The "fairness" of massive Freak Drive decks

Having faced two of those massive Freak Drive decks in the last tournament made me think of the "fairness" of the concept in terms of game time. Those decks (for those of you who are unfamiliar with the concept) rely on tooling up Una (pay one less for Fortitude) or a Tremere (Ankara Citadel) very quickly (ideally in 1 round) by the use of something in the range of 45 Freak Drives. Usually they "explode" in their first acting turn, getting 30 (or more) permanent cards on the vampire. Those turns might easily take 30 minutes of game time which is almost completely used by the acting player since the reacting possibilities (if any) of the other players are quickly exhausted. Is this really fair? In an ideal 5 player game every player should be entitled to 24 minutes of game time during their turn. This might vary with players getting ousted etc.. but one players using 30 minutes (and not by playing slowly) in their 4th turn seems a little out of bounds for me. There is the argument that for example deal discussions can also last 30 minutes (at least summed up) at times. But there is a clear possibility for a judge to intervene and speed things up. A judge can´t really end the turn of the Una/Cardano/.. deck. What are your thoughts? P.S: I also think these decks are not good for the game balance since they are the probably most extreme silver bullets in the game. But that is an entirely different issue.

On Apr 22, 11:56 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > Is this really fair? In an ideal 5 player game every player should be > entitled to 24 minutes of game time during their turn. This might vary > with players getting ousted etc.. but one players using 30 minutes (and > not by playing slowly) in their 4th turn seems a little out of bounds > for me. We had a lengthy discussion about this last (two?) year or so, and the end result was: As long as you are playing the game in a timely manner, there is nothing unfair/illegal/unsporting about using a disproportinate amount of time. -Peter

Peter D Bakija schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Yes. Still I wonder if it might be desirable to avoid this by changing card text.

Johannes Walch wrote: > Usually they "explode" in their first acting turn, getting 30 (or more) > permanent cards on the vampire. Those turns might easily take 30 minutes > of game time which is almost completely used by the acting player since > the reacting possibilities (if any) of the other players are quickly > exhausted. > > Is this really fair? In an ideal 5 player game every player should be > entitled to 24 minutes of game time during their turn. This might vary > with players getting ousted etc.. but one players using 30 minutes (and > not by playing slowly) in their 4th turn seems a little out of bounds > for me. Once such a deck has taken that time, its subsequent turns are rather quick. Also, if the deck has "gone off", then it's likely that at least one player has been ousted plus a lot of vampires in torpor, so everyone else's subsequent turns should also be rather quick. While I've only been in two games with an Una deck (one pick-up game plus the finals of the 2007 NAC), I didn't feel in either game that the Una deck was using up too much time. > P.S: I also think these decks are not good for the game balance since > they are the probably most extreme silver bullets in the game. But that > is an entirely different issue. It's an entirely different issue, but I think it's the most important issue. I'm not at all concerned about the time taken by an Una-style deck. I am, however, concerned about the game balance/game interactivity involved in an Una-style deck, as well as with the Turbo- style Soul Gem decks (Arika, Aurora, The Baron, etc). I don't think it's good for the game to have decks that can get into a non- interactive, iterative loop (though I do admire the creative genius behind the decks on a deck design level). At the same time, the use of these decks is somewhat self-regulated by the fact that they typically do very poorly. There are very few Turbo decks in the TWDA (maybe 5?), and only one Una deck. The Una deck has had some success lately, having won a tournament in LA this February plus making the finals of the 2007 NAC, but it certainly hasn't shown anything resembling tournament dominance. Got a decklist for one of the Tremere versions? I can't help but think they're a train wreck when it comes to reliability. Una decks have enough trouble with spinning out - having to get an Ankara Citadel on top of that...yeesh... - Ben Peal

[ quoted text not captured ] Changing card text? LSJ has recently banned 3 cards rather changing their card text to make them fair-playable-balanced. I believe card text manipulation isn't anymore the fate of v:tes.

On 22 Apr., 17:56, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > Usually they "explode" in their first acting turn, getting 30 (or more) > permanent cards on the vampire. Those turns might easily take 30 minutes > of game time which is almost completely used by the acting player since > the reacting possibilities (if any) of the other players are quickly > exhausted. > > Is this really fair? In an ideal 5 player game every player should be > entitled to 24 minutes of game time during their turn. This might vary > with players getting ousted etc.. but one players using 30 minutes (and > not by playing slowly) in their 4th turn seems a little out of bounds > for me. On the other hand those decks need very few time after they are built up. They usually do one rush without the need to play cards (fast combat) and/or a bleed without playing cards. In addition they don't need Master phases, don't make influence and so on. So I think time is more an issue regarding how boring it is watching on player at a table play on, erm, with himself rather than with the table. But if the library is gone everything reverts to normal. Of course it's somehow ridiculous seeing such a deck tooling up for over 15 minutes just to be eaten by an Archon Investigation or a Pentex Subversion.

Joscha Duell wrote: > Of course it's somehow ridiculous seeing such a deck tooling > up for over 15 minutes just to be eaten by an Archon > Investigation or a Pentex Subversion. Bring back PTO!!!! - Ben Peal

<ben...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8bc13b16-639b-44ae...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... > At the same time, the use of these decks is somewhat self-regulated > by the fact that they typically do very poorly. There are very few > Turbo decks in the TWDA (maybe 5?), and only one Una deck. The Una > deck has had some success lately, having won a tournament in LA this > February plus making the finals of the 2007 NAC, but it certainly > hasn't shown anything resembling tournament dominance. I think you have to take into account how often the deck is played. Unfortunately, one of the huge barriers against tournament Una decks is likely to be lack of players who can put together 40+ (and in that deck's case, I thought the number was 50+) Freak Drives. It really should have won Powerbase: LA (the NAQ tournament in Los Angeles) last year but I drew something like 6 of my 9 S:CE cards in the top 15 or so cards and it caused Dennis to choose to negotiate to place 3rd (and thus qualify) rather than try to win the thing which he arguably could have still done. Dennis hadn't seen my deck in that tournament before (it was the same Giovanni deck that kept sending Le Dinh Tho in to deal with Robyn's hand in the NAC-LCQ tournament you might recall) and even if he'd known what I was playing, I don't think he would have counted on my drawing that many S:CE in that small a clump of cards at the beginning of the game. The Una deck tends to go off so quickly that it doesn't need to worry about the usual kinds of problems other decks do - like how to get past S:CE without packing things like Immortal Grapples. It just counts on people not drawing more than two or three S:CEs in the space of time they have to shut down Una, I think. Two or three would not be enough to stop Una's repeated rushes. And, indeed, the ones I drew STILL weren't enough to keep me from getting wiped out to a man, anyway. It's just that I cost Dennis so many of his early rushes that I doomed his game in the process. That Una deck has so many advantages that usually come through for it that I suspect it rarely fails to make the finals. It's just that, like the ProsBloom deck in Magic T2 many years ago, it has to be played by someone pretty sharp and capable of thinking on his feet at all times (heh! read, 'not me') it's worst enemy is the occasional spate of poor card draws more than anything else. It it's played by the former and doesn't fall victim to the latter, it tends to look unstoppable against pretty much anything except Direct Interventions. (I was shocked to see you play one against Ira, rather than saving it for Matt in the championship but I wasn't watching long enough to understand your reasons.) Anyway, bottom line, I think it's pure luck and the small number of players playing Una decks in tournaments which have prevented it from having more wins. Fred

<ben...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:17f67472-e5f0-4e8d...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] You'd have to draw a PTO or an AI before it bled you out. As for Pentex Subversion, Una always has plenty of l'il buddies. Go figure... Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > I think you have to take into account how often the deck is played. > Unfortunately, one of the huge barriers against tournament Una decks > is likely to be lack of players who can put together 40+ (and in that > deck's case, I thought the number was 50+) Freak Drives. (45 in its TWDA entry) Collecting that many Freak Drives is certainly non-trivial. Heck, getting 10 Siren's Lures for my Daughters deck took me two years of trading. However, Una's been out for 4 years, so I'm inclined to think that if the deck really was that strong, more people would be putting the effort into building it and the cost of Freak Drive would be crazy high, much like, say, Tupdog decks were really popular for a while and the cost of Tupdogs is really high. So, while I agree that the difficulty of accumulating the required number of Freak Drives is a limiting factor in the number of Una decks out there, I think that the effectiveness of Una decks is a stronger limiting factor. This isn't to speak ill of Dennis Lien or Matt Wedge - Dennis has spent a lot of time refining the deck and has made some great choices with it through his creativity and experience, and Matt did an exceptional job of piloting the deck in the 2007 NAC. > If it's played by the former [skilled player] and doesn't fall victim to > the latter [spinout], it tends to look unstoppable against pretty much > anything except Direct Interventions. (I was shocked to see you play > one against Ira, rather than saving it for Matt in the championship but > I wasn't watching long enough to understand your reasons.) I felt that my biggest threat at the table was Kevin's Kindred Spirits bleeder as my predator - I actually thought I was doomed going into the finals. I also got the impression that Matt had spent a lot of his deck by that point, and that there was a pretty good chance that he'd spin out In addition, supposing I let Ira finish off Una and oust Matt, even if I did end up surviving against Kevin I'd have to face Ira with 2 VP and 12 extra pool while having no time to recover from the damage from Kevin and build up to face him. So, I played the DI to stop Ira's 2nd Trad so Matt could wreck Kevin for me. Mind you, after I played it and while I was watching Matt go off with the Una deck, I was thinking, "Did I just make the biggest blunder in the history of V:TES?" :) However, it worked out pretty much how I wanted it. Matt wrecked Kevin, did some extra damage around the table (an acceptable amount of damage to myself), spun out (whew!), and then got in Ira's way for the rest of the game. > Anyway, bottom line, I think it's pure luck and the small number of > players playing Una decks in tournaments which have prevented it from > having more wins. Time will tell, I suppose. Mad props to Dennis for the deck, regardless! :) - Ben Peal

[ quoted text not captured ] You say it :) @ Fred: Even a simple Direct Intervention will stop it long enough to get enough damage to be really stopped. I mean this much equipment doesn't come for free. So often the deck hovers around say 9 pool. There aren't that much lil friends for taking care of the Pentex around. And even though Una or someone alike is good at blocking she can't stop an all out attack. I've seen two freak-out decks at the Qualifier. They sweeped twice making no VP five times. Nothing to be afraid of, is it? A problem of the deck is the change of game-dynamics as Ben and Johannes already pointed out. Do or die. Just dying after doing nothing is bad for the table. Going off like hell is bad too. But I cannot think of a rules change for that problem and DON'T want anybody to suggest one. I think that these decks will not be played that often successful.

Joscha Duell wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > Bring back PTO!!!! > > You say it :) Well, that's how I took care of Una the first time I faced her. :) > @ Fred: Even a simple Direct Intervention will stop it long enough to > get enough damage to be really stopped. Welllll...you're hoping that at least one player has a DI in hand on Turn 4. Assuming 2 DIs per deck, you're looking at seeing one in the first 35-45 cards on average. Out of 4 opponents, there's a decent chance, but you can't guarantee that every one has DIs in their deck and you can't guarantee that they'll draw them. If they don't, life is much, much easier for Una. If they do have a DI, yeah, one of those Freak Drives is picked off and Una is delayed a turn and the cross-table KRCs start flying. - Ben Peal

"Joscha" <joscha...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:030a915f-d4d2-4bea...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... > @ Fred: Even a simple Direct Intervention will stop it long enough to > get enough damage to be really stopped. I mean this much equipment > doesn't come for free. So often the deck hovers around say 9 pool. > There aren't that much lil friends for taking care of the Pentex > around. And even though Una or someone alike is good at blocking she > can't stop an all out attack. In the normal sensibilities of the game, that would all be true. But you have to understand, "Una Time" is compressed time. You only have a few turns to draw that Pentex Subversion and stop all those weenies from getting rid of it. You only have a few turns to draw your Direct Interventions., You only have a few turns to draw your rush cards or bleed cards or whatever it is you think constitutes an "all out attack" against Una. And, to some extent, what you say is still somewhat true - no one claimed an Una deck was a free ride to victory; only that competantly played, it was significantly more powerful than most archetypes. There's a huge difference. But even the claim that Una can be stopped with an all-out attack doesn't make me feel that good about it. Multiplayer games are a lot more self-balancing than two player games, it's true. But there's a price: play skill and deckbuilding start to matter less in such situations and things like willingness to take one for the "team" and how well people can trust each other and cooperate start to matter more. I assert that's a bad thing. > I've seen two freak-out decks at the > Qualifier. They sweeped twice making no VP five times. Nothing to be > afraid of, is it? Sure. And I've seen the Una deck never fail to make the finals in 15-20+ player tournaments and get stopped only by freak occurances. Metagame, metagame, metagame. I suppose Una does tend to look less frightening in environments where everybody packs many multiples of Direct Intervention because they think it's a god card. Fred

> Sure. And I've seen the Una deck never fail to make the finals in 15-20+ > player tournaments and get stopped only by freak occurances. Metagame, > metagame, metagame. I suppose Una does tend to look less frightening > in environments where everybody packs many multiples of Direct > Intervention because they think it's a god card. > > Fred But it is a good card :P Not a god card though :D

Vragozakas schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Why do you think so? LSJ has expressed that he doesn´t want to make erratas without a card that reflects the current text. There was no upcoming set that could bring an updated version of one of the banned cards so his only choice was to ban them. We might still see a return of errata´ed PTO in the new cam set.

Una certainly has some weaknesses those above and Obedience. I must say that I misplayed it by making the deal with Ira (out of game consteration).I played skin of steel on Ira initial strike instead of forcing out cards. The one caps should not have gotten bleed retainers (i.e. be disposable). I did it because I was worried about A.I. but owl would have given me what I needed to know. SIGH. Denis built Una deck becuase he thinks she is broken. Sadly LA is the only place most people will see her played (well?). The lastest version is the best yet. It has less pool cost and more longevity. If we played more tourniments I think you would see more Una wins. Matt

ben...@gmail.com schrieb: >> P.S: I also think these decks are not good for the game balance since >> they are the probably most extreme silver bullets in the game. But that >> is an entirely different issue. > > It's an entirely different issue, but I think it's the most > important issue. I'm not at all concerned about the time taken by an > Una-style deck. I am, however, concerned about the game balance/game > interactivity involved in an Una-style deck, as well as with the Turbo- > style Soul Gem decks (Arika, Aurora, The Baron, etc). I don't think > it's good for the game to have decks that can get into a non- > interactive, iterative loop (though I do admire the creative genius > behind the decks on a deck design level). Agreed. I might add I stopped both of the decks from getting my VP (hail Archon Investigation), but doing so made my grand-predator win the game in both cases, and despite having played an extremely defensive deck there was nothing I could do to stop it. If you have a forward deck and you prey basically self-ousts (by tooling up ) you will eventually became a steam-roll.

[ quoted text not captured ] Matt, will you post the current Una deck? Thanks! :)

> What are your thoughts? Life is not fair, and neither is VTES. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:59:54 -0700, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >Matt, will you post the current Una deck? Thanks! :) The version that won in March is here: http://www.vtesinla.org/forum/display_message.asp?mid=6159 Date: 3/5/2008 7:14:42 PM Subject: NAC Qualifier Winning Deck Message: Almost forgot I was supposed to do this... Unariffic!!! Crypt: 12 Una x 5 Frederick the Weak x 2 Angela Decker Feo Ramos Huang, Blood Cultist March Halcyon Royce Library: 90 Action: 20 Ambush Big Game Blessing of Chaos Bloodlust Bum's Rush Clan Impersonation Covenant of Blood Creation Rites The Embrace Enrage Harass Heart of the City Mantle of the Bestial Majesty Mind Numb Rumble Sense Death Shadow of the Beast The Summoning Taunt the Caged Beast War Party Action Mods: 45 Freak Drive x 45 Ally: 1 Mylan Horseed Combat: 6 Armor of Vitality x 2 Skin of Steel x 4 Equipment: 9 Aaron's Feeding Razor Blood Tears of Kephran Bomb Camera Phone Flak Jacket Hawg IR Goggles Ivory Bow The Sargon Fragment Master: 1 Waste Management Operation Political: 1 Templar Retainers: 7 Ghoul Retainer Jackie Therman J.S. Simmons Esq. Murder of Crows Owl Companion Tasha Morgan Wolf Companion Enjoy the Freakery!

Yup, thats the one. Its combat is a little weaker but still good. This one is vulnerable to frenzy, but who cares. Its has more rush. Matt

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:9515ccd9-344d-4f27...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > >> What are your thoughts? > > Life is not fair, and neither is VTES. Um, cool. Bring back Return to Innocence. Yes?

[ quoted text not captured ] Generic Freak Drive Hoser Reaction 2 blood Do not replace until your untap phase. Cancel an action modifier as it is played. Only one GFDH can be played in a turn.

In message <1d796b2b-7210-4bf1...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroup s.com>, ben...@gmail.com writes: > (45 in its TWDA entry) Collecting that many Freak Drives is >certainly non-trivial. Heck, getting 10 Siren's Lures for my >Daughters deck took me two years of trading. However, Una's been out >for 4 years, so I'm inclined to think that if the deck really was that >strong, more people would be putting the effort into building it and >the cost of Freak Drive would be crazy high, much like, say, Tupdog >decks were really popular for a while and the cost of Tupdogs is >really high. Well, there are two different issues that, for me, can cause a card or strategy to be looked at critically by LSJ and his red pen. 1) Over-poweredness. Is this strategy more powerful than it should be? 2) Annoyingness. Is this strategy causing other problems for the game? There was debate for some time as to whether Anarch Revolt was over- powered, but it probably qualified - to my mind - as too annoying, with its ability to tear down a whole game indiscriminately. So, I might still be inclined to look at Una-type strategies under 2) if they were causing significant issues for the game other than this. However, I'm not sure if Turbo Freak Drive Una Happy Fun Time is significantly more problematic than Turbo-Arika. Both have a player take many, many actions. Turbo-Arika can take even less time to oust, since it can bleed multiple times in the same turn. Turbo-Arika would not be affected by changes such as "No more than one Freak Drive playable by a minion each turn." And Turbo-Arika has been shown to win with ruthless efficiency. I'm not saying that Turbo-Arika needs action taking against it - though someone else might care to make that argument. However, I'm not sure that Freak Drive Una Happy Fun Time is more problematic. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3585a7af-4778-4191...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > Generic Freak Drive Hoser > Reaction > 2 blood > Do not replace until your untap phase. > Cancel an action modifier as it is played. > Only one GFDH can be played in a turn. That would also be a kind of bleed hoser and anti-stealth reaction card (thus, essentially an intercept card) usable cross-table. I can't even begin to guess what effect it would have on the game, especially if no requirements where lodged to limit its use. One thing it would have in common with some of the other cards already in existence proposed as anti-Una cards: you'd still have to draw it early to use it. Fred

On Apr 22, 10:51 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:9515ccd9-344d-4f27...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> What are your thoughts? > > > Life is not fair, and neither is VTES. > > Um, cool. Bring back Return to Innocence. Do you think that is good for the game or fun for the players? [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > On Apr 22, 10:51 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:9515ccd9-344d-4f27...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >>>> What are your thoughts? >>> Life is not fair, and neither is VTES. >> Um, cool. Bring back Return to Innocence. > > Do you think that is good for the game or fun for the players? I think that was Fred's point.

Matt Wedge wrote: > Una certainly has some weaknesses those above and Obedience. Yeah, getting through Ben Swainbank was going to take some work. > I must say that I misplayed it by making the deal with Ira (out of game > consteration). You mean instead of just destroying Ira outright? I'm not sure if Swainbank would have been a better predator for you. > I played skin of steel on Ira initial strike instead of forcing out cards. > The one caps should not have gotten bleed retainers (i.e. be > disposable). I did it because I was worried about A.I. but > owl would have given me what I needed to know. Did the bleed retainer issue end up mattering that much? > Denis built Una deck becuase he thinks she is broken. Sadly LA > is the only place most people will see her played (well?). The > lastest version is the best yet. It has less pool cost and more > longevity. If we played more tourniments I think you would see > more Una wins. He's definitely put a ton of effort into refinement, and you and he have a lot of experience using the deck. There's certainly a lot of thought involved in playing it, particularly with respect to target assessment. I suppose one question that could be asked is, if the deck has taken that amount of development work and gameplay experience/ skill to become successful, how much different is that from any other successful deck? There's certainly a big difference in the manner in which it wins, and that manner is debateably "broken". Play more tournaments. Get more Una wins. Now that the deck's in the TWDA, perhaps many others will be inspired to try, as well. - Ben

[ quoted text not captured ] Fred didn't have a point. Fred was positing a troll, strawman, non- sequitur, etc..

James Coupe wrote: > Well, there are two different issues that, for me, can cause a card or > strategy to be looked at critically by LSJ and his red pen. > > 1) Over-poweredness. Is this strategy more powerful than it should be? > > 2) Annoyingness. Is this strategy causing other problems for the game? > > ... > > So, I might still be inclined to look at Una-type strategies under 2) if > they were causing significant issues for the game other than this. As for 1), Una decks haven't taken the tournament scene by storm. That may be the result of the difficulty of getting 45 Freak Drives, but I'm disinclined to believe that. However, I'm still open to the possibility that they _could_ dominate the tournament environment - it just has to be demonstrated. I'm of the opinion that 2) is the more likely issue with the Una deck. > However, I'm not sure if Turbo Freak Drive Una Happy Fun Time is > significantly more problematic than Turbo-Arika. Both have a player > take many, many actions. Turbo-Arika can take even less time to oust, > since it can bleed multiple times in the same turn. Turbo-Arika would > not be affected by changes such as "No more than one Freak Drive > playable by a minion each turn." And Turbo-Arika has been shown to win > with ruthless efficiency. I don't recall Turbo Arika having been shown to win with ruthless efficiency. It and Turbo Aurora have won, what, one tournament each? And the decks have been known for, what, a decade? If anything, they've been shown to be engines of ruthless unreliability. :) At the same time, I don't think that the success rate of Turbo decks and Una decks is really the issue. I think the issue is that these decks violate the way the game was meant to be played. I'm not of the opinion that we're meant to sit around and watch someone go through their iterative loop, waiting to be informed if we've been ousted or if the deck spun out so we can get back to playing. It's somewhat interesting in that other ccgs have the three classic archetypes - aggro, control, combo - but V:TES really only has aggro and control. Una and Turbo decks are among the rare few examples of combo decks in V:TES. > I'm not saying that Turbo-Arika needs action taking against it - though > someone else might care to make that argument. However, I'm not sure > that Freak Drive Una Happy Fun Time is more problematic. Well, the answer would be pretty straightforward: ban/rewrite Una and Soul Gem. I suppose there's still the Ankara Citadel style of Una deck, but my instincts tell me that it has stronger issues with reliability than Una. - Ben Peal

[ quoted text not captured ] What are the changes between the new version and the NAC version? The big one I noticed is Hawg instead of Helicopter - why that change? - Ben Peal

In message <7d84f8a2-311b-4b75...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroup s.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >On Apr 23, 7:35 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> XZealot wrote: >> > On Apr 22, 10:51 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> >> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:9515ccd9-344d- >> >>4f27-8bdc-5...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >>>> What are your thoughts? >> >>> Life is not fair, and neither is VTES. >> >> Um, cool. Bring back Return to Innocence. >> >> > Do you think that is good for the game or fun for the players? >> >> I think that was Fred's point. > >Fred didn't have a point. Fred was positing a troll, strawman, non- >sequitur, etc.. Fred's point seemed perfectly clear to me, and certainly wasn't a non- sequitur. Apparently, LSJ thought the same. The response "V:TES isn't fair" ignores the attempts made by the Design Team to mitigate unfairness. Return to Innocence is a good example of that. It was unfair, in a variety of ways, so attempts were made to correct the problems, culminating in a ban. Re: your comment of bringing it back being good for the game or players - that's the point. Things which are sufficiently unfair aren't. Responding to a query about massive Freak Drives with a response that says life isn't fair is missing the point. The Design Team *try to* make V:TES fair, when they can. Fred's suggestion is, clearly, not a serious one to bring back Return to Innocence, but neither is it trolling or a non-sequitur. It's quite clearly a good example of how the attitude "V:TES isn't fair" is entirely the wrong attitude, and clearly isn't the attitude that LSJ holds. Now, given this was clear to me and - apparently - LSJ, could you explain your comments re: trolling, strawmen, and so on? [ quoted text not captured ]

ben...@gmail.com wrote: > Well, the answer would be pretty straightforward: ban/rewrite Una > and Soul Gem. You misspelled Freak Drive. :-)

James Coupe wrote: > Now, given this was clear to me and - apparently - LSJ, could you > explain your comments re: trolling, strawmen, and so on? Better yet, just let it go and get back to talking about Una. :) - Ben Peal

LSJ wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Heheheh...though changing Freak Drive wouldn't nerf the Turbo Arika/ Aurora deck, as it uses Soul Gem for the "untap". - Ben Peal

On Apr 23, 9:19 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <7d84f8a2-311b-4b75-8447-70574b37a...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroup > > > > s.com>, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> writes: > >On Apr 23, 7:35 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> XZealot wrote: > >> > On Apr 22, 10:51 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > >> >> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:9515ccd9-344d- > >> >>4f27-8bdc-5c8ff9cb5...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > >> >>>> What are your thoughts? > >> >>> Life is not fair, and neither is VTES. > >> >> Um, cool. Bring back Return to Innocence. > > >> > Do you think that is good for the game or fun for the players? > > >> I think that was Fred's point. > > >Fred didn't have a point. Fred was positing a troll, strawman, non- > >sequitur, etc.. > > Fred's point seemed perfectly clear to me, and certainly wasn't a non- > sequitur. Apparently, LSJ thought the same. > > The response "V:TES isn't fair" ignores the attempts made by the Design > Team to mitigate unfairness. Return to Innocence is a good example of > that. It was unfair, in a variety of ways, so attempts were made to > correct the problems, culminating in a ban. > > Re: your comment of bringing it back being good for the game or players > - that's the point. Things which are sufficiently unfair aren't. > Responding to a query about massive Freak Drives with a response that > says life isn't fair is missing the point. The Design Team *try to* > make V:TES fair, when they can. Yes, I agree. > Fred's suggestion is, clearly, not a serious one to bring back Return to > Innocence, but neither is it trolling or a non-sequitur. It's quite > clearly a good example of how the attitude "V:TES isn't fair" is > entirely the wrong attitude, and clearly isn't the attitude that LSJ > holds. "V:TES isn't fair" is completely true though. If it were true then victory would always go to the best player with the best deck. Often the best player brings a "gun" deck and the other players bring a "knife" deck. Often the "gun" deck doesn't win as experience shows that the other players will team up together to eliminate the greatest threat. Therefore V:TES isn't fair. Although in general, fairness as a concept disappears when more than two parties or more than two entities are involved. There can be fairness between two parties, but beyond that number fairness becomes justice. > Now, given this was clear to me and - apparently - LSJ, could you > explain your comments re: trolling, strawmen, and so on? Sure, Fred wasn't trying to understand my point, pithy though it may be. He was exaggerating the magnitude of the Una/Freakdrive problem to make it seem to be a bigger problem than it is by equating it to a looming specter of the past. Una/Freakdrive is far less of a problem amongst players that I know than weenie obfuscate, a very common tournament winner, which we can all agree is far less of a problem than Return to Innocence. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Um, but you spelled Soul Gem correctly.

LSJ wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> Ben Peal wrote: >>>> Well, the answer would be pretty straightforward: ban/rewrite Una >>>> and Soul Gem. >>> >>> You misspelled Freak Drive. :-) >> >> Heheheh...though changing Freak Drive wouldn't nerf the Turbo Arika/ >> Aurora deck, as it uses Soul Gem for the "untap". > > Um, but you spelled Soul Gem correctly. I understand why you're glaring at Freak Drive - it may represent an impediment to future card design. However, given the quantity of Unas printed and Freak Drives printed, plus the frequency of their appearance in decks, I'd much prefer text changes/bannings to happen to Una than Freak Drive. - Ben Peal

On 22 Apr., 21:44, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > And, to some extent, what you say is still somewhat true - no one > claimed an Una deck was a free ride to victory; only that competantly > played, it was significantly more powerful than most archetypes. > There's a huge difference. But even the claim that Una can be stopped > with an all-out attack doesn't make me feel that good about it. > Multiplayer games are a lot more self-balancing than two player games, > it's true. But there's a price: play skill and deckbuilding start to > matter less in such situations and things like willingness to take one > for the "team" and how well people can trust each other and cooperate > start to matter more. I assert that's a bad thing. I see your point and admit to your concerns. A multiplayer game should not force one player to team up against another. And saying "but there is Direct Intervention" is not a good argument, I know. On the other hand there often to always will be one deck at each given table which is the strongest or the most dangerous to all players. Maybe we just found another one in addition to dreaded S&B or Speed-Shambling. Against strong decks you often have to gang up if you don't have the best answer against it in your deck. At the GCQ Una was simply blocked twice with +1 intercept and beaten up by Animalism and Howlers 2 strength. Hm, maybe time will tell if here is a problem or not.

On 23 Apr., 16:23, benp...@gmail.com wrote: > Well, the answer would be pretty straightforward: ban/rewrite Una > and Soul Gem. I suppose there's still the Ankara Citadel style of Una > deck, but my instincts tell me that it has stronger issues with > reliability than Una. Not really. You have to fetch the Ankara Citadel but for that you can use Magic of the Smith and it doesn't have to be right on, but can happen after some Freak Drives played already. On the plus-side you even can play other cards for less. Martin played with Eye of Hazimel, getting CHI, playing things like Nightmare Curse and Sens. Depr. and using Will-o'-the-Wisp for ousting (no block and no reaction cards for half blood with AC). Nasty. But it worked just once too.

Joscha Duell wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > Well, the answer would be pretty straightforward: ban/rewrite Una > > and Soul Gem. I suppose there's still the Ankara Citadel style of Una > > deck, but my instincts tell me that it has stronger issues with > > reliability than Una. > > Not really. You have to fetch the Ankara Citadel but for that you can > use Magic of the Smith and it doesn't have to be right on, but can > happen after some Freak Drives played already. You're already describing why it's more unreliable than Una. You have to wait to get an Ankara Citadel before the deck really gets going, and you're loading up on Magic of the Smith which you can't multi-act with (aka hand jam issue). - Ben Peal

On Apr 23, 7:25 am, benp...@gmail.com wrote: > Matt Wedge wrote: > > Yup, thats the one. Its combat is a little weaker but still good. This > > one is vulnerable to frenzy, but who cares. > > Its has more rush. > > What are the changes between the new version and the NAC version? This is my best recollection of that version. 8 Una I have no idea what the crypt looked like. 1 march halcyon 1 basil 1 royce 1 huang 6 skin of steel heart of the city js simmons tasha morgan ghoul retainer jackie therman murder of crows wolf companion owl companion ir goggles blessing of chaos hawg helicopter too much pool hawg is better ivory bow blade of enoch shadow of the beast flak jacket ablative skin mantle of the beast mind numb sargon fragment taunt the caged beast sense death bomb big game bum rush war party covenant of blood templar harass ambush creation rites embrace rumble summoning mylan horseed blood tears of kefram 45-48 freak drives whatevers left I wanted to make some changes to it but did not have the time 2 fredrick the weak for basil and royce clan impersonation mantle of the beast waste managment op helicopter I was willing to take the chance being !brujah w/blade of enoch Matt> The big one I noticed is Hawg instead of Helicopter - why that change? One more press makes it easier to burn vampires in combat and it is free. The waste managment does what helicopter did better. Matt

[ quoted text not captured ] Not so much the impediment to future design angle as the "which is the problem?" angle. Having more in print doesn't alter that equation.

[ quoted text not captured ] Sure, but there's also the impact of the solution. On an abstract level, things are fixed, but the solution results in a larger number of cards either banned (infuriating players who spent a lot of resources to acquire them) or changed (with the resulting nuisance of cards that don't do what's printed on them). As for the impediment to future design angle, Freak Drive raises the issue of "Cost of <discipline> reduced by 1" being ok for all disciplines except Fortitude (are there other disciplines for which that special is a problem?). At the same time, it didn't seem that there was a problem with Freak Drive until Una showed up. Is Freak Drive the problem or is Freak Drive for free the problem? - Ben Peal

Hi guys. I saw this post, and i wanna say the next words: In my country, i won the last 5 tournaments that i played. The reason ? read the metagame. A deck with this form can win one, maybe two times. But no more. Why ? 1.- If the deck is real good, the copies of the original will born in the place. Then, will born the contest too. 2.- The metagame is not always the same. In Chile, a player (Gonzalo del Rio) played a Mata Hari deck with Ankara Citadel and more that 15 Freak Drive cards (can be more). Gonzalo won 2 tournaments with this deck. But the metagame changed, and this deck cannot win again in Chile with the forms of game that exist today. 3.- You don't play alone in a table. You have 4 more players that they act with special care if exist a Monter-deck. If a monster deck win a tournament, the next time at least 4 players will be prepared the deck for this situation. If don't do them...the result will be the same. V:TES is a game of 5 persons in a table. You will never play alone. Is not Magic, Naruto or whatever, because is a multiplayer game. You don't need to live with a lot of deals, but you never play alone. You are a vampire. A raw world. A cruel world. You must be cold, cruel, and use your empathy. To win V:TES is not only the deck: is you. To win Una deck, you can win playing Pentex Subversion with a control deck in Una, or send to torpor the little vampires and play Tension in the Ranks and Dragonbound, or with a deck bleeder (this deck cannot win in one turn)....a lot of options. To break combo deck, please use multi rush deck (Turbo CEL with .44 Magnum, for example, a real good deck). Thanks for all ;)

On Apr 23, 6:17 am, benp...@gmail.com wrote: > > I must say that I misplayed it by making the deal with Ira (out of game > > consteration). > > You mean instead of just destroying Ira outright? I'm not sure if > Swainbank would have been a better predator for you. I would have taken out swainbanks 7cap at that moument Lucian was not up yet. For Ira I had two rushes. I think would have forced you and Kevin to race to get two soft targets. Then lucian comes up and slows you down. I still have to rush down Ira's remaining minons. I can not take bounced bleeds. From there it is to hard to predict. > Did the bleed retainer issue end up mattering that much? Yes, I was not willing to diablerize w/ a minon w/ 2 bleed. > He's definitely put a ton of effort into refinement, and you and he have a lot of experience using the deck. I never played it before or since that day. Seeing Denis play it is enough. I wish he didn't have to work that day. I must say it was a great game anyway. Everyone at the table could oust me from where they were sitting. Good times Matt

ben...@gmail.com wrote: > At the same time, it didn't seem that > there was a problem with Freak Drive until Una showed up. Or perhaps Una revealed the problem to a wider audience. > Is Freak > Drive the problem or is Freak Drive for free the problem? http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/7c1d98ac8cc9318e

On Apr 23, 10:34 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/7c1d... For changes Ilike [for] Only usable at the end of a successful action (after resolving the action). Untap this vampire. [FOR] As above, but usable even if the action is blocked (play after combat, if any) only useable once a turn. [FOR] As above, burn one blood to use even if the action is blocked (play after combat, if any)

LSJ wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > At the same time, it didn't seem that > > there was a problem with Freak Drive until Una showed up. > > Or perhaps Una revealed the problem to a wider audience. Ankara Citadel has existed for 12 years and Freak Drive wasn't an issue then (apart from the old NRA issues). > > Is Freak Drive the problem or is Freak Drive for free the problem? > > http://tinyurl.com/45hxca Sure, but Freak Drive all by itself doesn't cause the problem. It's only in combination with another card that the problem arises. A change to either Freak Drive or Una fixes the problem. Suppose you designed a vampire with a special of "Every time Bingo performs a successful equip action, your prey loses a pool." Would the problem be the vampire, or would it be Hag's Wrinkles/Guruhi Are The Land? Given that such a vampire has not been printed, are Hag's Wrinkles and Guruhi Are The Land a problem right now? - Ben

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:7d84f8a2-311b-4b75...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] No, Scott is exactly right. The point wasn't so much to prove or disprove hyper-Freak-Drive decks are unfair as much as to question your pat suggestion that the existence of some inevitable unfairness in a game is a justification for living with every form of unfairness. In short, life may not be fair but sometimes you fix problems anyway. If you disagree with Johannes's point of view, how about entertaining us with some more specific reasons why? Fred

On Apr 23, 1:10 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] I did, check the response to James Coupe by XZealot. [ quoted text not captured ]

One of the first times I played my Una deck (the Eurayle variant of the German ECQ), I got to cope with a crosstable "Can't Take It With You", which instantly killed me (23 pool damage). I'm still wondering if this card wasn't specifically designed to finish off the freakshow decks. :) BTW. Johannes has a point. My playgroup doesn't want me to play this deck anymore, because it's no fun to just sit there for over half an hour. On the other hand, this is the most exciting VTES deck I've ever played. (I really advise everybody to play it while you still can - it's a lot of fun). Oh well we could always start the "maximum four of the same card per deck" discussion to solve it I suppose. H -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutgaming.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/ More information at http://www.talkaboutgaming.com/faq.html

Other decks that monopolize time like Una. Frist Tradition and Madness Network/Reversal of Fortunes Both need time to get running, but can be just as frustranting. Matt

ben...@gmail.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Ben Peal wrote: >>> At the same time, it didn't seem that >>> there was a problem with Freak Drive until Una showed up. >> Or perhaps Una revealed the problem to a wider audience. > > Ankara Citadel has existed for 12 years and Freak Drive wasn't an > issue then (apart from the old NRA issues). Perhaps. >>> Is Freak Drive the problem or is Freak Drive for free the problem? >> http://tinyurl.com/45hxca > > Sure, but Freak Drive all by itself doesn't cause the problem. Sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't the problem. > It's > only in combination with another card that the problem arises. A > change to either Freak Drive or Una fixes the problem. You ID'ed (correctly) Soul Gem (rather than suggesting a "fix" to every vampire that can turbo). I'm not sure what the obstacle is that prevents drawing the same parallel for Freak Drive. Is it the idea that is a cost issue that only Una can effectively mitigate? >

LSJ wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > >>> Is Freak Drive the problem or is Freak Drive for free the problem? > >>http://tinyurl.com/45hxca > > > Sure, but Freak Drive all by itself doesn't cause the problem. > > Sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't the problem. Either the absence of Freak Drive or the absence of Una (and Ankara Citadel) makes the iterative looping issue go away. You can pick whichever one you want - the net result is the same I'd pick Una because it would affect the players less because fewer copies of cards would be changed/banned. > > It's only in combination with another card that the problem arises. A change to either Freak Drive or Una fixes the problem. > > You ID'ed (correctly) Soul Gem (rather than suggesting a "fix" to every vampire > that can turbo). Or a "fix" to actions that result in the increase of a vampire's capacity (i.e. PS: Berlin, Epiphany, Camarilla Vitae Slave, Reliquary: Akunanse Remains). Pick whichever you want to "fix" - the net result is the same. > I'm not sure what the obstacle is that prevents drawing the same parallel for > Freak Drive. Is it the idea that is a cost issue that only Una can effectively > mitigate? I'm not denying that you could "fix" Freak Drive. I just don't see Freak Drive as being the problem all by itself or Una being the problem all by itself. If Freak Drive didn't exist, Una would be fine. If Una didn't exist, Freak Drive would be fine. The "problem" isn't Freak Drive or Una - it's the iterative looping that results from the combination of the two. "Fix" one or the other and the problem is gone. If I ran the circus (and if I viewed the Una deck or Turbo decks as being problems - right now I don't think a change is warranted), I'd pick Una and Soul Gem, since it would involve the fewest number of physical copies of cards banned or changed. - Ben Peal

Mata Hari can be made into deck similar to Una w/ Guruhi are the Land and Freak Drive. I don't it would be as effective, but it is still possible. Matt

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:32:58 -0700 (PDT), <ben...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Is this really fair? In an ideal 5 player game every player should be >> entitled to 24 minutes of game time during their turn. This might vary >> with players getting ousted etc.. but one players using 30 minutes (and >> not by playing slowly) in their 4th turn seems a little out of bounds >> for me. > > Once such a deck has taken that time, its subsequent turns are > rather quick. Also, if the deck has "gone off", then it's likely that > at least one player has been ousted plus a lot of vampires in torpor, > so everyone else's subsequent turns should also be rather quick. > While I've only been in two games with an Una deck (one pick-up game > plus the finals of the 2007 NAC), I didn't feel in either game that > the Una deck was using up too much time. That, and in this respect a massive Freak Drive deck isn't any more unfair than a weenie and/or imbued deck that can well take 10-minute turns without even playing slow. As seen at the EC, it can easily spend the last 10-15 minutes of a game if it wants to. Nerfing multi-action would simply make weenies more strong in contrast. So my suggestion - either Nerf weenies and then maybe consider considering Freak Drive / Una / Soul Gem, or just leave things as is. -- Regards, Daneel

On Apr 23, 1:53 pm, "Chlorix64" <herman.j@> wrote: > On the other hand, this is the most exciting VTES deck I've ever played. Why? (I haven't seen one played or played one myself.) John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Because you have a limited number of rushes so each one is important. You can effect the whole table. You have bleed. There is no tool up that you do not want. It is fragile. All of which make it exiciting. Matt

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:21612283-0b37-436e...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > ...Fred wasn't trying to understand my point, pithy though it may be. Such as I understood it, it didn't seem to be much of a point. Or perhaps more accurately, it seemed like a platitude one could trot out in response to absolutely anything. > He was exaggerating the magnitude of the Una/Freakdrive problem > to make it seem to be a bigger problem than it is by equating it to a > looming specter of the past. I wasn't trying to exaggerate by those means, no. I was just demonstrating how one could apply the same response ("VtES is unfair...") to respond to any complaint, valid or otherwise. > Una/Freakdrive is far less of a problem amongst players that I know > than weenie obfuscate... I disagree, but fair enough as an opinion. Fred

<ben...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c041db47-60c2-4753...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Freak Drive was the centerpiece of the "Freaky Majestic Bleed Deck" of old, possibly the first ever absolutely broken deck in Jyhad if you don't count 90-KRCs-and-vote-pushing-by-weenies. (Well, OK, I wasn't exactly around at the time so apologies if I'm misrepresenting history. But I think that's a fairly accurate description of things.) The problem was solved with NRA but it's long been a suspicious card due to the endless cycling in a game where playing cards represents a negligible cost and the payoff - minion actions - are pretty valuable (the more capable the minion, the more valuable). I can understand why the person who has to design the cards is a lot more concerned about what Freak Drive does in the game than how many of them are currently in print. Fred, feeling the anxiousness of a man who's spent far too much money acquiring Freak Drives...

In article <cdd4c2b4-e1b9-446c...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, ben...@gmail.com wrote: > Heheheh...though changing Freak Drive wouldn't nerf the Turbo Arika/ > Aurora deck, as it uses Soul Gem for the "untap". True, but the Soul Gem trick is a bit harder to pull off than the "55 Freak Drive" trick (as you can theoretically block the Soul Gem, and you can't realistically have as many Soul Gems to draw early like you can Freak Drives). I suspect that if Freak Drive was "only one per minion per turn" like it probably should be (see: Forced March as a realistically designed untap card), the Una style deck would cease to exist, and the Turbo Arika deck would still be a tad OTT, but then, what deck with Arika isn't :-) Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

In article <c041db47-60c2-4753...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, ben...@gmail.com wrote: > Is Freak Drive the problem or is Freak Drive for free the problem? In reality, as I mentioned above, I suspect that Freak Drive multiple times per turn is probably the problem. Compared to Forced March: -Only one discipline (+ Freak) -Costs a blood every time (- Freak) -Can be used an infinite number of times a turn (+++++++++ Freak) Forced March, only at once a turn per minion, is likely a much more balanced card than Freak ever was and ever shall be. I'm hardly calling for, like, errata on Freak Drive or anything. But in a perfect world, it seems likely that Freak should only be once per turn per minion. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Una can easily be fixed by adding one word to the beginning of her text - "Combat". Then the Una turbo deck would cease to exist, but Una would still be playable. Still, it is of my opinion that freak drive is the problem in it's current state and will always have the potential for abuse. It should follow Forced March's example - "A vampire can play only one Forced March each turn." That being said, I do feel for multi-rush decks (having built several of them) that will suffer for this, but, hopefully, more cards like Monster will be released to give them more multi-rush options. It would also be great to have a rush card that untaps you if you rush successfully or burn/torpor the opposing vampire. Example: Berserker Rage Action + 1 Stealth Action [for] (D) Enter combat with a ready minion controlled by another Methuselah. [FOR] If this action is successful, this vampire may burn one blood at the end of the action to untap.

On Apr 23, 3:49 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] I build multi-rush trick decks all the time and the well tuned Una deck would last about 30 seconds in my metagame. Can it oust someone in one turn? Does it make a spectacle of itself. Does everyone on the table want to get rid of it for the following reasons? 1) Takes way too many actions. 2) Puts way too many permanents into play 3) Makes the other players wish for its immediate demise so they can get on playing with their cards. I know rush heavy metas are not prevalent, but if you can imagine, when someone plays alot of trick decks (i.e. me), then players start to play more and more rush to eliminate moving parts. If this becomes more prevalent, then rush decks will become more prevalent to control them. It just sounds like new players saying, "Wah! Stealth Bleed is broken", but almost 10% of every tournament worthy deck is dedicated to being able to stop it. If players build 10% of their decks to enter combat then I doubt this would be as much of a problem, but then again your mileage may vary. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 23, 7:23 am, benp...@gmail.com wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > Well, there are two different issues that, for me, can cause a card or > > strategy to be looked at critically by LSJ and his red pen. > > > 1) Over-poweredness. Is this strategy more powerful than it should be? > > > 2) Annoyingness. Is this strategy causing other problems for the game? > > > ... > > > So, I might still be inclined to look at Una-type strategies under 2) if > > they were causing significant issues for the game other than this. > > As for 1), Una decks haven't taken the tournament scene by storm. > That may be the result of the difficulty of getting 45 Freak Drives, > but I'm disinclined to believe that. However, I'm still open to the > possibility that they _could_ dominate the tournament environment - it > just has to be demonstrated. I'm of the opinion that 2) is the more > likely issue with the Una deck. > > > However, I'm not sure if Turbo Freak Drive Una Happy Fun Time is > > significantly more problematic than Turbo-Arika. Both have a player > > take many, many actions. Turbo-Arika can take even less time to oust, > > since it can bleed multiple times in the same turn. Turbo-Arika would > > not be affected by changes such as "No more than one Freak Drive > > playable by a minion each turn." And Turbo-Arika has been shown to win > > with ruthless efficiency. > > I don't recall Turbo Arika having been shown to win with ruthless > efficiency. It and Turbo Aurora have won, what, one tournament each? > And the decks have been known for, what, a decade? If anything, > they've been shown to be engines of ruthless unreliability. :) > > At the same time, I don't think that the success rate of Turbo decks > and Una decks is really the issue. I think the issue is that these > decks violate the way the game was meant to be played. I'm not of the > opinion that we're meant to sit around and watch someone go through > their iterative loop, waiting to be informed if we've been ousted or > if the deck spun out so we can get back to playing. > > It's somewhat interesting in that other ccgs have the three classic > archetypes - aggro, control, combo - but V:TES really only has aggro > and control. Una and Turbo decks are among the rare few examples of > combo decks in V:TES. > > > I'm not saying that Turbo-Arika needs action taking against it - though > > someone else might care to make that argument. However, I'm not sure > > that Freak Drive Una Happy Fun Time is more problematic. > > Well, the answer would be pretty straightforward: ban/rewrite Una > and Soul Gem. I suppose there's still the Ankara Citadel style of Una > deck, but my instincts tell me that it has stronger issues with > reliability than Una. > > - Ben Peal Clearly the solution is to impose 4CL on the game. ;) Jeff

In message <WENPj.92786$497....@newsfe14.phx>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >Freak Drive was the centerpiece of the "Freaky Majestic Bleed Deck" of >old, possibly the first ever absolutely broken deck in Jyhad if you don't >count 90-KRCs-and-vote-pushing-by-weenies. (Well, OK, I wasn't exactly >around at the time so apologies if I'm misrepresenting history. But I >think that's a fairly accurate description of things.) There's also the Gangrel infinite loop. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

[ quoted text not captured ] > Jeff- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - In my opinion it is that people create too good Una decks. I know I would be able to create and Una deck that sucked and then that would also solve the problem. Go figure. On a more serious note I would have to agree with the metagame observation. Weenies stealth & bleed is still one of the more stable and effective ways of getting many VPs and that in effect means GWs and tournament wins. The only way to counter that is to include cards to prevent it. So the metagame changes and everyone includes more Deflection/Misdirection cards or more Archon Investigations or simply play with block decks and then problem is solved. For a while the stealth & bleeders disappear until someone chances the metagame again and wins. Archie

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-8276DC.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com... > In article > <cdd4c2b4-e1b9-446c...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > ben...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Heheheh...though changing Freak Drive wouldn't nerf the Turbo Arika/ >> Aurora deck, as it uses Soul Gem for the "untap". > > True, but the Soul Gem trick is a bit harder to pull off than the "55 > Freak Drive" trick (as you can theoretically block the Soul Gem, and you > can't realistically have as many Soul Gems to draw early like you can > Freak Drives). One really ingenious solution to that: maybe 2 or 3 Soul Gems and the rest in Vast Wealths. It requires you not play any other equipment in your deck (not sure you would anyway) but it allows you to fail to equip and not worry that your hole game is hosed unless/until you can draw another if you got blocked. Josh Duffin came up with that one. Or at least, he was the first one I saw use it in a deck. Then all you have to do is come up with 55 ways to get burnt. :-) Fred

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:5a545402-16f5-44a6...@t63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 23, 3:49 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message >> > Una/Freakdrive is far less of a problem amongst players that I know >> > than weenie obfuscate... >> >> I disagree, but fair enough as an opinion. > > I build multi-rush trick decks all the time and the well tuned Una > deck would last about 30 seconds in my metagame. Can it oust someone > in one turn? Does it make a spectacle of itself. Does everyone on > the table want to get rid of it for the following reasons? > > 1) Takes way too many actions. > 2) Puts way too many permanents into play > 3) Makes the other players wish for its immediate demise so they can > get on playing with their cards. No - it's actually the effectiveness of the deck which is the problem and not the one Johannes was complaining about. As others have noted, once the deck has taken its half-hour turn and has all its permanents and has taken most of its rushes and so forth, it can actually settle down to playing fairly quick turns - either because it's position is totally screwed or because everyone else's is. I admit, I have no idea how well it does in a rush heavy metagame. It gets in a lot of combats, obviously, and one of the big advantages is that once it's opponents run out of combat cards, they get real helpless against the multi-rush capabilities. If it's opponents don't run out of combat cards very quickly, it might make things a lot more interesting. I think it kind of depends what sort of combat the opponents are running. > It just sounds like new players saying, "Wah! Stealth Bleed is > broken", but almost 10% of every tournament worthy deck is dedicated > to being able to stop it. If players build 10% of their decks to > enter combat then I doubt this would be as much of a problem, but then > again your mileage may vary. It would take a lot more than 10% of your deck to enter combat to make much difference against Una, I think. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] > Fred- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Not if that 10% is Pentex Subversion, DI,and Obedience

>> On the other hand, this is the most exciting VTES deck I've ever played. >> >Why? (I haven't seen one played or played one myself.) > >John Eno > It takes a few months to collect the 40+ Freak Drives (either via trading or E-bay). So one will be busy designing the deck during such a period. Normally one is considering just a few discipline cards and some clan specific cards for a deck. In this case you consider all the retainers and equipment available (probably you are going to play "Clan Impersonation"). When you have the deck complete you are going to test the "Equip turn" of Una. This is something you can do alone, as opposed to the testing of a regular deck which is difficult without other players. BTW it is to be advised to test the "Equip turn"because it is more difficult than it looks. All the facts above lead to a greater affection for the Una deck than for a regular deck. It's your baby, which enhances the excitement when playing it. Then the game. You know that the entire table is going to be you enemy. Especially in a tournament after the first round it buzzes around that you have an Una deck, so all know they have to kill you (at least when they know what an Una deck does). The first turns you sit there awaiting what kind of damage the others are going to inflict on you. Then you bring out Una. The moment she comes out Una has a bulls eye painted on het head. So, will she survive the round she is vulnerable? When she survives the first round she is out, then the "Equip turn" will start. Then one has to avoid a Hand Jam, decide which vampires to rush and determine the order in which the cards have to be played. After that you have to decide which actions you have to block and how you are going to oust you prey(s) avoiding "Archon Investigation" and other terrible cards. All the time you are playing against the rest of the table, you have no friends and nobody is going to believe your table talk. All the time a card like "Can't Take it with You" can be played, which instantly kills you. All in all it is a blast to play it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <2e8aa1ba-9969-40de...@k10g2000prm.googlegroup s.com>, mat...@gmail.com writes: >On Apr 24, 8:18 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message >> > It just sounds like new players saying, "Wah! Stealth Bleed is >> > broken", but almost 10% of every tournament worthy deck is dedicated >> > to being able to stop it. If players build 10% of their decks to >> > enter combat then I doubt this would be as much of a problem, but then >> > again your mileage may vary. >> >> It would take a lot more than 10% of your deck to enter combat to make >> much difference against Una, I think. >> >> Fred- Hide quoted text - > >Not if that 10% is Pentex Subversion, DI,and Obedience But then that wouldn't be 10% of your deck to enter combat, since none of those cards are about entering combat. So you're not contradicting Fred's point, or supporting XZealot's, which was specifically about a percentage of your deck being there to enter combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 24, 9:47 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <2e8aa1ba-9969-40de-9267-d4a1deca0...@k10g2000prm.googlegroup > > s.com>, matt...@gmail.com writes: > >On Apr 24, 8:18 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > >> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message > >> > It just sounds like new players saying, "Wah! Stealth Bleed is > >> > broken", but almost 10% of every tournament worthy deck is dedicated > >> > to being able to stop it. If players build 10% of their decks to > >> > enter combat then I doubt this would be as much of a problem, but then > >> > again your mileage may vary. > > >> It would take a lot more than 10% of your deck to enter combat to make > >> much difference against Una, I think. > > >> Fred- Hide quoted text - > > >Not if that 10% is Pentex Subversion, DI,and Obedience > > But then that wouldn't be 10% of your deck to enter combat, since none > of those cards are about entering combat. So you're not contradicting > Fred's point, or supporting XZealot's, which was specifically about a > percentage of your deck being there to enter combat. Ooops! The worst combat for Una is Animalism. Canine Hordes, Carrion Crows and frenzy I doute that any other non-dedicated combat would trump her (3 manuevers, 2 presses, open hand, 3 enviormental;close;long;aggravated, prevent 1) and two chump blockers before she is tooled up.

In article <rn1Qj.93698$497....@newsfe14.phx>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > One really ingenious solution to that: maybe 2 or 3 Soul Gems and the > rest in Vast Wealths. It requires you not play any other equipment in > your deck (not sure you would anyway) but it allows you to fail to equip > and not worry that your hole game is hosed unless/until you can draw > another if you got blocked. Oh, sure, but then instead of having a big handful of Soul Trains, you have a small handful of Soul Trains and a big handful of Vast Wealths. Both of which are mostly dead cards after you get the first one in play, which gum up the works some. Not a huge impediment, but at least something. > Then all you have to do is come up with 55 ways to get burnt. :-) Hmm. It isn't like Arika has FOR or anything :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I'm hardly calling for, like, errata on Freak Drive or anything. But > in a perfect world, it seems likely that Freak should only be once > per turn per minion. Which is it, then? It is entirely unclear by your contradictory statement above what your position is, here. Do you want Freak Drive to be changed, or not? What do *you* want? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > I build multi-rush trick decks all the time and the well tuned > Una deck would last about 30 seconds in my metagame. > Can it oust someone in one turn? No, it can oust 3-4 players on turn 4-5 at the very latest. > Does it make a spectacle of itself. Does everyone on > the table want to get rid of it for the following reasons? > 1) Takes way too many actions. > 2) Puts way too many permanents into play > 3) Makes the other players wish for its immediate demise > so they can get on playing with their cards. Sure it does these things, but you are talking in-theory, here. I mean, by your reasoning, these reasons should be enough for all players (or perhaps just 100% of the players in your playgroup) to stop a deck of this type, which I am sure that they (and we) don't, and won't, all the time. > I know rush heavy metas are not prevalent, but if you can imagine, > when someone plays alot of trick decks (i.e. me), then players start > to play more and more rush to eliminate moving parts. I totally agree with what you are saying, here. > If this becomes more prevalent, then rush decks > will become more prevalent to control them. Again, I think this is in-theory talking. Combat decks have been playing catch-up to the other (perceived or real) archetypes for the entire history of the game. They have had exactly *one* set so far which significantly elevated them above their counterparts, and it has been all uphill for them ever since, when you compare their gains to the gains of the other archetypes. > It just sounds like new players saying, "Wah! Stealth Bleed is > broken", but almost 10% of every tournament worthy deck is dedicated > to being able to stop it. If players build 10% of their decks to > enter combat then I doubt this would be as much of a problem, but then > again your mileage may vary. If *one* player in every two games was a dedicated combat deck, and the other nine were Una, Bruise-Bleed, Bleed-Bounce, Intercept Wall, Weenie Vote, Stealth Vote, and 3 SnB decks, then you doubt this would be as much of a problem? ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <MJaQj.172484$nr1.1...@newsfe13.phx>, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> writes: >Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> I'm hardly calling for, like, errata on Freak Drive or anything. But >> in a perfect world, it seems likely that Freak should only be once >> per turn per minion. > >Which is it, then? It is entirely unclear by your contradictory statement >above what your position is, here. > >Do you want Freak Drive to be changed, or not? What do *you* want? It seems reasonably clear that Peter thinks something approximately as follows: - Freak Drive is very powerful - if we were writing Jyhad from scratch, we'd tone Freak Drive down (perhaps as he suggests, perhaps another way) because it would make the game more balanced and open up design opportunities - the card doesn't reach Peter's personal threshold for issuing errata at the moment. It's powerful but not so powerful that he wants to issue errata. There are a whole bunch of cards in this category. In a perfect world, a few key Dominate cards would be slightly less powerful to open up a more level playing field and have less of the "graft Dominate on" aspect to decks, but they're not so disruptive that they need to be smacked about. This is an often discussed position - I'm happy leaving these cards as they are now, but if I were writing Jyhad all those years ago with a crystal ball then... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 24, 9:43 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ]

On Apr 24, 9:43 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Which is it, then? It is entirely unclear by your contradictory statement > above what your position is, here. Dude. I'm just talking. I'm not declaring a manifesto. > Do you want Freak Drive to be changed, or not? What do *you* want? As James sums up: A) I think Freak Drive is really, really powerful. B) It seems likely that if it had been designed today, by the current design team, it would only be useable once per turn per minion (see: Forced March). C) In a perfect world, Freak Drive would probably only be useable once per turn per minion. D) I don't necessarily think errata is necessary, but I'd be totally ok with it happening. -Peter

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:bf417fe3-6e69-42f8...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 24, 9:43 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > > > I'm hardly calling for, like, errata on Freak Drive or anything. But > > > in a perfect world, it seems likely that Freak should only be once > > > per turn per minion. > > > > Which is it, then? It is entirely unclear by your contradictory statement > > above what your position is, here. > > > > Do you want Freak Drive to be changed, or not? What do *you* want? > > (...Peter quotes Kevin's post and adds no additional text of his own...) Outstanding, Peter! I think that's the best reply I've seen all year! Me, too! ;-)

On Apr 25, 12:15 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > (...Peter quotes Kevin's post and adds no additional text of his own...) > > Outstanding, Peter! I think that's the best reply I've seen all year! > > Me, too! ;-) Blergh. It wasn't my fault! I hit something and it posted! I claim no fault! -Peter

On 25 Apr, 07:51, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > This is an often discussed position - I'm happy leaving these cards as > they are now, but if I were writing Jyhad all those years ago with a > crystal ball then... Oh I guess i hardly post anything much but I'll add my thoughts :) It does seem that the more cards you add to a game the more likely that older cards will become more powerful when used in combination. MtG's route out of that was to phase out editions and in a way the grouping system for vamps is similar. In my somewhat simplistic view of it is: 1. Keep cards like Freak Drive the way and the game can only eventually reach a natural roadblock in development. (this may, of course be many years in the future) 2.Water cards like Freak Drive down and the game loses some character. 3.In addition to point 2, ban cards like Freak Drive and again the game will lose some character and the banned cards will be replaced by the next most powerful/annoying cards in the list. I can see though that banning Memories of Mortality, for example, broadens the horizon for more ally based stuff that would otherwise not have seen the light of day and will aid the future development of the game. IMO Freak Drive does not yet fall into that category and, to get to the point, I personally wouldn't like to see FD banned or changed as I think it allows some good and interesting decks to exist especially using the higher cap vamps. There.. that was more of a brain fart than anything else :) J

<sin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d8710987-02e3-41bd...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... > I can see though that banning Memories of Mortality, for example, > broadens the horizon for more ally based stuff that would otherwise > not have seen the light of day and will aid the future development of > the game. The problem with Memories of Mortality wasn't that it was too powerful. The problem was that a class of allies got created which were significantly more powerful than the sort that had been printed before Nights of Reckoning. This was the design mistake. IMHO, It would have been perfectly reasonable to alter MoM so that it merely didn't work with hunters but work the same with other allies as it had for years without problem. By the same token, if they create more ally based stuff without distinguishing its usage between hunters and other allies, it will run into the same issue: anything not too powerful for use with hunters will be too weak to do anything for the others. The banning and printing of cards used by and for allies needs to be understood in that light. Just saying we needed to ban MoM so that we can print other cards misses the point. Fred

On Apr 23, 5:21 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <c041db47-60c2-4753-9999-0cba04225...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > benp...@gmail.com wrote: > > Is Freak Drive the problem or is Freak Drive for free the problem? > > In reality, as I mentioned above, I suspect that Freak Drive multiple > times per turn is probably the problem. Compared to Forced March: > > -Only one discipline (+ Freak) > -Costs a blood every time (- Freak) > -Can be used an infinite number of times a turn (+++++++++ Freak) > > Forced March, only at once a turn per minion, is likely a much more > balanced card than Freak ever was and ever shall be. > > I'm hardly calling for, like, errata on Freak Drive or anything. But in > a perfect world, it seems likely that Freak should only be once per turn > per minion. > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" > -Gaff Why not "simply" adjust Freak Drive to say it costs an additional blood per use in the same turn by the same minion? ie first use (in a turn by a minion) costs 1 blood, 2nd use by the same minion in the same turn costs 2, etc, etc. Short, Simple, and doesn't break Freak Drive for normal usage. Simply makes it cost more and more.

[ quoted text not captured ] Another version would be cost = 1+X where X is the number of actions taken by this minion this turn

On 25 Apr, 23:31, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > The problem with Memories of Mortality wasn't that it was too powerful. > The problem was that a class of allies got created which were significantly > more powerful than the sort that had been printed before Nights of > Reckoning. This was the design mistake. IMHO, It would have been perfectly > reasonable to alter MoM so that it merely didn't work with hunters but > work the same with other allies as it had for years without problem. > By the same token, if they create more ally based stuff without > distinguishing its usage between hunters and other allies, it will run > into the same issue: anything not too powerful for use with hunters will > be too weak to do anything for the others. The banning and printing of > cards used by and for allies needs to be understood in that light. Just > saying we needed to ban MoM so that we can print other cards misses the > point. Well, I knew making comments based on history wouldn't be too helpful as I just wanted to illustrate the point I was making.. my bad :) and, as I said, I don't think Freak drive falls into that category anyway. While I'm deviating from the topic of Una/Freak I was just musing on what happens when you ban/alter cards. I felt a small sense of loss when MoM was banned mainly because, as you say, the Imbued were the issue and not MoM. I would also feel a small sense of loss if Freak Drive was changed/banned as it's a cornerstone for the way some decks work but if it needs to be done then, hopefully, some new, interesting types of deck will come out of it and maybe by future special abilities or cards that would otherwise be broken if FD remains as it is. J

<sin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:03ea6ff7-e80a-4b1c...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > While I'm deviating from the topic of Una/Freak I was just musing on > what happens when you ban/alter cards. I felt a small sense of loss > when MoM was banned mainly because, as you say, the Imbued were the > issue and not MoM. I would also feel a small sense of loss if Freak > Drive was changed/banned as it's a cornerstone for the way some decks > work... Yea, I know what you mean. I wish the assholes would stop building much *better* decks with some of these cards I'm using to build my mediocre-but-entertaining (for me) decks. :-) Fred

In message <3b0fd317-26ed-4940...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroup [ quoted text not captured ] Assuming errata were issued (or a Most Recent Printing done)[0], I quite like this sort of cost - you can use it a lot, but it's up to you to cope with it. One slight downside with it, though, is that you can get into trouble with book-keeping. It's not absolutely killer, but it can be annoying, especially if you try to recycle the Freak Drives back into your library or hand somehow. [0] I'm mostly with Peter and Ben on this. I wouldn't write Freak Drive as it is now, but I don't think I want to change it. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I wouldn't mind if it worked like this Freak Drive Cost ZERO Action Modifier [for] Only usable after a successfule action,This minion burns 1 blood for each Freak Drive on the Action Minion. Play this card on the acting Minion. Untap the Action Minion. Burn this card during your next untap phase. [FOR] As above, but usable even if the action is blocked (play after combat, if any). So the blood costs would be # of Freak Drives Blood Burned Total Blood Burned 1 0 0 2 1 1 3 2 3 4 3 6 5 4 10 This give the card a slight boost when used in small quantities, but eliminates any Una/Ankara Citadel cheezieness and it maximizes the number of Freak Drives played by ANY minion to 5 unless they have some method of gaining blood during action. [ quoted text not captured ]

just bumping out of nowhere... to say that my turn with the Una deck at the final of French ECQ, which included burning about 10 vampires and cycling all my deck, has lasted 26 minuts BUT I tried to make it as pleasant as possible, with comments, jokes, whatever, which helped the 4 other players and the 15 watchers not being too much bored. So concerning being bored, I don't think this deck is worse than an imbued taking convictions during 1 minute every turn or a Giovanni cycling sudario refractions over and over. I certainly don't feel ashamed burning one vampire every two minutes, and playing 3 cards/ minuts. Concerning strength of the deck, it is clearly a very strong deck. DI does not disturb it too much because there are 3 alternate ways to burn it, Pentex subversion is breakable with weenies. The thing is... during preliminar rounds, you can make GWs because you always have some crap useless decks on the table that you do not care with. You rush the dangerous people: voting, swarm,stealth/bleed that can damage you, and you kill the other players who play gangrel bleed for 1 or whatever, on the long term with swarm bleeding and 1rush/turn with Templar. But in a final, and especially if there are weenie decks on the table, you just cannot handle them all. At the final table in Paris, there was 3 weenies deck and the 4th deck was not playing votes... so basically I could kill one weenie (ravnos embrace), slow down another one (courier bleed), but finally the third one had too many minions for me (Bima) and I died to it. Obviously, I am already playing Aranthebes ^^ and I am planning to enter 2x domain challenge into the deck for latest tests. all best Orian

Daneel wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:32:58 -0700 (PDT), <ben...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Is this really fair? In an ideal 5 player game every player should be >>> entitled to 24 minutes of game time during their turn. This might vary >>> with players getting ousted etc.. but one players using 30 minutes (and >>> not by playing slowly) in their 4th turn seems a little out of bounds >>> for me. >> >> Once such a deck has taken that time, its subsequent turns are >> rather quick. Also, if the deck has "gone off", then it's likely that >> at least one player has been ousted plus a lot of vampires in torpor, >> so everyone else's subsequent turns should also be rather quick. >> While I've only been in two games with an Una deck (one pick-up game >> plus the finals of the 2007 NAC), I didn't feel in either game that >> the Una deck was using up too much time. > > That, and in this respect a massive Freak Drive deck isn't any more > unfair than a weenie and/or imbued deck that can well take 10-minute > turns without even playing slow. As seen at the EC, it can easily > spend the last 10-15 minutes of a game if it wants to. > > Nerfing multi-action would simply make weenies more strong in contrast. > Best reason so far in this thread to not kill FD. Una is fine as is. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards www.superfuncards.com *NEW Website!* auct...@superfuncards.com