Since bloat helps increase deck diversity[*], that suggests that the transfer
rules shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted to uncontrolled minions.
To help this problem (i.e., to increase deck diversity), perhaps the transfer
rules could be rewritten to be more general:
Spend 1 transfer to move a counter from your pool either to a vampire you
control or a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
Spend 2 transfers to move a blood from either a vampire you control or a card in
your uncontrolled region to your pool.
[*] See the OtherThread
[ quoted text not captured ]
Moving the Blood Doll/Vessel effect to the influence phase and
removing the need for those cards in at least some decks.
I wouldn't object to it, but I would expect to see Information Highway
and Ingrid Rossler/Tarbaby Jack/Leandro much more frequently.
>[*] See the OtherThread
[ quoted text not captured ]
Something that could be done here is to make the amount of transfers
needed dependent on the capacity of the vampire (maybe only 1 transfer
for moving back blood if the vampire is 9+ or so).
On Aug 12, 8:24 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Since bloat helps increase deck diversity[*], that suggests that the transfer
> rules shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted to uncontrolled minions.
I did not follow the other thread too closely. I'm guessing is that
the idea is to supplement and improve the original intended function
of the transfer-back rule (that being to lessen the burden of
contesting), without either increasing or negating the currently-
existing bloat function.
> To help this problem (i.e., to increase deck diversity), perhaps the transfer
> rules could be rewritten to be more general:
>
> Spend 1 transfer to move a counter from your pool either to a vampire you
> control or a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.> Spend 2 transfers to move a blood from either a vampire you control or a card in
> your uncontrolled region to your pool.
I'm not sure this is worded right. Do the last 3 words of the first
sentence not belong?
Regarding transfers to controlled vampires: I think this would tend
lessen the restriction on weenie decks that arises from being limited
to 4 crypt cards in your opening draw. Combined with Embraces in your
library, 4 transfers could continue to get you 2 minions each round,
even after your uncontrolled region was empty.
Hope I have understood correctly.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think that making transfers cap-dependent while also keeping the
hidden crypt rule will have the potential for giant headaches
(particularly for undoing accidents, etc, etc sometimes nicknamed the
"Cheating Phase")... Keep the transfer system independent of
capacity, it saves on the level of book-keeping.
I think there should also be a specific exclusion for vampires that
are "not in play" through effects such as Descent into Darkness.
Otherwise these is a disproportionate effect from that card in
particular (and any others that gain blood while a minion is sent 'out
of play')
It does probably reduce the need for Blood Dolls (and probably
Vessels) but I doubt it will completely wall-paper these cards. Most
people's Hunt-Bloat tricks will still work... I can think of a few
decks I own that could potentially benefit from that sort of thing.
Making greater value from the card texts of Tarbaby & Ingrid (and any
others like those two) is probably not a bad thing. It also provides
additional avenues for developing other cards to increase transfers.
For example...
Kindred Ambassadors
Political Action
+1 stealth. Requires a titled vampire.
Choose two Methuselahs or more. Place this card in play. While this
card is in play, the chosen Methuselahs gain an additional transfer
point if the referendum is successful. Any vampire may take a 0
stealth (D) action costing 1 blood to burn this card.
Recruitment Drive
Action
1 blood
Put this card on the acting vampire. This vampire cannot gain blood,
any blood that would be gained is instead put in the blood bank.
During the untap phase you may choose to burn 1 blood and not untap
this vampire. While this vampire is ready and tapped you gain 1
transfer point if this vampire is 6-capacity or less and 2 transfer
points otherwise. Burn this card if this vampire untaps.
On Aug 12, 8:24 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
How about:
Move 1 counter fr pool to a vamp in your uncontrolled region = cost 1
transfer
Move 1 counter (blood/pool as appropriate) between any 2 of the
following: pool; controlled vamp; a second controlled vamp; an
uncontrolled vamp; a second uncontrolled vamp = cost 2 transfers
(except as above).
On Aug 12, 10:06 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about:
>
> Move 1 counter fr pool to a vamp in your uncontrolled region = cost 1
> transfer
> Move 1 counter (blood/pool as appropriate) between any 2 of the
> following: pool; controlled vamp; a second controlled vamp; an
> uncontrolled vamp; a second uncontrolled vamp = cost 2 transfers
> (except as above).
Or to put it more simply:
Pool to Uncontrolled Vamp = Cost 1 transfer
Between Vampires, Vampire to Pool; Pool to Controlled Vampire = Cost 2
transfers
[ quoted text not captured ]
Pool to Uncontrolled = 1 transfer
Between Uncontrolled = 1 transfer
Uncontrolled to Pool = 2 transfers
Ready to Pool or Pool to Ready = 2 transfers
Ready to Ready = Not allowed
Then for your 4 transfers you could potentially gain 2 pool a turn
from ready minions, move 2 pool to ready minions or move 4 blood from
an uncontrolled to another uncontrolled minion... in addition to the
usual options.
On Aug 13, 12:35 am, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pool to Uncontrolled = 1 transfer
> Between Uncontrolled = 1 transfer
> Uncontrolled to Pool = 2 transfers
> Ready to Pool or Pool to Ready = 2 transfers
> Ready to Ready = Not allowed
>
> Then for your 4 transfers you could potentially gain 2 pool a turn
> from ready minions, move 2 pool to ready minions or move 4 blood from
> an uncontrolled to another uncontrolled minion... in addition to the
> usual options.
Well, 1 transfer between uncontrolled will certainly reduce the
penalty for contesting.
I don't have strong feelings about it, but what's the logic of not
allowing ready to ready, compared to the other options?
> I think that by increasing the amount of pool a player can gain per
> turn, most decks will be more difficult to oust and games will last
> longer. And I do not think that's good for VTES.
Hear hear!
[ quoted text not captured ]
This is a very very fundamental change of rule in the game.
I would consult and playtest the whole community on this for quite
awhile (months) before implementing it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Even if the current rules are lacking, can changing a core mechanic of
a 15 year-old game be a good thing with 22 sets of cards designed
assuming the previous was true be a good idea?
[ quoted text not captured ]
This assumes, to a greater or lesser extent, that being able to bloat
without devoting some resources to it - typically library resources - is
a good thing.
Taking the three basic strategies - S&B, politics, rush:
- S&B often has the option to bloat in this way, because it includes
Govern the Unaligned and Enchant Kindred. However, in play terms, it
is quite common that when the bleeding is going well, they don't use
them at that level, so that they can get the oust quicker (and gain 6
pool).
Perfectionist (particularly) and Capitalist both see play, and this
would potentially allow them both to tick over as pool gain, not just
blood gain. Currently, these decks also need to use, for example,
Blood Doll or Vessel to turn blood gain into pool gain (which requires
a choice of resources). Alternatively, they need to not bleed for one
action, which is also a choice. In either case, they've having to
choose their use of resources (risking master-jam, getting an oust a
turn later etc.).
Currently, stealth and bleed is usually already at the top of the tree
as far as power goes. This would give it more pool gain options
without sacrificing speed or resources, as it currently has to.
- Politics is an interesting split. Voter Captivation is a pivotal card
here. For politics decks with it, they can generate a lot of blood
(and pool), which would potentially become even more so with
controlled transfers. Passing KRC with Awe and a Voter Captivation
can suddenly turn into doing 3 pool damage and gaining 4 pool. A 5
pool Parity Shift can become 5 damage, gain 5, 2 from Voter Cap, and 2
from influence phase, which seems like a lot without devoting
resources to it.
For example, a breed boon deck that lacks Presence (e.g. Lasombra
Power Structure) has to stop and pass a Consanguineous Boon in many
cases. A fattie deck has to stop and pass Political Struggle. They
don't typically have the massive incidental blood flow that Voter
Captivation allows.
- Most combat decks often lack solid blood flow. Taste of Vitae is
used, but gaining a significant amount of incidental blood from
diablerie and Ritual of the Bitter Rose (for example) rarely happens.
Games of Instinct could potentially provide this for Sabbat rush, but
it's not that commonly seen.
Additionally, it can be nice to plink a vampire into torpor with e.g.
Disarm and aggro-poke, but not necessarily through massive damage. So
they may still have blood on them. They may not be able to rescue
themselves immediately for a variety of reasons - sat near a wall,
Carver's Packing, Wooden Stake preventing an untap, or perhaps they
only have one blood around. As things currently stand, without
further resources, that blood can't come back. With controlled
transfers, it can. This can potentially make bleeding out a more
lengthy and difficult process, particularly given that rush decks
often only have bleeds for one or two.
On the flip-side, rush decks often have trouble with numbers of master
cards, and being able to use slightly fewer master cards like Blood
Doll might well be a good thing for rush deck master-jam. However,
they still typically have less available blood sloshing around, and so
would probably take less advantage of it than a stealth and bleed deck
using a bunch of cheap/free cards and Capitalist.
Overall, it feels like it splits roughly as follows:
- some decks that do well already would do even better (cheap stealth
and bleed decks can gain pool without devoting particular cards or
actions to it, Voter Cap vote decks can get even more pool without
much bother)
- a few deck types that are currently use up a little more blood may be
able to compensate for this a little e.g. Lasombra stealth-bleed and
Path of Night, where saved blood = potential pool.
- a variety of other decks may benefit from it, but relatively speaking
they seem to benefit less, and the relative benefits seem to be
shifted towards the more powerful decks.
Now, that's not to say that this proposal doesn't have points in its
favour. Increasing deck diversity is a good thing. Garfield clearly
didn't want Land cards in V:TES and, to an extent, Blood Doll, Vessel
and Villein are probably the closest thing we have. More diversity is
good, although at least some of that could be handled by other library
card mechanisms rather than a rules change. e.g. a Transient blood -to-
pool Event, some equipment (avoiding master jam?), and other
possibilities.
However, an alternative point is that I think this suggestion is
mis-diagnosing why uncontrolled transfer bloating is considered a good
thing by some players. It's not specifically that that's a good thing
in itself, but that various clans/disciplines/strategies don't have
another sensible defence. Not every deck has access to bounce, and Lost
in Translation is not suitable for all decks. They do have access to
some cards that put pool on uncontrolled cards. Gaining pool that way
is a reasonable defensive for those decks. Removing that option would
tip the balance towards decks with non-transfer bloating and bounce.
Those strategies are already quite successful, though, so it seems
counter-productive to tip the balance more towards them.
This proposal gives extra bloat to already successful decks without
giving the same relative advantage to a variety of less successful
decks.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
> > Pool to Uncontrolled Vamp = Cost 1 transfer
> > Between Vampires, Vampire to Pool; Pool to Controlled Vampire = Cost 2
> > transfers
>
> Pool to Uncontrolled = 1 transfer
> Between Uncontrolled = 1 transfer
> Uncontrolled to Pool = 2 transfers
> Ready to Pool or Pool to Ready = 2 transfers
> Ready to Ready = Not allowed
Transfering between uncontrolled would propably be the only reasonable
thing. Like Damnans said, some decks will get a lot more staying
power, and would be harder to oust, and the games would time out more
often, which is another serious problem.
But changing transfering between uncontrolled cards would do a lot of
good, and would easen the burden of contesting shitloads. Maybe even
enough for me to shut up.
On Aug 13, 1:24 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Spend 1 transfer to move a counter from your pool either to a vampire you
> control or a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
Don't you mean:
"Spend 1 transfer to move a counter from your pool either to a vampire
you control or a card in your uncontrolled region."
Because the final text is the same for the 2 options.
>
> Spend 2 transfers to move a blood from either a vampire you control or a card in
> your uncontrolled region to your pool.
Ricardo Marta
Prince of Lisboa
Portugal
[ quoted text not captured ]
A re-make if you allow, was thinking too quickly this one, as I
usually do.
Add in: "From a contested vampire to a vampire in uncontrolled , 1 per
1, yield contest when empty"
Or something similar. That would most likely solve the harsh penalty
from contesting, for not having a minion, but would still force you to
pay to contest itself so you can transfer the blood back.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a �crit dans le message de news:
h5vmvt$r0s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
[ quoted text not captured ]
It's a follow-up of the "changing contestation" thread, so I assume the
unnecessary change of rules about contesting is still on the way. Now this ?
another "fix" of the rules which will result basically in a cardless way of
getting pool. Influence out two 1-cap vamps, and if you're in trouble, just
hunt'n'gain 2 pool per turn, your prey will love you for acting as a so
convenient buffer. It works if your star vampire is Pentex'ed and you have
no way of removing the pentex, it works if your hand is completely jammed
and you can't do other useful actions, it works if your Blood Dolls have
been nuked by Vessels. It's just a no-brainer way of getting pool.
This change is hideous for two reasons : 1/ it's the offspring of a
cornercase drama about contesting 2/ it will consume time (time due to pool
gain, time due to table talk about "can I hunt so I can transfer back and I
don't hurt you etc.), resulting in more tedious time limits.
If you feel like adding time limits is a good thing, go for it. I'd prefer
myself less diversity if that's the price for less time limits.
Stone
On Aug 13, 3:40 am, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Something that could be done here is to make the amount of transfers
> > needed dependent on the capacity of the vampire (maybe only 1 transfer
> > for moving back blood if the vampire is 9+ or so).
>
> I think that making transfers cap-dependent while also keeping the
> hidden crypt rule will have the potential for giant headaches
> (particularly for undoing accidents, etc, etc sometimes nicknamed the
> "Cheating Phase")... Keep the transfer system independent of
> capacity, it saves on the level of book-keeping.
I was more thinking of the "move back from vampires in play" part at
the moment. As for transfer headaches, they're already here (with GtU
needing a younger vampire, other cards needing sect, clan etc).
> I think there should also be a specific exclusion for vampires that
> are "not in play" through effects such as Descent into Darkness.
> Otherwise these is a disproportionate effect from that card in
> particular (and any others that gain blood while a minion is sent 'out
> of play')
I don't think LSJ's suggestion would allow one to move blood from a
Descent:ed vampire though? Not more than the current transfer rules do.
> This change is hideous for two reasons : 1/ it's the offspring of a
> cornercase drama about contesting 2/ it will consume time (time due to pool
> gain, time due to table talk about "can I hunt so I can transfer back and I
> don't hurt you etc.), resulting in more tedious time limits.
>
> If you feel like adding time limits is a good thing, go for it. I'd prefer
> myself less diversity if that's the price for less time limits.
I agree with the second point, more poolgain options for already
strong decks ( KS-bleed, PRE-voters etc ), is not a reasonable option.
But transfering between uncontrolled and/or contested vampires is
reasonable.
On 13 août, 02:24, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Since bloat helps increase deck diversity[*], that suggests that the transfer
> rules shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted to uncontrolled minions.
From my point of view, bloating is just one way among others to "helps
increase deck diversity". Deck diversity comes from managing to get
out some resources before "really" starting to play (like influence
out a 10-cap vampire, or some mid-cap vampires with no redirection
discipline) : if everytime I play a mid-cap Samedi deck, I get almost
killed before finishing my setup, I won't play that deck and therefore
the game will lack some deck diversity.
Now, by adding a way to bloat, you will help also decks that needs
very little setup to gain pool. Players will still be playing the same
decks, because they're still more effective than a samedi deck (in my
example). And games will be longer.
I'd rather see some rule increasing the number of transfer to get out
vampires, or some cards that comes into play at the start of the game.
Or a rule preventing players from loosing more than 1 pool per turn
during the 3 first turns. Reduce the aggressivity in the early game,
rather than giving players a way to bloat during the whole game.
[ quoted text not captured ]
If it *is* an extension of the contestation discussion (and that seems
a reasonable conclusion to draw ) then how about sidestepping that
completely and putting in something like "During your influence phase,
if another methuselah has already influenced out a unique crypt card*
that you have blood on in your uncontrolled region, you may spend 1
pool (and one transfer maybe?) to move all of that blood back to your
pool. Remove that crypt card from the game."
The ameliorates the "penalty" of getting midway to influencing out a
big *star* crypt card, without making it too exploitable a mechanism
of pool gain. It even works (reasonably) as a method of beating active
contests (for crypt at least). Although whomever relinquishes control
is some transfers behind, they're not completely crippled, they get
all the blood on that crypt card back
Transferring to and from controlled crypt cards seems counter
intuative. Taking a step back, influence represents just that, using
personal resources to exert control. Having to use a card to utilise
the "influence" of a minion you're puppeting makes sense. I can't
figure out what transferring from active minions would represent, a
sudden disinterest in their activities?
More than that, however would be its impact on the game. Blood doll /
vessel / minion tap / gird minions / villein / sermon of caine etc
would become more wallpaper-y. More importantly, it will prolong every
game. Not only because its a completely reliable method of recoupling
pool (the masters listed all being vulnerable to wash, or sudden
reversal) but also because the second it looked like a player was
about to be ousted or a little low, they'd drag blood back to pool in
their own turn, to survive a little longer, and let their minions hunt
in the next turn.
ta
JB
> Pool to Uncontrolled = 1 transfer
> Between Uncontrolled = 1 transfer> Uncontrolled or Ready to Pool = 2 transfers
Giving player choice to fill a ready vampire would make combat decks
far worse. Vampire who will end up in torpor would have a choice to
act in his controler next turn (given other vampire rescue him/her
from torpor).
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, this stuff belongs to the other thread, and I hope this wouldn't
go into flames ( the thread that is ). I'll just say, that it isn't a
cornercase. But the thread does contain certain amounts of drama. But
back to the tracks. What you are suggesting isn't entirely bad,
perhaps just poorly worded. It solves the pre-controlled "contesting",
but doesn't the solve the problem of actually contesting a minion.
> Transferring to and from controlled crypt cards seems counter
> intuative. Taking a step back, influence represents just that, using
> personal resources to exert control. Having to use a card to utilise
> the "influence" of a minion you're puppeting makes sense. I can't
> figure out what transferring from active minions would represent, a
> sudden disinterest in their activities?
> More than that, however would be its impact on the game. Blood doll /
> vessel / minion tap / gird minions / villein / sermon of caine etc
> would become more wallpaper-y. More importantly, it will prolong every
> game. Not only because its a completely reliable method of recoupling
> pool (the masters listed all being vulnerable to wash, or sudden
> reversal) but also because the second it looked like a player was
> about to be ousted or a little low, they'd drag blood back to pool in
> their own turn, to survive a little longer, and let their minions hunt
> in the next turn.
>
> ta
> JB
Like I said, I'd accept between uncontrolled to uncontrolled, and/or
contested to uncontrolled. Otherwise I agree.
> Well, 1 transfer between uncontrolled will certainly reduce the
> penalty for contesting.> I don't have strong feelings about it, but what's the logic of not
> allowing ready to ready, compared to the other options?
Allowing unconditional transferring between uncontrolled vampires would open
up a whole can of problems with the various acceleration cards.
A 4 cap Governing down to a 3 cap, and then move the blood to Arika.
Cock Robin Grooms to his Proteg� (say, Casino Reeds) and then move the blood
to Arika.
I'm all for allowing transfers between uncontrolled cards at a cost of less
than 3 transfers, but there has to be some sort of limiting factor.
Bloating may increase diversity but it also increase game duration !
So a 'no card' bloat looks like a bad idea to me, even if many deck I
use would profit from such a modification (all my rush decks without
dom for instance).
I don't want to see many games ending with the time limit, even if I
prefer a modification like this one to a "no-retro" rule.
By the way the contesting problem appears not like a real problem to
me, I rarely see a contest in the games I attend (with 4-5 tables) and
If you have two "Ian Forestal" deck (or two Tariq decks...) at the
same table, well, contest without retro transfert or not you are
fu**ed.... so this is a bad exemple - it happens once in a while and
it's bad luck but well... it's the game !
I was thinking almost at the same thing, a simple way to limit the
impact of Contesting (which is the root problem in retro transfert
rule modification right ?) is the possibility to transfert blood
between uncontrolled vampires.
But maybe a 1 transfert cost is too cheap.
What could be possible :
1 transfert to put a pool on a uncontrolled vampire
2 transfert to take a pool from a uncontrolled vampire
2 transfert to take a pool from a uncontrolled vampire and to put it
unto another one
Optional : A contested vampire is taken to the uncontrolled region if
the player does not pay for the contest, instead of being burned
(no transfert allowed from/to ready vampires, it looks like heresy to
me)
[ quoted text not captured ]
I do not recall seeing someone in the other thread asking for even
more bloat opportunities. Only that the existing ones are kept.
This statement "Since bloat helps increase deck diversity[*], that
suggests that the transfer
rules shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted to uncontrolled minions. "
is oversimplifying things as there is obviously a balance to be
reached where bloat mechanisms in the game improve diversity without
hurting other aspects of the game (actually being able to end games
within the timelimit).
I think we are at that balance now, and that adding this mechanism
would hurt the game.
To use an example like you have in the other threads:
Adding another bloat mechanism to the game that gives each player 20
pool during each of their untap phases, would definitely increase the
number of different decks players could make.
But would it be good for the game? I sincerely doubt it.
> A re-make if you allow, was thinking too quickly this one, as I
> usually do.
>
> Add in: "From a contested vampire to a vampire in uncontrolled , 1 per
> 1, yield contest when empty"
>
> Or something similar. That would most likely solve the harsh penalty
> from contesting, for not having a minion, but would still force you to
> pay to contest itself so you can transfer the blood back.
A rule like this would not only be fine but would probably be a good
addition, transferring off the horde of Malk S&B would just be silly.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:h5vmvt$r0s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Since bloat helps increase deck diversity[*], that suggests that the
> transfer rules shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted to uncontrolled
> minions.
>> To help this problem (i.e., to increase deck diversity), perhaps the
> transfer rules could be rewritten to be more general:
>
> Spend 1 transfer to move a counter from your pool either to a vampire you
> control or a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
>
> Spend 2 transfers to move a blood from either a vampire you control or a
> card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
>> [*] See the OtherThread
This would make many games last longer and possibly go to time. Adding
cardless bloat means you not only have to deplete your prey's pool, but also
the blood (potential pool) on your prey's minions. It would also make
existing bloat decks, such as voter captivation + minion tap, even harder to
stop.
On 13 Aug, 11:17, "Stone" <mc_judgest...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> h5vmvt$r0...@news.eternal-september.org...[ quoted text not captured ]
Not much to add to a great comment like this.
So I'll just add a +1.
//Alex - Swedish NC
Is this from the contesting thread? Rather than increasing bloat and game
duration, how about a master card that can win the contesting, like Clio's
Kiss at TEM? That master card could also have a secondary use: to be spent
out-of-turn or from the ash heap for a strike: dodge or +1 intercept or
something. A secondary use would keep it from being corner-case.
Clio`s Kiss, Action, 1 blood, Temporis/Dominate, C2 , [Bloodlines:C2]
+1 stealth action.
[dom] (D) Burn 1 pool from a Methuselah who is contesting a card with you.
[tem] Exchange any card in your hand for any non-master, non-unique library
card in your ash heap.
[TEM] (D) Choose a vampire card another Methuselah is contesting with you.
That Methuselah yields that copy. If there are no other Methuselah`s
contesting the vampire, place your copy of the vampire face up in your
controlled region, untapped.
On 13 elo, 15:39, "Vincent Crisafulli" <vac...@netcarrier.com> wrote:
> "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message[ quoted text not captured ]
Like I've said earlier in this thread. From contested to a vampire in
uncontrolled, and/or uncontrolled to uncontrolled. But due to the flaw
pointed out by Izaak, from contested to uncontrolled remains propably
the only reasonable change that can be done.
With a 1 per 1 rate from contested to uncontrolled, you don't get the
pool, but rather blood on the secondary vampire you want. It still
forces you to pay the contest if you want the blood back, and removes
pool/blood from the table, even if not at exactly great rate, but
still removes. And also solves the other issue at the same time.
On Aug 12, 8:24 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Since bloat helps increase deck diversity[*], that suggests that the transfer
> rules shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted to uncontrolled minions.
(is this some comedy that should have been smiley-fied? :-)
On 13 août, 02:24, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Since bloat helps increase deck diversity[*], that suggests that the transfer
> rules shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted to uncontrolled minions.
>> To help this problem (i.e., to increase deck diversity), perhaps the transfer
> rules could be rewritten to be more general:
>
> Spend 1 transfer to move a counter from your pool either to a vampire you
> control or a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
>
> Spend 2 transfers to move a blood from either a vampire you control or a card in
> your uncontrolled region to your pool.
>
> [*] See the OtherThread
The proposed rule may increase the duration of the game and therefore
the number of time-limits.
I greatly prefer the rule of "no-retro", a rule which I think goes
against the spirit of the game:
"Methuselah vehemently strive to dominate vampire society, but most
younger vampires are reluctant to defer to the whims of the ancients.
Methuselah must skillfully apply their resources to entice their
younger brethren (and other minions) to do their bidding (often with
the minions not even realizing that they are being manipulated). "
As a minion is not controlled by a Methuselah, I do not see why we
could use its influence
LSJ : "Perhaps the transfer rules could be rewritten to be more
general:
Spend 1 transfer to move a counter from your pool either to a vampire
you control or a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
Spend 2 transfers to move a blood from either a vampire you control or
a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool."
With this rule, pooling would be too simple. Aggressive tactics are
already really threatened by a great amount of cards (votes can be
delayed, combats can be dealt with S:CE, and bleeds get bounced) and
almost every single tournament deck has alternatives for what it can't
do. (i.e. "I can't bounce so there are 2 to 3 Archon investigation
cards in my deck.")
Plus
LSJ schrieb:
> Since bloat helps increase deck diversity[*], that suggests that the
> transfer rules shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted to uncontrolled
> minions.
Pointing to "the other thread" is not really helpful. Some specific
references that give a clead indication of this assumption would be helpful.
> To help this problem (i.e., to increase deck diversity), perhaps the> transfer rules could be rewritten to be more general:
>
> Spend 1 transfer to move a counter from your pool either to a vampire
> you control or a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
>
> Spend 2 transfers to move a blood from either a vampire you control or a
> card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
>> [*] See the OtherThread
Which thread? And if it is one of those 100s of posts, most of them
useless, please give detailed posts that actually make sense.
By the way: I still doubt that the newsgroup is a very good way to get a
good indication which rules changes are necessary. The possibility to
voice opinion is not based on expertise but by having a lot of time at
hand to follow some very busy threads on a daily basis. Many of the
experienced players with good insight don�t have a lot of spare time to
spend on this. I would prefer a more formal approach.
My message went awry, sorry. so, here it is, complete.
With this rule, pooling would be too simple. Aggressive tactics are
already really threatened by a great amount of cards (votes can be
delayed, combats can be dealt with S:CE, and bleeds get bounced) and
almost every single tournament deck has alternatives for what it can't
do. (i.e. "I can't bounce so there are 2 to 3 Archon investigation
cards in my deck.")
Plus, a consistent amount of games already reach the time limit. If
the time limit is reached at each endgame, tournament points will be
random. Everybody will have points according to their opponent's
ability to bloat. Time-limit games are often uninteresting and a big
bad draw means great frustration for every player.
There's one more and huge point to make.
If ready vampires can be used to bloat, general game balance will be
sh*t, and I mean that word.
It will make some cards overpowered and some useless.
Consider Ecoterrorists and Zoo Hunting ground. They have the same pool
cost, but the hunting grounds will become obviously stronger than
ecoterrorists. Same goes for the Hungry Coyote ! Loki's gift, Aaron
feeding razor (i can already imagine a L'sG/AFR/Ariadne deck.).
Information Highway will be an absolute need in every deck. Taste of
vitae + Fortitude + any combat will drain the opponent's bloat ability
in a snap. Theft of vitae? Aren't Tremere decks already good? It is
already difficult to oust a Mathuselah. If then you simply can't kill
him/her, this will destroy the entire game experience.
Look at an already hell of a bloater deck : Palla grande/embrace/
foundation exhibit/conboon. You will play information highway and the
hungry coyote. So, if your conboons are delayed, direct
interventioned, you still will be able to bloat by three pool a turn.
That's ridiculous.
The only good point of this rule is that Villein becomes less
powerful. And it still will be highly playable.
The barrier between ready and uncontrolled should be the same as
before, if not enforced.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Yeah. This subject seems to be a "joke" of LSJ or rather a desperate
reaction after reading about some of the "other thread"
On 13 août, 12:25, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hey, i have another idea !!
why not change the victory points rules ?
let's say, when the time limit is reached, the methuselah with more
pool counters thatn the others win the game !
then, it would be consistent with your statement that "Extra bloat is
good for the game", would be in agreement with your proposal about
removing contest from the game mechanics, plus it would may be make
pariah actually useful (you don't have to discard masters to leave him
untapped, just take 2 blood from him during the influence phase, and
then giant blood him.)
"Akantes" <aka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2f80f84-34b9-4eda...@j21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
If the cardless to-and-from transfers between blood/pool/uncontrolled is
only for a contested and/or uncontrolled minion, I could accept that.
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:24:25 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Since bloat helps increase deck diversity[*], that suggests that the
> transfer rules shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted to uncontrolled
> minions.
>
> To help this problem (i.e., to increase deck diversity), perhaps the
> transfer rules could be rewritten to be more general:
>
> Spend 1 transfer to move a counter from your pool either to a vampire
> you control or a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
>
> Spend 2 transfers to move a blood from either a vampire you control or a
> card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
>
> [*] See the OtherThread
Good idea. Clever, elegant, and removes the overdominant reliance on
some cards without wallpapering them. It would make it harder to actually
oust a prey (bad thing); and it would help combat (probably still a good
thing). However, in order not to make Info Highway the most contested
card (as, you know, contestation really sucks ;P ), you might wish to
consider two things.
1) Transfer management would become more important. Transfers, generally,
would become a more important resource. A score of new cards would be
needed to support this.
2) A (perhaps temporary) rule could be made to allow the amass of
transfers. Something like: spend all your transfers to get a
YOUNAMEITWHAT counter. You get 1 extra Transfer during your
Influence phase for each YOUNAMEITWHAT counter you have. (you could
move counters to the top of your crypt to show your extra transfers)
--
Regards,
Daneel
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>Dasein wrote:>>> I think that by increasing the amount of pool a player can gain per
>>> turn, most decks will be more difficult to oust and games will last
>>> longer. And I do not think that's good for VTES.>> Hear hear!>
>No, no. See the other thread. Extra bloat is good for the game.
That seems to be a rather bizarre misrepresentation.
Former and current designers have, for whatever reason, left certain
clans and strategies without access to some of the more powerful
defences - principally good, solid bounce, but also other forms of
defence. To make those strategies work a little better, players have
made them succeed using uncontrolled region bloat.
Removing uncontrolled region bloat would, therefore, make the game less
diverse (which is typically considered bad). Those strategies don't
have another defence to fall back to or, if they do, it's probably
notably worse than uncontrolled region bloating. Therefore, at least
some of these strategies would likely die. This is not arguing that
"extra bloat is good for the game" but "we want to play these strategies
and bloat makes them workable".
Since the designers have chosen not to give those strategies additional,
workable defensive options, that's why (some) people use and want
transfer bloating. This lets them play more strategies which are,
presumably, fun for them to play. (If they weren't fun for them, it
would be odd for them to put in the effort - although making something
difficult work can be fun for certain personality types, obviously.)
Removing these options makes the game less fun for them. Hence the
disagreements.
This is absolutely not saying that more bloat is good for the game, but
it's necessary for those strategies.
Similarly, if someone proposed banning "Enter combat" actions, there'd
be an outcry that they're necessary for some decks to be viable. If
someone were then to propose "All vampires can take a cardless rush
action to enter combat, every turn, free - after all, that Other Other
Thread says more rush is good for the game", that proposal would be
silly and wrong.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On 13 Aug, 01:24, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Since bloat helps increase deck diversity[*], that suggests that the transfer
> rules shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted to uncontrolled minions.
>
> To help this problem (i.e., to increase deck diversity), perhaps the transfer
> rules could be rewritten to be more general:
>
> Spend 1 transfer to move a counter from your pool either to a vampire you
> control or a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
>
> Spend 2 transfers to move a blood from either a vampire you control or a card in
> your uncontrolled region to your pool.
>
> [*] See the OtherThread
Now *THIS* is pure dead brilliant.
On Aug 13, 6:19 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote:
> Stone schrieb:
>
>
>
> > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > h5vmvt$r0...@news.eternal-september.org...[ quoted text not captured ]
On the tedious time-wasting, I think that it would be better to have a
narrow solution to contesting. I'd suggest, as I think may have been
suggested before, change the contestation rule to something like "A
methuselah who is contesting a vampire may yield that contest during
their untap phase and move half of the blood from the contested
vampire (rounding down) to their pool. That methuselah's contested
vampire is removed from the game."
Is it still a lottery? Yes. Is there still a contesting strategy?
Sure. Are you completely hosed if someone contests your vampire? No,
you cut your losses and still have a game.
What I would not want to see is another level of complexity, this hunt-
farming and the like, extend the influence phase. I also wouldn't want
to see people struggle (and spend time) thinking about what they need
to do in their turn in order to max out the usefulness of their
transfers any more than they already have to.
Brandon
"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:9d63d8ed-7f3e-4bd6...@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>> [*] See the OtherThread>
> Now *THIS* is pure dead brilliant.
Well slap me silly is that YOU James.... it is... it IS you! How the devil
are you?
Juggernaut1981 <brassc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Pool to Uncontrolled = 1 transfer
>Between Uncontrolled = 1 transfer
>Uncontrolled to Pool = 2 transfers
>Ready to Pool or Pool to Ready = 2 transfers
>Ready to Ready = Not allowed
I have some sympathy for the "between uncontrolled = 1 transfer" option,
although I feel that I should point out that it does slightly weaken the
"younger" restriction on various of the counters-to-uncontrolled region
cards (e.g. Govern).
Imagine a situation where you have a couple of midbies out, and an
uncontrolled region with 1 or more weenies and a big vamp (older than
the midbies). You'd quite like to get the fatty out, although speed
isn't 100% critical. One of the midbies plays Govern, and woosh, three
transfers move it over to your fatty. This has the advantage of not
taking your pool lower.
Under the current rules, as released by Garfield, you could move one
counters in one turn (2 transfers back, 1 to push, 1 "wasted"), or two
counters if you played Info Highway (4 transfers back, 2 to push). If
both midbies played superior Govern onto the weenie, you could move all
six counters over with Info Highway. If you're not using the transfers
for anything else, that might well be attractive.
It's not the end of the world, but it does seem to make a few good cards
that bit better.
This is why I think I tend to favour a "if the vampire would be
contested, you can..." or "when someone else plays this vampire, you
can..." approach, as it has minimal power effects that you can't really
plan for.
That is, if any change is to be made. As LSJ has indicated elsewhere,
there isn't a reason that a rule has to be awful before it can be made
better. However, I do tend to feel that if a rule is usable, it
probably needs to meet a slightly higher threshold before enacting a
rules change. Fixing broken rules is obviously good, but the
possibility of tinkering with usable rules for minor benefits has the
disbenefit of the rules fluctuating which can potentially cancel out the
minor benefit.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Aug 13, 10:21 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Including Imbueds in some way here would probably be good and
> reasonable.
It'd certainly make Rejuvenate and Vagabond Mystic stronger. They
wouldn't be able to gain pool any quicker, but they'd be able to put
10 minions on the table more easily.
Kevin Walsh
Apologies to the other replies if this suggestion is among them, but
here is a slight modification which might make this rule more balanced
away from Stealth Bleed and Weenies.
Since bloat helps increase deck diversity[*], that suggests that the
transfer
rules shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted to uncontrolled minions.
To help this problem (i.e., to increase deck diversity), perhaps the
transfer
rules could be rewritten to be more general:
Spend 1 transfer to move a counter from your pool either to a vampire
you
control or a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
***Spend 2 transfers to move a blood from either a vampire you control
(Capacity >= 8) or a card in
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Aug 13, 11:17 am, "Stone" <mc_judgest...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> h5vmvt$r0...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > Since bloat helps increase deck diversity[*], that suggests that the
> > transfer rules shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted to uncontrolled
> > minions.
>
> > To help this problem (i.e., to increase deck diversity), perhaps the
> > transfer rules could be rewritten to be more general:
>
> > Spend 1 transfer to move a counter from your pool either to a vampire you
> > control or a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
>> > Spend 2 transfers to move a blood from either a vampire you control or a> > card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
>> > [*] See the OtherThread
>
> It's a follow-up of the "changing contestation" thread, so I assume the
> unnecessary change of rules about contesting is still on the way. Now this ?
> another "fix" of the rules which will result basically in a cardless way of
> getting pool. Influence out two 1-cap vamps, and if you're in trouble, just
> hunt'n'gain 2 pool per turn, your prey will love you for acting as a so
> convenient buffer. It works if your star vampire is Pentex'ed and you have
> no way of removing the pentex, it works if your hand is completely jammed
> and you can't do other useful actions, it works if your Blood Dolls have
> been nuked by Vessels. It's just a no-brainer way of getting pool.
>
> This change is hideous for two reasons : 1/ it's the offspring of a
> cornercase drama about contesting 2/ it will consume time (time due to pool
> gain, time due to table talk about "can I hunt so I can transfer back and I
> don't hurt you etc.), resulting in more tedious time limits.
>
> If you feel like adding time limits is a good thing, go for it. I'd prefer
> myself less diversity if that's the price for less time limits.
>
> Stone
I sort of agree with you, Stone, the blood from controlled -> pool
part isn't needed, and I feel it would probably increase the number of
time limits. Giving players new possibilities to gain pool without
(almost, yeah, requires a vampire with blood...) any requirement won't
shorten games.
However, if the issue still is about contest, the many times mentioned
idea of "1 transfer to move 1 blood from a crypt card that would
contest to another" is clear, easy to understand, and without side-
effects.
On Aug 13, 10:50 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On the tedious time-wasting, I think that it would be better to have a
> narrow solution to contesting. I'd suggest, as I think may have been
> suggested before, change the contestation rule to something like "A
> methuselah who is contesting a vampire may yield that contest during
> their untap phase and move half of the blood from the contested
> vampire (rounding down) to their pool. That methuselah's contested
> vampire is removed from the game."
I like this suggestion, except that I think the yielding methuselah
should get back
all the blood counters from the contested crypt card.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Same would go for any deck using vampires though (except you'd use
hunting grounds and stuff instead).
Exluding Imbueds from a possibility like this wouldn't really make any
sense to me.
Hello,
I think this idea may be a good thing, but i'll modify it in changing
"vampire" and "a card in your uncontrolled region" to "crypt cards".
This will give imbueds a way to not be crashed by combat deck too
easily, and will limit swarms deck to fill their embraces.
"Information highway, week of nigthmares, embrace deck" will be too
strong with this new rules for example i think.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hunting ground - unique master, cost 2 pool. Rejuvenate - power, non-
unique, free, +1 stealth power, untap afterward.
It's not the same. Also, what about allies that regain life ?
So no, allies are out of question.
On Aug 14, 4:11 pm, Raziel <angelofc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Including Imbueds in some way here would probably be good and
> > > > reasonable.
>
> > > It'd certainly make Rejuvenate and Vagabond Mystic stronger. They
> > > wouldn't be able to gain pool any quicker, but they'd be able to put
> > > 10 minions on the table more easily.
> > > Kevin Walsh
>
> > Same would go for any deck using vampires though (except you'd use
> > hunting grounds and stuff instead).
> > Exluding Imbueds from a possibility like this wouldn't really make any
> > sense to me.
>
> Hunting ground - unique master, cost 2 pool. Rejuvenate - power, non-
> unique, free, +1 stealth power, untap afterward.
>
> It's not the same.
I know it's not exactly the same, but quite similar. At least enough
for me to believe that Rejuvinate won't break anything that a HG
wouldn't be able to break as well.
> Also, what about allies that regain life ?
I'm not sure what they have to do with this. I talked about Imbueds,
not allies in general. On the other hand, I'm not sure that
transfering life to your pool from regenerating allies would be worse
than doing so from blood gaining vampires (Danielle Deron, Owain Evans
etc).
[ quoted text not captured ]
As i said before - it's question of resources. Allies have much easier
time gaining life than vampires gaining blood. And those vampires, hav
you noticed their capacity ? 7, 8, 7 ...
How much vagabond mystic cost ? action. Procurer ? 2 blood and his
action could be blocked. There is no contest - allies gain life better
than vampires gain blood.
Another thing - how many cards allow you to gain pool from allies
life ? none ? Now try the same with vampires - BD,V,V, MT, TttM, GtP
etc. No contest.
On Aug 14, 4:45 pm, Raziel <angelofc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As i said before - it's question of resources. Allies have much easier
> time gaining life than vampires gaining blood.
>> There is no contest - allies gain life better
> than vampires gain blood.
Rulebook 6.1.2
Enjoy.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I guess this is a long shot since you're probably just trolling, but
I'll give you one more.
I didn't say that the proposed rule should apply to werewolves or
demons. I don't think it should (well, I don't think it should apply
at all but that's a different story).
I do think it should apply to Imbueds though, since they'll get a big
disadvantage otherwise. There are 4-5 Imbueds that can play Rejuvinate
today. There is one unique ally that gives Imbueds life. That's what
they have. If you seriously think that makes it easier for them to
gain life, than it is for vampires to gain blood I don't really know
what to say. It's probably the most stupid thing I've ever read on
this newsgroup.
Don't bother replying. I won't.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, there is also Leech and innate 'leave torpor and gain 1 life'
for 2 convictions*, not counting various (vampiric) disciplines that
help them gain life.
Also, Rejuvenate not only give the imbued 1 life, it also give it
option to 'hunt' for other imbued.
During your untap phase, if this imbued has fewer life than his or her
starting amount, he or she gains 1 life.
[ACTION] [1 CONVICTION] +1 stealth action. Add 1 blood to a vampire or
1 life to any other ally, not to exceed starting life.
It's very, very easy and it require very little set-up (and imbued
mechanic allow them play smaller decks).
First sorry for my very bad english.
i would say that before making new rules/ban you have to test and test
again.
i think that a part of what "lsj and co"maded, were based on guy who
are more strong in tears than
in skills.(the best example is the ban of pto wich is nonsense
decision, from general opinion)
i recall that european players play 3r+final instead of USA(only 2r
+final) and the pool of player is the most larger in spain and france
like the frequencies of play.
i don't understand that few guys who certainly plays sometimes could
take important decision for the other without
consulting experimented players(like ttc..et caetera) instead of the
"advices"of random unskilled guys
and i'm not the one who has these feeling.
bertrand.
On Aug 13, 9:24 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Since bloat helps increase deck diversity[*], that suggests that the transfer
> rules shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted to uncontrolled minions.
>
> To help this problem (i.e., to increase deck diversity), perhaps the transfer
> rules could be rewritten to be more general:
>
> Spend 1 transfer to move a counter from your pool either to a vampire you
> control or a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
>> Spend 2 transfers to move a blood from either a vampire you control or a card in> your uncontrolled region to your pool.
>
> [*] See the OtherThread
*blink*
I am not sure whether I am supposed to laugh or cry.
I think the suggested rule change is great. It will benefit combat
decks, which currently has problems making it into the TWDA and the
new rule isn´t that big a change to the game anyway. Some clans/
disciplines/concepts might need to be looked on to even out the power
curve on both ends, but is just a matter of carddesign.
On Aug 14, 10:59 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It'd certainly make Rejuvenate and Vagabond Mystic stronger. They
> > wouldn't be able to gain pool any quicker, but they'd be able to put
> > 10 minions on the table more easily.
>> Same would go for any deck using vampires though (except you'd use
> hunting grounds and stuff instead).
> Exluding Imbueds from a possibility like this wouldn't really make any
> sense to me.
Well, I wasn't commenting on it in an Imbued vs. Vampire sense. I was
commenting on the effect of it from the perspective of someone who
plays Imbued on occasion. The proposed rules change would not allow
Imbued to gain pool more quickly, since influence phase bloat is
already their main pool gain mechanism. It would allow them to bring
swarms of minions onto the table more quickly. And it would transform
Rejuvenate, which is a non-unique free action (one that Travis Miller
can play), into permanent passive pool gain. Inspire would definitely
be obsoleted by it, and that card has already been pretty badly nerfed
by the Edge Explosion ban. This would reinforce the existing status
quo of Defence and Judgment being by far the strongest Virtues.
In general, I think the idea doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It
benefits massively Clans that have ready access to cheap disciplines
relative to Clans that have similar expensive disciplines (obfuscate
vs obtenebration, potence vs valeren). It hoses the Imbued, since they
already rely on Info Highway bloat as their primary pool gain
mechanism and can't bolt it in top of their existing one. It
strengthens Presence vote decks massively, since they already have the
best blood gain engine in the game. Basically, you have 15 years of
cards that haven't been playtested with this idea at all.
Kevin Walsh
On Aug 15, 7:29 am, agzocgud <per_math...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think the suggested rule change is great. It will benefit combat
> decks, which currently has problems making it into the TWDA and the
> new rule isn´t that big a change to the game anyway.
Will it? This may because I play against a lot of combat decks, but in
my experience, combat decks tend to lose blood off their minions
rather than gaining it. Taste of Vitae helps, but usually in the sense
of restoring the status quo ante rather than the massive surge of
extra blood I associate with Voter Captivation.
Kevin Walsh
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sure, but as long as the other guy is loses more...
And crosstable-recues may be less common when blood gets more
precoius.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:h5vmvt$r0s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Since bloat helps increase deck diversity[*], that suggests that the
> transfer rules shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted to uncontrolled
> minions.
>
> To help this problem (i.e., to increase deck diversity), perhaps the
> transfer rules could be rewritten to be more general:
>
> Spend 1 transfer to move a counter from your pool either to a vampire you
> control or a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
>
> Spend 2 transfers to move a blood from either a vampire you control or a
> card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
>
> [*] See the OtherThread
Can you give a link ti the [*] "other thread" ?
I would like to read what is the argument behind the assuption
that " bloat helps increase deck diversity".
To me, that sounds really a weird assumption
thanks
Emiliano, NC Italy
www.italybynight.org
[ quoted text not captured ]
Unless this is a joke, to be honest i can just read there a long (useless)
3D about *contesting*,
not about bloat - the *transfer* thing argument kicked in there as OT
consideration, nothing
more.
In short, i think that the proposed argument ("bloat helps increase deck
diversity") is void
and that, as damnans already noted, such change (transfer from controlled
vampire
to your pool and the like) would make the game just slower and pretty
annoying.
If you want variety in the game, then let's make cards such as choir,
enticement (so: basically non-bleed, non-politics hurting pool
mechanics/cards) and the like to be good as govern or kindred spirits, thus
viable to be put massively in a deck to build a winning strategy.
In short: create new ways to hurt pool for the standard constructed
eviroment.
At the same time, speaking of *variety*, it would be very good for the
tournament scene
to see several tournament formats as officially sanctioned with a ranking
of their own:
silence of death, warzone, shadow twin and similar (at the moment all still
unsanctioned) tournament formats
would offer variety and incentives for players to play (very) different
decks for (very) different
sanctioned tournaments (players do love, usually, the official aspect of
ranks)
just my two cents
Emiliano
On Aug 13, 6:25 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Dasein wrote:
> >> I think that by increasing the amount of pool a player can gain per
> >> turn, most decks will be more difficult to oust and games will last
> >> longer. And I do not think that's good for VTES.
>
> > Hear hear!
>
> No, no. See the other thread. Extra bloat is good for the game.
Why are we adding more rules to a good game??? The game is fine the
way it is. the group I play with uses big vampire and we have no
trouble getting them out!!! Some times we do not!!!! It is a part of
the game(pool management). If we change the rules to make it easy,
than the game lose some of its challenge. Making blood,bring out
vampire are a timing issue that one has to learn. Sorry this may not
make sense, but I'm getting upset with the whining(I whine a lot when
I lose, thats part of the game, at players because they killed me or
helped, not because of the rules). The game is fine, lets play. We are
going to became like magic(simple and totally card driven with out
skill)!!
On 16 août, 22:58, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Tetragrammaton wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio[ quoted text not captured ]> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/394b...
So, I understand what this thread is a joke related to a slight
exasperation.
Can we return to the previous thread to continue the discussion on the
retro-transfers ?
Because, I'm agree to change this rule (cancel or limit the retro-
transfert...)
On 18 Aug., 14:56, Reverend Blackwood <blackw...@sabbatinfrance.org>
wrote:
> On 16 août, 22:58,LSJ<vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tetragrammaton wrote:
> > > "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > >news:h5vmvt$r0s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > >> Since bloat helps increase deck diversity[*], that suggests that the> > >>transferrules shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted to uncontrolled> > >> minions.
>
> > >> To help this problem (i.e., to increase deck diversity), perhaps the> > >>transferrules could be rewritten to be more general:
>
> > >> Spend 1transferto move a counter from your pool either to a vampire you> > >> control or a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
>
> > >> Spend 2 transfers to move a blood from either a vampire you control or a
> > >> card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.
>
> > >> [*] See the OtherThread
>
> > > Can you give a link ti the [*] "other thread" ?
> > > I would like to read what is the argument behind the assuption
> > > that " bloat helps increase deck diversity".
> > > To me, that sounds really a weird assumption
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/394b...
>
> So, I understand what this thread is a joke related to a slight
> exasperation.
> Can we return to the previous thread to continue the discussion on the
> retro-transfers ?
> Because, I'm agree to change this rule (cancel or limit the retro-
> transfert...)
Not so much a joke as a bit trollish.
I figure LSJ is beeing a bit provocative (in both this thread and the
other one) because he wants input, since if the crypt contesting rules
change, the transfer rules have to be re-examined as well (though that
doesn´t necessarily mean they will be *changed*).