"Fun and VTES (was Re: some other thread somewhere)

Andrew wrote: >>Sure it can. In a practical test, when players flip the bird and storm off in a rage, this is scored in the "not fun" column.>> This means that *they* are not having fun. It doesn't mean that *others* are not having fun. Thus, the quotient of fun being had is undefinable. Are we to plan our actions, decks, and strategies around what the pissed off guy considers fun? Then others are doubtlessly not going to have fun. >>When players stick around until the end and there is general merriment, this is scored in the "fun" column.>> In the game used as example (dude flipping me the bird and leaving the table in disgust), the other 4 players stuck around until the end of the game and there was general merriment. Does this mean that my Rush deck suddenly became fun simply because this guy got up and left? Was it not fun all along, but the other three people at the table were incapable of knowing this? >>If observation is not enough, you can just ask people, "are we having fun yet?".>> And if half of them answer "yes" and half of them answer "no" what have you proven? What if 80% of them answer "yes" and 20% answer "no"? Or the other way around? What does this prove? >>You may get different answers from different people but this is no surprise and no reason not to ask the question.>> Certainly no reason to no ask the question, but expecting it to mean anything is silly. "Fun" is an undefinable concept, when applied to a group as a whole. Some people like watching American Football. They love it to death. Me? I find it unbearably boring. I'm not, on the other hand, going to tell these people to stop watching Footbal, simply becasue *I* don't like it. In a game like VTES,there is no way to define and enforce what is or is not "fun" play. You can enforce the rules (as they are concretely defined), but without developing quantifiable rules that define "fun" play, you can't enforce such an idea. Trying to come up with a set of "fun" rules is doubtlessly going to fail, as it will be fun for some folks and not fun for others. And saying "just play for fun, and it will be fun" gets you nowhere, as person A's idea of "fun" is probably wildly different than person B's idea of "fun". Personally, I think it is fun when I sit at a table with a group of players who are all trying to win and playing hardcore decks that can win--that deck that won the German championship? I like decks like that. I like playing in games with weenie bleed Dom hordes, Misdirection or no. I like playing in games with decks like that. I like when my opponents play decks like that. It makes me happy. I think Rush decks are fun. Thus, we have (at minimum) two wildly different views of what "fun" is, and any attempt at a quantifiable defenition of "fun" falls flat. When that guy flipped me the bird and stormed off in disgust? I was having fun (up until that particular point...). He was not. Who was right? Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "Why so many swords?" "I must kill many." -Kikuchiyo

In article <20001208102203...@ng-fs1.aol.com>, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: > In a game like VTES,there is no way to define and enforce what is or > is not "fun" play. You can enforce the rules (as they are concretely > defined), but without developing quantifiable rules that define "fun" > play, you can't enforce such an idea. Trying to come up with a set of > "fun" rules is doubtlessly going to fail, as it will be fun for some > folks and not fun for others. Nope, I'm pretty sure we could come up with a "fun-ness score". What you would do is take all the cards in your deck, divide it into 23 even piles (if your deck doesn't divide into 23 even piles, it isn't a fun deck) turn over the top card on each, and if any match, you must pull all but one copy from the face-up cards, writing down the number of cards you removed as a negative score, and replace them with an equal number of cards, none of which are the same card (by title). Now, you add up the number of cards in your deck, adjust for the negative rating (if any) you acquired in the previous step. Now, flip each pile over and repeat. If (in either of these steps) none of the cards matched, you get +10 fun. Now that you have checked both ends of your stacks, shuffle all the cards together. Draw 7 cards. If any of these are the same card, you get -6 fun. If they are all different, you get +3 fun. Shuffle the cards again. Sort the cards into 7 equal piles (again, if it doesn't divide evenly, your deck is not fun, and you must start over). Pick card x from pile x (card 1 from pile 1, card 2 from pile 2, etc.), and if they are all different, you get +15 fun. If two are the same, you only get +5 fun. If 3 are the same, you get +0 fun. 4 or more, -20 fun. Finally, your fun score is decremented by 1 for each object you are pelted with during a game in which the deck is played. If anyone laughs at one of your merry japes during play, you get +1 fun. > When that guy flipped me the bird and stormed off in disgust? I was > having fun (up until that particular point...). He was not. Who was > right? Anyone that forgets this is a game and gets that upset over it is just wrong in the head. I can understand getting annoyed if someone is playing poorly, making really awful decisions, but that's not really any reason to get extra-pissy. I have taken to warning people once that I think they're making a bad decision (politely, in an even tone), and if they persist, I just shut the hell up and figure that they'll learn eventually. (Even when I'm back-ousted.) Social pressure to play well will eventually catch up with them. If they're eternally a poor player because they just suck, it's not my problem... Of course, I still love your anecdote, Peter. Getting flipped off for playing a rush deck rules. I think it's possibly even better than sweeping. I've gotten a sweep here and there, but I've never gotten the finger...you're still my hero, Peter. :) Xian -- But rain falls down and I feel cold A cold that sleeps within my heart It tears the earth and sun apart --New Order, "Shellshock" Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On 8 Dec 2000, Peter D Bakija wrote: > In the game used as example (dude flipping me the bird and leaving the table in > disgust), the other 4 players stuck around until the end of the game and there > was general merriment. Does this mean that my Rush deck suddenly became fun > simply because this guy got up and left? Was it not fun all along, but the > other three people at the table were incapable of knowing this? > As (I believe) one of the other players at that game, I can attest to the continued existence of fun at the table, although in retrospect I think that giving you the 6 pool for his oust immediately was a mistake. Of course, my viewpoint might be a bit skewed as I was your predator. Which leads me to ask, what is the proper course of action when a player precipitously disappears in the middle of a round? Should that player's predator get a VP and 6 pool? Or just the VP? Or nothing? Marc G.

In article <90r4ia$p91$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, xi...@waste.org (Xian) wrote: > Of course, I still love your anecdote, Peter. Getting flipped off for > playing a rush deck rules. I think it's possibly even better than > sweeping. I've gotten a sweep here and there, but I've never gotten > the finger...you're still my hero, Peter. :) I have given Peter the finger on many occasions, mainly when he was playing his rush deck. I could probably give you the finger, too, if we ever get to play again, Xian. ;-) Josh fluffy [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:38:43 -0500, Marc Gabriele <goo...@dementia.org> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] That's a damn good question. We've never seen it happen. :) Off the cuff, I would say you shouldn't automatically give a VP and 6 pool. I might be inclined to let the "spot" sit there defenseless, with no vampires taking actions OR blocking, and wait for the predator to bleed through the remaining pool before actually giving the VP and 6, just to more or less preserve the balance of the game. In this situation, it would be more appropriate, as the poor guy wasn't going to have any vampires ANYWAY. I don't know what the "official" rules are. I suspect they are an instant VP-and-6, though. -- Derek Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96L.1001208132128.23362A- 100...@alycia.dementia.org>, Marc Gabriele <goo...@dementia.org> wrote: > Which leads me to ask, what is the proper course of action when > a player precipitously disappears in the middle of a round? Should > that player's predator get a VP and 6 pool? Or just the VP? Or > nothing? I'll take a stab at it...I don't think there's really any question that the predator of the quitter (or whatever...poor sport...) should get the VP or the 6 pool...I think it's a matter of when. In a tournament situation, if the player actually got up and left, I'd be inclined to call it an example of Unsportsmanlike Conduct (Major) and penalize with a Game Loss (and a Warning, as specified in the penalty guidelines). I don't think it would quite require a Disqualification, but I'd be up for it if the person was really acting up. :) Thus, I'd probably give the person the VP & pool there and then. Or, I'd resolve it with the resolution I'd use in a firendly game, which would be... Have the predator bleed through the remaining pool as if there were no minions to block or deflect, etc. Once that static amount of pool is removed, the predator gains the VP & pool. This is probably the best way to handle it. Xian -- But rain falls down and I feel cold A cold that sleeps within my heart It tears the earth and sun apart --New Order, "Shellshock" [ quoted text not captured ]

Xian wrote in message <90r4ia$p91$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... >Nope, I'm pretty sure we could come up with a "fun-ness score". What >you would do is take all the cards in your deck, divide it into 23 even >piles (if your deck doesn't divide into 23 even piles, it isn't a fun >deck) turn over the top card on each, and if any match, you must pull >all but one copy from the face-up cards, writing down the number of >cards you removed as a negative score, and replace them with an equal >number of cards, none of which are the same card (by title). Now, you >add up the number of cards in your deck, adjust for the negative rating >(if any) you acquired in the previous step. Now, flip each pile over >and repeat. If (in either of these steps) none of the cards matched, >you get +10 fun. Of course, you could play with the following card from the upcoming Malk & Kookies Expansion, "Baby, It's BROADWAY!": EXTRA FUN Master Put this card in play and name a set of Methuselahs. Those Methuselahs now have +3 fun. A minion can take a (D) action to burn this card - if he/she does so, remove that minion from existence (rip that minion card in half). Mike Ooi Insane Prince of Houston, TX Home of the functionally-named Houston Texans NFL Team sh...@texas.net

In article <90r9ut$tvr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: > I have given Peter the finger on many occasions, mainly when > he was playing his rush deck. I could probably give you the > finger, too, if we ever get to play again, Xian. ;-) Hahaha! Well, there's still the vast difference between being flipped off by someone that you know and hang around with lots as opposed to being flipped off by a complete stranger. But yeah, you're welcome to any time. If you're in the area (MN, of course) for Christmas/whatever, I'm sure something can be set up. I am only going to be in Madison on the 23rd, 24th, and 25th, so there's plenty of time to play Jyhad aside from that... > Josh > > fluffy Me too...me too... Xian -- But rain falls down and I feel cold A cold that sleeps within my heart It tears the earth and sun apart --New Order, "Shellshock" [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <wSaY5.2342$6e3....@news3.aus1.giganews.com>, "Mike Ooi" <sh...@texas.net> wrote: > Of course, you could play with the following card from the upcoming > Malk & Kookies Expansion, "Baby, It's BROADWAY!": > > EXTRA FUN > Master > Put this card in play and name a set of Methuselahs. Those > Methuselahs now have +3 fun. A minion can take a (D) action > to burn this card - if he/she does so, remove that minion from > existence (rip that minion card in half). I know that everyone hates errata, but in order to work with the new fun rules, we're going to have to either create cards that rely on temporary (during the game) and permanent fun. To simplify things, everything should probably just refer to permanent fun. If not, we'll have to change the text of Extra Fun to: Extra Fun Master Put this card in play and name a set of Methuselahs. Those Methuselahs now have +3 [permanent|temporary] fun. A minion can take a (D) action to burn this card - if [this action is successful] remove that minion from existence (rip that minion card in half). I have a pile of Arcanum Investigators that are just panting to burn any Extra Fun cards that do not name me as part of the set. You might also include something along the lines of: Pass the Cheese? Political Action +1 stealth All Kindred Before the referendum, all players have 5 seconds to name any of the other decks at the table that they consider to be broken, cheesy, or "unfun". The acting Methuselah's deck may not be named. If this referendum passes, all Methuselahs playing the named decks are instantly ousted. If this referendum does not pass, all Methuselahs playing the named decks still lose 5 fun. [ quoted text not captured ]

Xian <xi...@waste.org> wrote in message news:90rbml$vi1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > In article <Pine.SUN.3.96L.1001208132128.23362A- > 100...@alycia.dementia.org>, > Marc Gabriele <goo...@dementia.org> wrote: > > Which leads me to ask, what is the proper course of action when > > a player precipitously disappears in the middle of a round? Should > > that player's predator get a VP and 6 pool? Or just the VP? Or > > nothing? > > I'll take a stab at it...I don't think there's really any question that > the predator of the quitter (or whatever...poor sport...) should get > the VP or the 6 pool...I think it's a matter of when. > > In a tournament situation, if the player actually got up and left, I'd > be inclined to call it an example of Unsportsmanlike Conduct (Major) > and penalize with a Game Loss (and a Warning, as specified in the > penalty guidelines). I don't think it would quite require a > Disqualification, but I'd be up for it if the person was really acting > up. :) Thus, I'd probably give the person the VP & pool there and > then. Or, I'd resolve it with the resolution I'd use in a firendly > game, which would be... > > Have the predator bleed through the remaining pool as if there were no > minions to block or deflect, etc. Once that static amount of pool is > removed, the predator gains the VP & pool. This is probably the best > way to handle it. Problem with that is that a rush deck (for example) would be pretty much screwed, since it can't really bleed for much, and so his future prey would get a lot of time 'free' to get stronger, putting the table-balance all out of whack. I would think best to give the player his VP immediatelly but not give him the 6 pool. Flux

[ quoted text not captured ] Was the table-balance ever really "in whack"? I'm not sure I understand this objection. If you're talking about the rush deck being the predator in this situation, I fail to see how he's any more screwed by this than by having to bleed out a real prey. If he bleeds slowly and that's bad for him, it was already bad for him to begin with? Fred

In article <3a3152cf$1...@212.18.160.197>, "Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote: > Problem with that is that a rush deck (for example) would be pretty > much screwed, since it can't really bleed for much, and so his future > prey would get a lot of time 'free' to get stronger, putting the > table-balance all out of whack. Not any more so than if the player *didn't* walk away, and just sat there, not doing anything with his pool/minions. It does pain me to rule against a rush deck in this manner, but just think...he's still free to rush whoever the hell else he likes, as he slowly mops up the rest of the table, and doesn't have to worry about his prey ever rescuing again, ever. As long as he can keep himself protected, he's got a guaranteed VP (in the absence of Kindred Restructure/Dramatic Upheaval...which is why I'd be inclined to give it all right away), and is free to harm whoever else he likes. > I would think best to give the player his VP immediatelly but not > give him the 6 pool. I think that if you give one, you probably have to give the other. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <90rgvq$48k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, xi...@waste.org (Xian) wrote: > In article <90r9ut$tvr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: > > I have given Peter the finger on many occasions, mainly when > > he was playing his rush deck. I could probably give you the > > finger, too, if we ever get to play again, Xian. ;-) > > Hahaha! > > Well, there's still the vast difference between being flipped off by > someone that you know and hang around with lots as opposed to being > flipped off by a complete stranger. Yes, of course, which is why I was just being silly by bringing it up. :-) > But yeah, you're welcome to any time. If you're in the area (MN, of > course) for Christmas/whatever, I'm sure something can be set up. I am > only going to be in Madison on the 23rd, 24th, and 25th, so there's > plenty of time to play Jyhad aside from that... Ah, I wish. Sadly (depending on your point of view - from mine it's sadly, at least in some ways) my parents just moved to California (north of San Francisco) this summer. So I'm probably not going to be going back to Minnesota nearly as often anymore. On the other hand, I do get to play with the Bay-area VTESites occasionally this way... > > fluffy > > Me too...me too... Can I get a witness? Oh wait, I've already got one. Josh still fluffy [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <90rm20$8l7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: > In article <90rgvq$48k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > xi...@waste.org (Xian) wrote: > Yes, of course, which is why I was just being silly by bringing > it up. :-) Screw you! :) > not going to be going back to Minnesota nearly as often anymore. > On the other hand, I do get to play with the Bay-area VTESites > occasionally this way... Ah shit. Bastard. Does this mean you get to play with Gomi and I don't? There's no justice, I tell you. Well, I'm thinking about moving out east one of these days, depending on...school, girlfriend (who wants to move, but I haven't convinced her yet), work, all that stuff. > Can I get a witness? Oh wait, I've already got one. Yeah, and we've already done that one. Xian NFL, efilnikufesin? -- But rain falls down and I feel cold A cold that sleeps within my heart It tears the earth and sun apart --New Order, "Shellshock" [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:3A3155BC...@netcom.com... > I'm not sure I understand this objection. If you're talking about the rush > deck being the predator in this situation, I fail to see how he's any more > screwed by this than by having to bleed out a real prey. If he bleeds slowly > and that's bad for him, it was already bad for him to begin with? > > Fred But if the player remained in play he would probably try to get some more vampires in play, therefore speeding his pool loss. I'm not refering to a situation where someone walks out when they only have 3-4 pool (wich is simply idiotic, if you're that close to losing you might as well stick around till the job is finished), but when they still have enough pool to get some vamps out but refuse to do so because they'd get killed by the rush deck. I've seen this done a few times, and even I tried it myself, but I stuck around hoping that my predator got ousted while I still have enough pool to get a few vamps out and get back in the game. The best way to frustrate a combat deck is to give him no targets. If the player who walks out has little pool, then it's not a problem, and I agree that it's best to allow him to bleed unopposed until his prey 'properly' dies. Flux

On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 14:14:03 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> >That's a damn good question. We've never seen it happen. :) Actually, it has, but for a slightly different reason. Recall the unlucky methuselah who attempted to drink his weight in vodka, and ended up passing out at the table. I bled through his remaining pool and was ousted shortly afterwards, instead of immediately taking 6 pool and the rest of the table. Bleeding through remaining pool is a nice concept; equivalent to having a player wall up in front of you.

Flux wrote: > > Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message > news:3A3155BC...@netcom.com... > > I'm not sure I understand this objection. If you're talking about the rush > > deck being the predator in this situation, I fail to see how he's any more > > screwed by this than by having to bleed out a real prey. If he bleeds slowly > > and that's bad for him, it was already bad for him to begin with? > > But if the player remained in play he would probably try to get some more > vampires in play, therefore speeding his pool loss. I'm not refering to a > situation where someone walks out when they only have 3-4 pool (wich is > simply idiotic, if you're that close to losing you might as well stick > around till the job is finished), but when they still have enough pool to > get some vamps out but refuse to do so because they'd get killed by the rush > deck. I've seen this done a few times, and even I tried it myself, but I > stuck around hoping that my predator got ousted while I still have enough > pool to get a few vamps out and get back in the game. The best way to > frustrate a combat deck is to give him no targets. Hmmm. So let me see if I understand the argument correctly: It's unfair to make a combat deck bleed his dropped-out prey to get his VPs and his pool reward because this would approximate a prey who sacrificed his chance of winning the game (by not spending his pool on minions he'd need to oust _his_ prey) to screw over his predator? Closing the loop on some of your arguments (and correct me if I've some missed a vital point), this seems to be the gist of it. If so, you have kind of a minor point, I suppose. I'm not too disturbed by it, though, because there's so much screwiness in what players choose to do by chance that I suspect this is almost noise. People create mad intercept decks full of superior Obedience that are an absolute torch for their predators and a skate for their prey (as long as their prey concentrates on bleeding). Rush decks in general are a rip-off for their neighbors on either side and a boon to their grandpredators and grandprey. Having a predator who does stealth/bleed is awfully tough (unless you're a combat deck) because even if you can outrace him to that victory point, you're still limping - but it's great for your grandpredator if you can manage to slow him down. The grandpredator has a decent chance of ousting you both relatively easily. > If the player who walks out has little pool, then it's not a problem, and I > agree that it's best to allow him to bleed unopposed until his prey > 'properly' dies. I actually would expect his rule to get used more in mid/late game. In the early game, just start the thing over. Fred

What I want to know, - - Nay, NEED to know, is - - - did Peter get the six pool and one victory point for ousting the guy who flipped him off and left the table ? "Men choose as their prophets those who tell them that their hopes are true." - Lord Dunsany Chick...@aol.com 3930 Cody Road Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 USA day 818-718-1221 eve 818-784-8476

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:3A318EF8...@netcom.com... [ quoted text not captured ] The problem I see is that, in a tournament enviroment, by making the predator bleed through the remaining pool you are effectively penalizing the predator and giving his grandprey an advantage, instead of correcting the problem created by the disapearence of one player. Yes, people do stupid things when playing, but part of the game is precisely knowing whe to attack and when to hold back. Just yesterday I played a game where at one point my !Malk prey started bleeding me (with Kindred Spirits) despite still having much pool and his prey being somewhat weak. And I didn't expect him to do anything else, since his prey was a Tzimisce intercept deck, and I had a tap&bleed deck who had already ousted one player, that was the smart thing to do. (wasn't enough though, I still managed to sweep the table) BTW, not only rush decks get screwed, several other decks will have problems when they don't cycle their cards. Even S&B can be penalized by not cycling through their stealth cards. > > If the player who walks out has little pool, then it's not a problem, and I > > agree that it's best to allow him to bleed unopposed until his prey > > 'properly' dies. > > I actually would expect his rule to get used more in mid/late game. > In the early game, just start the thing over. In a tournament? With time limits? Not very practical, maybe not even posssible. Flux

Chick Lewis wrote: >>What I want to know, - - Nay, NEED to know, is - - - did Peter get the six pool and one victory point for ousting the guy who flipped him off and left the table ? >> Yup and yup. Seems likey that there is official answer to this question--LSJ? [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: > Chick Lewis wrote: > >>What I want to know, - - Nay, NEED to know, is - - - did Peter get > >>the six pool and one victory point for ousting the guy who > >>[left the game improperly]? > > Yup and yup. > > Seems likey that there is official answer to this question--LSJ? The only way to leave the game without being ousted is by withdrawing by following the procedure in [9.2] Anything else, as in the above situation, is outside the scope of the rules. If it happens in a tournament, the judge should make whatever arrangements (regarding pool, VPs, cards in play, etc.) he determines are necessary to best preserve the game state for the remaining players. If it happens in a "friendly" game, it might be time to evaluate the definition of friendly. :-) -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <90rmd5$8qb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, xi...@waste.org (Xian) wrote: > In article <90rm20$8l7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: > > Yes, of course, which is why I was just being silly by bringing > > it up. :-) > > Screw you! :) Up Yours! ;-) > > not going to be going back to Minnesota nearly as often anymore. > > On the other hand, I do get to play with the Bay-area VTESites > > occasionally this way... > > Ah shit. Bastard. Does this mean you get to play with Gomi and I > don't? There's no justice, I tell you. Maybe. I got to play I think one game with him (maybe two?) when I went down to San Jose over Thanksgiving (sadly this is something like two hours of driving from Santa Rosa - freaking huge Bay Area); might get to do it again this month... I don't think he was playing any of those crazy Gomi decks though, no Orange Julius Death Pact or anything. > Well, I'm thinking about moving out east one of these days, depending > on...school, girlfriend (who wants to move, but I haven't convinced her > yet), work, all that stuff. I see, I see... I like the East Coast better than the West, what I've seen of them so far anyway, except that it's too damn hot and sticky here in the summer. That could probably be avoided by living farther north, though. > > Can I get a witness? Oh wait, I've already got one. > > Yeah, and we've already done that one. Oh yeah. I can never remember what we've done before. > Xian > > NFL, efilnikufesin? Anthrax?! Good lord. Josh to be a dopeman, boy you must qualify don't get high off your own supply [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Duffin" <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote in message news:91309s$gr5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > In article <90rmd5$8qb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > xi...@waste.org (Xian) wrote: > > Screw you! :) > > Up Yours! ;-) Twisting the Knife? :) > huge Bay Area); might get to do it again this month... I don't > think he was playing any of those crazy Gomi decks though, no > Orange Julius Death Pact or anything. Every once in a while, I think about what might happen if Gomi, Legbiter, a few others, and I sat down at a table together playing one of our "signature" decks...then my head starts to hurt, and I don't actually "think" again for a few hours. [moving out east] > I see, I see... I like the East Coast better than the West, > what I've seen of them so far anyway, except that it's too > damn hot and sticky here in the summer. That could probably > be avoided by living farther north, though. NYC is pretty cool in my book... > > NFL, efilnikufesin? > > Anthrax?! Good lord. How do you think I know all those lines to Bring tha Noize? Hmm...and I had no clue on your last one. Xian Magic has come to play his way and his way is to thwart

In article <Rl8Z5.258$Jd7.1...@news.uswest.net>, "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote: > > "Joshua Duffin" <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote in message > news:91309s$gr5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > > In article <90rmd5$8qb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > > xi...@waste.org (Xian) wrote: > > > Screw you! :) > > > > Up Yours! ;-) > > Twisting the Knife? :) Pushing the Limit? Or just the boundaries of good taste. > Every once in a while, I think about what might happen if Gomi, Legbiter, a > few others, and I sat down at a table together playing one of our "signature" > decks...then my head starts to hurt, and I don't actually "think" again for a > few hours. Heh. > NYC is pretty cool in my book... I like it. I hear the cost of living is on the high end, though. Not that DC isn't, but not really in the same league as New York. > > > NFL, efilnikufesin? > > > > Anthrax?! Good lord. > > How do you think I know all those lines to Bring tha Noize? Oh wow. Somehow it never occurred to me that that song was on an Anthrax album as well as the Public Enemy one... >Hmm...and I had > no clue on your last one. Was NWA! "straight outta Compton, crazy motherfucker named Ice Cube..." Josh who told you you could do it like this you can't do it like this [ quoted text not captured ]

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote: >Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message >news:3A3155BC...@netcom.com... >> I'm not sure I understand this objection. If you're talking about the >rush >> deck being the predator in this situation, I fail to see how he's any more >> screwed by this than by having to bleed out a real prey. If he bleeds >slowly >> and that's bad for him, it was already bad for him to begin with? >> >> Fred > >But if the player remained in play he would probably try to get some more >vampires in play, therefore speeding his pool loss. Then again, I had a JOL game where my prey decided to stop doing anything (he would just answer "no block" or post a "done" message as his turn, with any actions needed by other cards on the table). Both his vamps (big ones) were in torpor, and he had 10 or 11 pool left when he decided to become a wall. It was VERY frustrating. I had a bruise and bleed deck, heavy on the bruising, light on the bleeding. I fell to my Setite predator before I could oust my prey. >around till the job is finished), but when they still have enough pool to >get some vamps out but refuse to do so because they'd get killed by the rush >deck. I've seen this done a few times, and even I tried it myself, but I >stuck around hoping that my predator got ousted while I still have enough >pool to get a few vamps out and get back in the game. The best way to >frustrate a combat deck is to give him no targets. Nah, that guy had no chance of making it even with my own oust. We were three bleeders all waiting to get a shot at him. >If the player who walks out has little pool, then it's not a problem, and I >agree that it's best to allow him to bleed unopposed until his prey >'properly' dies. Logically, the meth who leaves the table like that should be declared a Bad Loser, and his predator should get the VP and pool, immediatly. However, this might bring about a new type of play into the game. The strategy of "Pissing your prey", i.e. doing everything you can to properly and thoroughly angering your prey until he quits the game. We must NOT go there. Man, if we allow that strategy, the world of Jyhad will tremble whenever my name is pronounced, for I am quite an annoying little bugger. And I can do it quite legally too. It would be very hard to pinpoint anything in the floor rules to forbid my actions. Bleu