There are two sides to the argument about banning or changing Protect
Thine Own. This document will describe both sides of the argument,
but may not be complete. Every time you see banned, read it as
banned/changed.
Anti-banning / Anti-changing arguments:
1) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it was just
reprinted in the Camarilla Edition.
a) New players will be upset that they cannot play with it in
tournaments.
b) The current design team is god-like in their ability to
choose which cards to reprint. (See also: Twisting the Knife and Up
Yours!)
2) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it gives Inner
Circle members an action that justifies their high capacity and time
to influence into play.
3) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it gives Justicars
an action that justifies their high capacity and time to influence
into play.
4) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because other similar cards
exist, ie Sacrifice and Tradition Upheld.
5) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it is easily
countered with existing vote defense cards.
6) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it gives players the
opportunity to burn the key vampire from their opponent's deck because
their opponents chose to play with non-Camarilla vampires and does not
require risky combat or diablerie.
7) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it was designed by
Shawn F. Carnes, Paul Peterson, and Matt Burke and together they are
the holy trinity of trading card game design.
8) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because I need to be able to
eliminate my grand-prey's defensive vampire without any risk of being
blocked before he becomes my prey or I will not win the game.
9) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it can only effect
397 vampires in the game.
10) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it can only be
played by 20 vampires in the game, 7 Inner Circle members and 13
Justicars.
11) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because Direct Intervention
exists.
12) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it is not
dominating tournament play. Only 8 decks won tournaments out of the
last 115 when they had the card in their deck.
13) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it is not causing
people to leave the tournament scene.
14) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because TheLasombra.com
still has 15 copies for sale and it must not be very good if it is
still in stock.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Pro-banning / Pro-changing arguments:
1) Protect Thine Own should be banned to protect new players that are
using Anarchs and Black Hand and do not have access to Delaying
Tactics or Direct Intervention as they were not printed in either set.
2) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it is too powerful of a
swing effect for 1 card, eliminating a vampire while it has no defense
(see Closed Session) or opportunity to block (when called cross-table)
is more than game ruining for the victim player.
3) Sacrifice should also not exist, and wisely has not been reprinted
since Sabbat. Tradition Upheld should not exist and has wisely not
been reprinted since Dark Sovereigns.
4) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it is not sufficiently
costed for the effect that it generates. Compare to Banishment, the
closest political action that non-Camarilla decks have access to, and
you find these additional abilities: PTO 1-move vampire to
uncontrolled (As Banishment), 2-remove all blood from uncontrolled
vampire to blood bank, 3-remove vampire from uncontrolled region to
ash heap.
5) If I can out-bloat or oust my prey faster than a vote deck can
reduce my pool to zero, that speed or bloat can be my vote defense. I
cannot use similar measures to defend against Protect Thine Own. I
must use Direct Intervention and Delaying Tactics in order to have a
chance to survive. Delaying Tactics will grant one turn reprieve, and
then I must have a second. If I must play with these cards
specifically to keep my vampires in the game (ie, I must play X or
anti-X), then the card should not be in the game. For all decks
designed around disciplines possessed only by independent clans or
Sabbat clans, I must play with these specific defenses. For all decks
designed around specific abilites granted by being Anarch or Black
Hand, I must play with these specific defenses. For all decks
designed around specific non-Camarilla vampires and their general
utility, I must play with these specific defenses. There are too many
decks that are too vulnerable to this card and that must play anti-X
to even be able to continue to play.
6) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it gives players the
opportunity to burn the key vampire from their opponents' deck because
their opponents chose to play with non-Camarilla vampires and does not
require risky combat or diablerie.
7) Protect Thine Own is from the same designers as Return to
Innocence, Tomb of Ramses, Mind Rape, and Thought's Betrayed, four of
the most broken cards in the game. This by itself is almost a good
enough reason to consider banning/changing the card.
8) Protect Thine Own should be banned because the ability to eliminate
your grand-prey's defensive vampire without any risk of being blocked
before he becomes your prey is too powerful.
9) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it can effect 397
vampires in the game, which is 57% of the vampires in the game.
10) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it can only be played
by 20 vampires in the game, 7 Inner Circle members and 13 Justicars,
and they are the most powerful and have access to the most powerful
cards already, see the Traditions as examples. All of these 20
vampires have access to Closed Session which completely removes the
victim's ability to interact in the referendum. Protect Thine Own
should be banned because there is no political action card that
provides the same level of fragility to the Camarilla vampires for the
non-Camarilla vampires to call.
11) Protect Thine Own should be banned because its only true defense
is Direct Intervention and playing Camarilla vampires exclusively in
tournaments.
12 - 13) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it constricts the
quantity of tournament caliber decks by its very existence. Strong
decks based on non-Camarilla vampires are not tournament options while
this card is allowed in the tournament setting. People playing to win
will choose anti-X (Camarilla decks) as long as X (Protect Thine Own)
continues to be allowed in tournaments. People are driven from the
tournament scene all the time, there is no reason to allow this to be
one more.
14) Protect Thine Own is bad for the game, rarity or availability of
the card has no bearing on this argument.
"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
4rd300hc2ci56349j...@4ax.com...
> There are two sides to the argument about banning or changing Protect
> Thine Own. This document will describe both sides of the argument,
> but may not be complete. Every time you see banned, read it as
> banned/changed.
Thanks for this most funny and yet so very accurate report.
> 7) Protect Thine Own is from the same designers as Return to
> Innocence, Tomb of Ramses, Mind Rape, and Thought's Betrayed, four of
> the most broken cards in the game. This by itself is almost a good
> enough reason to consider banning/changing the card.
Among which : one was banned and 3 errated...
Just wondering : did these wonderful people also invent Judgement :
Camarilla Segregation ? Or the way-too-good Dreams of the Sphynx ?
Any card that incites players not to buy / play more than half the available
vampires (and the cards that they can play) cannot be good for the game. I
name : PTO, and to a lesser extent (because it has less good targetting, but
still...) J:CS.
Here's hoping your wonderful sum-up, the recent threads, and the fact that
PTO still is n° broken card on the last Necropoll will have some incidence
(like, the designers team realizing that something really needs to be done
!!).
Thanks for that, Shadowy One.
--
Orpheus, from his Mausoleum, Massilia
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:40:47 +0100, "Orpheus"
<orph...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote:
>Just wondering : did these wonderful people also invent Judgement :
>Camarilla Segregation ? Or the way-too-good Dreams of the Sphynx ?
Yes.
They* are the design team responsible for Dark Sovereigns, Ancient
Hearts and Sabbat.
*Shawn F. Carnes, Paul Peterson, and Matt Burke
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
http://www.TheLasombra.com
The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4rd300hc2ci56349j...@4ax.com>...
> There are two sides to the argument about banning or changing Protect
> Thine Own. This document will describe both sides of the argument,
> but may not be complete. Every time you see banned, read it as
> banned/changed.
I laughed when I read this. That is good. But it's useful enough as a
jumping board for agreeing and disagreeing, so. All this is IMHO, of
course.
> Anti-banning / Anti-changing arguments:
>
>
> 1) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it was just
> reprinted in the Camarilla Edition.
> a) New players will be upset that they cannot play with it in
> tournaments.
> b) The current design team is god-like in their ability to
> choose which cards to reprint. (See also: Twisting the Knife and Up
> Yours!)
Not an argument.
> 2) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it gives Inner
> Circle members an action that justifies their high capacity and time
> to influence into play.
It is one of the things that makes IC more valuable (especially since
they have no access to the traditions), so this is at least a positive
and valid contribution to the argument.
> 3) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it gives Justicars
> an action that justifies their high capacity and time to influence
> into play.
Justicards (sp) are good enough on their own.
> 4) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because other similar cards
> exist, ie Sacrifice and Tradition Upheld.
Poor argument.
> 5) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it is easily
> countered with existing vote defense cards.
I agree that votes are easily countered by a well-balanced table.
While any one deck cannot defend against a hostile voter, the table
very well might be. Also, there's the fact that there are additional
ways of stopping it, which is cumulative. Part of a good argument.
> 6) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it gives players the
> opportunity to burn the key vampire from their opponent's deck because
> their opponents chose to play with non-Camarilla vampires and does not
> require risky combat or diablerie.
Bad argument.
> 7) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it was designed by
> Shawn F. Carnes, Paul Peterson, and Matt Burke and together they are
> the holy trinity of trading card game design.
Wonderful argument.... ermm. No.
> 8) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because I need to be able to
> eliminate my grand-prey's defensive vampire without any risk of being
> blocked before he becomes my prey or I will not win the game.
No.
> 9) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it can only effect
> 397 vampires in the game.
Lol. No.
> 10) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it can only be
> played by 20 vampires in the game, 7 Inner Circle members and 13
> Justicars.
No.
> 11) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because Direct Intervention
> exists.
Cumulative with #5, this can be a good argument.
> 12) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it is not
> dominating tournament play. Only 8 decks won tournaments out of the
> last 115 when they had the card in their deck.
Even though it may not dominate, it may still influence deck choices.
What if there was a hypothetical card that read 'people that have 3
sabbat vampires in play lose'. It might not be included in many TW
decks, but it sure as hell will make less people play sabbat.
So there's a good point to this argument - it isn't scary 'cause it's
visually dominating and strong (GtU, Dreams of the Sphinx, etc.).
There's also a point missed by this argument - it's scaryness might be
hidden.
> 13) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it is not causing
> people to leave the tournament scene.
Do we know this?
While cards that cause people to leave the scene are Obviously Evil
(TM), us tuff folk might be hangin' on by our gums, so not leaving
even while it's bad.
> 14) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because TheLasombra.com
> still has 15 copies for sale and it must not be very good if it is
> still in stock.
Excellent reason, obviously.
> -----------------------------------
> -----------------------------------
>
> Pro-banning / Pro-changing arguments:
>
> 1) Protect Thine Own should be banned to protect new players that are
> using Anarchs and Black Hand and do not have access to Delaying
> Tactics or Direct Intervention as they were not printed in either set.
Might as well ban conditioning because it's strong and people haven't
bought up on cards from earlier sets to defend themselves (I know, I
know, there's a difference. Y'all know what I mean). Starting in a
developed game will always be slightly tricky.
> 2) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it is too powerful of a
> swing effect for 1 card, eliminating a vampire while it has no defense
> (see Closed Session) or opportunity to block (when called cross-table)
> is more than game ruining for the victim player.
Could be a good argument - if we can agree on whether the power of the
swing and the conditionality of the swing happening, together, are too
bad. But the argument's already been raised that ultra-high-swing,
ultra-low-chance-to-use cards are bad, and I would tend to agree with
that principle.
> 3) Sacrifice should also not exist, and wisely has not been reprinted
> since Sabbat. Tradition Upheld should not exist and has wisely not
> been reprinted since Dark Sovereigns.
No opinion.
> 4) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it is not sufficiently
> costed for the effect that it generates. Compare to Banishment, the
> closest political action that non-Camarilla decks have access to, and
> you find these additional abilities: PTO 1-move vampire to
> uncontrolled (As Banishment), 2-remove all blood from uncontrolled
> vampire to blood bank, 3-remove vampire from uncontrolled region to
> ash heap.
Might be true. If the conditions exist that you can use PTO (well),
you probably wouldn't mind paying a bit more for it's effect.
> 5) If I can out-bloat or oust my prey faster than a vote deck can
> reduce my pool to zero, that speed or bloat can be my vote defense. I
> cannot use similar measures to defend against Protect Thine Own. I
> must use Direct Intervention and Delaying Tactics in order to have a
> chance to survive. Delaying Tactics will grant one turn reprieve, and
> then I must have a second. If I must play with these cards
> specifically to keep my vampires in the game (ie, I must play X or
> anti-X), then the card should not be in the game. For all decks
> designed around disciplines possessed only by independent clans or
> Sabbat clans, I must play with these specific defenses. For all decks
> designed around specific abilites granted by being Anarch or Black
> Hand, I must play with these specific defenses. For all decks
> designed around specific non-Camarilla vampires and their general
> utility, I must play with these specific defenses. There are too many
> decks that are too vulnerable to this card and that must play anti-X
> to even be able to continue to play.
Ermmm yeah. Brain frozen.
> 6) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it gives players the
> opportunity to burn the key vampire from their opponents' deck because
> their opponents chose to play with non-Camarilla vampires and does not
> require risky combat or diablerie.
But it does require a vote (support) engine and delivery system.
> 7) Protect Thine Own is from the same designers as Return to
> Innocence, Tomb of Ramses, Mind Rape, and Thought's Betrayed, four of
> the most broken cards in the game. This by itself is almost a good
> enough reason to consider banning/changing the card.
:)
> 8) Protect Thine Own should be banned because the ability to eliminate
> your grand-prey's defensive vampire without any risk of being blocked
> before he becomes your prey is too powerful.
Interesting. Possibly a good argument.
> 9) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it can effect 397
> vampires in the game, which is 57% of the vampires in the game.
The number alone (without considering it's effect) is meaningless.
Bum's rush can effect 100% of the vampires in the game.
> 10) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it can only be played
> by 20 vampires in the game, 7 Inner Circle members and 13 Justicars,
> and they are the most powerful and have access to the most powerful
> cards already, see the Traditions as examples. All of these 20
> vampires have access to Closed Session which completely removes the
> victim's ability to interact in the referendum. Protect Thine Own
> should be banned because there is no political action card that
> provides the same level of fragility to the Camarilla vampires for the
> non-Camarilla vampires to call.
Interesting. It would be more fair if the non-Camarilla had a method
of 'payback'. But it's probably not better to balance a bad thing by
opposing it with a bad thing.
> 11) Protect Thine Own should be banned because its only true defense
> is Direct Intervention and playing Camarilla vampires exclusively in
> tournaments.
I'm not sold on the only true defense argument.
> 12 - 13) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it constricts the
> quantity of tournament caliber decks by its very existence. Strong
> decks based on non-Camarilla vampires are not tournament options while
> this card is allowed in the tournament setting. People playing to win
> will choose anti-X (Camarilla decks) as long as X (Protect Thine Own)
> continues to be allowed in tournaments. People are driven from the
> tournament scene all the time, there is no reason to allow this to be
> one more.
See response to 12 earlier. I do not agree that strong decks based on
non-Camarilla become non-tournament options due to PTO (solely).
> 14) Protect Thine Own is bad for the game, rarity or availability of
> the card has no bearing on this argument.
This one's true.
--
Tobias
Deventer
The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c6v3001h0v8vd1uen...@4ax.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Could you come up with an equally accurate, universally accepted
definition of "Broken"?
Cause I have the strong feeling this discussion keeps on continuing
becuse those criteria are not universaly the same all over.
And do you happen to know whether the design team has such a
definition they use?
/Jo
>
> http://www.TheLasombra.com
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:57:38 -0500, The Lasombra wrote:
>This document will describe both sides of the argument,
>but may not be complete.
You got that right. Instead of fatuous arguments like that "holy
trinity" entry, how about the obvious points that banning a card is
bad for the game because it is a breach of trust and visible evidence
that the game is half-baked, broken and a chore to keep up with. I
was willing to play the LotR CCG when it appeared that the designers
knew what they were doing. I had my doubts when they started to
errata cards then gave up the game when they started to errata the
same cards again, introduced the sweeping "rule of four" rule change
and set-rotation concepts for things like the site paths. At Xmas, I
talked to a player who has stuck with it (he's a company man as he
used to play their Star Wars CCG). He tells me that they've now
started to ban various cards like Elrond. I just laughed and felt
good that such incompetence wasn't going to be rewarded by any more of
my money. Fool me once, shame on you ...
Andrew
The Lasombra wrote:
<Happily snipping arguments that are there for the fun-value only>
> There are two sides to the argument about banning or changing Protect
> Thine Own. This document will describe both sides of the argument,
> but may not be complete. Every time you see banned, read it as
> banned/changed.
>
>
>
> Anti-banning / Anti-changing arguments:
>
>>> 2) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it gives Inner
> Circle members an action that justifies their high capacity and time
> to influence into play.
Invalid.
Introduce a cap 14 vamp that costs 20 to influence and add a card that
requires that vamp: Unblockable action. Your prey is ousted.
>
> 3) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it gives Justicars
> an action that justifies their high capacity and time to influence
> into play.
See above.
>
> 4) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because other similar cards
> exist, ie Sacrifice and Tradition Upheld.
Partially invalid. Those cards are hardly as powerful in reality.
>
> 5) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it is easily
> countered with existing vote defense cards.
Invalid.
Countered by a similar construction as my first.
>
> 10) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it can only be
> played by 20 vampires in the game, 7 Inner Circle members and 13
> Justicars.
Partially valid, but suffers from above constructional reasons.
>
> 11) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because Direct Intervention
> exists.
Invalid. Let's reintroduce Return to Innocense.
>
> -----------------------------------
> -----------------------------------
>
> Pro-banning / Pro-changing arguments:
>
> 1) Protect Thine Own should be banned to protect new players that are
> using Anarchs and Black Hand and do not have access to Delaying
> Tactics or Direct Intervention as they were not printed in either set.
Invalid.
Previous availability of legal cards is not an argument.
>
> 2) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it is too powerful of a
> swing effect for 1 card, eliminating a vampire while it has no defense
> (see Closed Session) or opportunity to block (when called cross-table)
> is more than game ruining for the victim player.
Partially invalid.
We have to ban Succubus Club first. Currently the one single card that
creates the greatest swing in the game.
>
> 3) Sacrifice should also not exist, and wisely has not been reprinted
> since Sabbat. Tradition Upheld should not exist and has wisely not
> been reprinted since Dark Sovereigns.
Invalid.
As per availability argument.
>
> 4) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it is not sufficiently
> costed for the effect that it generates. Compare to Banishment, the
> closest political action that non-Camarilla decks have access to, and
> you find these additional abilities: PTO 1-move vampire to
> uncontrolled (As Banishment), 2-remove all blood from uncontrolled
> vampire to blood bank, 3-remove vampire from uncontrolled region to
> ash heap.
Valid argument, but argument itself points at rewording rather than
banning.
>
> 5) If I can out-bloat or oust my prey faster than a vote deck can
> reduce my pool to zero, that speed or bloat can be my vote defense. I
> cannot use similar measures to defend against Protect Thine Own. I
> must use Direct Intervention and Delaying Tactics in order to have a
> chance to survive. Delaying Tactics will grant one turn reprieve, and
> then I must have a second. If I must play with these cards
> specifically to keep my vampires in the game (ie, I must play X or
> anti-X), then the card should not be in the game. For all decks
> designed around disciplines possessed only by independent clans or
> Sabbat clans, I must play with these specific defenses. For all decks
> designed around specific abilites granted by being Anarch or Black
> Hand, I must play with these specific defenses. For all decks
> designed around specific non-Camarilla vampires and their general
> utility, I must play with these specific defenses. There are too many
> decks that are too vulnerable to this card and that must play anti-X
> to even be able to continue to play.
Partially valid.
Deflection etc becomes problematic counterarguments. Those cards are
quite often considered obligatory in any winning deck.
Weenie-decks will laugh at PTO.
>
> 6) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it gives players the
> opportunity to burn the key vampire from their opponents' deck because
> their opponents chose to play with non-Camarilla vampires and does not
> require risky combat or diablerie.
Partially valid.
Still rewording would normally we the better path.
>
> 8) Protect Thine Own should be banned because the ability to eliminate
> your grand-prey's defensive vampire without any risk of being blocked
> before he becomes your prey is too powerful.
Partially valid.
See above.
>
> 9) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it can effect 397
> vampires in the game, which is 57% of the vampires in the game.
Invalid.
Several cards can affect 100% of the vampires in the game.
>
> 10) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it can only be played
> by 20 vampires in the game, 7 Inner Circle members and 13 Justicars,
> and they are the most powerful and have access to the most powerful
> cards already, see the Traditions as examples. All of these 20
> vampires have access to Closed Session which completely removes the
> victim's ability to interact in the referendum. Protect Thine Own
> should be banned because there is no political action card that
> provides the same level of fragility to the Camarilla vampires for the
> non-Camarilla vampires to call.
Partially valid.
Argument again points at rewording.
>
> 11) Protect Thine Own should be banned because its only true defense
> is Direct Intervention and playing Camarilla vampires exclusively in
> tournaments.
Invalid.
There is such a thing as effective vote-defence, no matter several
statements to the contrary in other threads.
Your argument immediately forces the banning of Slaughterhouse as
The very few defensive cards against it are outeweighted by it
having a permanent 100% uncounterable effect while in play.
>
> 12 - 13) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it constricts the
> quantity of tournament caliber decks by its very existence. Strong
> decks based on non-Camarilla vampires are not tournament options while
> this card is allowed in the tournament setting. People playing to win
> will choose anti-X (Camarilla decks) as long as X (Protect Thine Own)
> continues to be allowed in tournaments. People are driven from the
> tournament scene all the time, there is no reason to allow this to be
> one more.
12 Invalid
Too many winning non-camarilla decks out there.
Camarilla decks currently win because camarilla titles have too many
wonderful cards available apart from PTO.
13 Valid argument.
We should also ban all other identifiable cards that 'destroy the game',
no matter if they are winning cards or not.
>
> 14) Protect Thine Own is bad for the game, rarity or availability of
> the card has no bearing on this argument.
>
Doesn't count. This is argument number 13 again.
Do I like PTO? No.
Do I want it banned? No.
Do I want i nerfed? Yes.
Are there other cards I want nerfed? Yes.
Are there other cards I think should be banned? Yes.
Sten During
tobiasop...@hotmail.com (Tobias) wrote in message news:<8aa6db00.0401...@posting.google.com>...
> The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4rd300hc2ci56349j...@4ax.com>...
> > There are two sides to the argument about banning or changing Protect
> > Thine Own. This document will describe both sides of the argument,
> > but may not be complete. Every time you see banned, read it as
> > banned/changed.
>> > 6) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it gives players the
> > opportunity to burn the key vampire from their opponents' deck because
> > their opponents chose to play with non-Camarilla vampires and does not
> > require risky combat or diablerie.
>
> But it does require a vote (support) engine and delivery system.
>> > 8) Protect Thine Own should be banned because the ability to eliminate
> > your grand-prey's defensive vampire without any risk of being blocked
> > before he becomes your prey is too powerful.
>
> Interesting. Possibly a good argument.
>> > 11) Protect Thine Own should be banned because its only true defense
> > is Direct Intervention and playing Camarilla vampires exclusively in
> > tournaments.
>
> I'm not sold on the only true defense argument.
>
Many of these arguments assume that the action is unblockeable and the
referendum unassailable. Although the latter is often true, the
former, even crosstable, isn't. At least here in central Ohio it is
fairly common to see Eagle Sight (maybe not most tables, but I
wouldn't be surprised if at least one deck per table packed Eagle
Sight), and Draba helps a lot as well.
Actions *do* get blocked, and if people don't pack intercept (or
bounce, or combat defense) it's their funeral. Tough luck, and I
lament it myself at times, but good decks either run on their own
solo-strategy (e.g., Crypt Machine, weenie dementation bleed, etc) or
are able to manipulate the table somehow.
It could be the local playstyle, butI've always thought that there was
a serious opportunity cost to playing with PTO. You need an Inner
Circle member (for full effect), who cannot play the tradition and
*still* costs a ton of pool and influence time. If your prey is not
playing non-Cam, you need to wait for a copy of Dramatic Upheaval to
show up in your hand, and you need to somehow survive the table
agression it will surely provoke. Last time I played the card with my
Toreador Grand Ball deck, Alexandra got cross-table rushed three times
in one round (before she hit torpor), then eaten. Game over for me.
Regards,
Patrick
Columbus, OH
The Lasombra wrote:
> There are two sides to the argument about banning or changing Protect
> Thine Own. This document will describe both sides of the argument,
> but may not be complete.
...or completely unbiased. It wasn't too difficult to see which side
of the fence that Jeff is sitting on.
Yeesh.
Regards,
Noal
> Could you come up with an equally accurate, universally accepted
> definition of "Broken"?
> Cause I have the strong feeling this discussion keeps on continuing
> becuse those criteria are not universaly the same all over.
> And do you happen to know whether the design team has such a
> definition they use?
>
> /Jo
My first answer is : no. This is a game with many different individuals, and
I think no one can come with a definition of anything that would be
universally accepted.
I can tell you what I put into the "ban or errate" category, though :
- the "You lose" cards. You intercept me ? Kiss of Râ, I burn 3, you go to
torpor and burn 2 (in effect, it's "go to torpor for one less blood than
what I paid"). I intercept you ? Aggrav, Rötschreck, you lose. No matter how
well you combat section is built, be it in pure fighting (anti-manoeuver,
anti-S:CE, big hits or aggravs, etc.) you just go to torpor, eventually get
amaranthed on the way, and SHUT UP ! Nice. What a pleasure playing in such
conditions, thank you, let's do it again tomorrow ? No thanks, I must go see
my dentist tomorrow. Less painful.
Although these cards don't give you the assurance of victory, they'll most
probably screw someone else's game. No card should have such an effect.
- the "play this" cards (what Derek walls "unfair") ; in that category, I of
course include PTO and J:CS. Better play Camarilla, or else you risk being
targetted by these ugly little things... I can't count the times I've seen a
game lost because Monçada, Thetmes, Carlotta, Le Din Tho or whoever was
burned by it (I once was lucky and wily enough to Delay one, and go with LDT
to see my prey's hand although he just had discarded it, and I often play
Possession ; should everybody include LDT or Necro to counter PTO ? Yes, of
course !!! ;)
Kiss of Râ could also be included in that category : play For, or else...
- Last but not least, the "universal" cards. They are included in most
tournament decks because they can do so many things, why not incude them ?
I'm not referring to Blood Dolls or Deflections, because 1) They are an
essential part of the basic mechanisms of the game, and 2) there are other
options for pool gain or against bleed, even if arguably less good ones.
These could include Sudden Reversals. And I would love to be able to play
bleed or vote without them but the decks would be much less effective. But
SR are a lesser evil : they target only master cards, which represent
roughly a 5th of each deck, sometimes less, and they take on you own master
cards space.
Direct Intervention can counter the other 4 fifths of everyone's decks. It
can counter a carefully established strategy, because nothing else in your
deck could counter this or that action, but Caine himself descends from on
high and... You lose ?! Yes, it can also fit that category. But in much
worse, because it reduces the variety of the game.
I also include Dreams of the Sphynx in the universal category, because it is
so good everyone includes them. I've even known some people to include 5 of
them in a bleed deck... ;-)
If I had a choice, the "play this" cards would be the ones I'd banish or
errate first : no part of the game should be discouraged. It isn't good for
game variety, and cannot be good commercially either (me, buy some indies ?
Why, to get burned ???)
The You lose cards would go next. And last but not least, the universal
ones.
So my Hate List is, in that order :
PTO, J:CS, DI, Rö, KoR, and eventually DotS (don't hate it that much, it's
just too good for what it costs).
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:37:18 +0100, "Orpheus"
<orph...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> scrawled:
[snip]
>what I paid"). I intercept you ? Aggrav, Rötschreck, you lose. No matter how
>well you combat section is built, be it in pure fighting (anti-manoeuver,
>anti-S:CE, big hits or aggravs, etc.) you just go to torpor, eventually get
>amaranthed on the way, and SHUT UP ! Nice. What a pleasure playing in such
>conditions, thank you, let's do it again tomorrow ? No thanks, I must go see
>my dentist tomorrow. Less painful.
You can't amaranth after rotschrek. combat ends, then they go to
torpor. as combat has ended, you can't play any more combat cards
(well, aside from psyche).
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
> >what I paid"). I intercept you ? Aggrav, Rötschreck, you lose. No matter
how
> >well you combat section is built, be it in pure fighting (anti-manoeuver,
> >anti-S:CE, big hits or aggravs, etc.) you just go to torpor, eventually
get
> >amaranthed on the way, and SHUT UP ! Nice. What a pleasure playing in
such
> >conditions, thank you, let's do it again tomorrow ? No thanks, I must go
see
> >my dentist tomorrow. Less painful.
>
> You can't amaranth after rotschrek. combat ends, then they go to
> torpor. as combat has ended, you can't play any more combat cards
> (well, aside from psyche).
>
> salem
Thanks for the correction. So, it still sucks (especially if we're talking
of the wall deck of your prey), but at least you get a chance to save your
ass. Maybe.
Orpheus
just a brief commentary. I'm not even sure I'm going to look at the
pro-banning stuff.
There are two sides to the argument about banning or changing Protect
Thine Own. This document will describe both sides of the argument,
but may not be complete. Every time you see banned, read it as
banned/changed.
>Anti-banning / Anti-changing arguments:
Pro-PTO
>1) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it was just
>reprinted in the Camarilla Edition.
>a) New players will be upset that they cannot play with it in
>tournaments.
>b) The current design team is god-like in their ability to
>choose which cards to reprint. (See also: Twisting the Knife and Up
>Yours!)
Ok, I'd agree with this statement. The time to make a major change to
the card was PRE-Camarilla. The dig on LSJ is just immature, that
stated:
b) The current design team understood the power of the card when they
reprinted it and did not feel that it merited change.
>2) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it gives Inner
>Circle members an action that justifies their high capacity and time
>to influence into play.>3) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it gives Justicars
>an action that justifies their high capacity and time to influence
>into play.
Eh. poor arguements, but not horriably biased. how about PTO shouldn't
be banned b/c it relies upon a camarilla title that is linked to very
high capacity vampires.
>4) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because other similar cards
>exist, ie Sacrifice and Tradition Upheld.>5) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it is easily
>countered with existing vote defense cards.
Or, PTO should not be banned b/c it IS countered with... easily just
pisses people off. Countering any card shouldn't be easy. Just
possiable.
>6) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it gives players
the
>opportunity to burn the key vampire from their opponent's deck
because
>their opponents chose to play with non-Camarilla vampires and does
not
>require risky combat or diablerie.
Ok, and here we start seeing the anti-reasons slipping into the pro
reasons. If you don't like the card, fine. But putting on a neutral
face in this post and then being so biased is annoying.
PTO shouldn't be banned simply because it exists, it does, the current
design team let it continue to do so.
>7) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it was designed by
>Shawn F. Carnes, Paul Peterson, and Matt Burke and together they are
>the holy trinity of trading card game design.
Command would appear to be adequate to make a mockery of this
arguement, so why is a strawman being built? Oh yeah, bias.
>8) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because I need to be able
to
>eliminate my grand-prey's defensive vampire without any risk of being
>blocked before he becomes my prey or I will not win the game.
see commentary for number 6. PTO does what most votes do, allow you to
interact with the whole table. These days everything does that.
(votes, combat, DEM bleed.)
>9) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it can only effect
>397 vampires in the game.
That's right, you can metagame against it and make it go away, just
one of the defences.
>10) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it can only be
>played by 20 vampires in the game, 7 Inner Circle members and 13
>Justicars.
I'd put this as a portion of the requires arguement, but this is
stated rather weakly.
PTO should not be banned b/c it can only be played by 20 vampires, and
everyone knows which vampires they are, and can deal with those
vampires if and when they hit the table, in the manner that they see
fit.
>11) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because Direct
Intervention
>exists.
DI is a broken card effect in and of itself.
PTO shouldn't be banned b/c defences to it exist, DI isn't the best
one of them.
>12) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it is not
>dominating tournament play. Only 8 decks won tournaments out of the
>last 115 when they had the card in their deck.
Correct. If it was all powerful it would be played more, winning
more, and we'd hear about it more. And this would have been happening
since Sabbat was released.
>13) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it is not causing
>people to leave the tournament scene.
Correct. It just causes huge fights on the newsgroup. I can't
comment on the RTI effect and this, but from what I've been led to
understand 12/13 happened before that card went bye bye.
>14) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because TheLasombra.com
>still has 15 copies for sale and it must not be very good if it is
>still in stock.
;-).
snip the anti-PTO arguements.
So Yeah, there are arguements for and against. but i'm not sure that
I'd associate myself with the ones you gave the Pro-PTO group.
Cameron
On 12 Jan 2004 06:52:39 -0800, sam...@hotmail.com (Patrick van der
Reest) wrote:
>Many of these arguments assume that the action is unblockeable and the
>referendum unassailable.
Stanislava.
Beast Meld.
Closed Session.
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:42:08 +0100, Sten During <ya...@netg.se> wrote:
>Do I like PTO? No.
>Do I want it banned? No.
>Do I want i nerfed? Yes.
>Are there other cards I want nerfed? Yes.
>Are there other cards I think should be banned? Yes.
You have missed the point Sten.
There are no other arguments being made, whether or not they are good
arguments.
No one has come up with a unique point 15 in either direction.
On 12 Jan 2004 11:47:17 -0800, dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald)
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
It is completely biased.
Care to have anything constructive to say?
>Yeesh.
Did you add any arguments one way or the other?
No.
Care to have anything constructive to say?
>Regards,
>Noal
If you have an argument that indicates the card should be in the game,
and should continue to exist in the tournament environment, and it is
not already covered by one the 14 listed, but all means, help your end
of the argument.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 12 Jan 2004 19:04:41 -0800, orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron)
wrote:
>Ok, and here we start seeing the anti-reasons slipping into the pro
>reasons. If you don't like the card, fine. But putting on a neutral
>face in this post and then being so biased is annoying.
I didn't put any faces on the post.
I said there is nothing new to say.
You failed to prove me wrong.
Care to try again?
[ quoted text not captured ]
"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9vq600pgko8dpg0gp...@4ax.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Argument for banning PTO:
The artwork is by Phillip Tan.
"Tan" rhymes with "Ban".
Argument against banning PTO:
The artwork is by Phillip Tan.
"Ban" rhymes with "Tan".
-Mike Ooi
P.S. It galls me that no one has commented on how artwork can make a card
thoroughly abusive.
>Instead of fatuous arguments like that "holy
>trinity" entry, how about the obvious points that banning a card is
>bad for the game because it is a breach of trust and visible evidence
>that the game is half-baked, broken and a chore to keep up with. I
>was willing to play the LotR CCG when it appeared that the designers
>knew what they were doing. I had my doubts when they started to
>errata cards then gave up the game when they started to errata the
>same cards again, introduced the sweeping "rule of four" rule change
>and set-rotation concepts for things like the site paths. At Xmas, I
>talked to a player who has stuck with it (he's a company man as he
>used to play their Star Wars CCG). He tells me that they've now
>started to ban various cards like Elrond. I just laughed and felt
>good that such incompetence wasn't going to be rewarded by any more of
>my money. Fool me once, shame on you ...
Funny, I find companies that refuse to ban cards either don't know what they
are doing or are too stubborn to fix their games.
As one of my friends who has played a wide variety of CCGs said not long ago,
"I think every CCG needs errata and bannings."
Not to ignore that you have a point about the costs involved in banning a card
- it does bother people when cards either don't do what they say or aren't
playable, etc.
End with two thoughts. One, CCG publishers *always* make *major* mistakes with
card design at some point or another and doing nothing about them leads to a
bad game. Two, as noble as it may seem to allow people to play any cards they
own, tons of cards are effectively banned by virtue of being inferior to cards
worth playing or because there's too much hate for them being played or
whatever and one of the things that can happen, if maybe not in some of the
cases talked about recently here, is that banning a card can un"ban" a greater
number of other cards.
The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<hsq60056k3eq2fn2g...@4ax.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Which is already a 1-IC, 3-card (if you include the PTO) setup. And
there may still be camarilla voters opposing you.
Not that i mind that, but some of the arguments against PTO hinge on
its ease of passing. This, to me, is not an 'easy' setup (but a strong
one).
I'm more inclined to listen to the arguments on the possible huge
swing in 'power' this card has as an effect, than to the arguments on
PTO's ease (which I think is highly overrated, but then again, I think
a table should be able to defend against a vote deck, and thus also
PTO).
--
Tobias
Deventer
On 13 Jan 2004 07:22:55 GMT, Curevei wrote:
>Funny, I find companies that refuse to ban cards either don't know what they
>are doing or are too stubborn to fix their games.
Last time I looked into this, there seemed to be few examples of
companies banning cards. My impression was that it was mainly Magic
which made a habit of this and there it seemed to have become a
cynical marketing tactic - produce power cards to sell expansions and
then turn round and ban those cards after they had proved to be broken
in tournaments. Lately, I thought they had reformed but now it seems
that they have started up again.
Me, I mostly play and collect Shadowfist, Doomtown and HeroClix. No
cards or figures are banned in these games (except the free preview
promos in HeroClix). They have had their share of rules changes and
errata and these seem ample to address any problem issues though some
matters are still a work-in-progress (Perplex in HeroClix, for example
- which is being addressed).
Banning a component instead of fixing it just seems inexcusable
laziness to me. Only arrogant companies who dominate their markets
can get away with treating their customers like this. Microsoft,
Games Workshop, United Airlines - you need to be a weak-willed
masochist to suffer them gladly ...
Andrew
[ quoted text not captured ]
Rather than argumenting for or against PTO specifically (as it
should be clear that I'm already in the camp that is unhappy
with the current wording of PTO) I'll try to verbalize an analyze
of some whys and whynots.
Most arguments have revolved around if a card is too strong or
not, but in reality we're adressing the circumstances around
an effect and the cost in opportunity or otherwise to achieve
that effect.
What is cost?
1) Blood
2) Pool
3) Requirements (clan, sect, capacity etc)
4) Number of cards needed (usually 1, but Choir for example requires
more)
5) Limitations (Only works on allies etc)
6) Type (I identify three types of effects where in ascending order
of cost they are Minion-cards, Master-cards and Vampires, and
perhaps Minion-cards would require a further split in subtypes)
7) Ease of use (usually varying degrees of inherent stealth or other
types of uncounterability, or, as we're talking cost, the lack
thereof)
8) Number of consequtive effects needed (Graverobbing requires the
torporizing of a vampire and so could be said to have a cost of
2 in this case)
9) Ease of countering (Discard a card to say NO, any minion can burn
this card as an action etc, etc)
What is the environment of an effect?
1) Time
1.1 Transient (Computer Hacking)
1.2 Lingering but restricted (KRCG News Radio)
1.3 Lingering (Mr. Winthrop)
2) Availability
2.1 Once per game (Giant's Blood)
2.2 Unique (Hunting Ground)
2.3 Max X per player/minion (Sportsbike)
2.4 Repeatable/Stackable (Flak Jacket)
3) Sideeffect
Examples are Trifle (Get extra MP), Untap after execution (Go Anarch)
and maybe more that I can't remember now.
Sideeffects I have defined as effects that are only there to offset
a Cost.
4) Impact
All the way from adding a blood to one of your vampires to 'Win the
Game'.
What is an effect?
Burn pool, intercept stealth, deal damage to another minion, burn a
card in play and so on and so on.
The feeling I have, this far, is that most people are confusing the
Impact of an effect with the effect itself, and that was the main
reason for my rather stupid stunt with arguing that Graverobbing
was a more broken card than PTO, because a succesful Graverobbing
does indeed have a greater Impact than a succcesful PTO.
Most players, and I'm included here, have this aversion to 'Move
controlled vampire to Ashheap', which is actually just an effect,
and one that has less Impact than 'Move controlled vampire to
opposing players Ready Region'.
However, the words 'Burn' combined with 'Vampire' have an emotional
value that is perhaps stronger than the underlying effect merits,
or rather merits when compared to other effects.
So, when checking if an effect is wellrounded we should compare
Cost with Environment.
Before you start yelling 'Doh, idiot, everyone does that without
your lecturing!' think for a while if that is really so.
I'm not certain that I always stay cool enough to do so, and I
know for certain that Cost and Environment are complex enough for
me to start resorting to comparing one card with another without
checking if that comparision is really valid.
Now, back to PTO.
Cost:
1) 1 blood
2) 0 pool
3) Inner Circle or (for a sidecost) Justicar
4) 1 card
5) Non-camarilla (Justicar sidecost being max-capacity of target)
6) Minion-card
7) +1 stealth and 1 vote (In other words a negative cost)
8) 1 effect needed
9) Undirected, so two blockers rather than one. A few cards in the
game can counter PTO directly. Can be stopped during referendum
by voting it down
Environment:
1) Transient
2) Repeatable/Stackable
3) None
4) High-medium I'd say. A High Impact would be Oust prey
Effect:
Move one vampire from controlled region to ash-heap.
Reading the costs I can only see two worth mentioning, being
of course the rather hefty requirements and the actually rather
severe limitation on what can be targeted.
The Environment is very friendly for this effect.
The effect is one which can be reached by other means than using
PTO, so a comparision is valid.
Diablerie and other cards burning vampires in torpor. We can agree
that the Environment is identical, but what about Cost? (Actually
Sacrificial Lamb has a more beneficial environment in terms of
Impact)
Diablerie doesn't have a blood cost, Vulnerability costs a pool
and Sacrificial Lamb costs three blood. Decapitate costs 2 blood.
On average higher cost if there is a cost at all.
Diablerie can be commited by just about anyone, so lower cost.
Sacrificial Lamb and Decapitate requires a discipline at superior
which is a lower cost compared to PTO.
Vulnerability is a Master-type effect, which is a higher cost.
All require target in torpor or on its way there. Diablerie has
a zero card-cost, but you risk your acting vampire in the following
Bloodhunt. However, we can burn anything in torpor.
Severe limitation on target availability is a higher cost.
Lower limitation on type of target is a lower cost.
All are directed at the target, so only one blocker rather than two.
Now it can be debated if this is a lower cost or not, but usually
undirected actions are considered more expensive than directed ones
when it comes to ease of blocking, so I'll stick to it being so in
this case as well.
Directed action is a lower cost.
All are at zero stealth (Ok, Nos player could stealth its way to the
combat where it's going to play Decapitate).
Lack of inherent stealth is a higher cost.
Vulnerability is either Suddened Reversaled or succcesful, so has
a lower cost.
Sending a vampire to torpor is an effect in itself.
Higher cost in terms of number of effects required.
In terms of ease of countering the lowest cost goes to Vulnerability,
Sacrificial Lamb and Decapitate, and the highest cost here
is actually held by PTO as it's not sufficient to make a succesful
action.
This is no answer to if PTO is undercosted or not, just a statement
that there are more ways in the game to achieve the same effect
that PTO does, that there does indeed exist a method for comparision
between those ways.
More importantly it's an attempt to put the light on the diffference
between an effect and the environment of an effect.
Sten During
Sten During wrote:
> What is the environment of an effect?
>
> 1) Time
> 1.1 Transient (Computer Hacking)
> 1.2 Lingering but restricted (KRCG News Radio)
> 1.3 Lingering (Mr. Winthrop)
Possible additions:
1.1 Transient - instantaneous (Computer Hacking)
1.2 Transient - delayed (Dummy Corporation)
1.3 Permanent - activated (KRCG News Radio)
1.4 Permanent - distributed (Millicent Smith)
1.5 Permanent - continuous (Mr. Winthrop)
> 2) Availability
> 2.1 Once per game (Giant's Blood)
> 2.2 Unique (Hunting Ground)
> 2.3 Max X per player/minion (Sportsbike)
> 2.4 Repeatable/Stackable (Flak Jacket)
Do you want to include "once per turn" (Trifles, Patronage)?
> 3) Sideeffect
> Examples are Trifle (Get extra MP), Untap after execution (Go Anarch)
> and maybe more that I can't remember now.
> Sideeffects I have defined as effects that are only there to offset
> a Cost.
"Usable by an untapped" offsets cost somewhat for reaction cards.
Tapping as a side effect of a reaction adds somewhat to the cost.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ wrote:
> Sten During wrote:
>>> What is the environment of an effect?
>>
>> 1) Time
>> 1.1 Transient (Computer Hacking)
>> 1.2 Lingering but restricted (KRCG News Radio)
>> 1.3 Lingering (Mr. Winthrop)>
>
> Possible additions:
>
> 1.1 Transient - instantaneous (Computer Hacking)
> 1.2 Transient - delayed (Dummy Corporation)
Wouldn't this be Permanent, activate once only?
> 1.3 Permanent - activated (KRCG News Radio)
> 1.4 Permanent - distributed (Millicent Smith)
> 1.5 Permanent - continuous (Mr. Winthrop)
>>> 2) Availability
>> 2.1 Once per game (Giant's Blood)
>> 2.2 Unique (Hunting Ground)
>> 2.3 Max X per player/minion (Sportsbike)
>> 2.4 Repeatable/Stackable (Flak Jacket)>
>
> Do you want to include "once per turn" (Trifles, Patronage)?
With the setup I have chosen here (have to chose one), I'd
place 'once per turn' in Time, effectively it would be
Lingering/Permanent (Yep, permanent is a better word) but
restricted/activated.
Trifle etc, have what I have called Sideeffects, usually
beneficial such for offsetting a Cost of some kind; the
Master that burns the top Crypt-card and yields back the
cost if it was a prince has such an sideeffect that is
not of the 'untap if succesful' kind.
>>> 3) Sideeffect
>> Examples are Trifle (Get extra MP), Untap after execution (Go Anarch)
>> and maybe more that I can't remember now.
>> Sideeffects I have defined as effects that are only there to offset
>> a Cost.>
>
> "Usable by an untapped" offsets cost somewhat for reaction cards.
> Tapping as a side effect of a reaction adds somewhat to the cost.
>
Sten During
Sten During <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:<bu14oa$c4uao$1...@ID-216881.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > Sten During wrote:
> >
> >> What is the environment of an effect?
> >>
> >> 1) Time
> >> 1.1 Transient (Computer Hacking)
> >> 1.2 Lingering but restricted (KRCG News Radio)
> >> 1.3 Lingering (Mr. Winthrop)
> >
> > Possible additions:
> >
> > 1.1 Transient - instantaneous (Computer Hacking)
> > 1.2 Transient - delayed (Dummy Corporation)
>
> Wouldn't this be Permanent, activate once only?
We've got lots of these now: Succulent Vitae, Zillah's Tears, Disarm,
Melange, etc. I'd have to guess Permanent is the best way to describe
all of these, perhaps "burnable" or "burn once" to keep language
similar?
> > 1.3 Permanent - activated (KRCG News Radio)
> > 1.4 Permanent - distributed (Millicent Smith)
Does this need a specific distinction? When Millicent moves, isn't
that a Side Effect (for keeping the card cost low)? There are also
local, global, and "triggered" permanents (Sport Bike, Anarch Revolt
and Form of Corruption). A "distributed" permanent such as Anarch
Troublemaker would seem to be a Permanent, Activated, Targetted card
rather than Distributed.
> > 1.5 Permanent - continuous (Mr. Winthrop)
> >> >> 3) Side Effect> >> Examples are Trifle (Get extra MP), Untap after execution (Go Anarch)
> >> and maybe more that I can't remember now.
> >> Sideeffects I have defined as effects that are only there to offset
> >> a Cost.
> >
> > "Usable by an untapped" offsets cost somewhat for reaction cards.
> > Tapping as a side effect of a reaction adds somewhat to the cost.
Some other cards Side Effects: Leather Jacket, Charming Lobby,
Propaganda, Faceless Night ("cost" being OBF requirement).
Jeff
Andrew S. Davidson wrote:
> Last time I looked into this, there seemed to be few examples of
> companies banning cards. My impression was that it was mainly Magic
> which made a habit of this and there it seemed to have become a
> cynical marketing tactic - produce power cards to sell expansions and
> then turn round and ban those cards after they had proved to be broken
> in tournaments. Lately, I thought they had reformed but now it seems
> that they have started up again.
I think Magic is probably the game with the most bannings, although other
games could use some too--a lot of the really preposterous "magic bullet"
balance of gameslike Star Trek and Star Wars could have been avoided with
some nice, pin point bannings. I don't remember if B5 Banned cards from
competetive play, however.
>
> Me, I mostly play and collect Shadowfist, Doomtown and HeroClix. No
> cards or figures are banned in these games (except the free preview
> promos in HeroClix). They have had their share of rules changes and
> errata and these seem ample to address any problem issues though some
> matters are still a work-in-progress (Perplex in HeroClix, for example
> - which is being addressed).
Ok. What do you know, re: Perplex. Spill, baby.
>
> Banning a component instead of fixing it just seems inexcusable
> laziness to me. Only arrogant companies who dominate their markets
> can get away with treating their customers like this. Microsoft,
> Games Workshop, United Airlines - you need to be a weak-willed
> masochist to suffer them gladly ...
I dunno. Assuming that banning is something used sparringly, it usually
strikes me as perfectly reasonable when warranted. Fixing things is usually
more difficult than not, and often the fixes are more trouble than they are
worth. Simply removing things from the environment when needed always struck
me as expedient and a pretty good idea--I mean, I wouldn't want, like, 15
card banned a week or anything, but in very severe circumstances (like RTI
and now PTO), I'm perfectly willing to let things go down.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6
"Punk rock's been pretty good to me for twenty years. It's my year to give
back: I'm dedicating the next year of my life to fucking the Bush
administration."
-Fat Mike
The Lasombra wrote:
> (Noal McDonald) wrote:
>
> >The Lasombra wrote:
> >> There are two sides to the argument about banning or changing Protect
> >> Thine Own. This document will describe both sides of the argument,
> >> but may not be complete.
>
> >...or completely unbiased. It wasn't too difficult to see which side
> >of the fence that Jeff is sitting on.
>
> It is completely biased.
>
> Care to have anything constructive to say?
Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that I was supposed to reply to a
extremely biased, non-constructive note chock full of straw men with
something profound or constructive.
Regards,
Noal
[ quoted text not captured ]
I just made some quick Time separations for an effect. The best
environment from a Time point of view would be permanent, like
Sportsbike.
LSJ identified a Time-type that occurs more often than once
per round (activated KRCG), as have you with Anarch Revolt.
Now, what really would be an interesting thing to do would be to
attempt to assign each Cost a numeric, preferably absolute, value
and to do the same with Environment.
If doable, this would give us some kind of, admittedly blunt, tool
for evaluating the value of a card pretty much in the same way
there is one for "controlling" a vampire.
In a perfect world the same calculation would also inlcude the
vampires, but I think that's simply too unwieldly.
Sten During
The Lasombra wrote:
> (Cameron) wrote:
>
> >Ok, and here we start seeing the anti-reasons slipping into the pro
> >reasons. If you don't like the card, fine. But putting on a neutral
> >face in this post and then being so biased is annoying.
>
> I didn't put any faces on the post.
*spews coffee on monitor*
That's funny, Jeff. I wasn't aware that you were considering a career
in comedy.
> I said there is nothing new to say.
>
> You failed to prove me wrong.
>
> Care to try again?
Hell, if you're going to be this antogonistic (a sure sign of a losing
battle, btw) I'll step up to the plate for the sake of doing so:
15) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because Delaying Tactics
exists.
There. There's something new (according to your list). If political
decks (not just PTO decks) are a vulnerability of your deck, you
should be including a number of Delaying Tactics and/or Pulling
Strings.
For the record, I really don't care one way or another. I'll let the
design team (the same one that you insulted in 1b...way to go!) make
the decisions that's asked of them and build my decks accordingly. If
you feel strongly about an issue, including this one, I'm sure LSJ
will be happy to listen to a reasonable argument. I'm pretty sure that
I didn't have to be insulting or antagonistic when I discussed fixing
some of the loopholes in Banishment with him years ago.
Hope this helps! :-)
Regards,
Noal
On 13 Jan 2004 14:31:43 -0800, dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald)
wrote:
>For the record, I really don't care one way or another. I'll let the>design team (the same one that you insulted in 1b...way to go!) make
>the decisions that's asked of them and build my decks accordingly.
The design team does not write the tournament rules.
The V:EKN does that.
Specifically, Robert Goudie handles the tournament rules.
LSJ 10-28-2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F9E9F96.8010706%40white-wolf.com[ quoted text not captured ]
On 13 Jan 2004 05:19:29 -0800, Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper)
wrote:
>did you already have: Should not be banned because banning is bad?
>W
Yes.
See #1.
On 13 Jan 2004 14:31:43 -0800, dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald)
wrote:
>> I didn't put any faces on the post.>*spews coffee on monitor*>That's funny, Jeff. I wasn't aware that you were considering a career
>in comedy.
Captain Sarcasm to the rescue.
>> I said there is nothing new to say.>> You failed to prove me wrong.>> Care to try again?>Hell, if you're going to be this antogonistic (a sure sign of a losing
>battle, btw) I'll step up to the plate for the sake of doing so:>15) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because Delaying Tactics
>exists.
I believe this is covered by #5, but can certainly be added.
>There. There's something new (according to your list). If political
>decks (not just PTO decks) are a vulnerability of your deck, you
>should be including a number of Delaying Tactics and/or Pulling
>Strings.
Agreed.
>For the record, I really don't care one way or another. I'll let the
>design team (the same one that you insulted in 1b...way to go!) make
>the decisions that's asked of them and build my decks accordingly. If
>you feel strongly about an issue, including this one, I'm sure LSJ
>will be happy to listen to a reasonable argument. I'm pretty sure that
>I didn't have to be insulting or antagonistic when I discussed fixing
>some of the loopholes in Banishment with him years ago.>Hope this helps! :-)
Indeed.
Here's another point many people seem to have missed:
Most of the arguments are about how examples of proving that Protect
Thine Own is bad for the game are flawed.
_None_ of the arguments are about how Protect Thine Own is good for
the game.
Anyone truly believing that it is a fine and dandy card should have
been able to come up with a few.
I'm not here to change anyone's mind, as Usenet does not change
people's minds as a general rule.
I'm just looking for an alternate version of Godwin's Law.
http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g.html#Godwin_s_Law
Of course, I have just lost any argument by mentioning the Law, but
notice how many other threads died when this one appeared.
And now for something completely different:
http://home.med.unc.edu/~hartwee/Ballade.htm[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <bu1qj0$cndfd$1...@ID-216881.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Sten During <ya...@netg.se> mumbled something about:
>Now, what really would be an interesting thing to do would be to
>attempt to assign each Cost a numeric, preferably absolute, value
>and to do the same with Environment.
>
>If doable, this would give us some kind of, admittedly blunt, tool
>for evaluating the value of a card pretty much in the same way
>there is one for "controlling" a vampire.
Blunt or not, it can be one of many tools for assessing things. I am
certain that it's doable, and you would also be able to spot which cards
are noticeably more useful, and why.
(Much the same way "average crypt capacity" is.)
However, availability also should take into account "number of vampires
that can play this card". Cards like Govern the Unaligned are going to
rate higher than cards like Renewed Vigor (as they should) simply
because of the universal utility of the card.
Also, you might want to include "nature of effect", in some form such as
the previous "broken" list... :)
1) Helps my offense (assists me in gaining VP)
2) Helps my defense (assists me in not being ousted)
3) Helps my minions (keeps my minions ready to act)
4) Hurts opponent's pool
5) Hurts opponent's minions
Examples of each...
1) Pulse of the Canaille
2) Sport Bike
3) Leather Jacket
4) KRC, Computer Hacking
5) Sense Dep
Govern would need to be rated with a special tag, of course -- or have
its separate effects rated separately? Or, possibly better, have it
score in both categories as its reward.
>In a perfect world the same calculation would also inlcude the
>vampires, but I think that's simply too unwieldly.
Well, isn't that what the design-point-value system is for? ;)
-- Derek
Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music.
It only stopped them hearing the distractions.
On 13 Jan 2004 00:30:23 -0800, tobiasop...@hotmail.com (Tobias)
wrote:
>> Stanislava.
>> Beast Meld.
>> Closed Session.>Which is already a 1-IC, 3-card (if you include the PTO) setup. And
>there may still be camarilla voters opposing you.
If you are already playing Stanislava, and intending to vote, these
cards will already be in the well made deck, and are not specifically
in to support the Protect Thine Own, but to support all vote actions.
I see no reason to require incompetent deck building to discuss why a
card is broken or not.
However, I have nothing new to say, so I will not contribute to this
thread again.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Derek Ray wrote:
>>If doable, this would give us some kind of, admittedly blunt, tool
>>for evaluating the value of a card pretty much in the same way
>>there is one for "controlling" a vampire.>
>
> Blunt or not, it can be one of many tools for assessing things. I am
> certain that it's doable, and you would also be able to spot which cards
> are noticeably more useful, and why.
>
> (Much the same way "average crypt capacity" is.)
>
> However, availability also should take into account "number of vampires
> that can play this card". Cards like Govern the Unaligned are going to
> rate higher than cards like Renewed Vigor (as they should) simply
> because of the universal utility of the card.
I thought like this at first, but then it struck me that it's probably
wrong.
A new card exactly mirroring Govern but requiring Melpominee should
still be rated at the same value.
Any eventual problems with Govern does not stem from the card itself.
If there is a problem, and I don't say there is, then the problem is
that Govern does indeed require Dominate, as does Obedience, as does
Graverobbing, etc, etc ad nauseum.
Rating each card according to the same scale would in the end leave
us with an absolute numerical value of the total amount of opportunities
available for a clan/sect/discipline.
I would be very surprised if those numbers came even close to each
other, and that, more than anything else could point us to an answer
if a certain effect should be added to the list of available effects
for any one given requirement.
I like Toreador. I don't want the next 100 printed vampires to all be
group 2 Toreador. This could definitely be done without introducing
one single 'broken' vampire to the game, but I think we can agree
that the result could be described as 'broken'.
The same reasoning should be correct for disciplines as well as sects.
Well, that was the sum of my arguments against your proposition above :)
>
> Also, you might want to include "nature of effect", in some form such as
> the previous "broken" list... :)
>
> 1) Helps my offense (assists me in gaining VP)
> 2) Helps my defense (assists me in not being ousted)
> 3) Helps my minions (keeps my minions ready to act)
> 4) Hurts opponent's pool
> 5) Hurts opponent's minions
>
> Examples of each...
>
> 1) Pulse of the Canaille
> 2) Sport Bike
> 3) Leather Jacket
> 4) KRC, Computer Hacking
> 5) Sense Dep
All those are for me just numerical values for the Impact section
of Environment.
I know what you're after, but rather than reading a cyclic outburst
of 'This effect is sooooooooo bad for the game' on the newsgroup I'd
prefer, if possible, to assign 'Pool loss to prey, fifteen points per
pool lost. Damaging a minion in combat, three points per point of
damage. Intercept, four points per intercept gained' and so on.
That kind of system is not meant, at least I didn't mean it to be, for
enabling anyone to say 'I have a 13500 point deck'. The idea was more
to say 'Ok, card has a total Environmental value of 28, then why does
it have a total Cost of 12 when the five other similar cards in the game
all are very close to a total Cost of 22 each, rewording, someone?'
>
> Govern would need to be rated with a special tag, of course -- or have
> its separate effects rated separately? Or, possibly better, have it
> score in both categories as its reward.
Hmm, poossibly both. Risk is of course that people would start yelling
'UNDERCOSTED', and who knows, they might just all be correct for all
I know :)
The thing is, would there be any interest in slowly, very slowly,
start creating some kind of Cost versus Environmental value for the
effects we know of.
It would certainly take several wrong turns along the road, and might
eventually turn out totally futile anyway :)
Sten During
The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<j8s60096iak1eg2ku...@4ax.com>...
> On 12 Jan 2004 19:04:41 -0800, orcao...@hotmail.com (Cameron)
> wrote:
>
> >Ok, and here we start seeing the anti-reasons slipping into the pro
> >reasons. If you don't like the card, fine. But putting on a neutral
> >face in this post and then being so biased is annoying.
>
> I didn't put any faces on the post.
you posted this as a rundown of the arguements by BOTH sides. You
listed the Arugements by the anti-PTO crowd, and what the anti-PTO
crowd seems to see the rest of us saying. Needless to say to call
that both sides is to misinform the reader. As a tool for summing up
the debate, your post lacks crediability.
> Care to try again?
Not particularly. My opinions on the card are layed out all over the
freaking place. Just because a debate is over (set aside, tabled,
whatever) doesn't mean a summation like that is going to stand.
Cameron
I really like this discussion. Let's move it to its own thread.
-Mike Ooi
"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message
news:bu2777$bsi56$1...@ID-216881.news.uni-berlin.de...
[ quoted text not captured ]
"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gh3900hekguhjjboh...@4ax.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Scott and I usually resolve any outstanding disagreements at GenCon with a
triathalon of drinking games, No-Limit Texas Hold 'Em, and musical chairs.
-Robert
> A new card exactly mirroring Govern but requiring Melpominee should
> still be rated at the same value.
>
> Any eventual problems with Govern does not stem from the card itself.
> If there is a problem, and I don't say there is, then the problem is
> that Govern does indeed require Dominate, as does Obedience, as does
> Graverobbing, etc, etc ad nauseum.
>
> Rating each card according to the same scale would in the end leave
> us with an absolute numerical value of the total amount of opportunities
> available for a clan/sect/discipline.
> I would be very surprised if those numbers came even close to each
> other, and that, more than anything else could point us to an answer
> if a certain effect should be added to the list of available effects
> for any one given requirement.
I'm sure the number of vampires capable of playing the card, while it
is not to be neglected, is far less significant for single discipline
cards than it would seem.
Because on the one hand you will not be able to include the card in a
deck where few vampires can play it, but on the other, you can compose
a deck whose crypt is selected partly for the ability to play the
given card.
Sometimes a single card can make a strong asset in a deck (perhaps
with multiple copies). Example would be the (for example) Tremere deck
which uses small and large vampires and has lots of Govern (in which
case the fatties recruit the weenies for you).
Costing: Sometimes an effect will cost more for certain disciplines.
I'm viewing this like this: For every discipline, there is a set of
exceptional effects, like Stealth for Obfuscate. There may also be a
set of favored effects (Stealth for Obtenebration), available effects
(Stealth from Dementation), hindered effects (Stealth from Celerity),
and non-existent effects (Stealth from any non-stealthy discipline).
However, from the point of view of the individual cards there are
usually only three levels (for general effects):
1 <of something> for free at inferior
1 <of something> for 1 blood at inferior or for free at superior
1 <of something> for 2 blood at inferior or for 1 blood at superior
Also, an action could probably be measured in the amount of blood/pool
manipulation. Restoration-type effects show a good head start:
action with no discipline and no card - 1 blood
action with inferior discipline and 1 card played - 2 blood
action with superior discipline and 1 card played - 3 blood
How about assigning the following values:
action - worth 1 blood
action + card (+ inferior) - worth 2 blood
action + card + superior - worth 3 blood
If the cost increases, so does the effect. Extreme effects will likely
increase the cost beyond the linear.
Example card: Heavy Bleed. Presence, 1 blood, (D) bleed at +2 Bleed /
<sup> +3 bleed.
Another: Extreme Bleed. Presence, 3 blood, (D) bleed at +3 bleed /
<sup> +4 bleed.
Just some ideas... ;)
Bye,
Daneel
The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ls5900t53ga48obm0...@4ax.com>...
> On 13 Jan 2004 00:30:23 -0800, tobiasop...@hotmail.com (Tobias)
> wrote:
>
> >> Stanislava.
> >> Beast Meld.
> >> Closed Session.
>
>
> >Which is already a 1-IC, 3-card (if you include the PTO) setup. And
> >there may still be camarilla voters opposing you.
>
> If you are already playing Stanislava, and intending to vote, these
> cards will already be in the well made deck, and are not specifically
> in to support the Protect Thine Own, but to support all vote actions.
>
> I see no reason to require incompetent deck building to discuss why a
> card is broken or not.
Nor should there be.
I'm merely pointing out surrounding variables, because statements have
also been made that essentially say that the only thing you need for
passing a PTO is the IC and the PTO.
> However, I have nothing new to say, so I will not contribute to this
> thread again.
Which is enough reason for me to not add much more in this post.
--
Tobias
Deventer
The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<pn3900ptrlh1ootph...@4ax.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
ok...i don't agree with the wording of #1, but i do think that banning
is bad, so there is some difference somewhere.
Not really important though,
W
The Lasombra wrote:
> (Noal McDonald) wrote:
>
> >For the record, I really don't care one way or another. I'll let the
> >design team (the same one that you insulted in 1b...way to go!) make
> >the decisions that's asked of them and build my decks accordingly.
>
> The design team does not write the tournament rules.
I'm aware of who does what, Jeff. The design team makes new cards and
modifies existing cards. Most people are in favor of modifying Protect
Thine Own, rather than banning it. Therefore, the hot potato would
most likely end up in the lap of the design team.
Oh, and I doubt the design team as a whole actually decides what cards
goes into a set. That decision is probably made by LSJ, Steve and
assorted drinking buddies.
Regards,
Noal
"Robert Goudie" wrote:
> Scott and I usually resolve any outstanding disagreements at GenCon with...
> No-Limit Texas Hold 'Em.
ooh! ooh!
Can I help decide? I've been playing in poker tournaments lately and
doing quite well. Just won one yesterday, as it happens.
Regards,
Noal
"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:bb705c59.04011...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Congrats!
Yeah, I think V:TES training tranfers well to poker. A few years ago, local
V:TESer, Mike Courtois entered a little Hold 'Em tournament after just
learning how to play hold 'em a few weeks earlier and advanced to the final
round.
-Robert
Tobias wrote:
> I'm merely pointing out surrounding variables, because statements have
> also been made that essentially say that the only thing you need for
> passing a PTO is the IC and the PTO.
Hey, I've taken a PTO break. All rested up, ready to wade back in!
You are left with the 'lone card' argument specifically b/c of
surrounding variables. The surrounding variables drop out, due to
equivelancy on either side, leaving one with a *net* +1 stealth
advantage and 5 votes. Requiring an IC is a true opportunity cost but,
I think, not a large one.
Amazingly, this has been laid out before. I'm truly not sniping at you,
specifically, but it is hard to participate in this discussion when, at
this point, so much seems to be getting written that could only be
composed by neglect or ignorance of arguments that have come before.
--
David Cherryholmes
Duke Radiology
P.E.T. Facility
(919) 684-7714
david.che...@duke.edu
Cameron,
How long does it take to state a few "unbiased" reasons? It is obvious that
there is a lot of feeling over this topic, yet no one has offered up a
reason to keep the card other than "Banning is Bad" which I agree it is.
As I read Jeff's post, it was clear to me that sarcasm was implied. This
implication was very deliberate. As in almost all PtO threads, the
discussion becomes worthless. People keep repeating the same thing over and
over again. I think Jeff did a good job of summary, but as the sarcasm
indicates, these are not good arguments. I think the anger you feel is
caused from deep inside, something you probably have a hard time
identifying, it is the feeling of being wrong. Many times our deep seated
ideas are shown to be foolish by subtle things like sarcasm, but we grow and
learn.
Instead of rambling without a point, that is instead of rambling like me,
offer a "real" reason that you feel this card is "fair and balanced". If
you have criticism of Jeff's "face" add something to that.
FACT: PtO angers a lot of people, but so does Gay Marriage. If the anger is
not justified, then please rationally explain why. If you have done it
before, why not provide a link, so far you have provided nothing.
David Oros
Asshole of the Minute
"Cameron" <orcao...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a1e26d99.04011...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
<Snip>
> So Yeah, there are arguements for and against. but i'm not sure that
> I'd associate myself with the ones you gave the Pro-PTO group.
>
> Cameron
Then which ones would you associate yourself with, please share.
David
> Anti-banning / Anti-changing arguments:
<snip>
> 5) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because it is easily
> countered with existing vote defense cards.
<snip>
> 11) Protect Thine Own should not be banned because Direct Intervention
> exists.
Perhaps Vox Domini would qualify here too? I'm not sure why this is
separate from #5 (quoted for reference). After all, a Methuselah may
easily have two copies in his hand (and playing PTO is not limited in
any way with respect to frequency, unlike DI).
<snip>
15. PTO Should not be banned because it may well be a very strong
incentive for a lot of players to play the game (or participate on
tournaments). Players with Camarilla decks know that they enjoy an
advantage simply by choosing the clan to play; people playing PTO
decks can be happy that they have at least one extremely powerful card
they can use. Players choosing non-camarilla clans get the additional
satisfaction from scoring well knowing how the game environment is
biased against them by the existance of PTO.
> Pro-banning / Pro-changing arguments:
<snip>
> 11) Protect Thine Own should be banned because its only true defense
> is Direct Intervention and playing Camarilla vampires exclusively in
> tournaments.
I'd add Vox Domini and Delaying Tactics here. DI burns the current
copy (but leaves the vampire untapped and has no bearing on any
further copies to be played, even the very same round). DT cancels the
political action and prohibits calling the same vote that particular
round (but does not burn the political card and untaps the acting
vampire). VD burns the current copy of the card and leaves the vampire
tapped (but has no bearing on any further copies to be played, even
the very same round, and can only be played once each game). Against a
specific vote (like PTO) DT is the best, if you manage to have enough
to play one each round (considering defence against a PTO-heavy deck).
Also note that using certain applications of Necromancy can be viewed
as a sort of PTO-defence... ;)
> 12 - 13) Protect Thine Own should be banned because it constricts the
> quantity of tournament caliber decks by its very existence. Strong
> decks based on non-Camarilla vampires are not tournament options while
> this card is allowed in the tournament setting. People playing to win
> will choose anti-X (Camarilla decks) as long as X (Protect Thine Own)
> continues to be allowed in tournaments. People are driven from the
> tournament scene all the time, there is no reason to allow this to be
> one more.
This can be a single point. It doesn't matter whether it discourages X
or encourages anti-X, it is the same phenomenon (given how X and
anti-X combined form the full set).
> 14) Protect Thine Own is bad for the game, rarity or availability of
> the card has no bearing on this argument.
This is not an argument; it is merely a summation of a viewpoint. A
supporting argument to the anti-PTO side could be a general disrespect
for rarities and requirements when it comes to assessing an effect.
Best Regards,
Daneel
> 15. PTO Should not be banned because it may well be a very strong
> incentive for a lot of players to play the game (or participate on
> tournaments). Players with Camarilla decks know that they enjoy an
> advantage simply by choosing the clan to play; people playing PTO
> decks can be happy that they have at least one extremely powerful card
> they can use. Players choosing non-camarilla clans get the additional
> satisfaction from scoring well knowing how the game environment is
> biased against them by the existance of PTO.
You must be kidding, right ? Tell me a smiley is missing somewhere in this
chapter ?!
BTW, it is surprising to see how the thread that should have summed them all
up (even if somehow biased) finally stretched into one more big PTO
thread...
--
Orpheus, from his Mausoleum, Massilia