Tourney thoughts - time for a change?

The Casual/Competitive thread plus some of the other recent-ish musings about ratings, the metagame and so on have got me thinking about whether the tourney scene and the game generally might benefit from a bit of a shake-up. In particular, i wonder whether there is a case for a different kind of tournament in which people may bring and play up to THREE decks rather than one [qualifiers would have to pick one of them for the final]. You would have to make people provide lists of all three decks and the judge would probably have to do quite a bit of checking [both of which are bad things]; plus, it would become harder for people with limited card pools to compete [also a bad thing]. On the plus side, you would get far more variety and i suspect more interesting games and finals. i'm aware that this is not a completely new idea and i'ld value the opinions/experience of the newsgroup about this [which is why i'm posting]; and i'ld also like to know whether people in the UK/North Europe might be interested in a pilot of this idea, a non-sanctioned tournament to be held in Portsmouth [or another English location, if someone else wants to volunteer to host it], perhaps sometime this summer. Thanks in advance for your thoughts! -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

legbiter wrote: > The Casual/Competitive thread plus some of the other recent-ish musings > about ratings, the metagame and so on have got me thinking about whether > the tourney scene and the game generally might benefit from a bit of a > shake-up. In particular, i wonder whether there is a case for a > different kind of tournament in which people may bring and play up to > THREE decks rather than one [qualifiers would have to pick one of them Either that or (starts diving for cover) a sideboard. The merits of a sideboard (still ducking desperately) would most probably be that we'd see clan/sect/whatever -hosers used a lot more. > for the final]. You would have to make people provide lists of all three > decks and the judge would probably have to do quite a bit of checking > [both of which are bad things]; plus, it would become harder for people While on sideboard-track: Before the tournament (let's say at least two weeks in advance) you have to submit your deck to the judge/organizer, who later (one week before the tournament) makes all decks public. Now you have one week to create your (five - ten) card sideboard, which you may keep secret (ok judge can demand to have it during registration). Each round begins with a ten minute tweaking of decks (after all the players theoretically know what decks they are going to meet) by which I mean that the deck you actually play with must still be legal by standard constructed rules, and you might also require it to contain exactly the same amount of cards as the published one, thus forcing players to remove cards they had planned to use. > with limited card pools to compete [also a bad thing]. On the plus side, > you would get far more variety and i suspect more interesting games and > finals. i'm aware that this is not a completely new idea and i'ld value > the opinions/experience of the newsgroup about this [which is why i'm > posting]; and i'ld also like to know whether people in the UK/North > Europe might be interested in a pilot of this idea, a non-sanctioned > tournament to be held in Portsmouth [or another English location, if > someone else wants to volunteer to host it], perhaps sometime this > summer. Thanks in advance for your thoughts! > > > There's interest for extending our oppostition anyway :) Travelling abroad with only one deck when travelling for playing - well... Hopefully a few of us in Sweden will get a chance to travel during july. Sten During

"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:7d0e2b3b4d5b51c8af0...@mygate.mailgate.org... > The Casual/Competitive thread plus some of the other recent-ish musings > about ratings, the metagame and so on have got me thinking about whether > the tourney scene and the game generally might benefit from a bit of a > shake-up. In particular, i wonder whether there is a case for a > different kind of tournament in which people may bring and play up to > THREE decks rather than one [qualifiers would have to pick one of them > for the final]. You would have to make people provide lists of all three > decks and the judge would probably have to do quite a bit of checking > [both of which are bad things]; plus, it would become harder for people > with limited card pools to compete [also a bad thing]. On the plus side, > you would get far more variety and i suspect more interesting games and > finals. I think something needs to change somewhere. Tournament games have been getting very predictable of late, which is a bad thing IMO. I'm not sure, however, that facing the same people with 3 decks is the answer. Facing Jon Cooper with 3 rush decks is about the same amount of fun as dealing with Wynn 3 times in a row. Similarly, I can Mind Rape vampires with anumber of different clans with varying degrees of efficacy. you also have problems of what exactly constitute a 'diffrent' deck. My point being that people are using a small pool of cards to win tournaments with- I think you'll just see players using the same cards with different clans. I'd like to see a tournament structure that excludes a banned list of cards that currently define the tournament environment. I think that would give more parity between players. > i'm aware that this is not a completely new idea and i'ld value > the opinions/experience of the newsgroup about this [which is why i'm > posting]; and i'ld also like to know whether people in the UK/North > Europe might be interested in a pilot of this idea, a non-sanctioned > tournament to be held in Portsmouth [or another English location, if > someone else wants to volunteer to host it], perhaps sometime this > summer. Thanks in advance for your thoughts! I'd be willing to test anything like this. Maybe at a convention for multiple short games/tournaments? cheers mattgreen. [ quoted text not captured ]

legbiter wrote: > > The Casual/Competitive thread plus some of the other recent-ish musings > about ratings, the metagame and so on have got me thinking about whether > the tourney scene and the game generally might benefit from a bit of a > shake-up. In particular, i wonder whether there is a case for a > different kind of tournament in which people may bring and play up to > THREE decks rather than one [qualifiers would have to pick one of them > for the final]. You would have to make people provide lists of all three > decks and the judge would probably have to do quite a bit of checking > [both of which are bad things]; plus, it would become harder for people > with limited card pools to compete [also a bad thing]. On the plus side, > you would get far more variety and i suspect more interesting games and > finals. I'm not sure this would make a lot of difference - particularly in a large tournament where you seldom ever see the same guy twice anyway. It might be an interesting option to allow in sanctioned tournaments based on the organizer's discretion. I'm thinking smaller tournaments would benefit from the increased variety of games. Of course, there's no reason in the world it should be mandatory for players to use more than one or two decks. They could just bring the same deck varied by a single, like-functioning card anyway. So I'm not sure why the concern about players with a limited card pool not competing. Fred

Matt Green wrote: > I think something needs to change somewhere. Tournament games have been > getting very predictable of late, which is a bad thing IMO...My > point being that people are using a small pool of cards to win > tournaments with- I think you'll just see players using the same cards > with different clans. Maybe things are very predictable in your area, but I've been extremely happy with the variety of decks I've seen in the US in the past year or so, especially in the past few months, rom tournaments in LA, to the Northeast Regional Qualifier, to local tournaments in New England. If your area has become predictable, then it seems to me that you've got a metagame that's ripe for exploitation. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

Sten During wrote:>legbiter wrote: >Either that or (starts diving for cover) a sideboard. The merits of a >sideboard (still ducking desperately) would most probably be that we'd >see clan/sect/whatever -hosers used a lot >more. I see merits to the Sideboard idea. The best way to implement it, though, would be to have each player design (and perhaps register) a deck of up to 100 cards (or perhaps keep the limit at 90). Before each game, each player may (or must, if over 90 cards) remove up to 10 cards (or 15 or 20) from his deck. These are removed from the game (or possibly placed in ash heap - though the later option alters the power of certain cards and effects.) There also might be an option of removing a certain number of vampires from your crypt, provided you leave at least 12, of course.

"Matt Green" <mgre...@bcuc.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<d595ba8a2e44139fce1...@mygate.mailgate.org>... > "legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message > news:7d0e2b3b4d5b51c8af0...@mygate.mailgate.org... > > > In particular, i wonder whether there is a case for a > > different kind of tournament... I'm only just getting back into VTES after a 4-year hiatus, but wouldn't it be very easy for White Wolf to sanction different kinds of tournaments? Camarilla/Sabbat/Independent/Bloodlines Only would be an easy way to start. You could make them all like the Story Line tournaments and have a 75+% restriction of your crypt for a single clan...or even 100%. I think the idea of a 15 card sideboard would be not a problem at all. You could swap cards between the rounds once you've seated yourself at the table with your next opponents. The only drawback to this is there would be a premium placed on schmoozing among friends between rounds to scope out the competition. If decklists were posted after the first round (on the wall say) it would even the playing field for everyone involved as far as tournament 'intelligence' were concerned. Or how about this for a new cardless undirected action: Action: Fetch (+1 stealth) If this action is successful, the methuselah controlling the acting minion may replace one card from their library with one from their sideboard. Reshuffle the library afterward.

Nystulc wrote: > > Sten During wrote:>legbiter wrote: > > >Either that or (starts diving for cover) a sideboard. The merits of a > >sideboard (still ducking desperately) would most probably be that we'd > >see clan/sect/whatever -hosers used a lot >more. > > I see merits to the Sideboard idea. I don't think so. The reason Sten is "ducking" is because this idea has been brought up before. Sideboards don't work well in Jyhad because you only play one game against any given set of opponents. In Magic, sideboards are used in tournaments where you're matched up against the same person for more than one game - and then, you're supposed to return to your original, non-sideboarded deck before playing the first game of the next match. You're not supposed to be out scouting future opponents in other games to determine which sideboard cards you should use. We can use these same sideboard rules. And, since you only play one game in a Jyhad "match", you can never use it. So why bother? Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] That was why I 'extended' the sideboard-idea later in my post. In order to make it at least somewhat viable it would only make sense that you enter the tournament with the knowledge of the contents of the 'core-decks' that each player has brought. It won't exactly be the VTES we play today as most of the surprise-factor is gone, but as an idea of a different game using all the mechanics of VTES I think it would work rather well. Apart from all the obvious flaws with sideboards I can see two distinct advanatages: 1) The increased use of certain cards. 2) Lowering the 'bad karma' risk (ie you know what you'll meet and you actually get the opportunity to attempt to adjust to your seating before each game) And please don't see this as an idea to improve VTES because it's only an idea on how to build another game heavily based on VTES. Sten During

Jeff Kuta wrote: > > If decklists were posted after the first round (on the wall say) it > would even the playing field for everyone involved as far as > tournament 'intelligence' were concerned. Referring to my own post earlier on this thread. Why not have them posted before the tournament? Sten During

"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:3CA2D906...@netg.se... > Apart from all the obvious flaws with sideboards I can see two distinct > advanatages: > > 1) The increased use of certain cards. > 2) Lowering the 'bad karma' risk (ie you know what you'll meet and you > actually get the opportunity to attempt to adjust to your seating before > each game) > > And please don't see this as an idea to improve VTES because it's only > an idea on how to build another game heavily based on VTES. I don't think I'd like it, though. If you can use sideboards after knowing what your opponents are playing, it'd be appealing to put in the really nasty clan-hosers for the appropriate clans (eg Detection, Malk Dementia, Out of Control, etc). Those clan-hosers are only balanced (if they're balanced at all) by the fact that normally it's total guesswork whether they'd be useful to you, so most of the time they're not worth the deckspace to put them in. So it seems to me it wouldn't be much fun to have people playing them on you after they get to see what you're playing. (Even if you get to do the same to them.) Even if you just banned clan hosers, I don't really think sideboards are appropriate to VTES (or even variants of it). For one thing, if your deck's not modular (or modularizable), it's not real obvious what you'd want to take out to put other stuff in. And for another, all this sideboarding and looking at your opponents' decklists would add all kinds of time to a game that already takes quite a while to play. Just my two cents... Josh fears change

> > Jeff Kuta wrote: > > If decklists were posted after the first round (on the wall say) it > > would even the playing field for everyone involved as far as > > tournament 'intelligence' were concerned. > "Sten During" wrote: > Referring to my own post earlier on this thread. Why not have them > posted before the tournament? Because part of the game is not knowing what cards your opponent has, and reacting correctly to their strategic choices, not counting cards. I post all of my deck ideas on my website, usually before they have been played in a tournament, but after they have been played locally, and I still wouldn't advertise in advance what deck I'm going to play in a tournament. If you find out before the event no one is playing a vote deck you take out all the Delaying Tactics/vote defense, and your deck becomes that much stronger. If it ever comes to a vote, all of my minions will vote against sideboarding in VTES and against publishing decklists before or even during a tournament. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com/decks.htm [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:bf72a12e.02032...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] You misunderstand what I mean by predictable. If an opponent's first vampires are: 1) Ventrue. You can expect a number of Hostile Takeovers, 2nd and 5th traditions, Kine Resources Contested, Parity shift, Deflections Governs (probably) combat defence from Obedience/Fortitude/Majesty and likely obfuscate skill cards and/or Arika and Queen Anne 2) Wynn. Gangrel combat with Protean. Expect ag damage and Grapples. 3) Gregar Andersson/ Zebulon. Malkavian OOt combat. Expect Rotsecreck, claws and sneak bleed with Deflections. 4) Tzimisce. Intercept or rush based combat. Expect telepathic Misdirection, Living Manse, Smiling Jack or a load of combat. 5) Lasombra. Sneak/bleed and/or votes with Power Structure. Combat defence with Entombment and/or obedience 6) Justicars. Expect ToGP and Parity shifts. 7) Little dudes with Presence. Yeah, nice. What does your deck do? 8) Little dudes with Dominate. See above. 9) Little dudes with Potence. See above. 10) EuroBrujah. Bruise and vote. Expect IG Potence combat with dominate for Deflection and Governs. KRCs and Parity shifts in some versions 11) Gangrel with Dominate. Bruise/Bleed. Expect Governs, Deflections, claws, KRCs and Earth Controls for stealth. 12) Tremere. Essentially an interactive victory point. Once you see what decks are sat where you can pretty much judge how the game is going to go down. That's what i mean by predictable. If you know which cards are the most powerful for each discipline/clan the rest is just gravy. Table talk and play ability come into a bit, but not appreciabiliy usfully unless all the players are of equal play ability. Remove some of the strong cards from the game and you might start to see more variability in the decks being played rather than seeing the same clans and/or disciplines making the finals every month. It shouldn't be the case that certain cards determine the clans being played rather than visa versa. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Matt Green" <mgre...@bcuc.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b31ee9e28a29336692d...@mygate.mailgate.org... [snip] You just listed twelve major decktypes and you're complaining that your games are too predictable? :-) > Once you see what decks are sat where you can pretty much judge how the > game is going to go down. That's what i mean by predictable. If you know > which cards are the most powerful for each discipline/clan the rest is > just gravy. Sure, if people are only interested in playing a few particular clans, and if everyone agrees on what all the good cards are. > Remove some of the strong cards from the game and you might start to see > more variability in the decks being played rather than seeing the same > clans and/or disciplines making the finals every month. The problem with this approach, though, is that if you take out all the current top-of-the-power-curve cards, you'll just replace them with the not-quite-top-of-the- power-curve cards. I mean, for some things (Hostile Takeover, Temptation of Greater Power, Temptation, Form of Corruption, Parity Shift) there's no substitute, but if you ditch Majesty and Catatonic Fear, Staredown is waiting right behind; similarly for Undead Strength vs, say, Mighty Grapple. And if you rule out *all* the good cards, what are people going to play with? Just the crappy ones? What's going to make that more fun, just the fact that until now people haven't been playing with cards with those titles and pictures? It seems to me that if you want people to be "more creative" in their deckbuilding and choices, you just need to encourage them to be more creative somehow. I don't know why they aren't self-motivated to do what's not expected (I've been playing lots of attempts at Salubri Spirit Marionette and Agaitas vamp-stealing lately), but I think if your players were to venture outside these twelve decks and few dozen cards that you mention, they'd find that an awful lot of the cards for VTES are quite competitively playable. Sure, there are only so many different basic methods for killing people, but there are a lot of ways to go about it. And if you're tired of seeing the basic methods for killing people in the first place, maybe you're just a little burned out on VTES and should take a break until it seems like fun again... Or play draft. Draft is (a) lots of fun and (b) doesn't have most of the 'power cards' influencing it very much. Especially if you do Sabbat War draft, where 5th Tradition, Blood Doll, and Minion Tap don't even exist... > It shouldn't be > the case that certain cards determine the clans being played rather than > visa versa. Well, you know, most of the 'abusive' stuff you mention can be counteracted by playing enough countermeasures in the deck you want to surprise people with. Loads of Suddens, for example, make you pretty ToGP/Hostile-proof. Likewise loads of Delaying Tactics make you Parity Shift-proof. That's not to say that you should have to play with these specific methods in order to compete, but if you feel like shutting down the decks whose predictability is bugging you, well, it's easy enough to do... :-) Josh just a few thoughts

Frederick Scott wrote: >> I see merits to the Sideboard idea. > >I don't think so. The reason Sten is "ducking" is because this idea has >been brought up before. Sideboards don't work well in Jyhad because you >only play one game against any given set of opponents. In Magic, sideboards >are used in tournaments where you're matched up against the same person for >more than one game - and then, you're supposed to return to your original, >non-sideboarded deck before playing the first game of the next match. >You're not supposed to be out scouting future opponents in other games to >determine which sideboard cards you should use. > >We can use these same sideboard rules. And, since you only play one game >in a Jyhad "match", you can never use it. So why bother? Alternatively, we could use different "sideboard" rules in a fun low-stakes tournament, and not worry so much about the dread horrors of scouting. If some guy ousted early in game 1 has alot of time to check out the other decks, well, that just gives him something to do while waiting for the next round. The primary appeal to me is that since I am never playing exactly the same deck it prevents ME from getting bored. I never need play the same exact same deck twice. I also get to experiment with my deck during a tournament. I don't get much casual play any more, since I work nights. Since I don't play Magic, your proof that it cannot serve the same purpose that it does in Magic means little to me. I just like having the opportunity to tweak my deck between games, especially if losing. -- John Whelan

jtdu...@yahoo.com writes: >Well, you know, most of the 'abusive' stuff you mention can >be counteracted by playing enough countermeasures in the >deck you want to surprise people with. Loads of Suddens, >for example, make you pretty ToGP/Hostile-proof. Likewise >loads of Delaying Tactics make you Parity Shift-proof. This only works if you're facing the same deck everytime. If your opponent has even three different decks the Parity Shifts will jam your hand more often than they'll help. Sudden Reversal is not acceptable as a needed save-your-ass card as it's uncommon. I have a respectable-sized collection but only about 7 SR. Hopefully it'll be common in the Cam Set - it's one of the obvious semi-power uncommons - but even then wouldn't it be boring if everybody's masters consisted of 6 pool managements, 8 SR, and a hunting ground? IMO most of the abusive-feeling archetypes violate the unwritten rule for player interaction. If you're playing a "normal" deck - bruise-and-bleed, gun intercept, slow S&B - almost any deck can interact with you and the checks-and-balances of Jyhad operate. If, however, you're playing weenie bleed, fast S&B, modern POT combat, prince superbloat, etc, only decks specifically designed to interact with you can. So the game becomes more of the multiplayer solitaire game which is a problem with most CCGs. I don't really have any good ideas to fix this; there's too many archetypes for hoser cards and trying to errata all of them down to a reasonable-but-not-too- hosed level seems like tilting at windmills. You still have a decent game at the upper levels, just not as rich as those a little bit down. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

Matt Green wrote: > Once you see what decks are sat where you can pretty much judge how the > game is going to go down. That's what i mean by predictable. If you know > which cards are the most powerful for each discipline/clan the rest is > just gravy. Table talk and play ability come into a bit, but not > appreciabiliy usfully unless all the players are of equal play ability. *shrug* Sounds to me like you're just jaded. I think there's a lot more depth to the clans and strategies than you're giving them credit for. Sure, there are a lot of deck archetypes out there, and if you're familiar with them, you can get a very good impression of how things are going to go. That isn't always the case. Suppose you have a Tremere deck as your predator: http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#losangelescc > Remove some of the strong cards from the game and you might start to see > more variability in the decks being played rather than seeing the same > clans and/or disciplines making the finals every month. It shouldn't be > the case that certain cards determine the clans being played rather than > visa versa. Remove some of the strong cards, and you'll get a new set of strong cards, and you'll just perceive this problem all over again. [ quoted text not captured ]

Nystulc wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > >We can use these same sideboard rules. And, since you only play one game > >in a Jyhad "match", you can never use it. So why bother? > > Alternatively, we could use different "sideboard" rules in a fun low-stakes > tournament, and not worry so much about the dread horrors of scouting. If some > guy ousted early in game 1 has alot of time to check out the other decks, well, > that just gives him something to do while waiting for the next round. The problem is that so much goes on that would affect things. Wanting to see how your game turned out after you're ousted. Not knowing who you'll run up against in the 2nd round. Needing to go to the bathroom, for crying out loud. If I'm done with my game early, I usually like to get away from the area for a while. You probably could form some rules that made sideboarding relevant. Just allowing scouting when complete with a game doesn't sound very good. If nothing else, I'd probably prefer Sten's idea about trading core deck lists or something. > Since I don't play Magic, your proof that it cannot serve the same purpose that > it does in Magic means little to me. The point of all that was to show that the suggestion for sideboards involves stealing a concept that by the very rules of its use, can't apply to Jyhad. It's used in a game which forbids its use in the first game of a match. Since Jyhad only has one game in its matches, it would always be forbidden. There are good reasons why sideboards are not used this way in Magic. But if you don't care to listen to them... Fred

"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote <snip> Just thought I'd jump in with an offer... If any of you would like to try out different formats for playtesting, I'll be happy to set up a Jyhad Online game and act as moderator. (I'll participate as well naturally :) Let me know... Cheers, WES

"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020328134052...@mb-mk.aol.com... > jtdu...@yahoo.com writes: > > >Well, you know, most of the 'abusive' stuff you mention can > >be counteracted by playing enough countermeasures in the > >deck you want to surprise people with. Loads of Suddens, > >for example, make you pretty ToGP/Hostile-proof. Likewise > >loads of Delaying Tactics make you Parity Shift-proof. > > This only works if you're facing the same deck everytime. > If your opponent has even three different decks the Parity > Shifts will jam your hand more often than they'll help. You mean Delays. Which is true. But if it's all you've got against votes, and you feel the need to deal with votes, it's worth doing. And of course it's not really "opponent" but "opponents", and the question isn't whether the one player has three decks, but whether you expect to see one of these Parity Shifting (or whatever votey) decks next to you every game you play, or close enough. > Sudden Reversal is not acceptable as a needed save-your-ass > card as it's uncommon. I have a respectable-sized collection > but only about 7 SR. Fair enough, but by this logic ToGP isn't acceptable as a power rare either... :-) > Hopefully it'll be common in the Cam > Set - it's one of the obvious semi-power uncommons - but > even then wouldn't it be boring if everybody's masters > consisted of 6 pool managements, 8 SR, and a hunting ground? Yes. Also nobody's pool-management or hunting grounds would ever succeed, unless people struck bargains to SR SRs cross-table for each other. :-) I'm just pointing out that, if abusive masters are a problem, Sudden Reversal is a pretty good solution. (Indirect ways of dealing with it, like blocking the Parity Shifts or Fifth Traditions, or out-bloating so that you can't be outbid on ToGP or Hostile, can also be good solutions of course.) > IMO most of the abusive-feeling archetypes violate the > unwritten rule for player interaction. If you're playing > a "normal" deck - bruise-and-bleed, gun intercept, slow > S&B - almost any deck can interact with you and the > checks-and-balances of Jyhad operate. If, however, you're > playing weenie bleed, fast S&B, modern POT combat, > prince superbloat, etc, only decks specifically designed > to interact with you can. That's an interesting point, although IME "gun intercept" is much less of a "normal" deck than prince bloat, weenie bleed, or modern POT combat. Which probably just speaks to the evolution toward "abusive" decks. :-) The problem that comes to mind here is that it's always beneficial to make other people unable to interact usefully with your deck - ie if they can't stop what you're doing, you'll do better. So the most successful deck types may always be the ones that avoid letting opponents interact with them too much. > So the game becomes more of > the multiplayer solitaire game which is a problem with > most CCGs. I don't really have any good ideas to fix this; > there's too many archetypes for hoser cards and trying > to errata all of them down to a reasonable-but-not-too- > hosed level seems like tilting at windmills. You still > have a decent game at the upper levels, just not as rich > as those a little bit down. Yeah. I suspect this grows out of adding more and more different "wacky" stuff to the game. The only other multiplayer game I'm really familiar with is Shadowfist, and in that there's only one path to victory, really: attack and take away someone else's sites with your big characters. There aren't enough mighty-control cards to make it feasible to keep all the other players under your thumb at the same time, but there too the "stop them from interacting with me" cards (eg things that keep your opponents from being able to play cards from their hands for a certain amount of time) are very strong and tend to be game-winners. Then, too, VTES started out with a fair number of cards or mechanics that operate by avoiding effective interaction: strike: combat ends and Immortal Grapple among them. A less trumpy game would be more consistently interactive, and one where bleeds couldn't be as large - or votes as easily pushed - might give everyone more time to develop a stable position. But it wouldn't exactly be VTES as we know it. Josh a strange fly visitor

jtdu...@yahoo.com writes: >That's an interesting point, although IME "gun intercept" >is much less of a "normal" deck than prince bloat, weenie >bleed, or modern POT combat. Which probably just speaks >to the evolution toward "abusive" decks. :-) I meant "normal" in the sense that most decks will have some defense/counter against gun intercept. You meant it in the sense of "what do I most see at the table", right? >The problem that comes to mind here is that it's always >beneficial to make other people unable to interact >usefully with your deck - ie if they can't stop what you're >doing, you'll do better. So the most successful deck types >may always be the ones that avoid letting opponents interact >with them too much. In V:tES, definitely. In the abstract, it would be desirable to have a game in which interaction was more fundamental to success. There was a lot less of this in the original Jyhad, simply as most of the low-interaction decks were far less functional. But, a lot of the restriction was in vampire availability and so it was inevitable that prince and weenie decks in particular would become far more powerful over time. And the increase in killer archetypes makes it less practical to pack specific defenses against the ones that existed - e.g., Dementia and bleed bounce. It's interesting to compare the Traditions to Obeah. IMO they're fairly comparable in power although I think the Traditions are somewhat better. Originally the Traditions were restricted the same basic way Obeah is - there was a limited supply of vampires who could use it available to each deck. But DS more than doubled it; so the traditions are as handy as Obeah would be with a decent clan size and no Scarce restriction, which is pretty gross. The Scarce idea is good and provides a guard against some future expansion from somebody with a Salubri fetish but there was no such restriction on the prince/justicar. >A >less trumpy game would be more consistently interactive, >and one where bleeds couldn't be as large - or votes as >easily pushed - might give everyone more time to develop >a stable position. But it wouldn't exactly be VTES as >we know it. Agreed. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Nystulc wrote: >> >> Frederick Scott wrote: >> >> >We can use these same sideboard rules. And, since you only play one game >> >in a Jyhad "match", you can never use it. So why bother? >> >> Alternatively, we could use different "sideboard" rules in a fun low-stakes >> tournament, and not worry so much about the dread horrors of scouting. If >some >> guy ousted early in game 1 has alot of time to check out the other decks, >well, >> that just gives him something to do while waiting for the next round. > >The problem is that so much goes on that would affect things. Wanting to see >how your game turned out after you're ousted. Not knowing who you'll run up >against in the 2nd round. Needing to go to the bathroom, for crying out >loud. >If I'm done with my game early, I usually like to get away from the area for >a while. Well, certainly no-one is stopping you from going to the bathroom. This setup might make scouting permissible (or rules against them unenforceable) but it hardly makes it mandatory. You are there to enjoy yourself. Probably the best thing to do between games is relax and rest your mind, and maybe tweak your own deck a little - if you feel like it. Going crazy trying to factor into your deck-tweaking calculations every possible piece of information that you might possibly benefit from is probably a bad idea. It might be equally unwise to panic just because someone else is doing some busy-beaver scouting while you are relaxing. >You probably could form some rules that made sideboarding relevant. Just >allowing >scouting when complete with a game doesn't sound very good. I'm not sure why. Best I figure, you are afraid someone else will do it, and feel that if they do, you will have to. But of course, you don't have to do it at all. >If nothing else, >I'd >probably prefer Sten's idea about trading core deck lists or something. Now, that I don't like. Besides which, if you have to spend all your time studying other people's core deck-lists, you won't have time to go to the bathroom :) >> Since I don't play Magic, your proof that it cannot serve the same purpose >that >> it does in Magic means little to me. > >The point of all that was to show that the suggestion for sideboards involves >stealing a concept that by the very rules of its use, can't apply to Jyhad. In which case I still don't see your point. It is obviously possible to have "sideboards" of some sort, in Jyhad. So sideboards cannot be the same thing or serve the same purpose in Jyhad as they do in Magic. So what? They can still be something and they can still serve some purpose. >It's >used in a game which forbids its use in the first game of a match. Since >Jyhad >only has one game in its matches, it would always be forbidden. There are >good >reasons why sideboards are not used this way in Magic. I'm sure there are. >But if you don't care >to >listen to them... Seems to me there is no point to discussing Magic. If the reasons that apply in Magic are just as applicable to Jyhad as to Magic, then just apply those arguments to Jyhad. It would also make more sense to critique the setup I proposed than one that exists in Magic which I did not propose. But I am now thinking, that if one is to go this way, why not go all the way and let people switch decks between games. I understand the objection that new players, with only one good deck, are disadvantaged, but this does not seem like it could be a big factor -- certainly no worse than it is in non-tournament play. After all, he does not need to wear a badge that says, "I am playing the same deck as last time"

"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020328171013...@mb-mk.aol.com... > I meant "normal" in the sense that most decks will have > some defense/counter against gun intercept. You meant > it in the sense of "what do I most see at the table", right? Yes, exactly. I do think these aspects are kind of intertwined, since to win, it's always helpful to bring something that most decks *don't* have a good defense or counter against. But you probably already know that. :-) > In V:tES, definitely. In the abstract, it would be desirable > to have a game in which interaction was more fundamental > to success. I agree. It's probably a lot harder to introduce new effects that aren't just variants of the old ones without throwing off the interactivity-balance, though. > There was a lot less of this in the original > Jyhad, simply as most of the low-interaction decks were > far less functional. But, a lot of the restriction was in > vampire availability and so it was inevitable that prince > and weenie decks in particular would become far more > powerful over time. And the increase in killer archetypes > makes it less practical to pack specific defenses against the > ones that existed - e.g., Dementia and bleed bounce. Yes, I agree again... certainly weenie dominate and weenie potence had a lot less crypt to work with "back in the day", and there were only nine Princes (!) (plus of course Justicars) to use Traditions... There's not much that can be done about this now, sadly, short of not letting people play with all the vampires somehow (ie through additional crypt-construction limits). And then, the rest of the possible-deck world has benefited from the additional vampiric selection as well, just (probably) not as much as the weenies. (Weenies always benefit the most, I expect, since they demand the fewest influence-points-per-vampire-with-useful-disciplines, especially in one-discipline decks.) > It's interesting to compare the > Traditions to Obeah. IMO they're fairly comparable in power > although I think the Traditions are somewhat better. Well, 5th is certainly slightly better than Renewed Vigor. There don't seem to be any direct analogues to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 6th in Obeah. 2nd is now replicated in slightly weaker fashion by Speak with Spirits and Read the Winds... on the other hand, even now, being a Prince may be a more stringent requirement than having one rare or two common disciplines. There are certainly some other good Obeah cards, though, if that's what you mean. Repulsion is obviously good, as is Neutral Guard, and Spirit Marionette is somewhat special-purpose but nice. > The Scarce idea is good and provides a guard against some > future expansion from somebody with a Salubri fetish but > there was no such restriction on the prince/justicar. Although there could've been - and in a way could still be - by reusing cities rather than giving each new Prince a new one. Might not be enough to balance P/J cards, but it'd make them at least a little harder to use. Josh if i knew my mind like the back of my hand

Nystulc wrote: >>In which case I still don't see your point. It is obviously possible to have "sideboards" of some sort, in Jyhad. So sideboards cannot be the same thing or serve the same purpose in Jyhad as they do in Magic. So what? They can still be something and they can still serve some purpose.>> I am yet to see a version of hypothetical sideboarding rules for VTES that: -Actually are useful, considering how you play against different opponents in every game, and are unlikely to play against the same deck more than once per tournament. -Don't make currently "balanced" hoser cards wildly overpowered, due to nullifiying the significant opportunity cost of these cards. -Don't introduce a significant amount of extra work for all involved (pre-game deck listing or whatever) or introduce a significant amount of extra time to an already long game (in game sideboarding, where you take cards out of your deck or hand and replace them with sideboard cards). -Don't realistically counteract the effect of "scouting" or out of game knowledge for between game sideboarding. So while I'll grant you that it is certainly possible to invent some sort of sideboarding rules of some type that are unique to VTES, I don't actually believe that there is a way to do this that won't cause more problems than not and that will actually be an improvement to the game. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "We have no pages lefted. It is too deep." -The deeply bizzare and inexplicable error message my junky windows machine at work gave me one day.

Nystulc wrote: > > >Nystulc wrote: > >> Alternatively, we could use different "sideboard" rules in a fun low-stakes > >> tournament, and not worry so much about the dread horrors of scouting. If > >> some guy ousted early in game 1 has alot of time to check out the other decks, > >> well, that just gives him something to do while waiting for the next round. > > > >The problem is that so much goes on that would affect things. Wanting to see > >how your game turned out after you're ousted. Not knowing who you'll run up > >against in the 2nd round. Needing to go to the bathroom, for crying out > >loud. If I'm done with my game early, I usually like to get away from the area > >for a while. > > Well, certainly no-one is stopping you from going to the bathroom. This setup > might make scouting permissible (or rules against them unenforceable) but it > hardly makes it mandatory. It's not mandatory to bleed or otherwise reduce you prey's pool, either. It's just a good idea if you want to have a shot at winning. Frankly, such logic is rather lousy in that it ignores the fact that you're involved in a competition. If you pass up a free advantage others are allowed to take, you're not competing. Of course, I note that this is always true of scouting whether you can sideboard or not and the reality is most people don't bother. Adding a sideboard starts to make a compelling advantage out of scouting, however, which can be highly inconvenient if you like to take a break between games. In any event, let's not sit there picking at the point with lame arguments like, "Gee, we're not making it mandatory..." > >If nothing else, I'd > >probably prefer Sten's idea about trading core deck lists or something. > > Now, that I don't like. Besides which, if you have to spend all your time > studying other people's core deck-lists, you won't have time to go to the > bathroom :) Very funny. Just give people a little extra time before each game, I suppose. Granted, there are logistical issues with the idea as a number of others have pointed it out. But it would be the fair, "equal opportunity" way to allow some form of pre-game scouting so it doesn't have to be a bad deal if you happened to get stuck in the never-ending time-limit game with two or three stoopid intercept/bloat/basically-do-nothing-but-survive decks. > > >> Since I don't play Magic, your proof that it cannot serve the same purpose > >> that it does in Magic means little to me. > > > >The point of all that was to show that the suggestion for sideboards involves > >stealing a concept that by the very rules of its use, can't apply to Jyhad. > > In which case I still don't see your point. It is obviously possible to have > "sideboards" of some sort, in Jyhad. So sideboards cannot be the same thing or > serve the same purpose in Jyhad as they do in Magic. So what? They can still > be something and they can still serve some purpose. But what purpose? The purpose that they exist for in Magic isn't present in Jyhad. Therefore, there can be no need to steal that concept. If you want some kind of a mechanism for some kind of as yet unspecified purpose in Jyhad, let's start by identifying what's wrong or what problem you're trying to solve. THEN propose a solution for it - but don't be surprised if people counter that they disagree such a problem exists or is compelling or else propose a completely different solution to the problem you identified. > But I am now thinking, that if one is to go this way, why not go all the way > and let people switch decks between games. Again, first define what problem we're trying to solve. Otherwise, I don't know what to think of the proposal. Fred

Fred wrote: >>Very funny. Just give people a little extra time before each game, I suppose. Granted, there are logistical issues with the idea as a number of others have pointed it out. >> Before it's untimely demise, the B5 CCG tournament governing body was in the process of developing such anti-scouting rules, involving what a player could and could not do after or before their round was over, who they were allowed to talk to, and how much space was neccessary to hold a tournament so as to not allow players to see what was happening at the next table. It smacked of fascism. Or pure madness. Suffuce to say, they never got anywhere past the "Flame War" stage of discussion, and the game lost its liscence anything was actually set into stone. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Big difference, methinks. Reducing your prey's pool IS mandatory, if you want to win. The same cannot be said for scouting. Indeed, as I have already stated, I'm not even sure scouting is a worthwhile expense of any player's energy. Resting between games might be a far better strategy. >It's >just a good idea if you want to have a shot at winning. I'm not too convinced of that. I'm sure I would not bother much in any event. Besides which, sideboarding rules make it harder to know what to expect from other people's decks. You know what people might do to hose after you play your first game, and you may alter your deck so that those hosers will be less effective. >Frankly, such logic >is >rather lousy in that it ignores the fact that you're involved in a >competition. My logic quite explicitly did not ignore that. I believe I was fairly clear in indicating that I did not think scouting mattered enough to be a critical factor. You may think I am wrong about that (and we must then agree to disagree because it would be hard to prove either way), but I did not ignore the issue. >If you pass up a free advantage others are allowed to take, you're not >competing. Nonsense. Of course you are competing. When you see someone taking a nap between games, do you panic because he is gaining a "free advantage" that you are not? If you know someone is adding an extra blood doll to their deck, do you feel compelled to immitate him because there is a possibility it may help him win? No. You don't have to run around doing what some other fool is doing just because their is a theoretical possibility that he may gain some tangible benefit from it. In my case, scouting simply is not my style, but it does not cause me to panic when others do it. I would rather do other things to help me win (like maybe defensively tweaking my deck to foil those scouters). >Of course, I note that this is always true of scouting whether you can >sideboard >or not and the reality is most people don't bother. Right. >Adding a sideboard >starts >to make a compelling advantage out of scouting, There is where we disagree. I think a sideboard setup might mildly enhance the minimal advantages of scouting, but they need not make it compelling. To some extent, deck alteration foils scouting to a degree, because the deck they spied upon is no longer quite the same one you are playing. >however, which can be highly >inconvenient if you like to take a break between games. I'm still not convinced that taking a break would not be the superior strategy. >In any event, let's >not sit there picking at the point with lame arguments like, "Gee, we're not >making it mandatory..." If you insist. >> >If nothing else, I'd >> >probably prefer Sten's idea about trading core deck lists or something. >> >> Now, that I don't like. Besides which, if you have to spend all your time >> studying other people's core deck-lists, you won't have time to go to the >> bathroom :) > >Very funny. Just give people a little extra time before each game, I >suppose. >Granted, there are logistical issues with the idea as a number of others have >pointed it out. But it would be the fair, "equal opportunity" way to allow >some form of pre-game scouting so it doesn't have to be a bad deal if you >happened >to get stuck in the never-ending time-limit game with two or three stoopid >intercept/bloat/basically-do-nothing-but-survive decks. Card games are games of chance. This does not seem to me like much of an objection. Everyone has an equal opportunity to get stuck next to the silly bloat decks. >> >> Since I don't play Magic, your proof that it cannot serve the same >purpose >> >> that it does in Magic means little to me. >> > >> >The point of all that was to show that the suggestion for sideboards >involves >> >stealing a concept that by the very rules of its use, can't apply to >Jyhad. >> >> In which case I still don't see your point. It is obviously possible to >have >> "sideboards" of some sort, in Jyhad. So sideboards cannot be the same >thing or >> serve the same purpose in Jyhad as they do in Magic. So what? They can >still >> be something and they can still serve some purpose. > > But what purpose? 1) Avoiding boredome by not playing the exact same deck 4 times in a row. 2) Foiling scouters by not playing the exact same deck 4 times in a row. 3) The chance to experiment with different variants on a similar deck designs 4) Finding out, just for the hell of it, if hoser cards are really all that abusable in such a setup. > The purpose that they exist for in Magic isn't present in > Jyhad. Right. We are discussing a different (but vaguely similar) idea to serve a different purpose in a different game. > Therefore, there can be no need to steal that concept. Non sequitur. How did you reach the conclusion that a similar (but not identical) so-called "sideboard" rule cannot possibly serve a purpose in Jyhad that it does not serve in Magic. >If you want some kind >of a >mechanism for some kind of as yet unspecified purpose in Jyhad, let's start >by >identifying what's wrong or what problem you're trying to solve. I'm not suggesting that there is a problem that needs solving. I just don't mind playing variants on the standard tournament once in a while. This idea has an vague appeal to me. I am in no way proposing that standard tournaments be banned in favor of it, any more than I think that standard tournaments should be permanently replaced by "storyline" tournaments. And I think it would be fun to watch people trying to abuse those hoser cards. I doubt they'd have much success though. >THEN >propose a >solution for it - but don't be surprised if people counter that they disagree >such a problem exists or is compelling or else propose a completely different >solution to the problem you identified. On the other hand, maybe someone could try running such a tournament and hopefully have fun doing it, without having to PROVE that any problem exists with the standard setup.. >> But I am now thinking, that if one is to go this way, why not go all the >way >> and let people switch decks between games. > >Again, first define what problem we're trying to solve. Again, I don't feel compelled to. I enjoy trying out chess variants as well. I feel no compulsion to prove that there is a "problem" with standard chess before I do so. In any event, if one does wish to compare advantages and disadvantages of certain variants, one can do so more intelligently after you actually try them. >Otherwise, I don't >know >what to think of the proposal. I don't know exactly what to think of it either. But if someone were to organize such a tournament, I would come and try it out. You?

Nystulc wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > >Nystulc wrote: > >> > >> >Nystulc wrote: > >> >> Alternatively, we could use different "sideboard" rules in a fun > >> >> low-stakes tournament, and not worry so much about the dread horrors > >> >> of scouting. If some guy ousted early in game 1 has alot of time to > >> >> check out the other decks, well, that just gives him something to do > >> >> while waiting for the next round. > >> > > >> > If I'm done with my game early, I usually like to get away from the > >> > area for a while. > >> > >> This setup might make scouting permissible (or rules against them > >> unenforceable) but it> hardly makes it mandatory. > > > >It's not mandatory to bleed or otherwise reduce you prey's pool, either. > > Big difference, methinks. Reducing your prey's pool IS mandatory, if you want > to win. The same cannot be said for scouting. Small difference. You're nitpicking the analogy to ignore the point. Anything you allow players to do that's just generally good is a disadvantage in the competition if someone doesn't want to do it. Therefore, trotting out the "it's-not-mandatory" argument is just lame. Suffice it to say no, as I don't personally want to be restricted to the tournament area when I have a chance for a break, I therefore do not wish to grant an additional advantage to my fellow players who are willing to submit to that. End of story. > Indeed, as I have already stated, I'm not even sure scouting is a worthwhile > expense of any player's energy. Resting between games might be a far better > strategy. Then how would anyone ever have the information to use hthe sideboard they've brought? Telepathy? Precognition? Random card substitution? > >> >The point of all that was to show that the suggestion for sideboards > >> >involves stealing a concept that by the very rules of its use, can't > >> >apply to Jyhad. > >> > >> In which case I still don't see your point. It is obviously possible to > >> have "sideboards" of some sort, in Jyhad. So sideboards cannot be the > >> same thing or serve the same purpose in Jyhad as they do in Magic. So > >> what? They can still be something and they can still serve some purpose. > > > > But what purpose? > > 1) Avoiding boredome by not playing the exact same deck 4 times in a row. > 2) Foiling scouters by not playing the exact same deck 4 times in a row. > 3) The chance to experiment with different variants on a similar deck designs > 4) Finding out, just for the hell of it, if hoser cards are really all that > abusable in such a setup. The first three are amenable to all sorts of solutions, including a rule where one simply freely reconstitutes his deck between every game. No Magic-like sideboard rule is required. Nothing's preventing you from doing the last one right now. If you have no information about other opponents, it's the same thing anyway. > > The purpose that they exist for in Magic isn't present in > > Jyhad. > > Right. We are discussing a different (but vaguely similar) idea to serve a > different purpose in a different game. Why even discuss the same idea. Why not start from scratch and propose something to solve these problems that has nothing to do with a different concept used to solve a different situation in a different game. It's like saying I'm trying to sew on a button, the construction workers next door are using a shovel to dig in the dirt, so how can I use this shovel to sew on my button? Why use a shovel just because the guys next door are using it to do something completely different? > >Again, first define what problem we're trying to solve. > > Again, I don't feel compelled to. Then if there's no problem to solve, let's not change anything. If it's not broke... Fred

Nystulc wrote: >>There is where we disagree. I think a sideboard setup might mildly enhance the minimal advantages of scouting, but they need not make it compelling.>> Of course sideboarding would make scouting compelling. If I sit down at a game and have zero idea what my prey (and predator--another strike against the sideboard concept--you need to sideboard against 2, if not 4, other players) is playing, my sideboard is useless. There is no point to monkey with my deck if I don't know what my opposition is. On the other hand, if I know my predator, is, say, a big bleed Malk deck ('cause I watched him play a game earlier), then I have *very* useful information that will give me a sizeable advantage in using my sideboard. If I happen to be the only person at the table, for whatever reason, who as such information, I have a strong advantage, as I can tweak my deck via the sideboard rules to make it more effective, where no one else can. Thus, if someone who has scouted information gets an adavantage over those who don't, there is a compelling reason to scout. >>To some extent, deck alteration foils scouting to a degree, because the deck they spied upon is no longer quite the same one you are playing.>> That's just silly. There is only so much you can change a deck, given all other examples of sideboarding rules (are the hypothetical VTES ones going to allow for a 100 card sideboard?) If you have a given deck with a given strategy, you can't really expect to completely change it mid flow--sure, you might be able to swap out a selection of useless cards in the appropriate circumstance (swap out your 8 defelections when sitting down from a vote deck, for instance), and might be able to swap in some hosers of the appropriate type, but a S+B deck is still going to be an S+B deck, unless you can exchange half your deck (which would be a *really* dumb possibility). Sideboarding in VTES, by virtue of the game, could only work in the most general sense, even with all the information in the world, as you have to react to 2 different players initially in every game, plus the other two at the table. >>1) Avoiding boredome by not playing the exact same deck 4 times in a row.>> Why is it boring playing the exact same deck 4 times in a row? >>2) Foiling scouters by not playing the exact same deck 4 times in a row.>> How much change do you propose is possible? >>3) The chance to experiment with different variants on a similar deck designs>> You can do this in non competetive games all you want already. >>4) Finding out, just for the hell of it, if hoser cards are really all that abusable in such a setup.>> You can do this in non competetive games all you want already. >>I'm not suggesting that there is a problem that needs solving.>> Then why are you trying to fix one? >>I just don't mind playing variants on the standard tournament once in a while. >> Sure, variants are fine, but as has been mentioned many times before, the tournament field really isn't big enough to support many variant tournaments. If you want to run a non sanctioned event with sideboards, go crazy, and let us know how it works, but hoping for an official version of sideboard rules seems fairly fruitless. [ quoted text not captured ]

jtdu...@yahoo.com writes: >Yes, I agree again... certainly weenie dominate and >weenie potence had a lot less crypt to work with "back >in the day", and there were only nine Princes (!) (plus >of course Justicars) to use Traditions... >There's not much that can be done about this now, sadly, >short of not letting people play with all the vampires >somehow (ie through additional crypt-construction limits). >And then, the rest of the possible-deck world has benefited >from the additional vampiric selection as well, just >(probably) not as much as the weenies. You could restrain the weenies by an changing the influence rules in a fashion similar to an externally-imposed Masquerade Enforcement. You could restrain the traditions with either a Scarce-like restriction (pay x pool for every titled vampire on the table or under your control). You could errata 2nd and 5th Tradition to make them less killer. You mention cutting down the spread of princedoms so there's more contestations; that would require errataing the title/Siezure cards. But every one of the "killer" decks needs an individual fix of some ilk, people would argue ovef how much is necessary, etc. I used to be really anxious to fix this kind of thing but now I don't expect it to be constructive. [ quoted text not captured ]

I haven't read the entire thread here, but thought people might be interested in a tidbid about sideboards (and I get to tell a story!). About 4-5 years ago, I attended the annual U-Con event in Ann Arbor, Mi. where Richard Garfield was actually running some Magic:TG events. I'd signed up to play in an unconventional sealed/draft format that he was running later that afternoon, and with plenty of time (hours) before the event a friend and I were lounging around playing The Awful Green Things from OuterSpace (Boardgame). Anyhow, Richard Garfield arrives in the room early and sees us playing one of his favorite games :-) Seeing as he's all chatty, I decided to ask him a question about Magic:TG that had been bothering me since the Tournament scene formed. I basically asked "Why did Magic:TG develop sideboarding?", having been one of those players that got in just post-beta I never quite understood why sideboarding should be included into the game. * His response was practically as simple as my question. Per Mr. Garfield (I paraphrase) "Sideboarding was created to encourage people to play decks that included more than one color". So the inclusion of sideboarding was to encourage more than one dimensional play. [*See, I actually got somewhere with this story :-)] VTES doesn't have that problem, or at least not on the same scale as Magic:TG did. Much like Peter, I don't believe that Sideboarding is feasible or necessary in VTES. The only mechanic I attempted to bring into Vampire from the Magic circuit was a Mulligan variant. (listed post-message for your perusal). It seemed to work okay (we tried it out in my group awhile back), but we tend to play the "real" game and steer away from house rules. Okay, I'm out the door. Happy holidays everyone! Bernie Bresnahan Lansing, Mi. ====================================================== VTES Mulligan: - A player may opt to draw a new hand and crypt before play begins. - Each player that does so will place their current hand back into their library - Re-shuffle the library and draw seven new cards - That player will also place the Vampires in their uncontrolled region back into their Crypt - After shuffling Crypt cards, they draw and place Three Vampires (only) in their uncontrolled region - A player may only Mulligan once per game

berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: > > I basically asked "Why did Magic:TG develop sideboarding?", having > been one of those players that got in just post-beta I never quite > understood why sideboarding should be included into the game. I got in about the same time so I'm confused why this question would be asked. DCI rules weren't even created until about the time Arabian Nights came out or a little after, if I recall correctly. Anyway, having played tournament Magic over the years, I don't think there's much question but that sideboarding is excellent thing for the game. It deepens the strategy of the game at almost zero cost to rules complexity. It turns many matches into true contests that would have otherwise been decided by basically by the metagame matchup. Weeny creatures vs. land destruction, for instance, is a victory for weeny creatures at the time the two players sit down to play. However, the land destruction player has a chances to dig into his sideboard for his anti-weeny cards and, if he draws them, may still have a chance. Depending on the deck, he might also just get rid of his essentially worthless land destruction cards (or the bulk of them, anyway) and fight the weenies with whatever the offense in his deck is. > * His response was practically as simple as my question. > Per Mr. Garfield (I paraphrase) "Sideboarding was created to encourage > people to play decks that included more than one color". > So the inclusion of sideboarding was to encourage more than one > dimensional play. Strange. (And not unusual, for Garfield, I've found.) The answer seems to ignore the reality of tournament play, as near as I can determine. In truth, sideboarding may be as much of a boon to the single color deck as a bane. It may be that Garfield was answering the question of why sideboards were created, even if they do something different in practice then their originally conceived purpose. But mostly, I've notice that Garfield's just never really been tuned into tournament play that much. > VTES doesn't have that problem, or at least not on the same scale as > Magic:TG did. Much like Peter, I don't believe that Sideboarding is > feasible or necessary in VTES. Yep. I actually do sort of like the idea of sideboarding Jyhad decks but I'm afraid the above statement represents the reality of the situation. Fred

On Sun, 31 Mar 2002, berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: >* His response was practically as simple as my question. >Per Mr. Garfield (I paraphrase) "Sideboarding was created to encourage >people to play decks that included more than one color". >So the inclusion of sideboarding was to encourage more than one >dimensional play. > >VTES doesn't have that problem, or at least not on the same scale as >Magic:TG did. Much like Peter, I don't believe that Sideboarding is >feasible or necessary in VTES. An interesting story. But VTES does seem to have an analogous problem with mono-discipline decks, e.g. Peter's standard weenie Potence deck. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > An interesting story. But VTES does seem to have an analogous problem > with mono-discipline decks, e.g. Peter's standard weenie Potence deck. You think that more tournament decks are mono-discipline than otherwise? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3CA84427...@white-wolf.com>... > "Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > An interesting story. But VTES does seem to have an analogous problem > > with mono-discipline decks, e.g. Peter's standard weenie Potence deck. > > You think that more tournament decks are mono-discipline than otherwise? I don't think that more are. But I think that there is a problem with mono-discipline decks nonetheless. A decent all-presence weenie bleed deck as my predator will, in my experience at least, absolutely preclude the possibility of my getting a victory point*. Even if I survive until he is ousted, the early shock to my pool and resources is always too great for me to fight a new predator who has had no real resistance from his prey. Sideboarding in 4 or 5 Atonements could fix this. Similarily, there exist decks that cannot really hope to survive mono-potence rush, but are strong against most of the field. If they could sideboard in 8 or 10 maneuvers, they would be more fun to play. At the storyline tournament, I was playing Brujah close-range combat. There were two long-range combat decks in the field of sixteen players. I sat as the predator of each of them in the two preliminary rounds. I didn't really enjoy either game, because my deck was beaten from the start - my six or so maneuvers weren't going anywhere against their twenty or so. Being able to side in some Flashes, to cope with the hole in my strategy, would have greatly improved the tournament from my standpoint. There are some deck archetypes that other deck archetypes just have a lot of trouble beating. Sideboarding would add - massively, in my opinion - to the strategy of the game. *I guess if I were playing weenie presence bleed as well as my predator, I could get a victory point or two with some luck.

"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020330151004...@mb-fy.aol.com... > You could restrain the weenies by an changing the influence > rules in a fashion similar to an externally-imposed Masquerade > Enforcement. You could restrain the traditions with either > a Scarce-like restriction (pay x pool for every titled vampire > on the table or under your control). You could errata 2nd and > 5th Tradition to make them less killer. You mention cutting > down the spread of princedoms so there's more contestations; > that would require errataing the title/Siezure cards. But every > one of the "killer" decks needs an individual fix of some ilk, > people would argue ovef how much is necessary, etc. I > used to be really anxious to fix this kind of thing but now I > don't expect it to be constructive. Yeah, I'm pretty much on the same page, now. You could always rewrite the game to fix whatever problems you see it as currently having, but it can always develop new ones, too, especially if new cards keep getting made. The "magic bullet" method (specific cards made to counter specific over-good decktypes) may be the most likely to see use, since it doesn't require doing anything retroactive to existing cards or rules, but magic bullets are hard to balance too. (eg Rabble Razing looks like it's supposed to be one, but it's not good enough (IMO); Derange is sorta one for Prince/Justicar stuff, but probably wasn't conceived that way, and certainly isn't in wide enough distribution to be currently effective that way.) Josh on the art-house circuit

Peter Bakija wrote: >Nystulc wrote: >>>There is where we disagree. I think a sideboard setup might mildly enhance >the >minimal advantages of scouting, but they need not make it compelling.>> > >Of course sideboarding would make scouting compelling. If I sit down at a >game >and have zero idea what my prey (and predator--another strike against the >sideboard concept--you need to sideboard against 2, if not 4, other players) >is >playing, my sideboard is useless. No. It is not useless. It serves several purposes, which I have already articulated. It merely does not serve the purpose you have in mind. >There is no point to monkey with my deck if >I >don't know what my opposition is. There is a point. >On the other hand, if I know my predator, >is, >say, a big bleed Malk deck ('cause I watched him play a game earlier), then I >have *very* useful information that will give me a sizeable advantage in >using >my sideboard. Of course, but I never specified that deck alterations must be made AFTER you know who your predator and prey are. I know you feel there would be no point in this situation, but I respectfully disagree. (Though I still think this latter setup might be an interesting experiment, simply to see how abusable it is. I suspect that it is not so abusable as others propose, simply because its problems would be anticipated and compensated for by players.) >If I happen to be the only person at the table, for whatever >reason, who as such information, I have a strong advantage, as I can tweak my >deck via the sideboard rules to make it more effective, where no one else >can. Meanwhile, he may have tweaked his deck in anticipation of such expected tweaks. >Thus, if someone who has scouted information gets an adavantage over those >who >don't, there is a compelling reason to scout. If deck tweaking were done after you know who your predator and prey are. >>>To some extent, deck alteration foils scouting to a degree, because the >deck >they spied upon is no longer quite the same one you are playing.>> > >That's just silly. Hmm? I'm just a silly guy, then. >There is only so much you can change a deck, given all >other >examples of sideboarding rules (are the hypothetical VTES ones going to allow >for a 100 card sideboard?) The number of cards in your "sideboard", whether 5, 10, or 100, will limit both players. The defensive tweaker does not need to completely change his deck, he merely needs to alter those aspects that he expects will be too easily hosable. Yes, ten cards puts a limit on how much you can change your deck (though there is still much you can do, like swap out conditionings for other effects so that you no longer bleed for 4+). However, it likewise limits the ability of the person trying to hose you. If my opponent has only ten cards in the hope of hosing any deck he encounters, what are the odds that his cards will be particularly useful in hosing (a newly altered verion of) mine. This setup may reduce the opportunity cost of certain cards, but it does not eliminate such cost. You can still only put 100 cards into your 90+10 decklist, and you cannot include everything. Putting 10 Malk Dementias in your sideboard won't help you much if no-one plays Malkavians. >>>1) Avoiding boredome by not playing the exact same deck 4 times in a row.>> > >Why is it boring playing the exact same deck 4 times in a row? Would your rather I said "not quite so tremendously exciting after the fourth time"? >>>2) Foiling scouters by not playing the exact same deck 4 times in a row.>> > >How much change do you propose is possible? As much as the scouter has available to him. >>>3) The chance to experiment with different variants on a similar deck >designs>> > >You can do this in non competetive games all you want already. No. In my case, actually, I cannot. The majority of playing I do is in tournaments. >>>4) Finding out, just for the hell of it, if hoser cards are really all that >abusable in such a setup.>> > >You can do this in non competetive games all you want already. Huh? Do you mean "non-sanctioned tournament"? >>>I'm not suggesting that there is a problem that needs solving.>> > >Then why are you trying to fix one? Oh come now. Be not quite so snippy. >>>I just don't mind playing variants on the standard tournament once in a >while. >> > >Sure, variants are fine, but as has been mentioned many times before, the >tournament field really isn't big enough to support many variant tournaments. >If you want to run a non sanctioned event with sideboards, go crazy, > and let >us >know how it works, I doubt that I, personally, will be running any tournaments, standard or otherwise. However, all I have stated in this thread is that I would welcome such an experiment (if someone else were to run it). I never made any arguments in favor of such tournaments being sanctioned. The storylines were not sanctioned, so I would hardly expect this to be either. >but hoping for an official version of sideboard rules >seems >fairly fruitless. I don't recall ever advocating for an "official version" of sideboard rules.

On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 11:27:29 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: >> An interesting story. But VTES does seem to have an analogous problem >> with mono-discipline decks, e.g. Peter's standard weenie Potence deck. > >You think that more tournament decks are mono-discipline than otherwise? > I wouldn't necesarily say more, but enough to hurt the game, yes. T

Are people honestly articulating the real problem here? As I see it, the complaint is that if you have a clever idea for a focused deck, and you sit down next to the wrong predator or prey, you are screwed. I think that is a benefit, not a problem. Sure, I've played my share of focused decks. But when playing a serious game, I always try to make sure my decks have a strategy flexible enough to get around an opponent that spoils them. We have a weekly Jyhad group, and when we sit down for a tournament-level game, I always look forward to sitting down next to a deck that ruins my strategy. That's what can happen in a tournament, and your deck should be flexible enough to handle it. This is the inherent defense against mono-discipline decks, if they are too focused they will be vulnerable to bad seating. This is a good thing, and should serve to discourage super-focused decks. And it should encourage people to include a few cards they normally wouldn't. After I played an Anson/Parthenon Temptation of Greater Power/Golconda deck one week, everyone started keeping a couple of Sudden Reversals in their decks, which is good, because it discourages fragile, overly-focused deck designs. After a spate of weenie-bleed decks, a few Atonements made their way into most decks, and anyone with votes packs a few Anarchist Uprisings. These are all cards that are normally good regardless of the situation, and become even better if someone is playing a particular focused deck that can sweep a table if there are no checks on it. JSpektr

>In particular, i wonder whether there is a case for a >different kind of tournament in which people may bring and play up to >THREE decks rather than one [qualifiers would have to pick one of them >for the final]. How about people may play any deck they want in any given round? >You would have to make people provide lists of all three >decks and the judge would probably have to do quite a bit of checking >[both of which are bad things]; Why is this necessary? It's really not a very complicated concept to allow people to switch to any deck they want. Yet, when it gets proposed (I'm thinking of what happened with B5, which means nothing to most of you), people keep wanting to make it so. >plus, it would become harder for people >with limited card pools to compete [also a bad thing]. I suppose this could be true. Of course, if you let people play whatever they want, they can choose to play the same deck. Should also allow players to switch as many cards as they wish between decks (assuming they can do it quickly, like in 10 minutes or less). >On the plus side, >you would get far more variety and i suspect more interesting games and >finals. i'm aware that this is not a completely new idea and i'ld value >the opinions/experience of the newsgroup about this [which is why i'm >posting]; One thing it does is turn metagaming into mind games, assuming players care to try and anticipate what other players will do. Of course, I'd be in favor of it as I get bored with playing a deck in a tournament around the middle of the second round.

jspektr wrote: > > Are people honestly articulating the real problem here? > > As I see it, the complaint is that if you have a clever idea for a > focused deck, and you sit down next to the wrong predator or prey, you > are screwed. > > I think that is a benefit, not a problem. I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion but games that aren't games because of a bad matchup are always bad. Remember, you may not be the guy with the focussed deck that got skewered. You may be his grandpredator, instead. In any event, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly, this can not be the thing that sideboards in Jyhad are proposed to solve because tournament Jyhad is not played in multiple rounds with the same group of opponents (4/5-player, multiround tournaments not withstanding) as Magic is. Certain proponents have other agendas. Certain ones don't quite seem to have any agenda at all as near as I can determine - other than that they seem to like the idea of sideboarding, even if they were to have no compelling reason to bother. > This is the inherent defense against mono-discipline decks, if they > are too focused they will be vulnerable to bad seating. This is a good > thing, and should serve to discourage super-focused decks. Actually, I like to play super-focused decks, and this point doesn't discourage me a whit. If I get the bad matchup, I do. But often, trying to bother throwing in a card or two to defend against such things only weakens my deck and won't get drawn if I actually need them. It all depends on the deck, the thing I'm worried about, and the proposed contingency card(s) which sometimes don't weaken it or weaken it only very marginally in return for an effect which can save my butt. But for the most part, I've always found focus to be a good thing. It's what gives you the better chance to win the table against the mediocre. Fred