another other card-based approach to the contesting issue

Mulligan Stew Master Out-of-Turn. Trifle. Play when another methuselah contests a ready vampire you control. Move up to six blood from that vampire to your pool or to a card in your uncontrolled region and remove that vampire from the game instead of contesting. Play during your discard phase to remove a card in your uncontrolled region from the game after moving up to eight counters from that card to another card in your uncontrolled region. Play when your prey gains one or more pool during his or her untap phase to gain one pool. Play when your a minion controlled by your predator untaps during his or her minion phase to untap a minion you control.

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 19:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Malone wrote: >Mulligan Stew >Master Out-of-Turn. Trifle. Are you familiar with 7 line syndrome? If you have too much text on a card, it never gets read, and thus, it never gets played. You are trying to do way, way, way, to much with this card.

[ quoted text not captured ] Pick 2 or 3 effects. And then boil them down to their essence. best - chris

On Sep 6, 11:07 pm, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 19:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Malone wrote: > >Mulligan Stew > >Master Out-of-Turn. Trifle. > > Are you familiar with 7 line syndrome? > If a card is to 'solve' the contesting problem (functions 1 and 2) something has to reduce the opportunity cost for the 99% of the time that contesting is irrelevant (functions 3 and 4). I'm not in love with this particular card, but I very very much hope that if something is to be done about the putative contesting problem, the solution is card based rather than a rules change. > > You are trying to do way, way, way, to much with this card. I'm actually trying to do very little with it -- have it playable in the event of another methuselah controling a vampire you have invested pool and transfers in, and also have it playable the other 99% of games. > If you have too much text on a card, it never gets read, and thus, it > never gets played. Sure, if there's 'too much' text on a card idea on a newsgroup posting, people may very well not bother to read it. But in the hypothetical situation where this is a real card, people are going to read it and know what it does. It's not at all complicated. Have you really ever gotten your first look at a vtes card and said to yourself, I'm not going to bother to read that?

[ quoted text not captured ] I think in an abstract sense, a card like this would be both playable and would help contestation problems reasonably well. I also think that, as Jeff pointed out, a card with this many words (even if it were worded to do the same stuff with as few words as possible) is not actually printable. Unless you made it like a NoR rules card with no pictures (or forming the ISA! Anyone? Anyone?). Which would certainly make at least some folks cranky. -Peter

Malone wrote: > The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Malone wrote: >>> Mulligan Stew >>> Master Out-of-Turn. Trifle. >> >> Are you familiar with 7 line syndrome? > > If a card is to 'solve' the contesting problem (functions 1 and 2) [snip] Although I applaud your efforts, any of the fixes brought up in the last month WITHOUT removing transfer-back would work better than this monster of a card. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

[ quoted text not captured ] I was waiting for an effect which said something like "And then your predator dances a jig". Seems like it is trying to be all things to all people at all phases of the game. Consequently it will either NEVER be used, or be used so heavily that nobody owns more than 2 and those are ALWAYS in decks. The simplest and ironically MOST effective change would be a rules change, I agree that the transfer-back rule should continue to exist, the rules just need something else included.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Which would certainly > make at least some folks cranky. Thing X would certainly make some folks cranky, for any given X.

On Sep 7, 7:17 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Thing X would certainly make some folks cranky, for any given X. Well, yes. But in this particular instance, that was an oblique comedy reference to a not that long ago discussion between me and a contributer to remain nameless about how he felt that cards with no art on them (example: NoR Rules Card Proxy cards) were an absolute abomination that would lead to the death of the game. Just 'cause I thought it was funny :-) -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] To more simply restructure your card: Competing Priorities Master 1 pool You may not have more than one Competing Priorities in play. Put this card in play. You may tap this card to move 6 blood from a contested vampire, or from a vampire in your uncontrolled region that could be contested, to your pool and remove the vampire from play. When a vampire controlled by your predator or prey untaps during their minion phase, you may tap this card to untap a ready vampire you control.

On Sep 7, 12:09 am, Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote: > > You are trying to do way, way, way, to much with this card. > > I'm actually trying to do very little with it -- have it playable in > the event of another methuselah controling a vampire you have invested > pool and transfers in, and also have it playable the other 99% of > games. You're going two "play when"s past that goal... so you are doing too much. The ideal cornercase card should require only one non- cornercase cycling option to make it playable (or else its effect better be huge, otherwise it's going to be wallpaper), not three. Brent Ross

On Sep 7, 8:35 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > But in this particular instance, that was an oblique comedy > reference to a not that long ago discussion between me and a > contributer to remain nameless about how he felt that cards with no > art on them (example: NoR Rules Card Proxy cards) were an absolute > abomination that would lead to the death of the game. Well, they are pretty ugly, but I wouldn't have gone that far... nothing wrong with adding a little utility to rule cards. On the other side, I would love some VTES textless foils. Brent Ross

[ quoted text not captured ] Your hypothetical card is better than my hypothetical card is most every way, except for one way that I think would make *all* the difference. For such a hypothetical card to be usable as a fix for the contesting problem, a player choosing to use it would need to use enough to expect to have one in hand by the third turn or so. With a free, out-of-turn trifle that might be doable; with a regular master costing a pool and of which you can only play one, I think it would not be.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:35:00 -0700 (PDT), Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Whoever that poster was, I agree with him or her - cards with no art are cheap, distasteful and it's only thanks to the aesthetic sense of the majority of players that we don't see the NoR rulescards with any frequency. That, and the fact that most sane players find NoR to be a hiccup in the history of V:tES and generally only play 1 card from the set. It's a pity that I must've missed that original discussion, I can go on and on about these things... :) -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: > That, and the fact that most sane players find > NoR to be a hiccup in the history of V:tES and generally only play > 1 card from the set. Ha! I see your implied "if you like the Imbued, you're insane" and raise: "Some players hate the Imbued - just like the Nazis hated Jews." So there, NYAHH, NYAHH, NYAHH! HG

On Sep 14, 2:10 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > It's a pity that I must've missed that original discussion, I can go > on and on about these things... :) A+ for comedy :-) -Peter