Crusade

Holy Cow Corrupter, I dont think I've seen a message from you yet that doesnt mention your tournament rules or NL/GT. Now I agree that Weeny Vote Decks are a real problem, and that they do force the whole table to gang up on the offending player, but in my opinion that's the game. I think that the DCI tournament rules (before they caved to pressure from this group) was a reasonable answer to this problem. After all the easiest way to take care of a problem with a CCG is to limit overpowered cards (Legends of the 5 rings is a good example of this.). Weeny vote decks are not unbeatable as you seem to suggest, though difficult not unbeatable. I can think of a few viable answers to WVD/P, but I think that your GT's are similar to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Also, I cant really agree that fortitude loops are infinate, and I would really like to see a deck design that will consistantly pull of this infinate loop that you keep outlining in your posts. Please dont take this as a flame, since it's not intended as such. I respect your views on this subject, but I simply dont agree that it's a situation that reguires a whole restructuring of the rules. Laters...Jason

Jason Burke (jbu...@weldnet.com) wrote: > Holy Cow Corrupter, > > I dont think I've seen a message from you yet that doesnt mention > your tournament rules or NL/GT. Now I agree that Weeny Vote Decks are a Yeah, Adrian does seem to be on a rant about that sometimes, doesn't he? Oh, well, its all in a good cause. > real problem, and that they do force the whole table to gang up on the > offending player, but in my opinion that's the game. I think that the > DCI tournament rules (before they caved to pressure from this group) was > a reasonable answer to this problem. After all the easiest way to take > care of a problem with a CCG is to limit overpowered cards (Legends of > the 5 rings is a good example of this.). Weeny vote decks are not The DCI tournament rules before pressure? Do you mean the 2-card limit on untaps and offensive votes? The ones that "fixed" WVP and Freaky Bleed by crippling _all_ vote decks and _all_ untap/Majestic defense decks? The second DCI rules (6 card limit on offensive votes and untaps) allows reasonable vote strategies, but doesn't prevent WVP/Blood Gain. If I have a Weenie deck packed with Cons. Boons and Autarkis Persecutions, who do you think is going to win in the end: You, who get 3-5 pool for over Autarkis Persecution that passes, or me, who gets 10-15 pool? I'll give you a hint- you can't bleed me fast enough. As far as the Lo5R analogy goes- Lo5R was designed with a 3 card limit in mind. Jyhad was not. This makes a difference. (For reference, see Curt Adam's (and others) articles on the 4 card limit for Jyhad. These articles can be found at: http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/ Clever of me to archive them after the last time we had this discussion, eh? ) > unbeatable as you seem to suggest, though difficult not unbeatable. I > can think of a few viable answers to WVD/P, but I think that your GT's > are similar to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Also, I cant Trust us: if GT were even close to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, then card limits would be shooting the babyand tossing the corpse out while distilling all the blood and dirt out of the bathwater and storing it on your mantlepiece. (Ooh, yuck). > really agree that fortitude loops are infinate, and I would really like > to see a deck design that will consistantly pull of this infinate loop I'll see if I can pull one together. If so, I'll post it and try it out in Jyhad On-line. -Mark Langsdorf http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad

On Sun, 11 Aug 1996, Jason Burke wrote: > I dont think I've seen a message from you yet that doesnt mention > your tournament rules or NL/GT. Well, at least you've noticed them then... :) (As a slight defense, there are quite a few, but with two threads going on regarding WVP and Repeat Actions, NL/GT are going to come up a lot, and with it, SPTR) >Now I agree that Weeny Vote Decks are a > real problem, and that they do force the whole table to gang up on the > offending player, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Note this point... > but in my opinion that's the game. That may be the current game state, but that doesn't make it right. Why should one or two strategies out of a near infinite set cause this problem, and no others? One of my definitions of "degeneracy" is that if a deck causes a _consistent_ change in the prey/predator relationship (i.e, the table needs to deal with it or else), that is a problem. Certainly, any deck can be in an excellent situation where the table needs to gang-attack it, but if this is a consistent factor, something is wrong. > I think that the > DCI tournament rules (before they caved to pressure from this group) was > a reasonable answer to this problem. After all the easiest way to take > care of a problem with a CCG is to limit overpowered cards (Legends of > the 5 rings is a good example of this.). Due note, however, that DCI does not do anything to solve WVP. > Weeny vote decks are not > unbeatable as you seem to suggest, though difficult not unbeatable. I have never claimed that they are undeatable. I do claim that they will win a disproportionate amount of games, with minimal thought, minimal skill, and minimal deck construction effort. I do claim WVP virtually requires an odd environment (everyone playing intercept, for example ;) or that decks are tailored to beat it. Once we get into Magic style strategy (The How do I beat Necro? How do I beat Willowgeddon? style deck construction) and away from how do I defend against the basics, I think this is a loss to the game. In NL/GT, one can make any deck with only one real consideration for defense that must be made: how do I stop the basic strategies (bleed/vote/combat). > I > can think of a few viable answers to WVD/P, but I think that your GT's > are similar to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'm sure many would agree with you. As it stands however, there are few alternatives: Vote Pushing Alternate Solutions (instead of only 1 PA per PA): - Percent Restriction (Adds a number of problems, but holds back WVP) - 2CL on damaging votes (look, even 4CL doesn't stop WVP) - Do nothing (live in a broken environment) No Repeat Action Alternate Solutions (only attempt once...): - No repeat of specific action (basicly the same thing) - No repeat of a successful action (allows Majestic bleed problems) - Add more to the restricted list, lower the Restricted CL to 4 or 5 (problems that have already been gotten into, what about non-degenerate uses of those cards) Are those much better? > Also, I cant > really agree that fortitude loops are infinate, and I would really like > to see a deck design that will consistantly pull of this infinate loop > that you keep outlining in your posts. Try playing one of them. I can resend it to you. > Please dont take this as a flame, > since it's not intended as such. I respect your views on this subject, > but I simply dont agree that it's a situation that reguires a whole > restructuring of the rules. I don't take it as a flame... As it says in my .sig, Comments? Differences of opinion are a good thing, it causes discussion. Various discussions on Jyhad have shifted me from a XCL to a 10%CL to NL to NL/GT player. I have seen many people make the transition with me. In other subjects, the same thing happens. If I am right (which of course, we all think we are :), hopefully I can change some opinions. If not, hopefully someone will convince me. It won't be the first time. @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?

Mark Langsdorf wrote: > Yeah, Adrian does seem to be on a rant about that sometimes, > doesn't he? Oh, well, its all in a good cause. Chuckle... > The DCI tournament rules before pressure? Do you mean the 2-card > limit on untaps and offensive votes? The ones that "fixed" WVP and Freaky > Bleed by crippling _all_ vote decks and _all_ untap/Majestic defense > decks? I guess I dont think that much of vote decks and Majesty decks, which isnt hard to understand since I've never played one (not yet atleast.). The funny thing is that I knew someone was going to bring this point up. I'm not sure that I totaly agree that vote decks are totaly crippled under the 2CL on restricted cards, but im not prepared to argue this point just yet, ill work on a vote deck under the 2CL limit and see how it plays. Maybe ill be more prepared to uphold this viewpoint after a little testing. > The second DCI rules (6 card limit on offensive votes and untaps) > allows reasonable vote strategies, but doesn't prevent WVP/Blood Gain. If > I have a Weenie deck packed with Cons. Boons and Autarkis Persecutions, > who do you think is going to win in the end: You, who get 3-5 pool for > over Autarkis Persecution that passes, or me, who gets 10-15 pool? I'll > give you a hint- you can't bleed me fast enough. > As far as the Lo5R analogy goes- Lo5R was designed with a 3 card > limit in mind. Jyhad was not. This makes a difference. (For reference, > see Curt Adam's (and others) articles on the 4 card limit for Jyhad. The analogy was made to simply support the the difference between changing the rules and just restricting cards. True there is a big difference between the two games, but the motivation behind restricting cards is very similar, Lo5R just made a conscious effort to avoid problems from the start. > These articles can be found at: > http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/ > Clever of me to archive them after the last time we had this discussion, > eh? ) Chuckle.. > Trust us: if GT were even close to throwing the baby out with the > bathwater, then card limits would be shooting the babyand tossing the > corpse out while distilling all the blood and dirt out of the bathwater and > storing it on your mantlepiece. (Ooh, yuck). Personally I dont agree with either (CL or GT), but I agree less with GT simply because I find rules addendum to be very annoying (just a person quirk I guess. I find house rules to be even more annoying. =). My last play group didnt play with any limits, but somehow no one in the group ever tried or wanted to play a weeny vote deck, though the use of majesties was pretty heavy. > I'll see if I can pull one together. If so, I'll post it and try > it out in Jyhad On-line. > > -Mark Langsdorf > http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad Cool, sounds good...Jason

The Corrupter wrote: > Well, at least you've noticed them then... :) > (As a slight defense, there are quite a few, but with two threads going > on regarding WVP and Repeat Actions, NL/GT are going to come up a lot, > and with it, SPTR) Chuckle... > >Now I agree that Weeny Vote Decks are a > > real problem, and that they do force the whole table to gang up on the > > offending player, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Note this point... > > > but in my opinion that's the game. > > That may be the current game state, but that doesn't make it right. Well one could argue that this doesnt make it wrong either. It's my opinion that WVD/P are a social problem and not a mechanical one. The only environment where this isnt necessarly true is durring tournaments. For regular game play people should make their decks anyway they want, and not be subject to CL's (which are silly, IMO, for friendly play). Unfortunately the new play group that im in (I recently moved), plays with the first version of the tournament rules (2CL on restricted, and 6CL on everything else.). I really dislike the situation, and it's easy to take advantage of these rules to make the most of out combat/rush decks (a strategy I use often). > Why should one or two strategies out of a near infinite set cause this > problem, and no others? One of my definitions of "degeneracy" is that if > a deck causes a _consistent_ change in the prey/predator relationship > (i.e, the table needs to deal with it or else), that is a problem. > Certainly, any deck can be in an excellent situation where the table > needs to gang-attack it, but if this is a consistent factor, something is > wrong. I've read your definition, and I dont disagree with them, but I personally dont see degenracy as a problem. It doesnt bother me to get beat by a WVD, I answer this problem with a deck that's designed to really pound it into the ground (easy to do in my opinion, though it might not win you the game it would be a moral victory). After a while of this most people will change their deck, this worked in my old group where we played with NL and no GT. > Due note, however, that DCI does not do anything to solve WVP. Not anymore, but it did at first. > I have never claimed that they are undeatable. I do claim that they will > win a disproportionate amount of games, with minimal thought, minimal > skill, and minimal deck construction effort. I do claim WVP virtually > requires an odd environment (everyone playing intercept, for example ;) > or that decks are tailored to beat it. Once we get into Magic style > strategy (The How do I beat Necro? How do I beat Willowgeddon? style > deck construction) and away from how do I defend against the basics, I > think this is a loss to the game. In NL/GT, one can make any deck with > only one real consideration for defense that must be made: how do I stop > the basic strategies (bleed/vote/combat). Herein lies the arguement between us, I dont see "Magic Style strategy" as a problem, in fact the social mechanics inherit in this strategy is inherit in all CCG's. It's a part of CCG's that I truely love (It's what keeps me playing them, instead of Necromunda. =). Though I think that no matter what degenerate decks come into play, eventualy everyone gets back to the basics. > I'm sure many would agree with you. As it stands however, there are few > alternatives: Really, I kinda feel like the minority on this subject. I hear more from the people who agree with GT, then from the others. > > Vote Pushing Alternate Solutions (instead of only 1 PA per PA): > - Percent Restriction (Adds a number of problems, but holds back WVP) > - 2CL on damaging votes (look, even 4CL doesn't stop WVP) > - Do nothing (live in a broken environment) Personally I like the last alternative. Though if there had to be a rules change I would rather see Vote Pushing changed then GT implimented. Vote pushing is degenerate to begin with since it allows advantages that arent afforded to other deck designs, hand cycling to be specific. But this is a different argument. (I kinda thought that the tap to push a vote was one of the best alternative.) > @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ > # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* > @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) > @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+? Gotta run...The Wife is yelling for me to get offline. Laters...Jason

Jason Burke <jbu...@weldnet.com> writes: >Mark Langsdorf wrote: >> The DCI tournament rules before pressure? Do you mean the 2-card >> limit on untaps and offensive votes? The ones that "fixed" WVP and Freaky >> Bleed by crippling _all_ vote decks and _all_ untap/Majestic defense >> decks? >I guess I dont think that much of vote decks and Majesty decks, which isnt >hard to understand since I've never played one (not yet atleast.). The >funny thing is that I knew someone was going to bring this point up. I'm >not sure that I totaly agree that vote decks are totaly crippled under the >2CL on restricted cards, but im not prepared to argue this point just yet, >ill work on a vote deck under the 2CL limit and see how it plays. Maybe ill >be more prepared to uphold this viewpoint after a little testing. Not to take the wind out of your sails, but if the DCI "fixes" one of their own rules (e.g., changing the 2-card restricted list to a 6-card), then that rule must have really been broken. The DCI is even less apt to overturn a rule than the RT. If they say it's broken, believe them. (This doesn't apply to the DCI's "fixes" of normal rules (like deck construction) - if they fix on of those, it's most likely just a MtG-style reflex). >Personally I dont agree with either (CL or GT), but I agree less with GT >simply because I find rules addendum to be very annoying (just a person quirk >I guess. I find house rules to be even more annoying. =). My last play group >didnt play with any limits, but somehow no one in the group ever tried or wanted >to play a weeny vote deck, though the use of majesties was pretty heavy. Then how do you feel about Cross Table Bleeds (a rules addendum to both Jyhad and V:tES)? Card Limits are no less of a rules addendum than GT. The rules state how decks are constructed and how actions are taken. Changing either of these is a change in the rules. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Ensign Crusher, check that http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | leaky warp core please. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

The Corrupter wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Aug 1996, Jason Burke wrote: > > > I dont think I've seen a message from you yet that doesnt mention > > your tournament rules or NL/GT. > > Well, at least you've noticed them then... :) > (As a slight defense, there are quite a few, but with two threads going > on regarding WVP and Repeat Actions, NL/GT are going to come up a lot, > and with it, SPTR) Also, to add to the Corrupter's defense, the SPTR are technically not the Corrupter's rules. The rules are owned by the players. Even though Adrian is the keeper of them, he has said before that he'd make changes the people wanted even if he didn't agree. Robert ...................................................................... :The opinions expressed here are strictly my own delusional ramblings: :and do not reflect the opinions of The Walt Disney Company. : : : :Robert Goudie robert...@studio.disney.com: :....................................................................: :cigars * v:tes * car rallies * scotch * sega rally champion * spoon : :....................................................................:

Jason Burke <jbu...@weldnet.com> writes: >group that im in (I recently moved), plays with the first version of the >tournament rules (2CL on restricted, and 6CL on everything else.). I really The official tournament rules have never, TTBOMK, had a global limit on the number of copies of a card in a player's deck. They went from a 2CL on the restricted cards to a 6CL on the restricted cards, that's all. [ quoted text not captured ]

I've seen a large amount of commentary on this. I do agree with the idea that one should not have to tailor one's decks to a specific deck type. However, with that said, has anyone else had success with Elder Kindred Network + Kindred Coercion? Both are faintly useful in their own right, but the combination has been quite amusing when there are multiple Caitiff princes. Adios, Morgan

[ quoted text not captured ] Just had to say that that combo kicked my butt for about 12 pool once!!! OUCH!!!!!!!! [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Jason Burke wrote: > Personally I dont agree with either (CL or GT), but I agree less with GT > simply because I find rules addendum to be very annoying (just a person quirk > I guess. I find house rules to be even more annoying. =). My last play group > didnt play with any limits, but somehow no one in the group ever tried or wanted > to play a weeny vote deck, though the use of majesties was pretty heavy. If no one tries to abuse the game NL without GT should work fine. But if people attempt to push the envelope, current NL-Jyhad breaks done. I personally like NL/GT becomes it breaks these abuses down into something viable and non-degenerate, but still makes them useful enough to play. C'est la vie. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Jason Burke wrote: > The Corrupter wrote: [>>Jason Burke wrote:] > > >Now I agree that Weeny Vote Decks are a > > > real problem, and that they do force the whole table to gang up on the > > > offending player, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [...] > > That may be the current game state, but that doesn't make it right. [...] > Well one could argue that this doesnt make it wrong either. It's my opinion > that WVD/P are a social problem and not a mechanical one. I have heard this arguement at conventions many times. The next sentence I hear is usually the one you give below: > The only environment where this isnt necessarly true is durring tournaments. > For regular game play people should make their decks anyway they want, > and not be subject to CL's (which are silly, IMO, for friendly play). The idea of the "social problem" is that people playing in friendly groups just shouldn't make those big, bad mean decks, after all, they aren't friendly. People that make them for friendly play just shouldn't, and if they do, they have a problem. The whole idea above is ludicrous. In NL/GT, no one is going to ask you to play a deck because it is "too tough". No one is going to be miffed if you play S&B because it is "unfair" (though they might be bored by the game. S&B is notoriously unexciting, whether winning or losing). You can play, fully confident in the idea that your deck, however good or bad, can be played in a "friendly" environment. WVP, if/when played, can be viable in NL/GT, but it hardly makes the table gang up on it. No such deck exists (or at least no one has stepped forward in all the time I have had my challenge issued. Remember, $50 to (the first) someone who can come up with a degenerate NL/GT deck.) > Unfortunately the new play group that im in (I recently moved), plays > with the first version of the tournament rules (2CL on restricted, and > 6CL on everything else.). <Quibble> There has never been a set of tourneyment rules that you describe.</Quibble> [nsip] > > Why should one or two strategies out of a near infinite set cause this > > problem, and no others? One of my definitions of "degeneracy" is that if > > a deck causes a _consistent_ change in the prey/predator relationship > > (i.e, the table needs to deal with it or else), that is a problem. > > Certainly, any deck can be in an excellent situation where the table > > needs to gang-attack it, but if this is a consistent factor, something is > > wrong. > I've read your definition, and I dont disagree with them, but I personally > dont see degenracy as a problem. It doesnt bother me to get beat by a WVD, > I answer this problem with a deck that's designed to really pound it into > the ground (easy to do in my opinion, though it might not win you the game > it would be a moral victory). After a while of this most people will change > their deck, this worked in my old group where we played with NL and no GT. There is a definate problem here. You were being beaten by WVP, and so in answer, you pulled out your anti-WVP deck and (of course) slaughtered the WVPer. Playing certain decks to beat other decks to make them play something else is not really all that fun, though it does (eventually) cause a change in the deck they play (and thus increase fun), the idea that this problem even springs up is bad. Under NL/GT, you don't have to hope someone is playing a degenerate deck. > > Due note, however, that DCI does not do anything to solve WVP. > Not anymore, but it did at first. With a TWO-card limit on damage votes. Great fix. :p > > I have never claimed that they are undeatable. I do claim that they will > > win a disproportionate amount of games, with minimal thought, minimal > > skill, and minimal deck construction effort. I do claim WVP virtually > > requires an odd environment (everyone playing intercept, for example ;) > > or that decks are tailored to beat it. Once we get into Magic style > > strategy (The How do I beat Necro? How do I beat Willowgeddon? style > > deck construction) and away from how do I defend against the basics, I > > think this is a loss to the game. In NL/GT, one can make any deck with > > only one real consideration for defense that must be made: how do I stop > > the basic strategies (bleed/vote/combat). > Herein lies the arguement between us, I dont see "Magic Style strategy" as > a problem, in fact the social mechanics inherit in this strategy is inherit > in all CCG's. Propblem: When a game requires people not play with certain aspects of it (WVP, for example) because playing that way breaks the game balance, that is Bad. This is akin to saying in chess, "Oh, you can do whatever you want, but we'd really like it around here if you don't play Queen's Gambit, because that is too difficult to beat". If this were the case in chess, the game would no longer be played, because the game would be obviously flawed and limited (respond to Queen's Gambit only). Instead the rules set allows Chess to be an excellent game, where any opening/response that is done is allowed, and no opening is disallowed in friendly play as "too powerful". The Golden Tenets house rules make the total Jyhad Rules set an even playing field (though, of course, certain card rulings might be cosmetically better, they aren't game breakers). > It's a part of CCG's that I truely love (It's what keeps me > playing them, instead of Necromunda. =). Though I think that no matter what > degenerate decks come into play, eventualy everyone gets back to the basics. Isn't it better to never have a degenerate deck? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 16 Aug 1996, Anise Sorghum wrote: > I've seen a large amount of commentary on this. I do agree with the > idea that one should not have to tailor one's decks to a specific deck > type. However, with that said, has anyone else had success with Elder > Kindred Network + Kindred Coercion? Both are faintly useful in their > own right, but the combination has been quite amusing when there are > multiple Caitiff princes. I was running one at a SPTR-Jyhad tournament. It was a Ventrue Reactionary vote deck, throwing out cards that allowed others to vote to destroy them (Elysium, Anarch Revolt, etc.) and cards to keep people other than my prey alive (Life Boon, Parity Shift, etc.). The best I was able to do was against a Weenie Vote Push prey, who I caused 11 (???) pool damage in turn 2. (He called a KRC which I allowed, and then called a Praxis Seizure with his 2nd of 3 vamps. My two vamps (Gideon and Violette) Dread Gazed and Surprise Influenced. I ousted him, though I didn't make it to the finals (the WVP did). As an aside, that tournament was relatively interesting (re: the WVP deck). The first game the WVPer was in, he swept the table in 20 (!!!) minutes. The next game, I ousted him rather quickly. I saw him later stalled out against someone's Brujah vote deck at another table. Apparently, in the finals, he only barely managed to get his first Praxis Seizure vote passed, in return for supporting the next 3 votes of a player acrossed the table. His prey (a run-away Sneaky Intercept deck (+1 to +2 stealth, +1 to +2 intercept, escape combat cards and light bleeds)), was holding down some of the damaging votes, but the WVP deck got killed acrossed the table by the guy who he promised to help (First vote, Dramatic Upheaval, 2nd two votes Conservative Agitation). Around here, deals are stuck by for fear of losing dealmaking ability in future games. A Good final game. The man who won (the Dramatic Upheavel deck) was playing a better version of my anti-vote deck (less focused on anti-votes, and more focused on forcing people to call the votes he wanted or else), and won by _withdrawing_. Again, a good final game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jason Burke <jbu...@weldnet.com> wrote: >The Corrupter wrote: >> I have never claimed that they are undeatable. I do claim that they will >> win a disproportionate amount of games, with minimal thought, minimal >> skill, and minimal deck construction effort. I do claim WVP virtually >> requires an odd environment (everyone playing intercept, for example ;) >> or that decks are tailored to beat it. Once we get into Magic style >> strategy (The How do I beat Necro? How do I beat Willowgeddon? style >> deck construction) and away from how do I defend against the basics, I >> think this is a loss to the game. In NL/GT, one can make any deck with >> only one real consideration for defense that must be made: how do I stop >> the basic strategies (bleed/vote/combat). >Herein lies the arguement between us, I dont see "Magic Style strategy" as >a problem, in fact the social mechanics inherit in this strategy is inherit >in all CCG's. It's a part of CCG's that I truely love (It's what keeps me >playing them, instead of Necromunda. =). Though I think that no matter what >degenerate decks come into play, eventualy everyone gets back to the basics. Well... having been an extremely good MtG player for a while now, and playing continually against one of the best (George Baxter), I have to say I personally think the MtG system sucks. Looking at a deck and saying... will this beat necro, will this beat white weenie, will this beat willowgeddon, will it beat howling bind... is bad. In Jyhad decks can be designed to deal with only the basic strategies, and not have to worry will it be Setite bleed or will it be Malk bleed. I can just worry about bleed decks. And as far as "Everyone getting back to the basics." Thats not true, in a tournament setting, which is (I believe) the main thing many of us are worried about. I want to see VTES tourneys as big as MtG ones (well at least before the protour), and I'd like to see the same for NetRunner. This isn't going to happen with there are decks that will win too often. The only reason MtG hasn't been killed by the current near dominance of Necro is that fact that its so popular and people have spend so much money that they will not let it die. In a friendly setting, no one is going to play WVP to the extreme that it will happen in tourneys. There will be certain favorite decks that everyone will probably start to slant against, and that will affect design (I know it has for me), but in general people are just trying to have fun. Heck even after just playing WVP 2 times in my group, I still here comments to the effect of "I hope you're playing your WVP, I have my deck set up to kill that dead." Why are they still thinking about the 2 times I played it (and only did well once mind you) if it isn't a broken strategy. On the other hand, I've played Brujah combat at least 8 times, and no one has ever said something similar about that (and won 2 times I believe). >> >> Vote Pushing Alternate Solutions (instead of only 1 PA per PA): >> - Percent Restriction (Adds a number of problems, but holds back WVP) >> - 2CL on damaging votes (look, even 4CL doesn't stop WVP) >> - Do nothing (live in a broken environment) >Personally I like the last alternative. Though if there had to be a rules >change I would rather see Vote Pushing changed then GT implimented. Vote >pushing is degenerate to begin with since it allows advantages that arent >afforded to other deck designs, hand cycling to be specific. But this is >a different argument. (I kinda thought that the tap to push a vote was >one of the best alternative.) To me, fixing vote push would be a huge step in the right direction. I'm for no vote push, with or without GT wrapped around it. I think it solves one of the base problems with voting... the ability to cycle cards like crazy if needed. Another ok solution is you can only push with vote cards if you have to... as in already used all on the table votes (from vampires) and you are still going to lose the vote, push as much as needed to get ahead. Whoops... time to get back to woirk (on a Saturday no less... sheesh) Charles -- Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.

Charles T. Schwope wrote: <A whole lot snipped> << Another ok solution is you can only push with vote cards if you have to... as in already used all on the table votes (from vampires) and you are still going to lose the vote, push as much as needed to get ahead.>> Ok I'll admit this is taken out of context, but I really like the idea. I wonder why I never thought of this before. I do not like Golden Tenets. I've been playing them in JOL and they aren't bad, but there are times when I haven't been able to do whats best for my game because of no repeat actions. I have been playing with no house rules No Limits and No Problems for some time now so I don't see the need for GT. But since everyone seems so caught up in Vote Push as a card cycling method, why not try only pushing votes as much as is needed. You can't add intercept or stealth if you don't need it so why should you be able to add votes when they aren't needed. On the other hand, if the votes are needed I see no reason that they shouldn't be allowed to be pushed. This creates hand jams in VP decks like not intercepting a stealth deck creates hand jams of stealth cards. The stealth deck in GT is allowed to cycle stealth cards if it needs to beat intercept and should be allowed to since it put effort into making sure there would be stealth when it was needed, but by the same effect that vote deck has vote cards that it would have (as needed only)put effort to ensure that it is able to do what it is designed to. I am sure that most of the GT warriors out there have already thought of this in some form and dismissed it as insufficient, but hey if you can't push in politics why should you be able to push stealth everytime to get your malks seven bleeds through. In any case I still won't implement it unless it becomes official, and I doubt I will ever implement GT even if it does become official (there are just some rules I don't like--I still don't like the official ruling on Rostrecht, but I use it for consistency), but I guess I would have to start making house rules if GT became the official way. Bath water and babies and blood on the mantle and all that :) Anyway thanks for listening-- jon

Jonathan G. Sushinsky (su...@wam.umd.edu) wrote: : Charles T. Schwope wrote: : <A whole lot snipped> : << Another ok solution is you can only push : with vote cards if you have to... as in already used all on the table : votes (from vampires) and you are still going to lose the vote, push : as much as needed to get ahead.>> : This creates hand jams in VP decks like not intercepting a stealth deck creates : hand jams of stealth cards. The stealth deck in GT is allowed to cycle stealth : cards if it needs to beat intercept and should be allowed to since it put effort : into making sure there would be stealth when it was needed, but by the same effect : that vote deck has vote cards that it would have (as needed only)put effort to : ensure that it is able to do what it is designed to. Our group currently uses this fix on voting, and there are some good and bad sides to it. Yes, it does prevent a vote deck from card-cycling, but it brings up a whole other raft of problems... Several of the cards in the current card set are designed _specifically_ with the idea that they may pass or fail by a large number of votes; Elder Kindred Network is one, Voter Captivation is another. If the vote can only be pushes until it is exactly tied (in case of a failed vote) or winning by exactly one, then both of these cards lose much of their efficacy. Another problem is this: if a person has both titled vamps and vote cards in their hands, you _still_ cannot stop them from cycling. Example: Three other players at the table, no vote decks. Prey has out a prince and a primogen, another prince lies elsewhere at the table. Someone else has the Edge. I am playing a vote/bleed deck, and have out two princes. I throw down a KRC aimed at my prey, and the other guy with a prince. (my grand-prey). Between them, they see that they have enough votes to stop me, _if_ I do not have any further vote cards in my hand (and with a reasonably-made vote/bleed deck, it could happen). Possible votes against: 6. Visible votes for: 4 + vote card. Prey votes against me with primogen. I throw down a vote card. 2-1 for me. They still have enough to tie, including the edge... Prey votes with his prince too. I throw out two more vote cards. Vote is now 4-3 in my favour, but only three votes remain on the table in possible opposition, while my two princes still have not voted. Unless someone else can come up with at _least_ two hidden votes, I can't lose this. No further votes - vote passes. I just cycled three cards, and still had 4 votes left 'in reserve'. But wait! Say I _do_ have a Voter Captivation. Can I use my Princes to vote now? Or are they not allowed to voice an opinion on a vote that is already passing? Just to say that it is not _quite_ as simple as the original proposition would make it seem, and I'd be interested to hear how Mr. Schwope's group got around these problems. (Sadly, our group hasn't played much since three of us all got new jobs about 2 months ago...) Still using Nicole's account... Shane H.W. Travis | Alone, adj.: ro...@duke.usask.ca | In bad company. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

On Mon, 19 Aug 1996, Jonathan G. Sushinsky wrote: > Charles T. Schwope wrote: > <A whole lot snipped> > << Another ok solution is you can only push > with vote cards if you have to... as in already used all on the table > votes (from vampires) and you are still going to lose the vote, push > as much as needed to get ahead.>> This has been suggested before, works relatively well, but has the adverse affect of suddenly making WVP become a threat again... > Ok I'll admit this is taken out of context, but I really like the idea. > I wonder why I never thought of this before. It has. In my playtesting with a local playgroup, it made WVP just barely less viable than pure Jyhad (w/ pushing rules). > I do not like Golden Tenets. > I've been playing them in JOL and they aren't bad, but there are times when > I haven't been able to do whats best for my game because of no repeat > actions. I have been playing with no house rules No Limits and No Problems > for some time now so I don't see the need for GT. Likely because you haven't seen someone _try_ to break the spirit of the game through the rules. A game is flawed if it can be stretched like a NL non-GT game can. Repeat actions allow Freaky Bleed, Infinite Gangrel, and other problems. Vote Pushing allows WVP, unfair card cycling for voters, and makes vote decks in general have an easy time of passing votes (as compared to other decks having to work at their strategy more for a payoff). So far, no one has been able to break NL/GT. > But since everyone seems > so caught up in Vote Push as a card cycling method, why not try only pushing > votes as much as is needed. You can't add intercept or stealth if you don't > need it so why should you be able to add votes when they aren't > needed. On the other hand, if the votes are needed I see no reason > that they shouldn't be allowed to be pushed. It creates the WVP phenomena, albeit at only 95% as compared to 100% strength. > This creates hand jams in VP decks like not intercepting a stealth > deck creates hand jams of stealth cards. The stealth deck in GT is > allowed to cycle stealth cards if it needs to beat intercept and > should be allowed to since it put effort into making sure there would > be stealth when it was needed, but by the same effect that vote deck > has vote cards that it would have (as needed only)put effort to > ensure that it is able to do what it is designed to. This is totally untrue. A stealth card without anyone trying to intercept you is a dead card in your hand. It does, literally, nothing. An unpushed vote card can be used in the next action on its own merits. > I am sure that most of the GT warriors out there have already thought > of this in some form and dismissed it as insufficient, Yes. > but hey if you > can't push in politics why should you be able to push stealth everytime > to get your malks seven bleeds through. Different analogy altogether. Your statement (though I believe in just, or as an arguement ad absurdium) nullifies the entire stealth/intercept portion of the game. The stopping of vote pushing does nothing at all similar. > In any case I still won't implement it unless it becomes official, and > I doubt I will ever implement GT even if it does become official I hope you don't mind playing in an environment that can be broken as soon as someone decides they want to do it... > (there are just some rules I don't like--I still don't like the > official ruling on Rostrecht, but I use it for consistency), I don't like that ruling either. Our playgroup doesn't use it, unless someone runs a tourney. > but I guess I would have to start making house rules if GT > became the official way. Bath water and babies and blood on the > mantle and all that :) Its funny hearing the "baby and bathwater" analogy that's sprung up lately. Everyone that plays GT and finds themselves _occasionally_ not being able to do everything they want to uses the analogy, despite the fact that the overall strategy of their deck is almost not affected at all (In JOL6, one player had to wait a turn before recruiting another retainer. He did some other action in his deck instead) and that it completely curtails degeneracy. I guess I'd prefer playing in a non-degenerate setting to being able to occasionally bring out 2 Raven Spies in a turn, or bleed with the same minion twice. [ quoted text not captured ]

ro...@duke.usask.ca (Nicole Roy) wrote: >Jonathan G. Sushinsky (su...@wam.umd.edu) wrote: >: Charles T. Schwope wrote: >: <A whole lot snipped> >: << Another ok solution is you can only push >: with vote cards if you have to... as in already used all on the table >: votes (from vampires) and you are still going to lose the vote, push >: as much as needed to get ahead.>> >: This creates hand jams in VP decks like not intercepting a stealth deck creates >: hand jams of stealth cards. The stealth deck in GT is allowed to cycle stealth >: cards if it needs to beat intercept and should be allowed to since it put effort >: into making sure there would be stealth when it was needed, but by the same effect >: that vote deck has vote cards that it would have (as needed only)put effort to >: ensure that it is able to do what it is designed to. >Our group currently uses this fix on voting, and there are some good and >bad sides to it. Yes, it does prevent a vote deck from card-cycling, but >it brings up a whole other raft of problems... >Several of the cards in the current card set are designed _specifically_ >with the idea that they may pass or fail by a large number of votes; Elder >Kindred Network is one, Voter Captivation is another. If the vote can >only be pushes until it is exactly tied (in case of a failed vote) or >winning by exactly one, then both of these cards lose much of their >efficacy. I was writing my origional message on the fly. I've never played in a group which did any sort of fix on vote pushing. Which is probably why I can see its a problem... b/c it totally negates the need to make deals to pass anything political and makes voting extremely strong... [ quoted text not captured ] Well... like I said above.. never been in a group with any sort of fix. My invisioning of it was that you can't push without already using all vampire based votes (so you could use the edge or ventrue HQ to add on). And you can push with "permanent" based votes all you want... just no using cards from hand unless you are going to lose. It really isn't an ideal solution... but I'd rather make 3 or 4 cards mostly wall paper then make one strategy abusive (and I'm not sure they would be total wallpaper). Sadly, I haven't had time to play in... a month and a half now... pretty damn depressing. [ quoted text not captured ]