I missed something along the way - does anyone seriously think > >> that if you let a bleed of one resolve (by pitching a pool) and then > >> the acting player adds an action modifier, you are able to go back and > >> decide to block because they had to declare the action modifier > >> earlier? > > > > Yes, it is common in many playgroups across the United States. It > > helps speed the game up immensely. > > It's uncommon, actually. We'll have to agree to disagree on the commonality of pitching a pool, since neither of us has statics to back up his viewpoint. > Commonly, the majority playgroups play it properly, as an implicit declination > of blocking, which it is (or as explicitly stated). > > There is nothing to be gained, except aiding cheating, by allowing it to "draw > out" a modifier that the acting player doesn't intend to play until after blocks > are declined. Then obviously the acting player has the ability to ask, "Do you block?" even after the pool has been pitched. Nothing is stopping the acting player from asking, "Do you block?" Even in the rulebook it states that this is an "event". You can't go skipping events. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

James Coupe#

18 December 2006, 08:13

In message <1166403907....@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >Then obviously the acting player has the ability to ask, "Do you >block?" even after the pool has been pitched. Nothing is stopping the >acting player from asking, "Do you block?" > >Even in the rulebook it states that this is an "event". > >You can't go skipping events. No event has been skipped. It's just that it's been implicitly handled, much like two players agreeing on "hands for one" haven't actually skipped the Choose Range step, which they also can't skip. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe#

18 December 2006, 08:20

In message <1166401135.2...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >Correct, it is an illegal play for the action to resolve without a >declaration of "no block". Which is fine, because pitching the pool is interpreted as that declaration. >Note in the example that the acting player >asks, "Do you block?" There has been no such interogation in the >pitching the pool example. The acting player has misplayed by skipping >this event. This sort of thing happens quite a lot, though: Acting Methuselah: I attempt to bleed you with Govern the Unaligned. Oh, and I play Seduction on Isabel de Leon. Methuselah being bled: Hmmm. Okay. I attempt to block with Colin Flynn. No-one objects, even though no explicit "Do you block?" has been asked. Consider another example in the rulebook: Sarah announces that Ira is hunting and taps Ira. The action is undirected and has a default of +1 stealth. Her prey declines to block. Her predator, however, plays a reaction card to give +1 intercept to one of her ready untapped minions, Eugenio. Sarah has no cards to play to increase Ira's stealth, so the action is blocked. Eugenio is tapped, and combat begins. The prey declines to block, but the evil rulebook writers have skipped the "Do you block?" event. OH NOES. END OF TEH WORLD. This is much like the prey declining to block by pitching a pool when being bled. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ#

18 December 2006, 12:54

XZealot wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> XZealot wrote: >>> crispyfloss wrote: >>>> On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>> The misplay isn't caused by the defending player pitching a pool. It >>>>> is caused by the acting player playing an action modifier on an action >>>>> which is resolved. The defending player shouldn't be penalized for the >>>>> misplay of another player. >>>> Maybe I missed something along the way - does anyone seriously think >>>> that if you let a bleed of one resolve (by pitching a pool) and then >>>> the acting player adds an action modifier, you are able to go back and >>>> decide to block because they had to declare the action modifier >>>> earlier? >>> Yes, it is common in many playgroups across the United States. It >>> helps speed the game up immensely. >> It's uncommon, actually. > > We'll have to agree to disagree on the commonality of pitching a pool, > since neither of us has statics to back up his viewpoint. Exactly. Thanks for selling it to the cheap seats, though. >> Commonly, the majority playgroups play it properly, as an implicit declination >> of blocking, which it is (or as explicitly stated). >> >> There is nothing to be gained, except aiding cheating, by allowing it to "draw >> out" a modifier that the acting player doesn't intend to play until after blocks >> are declined. > > Then obviously the acting player has the ability to ask, "Do you > block?" even after the pool has been pitched. Pointlessly, since the question has already been answered (the defending player cannot expect to reach the pitching pool stage unless he has declined to block; since it was the defending player's impulse (his turn in sequence to play the next effect), his options were: "so-and-so plays a reaction", "I play a master: out-of-turn", "so-an-so blocks", or "no block". That is the exhaustive list of his choices at his impulse. Which of those choices is indicated by pitching a pool? The "no block" one, of course). > Nothing is stopping the > acting player from asking, "Do you block?" Nothing is stopping him from asking "is it my turn?" either, but both are obvious. > Even in the rulebook it states that this is an "event". > You can't go skipping events. Correct. At the defending player's impulse, though, he declined to react or block, so it must be the case that he declined to block. Nothing was skipped. (And it is now the acting player's impulse, since "no block" is an event, so he may play bleed boosters).

Frederick Scott#

18 December 2006, 16:37

"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1166187283.7...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > 1 pool vs stop someone's uber combo? Ah, the real objection finally comes out. The valid point you're trying to make is not that Direct Intervention is that _different_ from the other cards. You're trying to claim it's overpowered, pure and simple. I suppose any card in the game which is overpowered is different than all the other cards in a critical way, yes. But DI is hardly overpowered. It may stop combos, which may not be to your taste if you like pulling off combos. But that doesn't make it overpowered. ... > Frederick Scott schreef: >>Sudden Reversal is a very comparable no-requirements >> master card which cancels master cards and Not To Be is a no-requirements >> master card which cancels event cards, and so forth. The 80% thing is >> interesting, I suppose, but ultimately not an argument by itself. > > not *interesting* It the heart of the matter. > > SR is obviously balanced: play a master to cancel a master. And most > (all except for turbo Arika) decks have master cards in them. > Not To Be is, IMO underpowered: While the trade-off (MPA for DPA) seems > nice, not everybody plays with Events. > DI cancels every other card in existence for 1 pool and an MPA, how is > that balanced? It's always playable, mostly to good effect. How is it not balanced? Were it not, people could make killer decks using a heavy component of DIs. After all, if one DI is overpowered, many ought to destroy the competition. So, we should be seeing decks with, like, 15 or 20 DIs. But we don't. Check the Labombra's tourney-winning deck archive and I think you'll find the vast majority of decks don't even have one. And the ones that do, don't have more than 1-3 of them. (That's my guess; I don't have time to go and look at the moment but I'd be shocked if that weren't true.) > You see: no requirements, can mean different things: somebody else > playing a certain card is a requirement. I agree. I'm not sure what point you're making. But then, I was never sure what objection you had to DI until you trotted out the 'overpowered' accusation in the above text. But DI is clearly not overpowered. >> > For the most part, it is not built around such broad general effects. >> >> I don't think you can make such a broad, general statement. > > Yes, we can. Because the whole set-up that V:TES 'better' than magic is > the absence of power-rares. All other -above the curve- cards have been > nerved (most of them were reduced to wallpaper, which was not ideal), > why not DI. It has always been an above the curve card, it's not one > that became above the curve because the rest was wallpapered or banned. No you can't - based on the reasoning I give below. And the fact that DI is not "above the curve" as I pointed out above. >> Taste, of course, >> is reasonable enough argument for liking or not liking a given card - as far >> as it goes. But uniqueness of a particular game component is not. Any >> card game which has one and only one wild card (e.g. some Hoyle deck card game >> in which only the jokers are wild) is a counterexample to such logic. Chess >> has one and only one king, a piece that must always be defended at peril of >> game loss as opposed to all the other pieces which may be readily sacrificed. >> And it works quite well, I'm told. > > This logic doesn't work in a CCG. Because cards need to be balanced. And DI is balanced. Fred

Frederick Scott#

18 December 2006, 16:57

"Joshua Duffin" <joshdu...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message news:4ugbooF...@mid.individual.net... > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:smngh.24416$B42....@newsfe12.phx... >> "Joshua Duffin" <joshdu...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4ue2fqF...@mid.individual.net... >>> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message >>> news:2vjgh.12940$un3....@newsfe14.phx... >>>> I think DI fits into the game just fine. Your satisfaction level with >>>> the card depends on how much you like it when someone's dastardly >>>> card combo gets broken up by well-timed DI but that's neither here nor >>>> there as far as whether it "fits the game". In fact, I'm not even >>>> sure what you could mean by a card "fitting the game" anyway. Direct >>>> Interventions are two and a half by four inches, just like all the other >>>> cards. They totally fit the game. >>> >>> It doesn't fit the game in that it's a master card with no requirements that >>> can cancel something like 80% of the cards in print, rather than a >>> more-specialized minion card with narrower effects. For the most part VTES >>> is built around minion cards and most of them have requirements to play. >> >> "For the most part" != "all the time". There are other master cards which are >> uncharacteristically broad. Ascendance is a no-requirements card that just >> hands you a pool, for instance, without regard to whether you have any vampires >> or any permanents at all. Sudden Reversal is a very comparable no-requirements >> master card which cancels master cards and Not To Be is a no-requirements >> master card which cancels event cards, and so forth. The 80% thing is >> interesting, I suppose, but ultimately not an argument by itself. > > Your comparisons don't exemplify the same kind of broadness. Being playable > all the time without requirements (Ascendance) is not the same as "affecting > a vast swath of other cards" (Direct Intervention). When you're talking about 'uniqueness' as a charactistic, it's understanably impossible to exemplify it because unique cards are, by definition, unique. But the point is, there are certainly a lot of cards in the game that have some claim to uniqueness. Certainly that can't be bad in and of itself. So I don't care (and no one should care) about that as an argument. If DI is bad, it has to be bad for what it does - and not that the thing it does is unique, which was the argument I was hearing. >>> For the most part, it is not built around such broad general effects. >> >> I don't think you can make such a broad, general statement. > > heh! I think I can! Are there a lot of other similarly broad and general > effects you can use in VTES? Not that I can see. The argument is incompley, Josh. You're saying DI is bad because it does X. And X is bad because it's unique. But so what? If uniqueness were all that was required to prove a card bad, I can point to a lot of other cards and challenge you the same: show me another card that does 'X'? It's just that in this case, X = 'affect a broad swath of cards'. >> Taste, of course, >> is reasonable enough argument for liking or not liking a given card - as far >> as it goes. But uniqueness of a particular game component is not. Any >> card game which has one and only one wild card (e.g. some Hoyle deck card game >> in which only the jokers are wild) is a counterexample to such logic. Chess >> has one and only one king, a piece that must always be defended at peril of >> game loss as opposed to all the other pieces which may be readily sacrificed. >> And it works quite well, I'm told. > > The game of VTES was built without Direct Intervention; DI was added later, > in the Sabbat expansion. So we're changing the target, now? Now, that accusation is not uniqueness but uniqueness which was added in an expansion? I really don't care. Same counter-argument. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find counter-examples of other unique cards added in expansions. > If you look at the game as a whole, and the > evolution of the game over time, I think it's clear that the game was not > built on broad, general effects, but on small, narrow effects. It's the > adding up of many such small and narrow effects that normally accomplishes > things in VTES. Sorry, I disagree. I see effects that are very broad and others that are rather narrow. Granted, DI is a very broad effect and I suppose it's arguable that it is, indeed, the broadest one in the game. But with all the cards and card effects running the gamut of broadness, the issue is how can you take this one and say that it's overbroad, whereas all the others are OK? And please justify why you're going on this witch hunt in the first place? >> It's somewhat out of character, I'll grant you. But that by itself doesn't >> make it bad. The assertion needs more justification behind it for a reader >> to decide whether he can agree with it or not. Otherwise it has to be judged >> baseless. > > Uh... the justification was right there. Out of character -> doesn't really > fit the game. No, actually it isn't. Out of character in some sense does not make a card not fit a game (reference my chess comparison to a king vs. all the other pieces in the game). > That doesn't necessarily mean it's *bad*, no, but I wasn't necessarily > describing it as *bad*. I was describing it as being out of character for > the game. Ah - then our problem is one of semantics. I suppose you can say that DI is out of character in a given way - but I think I could show counterexamples and make an argument that they're out of character, too. But out of character then doesn't imply bad, which I think the original poster was suggesting. It seems his argument has morphed to DI being overpowered as the problem. Not so much that it's out of character but that it's unique in terms of being overpowered. Which would be a problem, were it true. Fred

Frederick Scott#

18 December 2006, 17:01

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166198812.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > > Kevin M. wrote: > >> > Proxy. Sit between 8 of them. You'll see the problem. >> >> A single occurence does not function as an example worthy of discussion. > > It wasn't a single occurance. It was a nearly-ubiquitous facet of a > single playgroup, "4 in every deck", FWIW. This amuses me. I keep wondering what provocation (that is, what players are trying to do with their decks outside of using DIs) would cause people in your area to _want_ to use so many. Your playgroup seems unique in this. There must be some reason. If DI were overpowered, as you claim, the reason would be that your players are just a bunch of VtES geniuses who haven't been unleashed on the world. Ben Peal and Matt Morgan, watch out! The guys with the DIs are about to make their mark ;-) Fred

Frederick Scott#

18 December 2006, 17:04

"Daniel al-Autistiqui" <gove...@hotmail.invalid> wrote in message news:7vm5o291kh6nrr0ve...@4ax.com... > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:42:04 -0800, "Kevin M." > <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >>I realize that D.I. is somewhat different, in that it DISallows you to >>play the game to a very minor extent (and you have to agree, it *is* to a >>very minor extent), but I just don't see it as an issue, just as I don't >>see PTO as an issue (outside of the very rare circumstance where it >>totally obliterates your game). > > Why did you say "rare"? Um, Keven probably said that because DI totally obliterating my game (and I suspect his game) or almost any other game I see seems to be very rare. Fred

Jeroen#

18 December 2006, 17:13

Frederick Scott schreef: > "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1166187283.7...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > > 1 pool vs stop someone's uber combo? > > Ah, the real objection finally comes out. The valid point you're trying to > make is not that Direct Intervention is that _different_ from the other > cards. You're trying to claim it's overpowered, pure and simple. Yes! DI is overpowered, I never said it wasn't. >I suppose > any card in the game which is overpowered is different than all the other > cards in a critical way, yes. But DI is hardly overpowered. It may stop > combos, which may not be to your taste if you like pulling off combos. But > that doesn't make it overpowered. difference is: combo's need set-up. DI doesn't need anything. The counter to something should at least be almost as difficult as doing the thing itself. See Sudden Reversal. > > ... > > Frederick Scott schreef: > >>Sudden Reversal is a very comparable no-requirements > >> master card which cancels master cards and Not To Be is a no-requirements > >> master card which cancels event cards, and so forth. The 80% thing is > >> interesting, I suppose, but ultimately not an argument by itself. > > > > not *interesting* It the heart of the matter. > > > > SR is obviously balanced: play a master to cancel a master. And most > > (all except for turbo Arika) decks have master cards in them. > > Not To Be is, IMO underpowered: While the trade-off (MPA for DPA) seems > > nice, not everybody plays with Events. > > DI cancels every other card in existence for 1 pool and an MPA, how is > > that balanced? It's always playable, mostly to good effect. > > How is it not balanced? Were it not, people could make killer decks using > a heavy component of DIs. After all, if one DI is overpowered, many ought > to destroy the competition. So, we should be seeing decks with, like, 15 > or 20 DIs. But we don't. Check the Labombra's tourney-winning deck > archive and I think you'll find the vast majority of decks don't even have > one. And the ones that do, don't have more than 1-3 of them. (That's > my guess; I don't have time to go and look at the moment but I'd be > shocked if that weren't true.) BULLSHIT. it's not because a card is overpowered that it should be in the TWD. why? because it's a defensive card. Not one that ousts people. > > > You see: no requirements, can mean different things: somebody else > > playing a certain card is a requirement. > > I agree. I'm not sure what point you're making. But then, I was never > sure what objection you had to DI until you trotted out the 'overpowered' > accusation in the above text. But DI is clearly not overpowered. well: you mentioned cards with no requirement. I said that SR, DI and Not to Be have requirements. But that DI's requirements are easier met than the other's. Therefore DI is a better card. > > >> > For the most part, it is not built around such broad general effects. > >> > >> I don't think you can make such a broad, general statement. > > > > Yes, we can. Because the whole set-up that V:TES 'better' than magic is > > the absence of power-rares. All other -above the curve- cards have been > > nerved (most of them were reduced to wallpaper, which was not ideal), > > why not DI. It has always been an above the curve card, it's not one > > that became above the curve because the rest was wallpapered or banned. > > No you can't - based on the reasoning I give below. And the fact that DI > is not "above the curve" as I pointed out above. You didn't. and you fail to address any of the point I or Joshua are making. Saying, 'it's not overpowered because I say so' is not a valid point of argument. > > >> Taste, of course, > >> is reasonable enough argument for liking or not liking a given card - as far > >> as it goes. But uniqueness of a particular game component is not. Any > >> card game which has one and only one wild card (e.g. some Hoyle deck card game > >> in which only the jokers are wild) is a counterexample to such logic. Chess > >> has one and only one king, a piece that must always be defended at peril of > >> game loss as opposed to all the other pieces which may be readily sacrificed. > >> And it works quite well, I'm told. > > > > This logic doesn't work in a CCG. Because cards need to be balanced. > > And DI is balanced. So you keep saying without proving it...

Jeroen#

18 December 2006, 17:15

Frederick Scott schreef: > "bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166198812.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > > > > Kevin M. wrote: > > > >> > Proxy. Sit between 8 of them. You'll see the problem. > >> > >> A single occurence does not function as an example worthy of discussion. > > > > It wasn't a single occurance. It was a nearly-ubiquitous facet of a > > single playgroup, "4 in every deck", FWIW. > > This amuses me. I keep wondering what provocation (that is, what players > are trying to do with their decks outside of using DIs) would cause people > in your area to _want_ to use so many. Your playgroup seems unique in > this. nope. they're not. A lot of players see DI as a staple card that goes into every deck. >There must be some reason. If DI were overpowered, as you claim, > the reason would be that your players are just a bunch of VtES geniuses > who haven't been unleashed on the world. Ben Peal and Matt Morgan, > watch out! The guys with the DIs are about to make their mark ;-) You were the same guy who said that Dreams of the Sphinx was not a powerful card, IIRC. It seems we have a seriously different definition of strong....

Jeroen#

18 December 2006, 17:18

Frederick Scott schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] As an aside: read this one: http://ashheap.storageannex.com/burnoption.htm And look! DI in every version.

epoch_ellipse#

18 December 2006, 17:55

I've only played VTES about 30 times. The first 5 times were back when it was still called Jyhad, and the last 20 were in the last couple of months. On one hand, this means that I don't really know what I'm talking about. On the other hand, this might mean that I can be more objective than the players that have been burned by the cards and combinations of cards discussed. Maybe. I'm grateful to the Los Angeles playgroup for encouraging me even though almost every game I'm in times out because i have to read every card and ask what the hell just happened. They've been very good about formally going through every step of play so that I don't get lost. However, I can see the value of saying "hands for one?" to save time, with the mutual understanding that if either player wants to formally go through all the steps of combat, it will happen. I can even see the value of pitching one pool, but only as a non-verbal statement of the pitcher's declination to block. Otherwise, that seems to me weasley and disrespectful to the game and to the other players. Though I've only seen DI played once or twice, I don't like the idea of it because it seems to violate the spirit of the relationship between meths and minions. I thought the meths were supposed to be so removed from the details that minions even doubted the existence of meths. i thought that minions were generally supposed to believe that they were working only to advance their own agendas, or those of their clans and cohorts. I would hate for my little minion brawls to be broken up by someone that isn't supposed to get her hands dirty. But as for the effect the card has on actual game play, having someone drop a DI on me isn't any worse than someone playing Immortal Grapple when all i want to do is end combat. The cost may seem a little low, but it does burn a pool and a master phase action, and takes up a master card slot in the deck. Also, in my mind it doesn't matter how often the situation comes up, it should still be addressed. Those are just my thoughts, now i'll bring up something related to the original topic that i haven't seen in this thread. It's also about the spirit of the game, and also kind of about the underlying storyline social mechanics. The ability of any untapped ready minion controlled by the target meth to attempt to block a bleed individually and in any order is important to the game dynamics. It's one of the things that IMO makes VTES a much more interesting game than MtG. The 1999 ruling means that one minion's attempt to change the course of events strips away the other ready untapped minions' right to do the same in ways that they are capable of. I don't think that a minion that tries and fails to change anything should (in this one specific case but not in other reaction card cases) be able to screw the other ready untapped minions out of opportunities like that. I would buy into Archon Investigation having this effect, because it's a master card. If anyone should be able to supercede the individual urges of a pack of minions it should be the meth that they serve. I've tried to follow LSJ's rebuttals, but I don't understand the logic behind the ruling to begin with. At this time 6.2 does state that a reaction card can be played at any time during an action, and there is nothing on Deflection that states that it can not be played after the Announce the Action stage but before the first part of the Resolve Any Block Attempts stage (where i believe the blocking window lives and dies). I agree that a block attempt should be resolved without a Deflection popping up in the middle, because that's messy and all stages of play should be as clearly defined and as focused as possible. I think that any interruptions should be germaine to the situation that's unfolding at the time. I respect LSJ's authority and I know that changes are coming to integrate the 1999 ruling. I commend him because he's spent a lot of time on this thread and he's doing the right thing by following the established process to clarify the rules as questions come up. But that doesn't explain the rationale for the ruling in the first place. LSJ's position doesn't appear, to some on this thread (me included), to be based on the rules or the card. I've seen LSJ state that players' reasons for wanting to be able to attempt to block after a failed Deflection aren't strong enough to overturn the ruling, but I have not seen LSJ explain why he believes the 1999 ruling is best for the game. Why shouldn't a Deflection attempt be possible before or after or between blocking attempts if the target meth has not stated that he or she chooses not to block or implied same by one of the more universally established means? I'm more than willing to accept that LSJ sees the implications of the ruling much more clearly than I. Maybe it has near and/or far reaching effects that avoid other conflicts. He has done a good job of clarifying the ruling, and explaining how play goes under it, but I and others on this thread want to know the rationale behind it. Is that too much to ask?

LSJ#

18 December 2006, 18:53

epoch_ellipse wrote: > [Re: Deflection not playable before decline-to-block] I've tried to follow > LSJ's rebuttals, but I don't understand the logic behind the ruling to > begin with. At this time 6.2 does state that a reaction card can be > played at any time during an action, and there is nothing on Deflection > that states that it can not be played after the Announce the Action > stage but before the first part of the Resolve Any Block Attempts stage > (where i believe the blocking window lives and dies). I agree that a > block attempt should be resolved without a Deflection popping up in the > middle, because that's messy and all stages of play should be as > clearly defined and as focused as possible. I think that any > interruptions should be germaine to the situation that's unfolding at > the time. Well, that's the trick, then. The bit about not being able to play Deflection during a block attempt is parallel to the bit about not being able to play Deflection during the block window. > I respect LSJ's authority and I know that changes are coming > to integrate the 1999 ruling. I commend him because he's spent a lot > of time on this thread and he's doing the right thing by following the > established process to clarify the rules as questions come up. But > that doesn't explain the rationale for the ruling in the first place. The rationale is similar to disallowing Deflection during a block attempt (and not allowing Mask after resolution, and so on). While there's nothing explicitly on Mask that would keep it from being playable when Cats' Guidance is, it can't be. Something to do with its function. While there's nothing explicitly on Deflection that would keep it from being playable when Enhanced Senses is, it can't be. Something to do with its function. You can't have one of your minions try to "send it on" without inherently having decided not block it yourself. > LSJ's position doesn't appear, to some on this thread (me included), to > be based on the rules or the card. Similarly for Deflection during a block attempt and Mask after resolution. > I've seen LSJ state that players' > reasons for wanting to be able to attempt to block after a failed > Deflection aren't strong enough to overturn the ruling, but I have not > seen LSJ explain why he believes the 1999 ruling is best for the game. > Why shouldn't a Deflection attempt be possible before or after or > between blocking attempts if the target meth has not stated that he or > she chooses not to block or implied same by one of the more universally > established means? I'm more than willing to accept that LSJ sees the > implications of the ruling much more clearly than I. Maybe it has near > and/or far reaching effects that avoid other conflicts. He has done a > good job of clarifying the ruling, and explaining how play goes under > it, but I and others on this thread want to know the rationale behind > it. Is that too much to ask? Not at all. It has been given, as reiterated above.

Frederick Scott#

18 December 2006, 19:51

"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1166458546.7...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott schreef: >> "bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166198812.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... >> > Kevin M. wrote: >> > >> >> > Proxy. Sit between 8 of them. You'll see the problem. >> >> >> >> A single occurence does not function as an example worthy of discussion. >> > >> > It wasn't a single occurance. It was a nearly-ubiquitous facet of a >> > single playgroup, "4 in every deck", FWIW. >> >> This amuses me. I keep wondering what provocation (that is, what players >> are trying to do with their decks outside of using DIs) would cause people >> in your area to _want_ to use so many. Your playgroup seems unique in >> this. > > nope. they're not. A lot of players see DI as a staple card that goes > into every deck. "A lot" is disputed. It isn't anywhere I've played. >>There must be some reason. If DI were overpowered, as you claim, >> the reason would be that your players are just a bunch of VtES geniuses >> who haven't been unleashed on the world. Ben Peal and Matt Morgan, >> watch out! The guys with the DIs are about to make their mark ;-) > > You were the same guy who said that Dreams of the Sphinx was not a > powerful card, IIRC. It seems we have a seriously different definition > of strong.... My estimation of DotS has gone up over time. It's still not overpowered. But it's a good card. So what? Fred

Frederick Scott#

18 December 2006, 19:58

"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1166458730.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott schreef: > >> "bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166198812.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... >> > It wasn't a single occurance. It was a nearly-ubiquitous facet of a >> > single playgroup, "4 in every deck", FWIW. >> >> This amuses me. I keep wondering what provocation (that is, what players >> are trying to do with their decks outside of using DIs) would cause people >> in your area to _want_ to use so many. Your playgroup seems unique in >> this. There must be some reason. If DI were overpowered, as you claim, >> the reason would be that your players are just a bunch of VtES geniuses >> who haven't been unleashed on the world. Ben Peal and Matt Morgan, >> watch out! The guys with the DIs are about to make their mark ;-) > > As an aside: read this one: > http://ashheap.storageannex.com/burnoption.htm > And look! DI in every version. What is your POINT, for crying out loud?!? Ben Peal writes an article about a very specialized type of deck and in the process lists three decks which happen to contain a single DI in each. So what?!? There's also an Information Highway in each of the three. What I take from this is that Ben likes to throw a DI (and an Info Highway) in his twister decks. That's like about 17 million miles away from proving that DI is overpowered. I guess if you want to look for evidence to justify something you want to prove, you'll see it everywhere: "Hey, look! A dead leaf fell from a tree in the autumn. That must mean Direct Intervention is overpowered!" Fred

Jeroen#

18 December 2006, 19:59

Frederick Scott schreef: > "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1166458546.7...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott schreef: > >> "bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1166198812.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > >> > Kevin M. wrote: > >> > > >> >> > Proxy. Sit between 8 of them. You'll see the problem. > >> >> > >> >> A single occurence does not function as an example worthy of discussion. > >> > > >> > It wasn't a single occurance. It was a nearly-ubiquitous facet of a > >> > single playgroup, "4 in every deck", FWIW. > >> > >> This amuses me. I keep wondering what provocation (that is, what players > >> are trying to do with their decks outside of using DIs) would cause people > >> in your area to _want_ to use so many. Your playgroup seems unique in > >> this. > > > > nope. they're not. A lot of players see DI as a staple card that goes > > into every deck. > > "A lot" is disputed. It isn't anywhere I've played. How many playgroups and countries does that anecdotal evidence consist of? > > >>There must be some reason. If DI were overpowered, as you claim, > >> the reason would be that your players are just a bunch of VtES geniuses > >> who haven't been unleashed on the world. Ben Peal and Matt Morgan, > >> watch out! The guys with the DIs are about to make their mark ;-) > > > > You were the same guy who said that Dreams of the Sphinx was not a > > powerful card, IIRC. It seems we have a seriously different definition > > of strong.... > > My estimation of DotS has gone up over time. It's still not overpowered. > But it's a good card. So what? > We had the DotS discussion a couple of years ago. Maybe your estimation of DI will go up to. BTW, I never said DotS was overpowered. I said it was a good card.

Jeroen#

18 December 2006, 20:03

Frederick Scott schreef: > "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1166458730.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott schreef: > > > >> "bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1166198812.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > >> > It wasn't a single occurance. It was a nearly-ubiquitous facet of a > >> > single playgroup, "4 in every deck", FWIW. > >> > >> This amuses me. I keep wondering what provocation (that is, what players > >> are trying to do with their decks outside of using DIs) would cause people > >> in your area to _want_ to use so many. Your playgroup seems unique in > >> this. There must be some reason. If DI were overpowered, as you claim, > >> the reason would be that your players are just a bunch of VtES geniuses > >> who haven't been unleashed on the world. Ben Peal and Matt Morgan, > >> watch out! The guys with the DIs are about to make their mark ;-) > > > > As an aside: read this one: > > http://ashheap.storageannex.com/burnoption.htm > > And look! DI in every version. > > What is your POINT, for crying out loud?!? yes! please ignore all my points in my other post and start complaining about an example. YOU brought on Ben Peal. Not me. >Ben Peal writes an article > about a very specialized type of deck and in the process lists three decks > which happen to contain a single DI in each. So what?!? There's also > an Information Highway in each of the three. What I take from this is > that Ben likes to throw a DI (and an Info Highway) in his twister decks. > That's like about 17 million miles away from proving that DI is > overpowered. Not evidence. Just like: i don't see it that much is evidence. Just saying that the person whose name YOU dropped, plays with a recurring DI. > > I guess if you want to look for evidence to justify something you want to > prove, you'll see it everywhere: > > "Hey, look! A dead leaf fell from a tree in the autumn. That must mean > Direct Intervention is overpowered!" Same thing as pointing to the TWD. hyperbole, much?

Frederick Scott#

18 December 2006, 20:09

"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1166458381.4...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott schreef: >> "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1166187283.7...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... >> > 1 pool vs stop someone's uber combo? >> >> Ah, the real objection finally comes out. The valid point you're trying to >> make is not that Direct Intervention is that _different_ from the other >> cards. You're trying to claim it's overpowered, pure and simple. > > Yes! DI is overpowered, I never said it wasn't. You were trying to make it indirectly. You were saying that, "It doesn't belong because it's so different." But lots of cards are different in some way or other. Being different doesn't make a card bad. Being overpowered would make a card bad. >>I suppose >> any card in the game which is overpowered is different than all the other >> cards in a critical way, yes. But DI is hardly overpowered. It may stop >> combos, which may not be to your taste if you like pulling off combos. But >> that doesn't make it overpowered. > > difference is: combo's need set-up. DI doesn't need anything. The > counter to something should at least be almost as difficult as doing > the thing itself. See Sudden Reversal. What about Sudden Reversal? Sudden Reversal is the reverse of what you're saying. Sudden Reversal breaks up combos and it's easy to set-up. >> > DI cancels every other card in existence for 1 pool and an MPA, how is >> > that balanced? It's always playable, mostly to good effect. >> >> How is it not balanced? Were it not, people could make killer decks using >> a heavy component of DIs. After all, if one DI is overpowered, many ought >> to destroy the competition. So, we should be seeing decks with, like, 15 >> or 20 DIs. But we don't. Check the Labombra's tourney-winning deck >> archive and I think you'll find the vast majority of decks don't even have >> one. And the ones that do, don't have more than 1-3 of them. (That's >> my guess; I don't have time to go and look at the moment but I'd be >> shocked if that weren't true.) > > BULLSHIT. it's not because a card is overpowered that it should be in > the TWD. why? because it's a defensive card. Not one that ousts people. If it were overpowered, then people would get ousts with it. If it were as defensive as you say, everyone would play with it and it would be impossible to win without. Then you would see it in the TWDA. The TWDA is a great bullshit meter for people who complain about some card or other as being 'overpowered'. Lots of people win tournaments, very large tournaments without packing a DI. That means you can too. It also means that its power is not what you're complaining about. You're merely complaining that it makes winning with combos harder to do. Fine. Try playing without relying so much on combos and you can win anyway, despite peoples' DIs. >> > You see: no requirements, can mean different things: somebody else >> > playing a certain card is a requirement. >> >> I agree. I'm not sure what point you're making. But then, I was never >> sure what objection you had to DI until you trotted out the 'overpowered' >> accusation in the above text. But DI is clearly not overpowered. > > well: you mentioned cards with no requirement. I said that SR, DI and > Not to Be have requirements. But that DI's requirements are easier met > than the other's. Therefore DI is a better card. But DI costs a pool and SR and Not to Be don't. Therefore DI is a worse card. Actually, the truth is that it's not clear whether DI is a better or a worse card than Sudden Reversal. There are people (and I've run into them and argued with them in the past) who swear Sudden Reversal is overpowered. Go figure. >> > All other -above the curve- cards have been >> > nerved (most of them were reduced to wallpaper, which was not ideal), >> > why not DI. It has always been an above the curve card, it's not one >> > that became above the curve because the rest was wallpapered or banned. >> >> No you can't - based on the reasoning I give below. And the fact that DI >> is not "above the curve" as I pointed out above. > > You didn't. and you fail to address any of the point I or Joshua are > making. Saying, 'it's not overpowered because I say so' is not a valid > point of argument. Saying 'it's overpowered because I say so' is not valid either. You do attempt to justify the claim based on DI's broad utility - but that isn't proof. DI costs a pool and an MPA and these are not insignificant costs, especially for canceling a single minion card. Fred

epoch_ellipse#

18 December 2006, 20:11

>The rationale is similar to disallowing Deflection during a block attempt (and >not allowing Mask after resolution, and so on). >While there's nothing explicitly on Mask that would keep it from being playable >when Cats' Guidance is, it can't be. Something to do with its function. But there is specific text on Mask stating that the action resumes where it left off. After resolution the action is over, so there's no action to resume. That's what I would point out as the reason to disallow it, anyway. Deflection has no such text. I see where you are going though, see below. > While there's nothing explicitly on Deflection that would keep it from being > playable when Enhanced Senses is, it can't be. Something to do with its function. I'm not crazy about this comparison either, because Enhanced Senses is played after the intent to block is announced and during a block attempt. I think we agree that Deflection in the middle of a block attempt would be bad for the game. Maybe this is more a criticism of 6.2's statement that a reaction card can be played at "any" time during an action rather than justification for disallowing play of Deflection before, after or between individual block attempts. > You can't have one of your minions try to "send it on" without inherently having > decided not block it yourself. Ah there's the rub for me. I was thinking of a Deflection reaction as something akin to or conceptually the same as a block. I was focusing on the similarities, and that's a valid point about the differences. A successful block attempt causes the action to become unsuccessful, while a successful deflection attempt certainly does not. Fair enough. Someone may have already asked in this thread. Would this also apply to all of the reaction cards that reduce bleeds and don't have specific text starting with "only usable...?" Cards like Confusion of the Eye or Ecstasy at basic. If so, would that mean that a non-target meth could only play Folderol at superior if the target meth had already declined to block explicitly or implicitly? All of the other reaction cards i can think of either provide intercept like Enhanced Senses (implying that they can only be used during a block attempt), or have specific text that removes any ambiguity i can think of.

Frederick Scott#

18 December 2006, 20:21

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:DLDPY03G...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > Wanting a card to be unprinted because it's a counterspell and Magic is > the game for counterspells isn't anything to do with the card being a > threat to anything. But it has been a commonly offered opinion about DI > and why it should be unprinted. I think that's would be a much fairer statement than the one Jeroen is offering. If that's what it boils down to, fine. But let's call the issue what it is: a dislike for DI because it breaks up combos and he thinks the game ought to reward the successful use of card combinations better than it now does. Don't conjure some "flaw" out of thin air and use that to justify your desire to tinker with the game. Because if you do, other people can then use your argument to attack other cards in all sorts of unpredictable ways. If that a card is unique or highly broad or can be shown to have a low requirement threshold becomes a justification for it becoming banned, there will be no end to the number of card ban threads based on the same reasoning. Fred

epoch_ellipse#

18 December 2006, 20:30

Wait a minute, if a bleed can only be reduced if it's successful... Maybe a ruling along the lines of "any reaction card without specific text relating to when it can be played can only be played after all block attempts and before action resolution" would be a good move. I would think that intercept related reaction card timing is already covered by the intercept rules, and this would cover deflection without changing card text.

LSJ#

18 December 2006, 20:30

epoch_ellipse wrote: >> The rationale is similar to disallowing Deflection during a block attempt (and >> not allowing Mask after resolution, and so on). > >> While there's nothing explicitly on Mask that would keep it from being playable >> when Cats' Guidance is, it can't be. Something to do with its function. > > But there is specific text on Mask stating that the action resumes > where it left off. After resolution the action is over, so there's no > action to resume. Incorrect. The action is still there to modify with, say, Freak Drive. Or react to with, say, Cats' Guidance. If your statement were true, neither would be playable at all (except CG for intercept). > That's what I would point out as the reason to > disallow it, anyway. Deflection has no such text. I see where you are > going though, see below. > >> While there's nothing explicitly on Deflection that would keep it from being >> playable when Enhanced Senses is, it can't be. Something to do with its function. > > I'm not crazy about this comparison either, because Enhanced Senses is > played after the intent to block is announced and during a block > attempt. I think we agree that Deflection in the middle of a block > attempt would be bad for the game. But not prohibited by card or rule text. > Maybe this is more a criticism of > 6.2's statement that a reaction card can be played at "any" time during > an action rather than justification for disallowing play of Deflection > before, after or between individual block attempts. > >> You can't have one of your minions try to "send it on" without inherently having >> decided not block it yourself. > > Ah there's the rub for me. I was thinking of a Deflection reaction as > something akin to or conceptually the same as a block. I was focusing > on the similarities, and that's a valid point about the differences. A > successful block attempt causes the action to become unsuccessful, > while a successful deflection attempt certainly does not. Fair enough. > > Someone may have already asked in this thread. Would this also apply > to all of the reaction cards that reduce bleeds and don't have specific > text starting with "only usable...?" Would what apply? Being only playable after the block window is closed? No. You can reduce and block. > Cards like Confusion of the Eye or > Ecstasy at basic. If so, would that mean that a non-target meth could > only play Folderol at superior if the target meth had already declined > to block explicitly or implicitly? No. The bleed amount can be modified before blocks are declined. See also Bonding. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeroen#

18 December 2006, 20:34

Frederick Scott schreef: > "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1166458381.4...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott schreef: > >> "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:1166187283.7...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > >> > 1 pool vs stop someone's uber combo? > >> > >> Ah, the real objection finally comes out. The valid point you're trying to > >> make is not that Direct Intervention is that _different_ from the other > >> cards. You're trying to claim it's overpowered, pure and simple. > > > > Yes! DI is overpowered, I never said it wasn't. > > You were trying to make it indirectly. You were saying that, "It doesn't > belong because it's so different." But lots of cards are different in some > way or other. Being different doesn't make a card bad. Being overpowered > would make a card bad. Read a couple of posts higher. The reason I said 'because it is different' is ONE OF THE REASONS that I don't like the card. The overpoweredness is the major one, and another reason. > > >>I suppose > >> any card in the game which is overpowered is different than all the other > >> cards in a critical way, yes. But DI is hardly overpowered. It may stop > >> combos, which may not be to your taste if you like pulling off combos. But > >> that doesn't make it overpowered. > > > > difference is: combo's need set-up. DI doesn't need anything. The > > counter to something should at least be almost as difficult as doing > > the thing itself. See Sudden Reversal. > > What about Sudden Reversal? Sudden Reversal is the reverse of what you're > saying. Sudden Reversal breaks up combos and it's easy to set-up. No. read again: "The counter to something should at least be almost as difficult as doing the thing itself" Like SR: play a master to cancel a master. > > >> > DI cancels every other card in existence for 1 pool and an MPA, how is > >> > that balanced? It's always playable, mostly to good effect. > >> > >> How is it not balanced? Were it not, people could make killer decks using > >> a heavy component of DIs. After all, if one DI is overpowered, many ought > >> to destroy the competition. So, we should be seeing decks with, like, 15 > >> or 20 DIs. But we don't. Check the Labombra's tourney-winning deck > >> archive and I think you'll find the vast majority of decks don't even have > >> one. And the ones that do, don't have more than 1-3 of them. (That's > >> my guess; I don't have time to go and look at the moment but I'd be > >> shocked if that weren't true.) > > > > BULLSHIT. it's not because a card is overpowered that it should be in > > the TWD. why? because it's a defensive card. Not one that ousts people. > > If it were overpowered, then people would get ousts with it. If it were > as defensive as you say, everyone would play with it and it would be > impossible to win without. Then you would see it in the TWDA. again: BULLSHIT: overpowered != broken. Your using the definition of broken for overpowered. There is a HUGE difference between those 2. > > The TWDA is a great bullshit meter for people who complain about some > card or other as being 'overpowered'. Lots of people win tournaments, very > large tournaments without packing a DI. That means you can too. It also > means that its power is not what you're complaining about. You're merely > complaining that it makes winning with combos harder to do. Fine. Try > playing without relying so much on combos and you can win anyway, despite > peoples' DIs. WHAT? you're using the 'they're playing X, so make your decks anti-X' defence, people make to keep BROKEN cards in the game. If DI had that much influence on how people play, it would have been banned years ago. I''ll say it again: overpowered != broken. DI doesn't break the game. If you have read the thread from the beginning, i have never advocated banning DI. I'm only saying it's currently way above the power curve. > > >> > You see: no requirements, can mean different things: somebody else > >> > playing a certain card is a requirement. > >> > >> I agree. I'm not sure what point you're making. But then, I was never > >> sure what objection you had to DI until you trotted out the 'overpowered' > >> accusation in the above text. But DI is clearly not overpowered. > > > > well: you mentioned cards with no requirement. I said that SR, DI and > > Not to Be have requirements. But that DI's requirements are easier met > > than the other's. Therefore DI is a better card. > > But DI costs a pool and SR and Not to Be don't. Therefore DI is a worse > card. Bullshit reasoning. By that reasoning, Temptation of Greater Power was an awful card. I posted it before, and I'll break it down for you once again: SR: master for master, about 20% of each deck are masters. Let's say, this is the benchmark. NtB: master for Event: most people don't play with events. I think this is underpowered. DI: Master and a pool for any other card than master or Event (effectively a cover-every-point-get-out-of-everything card) Maybe that you think the 1 pool cost makes up for the playability it gains versus SR. I certainly don't. >Actually, the truth is that it's not clear whether DI is a etter > or a worse card than Sudden Reversal. There are people (and I've run into > them and argued with them in the past) who swear Sudden Reversal is > overpowered. Go figure. I can -kind of - understand them. But overpowered is not the word I would use. > > >> > All other -above the curve- cards have been > >> > nerved (most of them were reduced to wallpaper, which was not ideal), > >> > why not DI. It has always been an above the curve card, it's not one > >> > that became above the curve because the rest was wallpapered or banned. > >> > >> No you can't - based on the reasoning I give below. And the fact that DI > >> is not "above the curve" as I pointed out above. > > > > You didn't. and you fail to address any of the point I or Joshua are > > making. Saying, 'it's not overpowered because I say so' is not a valid > > point of argument. > > Saying 'it's overpowered because I say so' is not valid either. You do attempt > to justify the claim based on DI's broad utility - but that isn't proof. DI > costs a pool and an MPA and these are not insignificant costs, especially for > canceling a single minion card. Says you. 1 minion card can certainly mean the difference between an oust or a failure. I've seen it happen multiple times. A DI on a stealth card, on a blocking attempt fails, on a Freak Drive, on a bleed modifier do not mean you cancel the effect of just that card, but of everything else that depends on playing that card.

epoch_ellipse#

18 December 2006, 20:38

ok i got in over my head.

Jeroen#

18 December 2006, 20:42

Frederick Scott schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] Boy, you really go the length when trying to misunderstand someone. Is that unintentional or is my English that bad?

bluedevil#

18 December 2006, 22:17

Jeroen wrote: > BULLSHIT. it's not because a card is overpowered that it should be in > the TWD. why? because it's a defensive card. Not one that ousts people. I disagree. As a single play of a single card, DI produces Victory Points better than any other. -- David Cherryholmes

bluedevil#

18 December 2006, 22:34

Frederick Scott wrote: > The TWDA is a great bullshit meter for people who complain about some > card or other as being 'overpowered'. Lots of people win tournaments, very > large tournaments without packing a DI. That means you can too. It also > means that its power is not what you're complaining about. You're merely > complaining that it makes winning with combos harder to do. Fine. Try > playing without relying so much on combos and you can win anyway, despite > peoples' DIs. Freak Drive isn't a combo. Lots of powerful effects (like "+2 bleed" at the right time) are driven by single cards, and I don't think "just play another one" is an adequate response. -- David Cherryholmes

bluedevil#

18 December 2006, 22:37

Frederick Scott wrote: > This amuses me. I keep wondering what provocation (that is, what players > are trying to do with their decks outside of using DIs) would cause people > in your area to _want_ to use so many. Your playgroup seems unique in > this. There must be some reason. If DI were overpowered, as you claim, > the reason would be that your players are just a bunch of VtES geniuses > who haven't been unleashed on the world. Ben Peal and Matt Morgan, > watch out! The guys with the DIs are about to make their mark ;-) FWIW, two of the three players I have in mind were Nate Foure and Matt Guinn. They've moved on to taking other people's money in Hold'em, but their brief tour of the tournament scene was pretty sick. The third guy probably would have done just as well, but couldn't be bothered to road-trip to play Jyhad. Not saying they were gods, nor that anybody else particularly sucks, but.... yeah, they were definitely above average players IMO. -- David Cherryholmes

Frederick Scott#

18 December 2006, 23:07

"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1166470959.7...@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] No. Your reasoning is that bad.

Kevin M.#

18 December 2006, 23:26

bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote: > As a single play of a single card, DI produces > Victory Points better than any other. ummm Dave, I think you had better start giving some empirical evidence to prove these things that you keep saying. :) 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

Frederick Scott#

18 December 2006, 23:27

"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1166468623.5...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott schreef: >> "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1166458730.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... >> > Frederick Scott schreef: >> > As an aside: read this one: >> > http://ashheap.storageannex.com/burnoption.htm >> > And look! DI in every version. >> >> What is your POINT, for crying out loud?!? > > yes! please ignore all my points in my other post and start complaining > about an example. YOU brought on Ben Peal. Not me. > >>Ben Peal writes an article >> about a very specialized type of deck and in the process lists three decks >> which happen to contain a single DI in each. So what?!? There's also >> an Information Highway in each of the three. What I take from this is >> that Ben likes to throw a DI (and an Info Highway) in his twister decks. >> That's like about 17 million miles away from proving that DI is >> overpowered. > > Not evidence. Just like: i don't see it that much is evidence. Just > saying that the person whose name YOU dropped, plays with a recurring > DI. A "recurring DI"? You mean that he had a single copy in each of three proposed twister decks? Once again, I say "So what?" I didn't say Ben Peal or Matt Morgan didn't use them. I just said it was long way from establishing that DI is overpowered. Or do you think every card Ben Peal uses regularly is overpowered? Is Info Highway overpowered? >> I guess if you want to look for evidence to justify something you want to >> prove, you'll see it everywhere: >> >> "Hey, look! A dead leaf fell from a tree in the autumn. That must mean >> Direct Intervention is overpowered!" > > Same thing as pointing to the TWD. hyperbole, much? I'm saying your claim that DI is overpowered is baseless and the standards you advance for proving it so are ridiculously weak. Fred

Frederick Scott#

18 December 2006, 23:36

"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1166468378.4...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott schreef: >> "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1166458546.7...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > Frederick Scott schreef: >> >> "bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1166198812.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... >> > A lot of players see DI as a staple card that goes >> > into every deck. >> >> "A lot" is disputed. It isn't anywhere I've played. > > How many playgroups and countries does that anecdotal evidence consist > of? It consists of the Tourney Winning Deck Archive. How many playgroups and countries does your ancedotal evidence consist of? >> >>There must be some reason. If DI were overpowered, as you claim, >> >> the reason would be that your players are just a bunch of VtES geniuses >> >> who haven't been unleashed on the world. Ben Peal and Matt Morgan, >> >> watch out! The guys with the DIs are about to make their mark ;-) >> > >> > You were the same guy who said that Dreams of the Sphinx was not a >> > powerful card, IIRC. It seems we have a seriously different definition >> > of strong.... >> >> My estimation of DotS has gone up over time. It's still not overpowered. >> But it's a good card. So what? >> > We had the DotS discussion a couple of years ago. I once stated I thought Dreams was overrated. I still think there's a fair number of people in the game who rate it too highly. But at the time, it just struck me as a good discussion topic. I wasn't really doing anywhere with it. > Maybe your estimation > of DI will go up to. BTW, I never said DotS was overpowered. I said it > was a good card. Huh? First you said it didn't fit into the game. When I challenged that point, your justification for how DI was different from other cards was that it wasn't "balanced". "Unbalanced" and "is a good card" are two different concepts. The game is full of good cards like DI and Dreams of the Sphinx. Fred

tigernat1#

18 December 2006, 23:41

This may post twice, but I want to make sure its out there. LSJ wrote: > The action is still there to modify with, say, Freak Drive. Or react to with, > say, Cats' Guidance. > > If your statement were true, neither would be playable at all (except CG for > intercept). Except for card text of course. Both of these cards create a new "window" for play of themselves. You are doing a similar thing with the bounce cards, except you are LIMITING the window of playability to only AFTER block declinations. > > Someone may have already asked in this thread. Would this also apply > > to all of the reaction cards that reduce bleeds and don't have specific > > text starting with "only usable...?" > > Would what apply? > > Being only playable after the block window is closed? > No. You can reduce and block. Why create an inconsistency with when reaction cards can be played (except intercept and Cat's Guidance, which already have defined timing windows)? Wouldn't it be better for the game if reactions all follow the same rules of play timing (except intercept, etc...as defined above)? Example of consistency: Player A: Frederick the Weak bleeds for 1. Player B: Gilbert Duane ATTEMPTS to reduce the bleed by 2. Player C: I Direct Intervention the bleed reduction card. Player B: Well, then Gilbert attempts to block. Player A: Frederick the Weak bleeds for 1. Player B: Gilbert Duane ATTEMPTS to deflect the bleed to C. Player C: I Direct Intervention the bleed bounce card. Player B: Well, then Gilbert attempts to block. Situation 2 under the current ruling: Player A: Frederick the Weak bleeds for 1. Player B: Gilbert Duane ATTEMPTS to deflect the bleed to C. Player C: I Direct Intervention the bleed bounce card. Player B: Well, I guess I have to take it since I can't block (cause LSJ said so). As opposed to the recent text change to bounce cards, did you ever consider adding text that prohibits them from being played during a currently succeeding block attempt? Please explain your reasoning either way. ;-) thanks, Vegas gNat

tigernat1#

18 December 2006, 23:41

XZealot#

18 December 2006, 23:53

LSJ wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > >> XZealot wrote: > >>> crispyfloss wrote: > >>>> On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > >>>>> The misplay isn't caused by the defending player pitching a pool. It > >>>>> is caused by the acting player playing an action modifier on an action > >>>>> which is resolved. The defending player shouldn't be penalized for the > >>>>> misplay of another player. > >>>> Maybe I missed something along the way - does anyone seriously think > >>>> that if you let a bleed of one resolve (by pitching a pool) and then > >>>> the acting player adds an action modifier, you are able to go back and > >>>> decide to block because they had to declare the action modifier > >>>> earlier? > >>> Yes, it is common in many playgroups across the United States. It > >>> helps speed the game up immensely. > >> It's uncommon, actually. > > > > We'll have to agree to disagree on the commonality of pitching a pool, > > since neither of us has statics to back up his viewpoint. > > Exactly. Thanks for selling it to the cheap seats, though. Hey, I wasn't the one who introduced the concept of an "implict no-block" which set the foundation for a plethora of bad rulings based upon this precedent. The very idea that you can anounce an intention not to block without actually saying "I don't block" sets a precedent that the acting player can deny the reacting player the capacity to block without card play. > >> Commonly, the majority playgroups play it properly, as an implicit declination > >> of blocking, which it is (or as explicitly stated). > >> > >> There is nothing to be gained, except aiding cheating, by allowing it to "draw > >> out" a modifier that the acting player doesn't intend to play until after blocks > >> are declined. > > > > Then obviously the acting player has the ability to ask, "Do you > > block?" even after the pool has been pitched. > > Pointlessly, since the question has already been answered (the defending player > cannot expect to reach the pitching pool stage unless he has declined to block; > since it was the defending player's impulse (his turn in sequence to play the > next effect), his options were: "so-and-so plays a reaction", "I play a master: > out-of-turn", "so-an-so blocks", or "no block". That is the exhaustive list of > his choices at his impulse. Which of those choices is indicated by pitching a > pool? The "no block" one, of course). And yet, he still has not been asked if he blocks, and still has not answered that he doesn't block. There is no fundamental difference between playing a reaction card and blocking after the acting player plays an action modifier. The play of the action modifier makes the pitching of a pool a misplay, therefore the pool is retracted and play is rewound. > > Nothing is stopping the > > acting player from asking, "Do you block?" > > Nothing is stopping him from asking "is it my turn?" either, but both are obvious. Your rhetorical statement misses the point. Can the defending player deny the acting player his turn? > > Even in the rulebook it states that this is an "event". > > You can't go skipping events. > > Correct. At the defending player's impulse, though, he declined to react or > block, so it must be the case that he declined to block. Yes, he issued no response to either reacting or blocking. By that same logic, you haven't responded to the accusation that you are haven't stopped beating your wife. So you must be a wife beater. Obviously, the previous statement was fictiious and I have no evidence to support the accusation of spousal abuse (cuz we all know your wife would kick your ass. :P). What it shows is that in fact your implied declined to block in the absense of someone asking "Do you block?" is non-sensical. You can not implicitly respond to a question that hasn't been asked. > Nothing was skipped. (And it is now the acting player's impulse, since "no > block" is an event, so he may play bleed boosters). The "event" of "no block" was never addressed. You may say it was addressed but it wasn't. It was skipped. It was skipped by the acting player who never prompted for a response to the "event". Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Frederick Scott#

18 December 2006, 23:56

"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1166470478.8...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott schreef: >> news:1166458381.4...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... >> > Frederick Scott schreef: >> >> "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1166187283.7...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... >> >> > 1 pool vs stop someone's uber combo? >> >> >> >> Ah, the real objection finally comes out. The valid point you're trying to >> >> make is not that Direct Intervention is that _different_ from the other >> >> cards. You're trying to claim it's overpowered, pure and simple. >> > >> > Yes! DI is overpowered, I never said it wasn't. >> >> You were trying to make it indirectly. You were saying that, "It doesn't >> belong because it's so different." But lots of cards are different in some >> way or other. Being different doesn't make a card bad. Being overpowered >> would make a card bad. > > Read a couple of posts higher. The reason I said 'because it is > different' is ONE OF THE REASONS that I don't like the card. The > overpoweredness is the major one, and another reason. ... > No. read again: > "The counter to something should at least be almost as difficult as > doing the thing itself" > Like SR: play a master to cancel a master. DI is as difficult or more difficult than the vast majority of minion cards. You have to hold it in your hand until the time comes to use it, taking up space. It costs a precious master phase action. And it costs a pool whereas all of your opponents costs are negated. >> >> > DI cancels every other card in existence for 1 pool and an MPA, how is >> >> > that balanced? It's always playable, mostly to good effect. >> >> >> >> How is it not balanced? Were it not, people could make killer decks using >> >> a heavy component of DIs. After all, if one DI is overpowered, many ought >> >> to destroy the competition. So, we should be seeing decks with, like, 15 >> >> or 20 DIs. But we don't. Check the Labombra's tourney-winning deck >> >> archive and I think you'll find the vast majority of decks don't even have >> >> one. And the ones that do, don't have more than 1-3 of them. (That's >> >> my guess; I don't have time to go and look at the moment but I'd be >> >> shocked if that weren't true.) >> > >> > BULLSHIT. it's not because a card is overpowered that it should be in >> > the TWD. why? because it's a defensive card. Not one that ousts people. >> >> If it were overpowered, then people would get ousts with it. If it were >> as defensive as you say, everyone would play with it and it would be >> impossible to win without. Then you would see it in the TWDA. > > again: BULLSHIT: overpowered != broken. Your using the definition of > broken for overpowered. There is a HUGE difference between those 2. Ah, semantics. When I hear "overpowered", I think it exactly means "broken". If it doesn't, you should forget slapping the overpowered lable on it and state the exact issue. When you drop "overpowered" into the conversation, most people think you mean it's too easy to win with. >> The TWDA is a great bullshit meter for people who complain about some >> card or other as being 'overpowered'. Lots of people win tournaments, very >> large tournaments without packing a DI. That means you can too. It also >> means that its power is not what you're complaining about. You're merely >> complaining that it makes winning with combos harder to do. Fine. Try >> playing without relying so much on combos and you can win anyway, despite >> peoples' DIs. > > WHAT? you're using the 'they're playing X, so make your decks anti-X' > defence, No. I'm saying the words just above your quote. I will repeat: Lots of people win without packing a DI. That means it's not "broken" or "overpowered" or anything along those lines. I believe you have some problem with it, but it's very unclear to me because you haven't stated your problem in any terms other people should care about, as far as I can see. > I''ll say it again: overpowered != broken. All right, I get it. So please don't use the word "overpowered" any more because I disagree with your definition. I think most people do mean "broken" when they say "overpowered". But semantics are useless to argue about. Whatever you call it, it's not a thing that requires its utility level be reduced. > DI doesn't break the game. If you have read the thread from the > beginning, i have never advocated banning DI. What you said was, "it doesn't fit the game". That kind of makes it sound like you think it shouldn't be in the game. I guess that's different from saying it should be banned in a strict sense. But FWIW, I disagree with that, too. > I'm only saying it's currently way above the power curve. At this point, I have no idea what you mean by that. If you mean something different by "power" than a card being broken, then you have to be more specific. If you're trying to split hairs about it being _almost_ broken but not quite, then I disagree: you would see a lot of copies of an almost broken card in the TWDA, too. >> > well: you mentioned cards with no requirement. I said that SR, DI and >> > Not to Be have requirements. But that DI's requirements are easier met >> > than the other's. Therefore DI is a better card. >> >> But DI costs a pool and SR and Not to Be don't. Therefore DI is a worse >> card. > > Bullshit reasoning. By that reasoning, Temptation of Greater Power was > an awful card. I'm not the one claiming Temptation of Greater Power was overpowered due to lack of requirements. You're the one who's obsessing on a card's requirement level. > I posted it before, and I'll break it down for you once > again: > > SR: master for master, about 20% of each deck are masters. Let's say, > this is the benchmark. > NtB: master for Event: most people don't play with events. I think this > is underpowered. > DI: Master and a pool for any other card than master or Event > (effectively a cover-every-point-get-out-of-everything card) Maybe that > you think the 1 pool cost makes up for the playability it gains versus > SR. I certainly don't. I certainly do, yes. I think you're underestimating this cost. I also think you're overestimating its utility. >> Saying 'it's overpowered because I say so' is not valid either. You do attempt >> to justify the claim based on DI's broad utility - but that isn't proof. DI >> costs a pool and an MPA and these are not insignificant costs, especially for >> canceling a single minion card. > > Says you. 1 minion card can certainly mean the difference between an > oust or a failure. It can. It can also sit in your hand uselessly for several turns until you finally use it to DI something silly just to get rid of it. Then the key minion card comes up the next play. Who cares? Fred

tigernat1#

18 December 2006, 23:57

tigernat1 wrote: > > As opposed to the recent text change to bounce cards, did you ever > consider adding text that prohibits them from being played during a > currently succeeding block attempt? Please explain your reasoning > either way. Additionally, can I play bleed reduction cards during a currently succeeding block attempt? Another suggestion as opposed to card text changes: What about adding a statement to the rulebook that says: During a block attempt, cards that do anything other than give the blocking minion intercept cannot be played? Or something similar in wording of course. Vegas gNat

James Coupe#

19 December 2006, 00:29

In message <1166482390.3...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >Hey, I wasn't the one who introduced the concept of an "implict >no-block" which set the foundation for a plethora of bad rulings based >upon this precedent. The very idea that you can anounce an intention >not to block without actually saying "I don't block" sets a precedent >that the acting player can deny the reacting player the capacity to >block without card play. No, it doesn't. If the acting player tries to push past a timing phase the reacting player want to use an effect in, they back up as normal. This is the case whether players communicate every nuance of the rules in clearly phrased English, get along with playgroup slang, speak in bad French, communicate through grunts and points, or communicate their choices via the subtle art of expressive fellatio, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Jeroen Rombouts#

19 December 2006, 00:45

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht news:MJEhh.21945$Zb5....@newsfe13.phx... > "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1166468378.4...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... >> Frederick Scott schreef: >>> "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:1166458546.7...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> > Frederick Scott schreef: >>> >> "bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:1166198812.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... >>> > A lot of players see DI as a staple card that goes >>> > into every deck. >>> >>> "A lot" is disputed. It isn't anywhere I've played. >> >> How many playgroups and countries does that anecdotal evidence consist >> of? > > It consists of the Tourney Winning Deck Archive. How many playgroups > and countries does your ancedotal evidence consist of? TWD doesn't even hold every Tournament winning deck. And it says nothing about DI in action. > >>> >>There must be some reason. If DI were overpowered, as you claim, >>> >> the reason would be that your players are just a bunch of VtES >>> >> geniuses >>> >> who haven't been unleashed on the world. Ben Peal and Matt Morgan, >>> >> watch out! The guys with the DIs are about to make their mark ;-) >>> > >>> > You were the same guy who said that Dreams of the Sphinx was not a >>> > powerful card, IIRC. It seems we have a seriously different definition >>> > of strong.... >>> >>> My estimation of DotS has gone up over time. It's still not >>> overpowered. >>> But it's a good card. So what? >>> >> We had the DotS discussion a couple of years ago. > > I once stated I thought Dreams was overrated. I still think there's a > fair > number of people in the game who rate it too highly. But at the time, it > just struck me as a good discussion topic. I wasn't really doing anywhere > with it. > >> Maybe your estimation >> of DI will go up to. BTW, I never said DotS was overpowered. I said it >> was a good card. > > Huh? First you said it didn't fit into the game. now your doing this on purpose. DotS != DI. now read my statement again. >When I challenged that > point, your justification for how DI was different from other cards was > that > it wasn't "balanced". "Unbalanced" and "is a good card" are two different > concepts. The game is full of good cards like DI and Dreams of the > Sphinx. yes. And why is it not worth it to point out wich ones are above the power curve and wich are below?

Jeroen Rombouts#

19 December 2006, 01:05

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht news:j0Fhh.26263$B42....@newsfe12.phx... [ quoted text not captured ] you mean, like any reactionary card in the game? oh noes! > It costs a precious master phase action. And > it costs a pool whereas all of your opponents costs are negated. No it doesn't. Only the canceled card's cost is negated. [ quoted text not captured ] Maybe you think that. I don't. overpowered means: to much power. That doesn't have to be power to effectively win with. to be clearer: take the old Succubus Club. As such, it was no 'winning card', but it gave the controller of the card too much power over the game. > >>> The TWDA is a great bullshit meter for people who complain about some >>> card or other as being 'overpowered'. Lots of people win tournaments, >>> very >>> large tournaments without packing a DI. That means you can too. It >>> also >>> means that its power is not what you're complaining about. You're >>> merely >>> complaining that it makes winning with combos harder to do. Fine. Try >>> playing without relying so much on combos and you can win anyway, >>> despite >>> peoples' DIs. >> >> WHAT? you're using the 'they're playing X, so make your decks anti-X' >> defence, > > No. I'm saying the words just above your quote. > > I will repeat: Lots of people win without packing a DI. That means it's > not "broken" or "overpowered" or anything along those lines. I believe > you have some problem with it, but it's very unclear to me because you > haven't stated your problem in any terms other people should care about, > as far as I can see. Who said you should care about my opinion? > >> I''ll say it again: overpowered != broken. > > All right, I get it. So please don't use the word "overpowered" any > more because I disagree with your definition. I think most people do > mean "broken" when they say "overpowered". But semantics are useless > to argue about. Whatever you call it, it's not a thing that requires > its utility level be reduced. > >> DI doesn't break the game. If you have read the thread from the >> beginning, i have never advocated banning DI. > > What you said was, "it doesn't fit the game". That kind of makes it > sound like you think it shouldn't be in the game. Yes. Poor design for a CCG were all cards need to be balanced. >I guess that's > different from saying it should be banned in a strict sense. But FWIW, > I disagree with that, too. > >> I'm only saying it's currently way above the power curve. > > At this point, I have no idea what you mean by that. If you mean > something different by "power" than a card being broken, then you > have to be more specific. If you're trying to split hairs about it > being _almost_ broken but not quite, then I disagree: you would see > a lot of copies of an almost broken card in the TWDA, too. see above for what power means. > >>> > well: you mentioned cards with no requirement. I said that SR, DI and >>> > Not to Be have requirements. But that DI's requirements are easier met >>> > than the other's. Therefore DI is a better card. >>> >>> But DI costs a pool and SR and Not to Be don't. Therefore DI is a worse >>> card. >> >> Bullshit reasoning. By that reasoning, Temptation of Greater Power was >> an awful card. > > I'm not the one claiming Temptation of Greater Power was overpowered due > to lack of requirements. You're the one who's obsessing on a card's > requirement level. yes. If one pool makes that much difference for you, why not the 3 + the requirements? > >> I posted it before, and I'll break it down for you once >> again: >> >> SR: master for master, about 20% of each deck are masters. Let's say, >> this is the benchmark. >> NtB: master for Event: most people don't play with events. I think this >> is underpowered. >> DI: Master and a pool for any other card than master or Event >> (effectively a cover-every-point-get-out-of-everything card) Maybe that >> you think the 1 pool cost makes up for the playability it gains versus >> SR. I certainly don't. > > I certainly do, yes. I think you're underestimating this cost. I also > think you're overestimating its utility. you said yourself you don't see the card that much. I'm not estimating anything. I see it in action every game I play. > >>> Saying 'it's overpowered because I say so' is not valid either. You do >>> attempt >>> to justify the claim based on DI's broad utility - but that isn't proof. >>> DI >>> costs a pool and an MPA and these are not insignificant costs, >>> especially for >>> canceling a single minion card. >> >> Says you. 1 minion card can certainly mean the difference between an >> oust or a failure. > > It can. It can also sit in your hand uselessly for several turns until > you > finally use it to DI something silly just to get rid of it. Then the key > minion card comes up the next play. Who cares? > If a DI sits in your hand for several turns, then that means nobody is doing anything DI-worthy. I've never seen that happen in a game that didn't go to time.

Jeroen Rombouts#

19 December 2006, 01:08

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht news:RiEhh.14944$un3...@newsfe14.phx... [ quoted text not captured ] Like I said in the other post: I think you're doing this intenionally. see after the DotS remark.

Jeroen Rombouts#

19 December 2006, 01:24

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht news:RiEhh.14944$un3...@newsfe14.phx... [ quoted text not captured ] How come you haven't adressed my first point, actually? The first point I made against DI was that it caused too much confusion. Even after all the rulings, loads of people are still playing it wrong. And the questions keep coming back over and over again. That was my first point. The above the power curve thing came second. And the not fitting the game came third. You keep going on as if I want to ban every card with a unique effect, which I'm not. On the contrary, I want more unique effects. But balanced, power wise. And that is, of course, largely a matter of taste. fr.ex say a card existed that said: cost: x dom: (D) bleed at +x+1 DOM: +1 stealth action. Move x+1 blood from the blood bank to a younger vampire in your uncontrolled region. at which X does this card become too strong? (obviously x=0 is scouting mission, x=1 is govern the unaligned) would a card with x=2 be balanced? x=3? x=4? My personal cut-off point is scouting mission. But that's, of course, debatable.

Frederick Scott#

19 December 2006, 02:39

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in message news:m1Ghh.244075$po5.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht > news:j0Fhh.26263$B42....@newsfe12.phx... >> "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1166470478.8...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> Read a couple of posts higher. The reason I said 'because it is >>> different' is ONE OF THE REASONS that I don't like the card. The >>> overpoweredness is the major one, and another reason. >> ... >>> No. read again: >>> "The counter to something should at least be almost as difficult as >>> doing the thing itself" >>> Like SR: play a master to cancel a master. >> >> DI is as difficult or more difficult than the vast majority of minion >> cards. You have to hold it in your hand until the time comes to use >> it, taking up space. > > you mean, like any reactionary card in the game? oh noes! Sure, like any 'reactionary card' - as you call it - in the game. Cancleling cards _must_ be flexible. Or else their cost must be less than, not greater than (as you suggest), the cost of the card they cancel. Or often both. Otherwise, they're wallpaper. Why pack a card for which the _best_ result is that we're even and the worst result is that I've packed a worthless card, drawn it, and had to use a DPA to get rid of it. (Or worse, held it for a period of time hoping it would be useful and winding up disappointed.) >> It costs a precious master phase action. And >> it costs a pool whereas all of your opponents costs are negated. > > No it doesn't. Only the canceled card's cost is negated. Those are only costs I was talking about it. You want, what? For DI to hand you back the costs of other cards in the opponent's card combo too? That's the risk of playing with card combinations. No one's forcing you to play them. >>>> > BULLSHIT. it's not because a card is overpowered that it should be in >>>> > the TWD. why? because it's a defensive card. Not one that ousts people. >>>> >>>> If it were overpowered, then people would get ousts with it. If it were >>>> as defensive as you say, everyone would play with it and it would be >>>> impossible to win without. Then you would see it in the TWDA. >>> >>> again: BULLSHIT: overpowered != broken. Your using the definition of >>> broken for overpowered. There is a HUGE difference between those 2. >> >> Ah, semantics. When I hear "overpowered", I think it exactly means "broken". >> If it doesn't, you should forget slapping the overpowered lable on it and >> state the exact issue. When you drop "overpowered" into the conversation, >> most people think you mean it's too easy to win with. > > Maybe you think that. I've made a lot of posts on Usenet. I have found that this is only consistant meaning of the word people understand. To use it otherwise is to risk misunderstanding. > I don't. overpowered means: to much power. That > doesn't have to be power to effectively win with. What other power is there? The only motivation in the game is to get ousts. How much a card helps you get ousts is its power level. Too much power = overpowered = broken = you will see it in the TWDA. > to be clearer: take the old Succubus Club. As such, it was no 'winning card', but it gave the controller of the card too much > power over the game. As far as I know, there were only two reasons for Suc Club to be banned: 1) It made for too much discussion time in the game; and 2) It was overpowered in that it allowed people to win games too easily using it. What does "the controller of the (having) too much power over the game" mean - if not power to get ousts? And particularly, what does it mean that anyone would care about? >> No. I'm saying the words just above your quote. >> >> I will repeat: Lots of people win without packing a DI. That means it's >> not "broken" or "overpowered" or anything along those lines. I believe >> you have some problem with it, but it's very unclear to me because you >> haven't stated your problem in any terms other people should care about, >> as far as I can see. > > Who said you should care about my opinion? Why are you posting your opinion if you expect no one to care about it? That sounds like a waste of time. >>I guess that's >> different from saying it should be banned in a strict sense. But FWIW, >> I disagree with that, too. >> >>> I'm only saying it's currently way above the power curve. >> >> At this point, I have no idea what you mean by that. If you mean >> something different by "power" than a card being broken, then you >> have to be more specific. If you're trying to split hairs about it >> being _almost_ broken but not quite, then I disagree: you would see >> a lot of copies of an almost broken card in the TWDA, too. > > see above for what power means. You haven't defined how you're using the word, other than to say it doesn't involve the power to get ousts and some nebulous comment about Succubus Club granting a player power "over" the game - whatever that means. >>>> > well: you mentioned cards with no requirement. I said that SR, DI and >>>> > Not to Be have requirements. But that DI's requirements are easier met >>>> > than the other's. Therefore DI is a better card. >>>> >>>> But DI costs a pool and SR and Not to Be don't. Therefore DI is a worse >>>> card. >>> >>> Bullshit reasoning. By that reasoning, Temptation of Greater Power was >>> an awful card. >> >> I'm not the one claiming Temptation of Greater Power was overpowered due >> to lack of requirements. You're the one who's obsessing on a card's >> requirement level. > > yes. If one pool makes that much difference for you, why not the 3 + the requirements? Because a card's power level is reckoned by other factors besides _only_ its requirements for use. Tempation of Greater Power allowed for a deck that was too easy to get ousts with using massed copies of the card and the right Vampires and other particular masters and minion cards in combination with it. As I said, you're obsessed with requirement levels - to the point of ignoring the other factors that make a card powerful, or not. >>> Maybe that >>> you think the 1 pool cost makes up for the playability it gains versus >>> SR. I certainly don't. >> >> I certainly do, yes. I think you're underestimating this cost. I also >> think you're overestimating its utility. > > you said yourself you don't see the card that much. I'm not estimating anything. I see it in action every game I play. I'm using the word 'estimate' to mean 'reckon' or 'summarize'. This has nothing to with how often one sees a card. I suspect you're mainly frustrated that it won't allow you to use the strategies you want to use in order to win games. Not that it's too powerful, in any sense. Fred

Frederick Scott#

19 December 2006, 02:47

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in message news:eKFhh.244048$uo5.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht news:MJEhh.21945$Zb5....@newsfe13.phx... >> "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1166468378.4...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... >>> How many playgroups and countries does that anecdotal evidence consist >>> of? >> >> It consists of the Tourney Winning Deck Archive. How many playgroups >> and countries does your ancedotal evidence consist of? > > TWD doesn't even hold every Tournament winning deck. And it says nothing about DI in action. The TWDA holds enough decks that an overpowered card would turn up in substantial numbers. It may not show every TWD everywhere in the world but it doesn't have to in order to disprove your contention. >>> Maybe your estimation >>> of DI will go up to. BTW, I never said DotS was overpowered. I said it >>> was a good card. >> >> Huh? First you said it didn't fit into the game. > > now your doing this on purpose. DotS != DI. now read my statement again. Sorry. I wasn't expecting you to make that claim so I misread your statement to say, "I never said DI was overpowered". My mistake. And yes, I KNOW you never claimed DotS was overpowered. What did I say which made you think otherwise? > yes. And why is it not worth it to point out wich ones are above the power curve and wich are below? It depends. If you mean, which ones are above average useful, that's fine. Obviously, half the cards in the game are above the halfway mark and half are below. If you're saying DI is in the top half (or top quarter or something), OK/ But in the context you made the comment, I gathered you thought it was so far above average it constituted a problem. Fred

XZealot#

19 December 2006, 02:58

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1166482390.3...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>, > XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: > >Hey, I wasn't the one who introduced the concept of an "implict > >no-block" which set the foundation for a plethora of bad rulings based > >upon this precedent. The very idea that you can anounce an intention > >not to block without actually saying "I don't block" sets a precedent > >that the acting player can deny the reacting player the capacity to > >block without card play. > > No, it doesn't. If the acting player tries to push past a timing phase > the reacting player want to use an effect in, they back up as normal. Oh, you mean like blocking? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe#

19 December 2006, 03:05

In message <1166493488.2...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Sure. If the acting Methuselah tries to deny the reacting Methuselah a chance to block, they back up as normal. This has nothing to do with the current discussion, however, where the reacting Methuselah is declining to block, albeit implicitly. If their use of the subtle art of expressive fellatio is being mis-interpreted by other players, they would do well to improve it, so that players do not mis-interpret them. For example, if a play-group establishes that tossing your pool into the blood bank is obviously an acceptance of the bleed - as seems perfectly reasonable, in most circumstances - you would do well to avoid doing that when you don't want to get bled and actually want to block. Similarly, a player would do well to avoid agreeing "Hands for one" in a playgroup where that has become common currency for "No maneuvers, both strike hands, slap, slap." This has sweet F.A. to do with the acting Methuselah being able to force you to skip phases where you want to play effects, your increasingly bizarre and incoherent mis-interpretation of the rules notwithstanding. If the reacting player makes it clear that he is or isn't doing something, he is or isn't doing it. The acting Methuselah cannot say "Oh, you blinked, vote passes, Voter Captivation, Freak Drive, I WIN!" [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott#

19 December 2006, 03:08

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in message news:ojGhh.244097$5f5.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > How come you haven't adressed my first point, actually? > > The first point I made against DI was that it caused too much confusion. Um, because I didn't necessarily disagree with that point? Or at least, I didn't think it worth of further discussion. This is Usenet. If you're going to post a list of different points you want to make about some subject, and one of them is OK or just so-so and another one is flamingly, incredibly, irrefutably *WRONG* (set the 'overpowered DI' aside for a moment and just consider it for an example), people are certainly allowed to respond to your post and dispute the 'wrong' thing and ignore the rest. There's no reason I have to dispute the thing you said about confusion just because I object to the suggestion that DI doesn't fit the game. I don't actually think DI causes that much confusion that it's a bad card. I just didn't see the point as debate-worthy. > The above the power curve thing came second. And the not fitting the game came third. > > You keep going on as if I want to ban every card with a unique effect, which > I'm not. On the contrary, I want more unique effects. But balanced, power > wise. I go on like that because you have no basis for saying DI "doesn't fit into the game" and every time you try to articulate your basis, it keeps coming down to, "DI does something other cards don't do". That is, it's unique in some particular sense. That's what the word 'unique' means. If you don't mean that, don't say it and we can end this confusion and settle on what the nature of our differences truly are. > And that is, of course, largely a matter of taste. Actually, no - there are other factors dictating the banning of cards besides taste. For example, a card that does exactly the same effect as Govern the Unaligned with the same dom/DOM requirements except that it cost zero blood instead of one causes a problem which is not taste- based: it would obsolesce Govern the Unaligned - meaning that no one would ever play GtU if they could get a copy of the new card. Or a card could be overpowered, unbalanced, and 'broken' (as you insist it must be called), and make the game too easy to win through its use. Then, people start feeling like they _must_ use that card in order to have a fair chance to win. This narrows the game, which is also problem no matter what your taste. Fred

XZealot#

19 December 2006, 03:24

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1166493488.2...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, > XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: > > > >James Coupe wrote: > >> In message <1166482390.3...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>, > >> XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: > >> >Hey, I wasn't the one who introduced the concept of an "implict > >> >no-block" which set the foundation for a plethora of bad rulings based > >> >upon this precedent. The very idea that you can anounce an intention > >> >not to block without actually saying "I don't block" sets a precedent > >> >that the acting player can deny the reacting player the capacity to > >> >block without card play. > >> > >> No, it doesn't. If the acting player tries to push past a timing phase > >> the reacting player want to use an effect in, they back up as normal. > > > >Oh, you mean like blocking? > > Sure. If the acting Methuselah tries to deny the reacting Methuselah a > chance to block, they back up as normal. > > This has nothing to do with the current discussion, however, where the > reacting Methuselah is declining to block, albeit implicitly. Here's the problem, James. You can't decline to block implicitly as it is an explicitly written in the rules that you must declare whether you are blocking or not. If their is a misplay then the play backs up to the point where the misplay can be resolved. Let me lay it out for you. The various stage of an action are as follows. A) action is announced B) Action modifiers are played C) Reactions are played D) Block attempts are declared E) Action Modifiers are played F) Reactions are played G) Combat ensues from a successful block. H) If blocking minion fails, then other block attempts are solicited. I) Barring another minion successfully blocking 1) You decline to block 2) All other non-acting Meths (cw) decline to block 3) The acting Methuselah declines to play modifiers 4) You decline to play reactions 5) All other non-acting Meths (cw) decline to play reactions 6) You pitch a pool into the bank Since the pool was pitched and the reacting player never declined to block the play reverts to step B for this misplay. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe#

19 December 2006, 03:52

In message <1166495095....@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: > >James Coupe wrote: >> In message <1166493488.2...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, >> XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >> > >> >James Coupe wrote: >> >> In message <1166482390.3...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>, >> >> XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >> >> >Hey, I wasn't the one who introduced the concept of an "implict >> >> >no-block" which set the foundation for a plethora of bad rulings based >> >> >upon this precedent. The very idea that you can anounce an intention >> >> >not to block without actually saying "I don't block" sets a precedent >> >> >that the acting player can deny the reacting player the capacity to >> >> >block without card play. >> >> >> >> No, it doesn't. If the acting player tries to push past a timing phase >> >> the reacting player want to use an effect in, they back up as normal. >> > >> >Oh, you mean like blocking? >> >> Sure. If the acting Methuselah tries to deny the reacting Methuselah a >> chance to block, they back up as normal. >> >> This has nothing to do with the current discussion, however, where the >> reacting Methuselah is declining to block, albeit implicitly. > >Here's the problem, James. You can't decline to block implicitly as it >is an explicitly written in the rules that you must declare whether you >are blocking or not. No, it's not. There is one example in the rules where the player explicitly asks "Do you block?", and the player decides not to. This is perfectly reasonable play, by the way. Note: the example does not say how they communicate it. It could be "No, I don't block." It could be "Bah, tapped out." It could be a shake of the head, a wave of the hand from side to side indicating "No" while they choke on a cookie. Similarly reasonable play would be for the acting Methuselah to play Govern the Unaligned, draw a replacement, play Seduction, draw a replacement, play The Sleeping Mind, draw a replacement, look at their hand, and say "That's it." The reacting Methuselah looks at his hand, starts picking up pool, asks how much the bleed is for... 3, no 4 because of Anneke's built in +1 bleed. The reacting Methuselah throws 4 pool into the blood bank. All done. Everything's been communicated. No-one is confused. The rules do not specify or enforce the manner in which players must communicate. As another example, it is notable that one common reaction to Madness of the Bard being played was for players to communicate non- verbally to limit the amount of speaking they had to do - such as shaking their head, pointing at vampires, and so on. This was similarly legal play. I am not sure where you have extracted this idea that players do not develop short-hand or that the rules require every possible step to be announced at all points. They don't. If the players understand what's going on, that's fine. If a step is rushed by by accident, back up. This isn't hard. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe#

19 December 2006, 04:03

In message <zpHhh.26390$B42....@newsfe12.phx>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >Sure, like any 'reactionary card' - as you call it - in the game. >Cancleling cards _must_ be flexible. Or else their cost must be less than, >not greater than (as you suggest), the cost of the card they cancel. >Or often both. Otherwise, they're wallpaper. Why pack a card for which >the _best_ result is that we're even and the worst result is that I've >packed a worthless card, drawn it, and had to use a DPA to get rid of it. >(Or worse, held it for a period of time hoping it would be useful and >winding up disappointed.) (Note "Subject:" change. This response is not about DI being the hottest or evilest card in the world.) In a theoretical sense, the cost can be higher by relatively objective measures, and yet still be worth it for me. For example, I may have the resources for that particular type of cost in abundance. Example: - I have to tap two untapped minions to cancel one minion's action. This seems to be relatively more expensive - I've had to leave two minions untapped, to stop one action. However, in a breed deck, I might have spare minions a-plenty. - The cost might be one or more master phase actions (perhaps pre- emptive, perhaps paid off afterwards), and I have them to spare because I'm playing Anson and Rumors of Gehenna, with some Investments to top me up when I have nothing else to do. Also, if the thing being cancelled is quite specific (such as a particular type of action, say), but very common (a bleed), flexibility isn't so hot. I don't need the flexibility because I reckon I'm very likely to see that situation in play on a very regular basis. At which point I don't need such a large level of flexibility, because I'm picking on something that happens all the time. [ quoted text not captured ]

Churchy La Femme#

19 December 2006, 04:09

On Dec 18, 6:24 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > A) action is announced > B) Action modifiers are played > C) Reactions are played > D) Block attempts are declared > E) Action Modifiers are played > F) Reactions are played > G) Combat ensues from a successful block. > H) If blocking minion fails, then other block attempts are solicited. > I) Barring another minion successfully blocking > 1) You decline to block > 2) All other non-acting Meths (cw) decline to block > 3) The acting Methuselah declines to play modifiers > 4) You decline to play reactions > 5) All other non-acting Meths (cw) decline to play reactions > 6) You pitch a pool into the bank > > Since the pool was pitched and the reacting player never declined to > block the play reverts to step B for this misplay. This is insane! So if a combat ensues from your successful block, after gaining priviledged information, you can now do this: Acting Meth: No pre-combat you: No pre-combat AM: No-pre manuevers you: No-pre-manuevers AM: I manuever away you: my strike is hands AM: My strike is Taste of Death you: Wait! I never declined to manuever! I manuever in. AM: Gee, darn, you got me again! Nicely done!

XZealot#

19 December 2006, 04:24

[ quoted text not captured ] Nice analogy, but since the steps of actions are vastly more fluid and dynamic than the steps of combat, your analogy is wrong. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot#

19 December 2006, 04:28

> I am not sure where you have extracted this idea that players do not > develop short-hand or that the rules require every possible step to be > announced at all points. They don't. Really? Show me that in the rulebook >If the players understand what's > going on, that's fine. If a step is rushed by by accident, back up. As soon as you deny a player the opportunity to announce his/her block then you need to back up to where they can decide whether to block or not. [ quoted text not captured ]

Churchy La Femme#

19 December 2006, 04:41

On Dec 18, 7:24 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: >Nice analogy, but since the steps of actions are vastly more fluid and > dynamic than the steps of combat, your analogy is wrong. Oh, since actions are more 'fluid and dynamic' it makes my step per step analogy 'wrong'. Good argument!

XZealot#

19 December 2006, 05:01

[ quoted text not captured ] If you would address the points laid out rather than putting up a strawman arguement then you could have a proper discussion. Actions do not equal Combat. So your analogy is wrong. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeroen Rombouts#

19 December 2006, 10:41

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht news:zpHhh.26390$B42....@newsfe12.phx... > "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> > wrote in message news:m1Ghh.244075$po5.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... >> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht >> news:j0Fhh.26263$B42....@newsfe12.phx... >>> "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:1166470478.8...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>>> Read a couple of posts higher. The reason I said 'because it is >>>> different' is ONE OF THE REASONS that I don't like the card. The >>>> overpoweredness is the major one, and another reason. >>> ... >>>> No. read again: >>>> "The counter to something should at least be almost as difficult as >>>> doing the thing itself" >>>> Like SR: play a master to cancel a master. >>> >>> DI is as difficult or more difficult than the vast majority of minion >>> cards. You have to hold it in your hand until the time comes to use >>> it, taking up space. >> >> you mean, like any reactionary card in the game? oh noes! > > Sure, like any 'reactionary card' - as you call it - in the game. To avoid calling it reactions... > Cancleling cards _must_ be flexible. Or else their cost must be less > than, > not greater than (as you suggest), the cost of the card they cancel. No it is not greater. Because of the nature of the game, it doesn't work that way. See below. > Or often both. Otherwise, they're wallpaper. Why pack a card for which > the _best_ result is that we're even and the worst result is that I've > packed a worthless card, drawn it, and had to use a DPA to get rid of it. > (Or worse, held it for a period of time hoping it would be useful and > winding up disappointed.) Fine, you don't like holding on to cards. Holding a wake and a deflection in hand (2 cards!!!!) is probably bad too? > >>> It costs a precious master phase action. And >>> it costs a pool whereas all of your opponents costs are negated. >> >> No it doesn't. Only the canceled card's cost is negated. > > Those are only costs I was talking about it. You want, what? as in an earlier post: if DI should be changed, i'd restrict it to actions alone. >For > DI to hand you back the costs of other cards in the opponent's card > combo too? That's the risk of playing with card combinations. No one's > forcing you to play them. What game are you playing that you don't play with combinations of cards? In V:TES you need cards for everything. Is Govern+lost in Crowds + Elder Impersonation + Conditioning + Scouting mission a combo that is way too long? DI wreaks havoc on every step of that combo. If your prey flicks, and you play Scouting Mission, and he plays the DI on the scouting mission you have effectively wasted 1 action + 3 blood for a bleed of 6 on your grand predator. Maybe you can give me an example of how to play without card combinations in V:TES... > >>>>> > BULLSHIT. it's not because a card is overpowered that it should be >>>>> > in >>>>> > the TWD. why? because it's a defensive card. Not one that ousts >>>>> > people. >>>>> >>>>> If it were overpowered, then people would get ousts with it. If it >>>>> were >>>>> as defensive as you say, everyone would play with it and it would be >>>>> impossible to win without. Then you would see it in the TWDA. >>>> >>>> again: BULLSHIT: overpowered != broken. Your using the definition of >>>> broken for overpowered. There is a HUGE difference between those 2. >>> >>> Ah, semantics. When I hear "overpowered", I think it exactly means >>> "broken". >>> If it doesn't, you should forget slapping the overpowered lable on it >>> and >>> state the exact issue. When you drop "overpowered" into the >>> conversation, >>> most people think you mean it's too easy to win with. >> >> Maybe you think that. > > I've made a lot of posts on Usenet. I have found that this is only > consistant meaning of the word people understand. To use it otherwise > is to risk misunderstanding. You don't read enough then. The difference comes up every time someone is seriously complaining about a card being too powerful. > >> I don't. overpowered means: to much power. That >> doesn't have to be power to effectively win with. > > What other power is there? The only motivation in the game is to get > ousts. How much a card helps you get ousts is its power level. Too > much power = overpowered = broken = you will see it in the TWDA. > >> to be clearer: take the old Succubus Club. As such, it was no 'winning >> card', but it gave the controller of the card too much power over the >> game. > > As far as I know, there were only two reasons for Suc Club to be banned: > 1) It made for too much discussion time in the game; and > 2) It was overpowered in that it allowed people to win games too easily > using it. You are wrong about 2. It gave people too much power to play kingmaker, self-oust, etc... How does SC help you win? > > What does "the controller of the (having) too much power over the > game" mean - if not power to get ousts? And particularly, what does > it mean that anyone would care about? So a card that would say: you cannot be ousted until after 10 turns would not be broken because it doesn't give you power to oust? > >>> No. I'm saying the words just above your quote. >>> >>> I will repeat: Lots of people win without packing a DI. That means it's >>> not "broken" or "overpowered" or anything along those lines. I believe >>> you have some problem with it, but it's very unclear to me because you >>> haven't stated your problem in any terms other people should care about, >>> as far as I can see. >> >> Who said you should care about my opinion? > > Why are you posting your opinion if you expect no one to care about it? > That sounds like a waste of time. DUH. > >>>I guess that's >>> different from saying it should be banned in a strict sense. But FWIW, >>> I disagree with that, too. >>> >>>> I'm only saying it's currently way above the power curve. >>> >>> At this point, I have no idea what you mean by that. If you mean >>> something different by "power" than a card being broken, then you >>> have to be more specific. If you're trying to split hairs about it >>> being _almost_ broken but not quite, then I disagree: you would see >>> a lot of copies of an almost broken card in the TWDA, too. >> >> see above for what power means. > > You haven't defined how you're using the word, other than to say it > doesn't > involve the power to get ousts and some nebulous comment about Succubus > Club granting a player power "over" the game - whatever that means. If you don't get that, I don't know how to explain it further. Maybe mull it over in your head a couple of times. [ quoted text not captured ] No, but my complaint is based on how much I see the card. See the difference? >I suspect you're mainly frustrated > that it won't allow you to use the strategies you want to use in order to > win games. Not that it's too powerful, in any sense. 1. I'm not frustrated. Certainly not about strategies I want to use. That's what you misread in a comment that was tongue in cheek. You seem obsessed by the combo thing. You haven't even shown me how you play without comboing cards. 2. If a single card should dictate how you play the game, it really is overpowered. 3. The game effect of a lot of DI is that the decks with the most recursion of cards win. Is that a needed effect?

Jeroen Rombouts#

19 December 2006, 10:44

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht news:1xHhh.26441$B42....@newsfe12.phx... > > "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in message > news:eKFhh.244048$uo5.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... >> >> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht >> news:MJEhh.21945$Zb5....@newsfe13.phx... >>> "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:1166468378.4...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... >>>> How many playgroups and countries does that anecdotal evidence consist >>>> of? >>> >>> It consists of the Tourney Winning Deck Archive. How many playgroups >>> and countries does your ancedotal evidence consist of? >> >> TWD doesn't even hold every Tournament winning deck. And it says nothing >> about DI in action. > > The TWDA holds enough decks that an overpowered card would turn up in > substantial numbers. It may not show every TWD everywhere in the world > but it doesn't have to in order to disprove your contention. Only if overpowerd means more power to oust. > >>>> Maybe your estimation >>>> of DI will go up to. BTW, I never said DotS was overpowered. I said it >>>> was a good card. >>> >>> Huh? First you said it didn't fit into the game. >> >> now your doing this on purpose. DotS != DI. now read my statement again. > > Sorry. I wasn't expecting you to make that claim so I misread your > statement > to say, "I never said DI was overpowered". My mistake. And yes, I KNOW > you > never claimed DotS was overpowered. What did I say which made you think > otherwise? > >> yes. And why is it not worth it to point out wich ones are above the >> power curve and wich are below? > > It depends. If you mean, which ones are above average useful, that's > fine. > Obviously, half the cards in the game are above the halfway mark and half > are below. If you're saying DI is in the top half (or top quarter or > something), > OK/ But in the context you made the comment, I gathered you thought it > was so > far above average it constituted a problem. > I'd say top 10 (YMMV), but they only constitute a small problem. Nothing urgent.

Jeroen Rombouts#

19 December 2006, 10:49

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht news:AQHhh.26529$B42....@newsfe12.phx... > > "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in message > news:ojGhh.244097$5f5.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > > I go on like that because you have no basis for saying DI "doesn't fit > into the game" and every time you try to articulate your basis, it keeps > coming down to, "DI does something other cards don't do". 1. I have as much basis to say it don't fit as you have to say it does fit. 2. We have been discussing power levels. Not fitting in the game the last posts. >That is, it's > unique in some particular sense. That's what the word 'unique' means. If > you don't mean that, don't say it and we can end this confusion and settle > on what the nature of our differences truly are. > >> And that is, of course, largely a matter of taste. > > Actually, no - there are other factors dictating the banning of cards > besides taste. For example, a card that does exactly the same effect > as Govern the Unaligned with the same dom/DOM requirements except that > it cost zero blood instead of one causes a problem which is not taste- > based: it would obsolesce Govern the Unaligned - meaning that no one would > ever play GtU if they could get a copy of the new card. That is not a unique effect.... >Or a card could > be overpowered, unbalanced, and 'broken' (as you insist it must be > called), > and make the game too easy to win through its use. Then, people start > feeling like they _must_ use that card in order to have a fair chance to > win. This narrows the game, which is also problem no matter what your > taste. That's the definition of broken, yes. Not the definition of above the curve.

Jeroen Rombouts#

19 December 2006, 10:56

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> schreef in bericht news:1166498918.3...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com... > >> I am not sure where you have extracted this idea that players do not >> develop short-hand or that the rules require every possible step to be >> announced at all points. They don't. > > Really? Show me that in the rulebook > >>If the players understand what's >> going on, that's fine. If a step is rushed by by accident, back up. the key word here is 'by accident' Pitch a pool to draw out the action modifier can hardly be called 'by accident.' > > As soon as you deny a player the opportunity to announce his/her block > then you need to back up to where they can decide whether to block or > not. OK. but that means that the bleed modifier is wound back too and isn't played and the acting Meth can take the card back in his hand. Because he could say that you rushed him past your attempt to block phase, he wanted to play the modifier after the blocking opportunity.

Clément#

19 December 2006, 11:33

XZealot escreveu: > > As soon as you deny a player the opportunity to announce his/her block > then you need to back up to where they can decide whether to block or > not. This is where you seem to be missing the point, IMHO. The thing is, no one is denying a player the opportunity to block. If you bleed me, it's not like you're doing that in a vacuum. There is a context we're both aware of. I either block, or I don't. If I don't, I either take the bleed, or retarget it. To declare what I am going to do is incumbent on me. And I am well aware of what decisions I must make at the moment. Mind you, I always instruct new players to require an explicit non-block declaration in these situations, because I think it's helpful behavior and because it's good to enforce all play steps, especially when one is learning the game.(1) However, I think the procedure you propose sets a dangerous precedent, as others have pointed out. If I'm allowed to pitch my pool and then rollback play if my predator plays a further modifier, then I'm encouraged to pitch my pool on every single bleed action to see if I can draw a modifier. I don't believe this would be a good thing. (1) The funny thing is that our playgroup always played Deflection et al. correctly, although we were never aware of the "play after decline to block" ruling on it, AFAIK. Abraço, Luiz Mello

James Coupe#

19 December 2006, 11:35

In message <1166498918.3...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: > >> I am not sure where you have extracted this idea that players do not >> develop short-hand or that the rules require every possible step to be >> announced at all points. They don't. > >Really? Show me that in the rulebook You claim that you absolutely positively must ask a player to block. The rulebook shows several examples where players decline to block without being asked. The whole world now collapses, because players do things without being asked to. In the official rulebook! Even though they have to be asked to! OH NOES! You. Are. Wrong. Note also that the rulebook doesn't specify what language players have to use, nor does it specify that all players must use a mutually comprehensible language, nor does it specify (in fact) whether or not players are allowed to talk save for the examples of text (which are clearly exceptions from the general silence and pointing), and so on. I can also show you dozens of rulings from LSJ that show that this is legal play, so long as players understand what is going on. Those are statements of the official position, whether in the rulebook or not. Some things don't end up in there, because they're considered obvious. >>If the players understand what's >> going on, that's fine. If a step is rushed by by accident, back up. > >As soon as you deny a player the opportunity to announce his/her block >then you need to back up to where they can decide whether to block or >not. The player is not denied a chance to block. If they want to block, they announce an attempt to block. If they decline to block, they don't get an attempt. The acting Methuselah cannot deny them that chance - unless they have some particular card effect, of course, that would take out their blocker(s). It's just that if the reacting Methuselah voluntarily does things that imply they're not blocking (like saying "I'm not blocking" or paying the pool for a bleed), they've declared they're not blocking. Similarly, the acting Methuselah asking his grand-prey "Hands for one?" does not deny the grand-prey the chance to maneuver or play pre-range cards, even if the acting Methuselah is trying to indicate his willingness to skip ahead to Choose Strike. The situation here is entirely that voluntary action from the reacting Methuselah indicates something that they want to do (or don't want to do), even if they don't use a specific, Norm-defined incantation to indicate it. This is so completely unlike the acting Methuselah being able to deny other player the opportunity to do things - because it's those other players who are voluntarily giving up the chance to do those things by indicating somehow that they don't want to block - that I can only imagine you have completely taken leave of your senses. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe#

19 December 2006, 11:39

In message <1166500919.8...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: > >Churchy La Femme wrote: >> On Dec 18, 7:24 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: >> Oh, since actions are more 'fluid and dynamic' it makes my step per >> step analogy 'wrong'. Good argument! > >If you would address the points laid out rather than putting up a >strawman arguement then you could have a proper discussion. Actions do >not equal Combat. So your analogy is wrong. Where in the rulebook does it state, specifically, that every step of an action must be spelled out, but every step of a combat need not be? An appropriate citation is all that's necessary. One that states all possible steps of an action must be announced, and a second that explicitly states that similar steps in combat can be elided by players knowing what's going on. You claim the rulebook demands the former, even though it says nothing of the sort. So why wouldn't it similarly demand the same in combat? [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ#

19 December 2006, 13:55

tigernat1 wrote: > This may post twice, but I want to make sure its out there. > > LSJ wrote: >> The action is still there to modify with, say, Freak Drive. Or react to with, >> say, Cats' Guidance. >> >> If your statement were true, neither would be playable at all (except CG for >> intercept). > > Except for card text of course. Both of these cards create a new > "window" for play of themselves. You are doing a similar thing with > the bounce cards, except you are LIMITING the window of playability to > only AFTER block declinations. Incorrect. Neither has any text that would allow play in the absence of an action. The assertion that there is no action after resolution is incorrect, as I said above. >>> Someone may have already asked in this thread. Would this also apply >>> to all of the reaction cards that reduce bleeds and don't have specific >>> text starting with "only usable...?" >> Would what apply? >> >> Being only playable after the block window is closed? >> No. You can reduce and block. > > Why create an inconsistency with when reaction cards can be played > (except intercept and Cat's Guidance, which already have defined timing > windows)? Wouldn't it be better for the game if reactions all follow > the same rules of play timing (except intercept, etc...as defined > above)? No inconsistency is being created. Some cards are playable in the "as announced" window, some after that but before the blocking window, some during the blocking window, some after the blocking window but before resolution, some at resolution, and some after resolution. Some are playable in more than one of the above. Some in all of the above. Some in none of the above. If you perceive that variety as inconsistency, then, yes, there's inconsistency. But this ruling is not the foundation of that variety. > Example of consistency: > Player A: Frederick the Weak bleeds for 1. > Player B: Gilbert Duane ATTEMPTS to reduce the bleed by 2. > Player C: I Direct Intervention the bleed reduction card. > Player B: Well, then Gilbert attempts to block. > > Player A: Frederick the Weak bleeds for 1. > Player B: Gilbert Duane ATTEMPTS to deflect the bleed to C. > Player C: I Direct Intervention the bleed bounce card. > Player B: Well, then Gilbert attempts to block. Currently, that is an example of inconsistency, since Deflection is not playable during the block window (so the example has B attempting to block after the block window is closed): A: Fredrick bleeds B: (Declines to react during the block window.) B: (Declines to block) A: (Pass) B: Deflection C: DI > Situation 2 under the current ruling: > > Player A: Frederick the Weak bleeds for 1. > Player B: Gilbert Duane ATTEMPTS to deflect the bleed to C. > Player C: I Direct Intervention the bleed bounce card. > Player B: Well, I guess I have to take it since I can't block (cause > LSJ said so). ... because of the implicit declination of blocks. See also the "pitch a pool" means decline to block "inconsistency". > As opposed to the recent text change to bounce cards, did you ever > consider adding text that prohibits them from being played during a > currently succeeding block attempt? Please explain your reasoning > either way. Both are changes. The one chosen seems at least as simple and clean, if not more so, than your proposed change.

LSJ#

19 December 2006, 13:56

tigernat1 wrote: > tigernat1 wrote: >> As opposed to the recent text change to bounce cards, did you ever >> consider adding text that prohibits them from being played during a >> currently succeeding block attempt? Please explain your reasoning >> either way. > > Additionally, can I play bleed reduction cards during a currently > succeeding block attempt? Still, yes.

LSJ#

19 December 2006, 14:24

XZealot wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> XZealot wrote: >>> LSJ wrote: >>>> XZealot wrote: >>>>> crispyfloss wrote: >>>>>> On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>>>> The misplay isn't caused by the defending player pitching a pool. It >>>>>>> is caused by the acting player playing an action modifier on an action >>>>>>> which is resolved. The defending player shouldn't be penalized for the >>>>>>> misplay of another player. >>>>>> Maybe I missed something along the way - does anyone seriously think >>>>>> that if you let a bleed of one resolve (by pitching a pool) and then >>>>>> the acting player adds an action modifier, you are able to go back and >>>>>> decide to block because they had to declare the action modifier >>>>>> earlier? >>>>> Yes, it is common in many playgroups across the United States. It >>>>> helps speed the game up immensely. >>>> It's uncommon, actually. >>> We'll have to agree to disagree on the commonality of pitching a pool, >>> since neither of us has statics to back up his viewpoint. >> Exactly. Thanks for selling it to the cheap seats, though. > > Hey, I wasn't the one who introduced the concept of an "implict > no-block" which set the foundation for a plethora of bad rulings based > upon this precedent. The very idea that you can anounce an intention > not to block without actually saying "I don't block" sets a precedent > that the acting player can deny the reacting player the capacity to > block without card play. Incorrect. How can the acting player force the defending player to pitch a pool? >>>> Commonly, the majority playgroups play it properly, as an implicit declination >>>> of blocking, which it is (or as explicitly stated). >>>> >>>> There is nothing to be gained, except aiding cheating, by allowing it to "draw >>>> out" a modifier that the acting player doesn't intend to play until after blocks >>>> are declined. >>> Then obviously the acting player has the ability to ask, "Do you >>> block?" even after the pool has been pitched. >> Pointlessly, since the question has already been answered (the defending player >> cannot expect to reach the pitching pool stage unless he has declined to block; >> since it was the defending player's impulse (his turn in sequence to play the >> next effect), his options were: "so-and-so plays a reaction", "I play a master: >> out-of-turn", "so-an-so blocks", or "no block". That is the exhaustive list of >> his choices at his impulse. Which of those choices is indicated by pitching a >> pool? The "no block" one, of course). > > And yet, he still has not been asked if he blocks, and still has not > answered that he doesn't block. Incorrect. At his turn in the sequence, the sequencing rules themselves put him up to it (the sequencing is, in essense, asking him the question: "do you react or initiate a block attempt?"). His response at that impulse is "pitch a pool". This response cannot be misconstrued as "I intend to play a reaction" nor can it be misconstrued as "I intend to have a minion attempt to block". It can only be construed as "I do not attempt to react or block at this time". The "at this time" is not "sticky" for reactions -- he can react again later at his next impulse. The "at this time" is "sticky" for blocking, however. The decision not to block is final. But rather than keep beating that piñata of a horse, how about you answer something: P1 has minion A bleed. He plays a card and announces the action. No on DI's the card. sequencing dictates that it is A's turn to play an effect or pass. A declines to play effects. sequencing dictates that it is B's turn to play an effect or pass. silence silence silence pitch a pool. Now, what effect (or pass) is indicated by "pitch a pool". To a reasonable player, that is? > There is no fundamental difference > between playing a reaction card and blocking after the acting player > plays an action modifier. The play of the action modifier makes the > pitching of a pool a misplay, therefore the pool is retracted and play > is rewound. Correct. Rewound to the point of the misplay, and rewound so that the player making the misplay gains no advantage. The misplay was skipping the acting Meth's impulse (his window to play a modifier after the "no block" decision). The "no block" decision itself was not a misplay, since it was indeed the defending Methuselah's impulse. Rewinding to before the decision not to block is not necessary, since making that decision was not a misplay and, moreover, rewinding to that point would be actively wrong because rewinding to that point would *obviously* be giving an advantage to the player making the misplay. Gaining an advantage from misplays is improper. Intentionally doing to is cheating. Arguing in favor of allowing intentionally gaining an advantage through such play, well, doesn't look good. >>> Nothing is stopping the >>> acting player from asking, "Do you block?" >> Nothing is stopping him from asking "is it my turn?" either, but both are obvious. > > Your rhetorical statement misses the point. Can the defending player > deny the acting player his turn? No. Indeed he did not, as stated in the scenario -- the defending player was not denied his turn (his impulse). He was given his turn (impulse). In his impulse, he chose neither to react nor to block, and indicated this decision by pitching a pool. Either that or he made no decision and cheated by pitching in a pool. Either way, he is not to be given an advantage after pitching a pool and waiting for the acting Methuselah to play a modifier in the acting Methuselah's impulse. >>> Even in the rulebook it states that this is an "event". >>> You can't go skipping events. >> Correct. At the defending player's impulse, though, he declined to react or >> block, so it must be the case that he declined to block. > > Yes, he issued no response to either reacting or blocking. And that "pass" in his impulse means "no block". > By that same logic, you haven't responded to the accusation that you > are haven't stopped beating your wife. So you must be a wife beater. > Obviously, the previous statement was fictiious and I have no evidence > to support the accusation of spousal abuse (cuz we all know your wife > would kick your ass. :P). What it shows is that in fact your implied > declined to block in the absense of someone asking "Do you block?" is > non-sensical. You can not implicitly respond to a question that hasn't > been asked. It shows nothing of the kind. It is a pointless non-sequitur, without even a shadow of a parallel from which to draw any insight to the current question of cheating. There is no sequencing rule that requires me to react or make a declaration no "stop beating". >> Nothing was skipped. (And it is now the acting player's impulse, since "no >> block" is an event, so he may play bleed boosters). > > The "event" of "no block" was never addressed. You may say it was > addressed but it wasn't. It was skipped. It was skipped by the acting > player who never prompted for a response to the "event". You may say it was skipped, but it wasn't. The defending player was given his impulse. The acting player prompted this impulse by passing himself (and allowing the sequencing rules to play their part, not expecting the defending player to attempt to cheat). The defending player used that impulse to pitch a pool, either implicitly passing (meaning both "no reactions at this time" and "no block") or cheating.

bluedevil#

19 December 2006, 14:32

Kevin M. wrote: > ummm Dave, I think you had better start giving some empirical evidence to > prove these things that you keep saying. :) I don't think I can provide you that emperical evidence. My opinion has been formed by two things: 1) very frequent games with a playgroup who did a lot of playtesting, which led to a very permissive attitude towards proxying. DI's rarity was no barrier to playing with lots of copies of it, and several players in the playgroup felt it was worth playing in large numbers in every deck, enough so that the majority of players on a given table had 4 or so. What I saw there was a train-wreck. And, 2) just playing in and watching a good number of tournament games. 3 minutes on the clock, everyone hanging by a thread, people finally get their shit in gear, and dropping a DI leads directly to "now this other guy wins and that guy loses". Feel free to disagree, but I know what I've seen with my own eyes. -- David Cherryholmes

J. Hunter Johnson#

19 December 2006, 14:46

XZealot wrote: > You can't decline to block implicitly as it is an explicitly > written in the rules that you must declare whether you > are blocking or not. And you can follow the explicit rule by making that declaration through an action such as pitching in a pool. That declaration does *not* resolve the action. It does serve to speed up cases where no other action modifiers are going to be played before resolution though. You cannot skip the acting player's chance to play action modifiers by pitching in a pool. If you declare "no block" by pitching in a pool and then discover that the offered shortcut through resolution is not taken, you back up to the point where the not-you player would like to insert her legitimate action modifier. That is, you have declined to block but haven't yet lost the pool. The reasons (keep the defender from gleaning extra information before a block declaration, keep the penalty for intentional attempts to do so on the correct party) have been explained. If this interpretation does not fit how you've been (mis)playing it, adjust your play, but don't ask for permission for players to cheat. Hunter -- http://www.hunterandlori.com <><

Frederick Scott#

19 December 2006, 15:38

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in message news:wAOhh.244729$oo5.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht > news:AQHhh.26529$B42....@newsfe12.phx... >> "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in message >> news:ojGhh.244097$5f5.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... >> I go on like that because you have no basis for saying DI "doesn't fit >> into the game" and every time you try to articulate your basis, it keeps >> coming down to, "DI does something other cards don't do". > > 1. I have as much basis to say it don't fit as you have to say it does fit. Sure. And that is no basis whatsoever - which is my point. There are no standards for suggesting a card "fits the game". You're the one who made the original statement so the onus is on you to suggest some tangible, coherent standards for what that means and why it's important. The only standards you've advanced are arbitrary and meaningless. The reasons you've advanced to support the need for such standards have been pretty weak. > 2. We have been discussing power levels. Not fitting in the game the last posts. ...so why do you switch gears below and bring up the "unique effect" issue again? >>That is, it's >> unique in some particular sense. That's what the word 'unique' means. If >> you don't mean that, don't say it and we can end this confusion and settle >> on what the nature of our differences truly are. >> >>> And that is, of course, largely a matter of taste. >> >> Actually, no - there are other factors dictating the banning of cards >> besides taste. For example, a card that does exactly the same effect >> as Govern the Unaligned with the same dom/DOM requirements except that >> it cost zero blood instead of one causes a problem which is not taste- >> based: it would obsolesce Govern the Unaligned - meaning that no one would >> ever play GtU if they could get a copy of the new card. > > That is not a unique effect.... What's your point? One card in the game obsolescing another causes a problem, 'unique effect' or not. >>Or a card could >> be overpowered, unbalanced, and 'broken' (as you insist it must be called), >> and make the game too easy to win through its use. Then, people start >> feeling like they _must_ use that card in order to have a fair chance to >> win. This narrows the game, which is also problem no matter what your >> taste. > > That's the definition of broken, yes. Not the definition of above the curve. ...whatever you mean by the latter. Keep in mind, my point for citing these two things is that they're universal problems caused for all players in the game, no matter their tastes. That tends to make them much more serious problems. If a card bothers people because they don't care for it's effect - that is, it works perfectly well as a game effect and causes no balance or obsolescence problems strictly speaking but just makes the game less fun for them play, then it's only a reasonable problem to do something about if a very large portion of the players share this opinion. I think that's very unlikely in the case of Direct Intervention. Fred

Jeroen#

19 December 2006, 16:08

Frederick Scott schreef: > "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in message > news:wAOhh.244729$oo5.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht > > news:AQHhh.26529$B42....@newsfe12.phx... > >> "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in message > >> news:ojGhh.244097$5f5.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > >> I go on like that because you have no basis for saying DI "doesn't fit > >> into the game" and every time you try to articulate your basis, it keeps > >> coming down to, "DI does something other cards don't do". > > > > 1. I have as much basis to say it don't fit as you have to say it does fit. > > Sure. And that is no basis whatsoever - which is my point. There are > no standards for suggesting a card "fits the game". You're the one who > made the original statement so the onus is on you to suggest some tangible, > coherent standards for what that means and why it's important. The only > standards you've advanced are arbitrary and meaningless. The reasons you've > advanced to support the need for such standards have been pretty weak. > > > 2. We have been discussing power levels. Not fitting in the game the last posts. > > ...so why do you switch gears below and bring up the "unique effect" issue > again? You did actually. > > >>That is, it's > >> unique in some particular sense. That's what the word 'unique' means. If > >> you don't mean that, don't say it and we can end this confusion and settle > >> on what the nature of our differences truly are. > >> > >>> And that is, of course, largely a matter of taste. > >> > >> Actually, no - there are other factors dictating the banning of cards > >> besides taste. For example, a card that does exactly the same effect > >> as Govern the Unaligned with the same dom/DOM requirements except that > >> it cost zero blood instead of one causes a problem which is not taste- > >> based: it would obsolesce Govern the Unaligned - meaning that no one would > >> ever play GtU if they could get a copy of the new card. > > > > That is not a unique effect.... > > What's your point? One card in the game obsolescing another causes a > problem, 'unique effect' or not. The point, which you again miss, it that 'a better version of card X' can hardly be considered a unique effect. 'A better version of card X' can be objectively held next to card x and compared. For a unique effect, there is no benchmark. Except: power level when compared to other cards. > > >>Or a card could > >> be overpowered, unbalanced, and 'broken' (as you insist it must be called), > >> and make the game too easy to win through its use. Then, people start > >> feeling like they _must_ use that card in order to have a fair chance to > >> win. This narrows the game, which is also problem no matter what your > >> taste. > > > > That's the definition of broken, yes. Not the definition of above the curve. > > ...whatever you mean by the latter. broken means 'i need this to win', above the power curve means just what it means. > > Keep in mind, my point for citing these two things is that they're universal > problems caused for all players in the game, no matter their tastes. That > tends to make them much more serious problems. If a card bothers people > because they don't care for it's effect - that is, it works perfectly well > as a game effect and causes no balance or obsolescence problems strictly > speaking but just makes the game less fun for them play, then it's only a > reasonable problem to do something about if a very large portion of the > players share this opinion. I think that's very unlikely in the case of > Direct Intervention. You mean, like the others who replied in this thread and wanted it banned outright?

Frederick Scott#

19 December 2006, 16:12

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:tCqUKSGm...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <zpHhh.26390$B42....@newsfe12.phx>, Frederick Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >>Sure, like any 'reactionary card' - as you call it - in the game. >>Cancleling cards _must_ be flexible. Or else their cost must be less than, >>not greater than (as you suggest), the cost of the card they cancel. >>Or often both. Otherwise, they're wallpaper. Why pack a card for which >>the _best_ result is that we're even and the worst result is that I've >>packed a worthless card, drawn it, and had to use a DPA to get rid of it. >>(Or worse, held it for a period of time hoping it would be useful and >>winding up disappointed.) > > (Note "Subject:" change. This response is not about DI being the > hottest or evilest card in the world.) > > In a theoretical sense, the cost can be higher by relatively objective > measures, and yet still be worth it for me. For example, I may have the > resources for that particular type of cost in abundance. Sure. I would suggest that such a cost could be considered 'lighter' in the sense that one could arrange their decks to make it a light cost. Your examples where both situations where the canceling player used the effect by building a deck that focused on created renewable wealth in the coin in which the cost was to be paid. I think are likely to be all sorts of exceptions to the rule I gave above. In fact, I think it's a rule made to be broken - and every time it is, a very interesting reactive card is likely to be the designed. But I still think it's the rule, in contrast to the one advanced by Jeroen. > Also, if the thing being cancelled is quite specific (such as a > particular type of action, say), but very common (a bleed), flexibility > isn't so hot. I don't need the flexibility because I reckon I'm very > likely to see that situation in play on a very regular basis. At which > point I don't need such a large level of flexibility, because I'm > picking on something that happens all the time. Yep. I expect that's another good exception. Fred

James Coupe#

19 December 2006, 16:41

In message <wAOhh.244729$oo5.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Jeroen Rombouts <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> writes: >"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht >news:AQHhh.26529$B42....@newsfe12.phx... >> >> "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in message >> news:ojGhh.244097$5f5.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > >> >> I go on like that because you have no basis for saying DI "doesn't fit >> into the game" and every time you try to articulate your basis, it keeps >> coming down to, "DI does something other cards don't do". > >1. I have as much basis to say it don't fit as you have to say it does fit. Not really. 1) If Direct Intervention doesn't fit, what has it been doing in the game in the 10 years since it was first printed? It seems pretty likely that if D.I. really didn't fit, it would have to have had a plethora of changes made to it to make it fit. Which, actually, it hasn't. It's been a remarkably stable card. Certainly, there has been the need for certain clarifications - such as what happens if I D.I. Threats, can I still play Conditioning? - but the basic card hasn't really changed. That a card may be confusing and players may need some guidance from time to time doesn't mean it doesn't fit. Obvious other examples of such cards are Madness Network and Mask of a Thousand Faces, or Banishment back when it was first printed. Confusing in their own way, and yet no-one would really say that they didn't fit in the game. 2) It's possible that Direct Intervention was an effect completely out of left-field when it was printed, but does it fit now? This possibility may have legs. The basic set, Jyhad/V:TES, is a big set, but is having to set all the possibilities for the game. Dark Sovereigns and Ancient Hearts are, largely, dominated by the Indies. And then we get Sabbat, which is sort of a base set, sort of a new set. So it's possible at that point that D.I. could have been said to not fit - but much in the same way that Corruption could be said to not fit, because it was one card that did this really weird thing oddly. And yet Corruption is clearly a core Setite ability, and has been expanded on in the sets since. Perhaps then, D.I. is a new thing for cards to do when it's printed, but has been expanded on since. Actually, it has. Example: Louhi, in Kindred Most Wanted. Once each turn, if Louhi is ready, she may burn 1 blood to cancel an action card played by a vampire controlled by your predator as it is played (the acting minion doesn't tap). So that's a pretty versatile cancellation. Not as versatile as D.I., but cheaper. (Potentially, usable more than once per turn round the table, if the predator does something freakish with OOT actions, too.) Still, we're not quite as versatile as D.I., and it may be that massive versatility that means it doesn't fit. Except we do have that massive versatility available: Khalu may burn 5 blood to cancel a minion card played by your predator or prey as it is played (no cost is paid). So are we to say that Louhi doesn't fit, and Khalu doesn't fit? Note that Khalu can even burn 5 blood during my turn - EVEN MORE powerful than DI. Load up on blood gain, and we're away. We've also seen a very versatile defence for the Imbued, in the form of React with Conviction, the ability to defend themselves against actions or strikes. We've had Approximation of Loyalty give you the ability to scoop out Wakes, intercept, bounce etc. from your prey and screw things over. This wide-ranging cancellation thing seems to fit now, because it's been developed interestingly. 3) And really, did D.I. come out of nowhere? Not really. Sudden Reversal was a counter-spell for masters. Watenda could take out combat cards he didn't like. It's not like D.I. actually came from nowhere. Delaying Tactics didn't kill a specific card, but could certainly have much the same effect - not the political card (that goes back to your hand, obviously), but the other effects that were played, such as letting a player play their vote-push, then cancelling the vote, so you've basically just "cancelled" all the vote push cards. (See also Business Pressure and Telepathic Vote Counting.) That sort of effect was out there. 4) So, does D.I. cross some line where cards aren't supposed to go? Not really. Master cards can affect minions, that's pretty well established - Rotschreck is probably the best-known example from Jyhad, but also Elysium: The Arboretum, for example. It's perfectly possible for master cards to affect minions, either directly (play now, resolve now) or less directly (play now, use later). Other examples: Frenzy, Mob Connections, Police Department. And we've had all sorts of bizarre interactions since then. Rewind Time (a minion card) can cancel master cards as they're being played. Regarhagan's Hold, a master card, can actually prevent certain reaction cards being played. Angel of Berlin is an M:OOT that untaps minions. Minion cards (e.g. all of Abombwe, Tranquility) can cancel Frenzy cards of any sort, be they minion or master. It's pretty clear that different areas of the game (such as card types) can interact in unusual ways, and have always been able to. 5) So is it out of line thematically? Seems unlikely. Quite a bit of White Wolf source material has Methuselahs and even, in some cases, Antediluvians being personally involved - though often obscurely - in the Jyhad. Though obviously it's much better for them if they can achieve all their aims through proxies, to keep their fingerprints off their schemes, there's never been an active prohibition towards doing things that might be questionable or a little risky. Direct Intervention could certainly fit into that sort of action. After all, you're paying pool and screwing your ability to play Dreams of the Sphinx next turn. I'm really not sure how you can argue that the effect doesn't fit in the game. It may (or may not) be inappropriately costed, but the effect seems a fairly integral part of V:TES as it stands at the end of 2006. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott#

19 December 2006, 17:09

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in message news:ltOhh.244718$ia4.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht > news:zpHhh.26390$B42....@newsfe12.phx... >> "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> >> wrote in message news:m1Ghh.244075$po5.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... >>> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht >>> news:j0Fhh.26263$B42....@newsfe12.phx... >>>> "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:1166470478.8...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>>>> Read a couple of posts higher. The reason I said 'because it is >>>>> different' is ONE OF THE REASONS that I don't like the card. The >>>>> overpoweredness is the major one, and another reason. >>>> ... >>>>> No. read again: >>>>> "The counter to something should at least be almost as difficult as >>>>> doing the thing itself" >>>>> Like SR: play a master to cancel a master. >>>> >>>> DI is as difficult or more difficult than the vast majority of minion >>>> cards. You have to hold it in your hand until the time comes to use >>>> it, taking up space. >>> >>> you mean, like any reactionary card in the game? oh noes! >> >> Sure, like any 'reactionary card' - as you call it - in the game. > > To avoid calling it reactions... OK, sure. I think 'canceling card' is more to the point. >> Cancleling cards _must_ be flexible. Or else their cost must be less than, not greater than (as you suggest), the cost of the >> card they cancel. > > No it is not greater. Because of the nature of the game, it doesn't work that way. See below. > >> Or often both. Otherwise, they're wallpaper. Why pack a card for which >> the _best_ result is that we're even and the worst result is that I've >> packed a worthless card, drawn it, and had to use a DPA to get rid of it. >> (Or worse, held it for a period of time hoping it would be useful and >> winding up disappointed.) > > Fine, you don't like holding on to cards. Holding cards is absolutely a cost. > Holding a wake and a deflection in hand (2 cards!!!!) is probably bad too? The fact that they occupy hand space is bad, yes. However, as many here will point out to you, the payoff for pulling off a successful deflection is quite high. When you're evaluating costs, you need to avoid conflating a card's costs with its payoffs. It seems to me that thrust of the point you were trying to make above did exactly that. >>>> It costs a precious master phase action. And >>>> it costs a pool whereas all of your opponents costs are negated. >>> >>> No it doesn't. Only the canceled card's cost is negated. >> >> Those are only costs I was talking about it. You want, what? > > as in an earlier post: if DI should be changed, i'd restrict it to actions alone. > >>For >> DI to hand you back the costs of other cards in the opponent's card >> combo too? That's the risk of playing with card combinations. No one's >> forcing you to play them. > > What game are you playing that you don't play with combinations of cards? In V:TES you need cards for everything. There's all sorts of cards in the game which aren't dependent on combinations. Or they're not so dependent that it matters a great deal whether one part of them gets canceled. Another thing you can do is to play with an abundance of the combo-worthy cards. So if you get one Wolf Claws canceled (for example), you're quite likely to have another in hand - making all the costs, the pool, the MPA, the time spent holding the DI all pointless. I think this tends to be the big downside of DI, especially given that your opponent usually can't see your hand and never knows what's in your deck (unless you play the same deck over and over in the same playgroup). > Is Govern+lost in Crowds + Elder Impersonation + Conditioning + Scouting mission a combo that is way too long? > DI wreaks havoc on every step of that combo. You don't necessarily need the entire combo. Especially if you have a profuse collection of different stealth cards and bleed enhancers so you don't run afoul of rule against playing the same action modifier twice in a given action. That rule aside, this combo is rife with opportunity to replace any particular piece which gets DIed, screwing the player who tried to employ it. In fact, I seldom see DIs used against stealth/bleed combinations and I suspect this is the reason. > If your prey flicks, and you play Scouting Mission, (I'm going to assume you meant Spying Mission, not Scouting Mission) > and he plays the DI on the scouting mission you have effectively wasted 1 action + 3 blood for a bleed of 6 on your grand > predator. As with everything, you can always advance some situation or other where the card being disputed looks totally awesome. Whether that situation is a truly common enough to make the point convincing or not is what's easy to dispute. Sure, you can use DI to counter a Spying Mission and you've made a great play. Great work if you can get it. >>>> Ah, semantics. When I hear "overpowered", I think it exactly means "broken". >>>> If it doesn't, you should forget slapping the overpowered lable on it and >>>> state the exact issue. When you drop "overpowered" into the conversation, >>>> most people think you mean it's too easy to win with. >>> >>> Maybe you think that. >> >> I've made a lot of posts on Usenet. I have found that this is only >> consistant meaning of the word people understand. To use it otherwise >> is to risk misunderstanding. > > You don't read enough then. I think I have. >>> I don't. overpowered means: to much power. That >>> doesn't have to be power to effectively win with. >> >> What other power is there? The only motivation in the game is to get >> ousts. How much a card helps you get ousts is its power level. Too >> much power = overpowered = broken = you will see it in the TWDA. >> >>> to be clearer: take the old Succubus Club. As such, it was no 'winning card', but it gave the controller of the card too much >>> power over the game. >> >> As far as I know, there were only two reasons for Suc Club to be banned: >> 1) It made for too much discussion time in the game; and >> 2) It was overpowered in that it allowed people to win games too easily >> using it. > > You are wrong about 2. It gave people too much power to play kingmaker, self-oust, etc... How does SC help you win? Don't ask me. I didn't think it did. It never seemed to be bad where I played. But a lot of people were complaining about it and it got banned. I do not believe, nor did I eversee any explanation of it from VEKN, that it was banned because it gave a player too much power to throw victory to _other_ players as opposed to himself. >> What does "the controller of the (having) too much power over the >> game" mean - if not power to get ousts? And particularly, what does >> it mean that anyone would care about? > > So a card that would say: you cannot be ousted until after 10 turns would not be broken because it doesn't give you power to oust? Sure it gives you the power to oust. Since you wouldn't have to concentrate on defense at that point, you could shift all of your resources to offense and this would make it much more likely that you could get ousts. >>>> No. I'm saying the words just above your quote. >>>> >>>> I will repeat: Lots of people win without packing a DI. That means it's >>>> not "broken" or "overpowered" or anything along those lines. I believe >>>> you have some problem with it, but it's very unclear to me because you >>>> haven't stated your problem in any terms other people should care about, >>>> as far as I can see. >>> >>> Who said you should care about my opinion? >> >> Why are you posting your opinion if you expect no one to care about it? >> That sounds like a waste of time. > > DUH. Agreed: DUH. Therefore, when you post, you expect others to care about your opinion. So if you know that, why did you ask the question above? >>> see above for what power means. >> >> You haven't defined how you're using the word, other than to say it doesn't >> involve the power to get ousts and some nebulous comment about Succubus >> Club granting a player power "over" the game - whatever that means. > > If you don't get that, I don't know how to explain it further. Maybe mull it over in your head a couple of times. Maybe mull over in your head that whatever you think you've explained hasn't been expressed very well. Players having the 'power' to throw the game to other players, as you've suggested is your meaning vis-a-vis Succubus Club is: 1) inherent in the game and already addressed by the play-to-win rule; 2) certainly not a common problem in any case; and 3) is not and was never your complaint about DI as far as I can see. This makes it seem like the reference was ad hoc definition of the term you produced just because someone cornered you and demanded to know what you're talking about, if not brokeness. These are the things I mull over in my head when you say shit like this. >>>>> Maybe that >>>>> you think the 1 pool cost makes up for the playability it gains versus >>>>> SR. I certainly don't. >>>> >>>> I certainly do, yes. I think you're underestimating this cost. I also >>>> think you're overestimating its utility. >>> >>> you said yourself you don't see the card that much. I'm not estimating anything. I see it in action every game I play. >> >> I'm using the word 'estimate' to mean 'reckon' or 'summarize'. This has >> nothing to with how often one sees a card. > > No, but my complaint is based on how much I see the card. See the difference? If you mean that you think that how often the card is played is proof of its brokeness, I disagree. There may be all sorts of reasons having nothing to do with the overall utility of Direct Intervention why your group (and David Cherryholmes group, apparently) sees the card more often than I do and, I believe, in most places. >>I suspect you're mainly frustrated >> that it won't allow you to use the strategies you want to use in order to >> win games. Not that it's too powerful, in any sense. > > 1. I'm not frustrated. Certainly not about strategies I want to use. That's what you misread in a comment that was tongue in > cheek. You seem obsessed by the combo thing. You haven't even shown me how you play without comboing cards. I think the explanation above demonstrates my response to that. It's not so much that I don't play with comboing cards on some level. It's just that DI frequently doesn't work against it or doesn't work well enough to justify its costs. > 2. If a single card should dictate how you play the game, it really is overpowered. Not necessarily. Any staple card, like Blood Doll, Wake with Evening's Freshness, Govern, Conditioning, and so forth will have effects on the game which people have to take into account when building and playing decks. The "single card" thing seems to your problem, not a real problem. I don't see how it makes a difference whether the card is unique in it's particular effect or not. If they added a card: Callous Intervention Master Out-of-Turn Burn two blood from any single vampire you control or burn one blood from any two vampires you control. If you do, Cancel a minion card as it is played. No cost is paid. (If it was an action card, the acting minion doesn't tap. If it was a strike card, the minion chooses another strike.) Would adding this card make Direct Intervention acceptable to you? If not, why not, considering that your one of your stated problems with the card is its uniqueness? How does it matter whether there's one card or two separate cards that do approximately the same thing in the game? > 3. The game effect of a lot of DI is that the decks with the most recursion of cards win. Is that a needed effect? I don't know that any effect in the game is needed. The issue is whether it's bad - and if so, why is it bad? Is it necessarily bad that the existence of DI helps decks using recursions of cards? Fred

Frederick Scott#

19 December 2006, 17:19

"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1166540936.7...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott schreef: > >> "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in message >> news:wAOhh.244729$oo5.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... >> > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht >> > news:AQHhh.26529$B42....@newsfe12.phx... >> >> "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in message >> >> news:ojGhh.244097$5f5.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... >> >> I go on like that because you have no basis for saying DI "doesn't fit >> >> into the game" and every time you try to articulate your basis, it keeps >> >> coming down to, "DI does something other cards don't do". >> > >> > 1. I have as much basis to say it don't fit as you have to say it does fit. >> >> Sure. And that is no basis whatsoever - which is my point. There are >> no standards for suggesting a card "fits the game". You're the one who >> made the original statement so the onus is on you to suggest some tangible, >> coherent standards for what that means and why it's important. The only >> standards you've advanced are arbitrary and meaningless. The reasons you've >> advanced to support the need for such standards have been pretty weak. >> >> > 2. We have been discussing power levels. Not fitting in the game the last posts. >> >> ...so why do you switch gears below and bring up the "unique effect" issue >> again? > > You did actually. All right, I don't want to spend time arguing about who said what when. Forget it, it's not important. >> >>That is, it's >> >> unique in some particular sense. That's what the word 'unique' means. If >> >> you don't mean that, don't say it and we can end this confusion and settle >> >> on what the nature of our differences truly are. >> >> >> >>> And that is, of course, largely a matter of taste. >> >> >> >> Actually, no - there are other factors dictating the banning of cards >> >> besides taste. For example, a card that does exactly the same effect >> >> as Govern the Unaligned with the same dom/DOM requirements except that >> >> it cost zero blood instead of one causes a problem which is not taste- >> >> based: it would obsolesce Govern the Unaligned - meaning that no one would >> >> ever play GtU if they could get a copy of the new card. >> > >> > That is not a unique effect.... >> >> What's your point? One card in the game obsolescing another causes a >> problem, 'unique effect' or not. > > The point, which you again miss, it that 'a better version of card X' > can hardly be considered a unique effect. I'm missing it because I don't understand why you mention it in response to what I just said. How is this relevant? I am citing a problem in the game which has nothing to do with taste. It is a problem, unique effect or not. > 'A better version of card X' > can be objectively held next to card x and compared. For a unique > effect, there is no benchmark. Sure there is - at least to the extent we need to. The benchmark is: can you use it to win games much easier than almost any other card in the game? If you can, it is broken. If you cannot, it does not constitute a problem. (And since it's unique, the obsolescence problem doesn't arise here. Obsolescence is a different problem than brokeness.) > Except: power level when compared to other cards. I didn't understand this statement. >> >>Or a card could >> >> be overpowered, unbalanced, and 'broken' (as you insist it must be called), >> >> and make the game too easy to win through its use. Then, people start >> >> feeling like they _must_ use that card in order to have a fair chance to >> >> win. This narrows the game, which is also problem no matter what your >> >> taste. >> > >> > That's the definition of broken, yes. Not the definition of above the curve. >> >> ...whatever you mean by the latter. > > broken means 'i need this to win', above the power curve means just > what it means. That's circular. All words mean what they mean. You have define them in terms of other words. Fred

Jeroen#

19 December 2006, 17:35

James Coupe schreef: > In message <wAOhh.244729$oo5.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Jeroen > Rombouts <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> writes: > >"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht > >news:AQHhh.26529$B42....@newsfe12.phx... > >> > >> "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> wrote in message > >> news:ojGhh.244097$5f5.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > > > >> > >> I go on like that because you have no basis for saying DI "doesn't fit > >> into the game" and every time you try to articulate your basis, it keeps > >> coming down to, "DI does something other cards don't do". > > > >1. I have as much basis to say it don't fit as you have to say it does fit. > > Not really. > > > 1) If Direct Intervention doesn't fit, what has it been doing in the > game in the 10 years since it was first printed? > > It seems pretty likely that if D.I. really didn't fit, it would have to > have had a plethora of changes made to it to make it fit. Don't agree. It still has time to be changed faster after the first time it was printed than Succubus Club. Besides, it fits because it fits is not really an argument. Counterpoint: strength of the rest of the cards since Sabat has changed dramatically. Most power cards were removed from the game or nerfed enough to become wall paper. Maybe DI was balanced at the time Sabat came out, as a counter to the other power cards. But now that these cards are gone, maybe DI itself needs adjusting too. > > > 2) It's possible that Direct Intervention was an effect completely out > of left-field when it was printed, but does it fit now? > > This possibility may have legs. The basic set, Jyhad/V:TES, is a big > set, but is having to set all the possibilities for the game. Dark > Sovereigns and Ancient Hearts are, largely, dominated by the Indies. > And then we get Sabbat, which is sort of a base set, sort of a new set. > So it's possible at that point that D.I. could have been said to not fit > - but much in the same way that Corruption could be said to not fit, > because it was one card that did this really weird thing oddly. And yet > Corruption is clearly a core Setite ability, and has been expanded on in > the sets since. > > Perhaps then, D.I. is a new thing for cards to do when it's printed, but > has been expanded on since. > > Actually, it has. > > Example: Louhi, in Kindred Most Wanted. > Once each turn, if Louhi is ready, she may burn 1 blood to > cancel an action card played by a vampire controlled by your > predator as it is played (the acting minion doesn't tap). > > So that's a pretty versatile cancellation. Not as versatile as D.I., > but cheaper. (Potentially, usable more than once per turn round the > table, if the predator does something freakish with OOT actions, too.) Louhi is good, but still leagues below D.I. Higher in the thread I mentioned that cancelling actions is not my problem with the card. It's the action mods and reactions because they cannot be played again. And DI sits in someone's hand, not visibly on the table. > > Still, we're not quite as versatile as D.I., and it may be that massive > versatility that means it doesn't fit. Except we do have that massive > versatility available: > > Khalu may burn 5 blood to cancel a minion card played by your > predator or prey as it is played (no cost is paid). > > So are we to say that Louhi doesn't fit, and Khalu doesn't fit? Note > that Khalu can even burn 5 blood during my turn - EVEN MORE powerful > than DI. Load up on blood gain, and we're away. 5 blood? This might be OK, powerwise. Never seen it in action, though. 5 blood and an MPA can also mean 5 pool with minion tap. > > We've also seen a very versatile defence for the Imbued, in the form of > React with Conviction, the ability to defend themselves against actions > or strikes. We've had Approximation of Loyalty give you the ability to > scoop out Wakes, intercept, bounce etc. from your prey and screw things > over. > > This wide-ranging cancellation thing seems to fit now, because it's been > developed interestingly. It still doesn't. All of the above have requirements that are higher than D.I. and only Khalu seems to have the same versatility but requires a certain vampire in the game and costs 5 blood. > 3) And really, did D.I. come out of nowhere? > > Not really. Sudden Reversal was a counter-spell for masters. Watenda > could take out combat cards he didn't like. It's not like D.I. actually > came from nowhere. Delaying Tactics didn't kill a specific card, but > could certainly have much the same effect - not the political card (that > goes back to your hand, obviously), but the other effects that were > played, such as letting a player play their vote-push, then cancelling > the vote, so you've basically just "cancelled" all the vote push cards. > (See also Business Pressure and Telepathic Vote Counting.) > > That sort of effect was out there. again: not the same versatility. And, for the record, I always though DT was too strong too. The 1 blood cost is not nearly enough. (mainly because it's a weenie enabler) > 4) So, does D.I. cross some line where cards aren't supposed to go? > > Not really. Master cards can affect minions, that's pretty well > established - Rotschreck is probably the best-known example from Jyhad, > but also Elysium: The Arboretum, for example. It's perfectly possible > for master cards to affect minions, either directly (play now, resolve > now) or less directly (play now, use later). Other examples: Frenzy, > Mob Connections, Police Department. Who said that master cards cannot affect minions? I never said anything like it. And, with the exception of the original printing of Elysium, those effects are balanced or even underpowered. > > And we've had all sorts of bizarre interactions since then. Rewind Time > (a minion card) can cancel master cards as they're being played. requires temporis: few minions have it out-of-the box, no skill card available. > Regarhagan's Hold, a master card, can actually prevent certain reaction > cards being played. and nobody plays with it because the requirement are too strict. >Angel of Berlin is an M:OOT that untaps minions. > Minion cards (e.g. all of Abombwe, Tranquility) can cancel Frenzy cards > of any sort, be they minion or master. > > It's pretty clear that different areas of the game (such as card types) > can interact in unusual ways, and have always been able to. your point being? Who said that these cards are bad? > > > 5) So is it out of line thematically? > > Seems unlikely. Quite a bit of White Wolf source material has > Methuselahs and even, in some cases, Antediluvians being personally > involved - though often obscurely - in the Jyhad. maybe. but rarely, not 8 times every game... >Though obviously it's > much better for them if they can achieve all their aims through proxies, > to keep their fingerprints off their schemes, there's never been an > active prohibition towards doing things that might be questionable or a > little risky. Direct Intervention could certainly fit into that sort of > action. After all, you're paying pool and screwing your ability to play > Dreams of the Sphinx next turn. > > > I'm really not sure how you can argue that the effect doesn't fit in the > game. It may (or may not) be inappropriately costed, but the effect > seems a fairly integral part of V:TES as it stands at the end of 2006. > Not one of the above has the same versatility and lack of requirements that DI does.

Jeroen#

19 December 2006, 17:55

Frederick Scott schreef: > "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1166540936.7...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > Frederick Scott schreef: <...> [ quoted text not captured ] Fuzzy logic. Because that would mean all defensive card can be more powerful than the offensive cards. A lot of cards were banned or changed without being a problem as you just defined 'being a problem' >(And since it's unique, the obsolescence problem > doesn't arise here. Obsolescence is a different problem than > brokeness.) Just like a card being overpowered and a card being broken are separate things. Something you won't accept. > > > Except: power level when compared to other cards. > > I didn't understand this statement. > > >> >>Or a card could > >> >> be overpowered, unbalanced, and 'broken' (as you insist it must be called), > >> >> and make the game too easy to win through its use. Then, people start > >> >> feeling like they _must_ use that card in order to have a fair chance to > >> >> win. This narrows the game, which is also problem no matter what your > >> >> taste. > >> > > >> > That's the definition of broken, yes. Not the definition of above the curve. > >> > >> ...whatever you mean by the latter. > > > > broken means 'i need this to win', above the power curve means just > > what it means. > > That's circular. All words mean what they mean. You have define them in > terms of other words. I did, a number of posts above. and if you still don't know what I mean. Overpowered: too strong an effect for the requirements and costs to play that card. Broken: makes you win or breaks the game What is your problem with that?

Frederick Scott#

19 December 2006, 20:55

"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1166547315....@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott schreef: >> "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1166540936.7...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > 'A better version of card X' >> > can be objectively held next to card x and compared. For a unique >> > effect, there is no benchmark. >> >> Sure there is - at least to the extent we need to. The benchmark is: >> can you use it to win games much easier than almost any other card in >> the game? If you can, it is broken. If you cannot, it does not >> constitute a problem. > > Fuzzy logic. Because that would mean all defensive card can be more > powerful than the offensive cards. Huh? How does THAT follow?!? (I least I state my logic.) > A lot of cards were banned or > changed without being a problem as you just defined 'being a problem' You notice I didn't claim it was the only problem that might result in a card being banned. Obviously, there are others. So what? >>(And since it's unique, the obsolescence problem >> doesn't arise here. Obsolescence is a different problem than >> brokeness.) > > Just like a card being overpowered and a card being broken are separate > things. Something you won't accept. I accept that there might be other problems. I just take issue with you using the term "overpowered" to mean something other than what it's usually taken to mean. And claiming otherwise. If you like, I'm certainly open to other things people want to claim are problems in the game, including whatever you mean by "overpowered" or "above the power curve" or whatever. From everything I've read, I don't think you have a very solid idea of what exactly you're complaining about. Or alternatively, that you have problems articulating it. And I also suspect a lot of the 'problem' is really bogus, attributes which can be seen in other cards or your opinion of the card based on your local metagame rather than the more universal experience of the card. > Overpowered: too strong an effect for the requirements and costs to > play that card. > Broken: makes you win or breaks the game > > What is your problem with that? I see. "Overpowered" is too strong for proper game balanced but not strong enough to be "broken", according to this. (And it has nothing to do with the definition of "overpowered" you once offered with respect to Succubus Club.) I offered that definition to you earlier to see if that's what you meant. You passed on it, causing more confusion: From a different post of yours. # # If you're trying to split hairs about it # # being _almost_ broken but not quite, then I disagree: you would see # # a lot of copies of an almost broken card in the TWDA, too. # # see above for what power means. I assume the reference you made was this, further up: # Maybe you think that. I don't. overpowered means: to much power. That # doesn't have to be power to effectively win with. # # to be clearer: take the old Succubus Club. As such, it was no 'winning # card', but it gave the controller of the card too much power over the game. So forgive me if I'm surprised by this different definition of overpowered which doesn't sound anything like what you said before and does sound like the one I offered. Then my response is just this: were DI "too strong an effect for the requirements and costs" as you now seem to claim, it would also appear a lot more often in the TWDA than it now does. Fred

Jeroen Rombouts#

19 December 2006, 22:09

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht news:0tXhh.15951$un3....@newsfe14.phx... > "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1166547315....@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >> Frederick Scott schreef: >>> "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1166540936.7...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> > 'A better version of card X' >>> > can be objectively held next to card x and compared. For a unique >>> > effect, there is no benchmark. >>> >>> Sure there is - at least to the extent we need to. The benchmark is: >>> can you use it to win games much easier than almost any other card in >>> the game? If you can, it is broken. If you cannot, it does not >>> constitute a problem. >> >> Fuzzy logic. Because that would mean all defensive card can be more >> powerful than the offensive cards. > > Huh? How does THAT follow?!? (I least I state my logic.) Of course it follows: offensive cards are more likely to make you win than defensive cards. So to be 'a problem' like you stated, defensive cards get more leeway, because they don't make you win as easily. > >> A lot of cards were banned or >> changed without being a problem as you just defined 'being a problem' > > You notice I didn't claim it was the only problem that might result in a > card being banned. Obviously, there are others. So what? > >>>(And since it's unique, the obsolescence problem >>> doesn't arise here. Obsolescence is a different problem than >>> brokeness.) >> >> Just like a card being overpowered and a card being broken are separate >> things. Something you won't accept. > > I accept that there might be other problems. I just take issue with you > using the term "overpowered" to mean something other than what it's > usually taken to mean. And claiming otherwise. If you like, I'm > certainly > open to other things people want to claim are problems in the game, > including whatever you mean by "overpowered" or "above the power curve" or > whatever. From everything I've read, I don't think you have a very solid > idea of what exactly you're complaining about. Or alternatively, that you > have problems articulating it. I know I'm not the most articulate in a foreing language, but you're not even trying to understand me. >And I also suspect a lot of the 'problem' > is really bogus, attributes which can be seen in other cards or your > opinion of the card based on your local metagame rather than the more > universal experience of the card. and basing it on the TWD is better? I've seen the card in play for al these years in every group I ever played in. And in every country I ever played in. And I keep seeing it more frequent. And that was before 3rth hit the shops. [ quoted text not captured ] Why can the word 'power' not mean more than 1 thing? It's a measure of the strenght of the effect of the card vs its requirements and costs. Let me define it in another way: 'overpowered' is to 'broken' like 'underpowered' stands to 'wallpaper'. see the difference? > > Then my response is just this: were DI "too strong an effect for the > requirements > and costs" as you now seem to claim, it would also appear a lot more often > in > the TWDA than it now does. > Again, no: See subbubus club. Not that much in the TWDA at the time either.

librarian#

19 December 2006, 23:09

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht > news:0tXhh.15951$un3....@newsfe14.phx... > > "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1166547315....@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > >> Frederick Scott schreef: > >>> "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1166540936.7...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >>> > Dear Fred and Jeroen, how about taking your discussion to e-mail? Or better yet, play a game of JOL to settle the score... That's it! We can play a game where all of the decks have 5 DI's in it. Then we can play a game with the exact same decks, but the DIs are removed. That should prove... nothing. best - chris

XZealot#

20 December 2006, 00:14

> Now, what effect (or pass) is indicated by "pitch a pool". > > To a reasonable player, that is? Since I obviously have the appearance of being unreasonably arguementative about this point, I will bite. The effect indicated by "pitch a pool" is that the action resolves for a loss of 1 pool by the defending player. > > There is no fundamental difference > > between playing a reaction card and blocking after the acting player > > plays an action modifier. The play of the action modifier makes the > > pitching of a pool a misplay, therefore the pool is retracted and play > > is rewound. > > Correct. Rewound to the point of the misplay, and rewound so that the player > making the misplay gains no advantage. > > The misplay was skipping the acting Meth's impulse (his window to play a > modifier after the "no block" decision). The "no block" decision itself was not > a misplay, since it was indeed the defending Methuselah's impulse. > > Rewinding to before the decision not to block is not necessary, since making > that decision was not a misplay and, moreover, rewinding to that point would be > actively wrong because rewinding to that point would *obviously* be giving an > advantage to the player making the misplay. Or, it would prompt the acting player to queue the question, "Do you block?" into his action sequence before playing his action modifier. >Rewinding to before the decision not to block is not necessary, since making that >decision was not a misplay and, moreover, rewinding to that point would be actively wrong >because rewinding to that point would *obviously* be giving an advantage to the player >making the misplay, Since you are rewinding the action back prior to before the action resolves and you are allowing the action to be modified by an action modifier, why is it not within the blocking player's ability to block, when they have not explicitly declared "no block". The only wrongness commited here is that the acting player did not request any block attempts. You cannot imply something that hasn't occured, or will not occur, especially once you rewind play back to before the possibility of the event occuring. > Gaining an advantage from misplays is improper. The sequence of the action is thrown off by an action modifier being played on a action that has resolved. There are two misplays occuring. One by the acting player by not requesting any block attempts who then plays an action modifier on a resolved action. The other is the defending player pitching a pool prematurely. Both players are participating in the misplay. Both are attempting to gain an improper advantage from that misplay. > Intentionally doing to is cheating. > > Arguing in favor of allowing intentionally gaining an advantage through such > play, well, doesn't look good. Absolutely, that is why I think that this ruling that the acting player gets to cheat by playing an action modifier on a resolved action by implying that there is a block decline looks as poor for you as me arguing that this ruling is in error by allowing the defending player to attempt to block after the acting player believes that there was an implied decline to block. The best ruling would be that during each action, that it should be manditory that all methuselah's legally able to declare a "no block" if they are not attempting to block (Eagle Sight and Falcon's Eye would still retain their suprise value). This is fundamentally in the spirit of the game. To do otherwise is a misplay. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp (except when my wife is around and then she gets to wear the title)

Stefan#

20 December 2006, 00:16

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht news:0tXhh.15951$un3....@newsfe14.phx... [ quoted text not captured ] Since you doubt the power and impact DI has on table dynamics I propose that in your local playing group, as a test, for a couple of games you ask everyone to include say 3 DI's in their deck. Play a couple of games and let us know if you notice any difference with regular play. I can practically guarantee you that when the game hangs in the balance a lot of VP's will depend on when and how these cards are played. Stefan

XZealot#

20 December 2006, 00:23

> Since you doubt the power and impact DI has on table dynamics I propose that > in your local playing group, as a test, for a couple of games you ask > everyone to include say 3 DI's in their deck. Play a couple of games and > let us know if you notice any difference with regular play. I can > practically guarantee you that when the game hangs in the balance a lot of > VP's will depend on when and how these cards are played. The best way to show the power of DI is to give each player 3 "buzzers" that represent a DI. These "buzzers" are availible to the player throughout an entire game. Play your decks and game normally, but when a minion card is played you "buzz" in one of you DI's to cancel it. Watch as the carefully crafted toolbox decks, that have a limited resource of each game element, crash while the focused decks. who have a virtually unlimited amount of selected resources and none of other resources, ignore it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Blooded Sand#

20 December 2006, 08:59

On Dec 20, 1:14 am, "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > The effect indicated by "pitch a pool" is that the action resolves for > a loss of 1 pool by the defending player. In other words, the bleed action is successful, and would resolve currently for 1 pool. A bleed action can only be succesful if not blocked, thus the player pitching the pool has implicitly stated that he is not blocking as he deems the action succesful. where's the problem?

James Coupe#

20 December 2006, 11:07

(Again, note "Subject:" change.) In message <1166547315....@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> writes: >Fuzzy logic. Because that would mean all defensive card can be more >powerful than the offensive cards. A lot of cards were banned or >changed without being a problem as you just defined 'being a problem' Actually, a lot of the best defensive cards are more powerful than similar offensive cards. For example: assume I'm playing a bleed deck. I want to bleed you for six. So, I'm playing Ozmo (AUS dom obf +1 bleed). I throw down Govern the Unaligned, so we're at four bleed, for one blood. So far, you have paid with one card from your hand, 1 blood if/when the action is successful, and you've "paid" for Ozmo having +1 bleed, and such. Now I declare a block, hoping, praying that you don't have any stealth in hand. (This may be a tactical error on my part.) You look through your hand and play Faceless Night, or any other Obfuscate modifier of your choice for +1 stealth. At this point, I can't block. So you now play Conditioning. Bang, six bleed. So, 6 bleed, 3 cards from hand, +1 stealth, 1 blood, and 1 blood when successful, plus the cost of Ozmo. Now, how do I get my prey bled for me for 6 at +1 stealth? I play one card, for one blood, with a 2 cap vampire - Dominate bounce. Or if I happen to have superior Dominate, I could play Redirection and make it free, or stay untapped with Deflection. One card, one small vampire, and maybe one blood has got a great deal of damage (possibly) done to my prey. You had to play several cards to attempt the same. What's the difference here? Opportunity cost. I have to hold my defence until it's playable and, as a result, will often include less of it in my deck than you can include offensive cards. (Some easily cycled or burn option cards would be mild exceptions here.) I can't control when I get to play them, and I don't get to choose that you do things that actively help me. Note that the threat of defensive cards can also cause you problems. You know I have some bounce in my deck, but looking over my ash-heap of, say, 40 cards out of what looks like an 80-90 deck, you can see 3. Do I have 6 in the deck? Do I have one in hand? Do you want to play stealth to get by me, do you want to suffer the block, do you want to jam your hand for now? Fun fun fun. But when I do get to play it, I can often take a powerful situation and use it to my significant advantage. But I don't get to control the situation - I just have to hope that bleed will be a significant issue on the tables I'm on, which is usually a reasonable bet. Compare other similarly popular cards in defensive roles: - Delaying Tactics can not only nullify a vote right now (which would be a pretty even trade), it can also prevent anyone else you control from calling it for the rest of the turn, which is an uneven trade. The cost? What happens if no-one calls a vote you want to stop? - You come rushing me (requiring a card or a fairly expensive built-in action), throw down a couple of combat cards (perhaps Carrion Crows and Scorpion Sting)... I play Majesty. Three cards nullified by 1 card. I don't know that I'm going to get rushed, but it works out well. But it gets even better. I act. Get blocked. You might waste resources on blocking me, and might try to hit me. And not only can I get away from your fiendish Combat of Doom, I can untap, leave your minion tapped, and act again. But no use at all if I don't get blocked or rushed. But bloody useful when I do. Now, of course, there are defensive cards that are a Festering Pile of Wank (see Eyes of the Dead). But look at the ones that see regular play, see how one card can nullify several, see how one card can give you a serious advantage - but see how the opportunity cost goes up, so the power/cost ratio is hopefully balanced. The good offensive cards, I can usually control a lot more, and so their opportunity cost is significantly lower, and since they have that sort of lower cost, their individual power is often lower, or their other costs are non-trivially higher. In the ideal, anyway - no-one's going to deny there aren't exceptions (good and bad) in both arenas. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe#

20 December 2006, 11:29

In message <1166570058....@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >Absolutely, that is why I think that this ruling that the acting player >gets to cheat by playing an action modifier on a resolved action by >implying that there is a block decline looks as poor for you as me >arguing that this ruling is in error by allowing the defending player >to attempt to block after the acting player believes that there was an >implied decline to block. The action hasn't resolved, though. The defending player has simply indicated an unwillingness to block. The rest of the action proceeds as normal. Therefore, the acting player is not cheating. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeroen#

20 December 2006, 13:21

Stefan schreef: > Since you doubt the power and impact DI has on table dynamics I propose that > in your local playing group, as a test, for a couple of games you ask > everyone to include say 3 DI's in their deck. Play a couple of games and > let us know if you notice any difference with regular play. I can > practically guarantee you that when the game hangs in the balance a lot of > VP's will depend on when and how these cards are played. > > Stefan Exactly what I was gonna post today. :-) Thanks Stefan. If you don't already, allow people to proxy 3 (or more) DI in every deck. Just try it out.

Kevin M.#

20 December 2006, 13:20

XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > The best way to show the power of DI is to give each player > 3 "buzzers" that represent a DI. These "buzzers" are availible > to the player throughout an entire game. Play your decks and > game normally, but when a minion card is played you "buzz" > in one of you DI's to cancel it. Watch as the carefully crafted > toolbox decks, that have a limited resource of each game > element, crash while the focused decks. who have a virtually > unlimited amount of selected resources and none of other > resources, ignore it. You forgot to then have each player play with a 6-card hand the entire game (to facilitate the holding of a D.I. for the entire game), but your idea/test is worth investigating. 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

LSJ#

20 December 2006, 13:46

XZealot wrote: >> Now, what effect (or pass) is indicated by "pitch a pool". >> >> To a reasonable player, that is? > > Since I obviously have the appearance of being unreasonably > arguementative about this point, I will bite. > > The effect indicated by "pitch a pool" is that the action resolves for > a loss of 1 pool by the defending player. Shame you quoted the context. Not very reasonable at all. Looking more like someone who knows he's lost. The point is the decision being made, not the fantasy resolution. The defending player is up in the sequence. It is his turn to do something. His choices are: react, block, or pass ("no block"). Which of the available choices does he indicate he is choosing by his act of pitching a pool? Please answer that question, not the fantasy resolution question you invented.

03 February 2007, 16:04

hugh.an...@gmail.com wrote: > Is the intention still to update the rulings and clarifications with > the 1999 ruling? Yes. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5b82e0c1f3967b59