Hello folks,
There have been a lot of post on this topic, and I have a new idea for
the rule, it is very much outside of the current mechanics, but I
thought it may be an interesting idea for discussion.
Contestation:
During your untap phase if a vampire you are contesting a vampire with
another methuselah you may choose to relinquish the contestation and
turn this vampire into an investment (or similar key word) with
counters equal to the blood on the vampire. As a master phase action
you may take two pool from this investment (or similar key word) to
your pool, burn this card when the last counter is removed. On the
turn you relinquish contestation and turn this vampire into an
investment, you gain 4 additional transfers.
The reason I like this mechanic is it gives you an option to stop the
damage but not be destroyed. If you play a mono-crypt deck, I am
sorry that is a risk and I am not sure this rule helps you at all.
A concern I have is if you have a 3 cap contested you gain 4
transfers, so perhaps it needs a minimum capacity requirement.
I would love to read constructive criticisms,
All the best
David Wilson
Ann Arbor
[ quoted text not captured ]
Although I do like a fresh perspective in the whole discussion, I
think your idea still doesn't make it less 'harsh' if one of your
vampires gets contested.
You already address the fact that the four extra transfers can be an
advantage if a low cap vampire gets contested. If you take that
advantage away by using a minimal cap requirement for this 'rule' to
be in order, you also create a 'punishment' for using low caps instead
of high caps, since the latter will get the extra transfers.
The second thing I tend to dislike in this idea is the fact that it
will cost you a master phase action to transfer back pool. I remember
when our group first started playing; Short Term Investments were
really popular for pool gain! That was before we got to grips with the
rules, and finally understood that cards like Minion Tap were NOT bad
because they emptied your vampires of all that precious blood. The
point that I want to make here is that there is a reason why you see
those investment cards so little; master phase actions tend to be too
valuable!
So even though the idea would provide a way of getting your pool back,
it seems to me that contesting a vampire is punished too harsh. Which
I think is what started the discussion in the first place...
Wilsoros <davewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Contestation:
>During your untap phase if a vampire you are contesting a vampire with
>another methuselah you may choose to relinquish the contestation and
>turn this vampire into an investment (or similar key word) with
>counters equal to the blood on the vampire. As a master phase action
>you may take two pool from this investment (or similar key word) to
>your pool, burn this card when the last counter is removed. On the
>turn you relinquish contestation and turn this vampire into an
>investment, you gain 4 additional transfers.
I'm not wild about the master phase action requirement. Although,
clearly, any possibility at getting pool back is better than none, quite
a few decks are already making a lot of use of master phase actions.
Having to choose between them? Not so fun.
It also still leaves you in a position where (for example) you bring out
a 10 cap, get it contested, and drop to 11 pool as you bring out a 9 cap
with no vampires - perfectly ordinary in some fatty-driven deck types
that use, for example, Parity Shift and Deflection to offset this.
>A concern I have is if you have a 3 cap contested you gain 4
>transfers, so perhaps it needs a minimum capacity requirement.
Actually, I'd not be so bothered by that. If someone brought out the 3
cap and contested it with you, they know they're potentially giving you
4 extra transfers. If you bring it out to contest someone else's, they
can do that themselves and thwart you getting the extra transfers anyway
(because you regain control of your 3 cap after they've yielded).
Also, just generally, a rule doing with a corner case like this would
(IMO) benefit from being brief and simple. Rules invoked only rarely
are better being short, sharp and straightforward. Example: the
Paralyze rules of old were a pain in the arse, so were dropped.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
I gave an alternate mechanic yesterday on the huge whine thread. Let
me copy/paste that and a small bit of chat that occurred later.
Now, it's true that contesting most of the time ruins two players,
especially on high capacity vampires. I'd like to make a suggestion to
LSJ : let's not change contesting rules, but add a new influence
rule.
"During your influence phase, spend 4 transfers to move all blood on a
contested minion to one of your uncontrolled vampire or imbued. Remove
the contested minion from the game. (The other contested minion is
turned face up as usual, at his controller's untap phase.)"
This allows several game mechanics about contesting :
> contesting is still bad. If no one yields, pool keeps to be lost. (outcome : keeps game diversity)
> contesting slows contested vampires but does not kill the yielding methuselah. (outcome : contesting is bad, but not deadly)
> contesting can be a strategy (If A plays Stanislava, that she is downed to a few bloods, then B contests Stanislava. A will ponder "do I yield now or lose transfers to gain some pool?")
A few cases to illustrate what this suggestion can lead to :
-A plays stanislava, B stops influencing her, then plays another
vampire. B is slowed, A plays with stanislava, her blood drops down,
then B contests : the benefit of having played with a contested
vampire will be balanced by the fact the vampire has less blood.
-A and B play stanislava. A uses the new influence rule, but just has
Nadima and another stanislava to influence on to. If he keeps
buggering B he will contest stanislava again. If he's smart and if he
wants to play, he will play Nadima and loose 3 blood in the process,
plus the 1 pool burned to keep contesting. So, as I said, contesting
is still bad with this rule.
Then, a guy said :
> We still have the issue with contestation, but it is still not clear
> to me (and many others it seems) why you feel that you cannot address
> the old issue with a different approach, without also removing/
> changing the old proposed solution. Unless it is because you feel the
> game game mechanic wise must remain at some status quo, and that
> leaving this untouched would greatly inbalance the game? I sincerely
> doubt that will be the case.
My concern was diffrent from what you think : it's not particularly
that "the actual game mechanic is wise", but more "if we dramatically
change the system, many errata and general game balance will have to
be made". It's true that if you play a mono-deck (like, turbo cybele
CotGB, or the polemic turbo Ian Forestal :p) and you are contested,
it's still a serious issue. However, if you do not have a plan B, it's
because you chose that weakness. Since you, as both player and
deckbuilder haven't thought about a backplan, you've got to pay the
price of that decision. And anyway, any deck will have a blindspot.
This solution takes just a line or two in the rulebook, and does not
affect general gameplay since vampire contesting is a cornercase.
One more thing : library cards contesting is a more frequent issue and
the harsh old way of dealing with it works fine, if you ask me, and I
doubt many players find it unbalanced. I think it's better to have a
general rule for contests and then an additional option to give a
lifesaver to vampire/imbued contesters.
If we keep the solution I proposed (thanks for the compliment
mate ;) ), the main concern I have is about "coming into controlled
region effects" (like Tariq, Anarch Convert, and so on and so forth.)
The fact is, a lot of rulings already exist, and just need to be
checked out and updated, and I don't think many of them will need
changes.
That's all I have to add on this, but i'd like to add a word on the
previous alternative way. If you spend a master phase action to gain
two pool, you lose all the defence you can get from a Pentex
Subversion or a Direct intervention ! Hope that helps :)
Thank you everyone for the feedback!
Revision:
Contestation:
During your untap phase if a vampire you are contesting a vampire with
another methuselah you may choose to relinquish the contestation and
turn this vampire into an investment (or similar key word) with
counters equal to the blood on the vampire. During your Untap phase
you may take two counters off this card, burn this card when the last
counter is removed. On the turn you relinquish contestation and turn
this vampire into an investment, you gain 4 additional transfers.
It removed the master phase action requirement, although sill limits
your regaining of pool.
Mathieu I like your idea but I do think contestation should have some
hinderance beyond one term of using the minion. I have used it late
game as a strategy, and I would like some means of continuing this
mechanism, although nerf it from ruining anyone's game from the onset.
I am excited that this issue is getting so much attention, so I want
to try to break down the problem a little to make sure we all agree to
what it is, and how severe.
When you suffer contestation:
(1) You lose several turns of transfers if playing with a large
vampire, which is normally at a disadvantage give 5 two caps will
often overwhelm a 10 cap.
(2) You lose all the pool.
(3) You are unable to build up your offenses and defenses due to the
above.
I am sure the three points can be rephrased better and I encourage
other to do it, I will try to edit this thread to reflect the changes.
Mathieu suggested spending 4 transfers to move the counters off the
afflicted vampire and onto a new one in your uncontrolled region.
This addresses (1) and (2) and only slows you down an additional turn
for (3), which can be quite daunting, although if your predator
contested you then she is likely down as well.
I suggested gaining 4 extra transfers by relinquishing the vampire,
than gaining 2 of the pool every turn during some phase of play. My
idea addresses (2) although slowly, it also partially addresses (1) by
giving 4 extra transfers, and in the same way as Mathieu somewhat
mitigates (3) although slower than Mathieu does.
This post doesn't add any new ideas, but I think it parses them into
points of discussion, I welcome your feedback,
All the best,
David Wilson
Ann Arbor
Wilsoros wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> There have been a lot of post on this topic, and I have a new idea for
> the rule, it is very much outside of the current mechanics, but I
> thought it may be an interesting idea for discussion.
>
> Contestation:
> During your untap phase if a vampire you are contesting a vampire with
> another methuselah you may choose to relinquish the contestation and
> turn this vampire into an investment (or similar key word) with
> counters equal to the blood on the vampire. As a master phase action
> you may take two pool from this investment (or similar key word) to
> your pool, burn this card when the last counter is removed. On the
> turn you relinquish contestation and turn this vampire into an
> investment, you gain 4 additional transfers.
I would change this to "as a master phase trifle action, take one pool
from this investment"
best -
chris
This is sad, because so many good ideas spring from this few posts...
Wilsoros, there is something that bothers me in your solution :
If you relinquish a contest with your way, you already are in a bad
situation, for you're defenceless. The huge whine about Ian Forestal
leaves me completely indifferent, but I always found unjust that
contesting would make you loose with a 99% chance if you yield, and
that the turns you can't play are totally wasted. If we want to deal
with that particular issue the change must be immediate.
The four extra transfers you suggest seem a bit out of range : You
play Arika, then your Arika is contested. Bad. Then you've got no
vampires. If you immediately relinquish, you can start influencing 8
on Marcus Vitel. Except that your pool is 30-11-8-Masters-bleeds =
relatively few, at most 11, given your predator isn't aggressive,
which is rarely the case - anyway, if he/she sees you're contesting,
he will try to oust you the faster he can. Sure you'll gain 2 pool
turn by turn, but this pool gap isn't good, because this is the main
issue with contesting crypt cards (also given mono-vampire decks
contesting does not get my attention.)
Your solution was elegant, but there's a gap to fill. And also,
contesting and/or relinquishing wouldn't have been a tactic. So I
still prefer my solution. :)
And, I maintain that contesting has to remain a danger to prevent mono-
decks or unoriginal decks. :)
On Aug 23, 6:42 am, Mathieu Rivero <riveromath...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> And, I maintain that contesting has to remain a danger to prevent mono-
> decks or unoriginal decks. :)
Except that:
A) Mono vampire/Superstar decks aren't good enough to need this brutal
of a safety valve (i.e. your game is simply over if you randomly sit
at a table where someone else wants to use the same guy), especially
as mono vampire/superstar decks are easily foiled by other, incredibly
common and mundane aspects of the game (Pentex Subversion, kill the
superstar, block fails tech, intercept as the superstar is tooling up,
not drawing the superstar in the first place, etc.)
B) It has been clearly shown that fear of contestation in no way
dissuades "unoriginal" decks. If you go look at the TWDA, for example,
the most common vampires occurring are exactly the ones that you would
expect (Arika, Anson, etc.)
So while I can certainly see opposition to changing the penalties for
contestation based on just not wanting to change the rules, or being
totally ok with the random harsh hosing factor of it, I can't in a
million years see "Don't change the contestation rules as superstar
decks need the punishment and it makes people not use the obvious
powerful vampires" as a remotely viable argument.
-Peter
On Aug 23, 3:25 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> B) It has been clearly shown that fear of contestation in no way
> dissuades "unoriginal" decks. If you go look at the TWDA, for example,
> the most common vampires occurring are exactly the ones that you would
> expect (Arika, Anson, etc.)
It's not really "clearly shown", at least not from the information
that the TWDA provides.
It's very possible that Anson, Arika and others would occur even more
if the penalty for contesting was less harsh.
On Aug 23, 3:55 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not really "clearly shown", at least not from the information
> that the TWDA provides.
> It's very possible that Anson, Arika and others would occur even more
> if the penalty for contesting was less harsh.
Fair enough. Although I'm wildly unconvinced that "Showing up more
often than any other minion in existence by a huge margin" (see:
Arika) is the result of "fear of contestation". But maybe that is just
me.
-Peter
On Aug 24, 1:43 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> > It's not really "clearly shown", at least not from the information
> > that the TWDA provides.
> > It's very possible that Anson, Arika and others would occur even more
> > if the penalty for contesting was less harsh.
>
> Fair enough. Although I'm wildly unconvinced that "Showing up more
> often than any other minion in existence by a huge margin" (see:
> Arika) is the result of "fear of contestation". But maybe that is just
> me.
I never said that was the case, you're twisting my words quite much if
that's what you read in my post. I just said that it's not "clearly
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Um, Henrik, dial down the P, he is just saying (or actually restating)
his position.
Which is that currently, there is supposed to be some kind of fear of
contestation. Yet arika is still far more common than any other
vampire.
Which leads one to believe that the whole fear of copntestation
argument is way off base.
On Aug 24, 10:55 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Fair enough. Although I'm wildly unconvinced that "Showing up more
> > > often than any other minion in existence by a huge margin" (see:
> > > Arika) is the result of "fear of contestation". But maybe that is just
> > > me.
>
> > I never said that was the case, you're twisting my words quite much if
> > that's what you read in my post. I just said that it's not "clearly
> > shown that fear of contestation in no way dissuades "unoriginal"
> > decks".
>
> Um, Henrik, dial down the P, he is just saying (or actually restating)
> his position.
Sure. I'm just saying too.
> Which is that currently, there is supposed to be some kind of fear of
> contestation. Yet arika is still far more common than any other
> vampire.
>
> Which leads one to believe that the whole fear of copntestation
> argument is way off base.
I know what his point is. But there's not much leading there, since
fear of contesting might still make Arika less common than she'd be
without today's harsh penalty.
Granted, the "fear of contesting" might not work as effectively as one
might wish.
On Aug 24, 11:16 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 10:55 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Fair enough. Although I'm wildly unconvinced that "Showing up more
> > > > often than any other minion in existence by a huge margin" (see:
> > > > Arika) is the result of "fear of contestation". But maybe that is just
> > > > me.
>
> > > I never said that was the case, you're twisting my words quite much if
> > > that's what you read in my post. I just said that it's not "clearly
> > > shown that fear of contestation in no way dissuades "unoriginal"
> > > decks".
>
> > Um, Henrik, dial down the P, he is just saying (or actually restating)
> > his position.
>
> Sure. I'm just saying too.
No, you are accusing him of twisting your words into meaning something
different, something very far removed from restating your own
position. In fact he is just responding to exactly what you said.
Remember, the intent behind your words does not come over well on the
internet, neither does tone of voice. Make your statements clear and
obvious, the you will find people tend to "twist my words much" occurs
far less often
>
> > Which is that currently, there is supposed to be some kind of fear of
> > contestation. Yet arika is still far more common than any other
> > vampire.
>
> > Which leads one to believe that the whole fear of copntestation
> > argument is way off base.
>
> I know what his point is. But there's not much leading there, since
> fear of contesting might still make Arika less common than she'd be
> without today's harsh penalty.
> Granted, the "fear of contesting" might not work as effectively as one
> might wish.
Personally, I think your entire fear of contestation theory is (sorry)
hogwash and without basis.
If this supposed fear existed, it would be responsible for curbing
many types of decks. Yet I still see midget, Arika, Anson et al on a
nauseatingly regular basis.
You are asking for proof of something which cannot be proven, i am
stating my denouncement of your theorem is that is does not happen.
The only time I have ever considered contestation when building a deck is for
library cards and (to the extent that it is obvious) putting multiples of the
same unique vampire into my crypt.
On Aug 24, 12:13 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Fair enough. Although I'm wildly unconvinced that "Showing up more
> > > > > often than any other minion in existence by a huge margin" (see:
> > > > > Arika) is the result of "fear of contestation". But maybe that is just
> > > > > me.
>
> > > > I never said that was the case, you're twisting my words quite much if
> > > > that's what you read in my post. I just said that it's not "clearly
> > > > shown that fear of contestation in no way dissuades "unoriginal"
> > > > decks".
>
> > > Um, Henrik, dial down the P, he is just saying (or actually restating)
> > > his position.
>
> > Sure. I'm just saying too.
>
> No, you are accusing him of twisting your words into meaning something
> different, something very far removed from restating your own
> position. In fact he is just responding to exactly what you said.
> Remember, the intent behind your words does not come over well on the
> internet, neither does tone of voice. Make your statements clear and
> obvious, the you will find people tend to "twist my words much" occurs
> far less often
He's twisting my words as much as I'm accusing him of twisting them.
If he just stated his opinion, then I just said that one would have to
twist my words much to make me state what he wrote.
> > I know what his point is. But there's not much leading there, since
> > fear of contesting might still make Arika less common than she'd be
> > without today's harsh penalty.
> > Granted, the "fear of contesting" might not work as effectively as one
> > might wish.
>
> Personally, I think your entire fear of contestation theory is (sorry)
> hogwash and without basis.
Well, I do know for a fact that there are people who does consider the
likelyness of contesting when selecting decks for tournaments. I've
talked to people who does, and I've done it myself. Now, I'm not
saying everyone does it, but some people do. And that's not hogwash no
matter how many people exists that doesn't fear contesting.
> If this supposed fear existed, it would be responsible for curbing
> many types of decks. Yet I still see midget, Arika, Anson et al on a
> nauseatingly regular basis.
I'm just pointing out that we don't really know how much the fear of
contesting curbs certain decks. Without any contesting (not saying
anyone suggests this) there's a chance that Arika, Anson and Midget
would be even more common than today.
> You are asking for proof of something which cannot be proven, i am
> stating my denouncement of your theorem is that is does not happen.
I'm not asking for proof at all. I'm saying that there are no proof
for the point that Peter mentioned (at least no proof that I've seen,
since the TWDA doesn't work for that).
[ quoted text not captured ]
Nice. That would mean contesting won't change, which is fine by me if
you ask. The penalty is a bit harsh, but I like it this way. It just
means you have to be careful and think about a plan B if you play a
superstar. Thanks for that quick but efficient answer.
And, to answer to the troll-feeders above, the vampire i've seen
contested a dozen, hundred of times, is Carna. And it goes without
saying the deck is already good without her, she's just the cream on
the cake. If Selena acts like "magic of the smith, with a choice as
guarded rubrics/bowl of convergence/sniper rifle/heart of N./whatever,
can you say this doesn't work?
Mathieu Rivero wrote:
> On 24 ao�t, 12:39, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> The only time I have ever considered contestation when building a deck is for
>> library cards and (to the extent that it is obvious) putting multiples of the
>> same unique vampire into my crypt.>
> Nice. That would mean contesting won't change,
It would mean nothing of the sort.
1) It is anecdotal, from a single source.
2) If anything, it falls on the "should change" side of the fence (but see 1,
which renders this moot on the "what change should occur, if any" scale).
> The penalty is a bit harsh, but I like it this way. It just
I'm all in favor of "a bit" harsh. But the current rules are more than just a
bit harsh.
> means you have to be careful and think about a plan B if you play a
> superstar.
Um, no, it doesn't. It means that your careful and thoughtful analysis leads you
to the conclusion that the odds are too remote to justify modifying your deck
from its optimal (in a non-external-contesting world) form.
On Aug 24, 6:59 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He's twisting my words as much as I'm accusing him of twisting them.
> If he just stated his opinion, then I just said that one would have to
> twist my words much to make me state what he wrote.
How am I in any way, shape, or form, "twisting your words" (that is me
quoting you. As you said "twisting my words")? Where am I using your
words? And then twisting them into anything?
I wrote:
"Fair enough. Although I'm wildly unconvinced that "Showing up more
often than any other minion in existence by a huge margin" (see:
Arika) is the result of "fear of contestation". But maybe that is
just
me. "
Where "Showing up more often than any other minion in existence by a
huge margin" is something I said and not you (and nowhere do I claim
it is something you said) and "fear of contestation" is also something
I said (and nowhere do I claim it is something you said). Nowhere in
that statement am I twisting anyone's words into anything at all.
"Showing up more often than any other minion in existence" is what
Arika does. And "Fear of contesatation" is what is not limiting the
use of Arika. Are you misunderstanding my use of quotation marks here?
The quotations in that section are linking a given set of words into a
discrete concept, rather than indicating that they are a direct
quotation of someone else's words. Possibly not the most kosher use of
quotation marks, but common enough in this context.
> I'm just pointing out that we don't really know how much the fear of
> contesting curbs certain decks. Without any contesting (not saying
> anyone suggests this) there's a chance that Arika, Anson and Midget
> would be even more common than today.
They are already common enough *with* the "fear of contestation" as a
limiting factor. If the intended goal of "fear of contestation" is
"limit the use of obvious powerful vampires", it is doing a very poor
job of that.
> I'm not asking for proof at all. I'm saying that there are no proof
> for the point that Peter mentioned (at least no proof that I've seen,
> since the TWDA doesn't work for that).
Well, no, this is exactly something that the TWDA is good at
illustrating (well, not that Arika would show up even more if not for
contestation issues), that if "fear of contestation" is supposed to
limit use of obvious, powerful vampires, it is doing a very poor job
of it.
-Peter
On Aug 24, 5:28 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 6:59 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > He's twisting my words as much as I'm accusing him of twisting them.
> > If he just stated his opinion, then I just said that one would have to
> > twist my words much to make me state what he wrote.
>
> How am I in any way, shape, or form, "twisting your words" (that is me
> quoting you. As you said "twisting my words")? Where am I using your
> words? And then twisting them into anything?
You're not. And I'm not accusing you of doing so. That's what I meant
there with you "twisting my words as much as I'm accusing you of". If
your post there wasn't meant to twist my words in any way than I'm not
saying you did.
First time I read your sentence it looked like it could be something
directed at me, and since I wasn't sure whether it wasn't or not I
wrote like I did.
> > I'm just pointing out that we don't really know how much the fear of
> > contesting curbs certain decks. Without any contesting (not saying
> > anyone suggests this) there's a chance that Arika, Anson and Midget
> > would be even more common than today.
>
> They are already common enough *with* the "fear of contestation" as a
> limiting factor. If the intended goal of "fear of contestation" is
> "limit the use of obvious powerful vampires", it is doing a very poor
> job of that.
Sure, the "fear of contestation" isn't a 100% certain way to prevent
certain vampires from being used more often than others. I've never
said that though.
I just said that it has not been "clearly shown that fear of
contestation in no way dissuades "unoriginal" decks" (which were your
words). Because even with the information from the TWDA (which is the
most useful source for this afaik) we don't know more than how many
times certain vampires appeared in winning decks. We don't know if
there at every tournament were 5 people who decided not to use Arika
due to fear of contestation (I'm not saying there was, just making up
an example).
> > I'm not asking for proof at all. I'm saying that there are no proof
> > for the point that Peter mentioned (at least no proof that I've seen,
> > since the TWDA doesn't work for that).
>
> Well, no, this is exactly something that the TWDA is good at
> illustrating (well, not that Arika would show up even more if not for
> contestation issues), that if "fear of contestation" is supposed to
> limit use of obvious, powerful vampires, it is doing a very poor job
> of it.
I don't really agree that it can be said to do a poor job without
having any information about how the TWDA would look without "fear of
contestation", but I see your point.
However, "fear of contestation" could be doing a great job, since
without it Arika would possibly show up 100 times more than now. And
since that information isn't shown in the TWDA, the conclusion that
"fear of contesting" doesn't do anything can't really be drawn from
looking at the TWDA.
That's my whole point.
On Aug 25, 12:15 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 5:28 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 24, 6:59 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > He's twisting my words as much as I'm accusing him of twisting them.
> > > If he just stated his opinion, then I just said that one would have to
> > > twist my words much to make me state what he wrote.
>
> > How am I in any way, shape, or form, "twisting your words" (that is me
> > quoting you. As you said "twisting my words")? Where am I using your
> > words? And then twisting them into anything?
>
> You're not. And I'm not accusing you of doing so
Although it seems that the way you said it, more than one person read
it as saying that that is what you meant.
For the sake of clarity, if something you are saying is not what you
want to say, don't say it.
> > They are already common enough *with* the "fear of contestation" as a
> > limiting factor. If the intended goal of "fear of contestation" is
> > "limit the use of obvious powerful vampires", it is doing a very poor
> > job of that.
>
> Sure, the "fear of contestation" isn't a 100% certain way to prevent
> certain vampires from being used more often than others. I've never
> said that though.
> I just said that it has not been "clearly shown that fear of
> contestation in no way dissuades "unoriginal" decks" (which were your
> words). Because even with the information from the TWDA (which is the
> most useful source for this afaik) we don't know more than how many
> times certain vampires appeared in winning decks. We don't know if
> there at every tournament were 5 people who decided not to use Arika
> due to fear of contestation (I'm not saying there was, just making up
> an example).
So seeing as we cannot link to any evidence that does not exist, how
about we use the evidence that does exist? Even with "The fear of
contestation" there are still large numbers of people taking the same
decks to tournaments, thus as a method of limiting the use f those
vampires, it is not a successful solution
> > Well, no, this is exactly something that the TWDA is good at
> > illustrating (well, not that Arika would show up even more if not for
> > contestation issues), that if "fear of contestation" is supposed to
> > limit use of obvious, powerful vampires, it is doing a very poor job
> > of it.
>
> I don't really agree that it can be said to do a poor job without
> having any information about how the TWDA would look without "fear of
> contestation", but I see your point.
> However, "fear of contestation" could be doing a great job, since
> without it Arika would possibly show up 100 times more than now. And
> since that information isn't shown in the TWDA, the conclusion that
> "fear of contesting" doesn't do anything can't really be drawn from
> looking at the TWDA.
> That's my whole point.
Thumbsucking "facts" does not help.
Fact 1) Arika shows up many, many times.
Fact 2) FoC does not seem to limit this i any meaningful way.
Now argue based on facts and not supposition please.
On Aug 25, 12:57 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You're not. And I'm not accusing you of doing so
>
> Although it seems that the way you said it, more than one person read
> it as saying that that is what you meant.
> For the sake of clarity, if something you are saying is not what you
> want to say, don't say it.
Just like one person (the one Peter replied to) read his post as
possibly twisting my words. It was a misunderstanding. Just drop it
already.
> So seeing as we cannot link to any evidence that does not exist, how
> about we use the evidence that does exist? Even with "The fear of
> contestation" there are still large numbers of people taking the same
> decks to tournaments, thus as a method of limiting the use f those
> vampires, it is not a successful solution
Personally, I don't really think there's any big problem. Sure
sometimes when I end up with AAA decks on all tables during a
tournament I get a bit bored, but that's nothing I can't live with.
But yeah, it's possible that there are other things that would keep
those numbers down even more. But I can tell you for sure that
lessening the penalties for contesting sure as hell won't make Arika
appear less often in the TWDA.
> > I don't really agree that it can be said to do a poor job without
> > having any information about how the TWDA would look without "fear of
> > contestation", but I see your point.
> > However, "fear of contestation" could be doing a great job, since
> > without it Arika would possibly show up 100 times more than now. And
> > since that information isn't shown in the TWDA, the conclusion that
> > "fear of contesting" doesn't do anything can't really be drawn from
> > looking at the TWDA.
> > That's my whole point.
>
> Thumbsucking "facts" does not help.
Not sure what you mean.
> Fact 1) Arika shows up many, many times.
Indeed.
> Fact 2) FoC does not seem to limit this i any meaningful way.
If you have some information about how the numbers would look without
any fear of contesting, feel free to bring them forward.
> Now argue based on facts and not supposition please.
Please indeed.
On Aug 25, 6:15 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're not. And I'm not accusing you of doing so.
Well, except where you said, and I quote:
"I never said that was the case, you're twisting my words quite much
if
that's what you read in my post."
But then later you adjusted. Which is fine. But you certainly were
accusing me of doing so at some point. But we can move on.
> Sure, the "fear of contestation" isn't a 100% certain way to prevent
> certain vampires from being used more often than others. I've never
> said that though.
I didn't say that you did. But someone did. The argument of "the harsh
rules for contestation make people not use the popular/powerful
vampires" comes up all the time. And did in this very thread (which is
why I responded in the first place). And all indications are that this
is not actually the case.
> I don't really agree that it can be said to do a poor job without
> having any information about how the TWDA would look without "fear of
> contestation", but I see your point.
Yeah, see, the TWDA certainly can't indicate what would happen
differently if things were different. But it can indicate that Arika,
the most obvious and powerful vampire one can think of, is also the
one that shows up in the TWDA most often. By a significant margin.
> However, "fear of contestation" could be doing a great job, since
> without it Arika would possibly show up 100 times more than now. And
> since that information isn't shown in the TWDA, the conclusion that
> "fear of contesting" doesn't do anything can't really be drawn from
> looking at the TWDA.
This is true. But as Arika *already* shows up most often by a
considerable margin, one can either conclude that:
A) It is possible that she would show up even more if the contestation
rules were less harsh (which I believe is unlikely).
B) Harsh contestation as a method to dissuade use of the most powerful/
obvious vampires isn't particularly effective (which I believe is
likely).
But yes, it is a conclusion one has to draw from the evidence, rather
than something patently iron clad.
-Peter
> I'm all in favor of "a bit" harsh. But the current rules are more than just a
> bit harsh.
I completely agree to that. (for crypt cards. Library cards contesting
is ok as far as i am concerned.)
Now, this is some other stupid thought :
I know hardestadt and Rafael de corazon's cartexts (and, in another
extent, Mary Ann Blaire's) were meant to increase diversity by
potentially weakening Alexandra and Arika. Well. The fact is, Rafael
and Hardestadt seem to be weak. I know only one deck who uses
Hardestadt, and only one with Rafael. The first is a fighting deck, in
which hardestadt becomes alastor. The second deck features a combo
with chain of command/daring the dawn+Possession, and this deck only
uses rafael because of the +2 bleed and obfuscate. Back to my point.
these two seem weaker than the others because of their lack of
cardtext. thus they aren't played. and thus they just keep company to
dust under people's bed. They don't weaken Arika and alexandra as
effectively as wanted.
This was a huge development to say something about contesting issue
fixing on a card-based solution. The cards will seem weak. They will
be a burden and jam a hand. However, I find it interesting to give an
alternative to contesting with cards : decks which would be prone to
be contested would have to manage a few slots (i.e. be a tiny bit less
efficient) to cram in those cards. But I know I'll never play such
cards because I won't get them at the moment I need them - like in the
early game. That's why I think this issue must be dealt with either
crypt cards (but honestly I don't believe in that) or by a rule change
or addition, like those who were proposed on this thread.
And, Mr. LSJ, one last more thing ; what do you think about the
solutions proposed above? Need any help players can carry out? Just
ask ;)
Thanks for designing this game and keep it as interesting as it is
now. :)
On Aug 25, 4:13 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> > You're not. And I'm not accusing you of doing so.
>
> Well, except where you said, and I quote:
>
> "I never said that was the case, you're twisting my words quite much
> if
> that's what you read in my post."
>
> But then later you adjusted. Which is fine. But you certainly were
> accusing me of doing so at some point. But we can move on.
Yeah. I said that "if that's what you read in my post" then you'd be
twisting my words. Now, that wasn't what you read in my post, so you
weren't twisting my words.
It's not about adjusting but rather misunderstanding.
> > Sure, the "fear of contestation" isn't a 100% certain way to prevent
> > certain vampires from being used more often than others. I've never
> > said that though.
>
> I didn't say that you did. But someone did. The argument of "the harsh
> rules for contestation make people not use the popular/powerful
> vampires" comes up all the time. And did in this very thread (which is
> why I responded in the first place). And all indications are that this
> is not actually the case.
That's not where *all* indications are. Which is all I'm saying.
> > I don't really agree that it can be said to do a poor job without
> > having any information about how the TWDA would look without "fear of
> > contestation", but I see your point.
>
> Yeah, see, the TWDA certainly can't indicate what would happen
> differently if things were different. But it can indicate that Arika,
> the most obvious and powerful vampire one can think of, is also the
> one that shows up in the TWDA most often. By a significant margin.
Exactly. And without any numbers from where the rules are different,
we can't compare. And if we can't compare, we can't really say that
fear of contestation doesn't have any effect.
We can say it has a small effect, or even too small, but that's not
the same as having no effect at all.
> > However, "fear of contestation" could be doing a great job, since
> > without it Arika would possibly show up 100 times more than now. And
> > since that information isn't shown in the TWDA, the conclusion that
> > "fear of contesting" doesn't do anything can't really be drawn from
> > looking at the TWDA.
>
> This is true. But as Arika *already* shows up most often by a
> considerable margin, one can either conclude that:
>
> A) It is possible that she would show up even more if the contestation
> rules were less harsh (which I believe is unlikely).
>
> B) Harsh contestation as a method to dissuade use of the most powerful/
> obvious vampires isn't particularly effective (which I believe is
> likely).
>
> But yes, it is a conclusion one has to draw from the evidence, rather
> than something patently iron clad.
Now, here's where I agree. (Well, I believe the opposite of you at
point A and disagree somewhat with your beliefs on point B. But I
agree with the non-bracketed parts.)
And, just to tie this up, all I was against here was you stating that
it had been "clearly shown that fear of contestation in no way
dissuades "unoriginal" decks". Now that you've adjusted, I say we let
it rest.