Kindred Restructure / Dramatic Upheaval proposal

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de news:pHlsd.89481$7i4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > I hope that Monocle of Clarity can serve as a precedent that > > useful cards with questionable rulings can find their way > > back off of the banned list. > > Absolutely. That avenue is always a possibility. > > Some cards, like ante cards for example, would be very difficult > to re-word. Seat changers are similarly disadvantaged, given > the nature of changing seats. Instead of whining, let's use this thread for card text proposal My card text proposal includes drawback : Dramatic Upheaval v2.0 Political Action Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any *titled* vampire at +1 stealth. Choose another Methuselah. Successful referendum means you switch places with that Methuselah. *No action modifiers can be played during or after this action* *If the referendum fails or is cancelled, the acting vampire goes to torpor* (inspired from theo advance, reinforcement & blood siege) Kindred Restructure v2.0 Political Action Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any prince or justicar at +1 stealth. Choose a new seating order. *Successful referendum means you put this card in play. At the beginning of your next untap phase, burn this card and each Methuselah takes his or her new seat. Any vampire can call a vote to burn this card as a +1 Stealth action. If a methuselah is ousted fom the game while this card is in play, burn this card with no effect* (inspired from baltimore purge and rumors of gehenna) suggestions welcome =)

Reyda wrote: > My card text proposal includes drawback : > > Dramatic Upheaval v2.0 > Political Action > > Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any *titled* vampire at +1 stealth. > Choose another Methuselah. Successful referendum means you switch places > with that Methuselah. *No action modifiers can be played during or after > this action* *If the referendum fails or is cancelled, the acting vampire > goes to torpor* > > (inspired from theo advance, reinforcement & blood siege) 3 new restrictions seem a bit too much for me i like the titled one maybe the go to torpor clause also the "no action modifiers" looks over the top maybe a "once per game" could be applied as the only text modification > Kindred Restructure v2.0 > Political Action > Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any prince or justicar at +1 > stealth. > Choose a new seating order. *Successful referendum means you put this card > in play. At the beginning of your next untap phase, burn this card and each > Methuselah takes his or her new seat. Any vampire can call a vote to burn > this card as a +1 Stealth action. If a methuselah is ousted fom the game > while this card is in play, burn this card with no effect* > > (inspired from baltimore purge and rumors of gehenna) this one looks cool. Everyone has eventually one turn to prepare for the change. But it's quite a huge text move. (like ToRIII and so on) Mochuda

Wouldnt it be enough, if the turn of the methuselah playing a succesful DU/KR would immediately end? So there would be a whole round to prepare against VP snipping.

[ quoted text not captured ] Anarch Revolt. -- Bye, Daneel

Reyda wrote: > Instead of whining, let's use this thread for card text proposal Or, ya know, we could just see how the environment works for a while and not worry about it. Heck--maybe it will make the game better? Nah. That is just crazy talk. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

> Instead of whining, let's use this thread for > card text proposal First, I'm fine with the new banned cards. I do, however, think that a possible rewording could be as below. I think these changes will mean that the major effect of these cards will be to do pool damage to a Methuselah that has a weak prey, and it will mean the cards will only be infrequently used to move seats - basically only when all the other Methuselahs have very low pool. Dramatic Upheaval Political Action Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. *Cost 1 Pool.* Choose another Methuselah. Successful referendum means you switch places with that Methuselah. *Before votes are cast any Methuselah may pay 2 pool to cause this referendum to fail.* Kindred Restructure Political Action Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any prince or justicar at +1 stealth. *Cost 1 Pool* Choose a new seating order. Successful referendum means each Methuselah takes his or her new seat. *Before votes are cast any Methuselah may pay 3 pool to cause this referendum to fail.* * lehrbuch

The problem it's (acording to the guy who make the bans), that the card was banned because go against some fundamental and basic and untochable and vitaly part of vtes... the prey-predator mech... so thats it can't undermine so screw these cards and bannit from tourneys... so you can give 10.00000 ideas, but he will don't listen to the players... :(

hey reyda, missed your appearance on the EC... while your suggestions are excellent, we certainly don´t want more erratas. if any of the seat switching votes should come back in different then as new cards in the next expansions. -- johannes walch

In message <cafbc9c8.04120...@posting.google.com>, Enrique San Mart?n <es...@chile.com> writes: >so >thats it can't undermine so screw these cards and bannit from >tourneys... so you can give 10.00000 ideas, but he will don't listen >to the players... :( LSJ has actually said that he's willing to entertain any rewrites people suggest that work around the problems. He said this in a reply to you: "The list of errata that could have been made to DU is infinite, yes. In that list are a great many that would not have alleviated the problem, yes. If there are any in that list that would alleviate the problem, I'll be glad to entertain them." <http://groups.google.com/groups?elm=raosd.89903%247i4.54160%40bgtnsc05- news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Does that look like someone who won't listen to players to you? (Add to that the fact that he's spent time and energy explaining his thoughts and the motivation behind the change and the wider issues, rather than just ignoring everyone, and is interacting with people who are criticising him.) I've never yet known LSJ not listen to well-thought out proposals - even if he totally disagrees with them, in the end. Wilfully misrepresenting his clearly stated opinion is really going to do nothing other than make you look like you're trying to manipulate or ignore what's been said in order to garner support for your side. And if you want a change, you really don't want to do that. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

Enrique San Mart?n wrote: > so you can give 10.00000 ideas, but he will don't listen > to the players... :( You realize that in the long history of this game, the *vast* majority of card fixes, rules fixes, and rules changes are the direct result of discussions among players in this forum and similar ones, right? Just checking. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BDD90CDF.1B700%pd...@lightlink.com... > Enrique San Mart?n wrote: > >> so you can give 10.00000 ideas, but he will don't listen >> to the players... :( > > You realize that in the long history of this game, the *vast* majority of > card fixes, rules fixes, and rules changes are the direct result of > discussions among players in this forum and similar ones, right? Well, to play Devil's advocate, I would say that a pretty good argument can be made that there seemed to be little interest expressed in this newsgroup that either KR or DU ought to be banned or in any way fixed. This is an issue I have with the banning. I don't think it's the disaster that some seem to think it is and I'll adjust just fine in the end. But I'd have felt a lot better about this move had there been some pre-existing sentiment expressed that, "these-cards-are-bad-and-need- to-be-banned" (tm) among the denizens of the newsgroup. Lacking that, you've got to admit, people complaining that the powers that be weren't listening to the players seem to have a damn good point. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Well, to play Devil's advocate, I would say that a pretty good argument > can be made that there seemed to be little interest expressed in this > newsgroup that either KR or DU ought to be banned or in any way fixed. Sure, in this newsgroup. But there are other avenues of communication going on. Scott shows up fairly often in #vtes on irc.sorcery.net, and mentioned publicly there that DU and KR were (to my best recollection) "#1 on the rules team's list for review". I know several discussions happened there, and involved some well known players, but I wouldn't know how much of an input they were into the decision. > This is an issue I have with the banning. I don't think it's the > disaster that some seem to think it is and I'll adjust just fine in > the end. But I'd have felt a lot better about this move had there been > some pre-existing sentiment expressed that, "these-cards-are-bad-and-need- > to-be-banned" (tm) among the denizens of the newsgroup. Lacking that, > you've got to admit, people complaining that the powers that be weren't > listening to the players seem to have a damn good point. Most the people I associated with understood that it was stupidly powerful, and game defining by its presence. It's also neatly close to the x/!x scenario that made RtI such an easy pill to swallow. -- David Cherryholmes

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<41b1ebe6$0$578$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de > news:pHlsd.89481$7i4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > I hope that Monocle of Clarity can serve as a precedent that > > > useful cards with questionable rulings can find their way > > > back off of the banned list. > > > > Absolutely. That avenue is always a possibility. > > > > Some cards, like ante cards for example, would be very difficult > > to re-word. Seat changers are similarly disadvantaged, given > > the nature of changing seats. > > Instead of whining, let's use this thread for card text proposal > > My card text proposal includes drawback : > > Dramatic Upheaval v2.0 > Political Action > > Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any *titled* vampire at +1 stealth. > Choose another Methuselah. Successful referendum means you switch places > with that Methuselah. *No action modifiers can be played during or after > this action* *If the referendum fails or is cancelled, the acting vampire > goes to torpor* > > (inspired from theo advance, reinforcement & blood siege) Can still use locations. My Daughter Barons can pass this sucker with no problem. Or a simple Dia will put it through. > Kindred Restructure v2.0 > Political Action > Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any prince or justicar at +1 > stealth. > Choose a new seating order. *Successful referendum means you put this card > in play. At the beginning of your next untap phase, burn this card and each > Methuselah takes his or her new seat. Any vampire can call a vote to burn > this card as a +1 Stealth action. If a methuselah is ousted fom the game > while this card is in play, burn this card with no effect* > > (inspired from baltimore purge and rumors of gehenna) Although you got your mechanic from Purge, it sounds to me more like the rewording of Return to Innocence - you know, the one that was STILL broken. Just like RtI, the timing is not necessarily the issue. The ability is. Just because I know it's coming doesn't mean I can necessarily do anything about it. The reason Purge decks don't tend to win is that there's a great deal of setup for both optimal effect AND for taking advantage of it. And once you've done it once you haven't necessarily set the table up to sweep, but you HAVE incurred everyone's wrath. KR, even this modified version, only needs to go off once successfully. I guess what I'm saying is - either you have the mechanic or you don't. It doesn't really matter how difficult it is. Eric Simon Prince of Chicago

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 17:55:49 +0100, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Keep 'em banned, open up another can of "less frustration". ;)

Frederick Scott wrote: > Well, to play Devil's advocate, I would say that a pretty good argument > can be made that there seemed to be little interest expressed in this > newsgroup that either KR or DU ought to be banned or in any way fixed. Reasonable. And true. But still, the idea that LSJ and whomever don't listen to the player base (as seemed to be the point that was being made) is just wrong. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<ww+vS0t1...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <cafbc9c8.04120...@posting.google.com>, Enrique > San Mart?n <es...@chile.com> writes: > >so > >thats it can't undermine so screw these cards and bannit from > >tourneys... so you can give 10.00000 ideas, but he will don't listen > >to the players... :( > > LSJ has actually said that he's willing to entertain any rewrites people > suggest that work around the problems. He said this in a reply to you: > > "The list of errata that could have been made to DU is infinite, yes. > In that list are a great many that would not have alleviated the > problem, yes. If there are any in that list that would alleviate the > problem, I'll be glad to entertain them." > the problem of that lsj says... it's that the card's go against a specific mechanic... so... erratas can't be done... because... the mechanic it's "untochable"... so... for me, it's that he will not listen... because... from the view of lsj, there will no errata who can be made to the cards... because, always it's go againt's the mechanic.... > <http://groups.google.com/groups?elm=raosd.89903%247i4.54160%40bgtnsc05- > news.ops.worldnet.att.net> > > Does that look like someone who won't listen to players to you? (Add to > that the fact that he's spent time and energy explaining his thoughts > and the motivation behind the change and the wider issues, rather than > just ignoring everyone, and is interacting with people who are > criticising him.) > But many people are asking the real reason of the ban... because the explanation who was made it's very poor... and non reply we have... or you think that we bite the argument that undermine the blah blah... if that card's can't make some big impact of a revelsal of a table, it was made the ban??? if the cardas are weak... and no body use them... there will be banish???? no. so... why???... why that especific mechanic was favored... and no other... like transfers mechanic??? or others???? > I've never yet known LSJ not listen to well-thought out proposals - even > if he totally disagrees with them, in the end. > > > Wilfully misrepresenting his clearly stated opinion is really going to > do nothing other than make you look like you're trying to manipulate or > ignore what's been said in order to garner support for your side. And > if you want a change, you really don't want to do that. another topic... it's that to ban card's and realese another that do the same... but less power was made a lot of years' ago by mtg... and it was the worst that he can do...

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:31hs51F...@individual.net... > Frederick Scott wrote: > >> Well, to play Devil's advocate, I would say that a pretty good argument >> can be made that there seemed to be little interest expressed in this >> newsgroup that either KR or DU ought to be banned or in any way fixed. > > Sure, in this newsgroup. But there are other avenues of communication going on. Scott shows up fairly often in #vtes on > irc.sorcery.net, and mentioned publicly there that DU and KR were (to my best recollection) "#1 on the rules team's list for > review". I know several discussions happened there, and involved some well known players, but I wouldn't know how much of an > input they were into the decision. Well, OK. I have no information about that so I'll have to take your word. But it's kind of beside the point. The point I'm making is if there were really any kind of real popular sentiment at all that DU or KR needed banning or fixing, it's seems like we should have seen something on this newsgroup at some point. Now I would be the first to admit I miss things that go on here because I really skip a lot of stuff I see. So if anyone knows of a thread or something(s) I missed out on, please feel free to educate me. But I do tend to watch the subject names of the threads that go on for any length of time and my perception is that there's really been nothing. And if so, that's my issue with it. We've had huge debates on the newsgroup about Protect Thine Own. There's clearly a certain segment on the newsgroup that feel Anarch Revolt needs addressing, however much I disagree. There's a few other things people will talk about from time to time, like the issue Orpheus and a few others have with the withdrawl rule. Don't get me wrong, I don't and have never believed anything ought to be put up to a popular vote to see what should be banned or changed. I think ultimately White Wolf just decides what's in their interests to change and I think they have pretty good incentive to do well by the players. I just think that if you're going to pick up an issue that the players themselves haven't been complaining about (or haven't been complaining about *much* clearly) and make a change, you leave yourself open to the charge that these things are decided by the elite few who dismiss the sentiment of the 'unwashed masses' and do what they want. And the claim that "discsions are nearly continuous, here, in email, on forums, on chats, face to face, etc." rings hollow. Apparently, they must have been some of those other places because far from going on "nearly continuous(ly)" *HERE*, by contrast my perception is that such discussions didn't go on here at all. Don't know where, if anywhere, I'm going with this. I guess I just wanted to explore why I feel sympathy for the people who feel this was just sprung on them. Other changes from time to time seem to come out of nowhere (sudden card changes, like the 'Camille, the Raven' thing) though this is probably the most visible situation in which I've ever noticed it happen. I don't understand why this happens and I feel it's sort of a bad sign. > Most the people I associated with understood that it was stupidly powerful, and game defining by its presence. Oh, I certainly did, too. And some of the better players I run into who's skill I respect. But I suspect there are other cards that fall into that category as well. And, in any case, I don't see how that status alone makes it a good candidate for outright, sudden banning when noone seemed to be asking for such a move. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Well, OK. I have no information about that so I'll have to take your > word. But it's kind of beside the point. The point I'm making is if > there were really any kind of real popular sentiment at all that DU or > KR needed banning or fixing, it's seems like we should have seen > something on this newsgroup at some point. I can recall it being brought up, usually within some context of "what would you ban" or "what do you think is broken". I quick google on my own name has posts as early as Nov 2001. I'm sure there were others, not that I really think the decision had anything to do with a consensus any more than the tweaks to Majesty, 2nd, et al in CE were, or the 7/7 rules, or any number of other substantial changes to the game. We have designers, they design. > Don't get me wrong, I don't and have never believed anything ought to be > put up to a popular vote to see what should be banned or changed. I > think ultimately White Wolf just decides what's in their interests to > change and I think they have pretty good incentive to do well by the > players. I just think that if you're going to pick up an issue that > the players themselves haven't been complaining about (or haven't been > complaining about *much* clearly) and make a change, you leave yourself > open to the charge that these things are decided by the elite few who > dismiss the sentiment of the 'unwashed masses' and do what they want. That charge is pretty much true, and not a problem. > And the claim that "discsions are nearly continuous, here, in email, > on forums, on chats, face to face, etc." rings hollow. I don't have Scott's reply handy and it doesn't look to be in this thread. But I do happen to be geographically close enough to where he lives that I end up being around him a fair bit, and I can tell you that, from my observations, the barrage of complaints and suggestions he receives is "near continuous". Certainly not continuous, but nearly so. Likewise when he shows up on IRC, people tend to lob questions and opinions at him at a very high rate. So, the claim doesn't ring hollow to me, and I haven't even touched upon trust and credibility, both of which I believe he's well earned. > Apparently, they > must have been some of those other places because far from going on > "nearly continuous(ly)" *HERE*, by contrast my perception is that such > discussions didn't go on here at all. Yeah, I guess my main point is that "here" is one part of a larger whole, so you shouldn't grant "here" any extraordinary weight. Once you've factored in that there is no one privileged locale, lack of 300 post flamey threads is not such a big deal. > Don't know where, if anywhere, I'm going with this. I guess I just > wanted to explore why I feel sympathy for the people who feel this > was just sprung on them. Other changes from time to time seem to come > out of nowhere (sudden card changes, like the 'Camille, the Raven' thing) > though this is probably the most visible situation in which I've ever > noticed it happen. I don't understand why this happens and I feel it's > sort of a bad sign. I think the exact opposite. I worry more about timidity and stasis, and in that light this is a very good sign. But of course, I think the change will make the game better, and that begs the question. It will come down to taste, but it's important to remember that the game is not dictated by our tastes, but by the autocratic choices of a designer. And again, I think that is OK. It's OK with me despite the fact that the only hope I have left of persuading ftp ban PTO has withered down to getting lucky on road trip games. "Hey Dave, if you can spot a license plate with the letters 'PTO' on them, I'll ban it." "Hey Dave, if you happened to offer to pick up the check for all twelve of us I was going to ban Ancient Hearts." Fucking tease. ;) -- David Cherryholmes

> I guess what I'm saying is - either you have the mechanic or you > don't. It doesn't really matter how difficult it is. > Eric Simon > Prince of Chicago Precisely. At least that's what I concluded after reading pretty much all that LSJ posted about the issue. So maybe it's a waste of time figuring out new versions of these cards that would maintain the seat-switching permanent effect. If we're going to suggest new text for these, they should be radically changed. Maybe the seat-switching effect should be temporary, just to allow a vote deck some turns to breathe, with restrictions to what it could do to his "temporary" prey? That would make seat-switching very similar to what Gambit Accepted and Life Boon do to VP distribution - and a very defensive strategy, which I suspect doesn't address all of LSJ's concerns; it seems that he considers using DU and KR as a means to "escape" dangerous predators as disruptive as using it for vp-snipping. But it makes for interesting situations. It could not allow a vote deck to take advantage of, say, Anarch Revolt. The vote deck could buy some time to recover from a fierce rush deck as predator, but it still should need to prepare and cope with it later *and* would have to prevent the target of the switching from dying. Or this could be a bad idea at all. I don't know. In fact, sometimes I'm struck with how difficult it is to deal with CCG design. So call me a yes-man, I don't care - let's play the game as it is and I'm fine with any change, mmmmm'kay? best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo NC for Brazil

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:31j78cF...@individual.net... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> Well, OK. I have no information about that so I'll have to take your >> word. But it's kind of beside the point. The point I'm making is if >> there were really any kind of real popular sentiment at all that DU or >> KR needed banning or fixing, it's seems like we should have seen >> something on this newsgroup at some point. > > I can recall it being brought up, usually within some context of "what would you ban" or "what do you think is broken". Sorry - if you have to go out and drill people for the information, to me that doesn't count. A card is only likely to be problem if people are annoyed enough to go start threads about how it should be banned. Then _maybe_ you start thinking about it. > We have designers, they design. Well, let's get something straight: taking cards away != designing new cards. When you design new cards, the whole process is speculative. You need to be as careful as you can but let's face it, you have to put stuff out so the company can sell it. Besides, when it's out, people don't have to buy it. But banning isn't the same as "designing". I mean it is design on some level, I agree, but you're doing something different. People own those cards, they've bought the expansion they were printed in, they've traded for them and so forth. Plus, the designers are working from known information, so there's no excuse for banning something that doesn't *positively* need to be banned. That is, there's no reason to be as tolerant of mistakes in this process as there is for creating new cards. >> I just think that if you're going to pick up an issue that >> the players themselves haven't been complaining about (or haven't been >> complaining about *much* clearly) and make a change, you leave yourself >> open to the charge that these things are decided by the elite few who >> dismiss the sentiment of the 'unwashed masses' and do what they want. > > That charge is pretty much true, and not a problem. I disagree, depending on what the reason is for ignoring mass sentiment. But furthermore, if you're going to ignore it, then just say so outright. Don't talk about "discsions are nearly continuous, here, in email, on forums, on chats, face to face, etc." in response to charges that the broad base of players aren't being listened to. Be honest about it: say, "We felt there was a problem with this even if it wasn't recognized by most players at this time." At least people will better understand what's going on. Right now, I think there's a lot of confusion about this. >> And the claim that "discsions are nearly continuous, here, in email, >> on forums, on chats, face to face, etc." rings hollow. > > I don't have Scott's reply handy and it doesn't look to be in this thread. That is a direct, verbatim quote. > But I do happen to be geographically close enough to where he lives that I end up being around him a fair bit, and I can tell you > that, from my observations, the barrage of complaints and suggestions he receives is "near continuous". What? About table switching cards? If so, then my observation is that there sure are a lot of differences in locality then. To me, this is just incredibly hard to believe. Or, I guess my suspicion is that the way you describe it isn't the way I'd describe it. Usually, if something is an ongoing topic of discussion that's really important to someone, it'll eventually reach this newsgroup. It's not that I think everybody who's important posts here. But I've noticed most things that are common experiences to players will be represented here by *somebody* sooner or later. How many times have threads been repeated here over and over (e.g. the merits of card limits) because some new poster shows up and it's on his mind and he hadn't seen all the previous threads on the same subject. That's the level of commonality I want to see in the experience with a card before it should be considered for banning - at least normally. (See below.) > Yeah, I guess my main point is that "here" is one part of a larger whole, so you shouldn't grant "here" any extraordinary weight. I don't grant it extrordinary weight. If there are other forums that have as many or more participants (or on this general order, at least), I would say the same thing for them. In short, if it's a real issue, someone on a forum of this magnitude should have brought it up already. > Once you've factored in that there is no one privileged locale, lack of > 300 post flamey threads is not such a big deal. But it *is* a big deal. It's a sign there's a real problem, not just some particular privileged group's pet peeve. >> Don't know where, if anywhere, I'm going with this. I guess I just >> wanted to explore why I feel sympathy for the people who feel this >> was just sprung on them. Other changes from time to time seem to come >> out of nowhere (sudden card changes, like the 'Camille, the Raven' thing) >> though this is probably the most visible situation in which I've ever >> noticed it happen. I don't understand why this happens and I feel it's >> sort of a bad sign. > > I think the exact opposite. I worry more about timidity and stasis, and in that light this is a very good sign. Timidity and stasis are hardly the opposite of acting outside of any noticable cause or need for the action. Or at least, say there's a huge middle ground to traverse before we start trotting out fears that stasis is preventing a problem from being solved. > It will come down to taste, but it's important to remember that the game is not dictated by our tastes, but by the autocratic > choices of a designer. > > And again, I think that is OK. It all depends. (As I often like to say.) If you mean the game is being dictated by the *tastes* of an autocratic designer (or a group of designers or the president of the company or some other individual or group - I don't like making assumptions about this), then that strikes me as being severely misguided and a choice that will likely come back to haunt the company though possibly not in a way that's discernable to us. Perhaps in lowered sales and a game that's not as popular as it could be. I do believe that there are times when the unwashed masses truly don't know what's in their best interests and sometimes you have to ignore them. (Or them is us, in this case I guess.) I remember some card ban in Type 2 Magic a few years ago that had to do with Cadaverous Bloom decks. Cadaverous Bloom decks were these incredibly difficult complex things that mainly the pro Magic players were good enough to play well but most people were well advised not to bother with. They were trick decks that needed continual card flow to make work and if you got the right draw, they would "go off" during an early turn when the operator would figure out how to manipulate his cards, life, and draws just so. It was like playing a game of solitare but required a lot of expertise. Anyway, the point is, the DCI suddenly realized that a new expansion card made these decks too dominate in extremely high level play and banned a card to fix the problem. The vast majority of players had no clue there was even a problem, let alone how to fix it. If that's what this about, I don't mind that, though a better explanation of the situation would sure be in order. But if it's just because someone else's tastes in the game differs from the majority's, fuck it. They shouldn't be banning things for that reason. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:mG1td.83934$EZ.30738@okepread07... > Don't talk about "discsions are nearly continuous, here, in email, on > forums, on chats, face to face, etc." in response to charges that the > broad base of players aren't being listened to. Be honest about it: say, > "We felt there was a problem with this even if it wasn't recognized by > most players at this time." At least people will better understand what's > going on. Right now, I think there's a lot of confusion about this. The response you quote was a response to "Why isn't there any discussion about this?" Not "Why isn't the broad base of players being listened to?" It is an honest and direct response to the question. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:31jnl8F...@individual.net... > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:mG1td.83934$EZ.30738@okepread07... >> Don't talk about "discsions are nearly continuous, here, in email, on >> forums, on chats, face to face, etc." in response to charges that the >> broad base of players aren't being listened to. Be honest about it: say, >> "We felt there was a problem with this even if it wasn't recognized by >> most players at this time." At least people will better understand >> what's going on. Right now, I think there's a lot of confusion about >> this. > > > The response you quote was a response to > > "Why isn't there any discussion about this?" > > Not > > "Why isn't the broad base of players being listened to?" > > It is an honest and direct response to the question. Oh, come on. When Johannes Walch asked that question, I don't think he meant to pose some general question about why banning cards PER SE wasn't being discussed. He was asking you why the banning of Dramatic Upheavel and Kindred Restructure specifically weren't being discussed. And I find his unspoken assumption - that there'd been no substantial discussion of it on this newsgroup - to be valid. In short, why does this seem like it's totally coming out of left field? And if it's not discussed in this newsgroup, I'm making the leap that there wasn't really all that much compelling discusion of it elsewhere, either. Again, granted that what you or David might consider a lot of discusion or "continuous discussion" isn't really what I'd like to see as a sign that the cards are perceived as being enough of a problem to the game that they need to be banned. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:Th2td.83936$EZ.1084@okepread07... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:31jnl8F...@individual.net... > > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > > news:mG1td.83934$EZ.30738@okepread07... > >> Don't talk about "discsions are nearly continuous, here, in email, on > >> forums, on chats, face to face, etc." in response to charges that the > >> broad base of players aren't being listened to. Be honest about it: say, > >> "We felt there was a problem with this even if it wasn't recognized by > >> most players at this time." At least people will better understand > >> what's going on. Right now, I think there's a lot of confusion about > >> this. > > > > > > The response you quote was a response to > > > > "Why isn't there any discussion about this?" > > > > Not > > > > "Why isn't the broad base of players being listened to?" > > > > It is an honest and direct response to the question. > > Oh, come on. When Johannes Walch asked that question, I don't think he > meant to pose some general question about why banning cards PER SE wasn't > being discussed. You come on. That's exactly what he asked. He started off with the "DU/KR are cornerstones" assertion, then moved quickly to the larger field: "Who decides which cards are getting banned? Why isn´t there any discussion about this?" (Followed by expressing his disappointment in the way "major things" about the game are changed -- still in the larger field.) > He was asking you why the banning of Dramatic Upheavel > and Kindred Restructure specifically weren't being discussed. No, he wasn't. At least, not where I responded with the quote you provide. In that section, he was asking about the larger field. > And I find > his unspoken assumption - that there'd been no substantial discussion of > it on this newsgroup - to be valid. In short, why does this seem like > it's totally coming out of left field? And if it's not discussed in this > newsgroup, I'm making the leap that there wasn't really all that much > compelling discusion of it elsewhere, either. At least you recognize that it is a leap. > Again, granted that what > you or David might consider a lot of discusion or "continuous discussion" > isn't really what I'd like to see as a sign that the cards are perceived > as being enough of a problem to the game that they need to be banned. ? I'm having trouble parsing that one. If your asking about volume vs. content, rest assured that content is the winner there. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:31jqekF...@individual.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Right. Three questions in direct succession - and this your first banning in years. Sorry, I don't think it takes much reading between the lines to understand that he means, "Why were THESE cards banned? Right here - right now." Under the circumstances, it's disingenuous to launch into some general response about how people everywhere constantly talk of "banning cards in the general". Sheesh, Scott, I'm pretty sure he must have noticed what David called the "300 post flamey threads" about banning various other cards in the past without you should point that out to him. What's on his mind is, "Why did you choose to ban something no one seemed to cite as a problem needing a fix? Why haven't I heard that you were considering this?" Only he framed it in a more general way - as in, "How does the process work such that cards got banned when there was no prior discussion that such cards needed to be banned or fixed?" He just left off the last part because one wouldn't think it necessary. >> He was asking you why the banning of Dramatic Upheavel >> and Kindred Restructure specifically weren't being discussed. > > No, he wasn't. Yes. He was. I'm sorry, I just think this blindingly obvious. >> Again, granted that what >> you or David might consider a lot of discusion or "continuous discussion" >> isn't really what I'd like to see as a sign that the cards are perceived >> as being enough of a problem to the game that they need to be banned. > > ? I'm having trouble parsing that one. I'm saying that I'm not in your shoes so I can't make a judgement about what is "continuous discussion" about a subject. But based on the dearth of complaints about these cards on the newsgroup, I'm wondering if your discription of what is continuous discussion is what I'd call "continuous discussion". Based on the above, perhaps you were simply referring to "continuous discussion" about banning cards in general - which I'd find likely to be accurate but (IMHO) not to the point. > If your asking about volume vs. content, rest assured that content is > the winner there. I guess what I see as the conundrum is: if it's a real problem in the game, then why aren't more players experiencing it? (And why not go to greater lengths to explain it better?) If it's not, then we're talking about taste - in which case volume (at least, "volume" as represented by number of people talking as opposed to a relative few making lots of noise) absolutely should be the winner. Or at least, IMO. I suppose there could be some third way of looking at it. In that case, I'd love to hear about what I'm missing. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:Oc3td.83940$EZ.27447@okepread07... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > He started off with the "DU/KR are cornerstones" assertion, > > then moved quickly to the larger field: > > > > "Who decides which cards are getting banned? Why isn´t there > > any discussion about this?" > > Right. Three questions in direct succession - and this your first > banning in years. Sorry, I don't think it takes much reading between > the lines to understand that he means, "Why were THESE cards banned? > Right here - right now." Under the circumstances, it's disingenuous He clearly moved from DU/KR up to the bigger question of "who decides which cards get banned?" You are welcomed to acknowledge what he wrote or not. It makes no difference to me. Since we are at an impass, I leave it at that. [ quoted text not captured ]

Enrique San Mart?n wrote: > But many people are asking the real reason of the ban... because the > explanation who was made it's very poor... It makes perfect sense to me. The game is built solidly on the predator/prey mechanic. No other cards in the game other than KR and DU allowed you to arbitrarily change who your predator or prey was, leading to endless activities that made paying attention to the carfully crafted dynamic pointless, as at any moment, you might have a new seat. I'm not seeing the poor explanation. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <cafbc9c8.0412...@posting.google.com>, Enrique San Mart?n <es...@chile.com> writes: >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<ww+vS0t1...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... >> In message <cafbc9c8.04120...@posting.google.com>, Enrique >> San Mart?n <es...@chile.com> writes: >> >so >> >thats it can't undermine so screw these cards and bannit from >> >tourneys... so you can give 10.00000 ideas, but he will don't listen >> >to the players... :( >> >> LSJ has actually said that he's willing to entertain any rewrites people >> suggest that work around the problems. He said this in a reply to you: >> >> "The list of errata that could have been made to DU is infinite, yes. >> In that list are a great many that would not have alleviated the >> problem, yes. If there are any in that list that would alleviate the >> problem, I'll be glad to entertain them." >> > >the problem of that lsj says... it's that the card's go against a >specific mechanic... so... erratas can't be done... Finding suitable errata would be hard. However, LSJ is quite happy to entertain the possibility of a suitable errata, should you find one. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > Finding suitable errata [to Dramatic Upheaval/KR] would be hard. > > However, LSJ is quite happy to entertain the possibility of a suitable > errata, should you find one. LSJ, finding suitable errata IS hard. So before I put in any effort, please tell me if, in your opinion, a revision to DU that largely eliminates VP sniping (which at least on this newsgroup seems to be the most objectionable use of the card) would be sufficient to have it unbanned. If no form of seat switching would be acceptable, I'd rather not bother proposing errata.

[James] > However, LSJ is quite happy to entertain the > possibility of a suitable errata, should you > find one. How about: Dramatic Upheaval Type: Political Action Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose another Methuselah. Successful referendum means you switch places with that Methuselah. *Any Methuselah may discard their hand to cause this referendum to fail. Only one Dramatic Upheaval may be played each turn.* And similar for Kindred Restructure. This maintains the threat of table switching, but in effect, I think, it will almost always result in the player it most influences discarding their hand - destroying their current plans (maybe) but not their position. That is, it will most often disrupt a player that is about to take an oust - not a bad thing - and not change the predator/prey relationship. Every player has a hand (even if there are no cards in it) so no player needs to play any differently because of the existence of the cards. It may marginally increase the value of Storage Annex, I suppose, and ash-heap retrival cards (mostly, Necromancy). It (may) help Slaughter House based decks too - at least it could be synergistic with Brinksmanship. It also produces a card cycling vote that has much the same effect as Deal with the Devil (as the controller of the acting minion will be the first able to discard their hand). Neither good nor bad, just a comment. I think that this proposal will mean that DU/KR no longer (effectively) break the predator/prey relationship and will also not totally wallpaper them. * lehrbuch

On 6 Dec 2004 15:05:34 -0800, lehrbuch <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote: > [James] >> However, LSJ is quite happy to entertain the >> possibility of a suitable errata, should you >> find one. > > How about: > > Dramatic Upheaval > Type: Political Action > Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. > Choose another Methuselah. Successful referendum means you switch > places with that Methuselah. *Any Methuselah may discard their hand to > cause this referendum to fail. Only one Dramatic Upheaval may be > played each turn.* > > And similar for Kindred Restructure. > > This maintains the threat of table switching, but in effect, I think, > it will almost always result in the player it most influences > discarding their hand - destroying their current plans (maybe) but not > their position. That is, it will most often disrupt a player that is > about to take an oust - not a bad thing - and not change the > predator/prey relationship. I find this solution to be rather eloquent. Two points though: 1. I think that this is perhaps too much errata for LSJ's tastes. 2. Freely discarding the hand can be a major asset during the late/mid-game, where a common problem is a jam of sorts. If this errata were implemented, you might end up with a vote that is basically useless for what it was originally intended to accomplish. The major question would probably be, who gets first chance to discard their hands? ;) Does have potential, though. -- Bye, Daneel

[Daneel] > The major question would probably be, > who gets first chance to discard their > hands? ;) I believe that's covered by the existing timing rules. a) Controller of acting minion, then b) Prey of (a), then c) Predator of (a), then d) everyone else in clockwise order. * lehrbuch

[me] > Dramatic Upheaval > Type: Political Action > Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at > +1 stealth. > Choose another Methuselah. Successful referendum means > you switch places with that Methuselah. *Any Methuselah > may discard their hand to cause this referendum to fail. > Only one Dramatic Upheaval may be played each turn.* I think that the biggest problem with such an errata (except perhaps that something similar has already been proposed and dismissed by LSJ et al) is that is not really addressing the problem. You could slap similar errata on the end of any card and pretend that it fixed whatever problems the card had. In this respect, such an errata would be a bad design decision as it creates a precedent for fixing (and therefore creating) any arbitrarily bad card. Oh well, back to the drawing board. * lehrbuch

It would appear that most of the problems that people have been complaining about, (now I may be wrong here coz there's too many posts to read all of 'em), is that they can't get away from this or that. Nobody seems to say, oh we need 'em to snipe... so obviously sniping isn't an issue. Therefore Dramatic Upheaval Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Costs 1 pool. Called by any vampire as a +1 stealth action. Switch seats with a randomly chosen Methusela. The turn then continues after each player has taken their new seat. Only 1 Dramatic Upheaval can be played by each player once per game. Kindred Restructure Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Costs 1 pool. Called by any titled vampire as a +1 stealth action. A new seating order is randomly selected for all methuselas. The turn then continues after each player has taken their new seat. Only 1 Kindred Restructure can be played during the game. These allow you to potentially escape someone who is hacking on you big time. But shouldn't undermine the predator/prey relationship too badly, as you don't get to choose who you want where... All it does is create a new predator/prey relationship that you have very little control over. --> J "Fry crack corn, and I don't care, Leela crack corn, I still don't care, Bender crack corn and he is great; Take that you stupid corn!" grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com to email me

[J] > Nobody seems to say, oh we need 'em to snipe... > so obviously sniping isn't an issue. A very common, strong usage was to stop someone who is strong relative to their prey, by moving them elsewhere. Often this also resulted in a snipe, but it need not. > Dramatic Upheaval > Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Costs 1 pool. > Called by any vampire as a +1 stealth action. > Switch seats with a randomly chosen Methusela. The turn > then continues after each player has taken their new seat. > Only 1 Dramatic Upheaval can be played by each player > once per game. I don't think this would be a good idea. Adding random elements, especially massive effects like this, detracts from the strategy of the game. It seems to make DU/KR equivalent (but less reliable, I guess) to the card below, and be similarly pants. Triming the Fat. Political Card: - Worth 1 Vote etc. Oust a random Methuselah. Triming the Fat may be played only once per game. * lehrbuch

> A very common, strong usage was to stop someone who is strong relative > to their prey, by moving them elsewhere. Often this also resulted in a > snipe, but it need not. I'm commenting on what people are whinging about in regards to these cards no longer being legal. > I don't think this would be a good idea. Adding random elements, > especially massive effects like this, detracts from the strategy of the > game. It seems to make DU/KR equivalent (but less reliable, I guess) > to the card below, and be similarly pants. > > Triming the Fat. > Political Card: - Worth 1 Vote etc. > Oust a random Methuselah. Triming the Fat may be played only once per > game. Not at all. There is a major difference between moving randomly and ousting randomly. Not to mention, there are some random elements in the game already; Gemini's Mirror, Esau, Ozzy Hyde, Malkavian Derangement, Walk through Arcadia to name those that I can think of off the top of my head. Of course relying on KR/DU to get you out of a pickle or to steal someone elses VP isn't really playing a strong tactical game to start with. It's more of an opportunist card. Of course, there goes my Madness Network/Dramatic Upheaval/Anarch Revolt/Last Stand deck... :( And then, what I came up with was merely 90 seconds of thought (and that was the typing time). [ quoted text not captured ]

On 6 Dec 2004 16:14:04 -0800, "lehrbuch" <lehr...@gmail.com> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] i thought that's just blocking undirected actions....sort of. "6. Sequencing. If two or more players want to play a card or effect, the acting Methuselah plays first. At every stage, the acting player always has the opportunity to play the next card or effect. So after playing one effect, she may play another and another. Once she is finished, the opportunity passes to the defending Methuselah (in the cases of directed actions and combat), then to the rest of the Methuselahs in clockwise order from the acting Methuselah." salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

[ quoted text not captured ] Altering the predator-prey relationship is problematic. -- 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: > Altering the predator-prey relationship is problematic. Thanks. Just to be 100% clear, since any seat-switching activity at a table of more than two would change the predator/prey relationships of several Methuselahs, any card that allowed seat switching would be problematic (or, if allowable at a table of two, trivial.) Correct?

LSJ wrote: > Altering the predator-prey relationship is problematic. Thanks. Just to be 100% clear, since any seat-switching activity at a [ quoted text not captured ]

<emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1102449271.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I haven't examined all the possible seat-switching effects, so I couldn't say for sure. But it seems at least possible that the only non-problematic ones are the (near) wallpaper or trivial (non-changing) ones. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

lehrbuch wrote: > How about: > > Dramatic Upheaval > Type: Political Action > Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. > Choose another Methuselah. Successful referendum means you switch > places with that Methuselah. *Any Methuselah may discard their hand to > cause this referendum to fail. Only one Dramatic Upheaval may be > played each turn.* > > And similar for Kindred Restructure. > > This maintains the threat of table switching, but in effect, I think, > it will almost always result in the player it most influences > discarding their hand - destroying their current plans (maybe) but not > their position. That is, it will most often disrupt a player that is > about to take an oust - not a bad thing - and not change the > predator/prey relationship. Well, according to the discussion of DU/KR, the two primary times people seem to benefit from playing DU/KR are: 1) To snipe a VP that another player is about to take. 2) To get out from in front of an overwhelming predator into a better seating position. In case 1), the player about to be sniped will 100% of the time discard his hand to prevent you from taking his VP. In case 2), your predator will discard his hand to prevent you from getting away - unless you put someone even weaker in front of him, in which case THAT player will discard their hand so as not to be immediately ousted. So what sort of reasonable circumstance were you picturing where DU/KR would not effectively be "Make one player discard their hand"? Sadly, this same dilemma will hamstring a lot of errata efforts, IMO - lack of the circumstances under which someone can call a KR/DU without SOMEBODY objecting strenously means that most potential 'this action can be cancelled' revisions will almost always be performed every time the card is played. > * lehrbuch -John Flournoy

lehrbuch wrote: > How about: > > Dramatic Upheaval > Type: Political Action > Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. > Choose another Methuselah. Successful referendum means you switch > places with that Methuselah. *Any Methuselah may discard their hand to > cause this referendum to fail. Only one Dramatic Upheaval may be > played each turn.* > > And similar for Kindred Restructure. > > This maintains the threat of table switching, but in effect, I think, > it will almost always result in the player it most influences > discarding their hand - destroying their current plans (maybe) but not > their position. That is, it will most often disrupt a player that is > about to take an oust - not a bad thing - and not change the > predator/prey relationship. Well, according to the discussion of DU/KR, the two primary times [ quoted text not captured ]

[John] > 1) To snipe a VP that another player is about to take. > 2) To get out from in front of an overwhelming predator > into a better seating position. > > In case 1), the player about to be sniped will 100% of > the time discard his hand to prevent you from taking his VP. Yep. That is the intention. It means they won't be sniped, but it may disrupt them (if what they needed to gain the VP is in their hand). So it does have an effect, but doesn't destroy their prior work. This is good, I think. Of course, if they have a focused deck, their new hand will resemble their old, so it won't be a huge disruption, probably. > In case 2), your predator will discard his hand to prevent > you from getting away - unless you put someone even > weaker in front of him, in which case THAT player will > discard their hand so as not to be immediately ousted. Probably, I agree. > So what sort of reasonable circumstance were you picturing > where DU/KR would not effectively be "Make one player > discard their hand"? a) When the caller and allies don't have vote lock and it's going to fail anyway. b) Early game, when no-one has yet invested much effort into ousting their prey, people may be willing to switch seats in exchange for some deal, for example a Rumours of Gehenna for the table. Vote decks can include such goodies, so it's not totally implausible to find a deal everyone can live with. Such a deal will be difficult to arrange though. c) Late game, if players have few cards remaining they might value their cards in hand more than preventing the switch. Of course, they will still discard if the switch is going to obviously result in an immediate oust. > Sadly, this same dilemma will hamstring a lot of errata efforts, > IMO -lack of the circumstances under which someone can call > a KR/DU without SOMEBODY objecting strenously means that most > potential 'this action can be cancelled' revisions will almost > always be performed every time the card is played. I agree. * lehrbuch

[John] > 1) To snipe a VP that another player is about to take. > 2) To get out from in front of an overwhelming predator > into a better seating position. > > In case 1), the player about to be sniped will 100% of > the time discard his hand to prevent you from taking his VP. Yep. That is the intention. It means they won't be sniped, but it may disrupt them (if what they needed to gain the VP is in their hand). So it does have an effect, but doesn't destroy their prior work. This is good, I think. Of course, if they have a focused deck, their new hand will resemble their old, so it won't be a huge disruption, probably. > In case 2), your predator will discard his hand to prevent > you from getting away - unless you put someone even > weaker in front of him, in which case THAT player will > discard their hand so as not to be immediately ousted. Probably, I agree. > So what sort of reasonable circumstance were you picturing > where DU/KR would not effectively be "Make one player > discard their hand"? a) When the caller and allies don't have vote lock and it's going to fail anyway. b) Early game, when no-one has yet invested much effort into ousting their prey, people may be willing to switch seats in exchange for some deal, for example a Rumours of Gehenna for the table. Vote decks can include such goodies, so it's not totally implausible to find a deal everyone can live with. Such a deal will be difficult to arrange though. c) Late game, if players have few cards remaining they might value their cards in hand more than preventing the switch. Of course, they will still discard if the switch is going to obviously result in an immediate oust. > Sadly, this same dilemma will hamstring a lot of errata efforts, > IMO -lack of the circumstances under which someone can call > a KR/DU without SOMEBODY objecting strenously means that most > potential 'this action can be cancelled' revisions will almost > always be performed every time the card is played. I agree. * lehrbuch

I haven't given it much thought, but what do you guys think about : DU: choose 2 methuselahs. They switch seats. You cannot end up with a different prey. KR: choose new seatingorder. You cannot end up with a different prey. W

Another idea, for what it's worth. Kindred Restructure Type: Political Action Requires: prince,justicar Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any prince or justicar at +1 stealth. Choose a new *turn* order. Successful referendum means each Methuselah *from now on takes his or her turn in the nominated order. (Prey is still to the left, however).* I'm quite happy with this proposed Kindred Restructure. It's better than Reversal of Fortune, but requires prince or justicar, so that's fair? Dramatic Upheaval Type: Political Action Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. *Choose a new turn order. Successful referendum means each Methuselah from now on takes his or her turn in the nominated order, until your next turn. (Prey is still to the left, however). After your next turn play reverts to normal.* That's about the best I can think of for Dramatic Upheaval, it's bit lame though, and erratas its entire text! * lehrbuch

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:FTgtd.99088$7i4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > emmits...@hotmail.com wrote: > > James Coupe wrote: > > > >>Finding suitable errata [to Dramatic Upheaval/KR] would be hard. > >> > >>However, LSJ is quite happy to entertain the possibility of a > > > > suitable > > > >>errata, should you find one. > > > > > > LSJ, finding suitable errata IS hard. So before I put in any effort, > > please tell me if, in your opinion, a revision to DU that largely > > eliminates VP sniping (which at least on this newsgroup seems to be the > > most objectionable use of the card) would be sufficient to have it > > unbanned. > > > > If no form of seat switching would be acceptable, I'd rather not bother > > proposing errata. > > Altering the predator-prey relationship is problematic. Being more specific, would you agree that the main problem arising is the disadvantage conveyed to the prey of the switcher based on the 'surprise' value of the play of the vote, considering the context of table balance and the defence requirements of old predator vs. new predator? Assuming yes, then surely the key to a successful errata would be to convey either a time delay to the resolution of the effect, convey a disadvantage to the switcher which balances the advantages of the switch, and/or convey an advantage to the prey which balances the disadvantages of the switch? (Although this of course needs to coupled with the requirement to keep the altered or additional text to a minimum) Examples could include: 'the switch takes place at the beginning of the acting player's next turn' 'the switch takes place in X turns time' 'the switcher's turn immediately ends' 'the switcher must miss his next turn' 'the prey of the switcher gains X pool' 'the prey of the switcher may immediately untap all their minions' Do you have any comments please as to what solutions you've examined already and why you've rejected them? Regards, Mike Nudd VEKN Prince of London

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:31oej4F...@individual.net... > "Mike" <mi...@vekn.org.uk> wrote in message > news:41b6f891$0$50865$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > Altering the predator-prey relationship is problematic. > > > > Being more specific, would you agree that the main problem arising is the > > disadvantage conveyed to the prey of the switcher based on the 'surprise' > > value of the play of the vote, considering the context of table balance > and > > the defence requirements of old predator vs. new predator? > > The main problem is the undermining of the predator-prey relationship. > The arbitrary annexing of the work the respective predators have done to > oust their respective preys. Sorry, yes of course there is disadvantage conveyed to the old predator too. > One idea that came close to getting out of that particular problem was: > "Old predator gets the VP (and pool) if anyone is ousted in the next <time > period>", > but that is more than a bit convoluted to write/implement/handle at game > time, and > seems to just beg the question as to when to ban something. > (That rewrite would also have to include some group repeat prohbition, like > bleed modifiers have, to prevent a double-swap from acheiving what a single > swap achieved before, for added convolution). Considering this, perhaps another approach for DU would be to consider something similar to Gambit Accepted. I.e. only playable by a Methuselah with 1 or more VP, and the acting player gives 1 VP to his predator when he assumes his new position? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Mike" <mi...@vekn.org.uk> wrote in message news:41b71018$0$50899$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net... > Sorry, yes of course there is disadvantage conveyed to the old predator too. Typically the biggest disadvantage being bestowed upon the player who was best adhering to the goals of the game, yes. > Considering this, perhaps another approach for DU would be to consider > something similar to Gambit Accepted. I.e. only playable by a Methuselah > with 1 or more VP, and the acting player gives 1 VP to his predator when he > assumes his new position? Food for thought. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Mike" <mi...@vekn.org.uk> wrote in message news:41b6f891$0$50865$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > Altering the predator-prey relationship is problematic. > > Being more specific, would you agree that the main problem arising is the > disadvantage conveyed to the prey of the switcher based on the 'surprise' > value of the play of the vote, considering the context of table balance and > the defence requirements of old predator vs. new predator? The main problem is the undermining of the predator-prey relationship. The arbitrary annexing of the work the respective predators have done to oust their respective preys. > Assuming yes, then surely the key to a successful errata would be to convey > either a time delay to the resolution of the effect, convey a disadvantage > to the switcher which balances the advantages of the switch, and/or convey > an advantage to the prey which balances the disadvantages of the switch? > (Although this of course needs to coupled with the requirement to keep the > altered or additional text to a minimum) > > Examples could include: > > 'the switch takes place at the beginning of the acting player's next turn' > 'the switch takes place in X turns time' > 'the switcher's turn immediately ends' > 'the switcher must miss his next turn' > 'the prey of the switcher gains X pool' > 'the prey of the switcher may immediately untap all their minions' These all seem often to leave the about-to-oust-my-prey predator with sweat on his brow, possibly a broken axe, and a tall tree where there should be a stack of firewood. > Do you have any comments please as to what solutions you've examined already > and why you've rejected them? "Turn immediately ends", "No more actions can be taken this minion phase", etc. One idea that came close to getting out of that particular problem was: "Old predator gets the VP (and pool) if anyone is ousted in the next <time period>", but that is more than a bit convoluted to write/implement/handle at game time, and seems to just beg the question as to when to ban something. (That rewrite would also have to include some group repeat prohbition, like bleed modifiers have, to prevent a double-swap from acheiving what a single swap achieved before, for added convolution). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <31ois7F...@individual.net>, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: >"Mike" <mi...@vekn.org.uk> wrote in message >news:41b71018$0$50899$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net... >> Sorry, yes of course there is disadvantage conveyed to the old predator >too. > >Typically the biggest disadvantage being bestowed upon the player who >was best adhering to the goals of the game, yes. > >> Considering this, perhaps another approach for DU would be to consider >> something similar to Gambit Accepted. I.e. only playable by a Methuselah >> with 1 or more VP, and the acting player gives 1 VP to his predator when >he >> assumes his new position? > >Food for thought. A Methuselah who has already gained 1VP has little need to switch positions, as he was already in a good position. The proposed change doesn't allow for the semi-universally "acceptable" use that others are attempting to posit, which is that the card can be used to get away from a "bad" seating position -- because part of the definition of a bad seating position is that you are unlikely to get VP. A Methuselah with 1VP was not in a bad seating position. Also, I note that Gambit Accepted currently doesn't see competitive play, even though it gives you the ability to regain your "lost" VP. This is probably because giving up VP voluntarily is not all that good a strategy, on the whole; trying to follow along with that mechanic might just create another card that, while no longer broken, is still not that useful. A new seat-switcher (I do not believe the mechanic is necessary in the game, personally) should at least be PLAYABLE. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

Kindred Restructure Called by any Titled Vampire as a +1 stealth action. The game ends immediately begin a new game with a new seating order at the closest pub. All players currently with VP get shouted drinks by the players without VP whilst the game lasts. Dramatic Upheaval Called by any Vampire as a +1 stealth action. The game ends immediately, begina a new game with a new seating order at the closest pub. All players must purchase their own drinks whilst the game lasts. -- J -- [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ri4fr0h2pg359ojsp...@4ax.com... > > A new seat-switcher (I do not believe the mechanic is necessary in the > game, personally) should at least be PLAYABLE. LOL. Yeah, I think you could probably even get wide support for making cards playable. Seriously, though, avoiding the production of wallpaper is definitely something that is considered when deciding whether or not to ban a card. Banning a card voids your existing collection of that card. Printing a new version that is unplayable essentially voids your existing collection of that card **AND** produces a new version that is essentially voided as well. -Robert

[ quoted text not captured ] Your new Kindred Restructure is interesting, though the new turn order might prove difficult to remember. Since seat switching is out, it might be the best option for a revision of the card. Or just a new card. Why not make Dramatic Upheaval work along the same lines? Dramatic Upheaval Type: Political Action Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. *Choose another Methuselah. Successful referendum means you take your turn when the chosen Methuselah would normally take hers, and vice versa. (Prey is still to the left, however).

>Also, I note that Gambit Accepted currently doesn't see competitive >play, even though it gives you the ability to regain your "lost" VP. >This is probably because giving up VP voluntarily is not all that good a >strategy, on the whole; trying to follow along with that mechanic might >just create another card that, while no longer broken, is still not that >useful. I don't play Gambit Accepted much as so many of my decks aren't really equipped to get a VP any time soon, so it's usually a dead draw. But, I've never had a problem with having it in play, and there are certain aspects of it that aren't obvious (whether they should be or not). For instance, there's an incentive for your prey to try to keep you alive since it means another strong predator (on average) with 2 VPs in hand if you go.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ri4fr0h2pg359ojsp...@4ax.com... > In message <31ois7F...@individual.net>, > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> mumbled something about: > > >"Mike" <mi...@vekn.org.uk> wrote in message > >news:41b71018$0$50899$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net... > >> Sorry, yes of course there is disadvantage conveyed to the old predator > >too. > > > >Typically the biggest disadvantage being bestowed upon the player who > >was best adhering to the goals of the game, yes. > > > >> Considering this, perhaps another approach for DU would be to consider > >> something similar to Gambit Accepted. I.e. only playable by a Methuselah > >> with 1 or more VP, and the acting player gives 1 VP to his predator when > >he > >> assumes his new position? > > > >Food for thought. > > A Methuselah who has already gained 1VP has little need to switch > positions, as he was already in a good position. That's the whole point though. To provide a dis-incentive to stop people from switching wrecklessly or from stealing other people's kills. > The proposed change doesn't allow for the semi-universally "acceptable" > use that others are attempting to posit, which is that the card can be > used to get away from a "bad" seating position -- because part of the > definition of a bad seating position is that you are unlikely to get VP. > A Methuselah with 1VP was not in a bad seating position. But if you allow for a switching effect that focuses on protecting your own seating, by default it still leaves open the quandary of how to reward your old predator and your new predator for their previous efforts after you've moved. It's not something that's easily quantifiable because you can't rely on the speed, efficiency or equivalence of each other deck on the table. In any case, as other people have noted here (and elsewhere) other deck strategies currently have no way of switching places, and in that sense voting decks always had an unfair advantage in that they could do something that nobody else could. Removing that ability is a step towards balance, not away from it. (There is a seperate argument for giving other decks access to equivalent abilities instead taking it away, which I'd personally perhaps prefer to see, but that's a whole 'nother ball park). > Also, I note that Gambit Accepted currently doesn't see competitive > play Because the risk does not always result in success, and the same should apply to switching table positions. You pays your money and you takes your chances. I have seen Gambit Accepted used well, and I have seen it used badly. TBH I think it's yet to be assimilated fully into the meta-game, and when it is, we'll see it a bit more. Most players here are still playing catch-up from Anarchs and Black Hand, let alone Gehenna... *shrugs* Regards, Mike

In message <20041209022809...@mb-m01.aol.com>, cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] That is a perfect place for 2VP. He cannot force a Game Win without your consent (ie, without you being ousted). Even more so, it is a great place for 2VP with only 6 pool, instead of the usual 12. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ri4fr0h2pg359ojsp...@4ax.com... >>Food for thought. > > A Methuselah who has already gained 1VP has little need to switch > positions, as he was already in a good position. > > The proposed change doesn't allow for the semi-universally "acceptable" > use that others are attempting to posit, which is that the card can be > used to get away from a "bad" seating position -- because part of the > definition of a bad seating position is that you are unlikely to get VP. > A Methuselah with 1VP was not in a bad seating position. > Yeah, I think that this aspect can be readily solved without seat switching. I'd agree thats an effect which a vote deck may deserve; a brief reprieve from an aggressive predator. Elysium Enforced Political Action Usable by a Methuselah with less than 10 pool. Until your next untap, your minions may not bleed. Your minions may not vote. Bleeds against you are reduced to zero. You may not be the target of a vote which would result in a loss of pool. A player may play only one Elysium Enforced per game. That particular example reads as waaay too powerful, and would probably just be a reason to pack DT again... Maybe make the aspect of reprieve more specific: Secretive Resources Political Action Usable by a Methuselah with less than 10 pool. If the referendum is successful, put this card into play. While Secretive Resources is in play, bleeds against you are reduced by one. Burn Secretive Resources to reduce a bleed against you by three. A player may only have one Secretive Resources in play. Burn this card during your next untap. A player may play only one Secretive Resources per game. Political Asylum Political Action Usable by a Methuselah with less than 4 minions in play. If the referendum is successful, put this card into play. (counts as a Haven for each of your minions). While Political Asylum is in play, minions you control may not be the target of D actions. Burn this card during your next untap. A player may only play one Political Asylum per game. etc. *shrug* DaveZ Atom Weaver

David Zopf wrote: > Yeah, I think that this aspect can be readily solved without seat switching. > I'd agree thats an effect which a vote deck may deserve; a brief reprieve > from an aggressive predator. "Deserve" is a curious choice of words. Deserved as compared to what? If I were going to describe dedicated vote decks in the most general terms, I would say they possess the following properties: A) Best pool gain in the game B) Access to tier 1 combat defense (Majesty/Obedience) C) Efficient blocking (2nd and, to a lesser extent, Eternal Vigilance) D) Intrinsically low chance of being blocked It would seem that most any other archetype would, again *generally*, fair worse against an aggressive predator. So while it may be a nice ability, I would dispute the use of "deserves". -- David Cherryholmes pickin' mah nit

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:31r7j3F...@individual.net... > David Zopf wrote: > >> Yeah, I think that this aspect can be readily solved without seat >> switching. I'd agree thats an effect which a vote deck may deserve; a >> brief reprieve from an aggressive predator. > > "Deserve" is a curious choice of words. Yeah, probably a careless choice of words... Katie (dughter) woke me up at 4 am. I didn't get back to sleep. Meh... DaveZ atom weeever

David Zopf wrote: > Yeah, probably a careless choice of words... Katie (dughter) woke me up at > 4 am. I didn't get back to sleep. Meh... No worries, just thought you might have more behind it than what you initially posted. -- David Cherryholmes

[emmitsvenson] > Your new Kindred Restructure is interesting, though the > new turn order might prove difficult to remember. Write it down? I don't think it's any trickier to remember than who has been selected for Rumours of Gehenna, for example. > Why not make Dramatic Upheaval work along the same lines? > > Dramatic Upheaval > Type: Political Action > Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at > +1 stealth. > *Choose another Methuselah. Successful referendum means > you take your turn when the chosen Methuselah would > normally take hers, and vice versa. (Prey is still > to the left, however). This is much more powerful than the proposed Kindred Restructure, as you can use it to duplicate Last Stand (and it doesn't cost 6 pool), but with careful wording it could be OK. Unfortunately it becomes a bit convoluted then. Something like: Dramatic Upheaval Type: Political Action Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. Choose another Methuselah. *Successful referendum means they do not take their turn as normal but instead take it when you would normally take yours. After their next turn you take your turn when they would have normally taken theirs. (Prey is still to the left, however).* * lehrbuch

[ quoted text not captured ] Or, to match the turn ordering of the old DU exactly: Dramatic Upheaval Type: Political Action Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. *Choose another Methuselah. Successful referendum means you take your turn when the chosen Methuselah would normally take hers, and vice versa. (Prey is still to the left, however). If you choose a Methuselah other than your predator, play passes to the chosen Methuselah's prey at the end of this turn.

emmits...@hotmail.com wrote: > Dramatic Upheaval > Type: Political Action > Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any vampire at +1 stealth. > *Choose another Methuselah. Successful referendum means you take your > turn when the chosen Methuselah would normally take hers, and vice > versa. (Prey is still > to the left, however). If you choose a Methuselah other than your > predator, play passes to the chosen Methuselah's prey at the end of > this turn. Damn it, this wording gets totally tangled when two or more DUs have been played. Anyone have any suggestions?

[ quoted text not captured ] Not that I'm in favor of seeing DU/KR unbanned, but how is this reasonably able to be considered errata? I mean, the effect is *totally* different. Are you actually proposing a new card altogether? As to your original question. . . no ideas yet. Ankur Gupta Prince of West Lafayette

[ quoted text not captured ] It was and is certainly possible to create acceptable versions of DU/KR by completely changing their text. It's a sliding scale, though. The closer you are to the original text, the more unsuitable for competitive play. However, in general I think its better to ban the cards than to release wholesale changes via a text migration. Entirely new card texts and concepts are more likely to be created as new cards. -Robert Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN

Well since ppl are *implying* what someone else is asking, I see a valid question to LSJ that I'll ask myself. Where as I accept the banning of DU/KR as the better move for tourny play, I do fear a *undiscussed* flood gate of banned cards opening. Why did you choose to ban something no one seemed to cite (IMO) as a problem needing a fix? Why haven't I heard that you were considering this?" "How does the process work such that cards got banned when there was no prior discussion ( at least in depth on usenet where a majority of players turn to for such discussions) that such cards needed to be banned or fixed?" I understand you can make these sweeping changes with only a small amount of interaction if you choose, thats what your postion with WW affords you. I don't get too a lot of tornys out of state to communicate with others like yourself, so I depend on usenet for my VTES info. I guess it would have been nice to say I saw this comming and was able to have an opinion about it, and that I could discuss it with you and others. Now it just seems pointless to have an opnion as it's a done deal. SC, I can definitely say I had that opportunity, DU/KR, not so. What else is out there for concideration to be banned that has not been discussed here. I don't know, maybe it's none of my bussiness. I hope the decision makers think it is. Thanks, ***JediMike***

Jedi...@rebelscum.net wrote: > Well since ppl are *implying* what someone else is asking, I see a > valid question to LSJ that I'll ask myself. > > Where as I accept the banning of DU/KR as the better move for tourny > play, I do fear a *undiscussed* flood gate of banned cards opening. > > Why did you choose to ban something no one seemed to cite (IMO) as a > problem needing a > fix? This is better directed at the VEKN than at me, but I'll add this anyhow: As has been addressed already, it had been cited as a problem by at least more than "no one". -- 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: >This is better directed at the VEKN than at me, but I'll add this >anyhow: Don't you have more or less "final say" authority over the VEKN anyway? >As has been addressed already, it had been cited as a problem by at >least more than "no one". True, regarding DU/KR. My statement was more specifically referring to future card banning and the desire to create more discussions here on Usenet where a majority of players around the word come to learn and discuss such issues. I guess the real question that needs to be asked is: What else is out there for consideration to be banned, and do our (seasoned veteran VTES players) opinions matter to you and the VEKN? Simply put, we can't communicate what we don't know. SC we knew, KR/DU we (LA at least) never saw it coming. ***JediMike***

Jedi...@rebelscum.net wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > >This is better directed at the VEKN than at me, but I'll add this > >anyhow: > > Don't you have more or less "final say" authority over the VEKN anyway? No. I am in charge of the tournament rules and have "final say". (Steve Wieck probably has the real "final say" but in most cases he allows us to make the decisions). Scott has "final say" over the design and Rules Team decisions (again, unless Steve steps in). Despite any technicalities about who may or may not have "final say", nearly all of the tournament rules decisions are made by multiple people after long discussions with a variety of other people (In this case, you even know some of them). We're working on some kind of written guide to make it more clear how things get changed and who changes them. > My statement was more specifically referring to > future card banning and the desire to create more discussions here on > Usenet where a majority of players around the word come to learn and > discuss such issues. > > I guess the real question that needs to be asked is: > > What else is out there for consideration to be banned > (seasoned veteran VTES players) opinions matter to you and the VEKN? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jedi...@rebelscum.net wrote: > Where as I accept the banning of DU/KR as the better move for tourny > play, I do fear a *undiscussed* flood gate of banned cards opening. Why? Why do you fear this? This game has a 10 year history. We currently have, what, 9 banned cards? And the same lead designer and players/tournament organization chairman we have had for the last, like, 7? They are suddenly, out of nowhere, and go banning berzerk? Really. Everything these people have done for this game has been positive. Every single thing. Give them the benefit of the doubt and just see what happens before freaking out. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

In message <1102743485.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Jedi...@rebelscum.net mumbled something about: >LSJ wrote: > >>As has been addressed already, it had been cited as a problem by at >>least more than "no one". > >True, regarding DU/KR. My statement was more specifically referring to >future card banning and the desire to create more discussions here on >Usenet where a majority of players around the word come to learn and >discuss such issues. I disagree. A majority of the V:TES players around the world do not follow/read USENET, and it's entirely possible that a majority of such players don't even know that USENET exists. That might be a stretch, but I am 100% certain that the first part is true. While the USENET discussion sometimes accurately mirrors the worldwide opinion, there are a number of instances where it doesn't; for example, the PTO threads. It seems likely that most players (speaking worldview here, not most players who read RGTCJ) don't actually care about the card one way or the other, because they don't get hit with it enough for it to register on their radar. Those people, of course, have no strong opinion and so their view tends to get lost in the chaos surrounding the anti- and pro- views... even if they read here and bother to post it in the first place, which they probably won't because, you guessed it, they have no strong opinion. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Jedi...@rebelscum.net wrote: >> Where as I accept the banning of DU/KR as the better move for tourny >> play, I do fear a *undiscussed* flood gate of banned cards opening. > > Why? Why do you fear this? > > This game has a 10 year history. We currently have, what, 9 banned > cards? And the same lead designer and players/tournament organization > chairman we have had for the last, like, 7? They are suddenly, out of > nowhere, and go banning berzerk? > > Really. Everything these people have done for this game has been > positive. Every single thing. Give them the benefit of the doubt and > just see what happens before freaking out. Conceptually, I'd agree with you. Some of the concretes could have used work. :) > Peter D Bakija > pd...@lightlink.com > http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 > > "How does this end?" > "In fire." > Emperor Turhan and Kosh Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "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

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 09:10:33 -0800, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Really. Everything these people have done for this game has been >> positive. Every single thing. Give them the benefit of the doubt and >> just see what happens before freaking out. > > Conceptually, I'd agree with you. Some of the concretes could have used > work. :) There were some questionable aesthetic/art choices. Other than that, the system and card pool is as good as it gets. -- Bye, Daneel

Look, let me put it a simply as I can. I've seen enough info here to not be surprised that SC was banned. If PTO was on the list as well I could say the same. I may not post much here, but I read most pertinent Vtes info here, I'd say 90% of my Vtes info comes off Usenet. I was surprised when I heard DU/KR was banned. My question (that LSJ or VKEN has thus far not answered) is what other, if any, cards a being considered for banning? Do/did you know? Is it wrong to ask and discuss here? Should I be E-Mailing these questions to LSJ and the VKEN privately? If one does care and does have valid constructive input, where does one find ways to discuss it *before* the cards hit the band list? If this was ANY other CCG I'd just put my blinders on and walk into the sunset. But the thing I have always loved about this game is the depth in which the players were connected with the maintenance and input of the game, post WotC. Don't get me wrong here either, I'm the same guy that said because of LSJ, the VKEN and all the die hard supporters, that Vtes is the BEST it's ever been RIGHT NOW! Without a doubt. And I still believe that. Even though I agree with banning KR/DU I was shocked and I didn't see it coming. Something is wrong with that. I just wanted to express my opinion about it, as I saw others felt the same. Just like all other heated issues, this one will die too. In the mean time we'll all keep playing. ***JediMike***

Jedi...@rebelscum.net wrote: > My question (that LSJ or VKEN > has thus far not answered) is what other, if any, cards a being > considered for banning? All of them, for my part (I'll let Robert speak for himself). Everything is open to discussion. Banning being what it is, there is usually a more palatable option around (leave as-is being the best option for most cards, but you're free to argue otherwise about anything that strikes you). [ quoted text not captured ]

You must have superior THA. If that wasn't the playing of a Wind Dance ([THA] Strike : dodge with an additional strike: dodge.) I don't know what is. DU/KR would have struck me as worthy of discussion had players/I been advised that it was being banned. Perhaps you are thinking of *specific* cards (if any) that the VKEN and yourself may have in mind for future banning, and should not be brought up on the Usenet for many reasons. Reasons I'm sure I would understand. If such cards do exist, can I find this information out from the VKEN as well as yourself before future cards get banned? Can I then discuss this info with other players having full knowledge that the possibility of such *specific* cards are in consideration to be banned? (Assuming any exist)..........Ok.... the more I type the more I see how pointless it is for me to continue this discussion........ Just keep doing what you're doing.... it's a fine job! Somebody help me find my blinders and point me west! I'll just grab my Weighted Walking Stick and beat it out of Mr. Goudie! :) ***JediMike***

Jedi...@rebelscum.net wrote: > DU/KR would have struck me as worthy of discussion had players/I been > advised that it was being banned. There was clearly a lot of discussion about KR/DU being banned. Just not so much in this particular forum. > Perhaps you are thinking of > *specific* cards (if any) that the VKEN and yourself may have in mind > for future banning, and should not be brought up on the Usenet for many > reasons. I'm not seeing, myself, that many more cards being banned. SC, DU, and KR were all banned, notably, not 'cause they were too powerful, per-se, but because they were totally inappropriate for competetive play and there either wasn't errata to fix them (DU/KR) or any errata to fix them would have been substantial enough to very well just make a new card anyway (SC). PTO, for instance, doesn't fall under this particular situation, so is, for my money, unlikely to be banned (although I wouldn't count out some sort of errata, but that is just me being hopeful). The same goes, for, say, Anarch Revolt. All the cards that are banned, except for one (RTI) are banned not for being too powerful, but for just being inappropriate for competetive play. I suspect that any cards that get banned in the long run will fall under this umbrella. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 23:21:29 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > All the cards that are banned, except for one (RTI) are banned not for > being > too powerful, but for just being inappropriate for competetive play. I > suspect that any cards that get banned in the long run will fall under > this > umbrella. Ban PTO! It is inappropriate for tournaments I play in. ;P -- Bye, Daneel

Understood and agreed! It's just that KR/DU hit me out of left field. I mean DU was just reprinted in Black Hand, why would I think it would be banned? It might be too much to ask, I recognize, but as a community member it would be nice to hear about these drastic changes before they happen that's all. That said, I will continue (as I always have) to keep my faith in the good job the leaders in design and development for this game remain pursuant too. ***JediMike***

Jedi...@rebelscum.net wrote: > Perhaps you are thinking of > *specific* cards (if any) that the VKEN and yourself may have in mind > for future banning, If there was a card(s) in mind for future banning, we'd have just banned it already. No reason to wait, eh? So no, we have no specific cards in mind for future banning. However, as Scott said, we have all cards under watch. Not watched "for banning" but just watched for needing to be addressed in some fashion. Some cards are on the radar for possibly maybe needing to be addressed in some way (reading usenet for a few days would give you a great majority of the card names). Banning is just one way in which problem cards are addressed. As you can tell by the number of cards that have been addressed with migrated text, for example, vs. the number that have been banned, you'll see that very few cards that need addressing actually need banning. No reason to think that trend will change. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 12 Dec 2004 00:28:33 -0800, Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote: > Jedi...@rebelscum.net wrote: >> Perhaps you are thinking of >> *specific* cards (if any) that the VKEN and yourself may have in mind >> for future banning, > > Some cards are on the radar > for possibly maybe needing to be addressed in some way (reading usenet > for a few days would give you a great majority of the card names). I think JediMike refers to the "radar"'s watchlist as the "specific cards VEKN has in mind for future banning". Succubus Club has been complained about a lot on usenet, so getting it banned would be reinforcing the idea that the volume of usenet discussion is somehow proportional to the priority the card occupies on the VEKN radar. Yet KR and DU were cards which were complained much less about on this medium - in fact, there are pet peeves like PTO and AR that get complained about a _lot_, as opposed to a casual post on (say) seat switching. Meaning, for those who use the usenet as a primary information source and communication channel regarding this game it might seem that cards can get banned out of nowhere (meaning, without any serious discussion with their participation that allows them to formulate and disclose an opinion). -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > On 12 Dec 2004 00:28:33 -0800, Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote: > > > Jedi...@rebelscum.net wrote: > >> Perhaps you are thinking of > >> *specific* cards (if any) that the VKEN and yourself may have in mind > >> for future banning, > > > > Some cards are on the radar > > for possibly maybe needing to be addressed in some way (reading usenet > > for a few days would give you a great majority of the card names). > > I think JediMike refers to the "radar"'s watchlist as the "specific > cards VEKN has in mind for future banning". Right. As I said, there are no "specific cards in mind for future banning." > Succubus Club has been complained about a lot on usenet, so getting > it banned would be reinforcing the idea that the volume of usenet > discussion is somehow proportional to the priority the card occupies > on the VEKN radar. Right. Succubus Club had been on the radar for a while. The volume of usenet discussion is one way that a card gets on the radar. Cards don't, however, get "on the radar *for banning*". When a card needs to be addressed, all of the options are looked at...banning is just one of those options (and one that we rarely have to use). -Robert

The Above response was a reply to Peter's post above, not to Daneel. Sorry I don't support banning PTO. Most might not like my reason but I spend good money on Venture starters to obtain enough PTO's to build a couple of pretty good decks. Plus I'm just not a fan of banning cards period. (as if you couldn't tell) ***JediMike***

On 12 Dec 2004 09:08:40 -0800, Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote: >> > Some cards are on the radar >> > for possibly maybe needing to be addressed in some way (reading > usenet >> > for a few days would give you a great majority of the card names). >> >> I think JediMike refers to the "radar"'s watchlist as the "specific >> cards VEKN has in mind for future banning". > > Right. As I said, there are no "specific cards in mind for future > banning." Okay, I'll try to be less vague. What cards are currently on the radar, being _explicitly_ watched for possible alterations? We know all cards are being watched, and none are being currently considered for future banning, but that still leaves the: "Some cards are on the radar for possibly maybe needing to be addressed in some way..." part. I think this is the right question. -- Bye, Daneel

In message <1102884840.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Jedi...@rebelscum.net writes: >The Above response was a reply to Peter's post above, not to Daneel. You would probably do well to include relevant text from the posts which you are replying to, so that people don't confuse to whom you are replying e.g. Peter's post vs Daneel's. This is particularly problematic when posts are things like "I agree!" and "I disagree!" If you are using the (hideous) beta version of Google Groups, you may find that viewing the "Original Version" shows you what those of us not using Google see - with quotes, attributions and interleaved text so that everyone can see what people are talking about. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

James Coupe wrote: > If you are using the (hideous) beta version of Google Groups, People keep complaing about Google Groups 2. What arepeople complaing about--it seems reasonably useable from my experience. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jedi...@rebelscum.net wrote: > The Above response was a reply to Peter's post above, not to Daneel. It is usually a good idea to quote the relevant text you are replying to, if for no other reason than it avoids confusion. Not all newsreaders thread things the same way, so you can't rely on the position of your message to indicate who you were replying to. Some newsreaders will quote for you, but if you can't get that to work, you can just cut and paste, and use >> marks to indicate the start and end of quoted text. For instance: >>The Above response was a reply to Peter's post above, not to Daneel. Sorry I don't support banning PTO. Most might not like my reason but I spend good money on Venture starters to obtain enough PTO's to build a couple of pretty good decks. Plus I'm just not a fan of banning cards period.>> [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Some newsreaders will quote for you, but if you can't get that to work, you > can just cut and paste, and use >> marks to indicate the start and end of > quoted text. For instance: > >>>The Above response was a reply to Peter's post above, not to Daneel. > > Sorry I don't support banning PTO. Most might not like my reason but I > spend good money on Venture starters to obtain enough PTO's to build a > couple of pretty good decks. Plus I'm just not a fan of banning cards > period.>> That's probably not a good idea -- most newsreaders will treat each '>' as a new level of quoting, and the lines without as new material. If you need to manually quote, the best way is to put a single quote at the beginning of each line: > The Above response was a reply to Peter's post above, not to Daneel. > > Sorry I don't support banning PTO. Most might not like my reason but I > spend good money on Venture starters to obtain enough PTO's to build a > couple of pretty good decks. Plus I'm just not a fan of banning cards > period. If that's too much work, then use some other method that avoids using the USENET standards in non-standard ways, like phpbb-style: [quote]The Above response was a reply to Peter's post above, not to Daneel. Sorry I don't support banning PTO. Most might not like my reason but I spend good money on Venture starters to obtain enough PTO's to build a couple of pretty good decks. Plus I'm just not a fan of banning cards period.[/quote] or simple blocking: ---BEGIN QUOTE--- The Above response was a reply to Peter's post above, not to Daneel. Sorry I don't support banning PTO. Most might not like my reason but I spend good money on Venture starters to obtain enough PTO's to build a couple of pretty good decks. Plus I'm just not a fan of banning cards period. ---END QUOTE--- [ quoted text not captured ]

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsiuuav...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] ...Are you sure that the aesthetic/art choices all fell on the Design Team? I _know_ that Goudie is off the hook for matters of card layout. They have effectively nothing to do with VEKN. LSJ's original title was Rulemonger... His role seems to fall along the lines of supervising "the Rules" and "What the New Cards Do". I don't think he made those layout calls, either. You may not be implying it, but your post read like that was your thought. DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:43:45 GMT, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: >> There were some questionable aesthetic/art choices. Other than that, the >> system >> and card pool is as good as it gets. > > ...Are you sure that the aesthetic/art choices all fell on the Design > Team? My post replied to a series of posts that contained the following reference: > This game has a 10 year history. We currently have, what, 9 banned cards? > And the same lead designer and players/tournament organization chairman > we > have had for the last, like, 7? They are suddenly, out of nowhere, and go > banning berzerk? ...from Peter D Bakija. It kind of implied a more general sense to me (about the "WW boyz") instead of referring strictly to the rules team (but also design and other issues). Maybe it was not Peter's intention, but I still understood it that way. Also, I don't know who exactly makes what decision. Yet I tend to get the feeling that the VTES department isn't big enough to get lost in. I don't really think someone pushed this through without asking LSJ, Goudie, etc. about it. Not that it would matter now anyway... -- Bye, Daneel

LSJ Wrote: >>That's probably not a good idea -- most newsreaders will treat each '>' as a new level of quoting, and the lines without as new material.>> Huh. I haven't noticed a difference, generally, and I've used that system occasionally in various newsreaders and Google Groups. I'll see how the quote above looks when I post this... -Peter

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1102960528....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Maybe "most" isn't appropriate there -- I certainly don't have data for that. FWIW: it looks as intended on Outlook Express, but looks like extra levels of quoting on Netscape. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:26:55 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message > news:1102960528....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> LSJ Wrote: >> >>That's probably not a good idea -- most newsreaders will treat each >> '>' >> as a new level of quoting, and the lines without as new material.>> >> >> Huh. I haven't noticed a difference, generally, and I've used that >> system occasionally in various newsreaders and Google Groups. I'll see >> how the quote above looks when I post this... > > Maybe "most" isn't appropriate there -- I certainly don't have data for > that. FWIW: it looks as intended on Outlook Express, but looks like > extra levels of quoting on Netscape. Doesn't look too good on Opera either. -- Bye, Daneel

LSJ wrote: > Maybe "most" isn't appropriate there -- I certainly don't have data for > that. FWIW: it looks as intended on Outlook Express, but looks like > extra levels of quoting on Netscape. Yeah, that is what I'm seeing here, too--all the text based newsreaders I have used (those being Outlook and Newswatcher), the >> kind of start and stop works ok. In those new-fangled web based interfaces with, like, multi color quote coding and stuff, yeah, it might work out sketchily. [ quoted text not captured ]

Daneel wrote: > Doesn't look too good on Opera either. Just so I know, what does this look like on Opera (a newsreader program?): >>Maybe "most" isn't appropriate there -- I certainly don't have data for that. FWIW: it looks as intended on Outlook Express, but looks like extra levels of quoting on Netscape.>> Thanks, [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:34:08 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: > >> Doesn't look too good on Opera either. > > Just so I know, what does this look like on Opera (a newsreader > program?): Opera is just a web browser with e-mail and newsreader integrated. It replaces "regular" mail quoting (lines starting with ">"s) with color bars in display. It understands embedded quotes (multiple line starting ">"s). It fails to comprehend any other quotation method, as far as my experience seems to indicate. It looks like plain text - probably kind of like how it was written. (?) But I'm not your average computer guru, so maybe my perception of Opera's limits does not match its true limits... ;) -- Bye, Daneel

In message <BDE2340A.1BB81%pd...@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> If you are using the (hideous) beta version of Google Groups, > >People keep complaing about Google Groups 2. What arepeople complaing >about--it seems reasonably useable from my experience. My main problems with it are: - it's harder to reference specific articles for e.g. ruling citations - the removal of quoted text makes it hard to follow conversations - it's trying to turn it into a web forum, where there is merely a continuous stream of posts. The threaded nature of Usenet makes it *very* different from web forums. This is not a "better" or "worse" comparison. However, people will tend to use one or the other for their own reasons. I'd rather not have Usenet become an extended web board because people using it have no idea that it's even slightly different. There are also a few less relevant, more personal taste issues - I don't like some of the interface changes, for example. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > - it's harder to reference specific articles for e.g. ruling citations Huh. That I have no idea about. > > - the removal of quoted text makes it hard to follow conversations It only does that if there is a lot of quoted text, as far as I can tell--if you edit down to relevant text that you are quoting, it doesn't seem to remove it. So in effect, it is encouraging you to follow good procedure :-) > > - it's trying to turn it into a web forum, where there is merely a > continuous stream of posts. The threaded nature of Usenet makes it > *very* different from web forums. As far as my experience goes, you have the option of either viewing Google Groups 2 as a random list of posts or threaded--when you pick threaded, you simply get a list of topics, and when you click on the topic, you get a nice heirarchical list of posts. Like, at home, I use my Outlook Express newsreader, but when I'm goofing off at work, I used to use Google Groups, but recently have switched to the 2 beta version, which I have found to be much better than the original, as stuff shows up faster, and I can read the group in threaded topics with the most active topics at the top. > This is not a "better" or "worse" > comparison. However, people will tend to use one or the other for > their own reasons. I'd rather not have Usenet become an extended web > board because people using it have no idea that it's even slightly > different. Oh, I agree, personally, but as far as I can tell, the Google Groups 2 Beta, or whatever, works just like, well, the old Google Groups, as long as you set it the way you want it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <opsiyum6...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >It replaces "regular" mail quoting (lines starting with ">"s) with >color bars in display. It understands embedded quotes (multiple >line starting ">"s). It fails to comprehend any other quotation >method, as far as my experience seems to indicate. Some news-readers also comprehend a few other starting characters e.g. starting a line with #, which some people use. ">" is the notional standard, in so far as there is one, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <BDE366F0.1BBCD%pd...@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >Just so I know, what does this look like on Opera (a newsreader >program?): On my (minority) newsreader, I get (snipping off the right hand side): Looks like quoted text - >>Maybe "most" isn't appropriate there Looks normal - FWIW: it looks as intended on Outlook levels Looks normal - of quoting on Netscape.>> In my case, that means that the quoted text looks purple. I can - if I want - configure it so that different levels of quotes are in different colours. The first line would then be at the two levels of quotes colour. A number of Unix news-readers do similar sorts of things. Outlook Express doing things like breaking quoted text by wrapping it, so that it ends up with > on some lines, and not on others, also buggers up such features, which is an arse. e.g. All of the following *should* be at two > level: >> A really long line at level two, which goes round and round and round > and wraps. >> So that it breaks the quoting, and makes it look like two different > people >> said the interleaving lines. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

James Coupe wrote: > On my (minority) newsreader, I get (snipping off the right hand side): > > Looks like quoted text - >>Maybe "most" isn't appropriate there > Looks normal - FWIW: it looks as intended on Outlook levels > Looks normal - of quoting on Netscape.>> > > > In my case, that means that the quoted text looks purple. I can - if I > want - configure it so that different levels of quotes are in different > colours. The first line would then be at the two levels of quotes > colour. A number of Unix news-readers do similar sorts of things. That's weird. On Outlook, it looks perfectly normal, and on newswathcer it looked perfectly normal (i.e. it just looks like, ya know, text). In Google Groups, it usually looks pretty normal as well. > > > Outlook Express doing things like breaking quoted text by wrapping it, > so that it ends up with > on some lines, and not on others, also buggers > up such features, which is an arse. e.g. I found that when I try to quote mannually by placing karats at the start of each line (as if it was autoquoted), that is where I would run into wrapping problems (which is why I just went with the start/end karats when necessary). Kooky. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:01:19 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled: >I found that when I try to quote mannually by placing karats at the start of >each line (as if it was autoquoted), that is where I would run into wrapping >problems (which is why I just went with the start/end karats when >necessary). > >Kooky. you might like to try > at the start of each line _plus_ a carriage return in front of it, so it _is_ a new line. i have found that to be mildy useful in the past. although a major pain in the bum to do for long quotes. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

Emmit Svenson wrote: > You can still quote in a reply. Instead of hitting "Reply" at the > bottom of a posting, click "Show Options" at the top, then click > "Reply" in the message header that appears. Quoted text from the > original will then be inserted in the reply. You can also just highlight all the text, hit "reply", and all the text shows up with ">" next to each line, and you can then just edit as necessary. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > My main problems with [new Google groups includes]... > - the removal of quoted text makes it hard to follow conversations [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Outlook Express doing things like breaking quoted text by wrapping it, > > so that it ends up with > on some lines, and not on others, also buggers > > up such features, which is an arse. e.g. > > I found that when I try to quote mannually by placing karats at the start of > each line (as if it was autoquoted), that is where I would run into wrapping > problems (which is why I just went with the start/end karats when > necessary). > See, I just use pine. Karat everything and then control-J to get it to wrap right.