Reasons for quitting the game

Although I was playing back in the Jyhad days, I was not a member of this newsgroup and did not have much contact with players outside of my own city. However, I recently met some local ex-players. Their reasons for quitting were because of the name change from Jyhad to V:tES which, to me, seems quite ridiculous. It's also very frustrating given how difficult it has been to promote the game here. I didn't even know these guys existed. Was this a common reason for people quitting back in the day? For those of you who keep in contact with people who have quit the game, what are the most common reasons? Cheers, WES

Andrew 'Wes' Weston wrote: > For those of you who keep in contact with people who have quit the game, > what are the most common reasons? > > Cheers, > WES > Round here (east UK) it was lack of support and availability. This was back in WotC days tho. I'm glad to say that many of them are coming back into the game now... Sable

Andrew 'Wes' Weston wrote: > However, I recently met some local ex-players. Their reasons for quitting > were because of the name change from Jyhad to V:tES Isnt the reality that people have personal reasons to quit the game (girlfriend, all friends play Pokemon, new job) but give the product the fault. And then everything can be named (name change, bad old design, bad new design, to much Shy pictures, to few Shy pictures, new imbued, the same vampires as before with new names now in group 4, no support, to much expansions). Frank

Sable wrote: > Round here (east UK) it was lack of support and availability. This was > back in WotC days tho. > You mean laziness then? Because the product was always available from the distributors and all you had to do was to call WotC to get prize support and as many Dan and Marianas as you wanted. I think the situation is worse now: there are no regular monthly tournaments in the UK at the moment (the possible exception of Cambridge is noted). What groups there are are very small and less likley to travel than in the WotC days where you could get 25 players in Portsmouth nearly every month. I see little coordination and a lot of apathy as the previous organisers juggle families with VTES and few new players have stepped up. A lot of the key, (motivating) UK players stopped when Cam Ed. was released, cemented shortly thereafter by the release of Vs. system. Matt Green

mgreen02 wrote: > Sable wrote: > >> Round here (east UK) it was lack of support and availability. This was >> back in WotC days tho. >> > You mean laziness then? Because the product was always available from > the distributors and all you had to do was to call WotC to get prize > support and as many Dan and Marianas as you wanted. I should have been more clear, it wasn't prize support but retailers unwillingness to stock product. And it was the tail end of WotC days - the DS, AH era was its peek round here - till now. > I think the situation is worse now: there are no regular monthly > tournaments in the UK at the moment (the possible exception of > Cambridge is noted). What groups there are are very small and less > likley to travel than in the WotC days where you could get 25 players > in Portsmouth nearly every month. I see little coordination and a lot > of apathy as the previous organisers juggle families with VTES and few > new players have stepped up. I know of one monthly event in Lincoln (tonight in fact), but yes it is small (10 players at peek). As a previous organiser who's achieved the family balance necessary to resurface I see where your coming from. Sable

Sable wrote: > mgreen02 wrote: > > You mean laziness then? Because the product was always available from > > the distributors and all you had to do was to call WotC to get prize > > support and as many Dan and Marianas as you wanted. > > I should have been more clear, it wasn't prize support but retailers > unwillingness to stock product. And it was the tail end of WotC days - > the DS, AH era was its peek round here - till now. Well... I think that Matt has hit on it with the lazyness angle - there is the Internet after all, not too hard to find Potomac (*) and get your cards that way which is what I had to do to get any cards at all when I started playing since 0 retailers in Wellington, New Zealand stocked VtES on a regular basis. If you want to play you'll be able to track down the cards. > As a previous organiser who's achieved the family balance necessary to > resurface I see where your coming from. I think this is probably the biggest actual cause, possibly linked to that getting old thing that seems to be going around a bit. Simon * I will deny this if the taxmen in New Zealand ever ask about GST ;-)

Andrew 'Wes' Weston wrote: > However, I recently met some local ex-players. Their reasons for quitting > were because of the name change from Jyhad to V:tES which, to me, seems > quite ridiculous. It's also very frustrating given how difficult it has been > to promote the game here. I didn't even know these guys existed. > > Was this a common reason for people quitting back in the day? I don't think it was a significant reason, really. I mean, like, lots of people came and went from CCGs, especially at that point in the evolution of CCGs, as there were so damn many of them, and changing the card backs certainly didn't *help* with player retention, and it seems perfectly possible that some folks left for this particular reason, but if not that one, they probably would have left for some other one. Most folks I know were like "Huh. What a pain in the ass. Oh well." and we just made fun of the situation. I belive Josh Stein offered me $100.00 to punch Garfield that year when I want to Origins... -Peter

Andrew 'Wes' Weston wrote: > Although I was playing back in the Jyhad days, I was not a member of this > newsgroup and did not have much contact with players outside of my own city. > > However, I recently met some local ex-players. Their reasons for quitting > were because of the name change from Jyhad to V:tES which, to me, seems > quite ridiculous. It's also very frustrating given how difficult it has been > to promote the game here. I didn't even know these guys existed. > > Was this a common reason for people quitting back in the day? > It was not the name change per se I believe although i never really understood why Jyhad was not a perfectly good name. But the backs of the cards changed along with the name. The change of the cardbacks were a big deal causing a great deal of anger and ranting. I remember being pissed off a great deal myself. The rules team or Tom or whomever cracked the whip back then had to issue rulings on the ratios between VTES and Jyhad backs in mixed libraries and crypts. Today card sleeves are pretty standard and the argument may seem a bit silly. But the sense in the additional cost of buying card sleeves in order to play seriously is not obvious to all. Had these people been playing today had this never been done? Not likely. > For those of you who keep in contact with people who have quit the game, > what are the most common reasons? > There was the long break between Sabbat and Sabbat War. Why don't they start again? I think there are many reasons... from their Anson Anarch Revolt deck being unplayable to inability or unwillingness to spend money on the new expansions to having problems finding opponents. Some where Vampire roleplayers and most of these are put off by the distinctively un-rp approach to the game most common among players today. I have quit playing many games. I don't have a clear reason for quitting all of them. Frede

Andrew 'Wes' Weston wrote: > Although I was playing back in the Jyhad days, I was not a member of this > newsgroup and did not have much contact with players outside of my own city. > > However, I recently met some local ex-players. Their reasons for quitting > were because of the name change from Jyhad to V:tES which, to me, seems > quite ridiculous. It's also very frustrating given how difficult it has been > to promote the game here. I didn't even know these guys existed. There was a huge player revolt surrounding the name change. A large number of players quit. I hear the name change often when I come across players who "used to play". There was a big concern that the name change was only a gimmick to make players re-buy the cards they already owned. The tournament rules ended up allowing players to freely mix card backs but that came a little too late--a large number of players left the game. -Robert

Shade wrote: > Sable wrote: > > As a previous organiser who's achieved the family balance necessary to > > resurface I see where your coming from. > > I think this is probably the biggest actual cause, possibly linked to > that getting old thing that seems to be going around a bit. When we started I was one of the die-hard guys who always attended or hosted every play session. Now I show up once a month or every other month. I'm fortunate that we have a couple of good v:tes evangelists in our group. The single youngsters and the newbies who've just caught the obsession have to fill the void of the aging or quitting veterans. -Robert

"Andrew 'Wes' Weston" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:e6jd5...@enews4.newsguy.com... > Although I was playing back in the Jyhad days, I was not a member of this > newsgroup and did not have much contact with players outside of my own city. > > However, I recently met some local ex-players. Their reasons for quitting > were because of the name change from Jyhad to V:tES which, to me, seems > quite ridiculous. It's also very frustrating given how difficult it has been > to promote the game here. I didn't even know these guys existed. > > Was this a common reason for people quitting back in the day? It's possible that in the discussion, the name change and the card back change had gotten conflated as reasons. The two things were announced simultaneously and the "name change" was frequently referred to as the generic term for the whole sorry episode in the life of this game. I quit the game for a while after Wizards announced the card back change. To me, that was one of the most miserable, bone-headed, and quite possibly greedy stunts a CCG company ever could have pulled. I only started buying cards again long after Wizards stopped manufacturing them and had announced their irrevocable intent to cease their manufacture evermore. (Even so, that required a pretty good dollop of rationalizing on my part.) Eh. Pardon me while I go wash myself... Fred

"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:1150119696.7...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > There was a huge player revolt surrounding the name change. A large > number of players quit. I hear the name change often when I come > across players who "used to play". There was a big concern that the > name change was only a gimmick to make players re-buy the cards they > already owned. ...because the card backs were different. Had they only changed the name of the game on the packaging, websites, and advertisements (as we screamed at WotC repeatedly in newsgroup posts), it would have been fine. Changing the name of the game specifically on the backs of the cards was the big sin. > The tournament rules ended up allowing players to freely mix card backs > but that came a little too late--a large number of players left the > game. I think your memory of that is off, Robert. If I recall correctly, the tournament rule changes were announced pretty much simultaneously with everything else. It's just that they were stupid and no one really cared. (Or at least, that's my opinion of why they didn't make a dent on the uproar.) Card back differences mark cards, whether anyone tries to cheat or not. (Also, keep in mind that the opaque-backed card sleeve did not exist in the market at the time. It seems strange to think back on it, now in these days of whole panels of comic book art being printed on the backs of card sleeves. In those days, only transparent sleeves existed and I kept thinking, "Opaque card backs would help a lot. I wonder what it would take to get someone to start making them.") Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] [1] Meddling of Semsith [2] Efficient Intercept decks [3] Gehenna events, especially in combo with better allies [4] Banning table-rearrangement cards ... basically, what all these have in common is deliberate curtailment of possibilities formerly inherent or actualised in the game. This was a hard pill for the old players of the game to swallow, since it was the beauty and diversity of the game that brought them in.

legb...@mailandnews.com wrote: > [1] Meddling of Semsith Interesting. As big as the hub-ub was about this card when it came out, I still don't think I have ever actually seen one in play. -Peter

Fred Scott wrote: > "Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message > news:1150119696.7...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > There was a huge player revolt surrounding the name change. A large > > number of players quit. I hear the name change often when I come > > across players who "used to play". There was a big concern that the > > name change was only a gimmick to make players re-buy the cards they > > already owned. > > ...because the card backs were different. Had they only changed the > name of the game on the packaging, websites, and advertisements (as > we screamed at WotC repeatedly in newsgroup posts), it would have been > fine. Changing the name of the game specifically on the backs of the > cards was the big sin. Right! Also, some polls and conversations that happened while the decision was being pondered, lead some people to believe that only the name and NOT the card backs would change. Just made them even more angry when the card backs changed. > > The tournament rules ended up allowing players to freely mix card backs > > but that came a little too late--a large number of players left the > > game. > > I think your memory of that is off, Robert. Could be. I did a quick google search and found a 1995 thread that you started. :) Seems that many people are quoting emails (presumeably to the the VTES-L mailing list). One email says that the DCI has not yet figured out how to handle the advantage that will be gained in tournaments due to the cardback differences. Not sure if that means they'd already announced that the mixing would be allowed? Maybe it was before they added the allowable percentage of each cardback rule? http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/843f61c98d248413?dmode=source Anyway, searching through the VTES-L archives or all the early 1995 newsgroup posts would probably get us the info but I'm not THAT interested. -Robert

"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:1150130304.3...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Fred Scott wrote: >> "Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message >> news:1150119696.7...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> > The tournament rules ended up allowing players to freely mix card backs >> > but that came a little too late--a large number of players left the >> > game. >> >> I think your memory of that is off, Robert. > > Could be. > > I did a quick google search and found a 1995 thread that you started. > :) Seems that many people are quoting emails (presumeably to the the > VTES-L mailing list). One email says that the DCI has not yet figured > out how to handle the advantage that will be gained in tournaments due > to the cardback differences. Yea, I guess that must have been the case at some point, early on. I'm pretty sure that when the "official" announcements started coming out, at the very least it was always stated that some accomadation would be made for Jyhad-backed cards in tournament play even if they didn't know exactly how it was going to work yet. There was never any real question of that for anyone who was paying much attention. It's just that it didn't matter. Fred

<legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:1150129821.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Andrew 'Wes' Weston wrote: >> For those of you who keep in contact with people who have quit the game, >> what are the most common reasons? > > [1] Meddling of Semsith Eh? That's incredibly curious. Can you elaborate? I remember some people being distinctly annoyed about this card when it just came out but it died down before too long. Probably as folks come to find out it just isn't a very good card. Fred

Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Yea, I guess that must have been the case at some point, early on. > I'm pretty sure that when the "official" announcements started coming > out, at the very least it was always stated that some accomadation > would be made for Jyhad-backed cards in tournament play even if they > didn't know exactly how it was going to work yet. There was never > any real question of that for anyone who was paying much attention. > It's just that it didn't matter. The "official" announcement/post: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/b0e4ef3e71fcdf0e 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

[ quoted text not captured ] ;-) Lucky old you!

Fred Scott wrote: > <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message > news:1150129821.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Andrew 'Wes' Weston wrote: > >> For those of you who keep in contact with people who have quit the game, > >> what are the most common reasons? > > > > [1] Meddling of Semsith > > Eh? That's incredibly curious. Can you elaborate? Sure. Meddling is a card that screws up almost whatever strategy you care to implement, except for stupid ones, since all clever strategies in CCGs require card cycling. So it is an incentive to play a dumbass deck, and a disincentive to build clever decks. In fact it is double-edgedly stupid-strategy-promoting, since the drop-a-card-from-your-own-hand text means that the person playing it has to play a stupid deck too. Vampires is a complex game for clever people which, sadly, means it will never be a mass game. I understand the frustration that this induces in the game designers but I do not think that moving the game towards the stupid strategies was a good idea. Sadly, all recent major developments in the great game have IMO been in that direction. This [to get back to Wes's question] is IMO why the old players have been ducking out of the game, generally with rather little fanfare, and it does not matter too much if new players keep coming in and refreshing it. > > I remember some people being distinctly annoyed about this card when > it just came out but it died down before too long. Probably as > folks come to find out it just isn't a very good card. ;-) dear, sweet Fred, i DO agree with you. But "not very good" is not, alas, the same as "completely a game winner if you put it in the right deck". Also, please note that I actually believe the old players could mostly have put up with any one or two of the factors on my list. Just not all of them. > > Fred

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 legb...@mailandnews.com wrote: > Sure. Meddling is a card that screws up almost whatever strategy you > care to implement, except for stupid ones, since all clever strategies > in CCGs require card cycling. So it is an incentive to play a dumbass > deck, and a disincentive to build clever decks. In fact it is > double-edgedly stupid-strategy-promoting, since the > drop-a-card-from-your-own-hand text means that the person playing it > has to play a stupid deck too. It's interesting to note that I was one of the more hostile people towards Meddling when it first came out; I remain hostile to its existence. I don't think people properly made the attempt to use the card because of its nature of turning casual games into "not fun" for at least two players; the person playing the Meddling deck, and the poor bugger who's getting nailed by it. I don't think it's a broken game-winner, by a long shot; there are plenty of other strategies that are more consistent game-winners. But I do think it was a bad direction to head, as it focused almost entirely on denial of a basic resource. > idea. Sadly, all recent major developments in the great game have IMO > been in that direction. This [to get back to Wes's question] is IMO why > the old players have been ducking out of the game, generally with > rather little fanfare, Allow me to agree with this. I effectively retired when Black Hand was released... and while Gehenna was in playtest, and was actively ruining games in our group. I decided then to stop purchasing cards, as I just didn't see the point of attempting to play a game that could be so easily disrupted by a simple deck (the 1- or 2-cap Computer Hacking deck, chock full of Gehenna events). As it turned out, such a deck DID do fairly well in a number of outings (Stefan Ferenci resoundingly making the finals of the 2004 LCQ with a similar deck was my own personal experience, but I know there were plenty of others), but the sheer table hate it tended to generate actually discouraged widespread use. Very few people like to play a game where their deck is reviled from turn one, and targetted even more afterwards... so even among people where social pressure should never take its toll, it does in a very subtle way. While social pressure prevented Gehenna events from seeing significant play at first, I never particularly regretted my decision, as the #2 factor suddenly came into play after I had stopped for awhile: Time. The game remains too much of a time investment. To be required to set aside an entire day on the weekend to play only 3 or 4 games, in an increasingly randomized environment, is just not my cup of tea anymore. Nor is being forced to spend all my time table-talking and dealing just to get somewhere. At one point in time I was happy to do this; I found I no longer had the patience, and I have little patience to pick the game up again. I certainly miss the people I used to see on a regular basis, especially while traveling. But, overall, I simply can't justify devoting the time expenditure to V:TES anymore, and it's somewhat amusing that it took taking a break from the game to realize how much of a time expenditure it really was. > deck". Also, please note that I actually believe the old players could > mostly have put up with any one or two of the factors on my list. Just > not all of them. I feel the randomization of the game has largely continued, and it is surely a bad thing. Tupdog should have been caught and corrected in playtest; any idiot can collect the cards, put a basic Tupdog deck together, and create havoc at a table, whether or not they win. Not good for retaining those of us who rather enjoyed being able to _play_ our decks. The Imbued actually strike me as a very well put-together expansion taken in their own perspective, but now the Gehenna Event problem that I was afraid of so long ago has finally come home to roost -- the most effective deck with Imbued is the "Screw Vampires" version. More randomized disruption, based entirely on whether an Imbued deck is at your table. Again, not good. I think the Imbued could have added a great deal to the game if the Events were not available. So, after all this, I haven't purchased a single box of the Black Hand sets or later, and I don't intend to at this time. For one, the financial barrier to re-entry for me (even if some of the other problems were corrected) is simply too high. (Note that I don't consider this financial barrier to be one that anyone else possesses -- I just know that my own approach to the game would compel me to provide myself ALL the options available, and as such it would be a LOT of money to go back and pick up all the sets inbetween. I have better things to do with that money now, and more time to do it in.) I never really made a big public deal of things when I made my decision, because I truly do hate the "I'm quitting the game, convince me to stay" sort of post that we saw for a long time both after WW took over, as well as the ones in relation to the card back and art changes... especially when it was followed up 3 months later by the same poster commenting "Oops, I changed my mind". But, as it turns out, I never did change my mind, so for those few of you who were wondering, well, now you know. :) I certainly wish the existing players good luck, and hope that the game can be encouraged to flourish in a more effective fashion -- shortening the play time without sacrificing the rich strategy, for example. But it must continue to do so without me. - -- Derek -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEje1ftQZlu3o7QpERAsgBAKChZwm72KwKvhVZ5/2Gdr+N5JP3nQCg5ud1 H2HoQL8Dtn74E1pjOt4X814= =o0jW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[snip stuff i agree with, ie all of it] So, erm, you never got to try out the new LoB precons? Cos they are VERY good, IMO the best ever.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [ quoted text not captured ] I keep being told that. :) But by the time LoB came out, I was well gone -- not even really showing up for local tournaments anymore. Probably the last major tournaments I played in were the LCQ and National Championships at GenCon two years ago, in fact. So pretty much anything after that = no go. I may get Robyn to show me some of the stuff sometime. :) - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEji02tQZlu3o7QpERAvuSAKCAN+SFFrjYQF+oocwfvvGxhw/v+QCgiINg +VgutS+cvtWQY+cJ7v0kHlM= =O51f -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

FC <f...@kemi.dtu.dk> wrote in news:e6jqph$7c9$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk: > Andrew 'Wes' Weston wrote: >> Was this a common reason for people quitting back in the day? >> > > It was not the name change per se I believe although i never really > understood why Jyhad was not a perfectly good name. But the backs of > the cards changed along with the name. > Assume for a minute that you've never heard of White Wolf, or the World of Darkness. You see a game on the shelf called "Jyhad"... What's the first thing you assume about the games' subject? Vampires? I doubt it... That's what you call "bad branding". > The change of the cardbacks were a big deal causing a great deal of > anger and ranting. I remember being pissed off a great deal myself. > Lots of people were. People were still in the grip of Magic fever, and thought that lots of dirty rotten cheating deck-stacking would occur. It didn't really, in part because knowing what the next card is in a vtes library isn't information of as great a magnitude as that same info in a different game. > Today card sleeves are pretty standard and the argument may seem a bit > silly. But the sense in the additional cost of buying card sleeves in > order to play seriously is not obvious to all. > :-) How quickly the young'uns forget... Back in the old days, we didn't _have_ opaque backed card sleeves, son. They didn't come out until about two years after the back change, IIRC. > Had these people been playing today had this never been done? Not > likely. > Agreed. Every game decision for VTES has had its decriers and doomsayers, and yet, I'm gaming tomorrow night, aren't I? >> For those of you who keep in contact with people who have quit the >> game, what are the most common reasons? >> > > There was the long break between Sabbat and Sabbat War. Why don't they > start again? I think there are many reasons... from their Anson Anarch > Revolt deck being unplayable to inability or unwillingness to spend > money on the new expansions to having problems finding opponents. > Some where Vampire roleplayers and most of these are put off by the > distinctively un-rp approach to the game most common among players > today. > Finding VTES opponents is always the biggest obstacle, IMO. The number of RPGers in VTES has never been that great. DaveZ Atom Weaver

In message <w5SdnZcpgPKacBDZ...@giganews.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >The Imbued actually strike me as a very well put-together expansion >taken in their own perspective, but now the Gehenna Event problem that I >was afraid of so long ago has finally come home to roost -- the most >effective deck with Imbued is the "Screw Vampires" version. More >randomized disruption, based entirely on whether an Imbued deck is at >your table. Again, not good. I think the Imbued could have added a >great deal to the game if the Events were not available. It's one of the reasons I dislike some of the Events so much. Some of them are great, well-balanced and interesting. They empower other strategies, providing versatility that wasn't available before, or are otherwise fun. A good example, for me, is The Unmasking. +1 intercept for allies. Yes, it's more powerful with Imbued than it was before - you could block the allies being brought out, for example, if you were worried. Of the more recent Event cards, there are some similarly good cards, too. Anthelios empowers strategies, and may be too good, but is available to everyone so it sort of balances out. Port Authority is a mild denial strategy, but it's quite mild with it, so doesn't detract from fun so much - it's no worse than, say, Camarilla Threat. The problems are that there are cards which can destroy a deck, just randomly. The thing is, LSJ presumably knows they can destroy decks - which is why some of them are banned in Storyline tournaments. For example, a Camarilla voting deck, using the First Tradition, Parity Shift, Protect Thine Own is killed by Fall of the Camarilla. Ditto, an Anathema/Alastor/Archon deck. Or any Red List Trophy deck - I can't generate Red List vampires without my titles! I am no less screwed if this happens in a non-Storyline tournament, and for a deck that has a modus operandi of "Screw other decks on the table", it's not hard for them to include it. Similarly, Fall of the Sabbat. Similarly, Recalled to the Founder. There's no built-in way for me to fight these cards. So I have to include counters to them, most of which only work when the card is played. So I have to have enough of the counter in my deck to have one in hand by the time the worst cards are played. Now, this may be fine but... If we assume that many decks do not need Events, I will need all the defences I used to have. Any deck, pre- Events, will have whatever defence it needs - combat defence, politics, pool gain, bounce, rush, whatever. So now I have to pull a whole bunch of those cards to stop myself being screwed by Events. So even when I don't see Events, those events are stopping me playing my game. Emergency Preparations is entirely pointless to a mid-cap deck (or smaller) if it's not seen. Not to Be has no alternative use. So I have to jettison some of the defence I need against every other deck in the deck and put in defence against cards I won't see that often - but when they do, they destroy a deck. Note: if they don't destroy single clan, or sect-focused, decks, they would not need to be banned in Storyline tournaments. What's the problem here? They stop me playing my game. Not because I was bad. That's fine. If you torporize all my vampires, that's fine. I didn't include rush defence, and it happens over multiple turns. If I get killed by Fall of the Camarilla, that's not because I failed on a number of levels. It's not like normal vote defence, where I can fight tooth and nail on every single vote, even if it falls flat. I just get screwed. And a deck employing it, like the Imbued screw vampires deck, doesn't even have to care significantly if it pulls it off. It just wants to screw vampires. It stops me playing my game - and for what benefit to V:TES as a whole? Even if you or I do or don't like Protect Thine Own, it's not reasonable to tell a player using it that a deck can simply stop them using it by luck. For the rest of the game. Entirely. It's not one card for a short period of time, like Delaying Tactics or Vox Domini. It's not one card giving everyone else extra power for a long period of time, like Vox Senis. It stops me outright, for the rest of the game, unless you're ousted. Ditto, a variety of other Event cards - but also Meddling of Semsith. I get stopped from playing my game, but it's entirely random whether it happens or not. It doesn't flow from basic game mechanics that have been there since 1994, like whether you rushed my minion or not. It's just "Did players include the card that says 'Screw minion phase actions for the rest of the game'?" Different tangent: Brinksmanship. Brinksmanship actively penalises me playing my game. The more cards I play, the closer I am to dying. This randomly penalizes players choosing to play a 60 card deck, also. Are 60 decks inherently more powerful than 90 card decks? They may be less clumpy (due to randomness being slightly less likely to screw you), but I don't see that they're hugely more powerful and stomping on everyone. Do they need to be screwed? If yes, that should be addressed. If no, why does this card need to disproportionately screw their game? Again, it suddenly stops me playing my game. Yes, of course, I can include vote defence. And people do! But including vote defence does not mean you will be able to defend against specific votes. They might be called cross-table when you're tapped out. And if I play Vox Domini to fail that vote, I can't play Not to Be to stop your Event card that turn. Great. Everyone, I think, knows that including defence in a deck does not guarantee anything and that it's largely a way of pushing away a given strategy, rather than a guarantee of killing it dead. For example, if I have 4-6 Delaying Tactics in a reasonably-crated deck, on average I will be able to have more political influence and survive longer against a political deck - but that doesn't mean I'll be able to fail any given vote, due to the randomness of V:TES. A well-played political deck knows that I can't have an infinite amount of Delaying Tactics - and even in a Twister deck, it would be able to see what's going on. So I can defend against politics, but defending against Brinksmanship or Meddling *specifically* is pretty much a no-go - I may not have drawn it. And being stopped from playing my game by another player including a handful of cards, which I can't predict, isn't fun. It's just simply not fun. Recalled to the Founder does not add to fun in V:TES. Anarch Revolt was not fun; it forced every other deck on the table to stop playing their own game in order to stop the entire table falling apart. This is: a) not fun and b) stops me playing my game. When this is fun is with decks like Nergal. Every single player knows in advance that the final will be different. They know that the Nergal deck will be powerful. Even if they haven't looked at the deck (as was their right), anyone thinking for more than 0.0003 of a second would realise "Hey, they set it up to be bled by 4 people at once, so maybe they made the deck powerful to cope!" But that *is* fun. It's a new strategy. It doesn't entirely screw my deck, it's just that Nergal is very good. The weirdness - I can know about that in advance. It's not like someone just pulled the Nergal deck out from nowhere, completely changing the rules of the game at random. I know in advance. I come prepared. I get a new and different challenge. That is, or at least can be, fun. Having my deck completely shot down because another player played Events or votes that say "Screw other decks, without any downside to themself" is not fun. It's random unfun. Random unfun is not good for the game. But you can argue that there's no problems with this, because social pressures will just stop people playing the unfun deck. A few points here: 1) Anarch Revolt should not have been changed if this is a winning argument. 2) Anarch Revolt was NOT stopped by social pressures. 3) Anarch Revolt decks were some of the most unfun decks in the game, guaranteed to get many groans when seen. 4) Social pressure against specific decks or specific cards is just as bad as xCL players using social pressures to exclude stealth- bleed cheese because it breaks their game. If it's bad there - which it is - it's bad here. If a player has a deck that they like playing, they shouldn't be pressured into not playing it by social factors. Game-based factors, such as the deck being difficult, untenable, too slow, possible backfiring, a random crapshoot for them (as to who they sit next to, say), and so on, prevent a deck being a sensible choice. Social pressures and table hate simply cause aggravation. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe wrote: [snip a collection of interesting points I agree with] > Random unfun is not good for the game. I would second that. Certainly the slow and painful death usually associated with a sucks-to-be-a-vampire deck is quite unfun... they need to finish people off a bit quicker ;-)

James Coupe wrote: > There's no built-in way for me to fight these cards. So I have to > include counters to them, most of which only work when the card is > played. ... > What's the problem here? They stop me playing my game. Not because I > was bad. That's fine. If you torporize all my vampires, that's fine. > I didn't include rush defence, and it happens over multiple turns. If I > get killed by Fall of the Camarilla, that's not because I failed on a > number of levels. ... Really? You have many rounds time to see that FotC is coming. Usually enough time to draw one of three Emergency Prepaprations. Not including them in a Camarilla Vote deck may be the same like not including rush defence. > If a player has a deck that they like playing, they shouldn't be > pressured into not playing it by social factors. Game-based factors, > such as the deck being difficult, untenable, too slow, possible > backfiring, a random crapshoot for them (as to who they sit next to, > say), and so on, prevent a deck being a sensible choice. Social > pressures and table hate simply cause aggravation. Table hate IMO is when i play against a deck, because i dont like the type of deck. If i crosstable oust a Screw vampire deck, because it will kill me, i absolutely play reasonable. It is not social pressure, it is the best thing i can do to play to win. Thats why in VTES it is usually good to be able to play crosstable. Your argument is based on the idea, i want to play my deck. I have problems to see, how a Potence weenie or a Giovanni power bleeder let you play your deck. IMO VTES is about playing interactive with the other players. That will often be not playing your deck, but adapting your play to a hostile environment. Frank

> The Imbued actually strike me as a very well put-together expansion > taken in their own perspective, but now the Gehenna Event problem that I > was afraid of so long ago has finally come home to roost -- the most > effective deck with Imbued is the "Screw Vampires" version. More > randomized disruption, based entirely on whether an Imbued deck is at > your table. Again, not good. I think the Imbued could have added a > great deal to the game if the Events were not available. Interesting, I haven't really thought about the Imbued without the other cards in the game, but I think you are right, on their own they are quite balanced - especially if you look for their weaknesses, rather than their strengths. There are problems which come from the fact that they are 'not vampires', which means that all of those cards that affect vampires are quite a simple inclusion for them - all the Events (near enough), Millicent Smith, Vampiric Disease, etc. Also by being 'not vampires' so many cards currently don't have any effect on them such as Dawn Operation, Fame, Disarm, all of which means more limited strategies for deck design, but that is getting away from the point. Perhaps all the fuss over the Imbued should be focused on the cards that really make them a pain - Events, in great numbers. Sam

"atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote > > Assume for a minute that you've never heard of White Wolf, or the World > of Darkness. You see a game on the shelf called "Jyhad"... What's the > first thing you assume about the games' subject? Vampires? I doubt > it... That's what you call "bad branding". Oddly enough, that is exactly how I discovered this game :) I remember asking the storeowner "So... if the game is about vampires, why is it called Jyhad?" > :-) How quickly the young'uns forget... Back in the old days, we > didn't _have_ opaque backed card sleeves, son. They didn't come out > until about two years after the back change, IIRC. I rarely play with card sleeves. I find them a pain in the ass and often more damaging to the cards than not using them. Even so, I've never found the different cardbacks to be that annoying, even back when the ratio of Jyhad to non-Jyhad was much different. > Finding VTES opponents is always the biggest obstacle, IMO. That is certainly the case here, which is why I am so frustrated to hear such, to my mind, silly reasons for quitting. Cheers, WES

"Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote > > It's possible that in the discussion, the name change and the card back > change had gotten conflated as reasons. Yes, I should have been more clear. Though both reasons were mentioned, I got the impression that the card back change was the more relevant reason for them quitting. Cheers, WES

"Jazzbeaux" <Prince...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1150192890.2...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Interesting, I haven't really thought about the Imbued without the > other cards in the game, but I think you are right, on their own they > are quite balanced - especially if you look for their weaknesses, > rather than their strengths. > There are problems which come from the fact that they are 'not > vampires', which means that all of those cards that affect vampires are > quite a simple inclusion for them - all the Events (near enough), > Millicent Smith, Vampiric Disease, etc. Also by being 'not vampires' > so many cards currently don't have any effect on them such as Dawn > Operation, Fame, Disarm, ... In Los Angeles, it was said that the typical nickname for them is "The Immune". Fred

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > James Coupe wrote: >> There's no built-in way for me to fight these cards. So I have to >> include counters to them, most of which only work when the card is >> played. ... > >> I didn't include rush defence, and it happens over multiple turns. If I >> get killed by Fall of the Camarilla, that's not because I failed on a >> number of levels. ... > > Really? You have many rounds time to see that FotC is coming. Usually > enough time to draw one of three Emergency Prepaprations. This is the same old argument as saying "Well, you can just Sudden (X) Master that hoses your deck", or "You can just DI (X) nasty action card that hoses your deck". Those positions aren't valid and were debunked long ago; this position isn't valid either. When the only defense against a card is a silver bullet, there is no defense against that card. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEjp5gtQZlu3o7QpERAnUDAJ9yDkkSKEBMORf3EK1RcOv5ZEgCNACgiRvV eywYGQw4h34l7AvNZFTLLhc= =Vnyb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> It's interesting to note that I was one of the more hostile people > towards Meddling when it first came out; I remain hostile to its > existence. I don't think people properly made the attempt to use the > card because of its nature of turning casual games into "not fun" for at > least two players; the person playing the Meddling deck, and the poor > bugger who's getting nailed by it. Hmm...I tried it in my Panders for a while, in like 2003, and I found that it actually added a lot of depth to the game. It was like its own mini-game just trying to figure out who will actually be affected by it, who is someone you'd like to hit, and then once you play it, they have to figure out how to play around it. And they always play around it a little, it's just a stumbling block. But it seemed like all the guys at the table were enjoying the experience, including the guy hit by it, since it was interesting, but not game-shattering, and I eventually decided over a few months that it wasn't so great and would be better off being another Consanguineous Boon. > I don't think it's a broken game-winner, by a long shot; there are > plenty of other strategies that are more consistent game-winners. But I > do think it was a bad direction to head, as it focused almost entirely > on denial of a basic resource. And on that point I have to resoundingly agree. WOTC has run polls and found that pure resource denial decks in M:TG frequently cause new players to quit the game, simply due to not having any fun in that situation. I have played other card games, L5R etc., and resource denial just isn't any fun in any of them. I think this holds just as true in V:TES--you have to feel like you're interacting or you're just watching frustrated. Still, the trouble is PURE resource denial; that is, any resource being denied entirely or entirely-enough. I don't think that Meddling has ever stopped anyone from interacting ENTIRELY, bur from interacting well with 4 or more vampires per turn. > Nor is being forced to spend all my time table-talking and dealing just > to get somewhere. At one point in time I was happy to do this; I found > I no longer had the patience, and I have little patience to pick the > game up again. IME, I have found that you don't have to deal just to get somewhere unless the game is being pretty static. And whether your deck can break out of a static gamestate is dependent primarily upon its construction. I used to be REALLY opposed to time outs, because I felt they were antithetical to playing at all. Most of the time IME it would not be table talk, but 3 intercept decks on the same table, which pretty much guarantees a timeout. My solution has been to include LOTS of stealth (or LOTS of combat) into whatever I'm playing. If I don't have a way to break static, I ASSUME the deck will reach time more than I'd like and I fix it or I disassemble it. This way, I have some control over a static environment, instead of feeling cheated by not being allowed to finish my game. My point is, either way, if you hate table-talk OR static environments, it's the same cure. Play !Malk bleed, for example, and use Elder Impersonation. Regardless of environment, regardless of table-talkers, it's just not a deck that gets timed out easily. > The Imbued actually strike me as a very well put-together expansion > taken in their own perspective, but now the Gehenna Event problem that I > was afraid of so long ago has finally come home to roost -- the most > effective deck with Imbued is the "Screw Vampires" version. Disagree. The most prevalent version I hear about online is the "screw vampires" version. But the versions I've seen on thelasombra.com have few events, and won tournaments. Here in Seattle, most people don't really have imbued decks; the only one I've seen has just The Unmasking and Edge Explosion. > But, as it turns out, I never did > change my mind, so for those few of you who were wondering, well, now > you know. :) I was one of those people, for sure. I just figured you were busy and burned out, and would come back. > I certainly wish the existing players good luck, and hope that the game > can be encouraged to flourish in a more effective fashion -- shortening > the play time without sacrificing the rich strategy, for example. But > it must continue to do so without me. That's rather sad. I was looking forward to seeing you in Atlanta this year. Any chance you'll still drop by, if only to show us out-of-towners where the hot spots are?

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > legb...@mailandnews.com wrote: > > [snip stuff i agree with, ie all of it] > > > > So, erm, you never got to try out the new LoB precons? Cos they are > > VERY good, IMO the best ever. > > I keep being told that. :) But by the time LoB came out, I was well > gone -- not even really showing up for local tournaments anymore. > Probably the last major tournaments I played in were the LCQ and > National Championships at GenCon two years ago, in fact. So pretty much > anything after that = no go. Not only are you a dirty quitter, but you didn't even mention that you played in the South Central Qualifier last year. :P Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

> The problems are that there are cards which can destroy a deck, just > randomly. The thing is, LSJ presumably knows they can destroy decks - > which is why some of them are banned in Storyline tournaments. For > example, a Camarilla voting deck, using the First Tradition, Parity > Shift, Protect Thine Own is killed by Fall of the Camarilla. Ditto, an > Anathema/Alastor/Archon deck. Or any Red List Trophy deck - I can't > generate Red List vampires without my titles! I think some of the difference between players' opinions on this stems from absence of a given deck in that player's metagame. Me, for instance, I don't see almost any decks based on needing titles. (And since almost every titled vampire that you'll see in a tournament is Camarilla, the Fall will still let you call Consanguineous Boons and Kine Resources Contested's--in fact, without titles in play, they will all pass if you have the Edge!) Since I don't encounter decks based on titles almost ever, and only once have I ever seen Fall of the Camarilla being played, I see this problem as "no problem". Do you worry because Brinksmanship will defeat Twister players? Probably not, and neither do I. I hardly ever see Brinksmanship in play, and I've never played against a Twister style deck, so I just don't see it as a problem. Maybe in the Boston metagame it's a big deal, but around here it's no more of a problem than the absent "title decks" vs. the absent "Fall decks". > I am no less screwed if this happens in a non-Storyline tournament, and > for a deck that has a modus operandi of "Screw other decks on the > table", it's not hard for them to include it. Similarly, Fall of the > Sabbat. Similarly, Recalled to the Founder. Whoa. RttF? Why? How? If you're playing weenies, you lose one every turn. Which 1) serves you right and 2) will probably be replaced on the same turn. If you've bigger vamps, then you lose one, and then it's over. And so does everyone else, unless they didn't bring out more then 2 of a given clan. But how is that different from getting rushed early and diablerized (except of course that RttF can only eat your big guy once)? I'd much rather begin a game with RttF _already in play_ than face Tariq Eats World. Yuck. I agree with you that there's no practical way to remove or counter an event. However, there's also no practical way to remove or counter Direct Intervention, is there? It's not a problem because DI doesn't make you lose. It can be instrumental, sure, but it's not a one card win, and I'm contending in this thread, neither is any Gehenna event, unless you're one of a rare breed of deck. If it makes you feel better, the "all titles" deck will probably lose just as badly when its predator and prey are both vote decks anyway, Gehenna or no. > What's the problem here? They stop me playing my game. Not because I > was bad. That's fine. If you torporize all my vampires, that's fine. > I didn't include rush defence, and it happens over multiple turns. I don't think rush defence always helps. I think that now that most higher-level rush decks aren't Potence but Celerity+Guns, defensive options have changed. There is still Obedience, and there is still Secure Haven, but that's really all. Realistically, if "CEL guns" decides your vampire is dead, then you better have 3 Majesty in hand, or you'll be dead right now--or next turn if you do have them. My point, as it relates to this discussion, is that rush decks are scarce enough and uncounterable enough anyway in their current incarnation that top-level players (like Josh Duffin) are simply not including defenses that would previously have been effective against rush decks, either because these players doubt they will encounter them, or because they think it will be fruitless anyway. So I don't see the difference, really, between the rare Gehenna deck that you can't stop from burning one of your guys with RttF, and the less rare CEL guns deck torporing two or three of your guys, except that I'd have at least gotten to choose with the former who's going to bite it, and at least with the former I could prevent it from happening again next turn. > It stops me playing my game - and for what benefit to V:TES as a whole? > Even if you or I do or don't like Protect Thine Own, it's not reasonable > to tell a player using it that a deck can simply stop them using it by > luck. For the rest of the game. Entirely. Provided you are a title deck vs. FotC, or a Chicago Circle deck vs. RttF, then OK, it stops you playing. Why are you playing a deck which can be defeated by one single card? You could play all 1-caps, but there's this Aranthebes guy who was basically designed just to stop you. I don't hear you bemoaning Aranthebes for defeating that deck entirely. If you add variety to a deck, include multiple ways to win and multiple ways to do any of the things you want to do, then your deck will be more resilient, less vulnerable to having one of those roads cut off. Be composed of a bunch of the same thing, and you'll die. Almost every Ventrue vote deck could add one of either Kyle Strathcona (in traditional Ventrue) or Gratiano (in OBF ventrue). But do they? Not usually. I do. > Ditto, a variety of other Event cards - but also Meddling of Semsith. I > get stopped from playing my game, What decks get ruined by Meddling? I don't know of any. Besides, if Meddling is so strong, why isn't it seen in tournaments? I remain unimpressed by Meddling in tournament play, and impressed with the subtlety and complexity that it can bring to casual play. > Different tangent: Brinksmanship. Brinksmanship actively penalises me > playing my game. The more cards I play, the closer I am to dying. This > randomly penalizes players choosing to play a 60 card deck, also. Are > 60 decks inherently more powerful than 90 card decks? They may be less > clumpy (due to randomness being slightly less likely to screw you), but > I don't see that they're hugely more powerful and stomping on everyone. > Do they need to be screwed? If yes, that should be addressed. If no, > why does this card need to disproportionately screw their game? Strategy vs. Brinksmanship -- Just play cards until you're holding 7 of them, and then stop playing cards. Not a problem. Brinksmanship doesn't make you lose cards from your deck, doesn't make you reach 0 cards faster (although you reach 7 faster.) You wanna see REAL deck depletion, look at Nightmares Upon Nightmares. THAT is impressive. Still not sure it's really a problem, though--NUN is strong cause you run out of cards, and THEN you can't untap! > And being stopped from playing my game by another player including a > handful of cards, which I can't predict, isn't fun. It's just simply > not fun. Recalled to the Founder does not add to fun in V:TES. Anarch > Revolt was not fun; it forced every other deck on the table to stop > playing their own game in order to stop the entire table falling apart. > This is: a) not fun and b) stops me playing my game. I'm still surprised people don't see Recalled to the Founder as an amazingly fun card. It's really hard to pull off, it kills a vampire if done right, and it can't be your main strategy to win, it HAS to be something you do on the side. Somehow, despite it being less bad than for example Tariq or Aranthebes, it gets all the bitching. If we're going to bitch about our vampires dying, let's bitch about Amaranth instead. > Having my deck completely shot down because another player played Events > or votes that say "Screw other decks, without any downside to themself" > is not fun. It's random unfun. OK, I agree with this. Although we don't agree about which cards screw up the table, we both agree that it happens, and it's not much fun, no. > Random unfun is not good for the game. > > But you can argue that there's no problems with this, because social > pressures will just stop people playing the unfun deck. But I won't, because I agree with you. > 1) Anarch Revolt should not have been changed if this is a winning > argument. I think AR was changed because it was 1) prevalent, unlike other random "you lose" cards; 2) large amounts of pool loss, even if all players felt it; and 3) opportune that a card called "anarch revolt" was available to change around the time an expansion called "anarchs" was scheduled for development. > If a player has a deck that they like playing, they shouldn't be > pressured into not playing it by social factors. I agree, but I don't think that's why there aren't many Gehenna decks. I think people often just choose not to play with crap like FotC or RttF in the first place, preferring cards that cause their prey to die, or at least cards that cause them not to be ousted themselves. Seriously, James, I don't like Meddling, Brinksmanship, or any other resource-denial or alternate-win cards they make. I would rather they simply not be printed. However, as long as they're going to get printed, I ask that they be terribly sucky. So far I feel my wish has been granted. If one day Gehenna events with imbued proves to be a strong force on the tournament scene, then I'll be a bit upset about it and hope that something changes. Until then, rest assured that bleeding your prey out with vampires remains the most popular method of victory the world over, that Conditioning and Minion Tap are still way bigger than any Gehenna event or strange left-field strategy. -- Brian Brinksmanship is awesome because it totally kicks Ben Peal in the nuts

> That is certainly the case here, which is why I am so frustrated to hear > such, to my mind, silly reasons for quitting. Have you suggested to these people that: a) all old cards are valid for play b) opaque sleeves exist to mitigate potential abuse c) the game has no parallel d) the name change was not intended to antagonize players e) vtes is cool Ankur

firstconform...@aol.com wrote: > Do you > worry because Brinksmanship will defeat Twister players? Probably not, > and neither do I. I hardly ever see Brinksmanship in play, and I've > never played against a Twister style deck, so I just don't see it as a > problem. Maybe in the Boston metagame it's a big deal, but around here > it's no more of a problem than the absent "title decks" vs. the absent > "Fall decks". > As a matter of fact, in a tournament earlier this month, I was playing a Brinksmanship deck and my prey (Ben Peal) was playing a Twister(ish?) deck. We (I) spent most of the game giggling insanely until I got ousted and he won. > > I am no less screwed if this happens in a non-Storyline tournament, and > > for a deck that has a modus operandi of "Screw other decks on the > > table", it's not hard for them to include it. Similarly, Fall of the > > Sabbat. Similarly, Recalled to the Founder. > > Whoa. RttF? Why? How? If you're playing weenies, you lose one every > turn. Weenie players will usually lose 0 minions to Recalled to the Founder. > > -- Brian > Brinksmanship is awesome because it totally kicks Ben Peal in the nuts Especially when you do it as your first action before his goober has +4 Intercept. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 07:15:44 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> I didn't include rush defence, and it happens over multiple turns. If I >>> get killed by Fall of the Camarilla, that's not because I failed on a >>> number of levels. ... >> >> Really? You have many rounds time to see that FotC is coming. Usually >> enough time to draw one of three Emergency Prepaprations. > >This is the same old argument as saying "Well, you can just Sudden (X) >Master that hoses your deck", or "You can just DI (X) nasty action card >that hoses your deck". Those positions aren't valid and were debunked >long ago; this position isn't valid either. > >When the only defense against a card is a silver bullet, there is no >defense against that card. Especially when Sudden/DI can be used for numerous alternate purposes (Most decks use Master Cards, all decks use Minion Cards), whereas EP is ONLY useful if someone is playing Events. If the second option for EP didn't require 2 Gehenna Cards in play, the statement that they should be included as standard with Camarilla vote might have some rationalization. Morgan Vening

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > > James Coupe wrote: > >> There's no built-in way for me to fight these cards. So I have to > >> include counters to them, most of which only work when the card is > >> played. ... > > > >> I didn't include rush defence, and it happens over multiple turns. If I > >> get killed by Fall of the Camarilla, that's not because I failed on a > >> number of levels. ... > > > > Really? You have many rounds time to see that FotC is coming. Usually > > enough time to draw one of three Emergency Prepaprations. > > This is the same old argument as saying "Well, you can just Sudden (X) > Master that hoses your deck", or "You can just DI (X) nasty action card > that hoses your deck". Those positions aren't valid and were debunked > long ago; this position isn't valid either. > > When the only defense against a card is a silver bullet, there is no > defense against that card. No, this is not the same argument at all. Fall of the Camarilla requires 3 other events in play before it can even be played. If you can't see the writing on the wall by the time 3 events are dropped, then you deserve to get "hosed" by it. It is not a "silver bullet" that will stop the use of fall of the cam or fall of sabbat (or any other gehenna fueled deck concept), Its consideration of the environmental metagame in which you happen to play. If you run Sabbat vote, include just 1 black hand vamp, no fall of the sabbat. If you are using camarilla vote, have some Emergency preperations or Not to be in your deck. Is it really that hard to consider it whilst making a deck? Oh no! I had to add 3 cards to my deck to stop a tactic that can stop my deck cold. Mind you, the gehenna user has had to include at least 4 cards to make the tactic viable. (so in card cost, you're ahead) Gehenna events are just another strategy to win the game, nothing more.(and a somewhat fragile strategy as it is)

> [snip some things I don't really agree with] > A good example, for me, is The Unmasking. +1 intercept for allies. > Yes, it's more powerful with Imbued than it was before - you could block > the allies being brought out, for example, if you were worried. Of the > more recent Event cards, there are some similarly good cards, too. > Anthelios empowers strategies, and may be too good, but is available to > everyone so it sort of balances out. Port Authority is a mild denial > strategy, but it's quite mild with it, so doesn't detract from fun so > much - it's no worse than, say, Camarilla Threat. > All true, but no more powerful than some of the other cards around. > > The problems are that there are cards which can destroy a deck, just > randomly. The thing is, LSJ presumably knows they can destroy decks - > which is why some of them are banned in Storyline tournaments. For > example, a Camarilla voting deck, using the First Tradition, Parity > Shift, Protect Thine Own is killed by Fall of the Camarilla. Ditto, an > Anathema/Alastor/Archon deck. Or any Red List Trophy deck - I can't > generate Red List vampires without my titles! > Um, have you heard of indpendant titles?, Anarch titles? or Rise of the nephtali? all of which are titles that allow you to red list someone? Recalled to the founder is banned in storyline tournaments simply due to the fact that you are playing 1 clan and allowing it in will hose everyone. > > There's no built-in way for me to fight these cards. So I have to > include counters to them, most of which only work when the card is > played. So I have to have enough of the counter in my deck to have one > in hand by the time the worst cards are played. > So what? if you get rushed by a combat deck and you don't happen to have one of the 15 S:CE cards you put in your deck, you're just as screwed > Now, this may be fine but... If we assume that many decks do not need > Events, I will need all the defences I used to have. Any deck, pre- > Events, will have whatever defence it needs - combat defence, politics, > pool gain, bounce, rush, whatever. So now I have to pull a whole bunch > of those cards to stop myself being screwed by Events. So even when I > don't see Events, those events are stopping me playing my game. > Emergency Preparations is entirely pointless to a mid-cap deck (or > smaller) if it's not seen. Not to Be has no alternative use. So I have > to jettison some of the defence I need against every other deck in the > deck and put in defence against cards I won't see that often - but when > they do, they destroy a deck. How often do you actually use your discard phase and what do you use it for? Personally, I use it to ditch cards I don't need now, or I have multiples of. All that is happening is cycling of your deck to get what you need right now or before your next turn. If a card or strategy can cripple your deck and you include no defence against it, then tough shit, you were caught with your pants down and its your problem to deal with, not the rules designers or WW, just you. >> > What's the problem here? They stop me playing my game. Not because I > was bad. That's fine. If you torporize all my vampires, that's fine. > I didn't include rush defence, and it happens over multiple turns. If I > get killed by Fall of the Camarilla, that's not because I failed on a > number of levels. It's not like normal vote defence, where I can fight > tooth and nail on every single vote, even if it falls flat. I just get > screwed. And a deck employing it, like the Imbued screw vampires deck, > doesn't even have to care significantly if it pulls it off. It just > wants to screw vampires. > No, they do not stop you playing your game, they make you consider another aspect of the game when it comes to deck construction > [snip some other stuff] > Different tangent: Brinksmanship. Brinksmanship actively penalises me > playing my game. The more cards I play, the closer I am to dying. This > randomly penalizes players choosing to play a 60 card deck, also. Are > 60 decks inherently more powerful than 90 card decks? They may be less > clumpy (due to randomness being slightly less likely to screw you), but > I don't see that they're hugely more powerful and stomping on everyone. > Do they need to be screwed? If yes, that should be addressed. If no, > why does this card need to disproportionately screw their game? > > Again, it suddenly stops me playing my game. > No, it makes you consider your deck construction more, thats all. >[snip some other stuff] > > > And being stopped from playing my game by another player including a > handful of cards, which I can't predict, isn't fun. It's just simply > not fun. Recalled to the Founder does not add to fun in V:TES. Anarch > Revolt was not fun; it forced every other deck on the table to stop > playing their own game in order to stop the entire table falling apart. > This is: a) not fun and b) stops me playing my game. Once again, It is just another tactic > > > Having my deck completely shot down because another player played Events > or votes that say "Screw other decks, without any downside to themself" > is not fun. It's random unfun. > > I would say having a reduced hand size is a penalty > > 4) Social pressure against specific decks or specific cards is just as > bad as xCL players using social pressures to exclude stealth- > bleed cheese because it breaks their game. If it's bad there - > which it is - it's bad here. > As much as I hate stealth bleed cheese, it is just another tactic to win the game. If I include no intercept in my deck, or have no reliable access to it then I'm going to suffer, much like being on the end of the bounce chain. > If a player has a deck that they like playing, they shouldn't be > pressured into not playing it by social factors. Game-based factors, > such as the deck being difficult, untenable, too slow, possible > backfiring, a random crapshoot for them (as to who they sit next to, > say), and so on, prevent a deck being a sensible choice. Social > pressures and table hate simply cause aggravation. this seems like a total contradiction of what you have written, but I agree with the sentiment. Sutekh_23

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 sutekh_23 wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: >> x5m...@gmx.de wrote: >>> Really? You have many rounds time to see that FotC is coming. Usually >>> enough time to draw one of three Emergency Prepaprations. >> This is the same old argument as saying "Well, you can just Sudden (X) >> Master that hoses your deck", or "You can just DI (X) nasty action card >> that hoses your deck". Those positions aren't valid and were debunked >> long ago; this position isn't valid either. >> >> When the only defense against a card is a silver bullet, there is no >> defense against that card. > > No, this is not the same argument at all. Yes, this is the same argument. > Fall of the Camarilla > requires 3 other events in play before it can even be played. If you > can't see the writing on the wall by the time 3 events are dropped, > then you deserve to get "hosed" by it. So your claim is currently that if a deck plays 3 events, then it will surely play Fall of the Camarilla? No? How many, then? 2 events? Is any single event hitting the table cause for my Camarilla vote deck to lunge across the table and oust the player? What if it's just The Unmasking? Or Dragonbound? Should I be scared there? And how exactly are you supposed to stop Fall of the Camarilla being put in play, even if you can correctly guess (and the word here is guess) that Fall of the Camarilla will be the 4th event played? Oh, wait... by using Emergency Preparations? Same old silver bullet shit. Come up with something new for a change. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEjwOmtQZlu3o7QpERAtCnAJ9y6WWZ/sojUe1xH+j++BfDV2Y7EwCdFRq1 4HjnEyR9SZZvbyw3TTTC9Mk= =2Sfr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

sutekh_23 wrote: > > Having my deck completely shot down because another player played Events > > or votes that say "Screw other decks, without any downside to themself" > > is not fun. It's random unfun. > > > > > I would say having a reduced hand size is a penalty Y'know, having played with quite a few events myself in the past few months, I really feel a need to interject here. The idea that there's somehow no downside to playing with a ton of Events (under any circumstance) is just wrong: a) You can't use your discard phases for the normal cycling of cards. When you have crap in your hand you have to flush it some other way, like The Barrens or Dreams of the Sphinx. Nearly all (good) flush tech/hand size increase can be contested, too. b) You can't always play the event you want, when you want. Most of the severely disabling events require other events in play. This requires you to pack multiple events and some way of ensuring that the events come into your hand in a playable order, either by storing them for later somehow or playing with multiples of the "starter" events. Cards like Storage Annex work, but compete with valuable master space against the flush tech. c) If you pack more than a few into your deck, you're likely to see several in your hand at once, where they will sit for several turns waiting to be played one at a time, further exacerbating the loss of discard phases actions by effectively reducing your hand size. d) If you want a particular event to have any likelihood of going off you need multiples of that event and/or Fortschritt Library, further exacerbating the loss of discard phase actions since you can't play the extras when you draw them. You have to discard them somehow to keep drawing into the rest of your deck. e) Most of the severely disabling events also have hefty do not replace clauses on them, again exacerbating the need for flush tech. You can get around this with Visit from the Capuchin, but again, this competes with the flush tech space. Dealing with all these issues is difficult under the best of circumstances. None of this of course says anything about how fun they are/aren't to play with or against, which is largely a matter of taste and partly a matter of familiarity. Nor does it say much about the "randomness" it introduces to the table, which is mostly dependent on familiarity and annoyance level (personally, I'm killed more by poor seating and/or someone able to take advantage of my hand depletion than table hate). Witness1 -Inclined to Exist

[snip] No, sorry, all you have to do is play with mutliple Afifas and allies, as in a deck which, to my shame, i actually played myself, and publicised [influenced slightly, which is no excuse, by Ed]. Gehenna events [some of them, as The Hated Coupe, Beneath Whose Iron Heel the Kindred of Central England Nightly Groan, points out - no issues with The Unmasking] are a dumbass game-breaking strategy, and what makes them worse is that they were actually DESIGNED to be thus. IMO the relationship between game designers and players ought to run along the lines of: [1] Designers and playtesters design and develop game, trying to avoid breakability/brokenness [2] Players strive hard to break game [3] To the extent that [2] succeeds, designers fix game As long as this dynamic held up the old players did not mind the occasional weirdness. Once the Design team and playtesters ducked out of step [1], we mostly changed our minds.

Robert Goudie wrote: > Shade wrote: > > Sable wrote: > > > As a previous organiser who's achieved the family balance necessary to > > > resurface I see where your coming from. > > > > I think this is probably the biggest actual cause, possibly linked to > > that getting old thing that seems to be going around a bit. > > When we started I was one of the die-hard guys who always attended or > hosted every play session. Now I show up once a month or every other > month. I'm fortunate that we have a couple of good v:tes evangelists in > our group. The single youngsters and the newbies who've just caught the > obsession have to fill the void of the aging or quitting veterans. > > -Robert ;-) ditto. Such is the way, and no bad thing!

> > So your claim is currently that if a deck plays 3 events, then it will > surely play Fall of the Camarilla? No? How many, then? 2 events? Is > any single event hitting the table cause for my Camarilla vote deck to > lunge across the table and oust the player? What if it's just The > Unmasking? Or Dragonbound? Should I be scared there? > No, It may not play fall of the cam, but it is a posibility. If the second event dropped is wormwood, then that in itself is usually a good indicator that a ton of events may be coming out. As for the others you mention, they are deck enableing events, so what? My only point is that there IS defence against the "wave of gehenna" that some playgroups are encountering. You could call it "silver bullet" or "prayer" cards, I prefer to consider them an aspect of metagame considerations in deck design. You could go so far as to argue that the whole concept of stealth and intercept are silver bullets as well. Do I have enough stealth to do what I want with freedom? Do I have enough intercept to stop the actions I want to stop? If a deck with low intercept potential is the prey of a stealth bleeder, then "sucks to be that guy", right? What if I'm playing an intercept heavy deck and neither my predator or prey do anything with stealth? Now you have a deck full of limited use stuff and a hand full of discards, sucks to be that guy too. > And how exactly are you supposed to stop Fall of the Camarilla being put > in play, even if you can correctly guess (and the word here is guess) > that Fall of the Camarilla will be the 4th event played? Oh, wait... by > using Emergency Preparations? And how exactly are you meant to stop anything in the game? I'd say by building a deck that works in your metagame environment. If your local metagame is stealth heavy, you better pack some intercept or get nailed by it. If you play in a combat heavy environment, better pack some combat defence or get nailed by it. If you play in a gehenna heavy environment, well, you know what I'm going to say. > > Same old silver bullet shit. Come up with something new for a change. Same old resistance to an evolving game environment. Sutekh_23

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 sutekh_23 wrote: >> So your claim is currently that if a deck plays 3 events, then it will >> surely play Fall of the Camarilla? No? How many, then? 2 events? Is >> any single event hitting the table cause for my Camarilla vote deck to >> lunge across the table and oust the player? What if it's just The >> Unmasking? Or Dragonbound? Should I be scared there? >> > My only point is that > there IS defence against the "wave of gehenna" that some playgroups are > encountering. You could call it "silver bullet" or "prayer" cards, I > prefer to consider them an aspect of metagame considerations in deck > design. Answer this simple question, please: How is the statement "You can play Emergency Preparations against Fall of the Camarilla" different from "You can play Sudden Reversal against Temptation of Greater Power" or "You can play Direct Intervention against Protect Thine Own"? - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEj/ajtQZlu3o7QpERAuAFAJ4sqNAxNMSMKj41uqObkYx0YouP8gCdENjS mJMTkIeFk2Z/y3jvYO1XxMU= =6jAK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Derek Ray wrote: > Answer this simple question, please: > > How is the statement "You can play Emergency Preparations against Fall > of the Camarilla" different from "You can play Sudden Reversal against > Temptation of Greater Power" or "You can play Direct Intervention > against Protect Thine Own"? Simple answer. You cannot know, that ToGP is coming and you have no time to prepare. It is possible, that a player brings a Justicar and plays ToGP the next round. You have 3+ rounds to prepare for Fall of the Camarilla, 6 is more realistic. You can cycle 20-30 cards in that time, to get your Emergency Preparation. And FotC can than not be played again. The Triple-A decks (Anson, Annecke, Alexandra) in the german environment now all play EP and are successful with it. Frank

[ quoted text not captured ] I think Frank summed up my point quite nicely, Thank you Frank. :) Look, I'll grant you that in essence it IS the same argument as PTO/ToGP vs DI/SR but you have got to agree that at least some of the random element is removed by the fact of the"buildup" time required to play FotC. Once gone, it is no longer replayable and will never come to pass on your table. If you are consistantly facing gehenna heavy imbued, more specifically a wormwood deck, try the aproach of a Assamite black hand deck packing a few atonements and black hand rituals. Once weakened to 5 caps, atone and piss off the offending wormwood with a BHR. My point, try to get some milage out of the events yourself. If you're always facing them, might as well try to get some benefit out of them, right? Sutekh_23

<x5m...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:1150287603.4...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Derek Ray wrote: >> Answer this simple question, please: >> >> How is the statement "You can play Emergency Preparations against Fall >> of the Camarilla" different from "You can play Sudden Reversal against >> Temptation of Greater Power" or "You can play Direct Intervention >> against Protect Thine Own"? > > Simple answer. You cannot know, that ToGP is coming and you have no > time to prepare. It is possible, that a player brings a Justicar and > plays ToGP the next round. You have 3+ rounds to prepare for Fall of > the Camarilla, 6 is more realistic. You can cycle 20-30 cards in that > time, to get your Emergency Preparation. And FotC can than not be > played again. By the Temptation of Greater Power standard you describe, you have 2 times around the table to cycle into your Emergency Preparations after the first Gehenna card lands on the table. Fall of the Camarilla could come exactly two turns after that, and you have no real reason to expect it before at least one Gehenna card enters play. You have one time around the table after a Justicar is influenced into play (or voted into play) before ToGP can be played. Not that much of an improvement. ("Realistically", you probably have several turns after a Justicar enters play before ToGP gets played - does that really help you that much in getting your hypothetical Sudden Reversal?) But the real point, I think, is that Sudden Reversal is even more general-purpose a defense than Emergency Preparations, and even so, Sudden Reversal isn't considered a really reliable defense against Temptation of Greater Power. I think this is because planning on a defense versus other players' offense, in many games (but perhaps especially VTES), is based on what you expect to see and what you expect to be dangerous to you. In a game like VTES, where the universe of possible threats continues to expand, but your hand size, library size, and starting pool do not, planning to directly defend against every likely threat becomes less and less feasible over time. That is, when the universe of "things to defend against" is "bleed", "votes", and "combat", it is relatively feasible to include some defensive measures in your own deck to deal with those threats. When the threats to consider also include, say, "Smiling Jack", "Anarch Revolt", "Brinksmanship", "Temptation of Greater Power", "Spirit Marionette", "Mind Rape", "Gehenna events", and "all-allies Imbued decks", defense becomes less possible. And the game evolves in a direction where offense trumps defense, because no one can include defenses against everything that harms them. And that leads toward a rock-paper-scissors environment, because some offensive trumps beat others. That, I think, is why some people are overwhelmed by or unhappy with Gehenna events, Imbued decks, and the general addition of new mechanics (not counterable by existing cards/strategies) to the game over time. The game really *does* get more unwieldy, less manageable, and less comprehensible as its universe of cards and their effects expands. Josh in this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics! (and entropy either increases or remains the same)

[ quoted text not captured ] OK this is somewhat true, but not entirely true. You have also got to consider the amount of card space in a deck that a gehenna strategy consumes. I'm no stats man, but its obvious to me that the chances of drawing what you want, when you want it with at least 4 cards out of your 90 card deck is alot less likely than drawing one of any particular card in your 90 card deck. (and you have 3 turns, not 2 in order to get your EP) > > But the real point, I think, is that Sudden Reversal is even more > general-purpose a defense than Emergency Preparations, and even so, Sudden > Reversal isn't considered a really reliable defense against Temptation of > Greater Power. I think this is because planning on a defense versus other > players' offense, in many games (but perhaps especially VTES), is based on > what you expect to see and what you expect to be dangerous to you. In a > game like VTES, where the universe of possible threats continues to expand, > but your hand size, library size, and starting pool do not, planning to > directly defend against every likely threat becomes less and less feasible > over time. > You're correct, !00%, thats why I have always said it is a function of your local metagame. In a tournament, this may become an issue (over in the states it obviously is already considering the size of some of your tournaments in comparison to ours). My question to you would be "have you ever won a game with a deck that totally ignored (or delt with in a limited fashion) one basic concept of the game?" My money is on that you have. How is this any different? You can't defend against every possible threat, you just do what you and the deck you are using are capable of. > That is, when the universe of "things to defend against" is "bleed", > "votes", and "combat", it is relatively feasible to include some defensive > measures in your own deck to deal with those threats. When the threats to > consider also include, say, "Smiling Jack", "Anarch Revolt", > "Brinksmanship", "Temptation of Greater Power", "Spirit Marionette", "Mind > Rape", "Gehenna events", and "all-allies Imbued decks", defense becomes less > possible. And the game evolves in a direction where offense trumps defense, > because no one can include defenses against everything that harms them. And > that leads toward a rock-paper-scissors environment, because some offensive > trumps beat others. > All the cards you mention can be "trumped" by 3 concepts, SR, intercept or EP, is this really so much to consider in the way of defence for a deck? As far as the "all-allies Imbued decks" go, you can intercept thier powers early on and basicly shut them down, same way as you do for a equipment heavy deck. Another question: If your deck doesn't vote, how many card slots are you willing to sacrifice on vote defence? My guess is not alot, so your leaving the door open for another strategy anyway, how are events any different? If YOU as a deck designer see tham as a significant threat, is it unreasonable to ask you to dedicate some of your deck to defend against them?. As far as the "rock, paper, scissors" environment goes, what is wrong with offence beating defence? [I'll leave this one here, too many thoughts to write in one post] > That, I think, is why some people are overwhelmed by or unhappy with Gehenna > events, Imbued decks, and the general addition of new mechanics (not > counterable by existing cards/strategies) to the game over time. The game > really *does* get more unwieldy, less manageable, and less comprehensible as > its universe of cards and their effects expands. > > > Josh > I can't agree with you dude, the defences remain the same, it's just the assault that differs. As far as diveristy goes, don't we as players want options? To slam WW or anyone else for thier choices just seems wrong to me. Yes they have added more rules with NoR, but dosn't every expansion of any game? Expansion= more options, simple as that, otherwise it wouldn't be an expansion, just a re-hash of previously covered ground. Should we have 10 cards that say "I bleed you for 1" or 10 cards that say "I bleed you for one and ........? I'll go for option number two, sounds more interesting to me :) Sutekh_23 [ quoted text not captured ]

<legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:1150228663....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] For what it's worth - though that's probably not much at this point - the playtesters (at least, mine) were really trying to do something about the brokenness of Gehenna. The Gehenna events changed several times during playtest, and were MUCH worse at the start (replaced immediately, stayed in play even if the person who played them was ousted). They still weren't balanced enough at the end, either, of course. We're very sad that it didn't work out. At least, I certainly am. This bit from our last Gehenna playtest report (January 2004) looks kind of prophetic now: "On the set as a whole, we've come back to the thing we're most concerned about being the Gehenna cards. We think it's a very serious risk that they could actually drive a significant proportion of the playerbase out of the game because they can alter the game environment *so* much from the flavor and texture of the "traditional" VTES game. Think about all the people who don't enjoy heavy-Anarch-Revolt games, and then consider how much more the Gehenna cards change the landscape than a simple "lose 1 pool" effect does. As mentioned below, we think making the "do 1 damage each untap" Gehennas into "burn 1 blood" instead would go a long way toward making them not-broken-enough-to-scare-people-out-of-the-game. It would also be useful, we think, to make them "Master: Gehenna event" cards instead of their own new cardtype - not only would this eliminate the need for a whole new rule, it would make them vulnerable to Sudden Reversal, which would also reduce their strength somewhat." Just looking at local players, Trey Morita pretty much stopped playing VTES after GenCon in August 2004 (the year Gehenna came out), and Jason Babbitt has mostly fallen off the VTES map as well in the same timeframe. Coincidence? Maybe not entirely. Josh too much of a muchness

sutekh_23 wrote: > All the cards you mention can be "trumped" by 3 concepts, SR, intercept > or EP, is this really so much to consider in the way of defence for a > deck? SR and EP are corner case cards that may be useful but I would consider to be pretty much prayer cards really. Sure include a couple in a tournament deck but it's not exactly a solid defense. Casual intercept is useful but one beast meld / dawn op / call of the hungry dead etc... etc... and your casual intercept isn't much use. Sure you'll get the odd thing, and it's a good generic defense, but it takes up cards that could be used for offense. Again not a trump card so to speak. Basically I don't think you can trump that many strategies without building a deck to do so. You can add some cards to slow your predator down like delaying tactics, suddens etc... but there are simply too many strategies to shut them all down. Thus the element of rock - paper - scissors that some people feel is coming into the game. Personally I'm not sure whether I think this is a good thing or a bad thing, but from the tourney games I've played it is defeinitely an element that is creeping in a bit. Shade

sutekh_23 wrote: > I can't agree with you dude, the defences remain the same, it's just > the assault that differs. As far as diveristy goes, don't we as players > want options? We've already established that the Event defense is completely different from bleed defense and vote defense. The paltry event defense we have is exclusive; it does not defend against anything else and does not provide another function. Caveat: Emergency Preparations can do something for a certain type of deck, and that most reliable if you're playing events yourself. The point you're missing is that as the number of attacks with varied and exclusive defenses increases, so does the "crapshoot" effect increase. With the (admittedly absurd) limit being that your deck provides defense to all the different kinds of attacks, and has no room left for its own offensive strategy. > To slam WW or anyone else for thier choices just seems > wrong to me. Yes they have added more rules with NoR, but dosn't every > expansion of any game? Expansion= more options, simple as that, > otherwise it wouldn't be an expansion, just a re-hash of previously > covered ground. We want more options. We do not want to continue to see strategies that are orthogonal to the minion-action based game we all know and love. > Should we have 10 cards that say "I bleed you for 1" or 10 cards that > say "I bleed you for one and ........? > I'll go for option number two, sounds more interesting to me :) Fuck it, they're all bleed cards. Events are not actions or masters, can only be countered with silver bullets or specific decks, and muck up an entire table. -- Dorrinal Blackmantle Chantry Elder of Salt Lake City ...likes Events in small amounts :)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: >> Answer this simple question, please: >> >> How is the statement "You can play Emergency Preparations against Fall >> of the Camarilla" different from "You can play Sudden Reversal against >> Temptation of Greater Power" or "You can play Direct Intervention >> against Protect Thine Own"? > > Simple answer. You cannot know, that ToGP is coming and you have no > time to prepare. It is possible, that a player brings a Justicar and > plays ToGP the next round. You have 3+ rounds to prepare for Fall of > the Camarilla, 6 is more realistic. And how is that going to help me if I have neither Sudden Reversal (for ToGP) nor Emergency Preparations (for Fall) in my deck? So you are saying that I must at all times play with Sudden Reversals AND Emergency Preparations in my deck? Wow, that sucks. At least Suddens are useful for something else. Sure sounds like a silver bullet to me so far... > You can cycle 20-30 cards in that > time, to get your Emergency Preparation. So if a single Event is played, then I need to immediately start panicking and throwing cards away to get to my Emergency Prep? That's bad play, of course. What if two different decks play an Event -- say, Unmasking and Dragonbound? Should I be scared then? What if a single deck plays two "innocuous" Events? Should I be scared then? No, I think we're still talking bad play. This still looks just like a silver bullet... > And FotC can than not be played again. Neither can Temptation of Greater Power. Card text. > The Triple-A decks (Anson, Annecke, Alexandra) in the german > environment now all play EP and are successful with it. So I need to play with a vampire that gives me 2 Master phase actions per turn, so that I can afford to pack lots of extra Masters and can play an out-of-turn Master without piddling on my own offense? You have done an excellent job of proving my point that Emergency Preparations is a silver-bullet defense to events. Thanks! - -- Derek (and conveniently, the original poster even admits it himself later). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEkJTwtQZlu3o7QpERAm7wAKDFIwfyFN86XexOZm7SNH1VSvA/dgCeKbC9 ku2O9/+6mGYSRlJtZaYDjb4= =gJd+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 sutekh_23 wrote: > I think Frank summed up my point quite nicely, Thank you Frank. :) Actually, he pretty much proved mine. Thanks, Frank! > > Look, I'll grant you that in essence it IS the same argument as > PTO/ToGP vs DI/SR AND you even admit it here. Thank you; moving on. > but you have got to agree that at least some of the > random element is removed by the fact of the"buildup" time required to > play FotC. Once gone, it is no longer replayable and will never come to > pass on your table. > > If you are consistantly facing gehenna heavy imbued, It's not relevant to this discussion to bring up a playgroup where people consistently play the same decks over and over and you can prepare for them in advance. You can beat ANY deck if you can prepare for it in advance. ANY DECK. Your point so far is still "If you are playing a deck that uses titled Camarilla vampires, you must pack 2-3 Emergency Preparations just in case someone, somewhere, throws Fall of the Camarilla out, and as soon as you see a single Event card, you need to try to get to one and put it in your hand." What if the second event played is Slow Withering? Will you EP it if you have one in your hand? Sorry, this is still just a bunch of silver-bullet bullshit. I don't want to have to pack my deck full of a bunch of different silver bullets just to have a hope of surviving against all the random instant-hose crap that might come out at me. I've only got 90 cards, sorry. > some milage out of the events yourself. If you're always facing them, > might as well try to get some benefit out of them, right? Misunderstanding the point entirely. Go back and read the thread. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEkJaltQZlu3o7QpERAr1rAKDQXJ9eRBWWV12+ceOK3s4/TJcwTgCgsUPi jnCjZ0A4JKslEpDTQ+Pi6ME= =vFCA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, all of the above. I don't think these people will take up the game again. I wasn't so much trying to bring them back as understand why they stopped. Their reasons were mostly irrational, as far as I am concerned. Cheers, WES

Derek Ray wrote: > x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > > Simple answer. You cannot know, that ToGP is coming and you have no > > time to prepare. It is possible, that a player brings a Justicar and > > plays ToGP the next round. You have 3+ rounds to prepare for Fall of > > the Camarilla, 6 is more realistic. > > And how is that going to help me if I have neither Sudden Reversal (for > ToGP) nor Emergency Preparations (for Fall) in my deck? If you are in the camp of players, who dont like beeing attacked by others, because they want to play their game, i cannot help you. I know players, who think, GtU sup shouldnt be blocked, because that is only developing a deck. If you see the reality of the game, you see that you will be attacked at all times. Sensory Deprivation, Mind Rape, ToGP, Banishment are the reality of the game. You have to defend and/or you have to counter attack. If you cant do both, your deck will suffer. It is that simple. > So you are saying that I must at all times play with Sudden Reversals > AND Emergency Preparations in my deck? Wow, that sucks. At least > Suddens are useful for something else. > > Sure sounds like a silver bullet to me so far... No. There are only a few decks that are shut down by one event. That are for example Camarilla vote decks. There problem is not, that an event hurts them, that would a bleed for 6 do also. Their problem is that they are not able to punish the event player after he played FotC. So they need something against it, that could be EP. By the way, the Anson deck that is hurt by FotC profits a lot from Anthelios, so it knows why it plays EP. Other decks dont have that problem. They do, what they would always do, when someone starts to behave like their predator, even if he isnt: punish him. If you play rush, you only need your mouth and some rushes: After the first event state "If you play Slow Withering i will help to oust you." That is not different from playing against any other deck that hurts you crosstable, be it Smiling Jack, unresponsible bleeds deflected on you, votes that hurt you. > > You can cycle 20-30 cards in that > > time, to get your Emergency Preparation. > > So if a single Event is played, then I need to immediately start > panicking and throwing cards away to get to my Emergency Prep? That's > bad play, of course. If in a Nergal deck, he is gone to torpor and will not come back (because of a wall deck for example) you start looking for your Golcondas. Why is that bad play. > You have done an excellent job of proving my point that Emergency > Preparations is a silver-bullet defense to events. Thanks! Sorry, but in my point of view, you are talking about decks that need silver bullets. Stop playing them, you will have no problems. Yes, the IC member only deck will be hurt by FotC. The mixed vote deck will not. So yes, EP is a silver bullet. A deck that needs a silver bullet against events, has one with it. But most good decks will not need it. They will treat the game as an interactive environment, and react to the events with their usual abilities. Frank

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: >> x5m...@gmx.de wrote: >>> Simple answer. You cannot know, that ToGP is coming and you have no >>> time to prepare. It is possible, that a player brings a Justicar and >>> plays ToGP the next round. You have 3+ rounds to prepare for Fall of >>> the Camarilla, 6 is more realistic. >> And how is that going to help me if I have neither Sudden Reversal (for >> ToGP) nor Emergency Preparations (for Fall) in my deck? > > If you are in the camp of players, who dont like beeing attacked by > others, because they want to play their game, i cannot help you. Absolute strawman. Go reread the thread and answer the question. >> So you are saying that I must at all times play with Sudden Reversals >> AND Emergency Preparations in my deck? Wow, that sucks. At least >> Suddens are useful for something else. >> >> Sure sounds like a silver bullet to me so far... > > No. There are only a few decks that are shut down by one event. That > are for example Camarilla vote decks. Actually, any Camarilla deck requiring a title is shut down by this particular event. As are decks using cards explicitly requiring Camarilla vampires (although typically those cards also require a Cam title). It's not just "vote" decks. But there are plenty other events that also really screw up OTHER types of decks. So far your response only ever seems to be "If your deck can be screwed by Events, you must play Emergency Prep". Great! Fucking great. Same old silver bullet shit, since the majority of decks can be screwed by Events. And Emergency Prep is just junk in your hand if you're not playing a deck (say, ANSON, ANNEKE, and ALEXANDRA) with multiple master actions and fatties who can benefit from a spare untap. > There problem is not, that an > event hurts them, that would a bleed for 6 do also. Their problem is > that they are not able to punish the event player after he played FotC. No, the problem is that they can't even play the fucking game after someone plays Fall. After soaking a bleed for 6, yes, they're hurt, but all their cards still work and their deck can still do what it does. After someone plays Fall they might as well go whack off in the bathroom 'til the game is done. If you fail to comprehend the difference, then you need waste no more time responding to this thread. > So they need something against it, that could be EP. Great! Silver bullet power, HO!!!11one11!!11eleven > By the way, the > Anson deck that is hurt by FotC profits a lot from Anthelios, so it > knows why it plays EP. It plays EP because the card could've been written to say "Use this card in an Anson, Alexandra, and Anneke deck: oh, and you can hose Events with it too." > Other decks dont have that problem. They do, what they would always do, > when someone starts to behave like their predator, even if he isnt: > punish him. Oh boy! Let's make the game a cross-table crapshoot, where everyone is immediately jumping to conclusions about the contents of everyone else's deck at the first hint! That sounds fucking FUN! If that's where the game is headed, I'm delighted I'm out, because you lamos can masturbate to THAT weak shit all day long. > If you play rush, you only need your mouth and some rushes: > After the first event state "If you play Slow Withering i will help to > oust you." And you help someone else win unless the Event player is also your prey. Boy, what a good play! Can we encourage more good play like this when designing cards, please? Oh, and by the way, skilled players will ignore you and play the Slow Withering anyway. They know that if they lose by not playing it, and if they lose by playing it, that they might as well lose by playing their deck instead of the other way around. > That is not different from playing against any other deck > that hurts you crosstable, be it Smiling Jack, unresponsible bleeds > deflected on you, votes that hurt you. Actually, since Events can keep you from playing your deck, it's quite a bit different, as you said yourself above. You need to jump to conclusions and start crosstabling WELL in advance. What a great way to play the game! >>> You can cycle 20-30 cards in that >>> time, to get your Emergency Preparation. >> So if a single Event is played, then I need to immediately start >> panicking and throwing cards away to get to my Emergency Prep? That's >> bad play, of course. > > If in a Nergal deck, he is gone to torpor and will not come back > (because of a wall deck for example) you start looking for your > Golcondas. Why is that bad play. Strawman. Answer the question as it relates to the original situation. >> You have done an excellent job of proving my point that Emergency >> Preparations is a silver-bullet defense to events. Thanks! ^^^^ The above still applies. You continue to prove my point, and you continue to produce strawmen arguments to defend it while still insisting "You should just play EP". This argument was debunked long ago with regards to "You should just play SR" and "You should just play DI" -- this argument has not gained any more validity since then. If you can't produce an argument that consists of more than "Just play EP", then please sit down; you have already lost and I will no longer be wasting my time responding. My point is long proven. If you have a reliable defense against game-wrecker Events that does NOT involve Emergency Preparations, on the other hand, please elaborate. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEkU+StQZlu3o7QpERAvnzAJ9iEOu4FPcHuc58uvfTwTbQS/oxqACg5Ccy TdW78MDafJoWwhzcZJdZw6A= =083Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

<legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:1150229781.3...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Boy, you know, I wish it were working out as the way more than it is (in my experience). In DC, we don't really have many new-to-the-game excitable young people who are catching the bug and preaching to all their friends. It would sure be nice if we did. Sadly the players we actually *do* have don't have the time and will (myself certainly included) to put in long hours trying to recruit new young people (who would recruit more new young people, who would recruit more new young people...). It seems like it might be really beneficial to game sales in the long run if White Wolf could somehow directly pitch to kids on college campuses? I feel like that's really the ideal target audience for fresh blood for the game, because many of those kids have lots of free time and at least a reasonable amount of spending money they won't mind investing in VTES cards. I know that's when I played the most VTES of my life.... :-) Josh has dropped far, far back from the "two new decks every week" pace

"sutekh_23" <bec...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message news:1150299658....@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> By the Temptation of Greater Power standard you describe, you have 2 >> times >> around the table to cycle into your Emergency Preparations after the >> first >> Gehenna card lands on the table. Fall of the Camarilla could come >> exactly >> two turns after that, and you have no real reason to expect it before at >> least one Gehenna card enters play. You have one time around the table >> after a Justicar is influenced into play (or voted into play) before ToGP >> can be played. Not that much of an improvement. ("Realistically", you >> probably have several turns after a Justicar enters play before ToGP gets >> played - does that really help you that much in getting your hypothetical >> Sudden Reversal?) > > OK this is somewhat true, but not entirely true. You have also got to > consider the amount of card space in a deck that a gehenna strategy > consumes. I'm no stats man, but its obvious to me that the chances of > drawing what you want, when you want it with at least 4 cards out of > your 90 card deck is alot less likely than drawing one of any > particular card in your 90 card deck. (and you have 3 turns, not 2 in > order to get your EP) Right, sorry - kept thinking Fall of the Camarilla got played as the third Gehenna card rather than requiring 3 others in play. Yes, "realistically" the Fall won't get played on turn 4 very often. But then, "realistically", Temptation of Greater Power won't either, especially since there's probably only 1 copy of ToGP in most decks that play it, and no Fortschritt Library for ToGP. > You're correct, !00%, thats why I have always said it is a function of > your local metagame. In a tournament, this may become an issue (over in > the states it obviously is already considering the size of some of your > tournaments in comparison to ours). My question to you would be "have > you ever won a game with a deck that totally ignored (or delt with in a > limited fashion) one basic concept of the game?" My money is on that > you have. How is this any different? You can't defend against every > possible threat, you just do what you and the deck you are using are > capable of. Right. The problem is, the local metagame isn't something you can count on, especially in tournaments. You can't plan for the particular decks that you know might come up from the people you regularly play with, when you're at a major tournament. You have to plan for what's the most common and most dangerous. And you have to weigh the chances of seeing Deck X against the number of card-slots it would take for you to include cards to deal with Deck X. Sure I've played decks that didn't directly have defense against one of the major archetypes. But that's *accepting* the rock/paper/scissors situation. My point is that rock/paper/scissors is not a very strategic game, and that what attracts a lot of people to VTES is the strategy elements, and that making defense more difficult and less effective reduces the players' ability to plan for and play the game strategically. >> That is, when the universe of "things to defend against" is "bleed", >> "votes", and "combat", it is relatively feasible to include some >> defensive >> measures in your own deck to deal with those threats. When the threats >> to >> consider also include, say, "Smiling Jack", "Anarch Revolt", >> "Brinksmanship", "Temptation of Greater Power", "Spirit Marionette", >> "Mind >> Rape", "Gehenna events", and "all-allies Imbued decks", defense becomes >> less >> possible. And the game evolves in a direction where offense trumps >> defense, >> because no one can include defenses against everything that harms them. >> And >> that leads toward a rock-paper-scissors environment, because some >> offensive >> trumps beat others. >> > All the cards you mention can be "trumped" by 3 concepts, SR, intercept > or EP, is this really so much to consider in the way of defence for a > deck? It's a heavy burden to include them all in every deck, yes. If you do include multiple Emergency Preparations, Sudden Reversals, and a substantial intercept module in every deck, it gets pretty hard to include any game-plan of your own (especially since the EPs and SRs suck up precious master-card slots). And, of course, it dramatically limits the universe of possible clans/disciplines you can play with (since not all have reasonable intercept abilities). > As far as the "all-allies Imbued decks" go, you can intercept > thier powers early on and basicly shut them down, same way as you do > for a equipment heavy deck. Another question: If your deck doesn't > vote, how many card slots are you willing to sacrifice on vote defence? > My guess is not alot, so your leaving the door open for another > strategy anyway, how are events any different? Events are different because they have a universal effect on every player all the time, while votes are transient effects much like bleed cards (or other action cards). Isn't that pretty obvious? Their impact is simply far greater per card than almost anything else in the game. > If YOU as a deck > designer see tham as a significant threat, is it unreasonable to ask > you to dedicate some of your deck to defend against them?. As far as > the "rock, paper, scissors" environment goes, what is wrong with > offence beating defence? Well, it's not that offense shouldn't beat defense, but that defense shouldn't get monotonically less effective over time. It's fine for offense to beat defense: that's how pool gets lost, victory points get scored, and games end. But if offense *always* beats defense, all the time, then there's not much point in playing defense at all, is there? > I can't agree with you dude, the defences remain the same, it's just > the assault that differs. As far as diveristy goes, don't we as players > want options? To slam WW or anyone else for thier choices just seems > wrong to me. Yes they have added more rules with NoR, but dosn't every > expansion of any game? Expansion= more options, simple as that, > otherwise it wouldn't be an expansion, just a re-hash of previously > covered ground. I don't think that's accurate. I think that's how it probably *should* be - that defenses remain the same but the assault differs - but I don't think it has been. That's exactly the issue here: Events cannot be defended against or dealt with through the same cards and methods as previous "bad things" that other players could do to you. No, every expansion of every game doesn't *have* to add new rules. You can do plenty of things with card text without expanding the basic ruleset. That's pretty much what was done with Sabbat War, Final Nights, and Black Hand, for example. > Should we have 10 cards that say "I bleed you for 1" or 10 cards that > say "I bleed you for one and ........? > I'll go for option number two, sounds more interesting to me :) Well, I certainly agree with *that*. But there's a pretty big difference between a new bleed card - even one with an interesting additional effect, even if it's a *strong* effect - and a new cardtype that affects every subsequent card played in the game and cannot be blocked as an action, isn't a master card, and can't be removed (for the most part) once in play. To me, a big part of the reason Events don't fit well into the framework of VTES is that they are large-effect cards. VTES was built on a framework of relatively small-effect cards that add up to large effects in combination or over the play of many cards over multiple turns. That's why immediate replacement of cards was such a crucial mechanic in the game - it makes those small-effect cards playable because you can play another small-effect card right away; you don't have to always get the most bang for your buck as you would in games with slower, more limited card replacement. Meanwhile, the largest-effect cards in the original game of VTES are all the most powerful ones, and a rather substantial number of them later received errata to reduce their strength: Wake with Evening's Freshness, Temptation of Greater Power, Fifth Tradition: Hospitality, Majesty, et cetera. But none of those really even compare to the magnitude of effect that some of the Gehenna cards have. Josh theoretically speaking

> It seems like it might be really beneficial to game sales in the long run if > White Wolf could somehow directly pitch to kids on college campuses? I feel > like that's really the ideal target audience for fresh blood for the game, We are compiling a mailing list of college gaming groups currently. Princes, brace yourselves. > > Josh > > has dropped far, far back from the "two new decks every week" pace my card collection is in my office ;) oscar

[ quoted text not captured ] <Strokes chin, meditatively> In our group we DO have a lot of new players, thanks to John "foot in both camps" Keech and his RPG contacts. Without being rude to anyone, i think it's fair to say that there's a, probably insurmountable, philosophical difference between the old players and this new blood. i'm not sure whether the new players over the rest of the UK mirror the pattern here, but i do know that i personally feel like a squarer and squarer peg in a rounder and rounder hole, and i think this is only in part due to the way the game has been deliberately changed. A change, by the way, for which i personally bear some responsibility, since unlike you guys i certainly did not perceive how bad Gehenna events were going to be for the game during playtesting. A large part of that whole square/round thing is that i miss my old buddies, Rob Treasure, Barney Baker, Jon Cooper, Matthew Green and William Lee. For various reasons all of the above basically no longer play competitive VTES with the heroic exception of Matthew. i know that many of these reasons have to do with, erm, competing pleasures, but i wonder if it is ONLY coincidence that all these fine gentlemen, except William, stopped being regulars after Gehenna. And since we are being all confessional here, or at least Derek is, the reason for the LOOONG hiatus in the !Gangrel newsletter is that tiresome "Official VEKN" bit. i really, personally, for all the previously-mentioned reasons and then some, can't EVER imagine going back to travelling further than, say, ten or so metres to play in an official competitive event again, so feel unable to encourage others to do so either. But perhaps i will start an Unofficial !Gangrel NL for that tiny minority of readers [believed to be a reference to the Renowned Atomweaver] who actually ENJOYED reading my monthly witterings. If i do, one of my first articles will be about a development of your own excellent draft idea, definitely a stake-from-the-heart-plucker as far as this old devil is concerned. No, not that development. A different one. Oh yeah, Chopsal...@SWIFTIANWORDMEANINGVULGARIAN.co.uk will reach me for anyone who wishes to rant at me up close and personal. legb...@mailandnews.com was long ago taken over by spam-and-porn merchants.

<snip> > > > Ditto, a variety of other Event cards - but also Meddling of Semsith. I > > get stopped from playing my game, > > What decks get ruined by Meddling? I don't know of any. Besides, if > Meddling is so strong, why isn't it seen in tournaments? I remain > unimpressed by Meddling in tournament play, and impressed with the > subtlety and complexity that it can bring to casual play. i disagree with absolutely all of this post, but the above bit just demands an answer. Rehlow's Baron deck. All multirush decks. Una decks. Philippe Lang and Francois Alix's amazing turbo Arika decks. Meddling is just a piece of non-creative-garbage-encouraging SHIT, and it should be banned forthwith from absolutely all forms of play, along with about half of the Gehenna events that have similar screw-the-good-bits-of-the-game-up effects. Ahem, IMO, of course. <snip>

Derek Ray wrote: > If you can't produce an argument that consists of more than "Just play > EP", then please sit down; you have already lost and I will no longer be > wasting my time responding. My point is long proven. I dont believe it, because it is your hobby to have the last word. VTEs was and is still an interactive game. You play with all players, not just with your prey and predator. It was since the beginning possible to play bad by hurting someone without any reason. Events may make this situation more possible, that can be discussed, no problem. But terms like "crosstable crapshoot" are totally misleading. It is not crosstable playing that is bad. Playing crosstable without winning is bad. But first we have to analyze what happens, if someone plays an event. I see two cases: - Playing the event is bad play, because he ruins the game of his allies. - Playing the event is good play, because he will win the game with it. that is either, because the event doesnt interact with his allies or because he doesnt need his allies (being so strong with the event.). I still say, most decks will be able to act even after events are played. Euro Brujah can still rush, even if FotC was played, Nergal can still beat other minions even if Slow Withering is played, Cammie vote decks can still vote (not with Parity Shift, i know) after FotC was played. So if the play of the event was bad play, oust the bastard. You would do the same, with every bad player who ruins your game. If playing the event was good game, because he will win by ruining your game, oust him also. He plays against you. Why is ousting a player, who tries to ruin your game, not playing to win? Why is giving someone 1 VP, when you can maybe get the GW bad play. Bad players with events will unbalance tables like bad players always do. But Derek, you have an irrationale fear of playing crosstable. I am sure, that after some starting successes of the event decks the metagame is already able to handle them.

legb...@mailandnews.com wrote: > <Strokes chin, meditatively> > > In our group we DO have a lot of new players, thanks to John "foot in > both camps" Keech and his RPG contacts. Without being rude to anyone, i > think it's fair to say that there's a, probably insurmountable, > philosophical difference between the old players and this new blood. I think you may be right here, there seems to be a huge difference in philosphical leanings between the old and new players. Not only that, its compounded by the way games (RPG's, CCG's and TTWG) are now designed. Back in the days of the birth of RPG's we saw games like 1st Ed D&D, Traveller, Chainmail, Bushido and so on. All of these games were (and still are IMO) great games. The problem: they catered to a group of people who were "a little bit smarter than your average joe" They were more complex than nearly any RPG now avaliable in the market today. Then we had the second wave, 2nd Ed D&D, Pendragon, call of cthulu, rifts and so on. Not quite so hard, but still aimed at "brains and geeks". Now we are in the 3rd incarnation of gaming, that being the mass market games, aimed at recruiting players at a much younger age than the games of old. V:tes, as far as I can tell, has never really followed this style of progression. It has remained (to it's credit) very similar to the day it first became avaliable to the gaming public. Sure its had new rules and rule revisions but it is still the same game. On the other hand it is this very strength that IMO that causes these differences in opinion. > i'm not sure whether the new players over the rest of the UK mirror the > pattern here, but i do know that i personally feel like a squarer and > squarer peg in a rounder and rounder hole, and i think this is only in > part due to the way the game has been deliberately changed. A change, > by the way, for which i personally bear some responsibility, since > unlike you guys i certainly did not perceive how bad Gehenna events > were going to be for the game during playtesting. > See, here is where we hit the snag. I don't see how the game has been deliberatly changed, bearing in mind that while being a long time gamer, V:tes is relativly new to me. (yes I looked at it when in was Jyhad but could never convince enough people that it was a good game at the time) and my only comparison to being the "square peg" is the fact that I'm getting older whereas the newbies always seem to be getting younger :). I don't see how gehenna events, or any other thing for that matter "inherently" wreck the game. I can see the argument that they can be somewhat problematical, but hardly game destroying, at least not IMO, I just see them as different play styles and can't fault someone for wanting to use a option that is avaliable to them. > A large part of that whole square/round thing is that i miss my old > buddies, Rob Treasure, Barney Baker, Jon Cooper, Matthew Green and > William Lee. For various reasons all of the above basically no longer > play competitive VTES with the heroic exception of Matthew. i know that > many of these reasons have to do with, erm, competing pleasures, but i > wonder if it is ONLY coincidence that all these fine gentlemen, except > William, stopped being regulars after Gehenna. > I can relate to this as well, I've lost a few gaming groups over time because of lack of time to play the game or they have moved elsewhere aroung the country. On the times we can get togeather, we'll still play a game (of some description) it's just not often that we all happen to be togeather. I'd say give you're old running buddies a call, invite them round for a game of "Jyhad, not V:tes" and see what happens. At the very least it gives you a chance to talk, and if it was gehenna that soured thier interest, then it lets you know the answer to your question. > And since we are being all confessional here, or at least Derek is, the > reason for the LOOONG hiatus in the !Gangrel newsletter is that > tiresome "Official VEKN" bit. i really, personally, for all the > previously-mentioned reasons and then some, can't EVER imagine going > back to travelling further than, say, ten or so metres to play in an > official competitive event again, so feel unable to encourage others to > do so either. But perhaps i will start an Unofficial !Gangrel NL for > that tiny minority of readers [believed to be a reference to the > Renowned Atomweaver] who actually ENJOYED reading my monthly > witterings. > When I started playing vtes I went back and read all the clan newsletters, I always found them interesting, and even if people don't respond, doesn't mean they didn't like what they read. Peace, and many more victorys to you Sutekh_23

Well... Much like Derek, never thought it would need a public announcement or something like that just to see if someone convinces me of the contrary, but I also quit buying V:tES cards. Most of the reasons for this decision are vastly different from what has been mentioned so far though. None of them are directly related to the game design. I played a little bit of it as soon as Dark Sovereigns came here, then quit because I couldn't find anyone else who played except for this guy who showed me the game, and came back to it after moving to Sao Paulo a year or so before Camarilla Edition. Now it just happens that I'm not that thrilled anymore. Half of the fun for me is the deckbuilding part and I don't have time to come up with a new deck a week (as Josh). I also don't want to devote a whole day or night to play only 2 or 3 games anymore (as Derek). When I got back to the game, it seemed a good alternative to roleplaying since it didn't require the same amount of preparation a storytelling session implies. After a few years playing V:tES, I think I was wrong: to maintain a collection in good shape and to build/disassemble decks takes a lot of time too. Not to mention trading, which is an essential part of the whole experience if you don't have a lot of money to spend in boxes. It also didn't help that I got hooked by Requiem. I know people will get offended by this, but to me, Requiem is Masquerade without the fat, and it's been hard for me to relate to old WoD as I used to. Right, I know many of you never got to VTES from the roleplaying hobby, but I did - as most people here also did. Background is essential for me to have enjoyment playing VTES. Logistical problems also don't help. We still don't have NoR material around here. It's not WW's fault, just some boring customs officials' strike that kept the pre-release boxes in Miami to this date. I could import it, but it would cost me money that I've already spent in books just going to the closest store (books are free of taxes in here). Call me lazy, but no matter how easy it is to contact AllStar or TheLasombra, it gets boring when you have to do this all the time just to keep in touch and updated with something that is just a hobby. When you have to choose between buying a roleplaying book right now - that you can keep and re-read for the rest of your life, even if you don't use it in a game - and importing a booster box via the internet - that you can only effectively use if you go play and will take a week or two to arrive - for financial and practical reasons, it's natural to go for the book. At least for me. The only thing I can say that is directly related to the game as it is now is the frequency of expansions, but it's a minor thing, at least for me. While some play less because they miss the old friends who quit (like Legbiter), I'm going for the exact opposite. I played VTES *despite* the presence of some, specially some older players. These are people that I wouldn't go to a bar with to have a beer and engage in idle chatting, and this gets in the way after a few years. Roleplaying has the advantage that you can just kick the troublesome ones out (if you're the storyteller like I usually am) and just look for other interested players - something you can't do when, say, you're playing a VTES tournament. I'm still playing, but in a pace that takes into account that I won't move a single finger to build a deck or pack the ready ones and go out to play unless it's the last thing I can do with my spare time. Reading books (roleplaying ones or not), going to the movies or for dinner with my wife, or simply having a good nap at saturday afternoon comes first. Or better: watch the English Team suffer to beat Trinidad and Tobago or support any team that plays against Argentina during the World Cup :) Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

Oh, I almost forgot. Most of these reasons lead me to pass along the job of National Coordinator... And it also means that if someone wants to take over the Giovanni Newsletter, feel free ;-) I started to write a new issue in March or April, but never got to finish it. Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

[ quoted text not captured ] Interesting perspective! Mostly i agree with you, not that I would have thought of it that way by myself. > > > i'm not sure whether the new players over the rest of the UK mirror the > > pattern here, but i do know that i personally feel like a squarer and > > squarer peg in a rounder and rounder hole, and i think this is only in > > part due to the way the game has been deliberately changed. A change, > > by the way, for which i personally bear some responsibility, since > > unlike you guys i certainly did not perceive how bad Gehenna events > > were going to be for the game during playtesting. > > > See, here is where we hit the snag. I don't see how the game has been > deliberatly changed, bearing in mind that while being a long time > gamer, V:tes is relativly new to me. (yes I looked at it when in was > Jyhad but could never convince enough people that it was a good game at > the time) and my only comparison to being the "square peg" is the fact > that I'm getting older whereas the newbies always seem to be getting > younger :). I don't see how gehenna events, or any other thing for that > matter "inherently" wreck the game. I can see the argument that they > can be somewhat problematical, but hardly game destroying, at least not > IMO, I just see them as different play styles and can't fault someone > for wanting to use a option that is avaliable to them. OK, but you would agree, presumably, that the best mechanic in Jyhad, the one that stops it from collapsing into a king-making lottery like all other multiplayer games, is the predator-prey relationship? What I think is bad about many [not all] Gehenna events is that they affect EVERYONE at the table, in an essentially random manner, thus subverting the predator-prey relationship. This spoils the game in the same way that having a bad player [especially a bad player with a vote or rush deck] at the table spoils it. A second bad thing about many Gehenna events is that they make the game more complicated and they make it take longer. This, for an already long and complex game, was NOT a good thing. The other really good new thing in Jyhad compared to Magic was the redraw-when-you-play-a-card mechanic. That Meddling tinkers with this is the reason i hate the card so much. Now you may think these effects are major or minor, but wouldn't you agree that they are evidence for a DELIBERATE decision by the design team to change basic aspects of the game? And can you appreciate that the aspects being tinkered with were the things that originally attracted a lot of people to the game? That, anyway, is what a lot of us think, and that's the reason for significant levels of unhappiness among the old player base at the direction the game has been going. > <snip>

legb...@mailandnews.com wrote: > OK, but you would agree, presumably, that the best mechanic in Jyhad, > the one that stops it from collapsing into a king-making lottery like > all other multiplayer games, is the predator-prey relationship? That's interesting. You praise the predator-prey relationship and bemoan the fact the table switching cards were removed from the game. Do you not see the two as mutually exclusive? They were removed because they subverted the predator-prey relationship (as I understand from an IRC conversation with LSJ shortly before the decision was made). Which is true, but irrelevant. The predator-prey relationship still does not exist if you choose to ignore, and it never has. If you concentrate on your prey in a game with good players you will lose to someone else's ability to manipulate people, win due to your ability to manipulate people, lose to bad seating, or win due to good seating. Given you can no longer change seats, you must either manipulate the table to do your bidding or remove the player most likely to strike a deal to prevent you from getting a game win. I don't like popularity contests, and unlike some players, I don't view whining for two hours to win a recreational card game as a productive use of my time. There is no special relationship between me and my predator/prey when I play. It's me vs. the player most likley to win- and that's usually the player with the biggest mouth. Yes, this means that I will only play decks with Kindred Spirits, KRC/Con Ag or Parity Shift, D action rushes, or other cross table damage effects. If that's what it takes, so be it. It's always been that way. Matt Green -playing more Caylus than V:TES these days

legb...@mailandnews.com wrote: > OK, but you would agree, presumably, that the best mechanic in Jyhad, > the one that stops it from collapsing into a king-making lottery like > all other multiplayer games, is the predator-prey relationship? Yes totally agree with that. I would say though, that poorly played Events aren't much worse than other poorly played cross table actions. Worse yes, often annoying, but not that dis-similar to a cross table rush / PTO / other action that aren't required at the time. The problem I have with them is that they are pretty easy to play badly in the sense that it's very difficult to ensure that people fall the way you want them to. You might say that it's poor play on the part of the player playing the Events, but I've seen numerous occasions where another played has suddenly had no predator or a sitting duck prey as a result of Events being played. Cross table actions are very difficult to judge and Events just slap everyone down in an often random way. If it was a bit less random then I wouldn't mind but when my "ally" hoses me and gives the game to someone else I get unhappy - until the next game anyway :-)

mgreen02 wrote: > legb...@mailandnews.com wrote: > > > OK, but you would agree, presumably, that the best mechanic in Jyhad, > > the one that stops it from collapsing into a king-making lottery like > > all other multiplayer games, is the predator-prey relationship? > > That's interesting. You praise the predator-prey relationship and > bemoan the fact the table switching cards were removed from the game. > Do you not see the two as mutually exclusive? i personally was in favour of removing the table-switching cards ffrom the game. In the earlier post i was presuming to speak for other pissed-off old players as well as myself. You Know Of Whom I Speak. > > They were removed because they subverted the predator-prey relationship > (as I understand from an IRC conversation with LSJ shortly before the > decision was made). Which is true, but irrelevant. The predator-prey > relationship still does not exist if you choose to ignore, and it never > has. If you concentrate on your prey in a game with good players you > will lose to someone else's ability to manipulate people, win due to > your ability to manipulate people, lose to bad seating, or win due to > good seating. > > Given you can no longer change seats, you must either manipulate the > table to do your bidding or remove the player most likely to strike a > deal to prevent you from getting a game win. > > I don't like popularity contests, and unlike some players, I don't view > whining for two hours to win a recreational card game as a productive > use of my time. > > There is no special relationship between me and my predator/prey when I > play. It's me vs. the player most likley to win- and that's usually the > player with the biggest mouth. > > Yes, this means that I will only play decks with Kindred Spirits, > KRC/Con Ag or Parity Shift, D action rushes, or other cross table > damage effects. If that's what it takes, so be it. It's always been > that way. OK, that's a fair enough point of view. But you are CHOOSING to go cross-table AT A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL with your strategy, and this is your right, and there are long-standing mechanisms in the game to promote it. The Gehenna events i am complaining about randomly bugger people up across the table, so their effect is more like what happens when a new or silly player turns up with a beats deck and just goes around randomly whacking people "because i need to cycle some cards". See my point? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Spot on, on all points. With a pre-Gehenna events deck you had the OPTION to play like a complete fool with random cross-table stuff if you wanted. Gehenna events virtually COMPEL you to do so.

legb...@mailandnews.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] hooray! well said and i agree 100% Frede

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: >> If you can't produce an argument that consists of more than "Just play >> EP", then please sit down; you have already lost and I will no longer be >> wasting my time responding. My point is long proven. > > I dont believe it, because it is your hobby to have the last word. Believe it. Have fun, reread the thread; you may learn something. But I will no longer debate the issue with a person who is deliberately refusing to understand the basic concepts behind the discussion. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEkppZtQZlu3o7QpERArOPAJ9JEOGOrS4rP0WjcC/JlB8bOJlVvACggw10 3lBAloLVrpYFtiBxKPwA1ig= =VjOP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

mgreen02 wrote: > They were removed because they subverted the predator-prey relationship > (as I understand from an IRC conversation with LSJ shortly before the > decision was made). Which is true, but irrelevant. The predator-prey > relationship still does not exist if you choose to ignore, and it never > has. If you concentrate on your prey in a game with good players you > will lose to someone else's ability to manipulate people, win due to > your ability to manipulate people, lose to bad seating, or win due to > good seating. > > Given you can no longer change seats, you must either manipulate the > table to do your bidding or remove the player most likely to strike a > deal to prevent you from getting a game win. > > I don't like popularity contests, and unlike some players, I don't view > whining for two hours to win a recreational card game as a productive > use of my time. > > There is no special relationship between me and my predator/prey when I > play. It's me vs. the player most likley to win- and that's usually the > player with the biggest mouth. > > Yes, this means that I will only play decks with Kindred Spirits, > KRC/Con Ag or Parity Shift, D action rushes, or other cross table > damage effects. If that's what it takes, so be it. It's always been > that way. That's all very valid. Still with the actions you have listed you have to choose to do them and that's generally a difficult choice (1). With Events the general plan is to slow everyone down and then roll over them so players just drop them anyway and it's a bit random on how things turn out. Simon 1. Why did I choose not to grave rob Ian last tourney... poor decision...

Shade wrote: > I would say though, that poorly played Events aren't much worse than > other poorly played cross table actions. Worse yes, often annoying, > but not that dis-similar to a cross table rush / PTO / other action > that aren't required at the time. Well, except that cross table Rush/Bleed/KRC/PTO/whatever requires an expenditure of resources and effort (actions, cards). And usually benefits someone as much as it hurts someone (i.e. guy you attack gets hurt; that guy's predator benefits). Poorly played events just tend to bog everyone down and suck. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks, nice to see someone reading what I write rather than just writing it off :) [ quoted text not captured ] Ok, yes. Predator/prey is the heart of Jyhad, it does limit the ability of people to act cross table or ignore the established order of things. It serves to keep a player focused on "going forward" Yes, some of the gehenna events can screw up the entire table (point of interest: I've always thought this, my rants about the events are in no way trying to justify thier existence, just the supposition that they are unstoppable) As you say yourself however, a bad player with the right deck can screw up a game just as easily, and a bad player with an event deck even more so. I somewhat disagree with the events making things more complex. Any time I actually use events, I move them to the middle of the table so everyone can pick them up and read and curse at thier leisure. It does add more rules, but at least everyone can see them (and usually know who to bump off if it gets stupid, which I am guilty of once) > The other really good new thing in Jyhad compared to Magic was the > redraw-when-you-play-a-card mechanic. That Meddling tinkers with this > is the reason i hate the card so much. Meddling, never seen it played. Yes it is annoying but unless the person using it has vote control or a way to vote lock, I can't see it lasing long. The best use for that card would be in a ventrue EKN deck (which is probably where it is used, hence the anxt.) > Now you may think these effects are major or minor, but wouldn't you > agree that they are evidence for a DELIBERATE decision by the design > team to change basic aspects of the game? And can you appreciate that > the aspects being tinkered with were the things that originally > attracted a lot of people to the game? That, anyway, is what a lot of > us think, and that's the reason for significant levels of unhappiness > among the old player base at the direction the game has been going. No, I can see your point dude, It may be a deliberate decision to change basic aspects of the rules in a limited format (ie, the cards in question have to be played). I just can't see why such a thing is making the old vanguard so upset. They have allowed the possibility of breaking some of the basic rules of the game, yeah sure, you'll get no argument from me. If the older players see this as a continuing trend (since Gehenna I presume) that is negative for the game (and I'm not going to sit up on a soapbox and tell people who have played the game longer than I what to think) Then yes, It should be discussed, analyzed and fixed if possible. My only question is: Has this been the trend for all sets released by WW from gehenna up until now? If you guys, (the vanguard) feel this is true, then I empathise with what is your percieved loss of the game you know and love. I suppose I was a bit annoyed when 2nd ed D&D came out as well. If it however is not true, can they (the direction you all dislike) be anomolies that will pass in time? My biggest concern lies in another direction, that being that if so many people are annoyed with the "evolution" of Jyhad will we end up with a situation like magic with extensive banned lists, "type 2" tournaments and rotation of cards out of circulation, just to maintain a status quo. That scares the crap out of me a hell of a lot more than a few event heavy decks becoming popular 'cause thier "all the rage" at the moment. Cheers Sutekh_23

Joshua Duffin wrote: > By the Temptation of Greater Power standard you describe, you have 2 times > around the table to cycle into your Emergency Preparations after the first > Gehenna card lands on the table. Fall of the Camarilla could come exactly > two turns after that, and you have no real reason to expect it before at > least one Gehenna card enters play. You have one time around the table > after a Justicar is influenced into play (or voted into play) before ToGP > can be played. Not that much of an improvement. ("Realistically", you > probably have several turns after a Justicar enters play before ToGP gets > played - does that really help you that much in getting your hypothetical > Sudden Reversal?) Nitpick: It's possible to NOT have a chance to cycle into an Emergency Preparations at all (barring burn option or something making you draw/discard) before Fall of the Camarilla comes into play: Player #1: Plays Gehenna event Player #2: Plays Gehenna event Player #3: Plays Gehenna event Player #4: Plays Fall of the Camarilla Player #5: Your turn. Have fun! (And this is in addition to Reversal of Fortunes tricks, which could also lead to a ToGP before having a chance to do anything. 1st turn ToGP can also be possible with Madness Network + Rumors of Gehenna + Malkavian Dementia tricks, but that is far more cornercase).

[ quoted text not captured ] Hi Derek, I'm totally agree with you that any "arguments" about the "possible defense" from the hosing cards is an utter crap. Nobody can put "silver bullets" against all cards that may hose his deck. But somehow I determined that such situation is considered "normal" in this game. After all, PTO hoses decks based on large non-Camarilla vamps much more efficiently, but it still remains unchanged. Valerius Major (adv) hoses all decks based on Obfuscate and Chimerstry. Ferox (adv) hoses Thaumaturgy. You may easily find a lot of other examples. Why an Imbued player shouldn't complain that Break the Code hoses his deck? Because it was designed to do right that, I suppose. If you accept the "sometimes you lose" philosophy (a lot of players taught me that), you should admit that Gehenna events are nothing to worry about. Gehenna-heavy decks aren't going to dominate the tournaments, since they are too unreliable. And if you happen to encounter that deck and lose to it... well, each deck has its "bad matchups". Don't make me wrong, though: I don't think that wide application of "sometimes you lose" philosophy is good for the game. Nobody likes being helpless. It would be great if the game had more interaction between players and less "totally hose" cards. Yours, Ector

[ quoted text not captured ] Well i don't know too much about that, having been out of the loop for some time. In derek and my day it was the norm to read people's posts and reply to them if they were saying something sensible and/or useful. Initially the reply was always polite, and only if the poster showed as a troll or dimwit did we [mainly he, and sometimes] respond with, erm, vigour, a tradition which i'm happy to see the Hated Coupe, Beneath Whose Iron Heel the Kindred of Central England Nightly Groan, has continued. OK, that's a lie. We have all, always, mocked and mowed at the truly dumbass post from someone who should know better, and i personally, and rightly, have been at the receiving end of more such posts than the average rtcgj contributor [Matthew, honey, you awake? ;-)]. [ quoted text not captured ] That's a really good idea. Another good idea which came to me from an, erm, source, is to make the person playing the event SOLELY responsible for enforcing its text. Good though both these ideas are, i do not think they will ever reconcile me personally to that Caine-awful card which f***s up all disciplines but especially obtenebration, still less to the two that screw up entire SECTS. > > > The other really good new thing in Jyhad compared to Magic was the > > redraw-when-you-play-a-card mechanic. That Meddling tinkers with this > > is the reason i hate the card so much. > > Meddling, never seen it played. Yes it is annoying but unless the > person using it has vote control or a way to vote lock, I can't see it > lasing long. The best use for that card would be in a ventrue EKN deck > (which is probably where it is used, hence the anxt.) ;-) have you ever seen a Path burned, a Tier of Souls, or an Atonement? [ quoted text not captured ] To bring back the old players that's the way they would have to go. And it would be a mistake to do so, IMO, for reasons that Derek has touched upon. Please understand that i did not emerge from under my stone so's to beat my breast about how Caine-awful things are these nights and how it should go back to how it was before - i only wanted to give an honest answer to an old mate's question. The game has moved on, leaving me and many of the other old players behind. Good, so long as new people come in: extinction is a prerequisite for renewal, as Darwin wisely pointed out. And who knows, maybe some of the old players will come back anyway. i, at least, never went away, and won't. i just don't like driving miles and miles to have my carefully constructed deck screwed up by random off-the-shelf crap, "role-players" and/or bullying whiny gits, so i'm not going to any more "competitive" tourneys. i still think the rules team should ban Meddling and some of the Gehenna Events, but not so's to bring the old players back - so's to improve the game for those who still play it.

Derek Ray wrote: > If you have a reliable defense against game-wrecker Events that does NOT > involve Emergency Preparations, on the other hand, please elaborate. Black Hand Ritual is pretty cool. Not offering it as a refutation of your entire point, but it *is* another form of event defense that I didn't see anybody else mention.

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > I don't think rush defence always helps. I think that now that most > higher-level rush decks aren't Potence but Celerity+Guns, defensive > options have changed. There is still Obedience, and there is still > Secure Haven, but that's really all. Realistically, if "CEL guns" > decides your vampire is dead, then you better have 3 Majesty in hand, > or you'll be dead right now--or next turn if you do have them. Interesting. Would you care to elaborate on why CEL/guns is the uber combat? Are you considering it on its own, or presuming we're also talking about *weenie* CEL/guns (which clouds the issue). I'm just thinking, as a pretty heavy CEL/gun player (OK, they're Assamites, which probably clouds the issue in the other direction), that it's not seemed especially superior to me. If you set aside whacky stuff like "the Great Beast gets TEM/FOR/OBE", I've always thought pot/ani was the trumpiest of combat.

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1150592342....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > firstco...@aol.com wrote: > >> I don't think rush defence always helps. I think that now that most >> higher-level rush decks aren't Potence but Celerity+Guns, defensive >> options have changed. There is still Obedience, and there is still >> Secure Haven, but that's really all. Realistically, if "CEL guns" >> decides your vampire is dead, then you better have 3 Majesty in hand, >> or you'll be dead right now--or next turn if you do have them. > > Interesting. Would you care to elaborate on why CEL/guns is the uber > combat? Are you considering it on its own, or presuming we're also > talking about *weenie* CEL/guns (which clouds the issue). I'm just > thinking, as a pretty heavy CEL/gun player (OK, they're Assamites, > which probably clouds the issue in the other direction), that it's not > seemed especially superior to me. Funny. I was just really starting to notice CEL/gun decks at Powerbase Los Angeles and thinking the same as Brian (at least as far as his "new rush decks" argument goes). The reason is that Psyche!s and a few celerity combat cards for extra strikes and "Dodge with an additional strike" and such (with maneuver and press options for good flexibility), is one of the few combat paradigms that seems to have an answer to almost everything without relying on extensive combinations of cards to work properly. And it has a VERY good answer to overwhelm just about all decks that pack only combat defense cards, which makes it pretty effective at stopping bleedy predators or other predators who attack pool aggressively. And Brian's right that there just isn't much in the way of defending against that kind of rushing without devoting so many cards to it that you'll significantly weaken any other aspects of your deck - unless it was a combat deck to begin with. Fred

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [ quoted text not captured ] True, and one which is actually reasonably valid for a Black Hand deck to include (since you have a high probability of having a younger Black Hand vampire available to you that, god forbid, you might want to untap while Freak Driving or Zillah's Tearsing or something). I suspect nobody is mentioning it because they are all uber-focused on Fall of the Camarilla, which doesn't really affect Black Hand decks so much. :) - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFElViVtQZlu3o7QpERAkbaAJ0fASz+O7K1tuRZqzbAUCRWj4meLQCeIwSD BlvDE/CJ0jU+643wrezDOh4= =bT6S -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Fred Scott wrote: > Funny. I was just really starting to notice CEL/gun decks at Powerbase > Los Angeles and thinking the same as Brian (at least as far as his "new > rush decks" argument goes). The reason is that Psyche!s and a few > celerity combat cards for extra strikes and "Dodge with an additional > strike" and such (with maneuver and press options for good flexibility), > is one of the few combat paradigms that seems to have an answer to almost > everything without relying on extensive combinations of cards to work > properly. And it has a VERY good answer to overwhelm just about all > decks that pack only combat defense cards, which makes it pretty effective > at stopping bleedy predators or other predators who attack pool > aggressively. And Brian's right that there just isn't much in the way of > defending against that kind of rushing without devoting so many cards to > it that you'll significantly weaken any other aspects of your deck - > unless it was a combat deck to begin with. Sounds good on paper. IME, putting almost all your eggs in the Psyche basked (I'm holding you to your description of a "few" other CEL cards) leaves you pretty vulnerable to maneuvers back to close, grapples, DotB, ranged agg, Canine Hordes, etc etc et al. I mean, sure, if it's nerd #37 getting dunked, then you are probably going to just iterate them into the pavement with the next 4 guys. But like I said, I think the iterative strength of Psyche might be getting conflated with the iteration of the minions themselves. Anyway, I was curious as to why Brian (and presumably others) felt that way, and I got my answer. The fact that I have a fairly long list of games where I was running CEL/guns and got pummeled by opposing combat is neither here nor there.

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > bluedevil wrote: >> Derek Ray wrote: >> >>> If you have a reliable defense against game-wrecker Events that does NOT >>> involve Emergency Preparations, on the other hand, please elaborate. >> >> Black Hand Ritual is pretty cool. >> >> Not offering it as a refutation of your entire point, but it *is* >> another form of event defense that I didn't see anybody else mention. > > True, and one which is actually reasonably valid for a Black Hand deck > to include (since you have a high probability of having a younger Black > Hand vampire available to you that, god forbid, you might want to untap > while Freak Driving or Zillah's Tearsing or something). > > I suspect nobody is mentioning it because they are all uber-focused on > Fall of the Camarilla, which doesn't really affect Black Hand decks so > much. :) Not to mention if you have a Black Hand vampire available to play Black Hand Ritual on that Fall of the Sabbat that's screwing you, then you're likely to, well, have had one in play which prevents them playing Fall of the Sabbat in the first place. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

Legbiter wrote: > > What decks get ruined by Meddling? I don't know of any. > > Besides, if Meddling is so strong, why isn't it seen in > > tournaments? I remain unimpressed by Meddling in > > tournament play, and impressed with the subtlety and > > complexity that it can bring to casual play. > > i disagree with absolutely all of this post, but the above bit just > demands an answer. Rehlow's Baron deck. All multirush decks. > Una decks. Philippe Lang and Francois Alix's amazing turbo > Arika decks. So, Meddling hoses a very tiny number of decks, of which "multirush decks" is the only of the list to show up in the TWDA. Should Elder Michaelis's Hold be banned because it hoses multi-rush decks? (I've seen it happen in a tournament!) > Meddling is just a piece of non-creative-garbage-encouraging SHIT, > and it should be banned forthwith from absolutely all forms of play... You effectively have your wish already, since I've seen Nosferatu Performance Art played more in tournaments in the past 4 years than I've seen Meddling of Semsith played. ;) - Ben Peal

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Boy, you know, I wish it were working out as the way more > than it is (in my experience). In DC, we don't really have > many new-to-the-game excitable young people who are > catching the bug and preaching to all their friends. It would > sure be nice if we did. Sadly the players we actually *do* > have don't have the time and will (myself certainly included) > to put in long hours trying to recruit new young people (who > would recruit more new young people, who would recruit > more new young people...). Interestingly, here in Boston we've had a recent influx of new players. For about a year or two, it was pretty much the same crew, with one table maybe two in a given week. However, in the past several months, we've had a few new players join the group, and they appear to be staying. We're regularly getting two tables a night, sometimes three. On top of that, a new playgroup has emerged in Western Massachusetts (cthulhukitty is the newly-appointed Prince), and they just had their first tournament this past Saturday. In terms of promotion, I don't think we really did anything apart from showing up every Monday at the store to play games. That's how I got lured into the Boston group initially, as Dave Zopf and his crew was showing up every week. It's how we've gotten a lot of our players, in addition to V:TES players moving to Boston and looking for a group. How many of you out there play in game stores, and how many of you just play at home or somewhere else that isn't a game store? As much as it's nice and convenient to play in your own home, I think playing amongst the gamer public really helps promote the game and bring in new people. > Josh > > has dropped far, far back from the "two new decks every > week" pace I took it easy for a long stretch, showing up every week to play, but not really building anything new. Recently, I've gotten the deck-building bug again and am swimming in ideas. Hopefully I can get them ready for Origins! - Ben Peal

Matt Green wrote: > That's interesting. You [Legbiter] praise the predator-prey > relationship and bemoan the fact the table switching cards > were removed from the game. Do you not see the two as > mutually exclusive? > > They were removed because they subverted the predator-prey > relationship (as I understand from an IRC conversation with > LSJ shortly before the decision was made). Which is true, but > irrelevant. The predator-prey relationship still does not exist if > you choose to ignore, and it never has. If you concentrate on > your prey in a game with good players you will lose to someone > else's ability to manipulate people, win due to your ability to > manipulate people, lose to bad seating, or win due to good > seating. > > Given you can no longer change seats, you must either > manipulate the table to do your bidding or remove the player > most likely to strike a deal to prevent you from getting a game > win. If you didn't play a deck with seat-changing cards, you were at the mercy of those who did. If everyone was playing seat-changing cards, then you'd get a lovely game of leapfrog. Presumably it would be better if seating didn't matter, but I really don't see how the game could be changed so that it were the case. > I don't like popularity contests, and unlike some players, I > don't view whining for two hours to win a recreational card > game as a productive use of my time. Ultimately, every multiplayer game is a popularity contest at its core, with an artificial layer on top of it. The game is at its best when the players remain in the artificial layer, but every so often you drop down into the core layer. - Ben Peal

Legbiter wrote: > In our group we DO have a lot of new players, thanks to John > "foot in both camps" Keech and his RPG contacts. Without > being rude to anyone, i think it's fair to say that there's a, probably > insurmountable, philosophical difference between the old players > and this new blood. i'm not sure whether the new players over the > rest of the UK mirror the pattern here, but i do know that i personally > feel like a squarer and squarer peg in a rounder and rounder hole, > and i think this is only in part due to the way the game has been > deliberately changed. A change, by the way, for which i personally > bear some responsibility, since unlike you guys i certainly did not > perceive how bad Gehenna events were going to be for the game > during playtesting. From my experience, I've found that it's only a select few Gehenna events that see regular tournament play: The Unmasking, Anthelios, and Dragonbound. I've seen very few "Gehenna Event" decks in tournaments, and for the most part they haven't been particularly effective (which is probably why I haven't seen more than a few). The exceptions have been Stefan Ferenci's deck and the new Imbued decks. However, I'm not convinved that these decks are "broken" or ruining the game. They certainly haven't ruined the game for me. > A large part of that whole square/round thing is that i miss my old > buddies, Rob Treasure, Barney Baker, Jon Cooper, Matthew Green > and William Lee. For various reasons all of the above basically no > longer play competitive VTES with the heroic exception of Matthew. > i know that many of these reasons have to do with, erm, competing > pleasures, but i wonder if it is ONLY coincidence that all these fine > gentlemen, except William, stopped being regulars after Gehenna. I fully expect that the primary reason for older players leaving the game is that real life responsibilities have interfered. I don't think this is a bad thing, as children, new career opportunties, moving to a new city, and so on are wonderful things and the people involved should give those things their full attention. As much as I will miss their presence at the gaming table, I am very happy for them wouldn't want them to not have those things. When looking at these new things in their life, and looking at the free time they do have, they'll certainly factor in the money they'd be spending on their hobbies. If a new set comes out, they'll weigh the amount of money they'd want to spend on it vs. the time they'd spend playing the game (or in the case of moving to a new city, whether they'd have people to play with at all). The advent of any new set therefore becomes a natural point at which they may opt to leave the game. So, I don't get the impression that it's a given set that causes people to leave the game (though I'm sure you could find a few examples of that), but rather their leaving naturally coincides with the release of a given set. I think we're seeing that in this discussion (this player left at CE, this player left at BH, these players left at Gehenna). - Ben Peal

Ben Peal wrote: > If you didn't play a deck with seat-changing cards, you > were at the mercy of those who did. If everyone was playing > seat-changing cards, then you'd get a lovely game of leapfrog. > Presumably it would be better if seating didn't matter, but I > really don't see how the game could be changed so that it > were the case. um... well actually you could do this with sequence cards numbers 1-5. 1 bleeds 2 , 2 bleeds 3 etc ... then the votes would just switch the cards round. Would save all those lardy card geeks from having to engage in an activity where they actually have to move, but of course it will be really confusing and every one would forget as we are not bright enough to handle it.

legb...@mailandnews.com wrote: > We have all, always, mocked and mowed at > the truly dumbass post from someone who should know better, and i > personally, and rightly, have been at the receiving end of more such > posts than the average rtcgj contributor [Matthew, honey, you awake? > ;-)]. Always awake, always watching. I don't have the time to dedicate to crushing foolish remarks, like I used to. Which is a shame in your case as I know how much you like a good verbal joust. Still, there's always Derek. Watching a Noob post and seeing Derek has responded sends me scurrying for the popcorn and a comfortable chair. I don't know if its just me but the vapid 'interactive vp' low-watt-bulb players these days seem less likely to respond to dry sarcasm these days. Of course, that doesn't bother the good players (and I certainly don't count myself amonst their rank having played in beautiful, merciless Paris recently) who manipulate table's suplicant cattle to do their bidding with insincere promises of baubles and kind words. Funny isn't it? The person most likely to win a social card game is the one who has refined the most socially abhorrant behaviour. For goodness sake, bring back the old players, bring back barny and will and jon and sid and anam and lunar and even mr suitcase. In fact! NO! screw it all! Bring back Pat Vance, Prince of Pants. You knew where you were with a straight-up, old-fashioned, honest to god back-rush from Jacko with a blurred Sword of Triole. Matt '1998' Green

"Ben Peal" <ni...@ofdoom.com> wrote in message news:1150704922.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... > How many of you out there play in game stores, and how > many of you just play at home or somewhere else that isn't > a game store? As much as it's nice and convenient to play > in your own home, I think playing amongst the gamer public > really helps promote the game and bring in new people. Yeah, we don't play regular games in game stores, only tournaments. The regular games are pretty much always at someone's house. As much as I agree with the theory of recruiting by being visible to gamers, it's just incredibly inconvenient to actually do it. The only game stores in the area are minimum 30 minutes (non-rush-hour) from my house, for example, maybe an hour's drive during rush hour, plus they close by 10 pm at one store, 9 pm Thursday-Saturday and 8 Tuesday- Wednesday at the other. So given a choice between pretty much playing 1 game a week (maybe 1.5) and commuting a long way to do it in a game store, and playing generally 3 games at someone's house, it's hard to choose the "let people see you play" way. That said... the summer might be a good time (for me at least) to try to get people playing casual games on Saturdays at the game store, or something. It happens I don't have any consistent weekend-daytime obligations this summer, which I often do in the spring and fall. Maybe I'll give that a shot again... :-) > I took it easy for a long stretch, showing up every week to > play, but not really building anything new. Recently, I've > gotten the deck-building bug again and am swimming in > ideas. Hopefully I can get them ready for Origins! Good luck! I've had some new deck ideas recently too, though whether they'll be useful at all by Origins-time is debatable. :-) Josh still wants the easter-VTES-bunny to just leave a bunch of new players hidden in eggs around town

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1150641465....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> Funny. I was just really starting to notice CEL/gun decks at Powerbase >> Los Angeles and thinking the same as Brian (at least as far as his "new >> rush decks" argument goes). The reason is that Psyche!s and a few >> celerity combat cards for extra strikes and "Dodge with an additional >> strike" and such (with maneuver and press options for good flexibility), >> is one of the few combat paradigms that seems to have an answer to almost >> everything without relying on extensive combinations of cards to work >> properly. And it has a VERY good answer to overwhelm just about all >> decks that pack only combat defense cards, which makes it pretty effective >> at stopping bleedy predators or other predators who attack pool >> aggressively. And Brian's right that there just isn't much in the way of >> defending against that kind of rushing without devoting so many cards to >> it that you'll significantly weaken any other aspects of your deck - >> unless it was a combat deck to begin with. > > Sounds good on paper. IME, putting almost all your eggs in the Psyche > basked (I'm holding you to your description of a "few" other CEL cards) I dunno. I haven't built the deck myself (only been its victim) so I don't know what the mix is. It's probably more than a "few"; I'm just not sure how much more. > leaves you pretty vulnerable to maneuvers back to close, grapples, > DotB, ranged agg, Canine Hordes, etc etc et al. Sure. At PB:LA, Robyn Tatu even played a Centralized Background Check to foul up Stephen Ferenci who was her predator. I would have sworn that card would never be seen but there it was... As with everything, CEL/guns has its vulnerabilities. But I don't see grapple with a lot of maneuvers played so often any more. Ranged ag is obviously bad if they have many such strike cards in the deck(or an Ivory Bow, given a failure to draw any Sideslips). I was playing a Tzimisce deck but it had only three Breath of the Dragons, as I wasn't thinking about guns specifically when I built it. Canine Hordes is a toolbox card. I can't see packing a lot of them unless your metagame is heavy with guns or other equipment. > I mean, sure, if it's > nerd #37 getting dunked, then you are probably going to just iterate > them into the pavement with the next 4 guys. But like I said, I think > the iterative strength of Psyche might be getting conflated with the > iteration of the minions themselves. Anyway, I was curious as to why > Brian (and presumably others) felt that way, and I got my answer. The > fact that I have a fairly long list of games where I was running > CEL/guns and got pummeled by opposing combat is neither here nor there. Yep. Nothing to bring out your awareness of a deck's weaknesses than by playing it. I haven't played the deck myself, so it was looking damn intimidating to me. Fred

"mgreen02" <mgre...@entomology-mansions.co.uk> wrote in message news:1150449767.7...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > legb...@mailandnews.com wrote: > >> OK, but you would agree, presumably, that the best mechanic in Jyhad, >> the one that stops it from collapsing into a king-making lottery like >> all other multiplayer games, is the predator-prey relationship? > > That's interesting. You praise the predator-prey relationship and > bemoan the fact the table switching cards were removed from the game. > Do you not see the two as mutually exclusive? > > They were removed because they subverted the predator-prey relationship > (as I understand from an IRC conversation with LSJ shortly before the > decision was made). Which is true, but irrelevant. The predator-prey > relationship still does not exist if you choose to ignore, and it never > has. If you concentrate on your prey in a game with good players you > will lose to someone else's ability to manipulate people, win due to > your ability to manipulate people, lose to bad seating, or win due to > good seating. I don't know, it seems to me that if the players in your game can be manipulated this effectively, you are not actually playing a game with "good players". I mean, I agree that it's not that much fun to play the multiplayer game that is mostly just a popularity contest with a little card-playing mixed in. But I don't think that's what VTES usually comes down to when you play a game made up entirely of good players. > Given you can no longer change seats, you must either manipulate the > table to do your bidding or remove the player most likely to strike a > deal to prevent you from getting a game win. > > I don't like popularity contests, and unlike some players, I don't view > whining for two hours to win a recreational card game as a productive > use of my time. So you used to only play decks that could switch seats? If everyone (smart) did that, wouldn't the game instead just come down to who could pass their seat-switching vote at the right time? That doesn't sound like it would be a lot more fun, but maybe that's because I haven't tried it. :-) > There is no special relationship between me and my predator/prey when I > play. It's me vs. the player most likley to win- and that's usually the > player with the biggest mouth. > > Yes, this means that I will only play decks with Kindred Spirits, > KRC/Con Ag or Parity Shift, D action rushes, or other cross table > damage effects. If that's what it takes, so be it. It's always been > that way. Meh. The rule of "never listen to Colin" is usually a good one for every new player to learn as early as possible. ("Never listen to anyone", really. Except in teaching situations (not to be confused with tournament situations).) Yeah, it's "always been that way" that it's possible to do stuff to people outside the predator/prey relationship, and it is possible to end up winning games by doing so. But the predator-prey relationship is that you only score a VP if your prey is ousted, and you only win a game if you end up with at least 2 VPs and more than anyone else. That's the predator-prey relationship that is immutable in VTES. I wonder if we've adapted as VTES players too thoroughly to the 2VP Game Win rule and would now benefit from strengthing that to something like a 3VP (or even 4VP?!) Game Win rule - ie you wouldn't get the GW unless you scored at least 3 VPs (or 4 or whatever). It would become noticeably less feasible to "get people off the table" who weren't your prey, if you still wanted a chance to win the game. There would be negative effects too, of course - all the "slow to get moving" or "non-table-sweeping" decks that people enjoy but already have some trouble getting game wins would become even less viable in tournaments. I'm not necessarily advocating this idea, just seems like an interesting thought to consider. Josh also got tired of the arguing phase a while ago

Joshua Duffin wrote: > I wonder if we've adapted as VTES players too thoroughly to the 2VP Game Win > rule and would now benefit from strengthing that to something like a 3VP (or > even 4VP?!) Game Win rule - ie you wouldn't get the GW unless you scored at > least 3 VPs (or 4 or whatever). It would become noticeably less feasible to > "get people off the table" who weren't your prey, if you still wanted a > chance to win the game. There would be negative effects too, of course - > all the "slow to get moving" or "non-table-sweeping" decks that people enjoy > but already have some trouble getting game wins would become even less > viable in tournaments. I'm not necessarily advocating this idea, just seems > like an interesting thought to consider. Just to clarify, what problem are you trying to solve here? It's an interesting idea for sure but I'm not quite sure what the motivation is... Simon

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Yeah, we don't play regular games in game stores, only tournaments. The > regular games are pretty much always at someone's house. As much as I agree > with the theory of recruiting by being visible to gamers, it's just > incredibly inconvenient to actually do it. The only game stores in the area > are minimum 30 minutes (non-rush-hour) from my house, for example, maybe an > hour's drive during rush hour, plus they close by 10 pm at one store, 9 pm > Thursday-Saturday and 8 Tuesday- Wednesday at the other. So given a choice > between pretty much playing 1 game a week (maybe 1.5) and commuting a long > way to do it in a game store, and playing generally 3 games at someone's > house, it's hard to choose the "let people see you play" way. Dude. Dan Keller works at Dream Wizards. Make him stay late. :) Though I admit it's a big advantage for us that Your Move Games is open 'til midnight every day. > > I took it easy for a long stretch, showing up every week to > > play, but not really building anything new. Recently, I've > > gotten the deck-building bug again and am swimming in > > ideas. Hopefully I can get them ready for Origins! > > Good luck! I've had some new deck ideas recently too, though whether > they'll be useful at all by Origins-time is debatable. :-) The big challenge is getting all the cards I need. Gotta trade lots at Origins! - Ben Peal

Shade wrote: > Just to clarify, what problem are you trying to solve here? It's an > interesting idea for sure but I'm not quite sure what the motivation > is... Currently, you can get a game win with 2VPs, assuming no one else has 2 or more VPs in the game. So when you sit down at a 5 player game, you can win assuming you can: A) Oust your first prey. B) Keep everyone else from getting more than 1 VP. (A) is usually not that hard. (B) is harder, but certainly possible through clever play and/or wheeling and dealing. But the end result is that if you can oust 1 person and then play the table, you can win, even if you are ousted in the end. Meaning that you kind of run out of really solid incentive to oust your prey after getting 1VP. I think Josh is throwing out the idea (in a hypothetical sense) that if you needed *3* VPs to get a "table win", everyone would have a lot more incentive, to, ya know, oust their prey which would result in more agressive play and less table dealing. (Would like to point out that I just played in Cthulhukitty's fantastic tournament in Northampton this last weekend with some certainly world class players, and none of the two preliminary games I played in nor the final involved any significant table talk or deals of any type. Everyone just, ya know, tried to oust their prey...) -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > (Would like to point out that I just played in Cthulhukitty's fantastic > tournament in Northampton this last weekend with some certainly world > class players, and none of the two preliminary games I played in nor > the final involved any significant table talk or deals of any type. > Everyone just, ya know, tried to oust their prey...) > > -Peter I am not sure if I speak for all the Worcester / Western Mass folks, but for Jesse and I, I think this stems from a mortal hatred of timeouts. Table talk takes too long, and people can lie. It is easier to just assess the game state and do what needs to be done. I don't need a handshake deal to crosstable rescue a vampire. - Dave Clooney It is more fun to play Amaranth without permission from the table.

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Well, except that cross table Rush/Bleed/KRC/PTO/whatever requires an > expenditure of resources and effort (actions, cards). And usually > benefits someone as much as it hurts someone (i.e. guy you attack gets > hurt; that guy's predator benefits). Poorly played events just tend to > bog everyone down and suck. You said it yourself. Events suck for everyone, old shool cross table crap could only be against a single player. So with events you can not be the kingmaker. (There are exceptions - you have a FotC and want to screw the Camarilla player, but that is different from a Kindred Spirits, that can screw everyone.) And events have an expenditure. Mostly it is hand size. Frank

Dave wrote: > I am not sure if I speak for all the Worcester / Western Mass folks, > but for Jesse and I, I think this stems from a mortal hatred of > timeouts. Table talk takes too long, and people can lie. I agree completely. It was just an illustration that competetive tournament play can work quite nicely without endless table talk. Mostly for our European friends :-) > It is easier to just assess the game state and do what needs to be > done. I don't need a handshake deal to crosstable rescue a vampire. See! Why doesn't everyone realize this? -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > I think Josh is throwing out the idea (in a hypothetical sense) that if > you needed *3* VPs to get a "table win", everyone would have a lot more > incentive, to, ya know, oust their prey which would result in more > agressive play and less table dealing. Sure sounds reasonable. I'm totally with the principle of less table dealing more prey ousting (so to speak) just thinking about the best way to deal with that. Just playing devils advocate, there is a bit of a negative impact to that change in that wall decks / non sweeping decks will become very difficult to play.

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Shade wrote: > I'm totally with the principle of less table dealing more prey ousting > (so to speak) just thinking about the best way to deal with that. Just > playing devils advocate, there is a bit of a negative impact to that > change in that wall decks / non sweeping decks will become very > difficult to play. To say nothing of certain types of combat decks (non-weenie ones). Do 2 VP GWs happen that often that it would make a big difference? Not in my experience. I've seen only a few. 2.5 VP GWs are more common in my experience. Somebody ousts 2 Methuselahs and then the game goes to time. Games time out for a lot of reasons and it isn't necessarily the fault of the deck that got 2.5. I don't see any reason to punish him because the rest of the table was playing slowly. Matt Morgan

> > > Ditto, a variety of other Event cards - but also Meddling of Semsith. I > > > get stopped from playing my game, > > > > What decks get ruined by Meddling? I don't know of any. Besides, if > > Meddling is so strong, why isn't it seen in tournaments? I remain > > unimpressed by Meddling in tournament play, and impressed with the > > subtlety and complexity that it can bring to casual play. > > i disagree with absolutely all of this post, but the above bit just > demands an answer. Rehlow's Baron deck. All multirush decks. Una decks. > Philippe Lang and Francois Alix's amazing turbo Arika decks. So, any deck which takes 20+ actions in the same turn with 1 or 2 vampires. GOOD. I HATE THEM AND I DO HOPE THEY LEAVE. Maybe you think they're clever or fun, but I think that V:TES is just not V:TES without interaction. I think all these decks you mention are not only tending towards the non-interactive, but are degenerate, and are some (although not all) of the reasons people originally created NRA (before it was ever in the rulebook). I have seen new players turned off by this sort of thing, and we even have one old player who isn't around anymore, mostly because of freak drive abuses. If vampires were only allowed to play one Freak Drive per turn each, I would only be joyed at the demise of these M:TG-style decks. > Meddling > is just a piece of non-creative-garbage-encouraging SHIT, Decks without far too many Freak Drives are non-creative? Even if they are, I say the decks you've listed above are non-interactive, which I hold as far worse than non-creative. I'm not saying you can't stop them; just that if there's any one time when you can't, they "go off." > and it should > be banned forthwith from absolutely all forms of play, along with about > half of the Gehenna events that have similar > screw-the-good-bits-of-the-game-up effects. Ahem, IMO, of course. I've always found the "good bits of the game" to include using stealth and intercept against each other, using maneuvers against each other, managing your position and other people's positions as well, making deals, calling a vote which harms two or more people's prey. In a word, interacting. Any deck which, if it does the one thing it's supposed to do, simply succeeds or fails all on one turn, has seemed to me like the opposite of the "good bits"; it's seemed like some of the worst bits. I'd never thought of Meddling as a way to harm these decks--mostly because I don't regularly encounter any of these decks. But to paraphrase, your list has made me aware of these interactions, and I'm glad that, should a player in our group make some "non-interactive-garbage-encouraging shit", I'll be able to shut it down with just one card. Or more simply put: We like different things. You like freak drive decks--I don't. You don't like counters to freak drive decks. I do. I also advocate Aranthebes and NUN to combat weenies, because I think that any strategy that isn't based on normal interaction is a bad thing for the game. -- Brian

bluedevil wrote: > firstco...@aol.com wrote: > > > I don't think rush defence always helps. I think that now that most > > higher-level rush decks aren't Potence but Celerity+Guns, defensive > > options have changed. There is still Obedience, and there is still > > Secure Haven, but that's really all. Realistically, if "CEL guns" > > decides your vampire is dead, then you better have 3 Majesty in hand, > > or you'll be dead right now--or next turn if you do have them. > > Interesting. Would you care to elaborate on why CEL/guns is the uber > combat? Main reasons I was considering: 1) Evidence. The only kind of rush deck in the last 4 major championship events to do well was CEL/guns, and two of them even made the finals. I understand Stephane Lavrut (finals 2004) almost won the whole thing. 2) Analysis of defenses. What decks could undo a standard POT rush deck? Well, anyone who can outmaneuver it, anyone with damage prevention, anyone who hits back has some help. What decks could undo a CEL/guns deck? Well, you can't realistically outmaneuver it, damage comes in 2 or 3 packets of 2 damage each, so damage prevention is out, and you can't hit back unless you hit back long range--hmm. That leaves none of the previous options. Only things I can think of as "reliable" would be Tzimisce or Assamites with huge amounts of 2R agg strikes, or Animalism for Crows+Bats and Canine Horde. This is a small and focussed group of decks, not nearly as large a portion of decks as can include maneuvers, damage prevention, or hitting back. 3) Popularity. CEL/guns is more of a force in the metagame. If most of the rush players at a given tournament are playing CEL/guns, then you should know that and be prepared regardless of any uber-combat status. > Are you considering it on its own, or presuming we're also > talking about *weenie* CEL/guns (which clouds the issue). Standard CEL/guns decks are sort of weenie decks, comprised of Jimmy Dunn, Scarlet Carson O'Toole, Victor Tolliver, and so on, with some 2-cap support. The decks I'm referencing can be found in major tournament write-ups, and I'm sure many good versions exist on the TWDA. Is there another prevalent or successful version you know of, which doesn't use mostly 4-caps? > I'm just > thinking, as a pretty heavy CEL/gun player (OK, they're Assamites, > which probably clouds the issue in the other direction), that it's not > seemed especially superior to me. I think that changes things a lot, you can't pay 1-3 pool more for each vampire and expect it'll play out the same. > If you set aside whacky stuff like > "the Great Beast gets TEM/FOR/OBE", I've always thought pot/ani was the > trumpiest of combat. Oh. Um, I don't think CEL/guns is so great because it trumps other combat decks, but that it trumps other decks' usual answers to rush combat. Unlike some other strategy which might cause them to rethink which defenses to use, it causes them to rethink whether to use combat defenses at all. -- Brian

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > > > > Ditto, a variety of other Event cards - but also Meddling of Semsith. I > > > > get stopped from playing my game, > > > > > > What decks get ruined by Meddling? I don't know of any. Besides, if > > > Meddling is so strong, why isn't it seen in tournaments? I remain > > > unimpressed by Meddling in tournament play, and impressed with the > > > subtlety and complexity that it can bring to casual play. > > > > i disagree with absolutely all of this post, but the above bit just > > demands an answer. Rehlow's Baron deck. All multirush decks. Una decks. > > Philippe Lang and Francois Alix's amazing turbo Arika decks. > > So, any deck which takes 20+ actions in the same turn with 1 or 2 > vampires. > > GOOD. I HATE THEM AND I DO HOPE THEY LEAVE. Wow! <sarcasm> That's so much worse than the deck which takes 20+ actions in the same turn with 20+ vampires. </sarcasm> Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > Main reasons I was considering: > 1) Evidence. The only kind of rush deck in the last 4 major > championship events to do well was CEL/guns, and two of them even made > the finals. I understand Stephane Lavrut (finals 2004) almost won the > whole thing. I had to dig down quite a ways into the TWDA to find such a deck that actually won. I think we all understand the limits of the TWDA, so I'm not suggesting this proves anything you are saying is wrong. I'm just saying that, unfortunately, there's not a lot of recorded instances we can point to. > 2) Analysis of defenses. What decks could undo a standard POT rush > deck? Well, anyone who can outmaneuver it, anyone with damage > prevention, anyone who hits back has some help. What decks could undo > a CEL/guns deck? Well, you can't realistically outmaneuver it, damage > comes in 2 or 3 packets of 2 damage each, so damage prevention is out, > and you can't hit back unless you hit back long range--hmm. That > leaves none of the previous options. Only things I can think of as > "reliable" would be Tzimisce or Assamites with huge amounts of 2R agg > strikes, or Animalism for Crows+Bats and Canine Horde. This is a small > and focussed group of decks, not nearly as large a portion of decks as > can include maneuvers, damage prevention, or hitting back. It could just be a function of my meta, but ANI combat seems wildly popular to me. Really, that's the main reason I don't feel like gun combat sits at the top of the heap. YMMV. > Standard CEL/guns decks are sort of weenie decks, comprised of Jimmy > Dunn, Scarlet Carson O'Toole, Victor Tolliver, and so on, with some > 2-cap support. The decks I'm referencing can be found in major > tournament write-ups, and I'm sure many good versions exist on the > TWDA. Actually, the first instance of one I could find in the TWDA was Ben Peal's "Second Guess Coral" from 2004. That one had an average capacity of 3, putting it solidly in the weenie deck camp in my book. > Is there another prevalent or successful version you know of, which > doesn't use mostly 4-caps? No, which is my point. I mean, if the presumption is that *any* good rush deck must be a weenie deck, then OK. That's old ground. But if you imagine that such decks might run the spectrum from weenies, to midcaps that wake, to big caps that multi-rush, then I would say that equating "CEL/gun" with "this particular weenie deck" clouds the issue. > I think that changes things a lot, you can't pay 1-3 pool more for each > vampire and expect it'll play out the same. I don't think they'll play out the same. Of course the weenie deck will play out better. I was just curious if we really were talking about combat that relies on CEL and guns, or combat that relies on CEL and guns and the weenie loophole. > Oh. Um, I don't think CEL/guns is so great because it trumps other > combat decks, but that it trumps other decks' usual answers to rush > combat. Unlike some other strategy which might cause them to rethink > which defenses to use, it causes them to rethink whether to use combat > defenses at all. I understand. And, for the record, I think your analysis in point #2 was mostly accurate, except for the fact that, of the combat I expect to see, I expect a lot of it to be ANI combat, which is the natural trump for guns. I suspect our different perspectives come down mostly to metagame issues (although to be clear, I am talking about my tournament meta).

Howdy, Just to add another data point... bluedevil wrote: > firstco...@aol.com wrote: > > > Main reasons I was considering: > > 1) Evidence. The only kind of rush deck in the last 4 major > > championship events to do well was CEL/guns, and two of them even made > > the finals. I understand Stephane Lavrut (finals 2004) almost won the > > whole thing. > > I had to dig down quite a ways into the TWDA to find such a deck that > actually won. I think we all understand the limits of the TWDA, so I'm > not suggesting this proves anything you are saying is wrong. I'm just > saying that, unfortunately, there's not a lot of recorded instances we > can point to. It's anecdotal, but it does seem to me that I've noticed more CEL/guns rush winners than POT/weenie rush winners of late. I guess that leads me to wonder if I'm just overlooking POT weenies, or if they've fallen out of favor lately for some reason, as I see no particular reason that CEL/guns should preclude POT weenies. > > 2) Analysis of defenses. What decks could undo a standard POT rush > > deck? Well, anyone who can outmaneuver it, anyone with damage > > prevention, anyone who hits back has some help. What decks could undo > > a CEL/guns deck? Well, you can't realistically outmaneuver it, damage > > comes in 2 or 3 packets of 2 damage each, so damage prevention is out, > > and you can't hit back unless you hit back long range--hmm. That > > leaves none of the previous options. Only things I can think of as > > "reliable" would be Tzimisce or Assamites with huge amounts of 2R agg > > strikes, or Animalism for Crows+Bats and Canine Horde. This is a small > > and focussed group of decks, not nearly as large a portion of decks as > > can include maneuvers, damage prevention, or hitting back. > > It could just be a function of my meta, but ANI combat seems wildly > popular to me. Really, that's the main reason I don't feel like gun > combat sits at the top of the heap. YMMV. I've been playing weenie-ish CEL guns on CCGW on and off for a while. (It's not as weenie as non-CCGW due to the limitation of playing with only CE, Anarchs, and FN cards.) The meta there is kind of weird, I guess - I almost never run into other rush decks, but there seem to be an awful lot of 'bruise' decks, many of which don't seem to realize that people may just decide not to block them, as they can't generate more than 3 pool of bleed a turn. And among the bruise there's, yes, a _lot_ of animalism, including the hated Drawing Out the Beast and Carrion Crows. Sure, yeah, my plan is to end combat and restart, and that nullifies the 'whole combat' aspect of those cards, but I'm likely to be in or close to torpor before the first combat ends. An equally common problem, though, is the number of Sewer Lids I run into (literally). Maneuvers are actually a little fragile in gun decks - if you're blocked (not uncommon) or blocking, you have no Bum's Rush maneuver, and if you use the gun maneuver, you can't dodge. I pack a fair amount of Pursuit (not a fan of Flash w/CEL), but still, the gun maneuver gets used a lot. If you maneuver away from a Grapple with your gun, you often end up eating steel pie. And losing too much blood - either through damage or rescues - kills the tiny pool gain you can afford to pack, making you even more vulnerable to the usual problem of light stealth + big bleed or vote from your predator. Also annoying: Tremere. Just plain old vanilla Theft is bad, but I seem to run into more than my share of Thelerity, which is a duel I tend to lose. Ending up empty at the end of combat is not good, even if the other guy goes down. Opposing guns is also a problem, though not as big of one, as you at least tend to see them coming. .44's are a very popular defensive option. Bottom line: rush combat needs to win combat. Losing more than a little pretty much means you are done. Also, POT weenies expect to lose weenies, and pot weenies in particular are cheap enough to be disposable. CEL weenies are not cheap (minimum of 3-cap for Sarah + 2 pool for the gun = 5 pool invested). So it's much more important that combat go your way with CEL/guns. (Additionally, losing gunners to torpor is a problem, 'cause if you let them sit, someone else will diablerize them and often end up with a gun of their own.) > > Standard CEL/guns decks are sort of weenie decks, comprised of Jimmy > > Dunn, Scarlet Carson O'Toole, Victor Tolliver, and so on, with some > > 2-cap support. The decks I'm referencing can be found in major > > tournament write-ups, and I'm sure many good versions exist on the > > TWDA. > > Actually, the first instance of one I could find in the TWDA was Ben > Peal's "Second Guess Coral" from 2004. That one had an average > capacity of 3, putting it solidly in the weenie deck camp in my book. > > > Is there another prevalent or successful version you know of, which > > doesn't use mostly 4-caps? > > No, which is my point. I mean, if the presumption is that *any* good > rush deck must be a weenie deck, then OK. That's old ground. But if > you imagine that such decks might run the spectrum from weenies, to > midcaps that wake, to big caps that multi-rush, then I would say that > equating "CEL/gun" with "this particular weenie deck" clouds the issue. CEL/guns generally, IME, wants to be as weenie as it can. There are bigger cap variants, but they aren't usually rush. (Tories come quickly to mind, either intercepting or voting.) My current CCGW variant is Assamite based, but that doesn't actually make much of a cap difference with the current pool of vampires there - it just lets me use some Swallowed by the Night for stealth/more maneuvers. > > I think that changes things a lot, you can't pay 1-3 pool more for each > > vampire and expect it'll play out the same. > > I don't think they'll play out the same. Of course the weenie deck > will play out better. I was just curious if we really were talking > about combat that relies on CEL and guns, or combat that relies on CEL > and guns and the weenie loophole. > > > Oh. Um, I don't think CEL/guns is so great because it trumps other > > combat decks, but that it trumps other decks' usual answers to rush > > combat. Unlike some other strategy which might cause them to rethink > > which defenses to use, it causes them to rethink whether to use combat > > defenses at all. > > I understand. And, for the record, I think your analysis in point #2 > was mostly accurate, except for the fact that, of the combat I expect > to see, I expect a lot of it to be ANI combat, which is the natural > trump for guns. I suspect our different perspectives come down mostly > to metagame issues (although to be clear, I am talking about my > tournament meta). I like that CEL/guns makes another rush type relatively viable. I don't see it as particularly overpowered - it has all the usual rush problems (few masters = pool management problems, no bounce/intercept = proactive defense, other combat trumps, etc.). In fact, in the CCGW environment, it's often underpowered - I've brought handguns to an artillery duel, and have all these pointless rush and S:CE hoser cards to boot! But man, I looked at the decklists for the NW Qualifier, and just drooled, thinking what my gunners would have done there... It would have been beautiful. So, I guess I tend to agree that 'no combat defense' is an increasingly reasonable option. And I guess CEL/guns is a part of that. But I think it's really that there are just so many different viable ways to get killed in combat these days. Yay! Alex

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1150911505.6...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > firstco...@aol.com wrote: >> I think that changes things a lot, you can't pay 1-3 pool more for each >> vampire and expect it'll play out the same. > > I don't think they'll play out the same. Of course the weenie deck > will play out better. I was just curious if we really were talking > about combat that relies on CEL and guns, or combat that relies on CEL > and guns and the weenie loophole. Just because I kind of enjoy proposing ridiculous solutions to things that lots of people don't even think are problems: how about this? Vampires of capacity 1-2 have a base bleed of 0. Vampires of capacity 3-8 have a base bleed of 1. Vampires of capacity 9-11 have a base bleed of 2. (perhaps except for Inner Circles and perhaps also except for anyone else with printed +bleed.) Josh picks up hammer, finds problem that looks like nail

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Vampires of capacity 1-2 have a base bleed of 0. > Vampires of capacity 3-8 have a base bleed of 1. > Vampires of capacity 9-11 have a base bleed of 2. (perhaps except for Inner > Circles and perhaps also except for anyone else with printed +bleed.) Cool idea, but the vampires with printed +bleed paid for that. I'd be inclined to let it stack. I really don't think you're in danger of somehow making Ye Olde 9 cap even *as* viable as 3 3 caps, much less broken.

"Shade" <sha...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1150732479.3...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> I wonder if we've adapted as VTES players too thoroughly to the 2VP Game >> Win >> rule and would now benefit from strengthing that to something like a 3VP >> (or >> even 4VP?!) Game Win rule - ie you wouldn't get the GW unless you scored >> at >> least 3 VPs (or 4 or whatever). It would become noticeably less feasible >> to >> "get people off the table" who weren't your prey, if you still wanted a >> chance to win the game. There would be negative effects too, of course - >> all the "slow to get moving" or "non-table-sweeping" decks that people >> enjoy >> but already have some trouble getting game wins would become even less >> viable in tournaments. I'm not necessarily advocating this idea, just >> seems >> like an interesting thought to consider. > > Just to clarify, what problem are you trying to solve here? It's an > interesting idea for sure but I'm not quite sure what the motivation > is... I don't really like the idea of getting people off the table who aren't your prey. I mean, I know it's possible with some of the cards in the game, and advantageous sometimes if they are going to be a big problem for you later on in the game. So, I was struck by an idea of altering the Game Win rule to further incentivize getting more VPs (which you only do when your own prey is ousted). It's probably not really necessary and maybe not even desirable, as Matt and Peter mentioned. Time-outs at 2 VPs (-> 2.5 VPs) aren't always the fault of the person with 2 VPs; decktypes that don't frequently get 4 VP or 5 VP game-wins probably shouldn't be penalized either. The decktypes that do produce sweeps are not, in many cases, the more interesting or interactive decktypes of VTES. Sadly VTES is inherently a lengthy game, which I think incentivizes (there I go using that word again) doing things that might not make the game more fun for everyone (e.g. knocking someone off the table who isn't your prey, or playing anti-interactive decks), through the incentive that with only 3 games in 6 hours, you *really* want to get the best chance of getting some kind of favorable result in each game. If the game only took an hour to play and you could play, say, 5 preliminary rounds in 5 hours, each individual game wouldn't be such a big deal, you know? Josh well, maybe

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1150918036.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Fair point. I started by thinking that Inner Circles probably didn't need to bleed for 4, and then wondered if that should apply to other +bleed vamps too. On the other hand, it would almost make the IC less good rather than more, since they'd automatically be eligible for Archon Investigation. (Almost but not quite less good... :-) Ye Olde Average 9-cap, as you say, is in not much danger of being as playable as Arika even if it were to bleed for 2 (or 3, for the printed +1 folks), let alone as playable as three 3-caps... Josh et tu, crusher, saqqaf, and khalid?

Joshua Duffin wrote: > I don't really like the idea of getting people off the table who aren't your > prey. I mean, I know it's possible with some of the cards in the game, and > advantageous sometimes if they are going to be a big problem for you later > on in the game. Yeah I'm with you there, there is too much cross table action. It is a case of getting the retaliation in first, which is very occasionally neccessary but usually doesn't work out and is kind of un-fun. Ah well, nothing's perfect and all that.

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > > > > Ditto, a variety of other Event cards - but also Meddling of Semsith. I > > > > get stopped from playing my game, > > > > > > What decks get ruined by Meddling? I don't know of any. Besides, if > > > Meddling is so strong, why isn't it seen in tournaments? I remain > > > unimpressed by Meddling in tournament play, and impressed with the > > > subtlety and complexity that it can bring to casual play. > > > > i disagree with absolutely all of this post, but the above bit just > > demands an answer. Rehlow's Baron deck. All multirush decks. Una decks. > > Philippe Lang and Francois Alix's amazing turbo Arika decks. > > So, any deck which takes 20+ actions in the same turn with 1 or 2 > vampires. > > GOOD. I HATE THEM AND I DO HOPE THEY LEAVE. > > Maybe you think they're clever or fun, Well, um, yes, some of them. Do you think Rehlow just pulled the Baron off the net? That took some THOUGHT. but I think that V:TES is just > not V:TES without interaction. I think all these decks you mention are > not only tending towards the non-interactive, but are degenerate, and > are some (although not all) of the reasons people originally created > NRA (before it was ever in the rulebook). I have seen new players > turned off by this sort of thing, and we even have one old player who > isn't around anymore, mostly because of freak drive abuses. If > vampires were only allowed to play one Freak Drive per turn each, I > would only be joyed at the demise of these M:TG-style decks. Now we're in a different argument. You started by asking a question about decks that get hosed by Meddling. i answered it. Now it turns out that you knew all along that there were decks that get hosed by meddling, and you don't like them. > > > Meddling > > is just a piece of non-creative-garbage-encouraging SHIT, > > Decks without far too many Freak Drives are non-creative? Don't be silly. Some of the above decks are creative, and they just happen to contain a lot of freak drives. Meddling is a dumbo slow-the-game-and-encourage-dumbo-decks card GENERALLY, and quite specifically it hoses a whole GENRE of multi-action decks. Even if they > are, I say the decks you've listed above are non-interactive, which I > hold as far worse than non-creative. They are quick and efficient. Quick and efficient is better than slow and whiny. > > I'm not saying you can't stop them; just that if there's any one time > when you can't, they "go off." > > > and it should > > be banned forthwith from absolutely all forms of play, along with about > > half of the Gehenna events that have similar > > screw-the-good-bits-of-the-game-up effects. Ahem, IMO, of course. > > I've always found the "good bits of the game" to include using stealth > and intercept against each other, using maneuvers against each other, > managing your position and other people's positions as well, making > deals, calling a vote which harms two or more people's prey. In a > word, interacting. Any deck which, if it does the one thing it's > supposed to do, simply succeeds or fails all on one turn, has seemed to > me like the opposite of the "good bits"; it's seemed like some of the > worst bits. > > I'd never thought of Meddling as a way to harm these decks--mostly > because I don't regularly encounter any of these decks. But to > paraphrase, your list has made me aware of these interactions, and I'm > glad that, should a player in our group make some > "non-interactive-garbage-encouraging shit", I'll be able to shut it > down with just one card. See, this is our problem. i am not trying to freeze out the toolbox decks. Normally, in fact, i play one. But i do not think that the rules team should be deliberately encouraging people not to build creative decks, even those that avoid interaction. At their best, such decks are works of art. Gehenna events and Meddling of Semsith deliberately throw sand into the works of beautiful pieces of machinery, and discourage the creation of more such. That's not game design, that's vandalism. > > Or more simply put: We like different things. You like freak drive > decks--I don't. You don't like counters to freak drive decks. I do. Well there we go, nice that you know so much about me. > I also advocate Aranthebes and NUN to combat weenies, because I think > that any strategy that isn't based on normal interaction is a bad thing > for the game. > > -- Brian Maybe so. Maybe any rules team policy that aims to slow and complicate an already complex game is bad for the game. Maybe this is especially so when the only discernible excuse for such a policy is an attempt to shut down a range of funny and creative but not especially dominant decks.

Ben Peal wrote: > Legbiter wrote: > > > What decks get ruined by Meddling? I don't know of any. > > > Besides, if Meddling is so strong, why isn't it seen in > > > tournaments? I remain unimpressed by Meddling in > > > tournament play, and impressed with the subtlety and > > > complexity that it can bring to casual play. > > > > i disagree with absolutely all of this post, but the above bit just > > demands an answer. Rehlow's Baron deck. All multirush decks. > > Una decks. Philippe Lang and Francois Alix's amazing turbo > > Arika decks. > > So, Meddling hoses a very tiny number of decks, of which > "multirush decks" is the only of the list to show up in the TWDA. Sorry, i'm not seeing the relevance of this. i think the above decks are beautiful pieces of art, in some cases [not Una - that was just too obvious a gift, really]. Whether they win or not is completely beside the point. > > Should Elder Michaelis's Hold be banned because it hoses > multi-rush decks? (I've seen it happen in a tournament!) No. Meddling is a crap card because it shuts down or slows down its target, and compels its user to play with a reduced hand size. That means the card-playing options for both predator and target go down. In a card game, it is not a good thing to stop people playing cards. > > > Meddling is just a piece of non-creative-garbage-encouraging SHIT, > > and it should be banned forthwith from absolutely all forms of play... > > You effectively have your wish already, since I've seen Nosferatu > Performance Art played more in tournaments in the past 4 years > than I've seen Meddling of Semsith played. ;) ;-) Woo-hoo! Go me! Cosmic Ordering Service thing going on here, i feel. Now all i have to do is move to the States. > > > - Ben Peal

legb...@mailandnews.com wrote: > No. Meddling is a crap card because it shuts down or slows down its > target, and compels its user to play with a reduced hand size. That > means the card-playing options for both predator and target go down. In > a card game, it is not a good thing to stop people playing cards. Oh cool! Somebody else agrees that Memories of Mortality ought to be banned! Rock on James!

legb...@mailandnews.com wrote: > Don't be silly. Some of the above decks are creative, and they just > happen to contain a lot of freak drives. Meddling is a dumbo > slow-the-game-and-encourage-dumbo-decks card GENERALLY, and quite > specifically it hoses a whole GENRE of multi-action decks. Oh, even sweeter! So you also agree that DI should be BANNED! And to think, all this time, I felt so alone! BFF James! \o/

[ quoted text not captured ] ;-) Whoa! Careful with that irony, David! You'll have someone's eye out next! Seriously, good to see you're still around. It's nice to know that as the Great Submersible of Jyhad descends slowly into the lightless depths of the ocean, lights out, computers down and all life-support systems failing, there will still be hot coffee. In the engineers' mess.

legbi...@mailandnews.com wrote: > ;-) Whoa! Careful with that irony, David! You'll have someone's eye out > next! What irony? MoM sucks. It makes you sit on your hands. Let's ban it! And, if logical implications hold, you agree with me! > Seriously, good to see you're still around. It's nice to know that as > the Great Submersible of Jyhad descends slowly into the lightless > depths of the ocean, lights out, computers down and all life-support > systems failing, there will still be hot coffee. In the engineers' mess. Heh.

[ quoted text not captured ] ;-) Now now, one at a time!

legbi...@mailandnews.com wrote: > bluedevil wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] No no, seriously...... I used to sit in these 8 DI sandwiches, trying vainly to run Fatima multirush. "I freak drive" "I DI that." Like, every *freakin'* turn. If things that hose multi-actors truly bothers you, I'd worry a whole lot more about DI than I would Meddling.

[ quoted text not captured ] i certainly see the point that there is a similarity between the dumbass spanner-in-the-works tech of DI and that of Meddling. Matthew Green used to call DI access all areas, which i think is fair comment. But i don't want to get sucked in to a defense of mutli-actors as such. It is the random on-a-whim screwing with the beauty of the game inherent in Meddling and some of the Gehenna events that annoys me, not their effects on particular decks. Also, to take up your other point, i don't think Memories of Mortality is the problem really, but rather the card's continued existence in the context of improved allies. And that's all i'm going to say about DI and Memories.

Legbiter wrote: > > So, Meddling hoses a very tiny number of decks, of which > > "multirush decks" is the only of the list to show up in the TWDA. > > Sorry, i'm not seeing the relevance of this. i think the above decks > are beautiful pieces of art, in some cases [not Una - that was just too > obvious a gift, really]. Whether they win or not is completely beside > the point. The relevance is that the opportunity cost of Meddling of Semsith is extremely high. Sure, there's no opportunity cost to play it, but there's an opportunity cost to play it with a significant amount of effectiveness. This is why the card isn't seen much at all, and since it isn't seen much at all, I'm not inclined to care about it. The argument that we shouldn't spoil "beautiful pieces of art" is very much a subjective one. I do agree that they're marvelous decks on a design level, and their designers showed great creativity in making them. However, from a play perspective, they're completely uninteractive, and boringly iterative. Ultimately, these decks aren't very good from an effectiveness perspective, as they end up getting in their own way by hand-jamming or some other calamity, so you don't end up seeing them much at all in tournaments. I think I've only seen Turbo Baron in a tournament, played by Ethan Levi, who made the finals of the New Jersey qualifier a couple years ago. He jammed in the finals, and got obliterated, though it's possible that he could have "gone off" and won. If these decks were able to run more consistently, then I think we'd have a serious game balance issue on our hands. Oh, just to clarify, I exclude multi-rush decks from the above comments. I think those decks are just fine, as they're forced to be interactive due to combat. Sure it sucks that Meddling hoses them, but the frequency at which that happens is extremely low. > > Should Elder Michaelis's Hold be banned because it hoses > > multi-rush decks? (I've seen it happen in a tournament!) > > No. Meddling is a crap card because it shuts down or slows down its > target, and compels its user to play with a reduced hand size. That > means the card-playing options for both predator and target go down. In > a card game, it is not a good thing to stop people playing cards. Should we likewise ban Raptor, Aggressive Tactics, and Hand Intervention? As for whether or not Meddling is actually effective at shutting down or slowing down its target to a signficant degree, in my opinion the answer is typically "no". It's effective against the decks you described, and against other high-cycle decks like weenie potence, but at that point you're looking at a very high opportunity cost card. > > You effectively have your wish already, since I've seen Nosferatu > > Performance Art played more in tournaments in the past 4 years > > than I've seen Meddling of Semsith played. ;) > > ;-) Woo-hoo! Go me! Cosmic Ordering Service thing going on here, i > feel. Now all i have to do is move to the States. We'd be glad to have ya! :) - Ben

> > Maybe you think they're clever or fun, > > Well, um, yes, some of them. Do you think Rehlow just pulled the Baron > off the net? That took some THOUGHT. I shouldn't have lumped all these decks together and said they weren't clever. I take it back, it does take quite a lot to first come up with an idea like Baron.dec and then figure out how to implement it correctly (although once the decklist is decided upon, they do rather do their thing mindlessly.) I have a Great Beast recycling deck, and even though it took quite some time to construct properly, I just can't play it more than two or three times per year without getting completely sick of it. And although I appreciate the creation of the Baron deck, it doesn't feel clever so much after the 16th time you've been at the same table with it. And Una Freak Drives Whole Deck Into Play is not clever even the first time--that's the one I was thinking about when I wrote what I wrote. Most tables who see Una's thing happening are going to try to un-happen it immediately afterward, and rightfully so. > > but I think that V:TES is just > > not V:TES without interaction. I think all these decks you mention are > > not only tending towards the non-interactive, but are degenerate, and > > are some (although not all) of the reasons people originally created > > NRA (before it was ever in the rulebook). I have seen new players > > turned off by this sort of thing, and we even have one old player who > > isn't around anymore, mostly because of freak drive abuses. If > > vampires were only allowed to play one Freak Drive per turn each, I > > would only be joyed at the demise of these M:TG-style decks. > > Now we're in a different argument. You started by asking a question > about decks that get hosed by Meddling. i answered it. Now it turns out > that you knew all along that there were decks that get hosed by > meddling, and you don't like them. You say I knew all along, but that's not true. I knew that Freak Drive decks existed, sure. Our local Prince Donovan happens to own like 100 Freak Drives, so I'm quite familiar with some varieties (but not all varieties). I was not, as you claim, aware of their interaction with Meddling, no. I'm glad you pointed it out, and I thank you towards the bottom of the post for that, because now I can make them go away at will. > > > Meddling > > > is just a piece of non-creative-garbage-encouraging SHIT, > > > > Decks without far too many Freak Drives are non-creative? > > Don't be silly. Well, all the examples you gave were Freak Drive-based, so I still have no examples on hand of non-freak-drive-based-decks which are hosed by Meddling. > Some of the above decks are creative, and they just > happen to contain a lot of freak drives. Meddling is a dumbo > slow-the-game-and-encourage-dumbo-decks card GENERALLY, Every deck I have and can think of, besides freakdrive based decks, can play around it, some flawlessly, others less so, but none seem to be crippled by it. Weenie Potence might have the hardest time, but it just bleeds for one most games anyway. I just don't know what you mean when you say "dumbo decks". If any deck which plays less than 7 cards per turn is a "dumbo deck" to you, you are missing out on one of the subtler beauties of V:TES. > > Even if they > > are, I say the decks you've listed above are non-interactive, which I > > hold as far worse than non-creative. > > They are quick and efficient. Quick and efficient is better than slow > and whiny. Now decks that can play around Meddling are slow and whiny? I will say then, that you should quit V:TES, because you'll find that 95% of decks can play around Meddling and qualify as "whiny" under this dichotomy you've invented. > See, this is our problem. i am not trying to freeze out the toolbox > decks. Normally, in fact, i play one. But i do not think that the rules > team should be deliberately encouraging people not to build creative > decks, even those that avoid interaction. I suppose that's our primary difference, here. I _do_ think LSJ should make cards which discourage non-interactive decks. "Creative" is a trait which operates independently of "interactive", and which should be encouraged. > At their best, such decks are > works of art. Gehenna events and Meddling of Semsith deliberately throw > sand into the works of beautiful pieces of machinery, and discourage > the creation of more such. That's not game design, that's vandalism. You do have a lovely way of putting things, but I still think that no matter what someone creates, no matter what goes into it, it shouldn't be allowed to take precedence over the basic principles which make V:TES work. One of those principles is interaction. > > Or more simply put: We like different things. You like freak drive > > decks--I don't. You don't like counters to freak drive decks. I do. > > Well there we go, nice that you know so much about me. I certainly got the impression from you--since the list you provided was comprised entirely of Freak Drive decks, and since you wish to defend them as "creative", that anything which "throws sand into their works" is "vandalism"--that sounds to me like you like freak drive decks and you don't like counters to them. I'm having trouble understanding it to mean anything else, so if I'm wrong about your preferences here, please tell me. > Maybe so. Maybe any rules team policy that aims to slow and complicate > an already complex game is bad for the game. OTOH, any policy which fails to address the occasional unusually fast and aggressive game is bad for the game. By changing Anarch Revolt, printing more anti-weenie cards, and providing counters to Freak Drive decks (even thouth I didn't recognize them,) WW is demonstrating that the few quick and thoughtless games are something it cares about and is willing to address. There are some things which are very aggressive, which can afford to be slowed down. If all of the things LSJ decides to slow down are things which are out of hand, then I'm OK with it. I'd say for example that if you can only untap 7 minions per turn, that's an acceptably large number of minions. I'd say, if you're playing all 7 cards each turn, you're going fast enough. > Maybe this is especially > so when the only discernible excuse for such a policy is an attempt to > shut down a range of funny and creative but not especially dominant > decks. I can't assume that Meddling of Semsith was printed to address "the freak drive problem". If it was, good, you shouldn't be taking all your actions on turn 5, but I suspect that bigger problems (like weenies) are going to receive the bulk of the attention, and if something shuts Una Equips World off, it's probably more accidental, something LSJ thought was a cool idea and no playtester saw any problem with, than something spiteful. -- Brian

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > > > Maybe you think they're clever or fun, > > > > Well, um, yes, some of them. Do you think Rehlow just pulled the Baron > > off the net? That took some THOUGHT. > > I shouldn't have lumped all these decks together and said they weren't > clever. I take it back, it does take quite a lot to first come up with > an idea like Baron.dec and then figure out how to implement it > correctly (although once the decklist is decided upon, they do rather > do their thing mindlessly.) ;-) You might be surprised how difficult it is to play a baron deck, and/or design one for your own environment. Try it! The cards aren't dear and i think there is still quite a lot of mileage in varying, nay, toolboxing Rehlow's original concept. > > I have a Great Beast recycling deck, and even though it took quite some > time to construct properly, I just can't play it more than two or three > times per year without getting completely sick of it. > > And although I appreciate the creation of the Baron deck, it doesn't > feel clever so much after the 16th time you've been at the same table > with it. And Una Freak Drives Whole Deck Into Play is not clever even > the first time--that's the one I was thinking about when I wrote what I > wrote. Most tables who see Una's thing happening are going to try to > un-happen it immediately afterward, and rightfully so. Agree about Una. Una was a mistake in design IMO. The Rules Team should not hand combos like that to players. > > > > but I think that V:TES is just > > > not V:TES without interaction. I think all these decks you mention are > > > not only tending towards the non-interactive, but are degenerate, and > > > are some (although not all) of the reasons people originally created > > > NRA (before it was ever in the rulebook). I have seen new players > > > turned off by this sort of thing, and we even have one old player who > > > isn't around anymore, mostly because of freak drive abuses. If > > > vampires were only allowed to play one Freak Drive per turn each, I > > > would only be joyed at the demise of these M:TG-style decks. > > > > Now we're in a different argument. You started by asking a question > > about decks that get hosed by Meddling. i answered it. Now it turns out > > that you knew all along that there were decks that get hosed by > > meddling, and you don't like them. > > You say I knew all along, but that's not true. > > I knew that Freak Drive decks existed, sure. Our local Prince Donovan > happens to own like 100 Freak Drives, so I'm quite familiar with some > varieties (but not all varieties). I was not, as you claim, aware of > their interaction with Meddling, no. I'm glad you pointed it out, and > I thank you towards the bottom of the post for that, because now I can > make them go away at will. Actually, Direct Intervention is just as effective against multi-Freak drive decks, because the card still counts as PLAYED when DI breezes in. This means that if the card cancelled by DI is an action modifier, reaction or other once-per-turn card, its victim cannot play another copy of that card. As David pointed out, DI is questionable because of its Ha! You Lose! quality, but at least it does not screw up the rest of the victim's turn. Furthermore if we started fiddling with DI we would have to go back and fix Sudden and Pentex Subversion, all dreadful cards but part of the game for so long that we have all got used to them. > > > > > Meddling > > > > is just a piece of non-creative-garbage-encouraging SHIT, > > > > > > Decks without far too many Freak Drives are non-creative? > > > > Don't be silly. > > Well, all the examples you gave were Freak Drive-based, so I still have > no examples on hand of non-freak-drive-based-decks which are hosed by > Meddling. > ;-) Goalposts! Come back to me! The Baron Deck contains no freak drives [or at least my version doesn't, and in general it does not need to]. > > Some of the above decks are creative, and they just > > happen to contain a lot of freak drives. Meddling is a dumbo > > slow-the-game-and-encourage-dumbo-decks card GENERALLY, > > Every deck I have and can think of, besides freakdrive based decks, can > play around it, some flawlessly, others less so, but none seem to be > crippled by it. Weenie Potence might have the hardest time, but it > just bleeds for one most games anyway. I just don't know what you mean > when you say "dumbo decks". If any deck which plays less than 7 cards > per turn is a "dumbo deck" to you, you are missing out on one of the > subtler beauties of V:TES. ;-) IMO the essence of good and creative VTES is the combo. Meddling works against combos, both combos played by its victim [obviously], and combos played by its perpetrator [because there is less chance of acquiring any given combo from a <7 card hand than from a 7-card hand]. More combos = better, more creative, cleverer play. Fewer combos = worse, less creative, stupider play. See my point? > > > > Even if they > > > are, I say the decks you've listed above are non-interactive, which I > > > hold as far worse than non-creative. > > > > They are quick and efficient. Quick and efficient is better than slow > > and whiny. > > Now decks that can play around Meddling are slow and whiny? I will say > then, that you should quit V:TES, because you'll find that 95% of decks > can play around Meddling and qualify as "whiny" under this dichotomy > you've invented. Sorry, but as someone who's been playing and buying this game since it began, i'm not taking that from you. In fact, i wouldn't take it from you, or anyone, if i'd just bought my first pack yesterday. It seems to me from your comments that you are in a comfort zone of the game, in which playing with [and against] crappy unaffected-by-Meddling decks and "table interaction" [aka whining, carrying grudges from game to game and being slow] is a source of enjoyment, and as long as you hold views like the ones you've expressed in this thread that's where you're going to remain [all of us have been through this stage, that's how i know]. But reading some of your other posts it's obvious that you aren't completely dim so hopefully you will eventually get into some real competition and will begin to see that getting soundly beaten in three turns is an essential first step to moving your game up a gear. When that happens you will have a LOT more fun, and i do hope that the Rules Team will not unnecessarily delay this transition for you by continuing to slow up and complicate the game. > > > See, this is our problem. i am not trying to freeze out the toolbox > > decks. Normally, in fact, i play one. But i do not think that the rules > > team should be deliberately encouraging people not to build creative > > decks, even those that avoid interaction. > > I suppose that's our primary difference, here. I _do_ think LSJ should > make cards which discourage non-interactive decks. "Creative" is a > trait which operates independently of "interactive", and which should > be encouraged. Alright, we agree that creativity is good. And "Large deck Universe" is likely to contain more potentially-creative decks than "Small Deck universe", don't you think? > > > At their best, such decks are > > works of art. Gehenna events and Meddling of Semsith deliberately throw > > sand into the works of beautiful pieces of machinery, and discourage > > the creation of more such. That's not game design, that's vandalism. > > You do have a lovely way of putting things, but I still think that no > matter what someone creates, no matter what goes into it, it shouldn't > be allowed to take precedence over the basic principles which make > V:TES work. One of those principles is interaction. Sure, between predator and prey, and by extension temporary alliances and enmities form and break between the other players as the game proceeds. "Interaction" is not however the same as "table-talk/manipulation", and the latter, though allowed by the game rules, is not a basic principle any more than your deck having to contain combat cards is. My increasingly-strong view, echoing Matthew Green, is that table talk/manipulation is actually rather bad for the development of the game, but since i don't see how we can ban/discourage it i'll say no more about it > > > > Or more simply put: We like different things. You like freak drive > > > decks--I don't. You don't like counters to freak drive decks. I do. > > > > Well there we go, nice that you know so much about me. > > I certainly got the impression from you--since the list you provided > was comprised entirely of Freak Drive decks, and since you wish to > defend them as "creative", that anything which "throws sand into their > works" is "vandalism"--that sounds to me like you like freak drive > decks and you don't like counters to them. I'm having trouble > understanding it to mean anything else, so if I'm wrong about your > preferences here, please tell me. See above, but briefly, [1] the Baron is not a freak-drive deck, and [2] combos are good, so it's bad to discourage people from creating decks which rely on them. > > > Maybe so. Maybe any rules team policy that aims to slow and complicate > > an already complex game is bad for the game. > > OTOH, any policy which fails to address the occasional unusually fast > and aggressive game is bad for the game. By changing Anarch Revolt, > printing more anti-weenie cards, and providing counters to Freak Drive > decks (even thouth I didn't recognize them,) WW is demonstrating that > the few quick and thoughtless games are something it cares about and is > willing to address. No, i think you wholly misunderstand the history of rules team policy though, sadly, you may be right about the direction it has gone in recently. Fast and aggressive decks are good for the game, because they move the standard of the game up. The rules team used to squash some such decks post facto, once a card or strategy had been broken in one or other of the various senses in which "broken" can be interpreted. DI, Meddling and some of the Gehenna events represent a change in policy, towards preventing people from being able to make certain kinds of novel fast aggressive [or sometimes, just funny] decks in the first place. This policy slows the game up, moves the standard down, and changes the relationship between players and games designers in an unhealthy way. > > There are some things which are very aggressive, which can afford to be > slowed down. If all of the things LSJ decides to slow down are things > which are out of hand, then I'm OK with it. I'd say for example that > if you can only untap 7 minions per turn, that's an acceptably large > number of minions. I'd say, if you're playing all 7 cards each turn, > you're going fast enough. > > > Maybe this is especially > > so when the only discernible excuse for such a policy is an attempt to > > shut down a range of funny and creative but not especially dominant > > decks. > > I can't assume that Meddling of Semsith was printed to address "the > freak drive problem". If it was, good, you shouldn't be taking all > your actions on turn 5, but I suspect that bigger problems (like > weenies) are going to receive the bulk of the attention, and if > something shuts Una Equips World off, it's probably more accidental, > something LSJ thought was a cool idea and no playtester saw any problem > with, than something spiteful. > > -- Brian Well, i never assumed it was anything to do with freak drives in the first place, so we agree there. My view is that Meddling is a "No!" card which hoses FAR too broad a range of legitimate strategies, and it moves the standard of the game down and not up, for reasons i've explained above.

legb...@mailandnews.com wrote: > Agree about Una. Una was a mistake in design IMO. The Rules Team should > not hand combos like that to players. Una is not the only card in that combo. Of the two, if either was a mistake in design, it may be Una, but it might possibly be the not-Una one. http://murl.se/9241

[ quoted text not captured ] ;-) fair point. A LOT of our troubles in Jyhad actually stem from stuff in the original set.

> ;-) You might be surprised how difficult it is to play a baron deck, > and/or design one for your own environment. Try it! The cards aren't > dear and i think there is still quite a lot of mileage in varying, nay, > toolboxing Rehlow's original concept. Hmm...Okay, challenge accepted! If you could post a decklist or provide a link, it would be a lot easier to do, of course. > > > > > Meddling > > > > > is just a piece of non-creative-garbage-encouraging SHIT, > > > > > > > > Decks without far too many Freak Drives are non-creative? > > > > > > Don't be silly. > > > > Well, all the examples you gave were Freak Drive-based, so I still have > > no examples on hand of non-freak-drive-based-decks which are hosed by > > Meddling. > > > > ;-) Goalposts! Come back to me! It's OK to answer a tangentially-related question in a post. I'd rather resolve what you meant by "meddling is just a piece of non-creative-garbage-encouraging SHIT" here, than start a new post talking about it. Moving the goalpoasts would be avoiding the original thrust or question; this is simply addressing a new (somewhat related) one. I can ask it another way, if it helps: Does Meddling ruin some creative decktype besides a freakdrive-based (or otherwise multiaction-based) deck? I ask because so far the only examples provided are multiaction decks. > The Baron Deck contains no freak drives [or at least my version > doesn't, and in general it does not need to]. I always thought the Baron deck was a freak drive deck, but that still isn't as relevant as that it's a multiaction deck. Parallel: Turbo Arika is basically a freak drive deck. Does it freak drive? Well, not the version I heard about. But it still takes an endless number of actions, so it's basically the same thing. (It gets a Praxis Seizure that increases a Ventrue's capacity, plays Awe for all but 1 of her blood, and then Force of Will + Daring the Dawn. If you started with Soul Gem, you can do this endlessly.) I think it's reasonable to group all decks which can take, say, 10 actions on the same turn with <3 minions in play into the same category for the purposes of this discussion. > > > Some of the above decks are creative, and they just > > > happen to contain a lot of freak drives. Meddling is a dumbo > > > slow-the-game-and-encourage-dumbo-decks card GENERALLY, > > > > Every deck I have and can think of, besides freakdrive based decks, can > > play around it, some flawlessly, others less so, but none seem to be > > crippled by it. Weenie Potence might have the hardest time, but it > > just bleeds for one most games anyway. I just don't know what you mean > > when you say "dumbo decks". If any deck which plays less than 7 cards > > per turn is a "dumbo deck" to you, you are missing out on one of the > > subtler beauties of V:TES. > > ;-) IMO the essence of good and creative VTES is the combo. Meddling > works against combos, both combos played by its victim [obviously], and > combos played by its perpetrator [because there is less chance of > acquiring any given combo from a <7 card hand than from a 7-card hand]. > More combos = better, more creative, cleverer play. Fewer combos = > worse, less creative, stupider play. See my point? I agree with that, but I think it's a bit too inclusive. By the above definition almost all combat decks are really combo decks, and so is traditional Malkavian stealth bleed. Both of which are mindless to some degree, and mindless play = stupider play in this sense of "stupid". I prefer having lots of options in your hand, most of which can lead into any of the others fairly well. Combos meaning "longer strings of cards" become possible, but combos meaning "strings of cards defined during deck construction" aren't necessary and, while they may be creative in design, lead to less creativity during play. That latter type of combo is the one I think of when I think "combo deck", not the first one. > It seems to > me from your comments that you are in a comfort zone of the game, In that I enjoy the game as it stands, sure. > in > which playing with [and against] crappy unaffected-by-Meddling decks There's the possibility that I'm playing against not-crappy unaffected-by-Meddling decks, right? > and "table interaction" [aka whining, carrying grudges from game to > game and being slow] is a source of enjoyment, Whoa! Although I do not think we can quantify "whining" here, I think there is most certainly table interaction which is not whiny. Example: "I call Kine Resources. Block?" then, provided your prey passes and your predator has the intercept, he makes a choice whether to block or not, which may involve asking you where the damage is going to go. That is an interactive sequence. Then, "None on you. Two on my prey, two on your predator," and your prey's prey votes for it (and thanks you) for putting two on his prey. This is another interactive sequence, and isn't "whiny" at all. Unless you count the predator's asking whether he was going to take damage as "whiny", in which case I think your definition would be too broad. Also, holding grudges from game to game is pretty immature. Unless the grudge is based on something like insulting you personally or hitting you, which can't be done "in game". (Hitting someone is always done in the real world and shouldn't be tolerated. But I don't think that's what you're talking about.) > and as long as you hold > views like the ones you've expressed in this thread that's where you're > going to remain [all of us have been through this stage, that's how i > know]. I'm pretty old school, my first starter was Jyhad, back before V:TES existed. I think if there's some stage newer players experience, I'm either through it, or I missed it. > But reading some of your other posts it's obvious that you > aren't completely dim Thanks, I feel the same way about you. > so hopefully you will eventually get into some > real competition Actually, I have. I've won two regional qualifiers, as well as the 2003 NAC. I made the finals table in the last EC. My views about what is bad for the game are not contingent upon a lack of experience or competitive opponents. > and will begin to see that getting soundly beaten in > three turns is an essential first step to moving your game up a gear. I agree with that. My first "breakthrough" was including wakes. :) > When that happens you will have a LOT more fun, and i do hope that the > Rules Team will not unnecessarily delay this transition for you by > continuing to slow up and complicate the game. I always thought the continuing slowing-up was their way of making intercept and combat viable (or more viable) options in V:TES, and simultaneously moving us all _away_ from the 3rd turn ousts. And I think the game has slowed up enough, where I'm at, because we have intercept in every corner of every table, and the time limit is a more common problem than what to do when you're ousted early. > > I suppose that's our primary difference, here. I _do_ think LSJ should > > make cards which discourage non-interactive decks. "Creative" is a > > trait which operates independently of "interactive", and which should > > be encouraged. > > Alright, we agree that creativity is good. And "Large deck Universe" is > likely to contain more potentially-creative decks than "Small Deck > universe", don't you think? Yes. However, "Large Deck Universe" is helped along by making some decks unviable. There exist some decks which, through their success, make frequent appearance, and given their frequent appearance, prevent the success (and therefore appearance) of a larger number of other, competing decks. That's just one of the reasons that discouraging a deck actually leads to "Large Deck Universe". Another argument is how that deck's prevalence affects your player base, but I don't think either one of us have the data necessary to support our positions in a discussion about whether Freak Drive-based decks are more of a draw or a repellant for newer players. All I have is, so far, a few players saying, "That's dumb, I hate that deck" and noone saying, "Man, that was so cool, I can't wait to see that next game." > > > At their best, such decks are > > > works of art. Gehenna events and Meddling of Semsith deliberately throw > > > sand into the works of beautiful pieces of machinery, and discourage > > > the creation of more such. That's not game design, that's vandalism. > > > > You do have a lovely way of putting things, but I still think that no > > matter what someone creates, no matter what goes into it, it shouldn't > > be allowed to take precedence over the basic principles which make > > V:TES work. One of those principles is interaction. > > Sure, between predator and prey, and by extension temporary alliances > and enmities form and break between the other players as the game > proceeds. "Interaction" is not however the same as > "table-talk/manipulation", and the latter, though allowed by the game > rules, is not a basic principle any more than your deck having to > contain combat cards is. Agreed, table talk isn't the same as interaction. It is one kind though, a subset of interaction. Why did you bring up table talk? Did you think that when I said "one of those principles is interaction" that I was worried that Freak Drive decks undermine players' abilities to talk? I was referring to their abilities to interact via alternating play of cards. Compare this 1: Maneuver 2: Counter maneuver 1: Strike 2: Strike: Combat Ends 1: Psyche to this 1: action 1: freak drive 1: action 1: freak drive 1: action And even if it takes a while to get them to stop blocking, they eventually will stop blocking. > My increasingly-strong view, echoing Matthew > Green, is that table talk/manipulation is actually rather bad for the > development of the game, but since i don't see how we can > ban/discourage it i'll say no more about it Alright, nevermind then. > [1] the Baron is not a freak-drive deck, and > > [2] combos are good, so it's bad to discourage people from creating > decks which rely on them. Flexible combos (hand contains Apportation, Theft, Walk, and Bond with the Mountain) are good. In one combat, any one of these cards may be the right play, or even all 4. Or perhaps none! This sort of soft-combo hand is another way to make a player think, and I like this. Inflexible combos (equip freak equip freak equip freak) I would not say are the same thing as flexible combos, nor a good thing at all. > Well, i never assumed it was anything to do with freak drives in the > first place, so we agree there. My view is that Meddling is a "No!" > card which hoses FAR too broad a range of legitimate strategies, and it > moves the standard of the game down and not up, for reasons i've > explained above. I think in the end we have very different concepts of the game, reinforced by our seemingly vastly different local metagames. I figure in the end we will be forced to agree to disagree about how many decks Meddling affects, and maybe even about how many it shows up in. Either way, I hope you understand my position, that interaction is good for the game. I also hope you understand my distinction in this post, which is that there are combos which involve thought only in deckbuilding and then go on to be fairly rigid and non-creative in play, and then there are combos which involve thought in both deckbuilding AND while playing, and can go a number of different directions at any given point--even in no direction, sitting in your hand until the time is right. I hold combos in this latter form as one of the most vital, fun things in V:TES, but I don't think Meddling or any Gehenna event for that matter has stopped decks from playing these sorts of combos. And I don't think it's a problem if some card does stop a rigid, preplanned combo which can exhaust half of a player's library in a single turn. But I think this last one is down to preference, unless someone can show that the decks affected are stopping another decktype from existing, or upsetting old players enough to quit, or keeping new players out of the game. -- Brian

Ben Peal wrote: > Legbiter wrote: > > > So, Meddling hoses a very tiny number of decks, of which > > > "multirush decks" is the only of the list to show up in the TWDA. > > > > Sorry, i'm not seeing the relevance of this. i think the above decks > > are beautiful pieces of art, in some cases [not Una - that was just too > > obvious a gift, really]. Whether they win or not is completely beside > > the point. > > The relevance is that the opportunity cost of Meddling of Semsith > is extremely high. Sure, there's no opportunity cost to play it, > but there's an opportunity cost to play it with a significant amount > of effectiveness. You mean it's not often that you are at a table where a deck is threatening to motor through everyone with high numbers of minion actions per turn? My experience is that this is quite a common situation. This is why the card isn't seen much at all, and > since it isn't seen much at all, I'm not inclined to care about it. Another card that isn't seen much, or at all really, since i just invented it, is "Crap on the Opposition". Master, cost 1 pool. Drop your trousers/pants and do a great big smelly poo all over someone else's library. The owner of the poo-ed-upon library may shuffle it, but only if they lick the cards clean first. i feel about Meddling's impact on the game, commonly or rarely played, much as i would view crap on the opposition's. > > The argument that we shouldn't spoil "beautiful pieces of art" is > very much a subjective one. I do agree that they're marvelous > decks on a design level, and their designers showed great > creativity in making them. However, from a play perspective, > they're completely uninteractive, and boringly iterative. Uninteractive and boringly iterative are also subjective judgements. > Ultimately, > these decks aren't very good from an effectiveness perspective, > as they end up getting in their own way by hand-jamming or some > other calamity, so you don't end up seeing them much at all in > tournaments. I think I've only seen Turbo Baron in a tournament, > played by Ethan Levi, who made the finals of the New Jersey > qualifier a couple years ago. He jammed in the finals, and got > obliterated, though it's possible that he could have "gone off" and > won. Quite right, so there is no need to nuke them. If these decks were able to run more consistently, then I > think we'd have a serious game balance issue on our hands. Yes, then we would need to nuke any that turned out to be a problem. > > Oh, just to clarify, I exclude multi-rush decks from the above > comments. I think those decks are just fine, as they're forced > to be interactive due to combat. Sure it sucks that Meddling > hoses them, but the frequency at which that happens is extremely > low. > > > > Should Elder Michaelis's Hold be banned because it hoses > > > multi-rush decks? (I've seen it happen in a tournament!) > > > > No. Meddling is a crap card because it shuts down or slows down its > > target, and compels its user to play with a reduced hand size. That > > means the card-playing options for both predator and target go down. In > > a card game, it is not a good thing to stop people playing cards. > > Should we likewise ban Raptor, Aggressive Tactics, and Hand > Intervention? Dunno, depends how quickly you break them i spose. ;-) > > As for whether or not Meddling is actually effective at shutting down > or slowing down its target to a signficant degree, in my opinion the > answer is typically "no". It's effective against the decks you > described, > and against other high-cycle decks like weenie potence, but at that > point you're looking at a very high opportunity cost card. All i can say is that i think it is VERY effective at slowing down fast decks, but to play it requires that you yourself play a degenerate deck. i do not think we should be encouraging degenerate decks and i do not think we should be encouraging fast decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > > ;-) You might be surprised how difficult it is to play a baron deck, > > and/or design one for your own environment. Try it! The cards aren't > > dear and i think there is still quite a lot of mileage in varying, nay, > > toolboxing Rehlow's original concept. > > Hmm...Okay, challenge accepted! If you could post a decklist or > provide a link, it would be a lot easier to do, of course. OK, here's a repost, gathered from legbiter.tripod.com: "DECK: Brit-Turbo, or, Tribute to the Rehlow CREATED BY: Legbiter, but firmly based on the original idea of Matt Rehlow. This version got second place in the May Ramstein tournament, Germany. A closely-similar version recently won a tournament in Sweden; sadly i have forgottten the player's name [Erik, maybe?] and i'm not sure whether he cloned it directly from Matt or from me. CONCEPT: The Baron, on one blood, acquires the soul gem, then bleeds with inferior Force of Will [and burns]. The next vampire in the crypt is [a] younger, and [b] has superior necromancy, so it comes into play on full blood, and possesses the Baron back into play. This fresh baron is not bound by NRA, so it can do exactly the same thing again. Easily capable of running through 15 pool in a single turn; mutates from a trick deck into a swarm in the process [don't neglect to use the specials on the other vampires you bring out, they can be crucial to victory]. Hard but fun to play, its banes are contesting, static intercept intelligently deployed, and rush-combat. i would rate this right up there with ToGP as a novel and heart-breakingly competitive deck, and i would also point out that it is REALLY cheap to build, VERY few rares [only the Soul Gems are essential, and really you only need one]. POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS: This deck really needs to go up to 90 cards, keeping the overall proportions, which also means its crypt has to be increased. How this might be done is indicated below. CRYPT [12 vampires] [raise to 14; add Isabel Giovanni and Rudolpho Giovanni] Andrea Giovanni Gillespi Giovanni Rafaele Giovanni Kanimana Belghazi Agaitas, the Scholar of Antiquities Le Dinh Tho Egothha Carlotta Giovanni Anisa Marianna Lopez The Baron Pochtli Gisela Harden, the Winnower LIBRARY [71 cards] [raise to 90] MASTERS [26] [raise to 32] The Barrens Coroner's Contact x 6 [raise to 8] Dreams of the Sphinx x 2 Elder Library Fragment of the Book of Nod Minion Tap x 7 [raise to 9] The Parthenon Storage Annex Vast Wealth x 5 [raise to 7] Visit from the Capuchin ACTIONS/EQUIPMENT [24] [raise to 30] Force of Will x 10 [raise to 13] Possession x 10 [raise to 13] Psychic Veil x 2 Soul Gem of Etrius x 2 ACTION MODIFIERS [21] [raise to 28] Call of the Hungry Dead x 6 [8] Cloak the Gathering x 2 [3] Daring the Dawn x 3 [4] Faceless Night x 2 [3] Lost in Crowds x 2 [3] Seduction x 3 [probably should replace these by more Daring the Dawn or Faceless Night, or other stealth cards] Spectral Divination x 3 [4]" > > > > > > > Meddling > > > > > > is just a piece of non-creative-garbage-encouraging SHIT, > > > > > > > > > > Decks without far too many Freak Drives are non-creative? > > > > > > > > Don't be silly. > > > > > > Well, all the examples you gave were Freak Drive-based, so I still have > > > no examples on hand of non-freak-drive-based-decks which are hosed by > > > Meddling. > > > > > > > ;-) Goalposts! Come back to me! > > It's OK to answer a tangentially-related question in a post. I'd > rather resolve what you meant by "meddling is just a piece of > non-creative-garbage-encouraging SHIT" here, than start a new post > talking about it. > > Moving the goalpoasts would be avoiding the original thrust or > question; this is simply addressing a new (somewhat related) one. > > I can ask it another way, if it helps: Does Meddling ruin some > creative decktype besides a freakdrive-based (or otherwise > multiaction-based) deck? I ask because so far the only examples > provided are multiaction decks. It slows all fast decks, and therefore all games in which fast decks appear. It forces the perpetrator to adopt a strategy which can be carried out with a reduced hand size. Such a strategy is typically if not in fact absolutely always based on a degenerate library and weenie crypt. i do not think we should be slowing the game, discouraging fast decks or encouraging degenerate/weenie decks. THAT is what i meant by the non-creative garbage-encouraging shit comment. > > > The Baron Deck contains no freak drives [or at least my version > > doesn't, and in general it does not need to]. > > I always thought the Baron deck was a freak drive deck, but that still > isn't as relevant as that it's a multiaction deck. > > Parallel: Turbo Arika is basically a freak drive deck. Does it freak > drive? Well, not the version I heard about. But it still takes an > endless number of actions, so it's basically the same thing. (It gets > a Praxis Seizure that increases a Ventrue's capacity, plays Awe for all > but 1 of her blood, and then Force of Will + Daring the Dawn. If you > started with Soul Gem, you can do this endlessly.) True. > > I think it's reasonable to group all decks which can take, say, 10 > actions on the same turn with <3 minions in play into the same category > for the purposes of this discussion. Alright. > > > > > Some of the above decks are creative, and they just > > > > happen to contain a lot of freak drives. Meddling is a dumbo > > > > slow-the-game-and-encourage-dumbo-decks card GENERALLY, > > > > > > Every deck I have and can think of, besides freakdrive based decks, can > > > play around it, some flawlessly, others less so, but none seem to be > > > crippled by it. Weenie Potence might have the hardest time, but it > > > just bleeds for one most games anyway. I just don't know what you mean > > > when you say "dumbo decks". If any deck which plays less than 7 cards > > > per turn is a "dumbo deck" to you, you are missing out on one of the > > > subtler beauties of V:TES. > > > > ;-) IMO the essence of good and creative VTES is the combo. Meddling > > works against combos, both combos played by its victim [obviously], and > > combos played by its perpetrator [because there is less chance of > > acquiring any given combo from a <7 card hand than from a 7-card hand]. > > More combos = better, more creative, cleverer play. Fewer combos = > > worse, less creative, stupider play. See my point? > > I agree with that, but I think it's a bit too inclusive. By the above > definition almost all combat decks are really combo decks, and so is > traditional Malkavian stealth bleed. Both of which are mindless to > some degree, and mindless play = stupider play in this sense of > "stupid". Somewhere you or Ben made the distinction between decks which require thought during the design/build step whilst being automatic or near enough to play, and decks which require thought during play. While we might argue about the specifics of that i do accept that it's a useful dichotomy. Maybe we should have a term for the first, eg machine deck, and a different term for the second. It seems to me you don't approve of machine decks. i however largely do, and think they are the criterion against which all other decks should be measured. Where we can agree, i think, is in our personal preference for which kind of deck we like to play [the non-machine sort, whatever we're actually going to end up calling it]. > > I prefer having lots of options in your hand, most of which can lead > into any of the others fairly well. Combos meaning "longer strings of > cards" become possible, but combos meaning "strings of cards defined > during deck construction" aren't necessary and, while they may be > creative in design, lead to less creativity during play. That latter > type of combo is the one I think of when I think "combo deck", not the > first one. Well, so do i. But i don't wish to exclude the option of fast machine decks from the game. > > > It seems to > > me from your comments that you are in a comfort zone of the game, > > In that I enjoy the game as it stands, sure. i USED to enjoy the game as it stood. Now i'm not so sure. > > > in > > which playing with [and against] crappy unaffected-by-Meddling decks > > There's the possibility that I'm playing against not-crappy > unaffected-by-Meddling decks, right? Yes there is. > > > and "table interaction" [aka whining, carrying grudges from game to > > game and being slow] is a source of enjoyment, > > Whoa! Although I do not think we can quantify "whining" here, I think > there is most certainly table interaction which is not whiny. Example: > > "I call Kine Resources. Block?" then, provided your prey passes and > your predator has the intercept, he makes a choice whether to block or > not, which may involve asking you where the damage is going to go. > That is an interactive sequence. Then, "None on you. Two on my prey, > two on your predator," and your prey's prey votes for it (and thanks > you) for putting two on his prey. This is another interactive > sequence, and isn't "whiny" at all. In this sense the Baron too is interactive. "i need the guy who keeps playing the Gehenna events taken off the table. Can you deflect some bleeds from me onto him, please?" This actually happened in one tournament i played in. > > Unless you count the predator's asking whether he was going to take > damage as "whiny", in which case I think your definition would be too > broad. > > Also, holding grudges from game to game is pretty immature. Unless the > grudge is based on something like insulting you personally or hitting > you, which can't be done "in game". (Hitting someone is always done in > the real world and shouldn't be tolerated. But I don't think that's > what you're talking about.) OK, fair enough, i misjudged your position. i was, of course, taking a swipe at someone else. > > > and as long as you hold > > views like the ones you've expressed in this thread that's where you're > > going to remain [all of us have been through this stage, that's how i > > know]. > > I'm pretty old school, my first starter was Jyhad, back before V:TES > existed. I think if there's some stage newer players experience, I'm > either through it, or I missed it. > > > But reading some of your other posts it's obvious that you > > aren't completely dim > > Thanks, I feel the same way about you. > > > so hopefully you will eventually get into some > > real competition > > Actually, I have. I've won two regional qualifiers, as well as the > 2003 NAC. I made the finals table in the last EC. My views about what > is bad for the game are not contingent upon a lack of experience or > competitive opponents. Well done! > > > and will begin to see that getting soundly beaten in > > three turns is an essential first step to moving your game up a gear. > > I agree with that. My first "breakthrough" was including wakes. :) ;-) a major design flaw, wake. Shoulda been thaumaturgy card as in the RPG. > > > When that happens you will have a LOT more fun, and i do hope that the > > Rules Team will not unnecessarily delay this transition for you by > > continuing to slow up and complicate the game. > > I always thought the continuing slowing-up was their way of making > intercept and combat viable (or more viable) options in V:TES, and > simultaneously moving us all _away_ from the 3rd turn ousts. > > And I think the game has slowed up enough, where I'm at, because we > have intercept in every corner of every table, and the time limit is a > more common problem than what to do when you're ousted early. Exactly so. > > > > I suppose that's our primary difference, here. I _do_ think LSJ should > > > make cards which discourage non-interactive decks. "Creative" is a > > > trait which operates independently of "interactive", and which should > > > be encouraged. > > > > Alright, we agree that creativity is good. And "Large deck Universe" is > > likely to contain more potentially-creative decks than "Small Deck > > universe", don't you think? > > Yes. However, "Large Deck Universe" is helped along by making some > decks unviable. There exist some decks which, through their success, > make frequent appearance, and given their frequent appearance, prevent > the success (and therefore appearance) of a larger number of other, > competing decks. Indeed, and this is where the rules team should so some judicious pruning. But judicious pruning is not the same as dropping a neutron bomb on part of the garden. > > That's just one of the reasons that discouraging a deck actually leads > to "Large Deck Universe". > > Another argument is how that deck's prevalence affects your player > base, but I don't think either one of us have the data necessary to > support our positions in a discussion about whether Freak Drive-based > decks are more of a draw or a repellant for newer players. All I have > is, so far, a few players saying, "That's dumb, I hate that deck" and > noone saying, "Man, that was so cool, I can't wait to see that next > game." ;-) i was that player. Gangrel loop. Sigh. > > > > > At their best, such decks are > > > > works of art. Gehenna events and Meddling of Semsith deliberately throw > > > > sand into the works of beautiful pieces of machinery, and discourage > > > > the creation of more such. That's not game design, that's vandalism. > > > > > > You do have a lovely way of putting things, but I still think that no > > > matter what someone creates, no matter what goes into it, it shouldn't > > > be allowed to take precedence over the basic principles which make > > > V:TES work. One of those principles is interaction. > > > > Sure, between predator and prey, and by extension temporary alliances > > and enmities form and break between the other players as the game > > proceeds. "Interaction" is not however the same as > > "table-talk/manipulation", and the latter, though allowed by the game > > rules, is not a basic principle any more than your deck having to > > contain combat cards is. > > Agreed, table talk isn't the same as interaction. It is one kind > though, a subset of interaction. Why did you bring up table talk? Because your arguments reminded me of someone else. [ quoted text not captured ] i think both are good, but am intrigued by the concept of soft combo, and prepared to allow that it might be better. [ quoted text not captured ] See how emollient we can both be when we try? i do understand your position a lot better now, thanks. i still think you are a little bit illiberal about what are and aren't desirable deck types to have, but then so am i cos i hate gehenna and meddling. i worry too about interactive as a desirable trait for decks, because i do not think it is definable. But that had better be a different argument.

<legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote > > Another card that isn't seen much, or at all really, since i just > invented it, is "Crap on the Opposition". Master, cost 1 pool. Drop > your trousers/pants and do a great big smelly poo all over someone > else's library. The owner of the poo-ed-upon library may shuffle it, > but only if they lick the cards clean first. i feel about Meddling's > impact on the game, commonly or rarely played, much as i would view > crap on the opposition's. I knew there was a reason I stopped playtesting new cards. Cheers, WES

<snip> Whoops, got tangled up in my own verbiage here: > > > > As for whether or not Meddling is actually effective at shutting down > > or slowing down its target to a signficant degree, in my opinion the > > answer is typically "no". It's effective against the decks you > > described, > > and against other high-cycle decks like weenie potence, but at that > > point you're looking at a very high opportunity cost card. > > All i can say is that i think it is VERY effective at slowing down fast > decks, but to play it requires that you yourself play a degenerate > deck. i do not think we should be encouraging degenerate decks and i do > not think we should be DIScouraging fast decks. > > <more snip>

[ quoted text not captured ] Hey! I thought we were BFF, Dave! I feel so betrayed! Peteo

Howdy, Permuting the discussion even farther off its original topic... > > > and will begin to see that getting soundly beaten in > > > three turns is an essential first step to moving your game up a gear. > > > > I agree with that. My first "breakthrough" was including wakes. :) > > ;-) a major design flaw, wake. Shoulda been thaumaturgy card as in the > RPG. Given that we just recently got Concealed Weapon 'fixed' to (IMO) great effect, I wonder if now wouldn't be an OK time to 'fix' Wake too? Current card: Wake with Evening's Freshness Reaction Do not replace until your next untap phase. Only usable by a tapped vampire. This reacting vampire can use reaction cards and attempt to block as though untapped until the current action is concluded. 'Fixed' card: Wake with Evening's Freshness Reaction Thaumaturgy tha: Only usable by a tapped vampire. This reacting vampire can use reaction cards and attempt to block as though untapped until the current action is concluded. Do not replace this card until your next untap phase. THA: As above, but this card is replaced immediately. Yes, this would cause a major paradigm shift, but I suspect it might be in a good direction. What do people use Wakes for? Blocking or bouncing, pretty much. A currently existing deck that uses Wakes for blocking could swap into Forced Awakenings without a huge impact. You would probably want to be a little more serious about blocking - to avoid the blood loss - but that's about it. A currently existing deck that uses Wakes for bouncing, OTOH, is going to pay a big penalty at this point. And which decks bounce? That's right, decks with Dominate and/or superior Auspex. Auspex decks will suffer less - their bounce cards help them block as well - but now they're going to be paying more to bounce. Dominate decks have a hard choice: Forced Awakening means paying another blood to bounce; no Forced Awakening means leaving minions untapped, which means either less bleeding, or more blood lost to Freak Drive. And to me, weakening Dominate is a big plus. Additional plus: offense become stronger relative to defense = shorter games. Sure, it's also a gift to the Tremere, which they don't really need. But I don't see it making them, like, way overpowered or anything. They, of the Dominate using clans (Malks, Ventrue, Giovanni, Lasombra), are the ones who, IMO, are least able to abuse Dominate anyway (no stealth, not much multi-act), and increasing their intercept abilities relative to other clans (by lowering other clans') might give them an interesting new focus. Anyway, begin discussion of how this suggestion is both 'broken' and 'wallpaper' now... Alex

> they're going to be paying more to bounce. Dominate decks have a hard > choice: Forced Awakening means paying another blood to bounce; no > Forced Awakening means leaving minions untapped, which means either less > bleeding, or more blood lost to Freak Drive. And to me, weakening > Dominate is a big plus. I am not commenting on whether your proposed change is a good idea. However, most dominate decks are far better off using redirection than deflection *anyway*. (I have no idea why redirection isn't more ubiquitous.) Your proposed change would only get people to make that change sooner. Ankur

"Ankur Gupta" wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Before NoR I would have agreed with you. But because Redirection can not be used on the bleeds of allies, I'm sticking with Deflection. Jay

>> I am not commenting on whether your proposed change is a good idea. >> However, most dominate decks are far better off using redirection than >> deflection *anyway*. (I have no idea why redirection isn't more >> ubiquitous.) Your proposed change would only get people to make that >> change sooner. > > Before NoR I would have agreed with you. But because Redirection can > not be used on the bleeds of allies, I'm sticking with Deflection. Huh. I never noticed that before. Guess I'm going to deflect too then. Ankur

> > I can ask it another way, if it helps: Does Meddling ruin some > > creative decktype besides a freakdrive-based (or otherwise > > multiaction-based) deck? I ask because so far the only examples > > provided are multiaction decks. > > It slows all fast decks, and therefore all games in which fast decks > appear. How fast? Reasonably fast, where the table has at least 5 or 6 turns to develop its defenses before being creamed? Or unreasonably fast, where once a single action is taken successfully, one player's entire game has unfolded? > It forces the perpetrator to adopt a strategy which can be > carried out with a reduced hand size. Such a strategy is typically if > not in fact absolutely always based on a degenerate library and weenie > crypt. That's the main difference in our experience. My Baali, Huitzilopochtli, Daughters of Cacophony, Followers of Set, Gangrel, Werewolves, Gargoyles, Gargoyle Anarchs, Ishtarri, Panders, Tremere, old Tremere, and Ventrue would have little difficulty playing against a Meddling. My Nagaraja would have some difficulty lunging, against a Meddling. My Akunanse, Blood Brothers, and !Tremere would probably have some difficulty, but it would not be a death sentence by any means. My Gwendolyn deck (in the process of building) and my Tariq deck (disassembled) would have some serious difficulty playing around it, but they're both freak drive cheese so I have it coming :) (Note also that Gwendolyn's votes and Tariq's special allow diablerie, so Gehenna events wouldn't affect me as much as other players.) > i do not think we should be slowing the game, discouraging fast > decks or encouraging degenerate/weenie decks. THAT is what i meant by > the non-creative garbage-encouraging shit comment. I think that there's a level of "fast" which we should be discouraging, and a level of "fast" which isn't actually problematic. The difference between the two is, "Would a prey who isn't specially concerned with defeating this deck stand a chance against this level of fast?". If I feel like my predator caught me with my pants down, or I needed more wakes, or I just wasn't fast enough, etc., then I don't have a problem with their speed. If, on the other hand, I am ousted before I have taken an action, or they have taken more actions than all of the other players combined have so far all game, but they did it with one minion in one turn, then I'd say that's too fast. > Somewhere you or Ben made the distinction between decks which require > thought during the design/build step whilst being automatic or near > enough to play, and decks which require thought during play. While we > might argue about the specifics of that i do accept that it's a useful > dichotomy. Maybe we should have a term for the first, eg machine deck, > and a different term for the second. It seems to me you don't approve > of machine decks. i however largely do, and think they are the > criterion against which all other decks should be measured. Where we > can agree, i think, is in our personal preference for which kind of > deck we like to play [the non-machine sort, whatever we're actually > going to end up calling it]. First, I have to respond to the content: I dislike machine decks which play their entire game on a single turn (for interactivity reasons). I also dislike machine decks which are so rigid as to completely fold when either their cards don't come up properly, stalling them indefinitely, or when a single card shuts them off screws them up so they are a free VP for someone. And I don't mean like Meddling, I mean for example if there was a deck which was designed to bring 20 vampires into play from its crypt at once, and someone called Masquerade Endangerment just before they did it...that's an example of that one card that just happened to end their game. Although not a good or a very reasonable one. Second, though, I applaud the introduction in this thread of the intuitive terms "soft combo" and "machine deck". They are both useful ideas -- let's hear it for us! > > I prefer having lots of options in your hand, most of which can lead > > into any of the others fairly well. Combos meaning "longer strings of > > cards" become possible, but combos meaning "strings of cards defined > > during deck construction" aren't necessary and, while they may be > > creative in design, lead to less creativity during play. That latter > > type of combo is the one I think of when I think "combo deck", not the > > first one. > > Well, so do i. But i don't wish to exclude the option of fast machine > decks from the game. Neither do I, provided they are still interacting with the other players (not in the who-do-we-gang-up-on way, I mean through alternating card play) and that they do not simply fold when one of the cards that just happens to kill them comes up. I had a deck called "Going the Distance" once, before NRA was enforced by our playgroup, which had 2 Lazverinus, 1 Arika, 1 Stanislava, and 8 fortitude weenies. The plan was repeated dominate bleeds with Freak Drive and Force of Will, with weenies to rescue and Golconda to reset, and 40 Indomitability. People who blocked weren't only torpored, they also helped cycle my hand to more bleed cards! So my combat would then be "machine deck combat" in this case, but I think it was OK cause I still had to respond to what they did in combat, and it gave me options, and allowed them to respond to what I did. Compare, say, pre-errata Thoughts Betrayed combat, or Alpha Glint-based strategies. You can't normally interact with that, only "experience" it. > i USED to enjoy the game as it stood. Now i'm not so sure. And you think that restricting the use of Meddling, Slow Withering, Blood Weakens, etc. would make the game enjoyable again? Do these actually get played against you with regularity? > > > and will begin to see that getting soundly beaten in > > > three turns is an essential first step to moving your game up a gear. > > > > I agree with that. My first "breakthrough" was including wakes. :) > > ;-) a major design flaw, wake. Shoulda been thaumaturgy card as in the > RPG. I agree, I always thought it should have been limited, especially because Rat's Warning was often underpowered in comparison. But, there are other ways to take an action and still block, like Freak Drive or Forced Awakening. I think it's too late to really do anything. > > > When that happens you will have a LOT more fun, and i do hope that the > > > Rules Team will not unnecessarily delay this transition for you by > > > continuing to slow up and complicate the game. > > > > I always thought the continuing slowing-up was their way of making > > intercept and combat viable (or more viable) options in V:TES, and > > simultaneously moving us all _away_ from the 3rd turn ousts. > > > > And I think the game has slowed up enough, where I'm at, because we > > have intercept in every corner of every table, and the time limit is a > > more common problem than what to do when you're ousted early. > > Exactly so. If THIS is something you meant when you expressed dissatisfaction with the direction of the game, then I fully agree. The tools exist to slow down the game at least enough, and possibly too much. People may not always use them, but they exist. No new tools need to be made, unless they aren't readily usable with the current tools. For example, if there were a reaction for vampires which fails an action and forces combat (like Champion power from NoR), I would be in favor should it require, say, cel+obf, but not if it should require AUS or ANI. Still, I've been upset about Bowl of Convergence, the advent of AUS weenie decks as a tournament force, the ubiquity of intercept at every table under almost every player's control, etc. I believe these things are responsible for slowing or stopping the game far more than Meddling of Semsith or most of the Gehenna events are. Maybe your experience differs. -- Brian

Howdy Ankur, > > they're going to be paying more to bounce. Dominate decks have a hard > > choice: Forced Awakening means paying another blood to bounce; no > > Forced Awakening means leaving minions untapped, which means either less > > bleeding, or more blood lost to Freak Drive. And to me, weakening > > Dominate is a big plus. > > I am not commenting on whether your proposed change is a good idea. Why not? You know you want to... It'll make you feel good. First opinion's free! > However, most dominate decks are far better off using redirection than > deflection *anyway*. (I have no idea why redirection isn't more > ubiquitous.) Agreed. If you are Waking to bounce, you might as well save the blood, especially if you have DOM. (Though I hadn't noticed the ally hole in Deflection either... But I'm mostly a Telepathic Misdirection fan anyway.) > Your proposed change would only get people to make that > change sooner. Actually, I would assume that making Waking harder would encourage Dominate users to play Deflection and leave a minion with DOM untapped each turn. (And thus to shy away from Redirection.) That way they don't need Wakes to bounce multiple times. Why would you think the opposite would happen? Alex

> Actually, I would assume that making Waking harder would encourage > Dominate users to play Deflection and leave a minion with DOM untapped > each turn. (And thus to shy away from Redirection.) That way they > don't need Wakes to bounce multiple times. Why would you think the > opposite would happen? Well, assuming that ally hole wasn't there, I'd figure they'd switch to redirection because having an untapped DOM guy is like saying "I didn't want to bleed for 6 last turn. Didn't seem to have any real purpose." :) Ankur

pete...@gmail.com wrote: > Hey! I thought we were BFF, Dave! I feel so betrayed! I am so teh busted. Damn small-town-like, incestuous little internet communities...... P.S. shoot me an email or something and remind me when you might be coming down. I forgetted.

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > > > I can ask it another way, if it helps: Does Meddling ruin some > > > creative decktype besides a freakdrive-based (or otherwise > > > multiaction-based) deck? I ask because so far the only examples > > > provided are multiaction decks. > > > > It slows all fast decks, and therefore all games in which fast decks > > appear. > > How fast? Reasonably fast, where the table has at least 5 or 6 turns > to develop its defenses before being creamed? Or unreasonably fast, > where once a single action is taken successfully, one player's entire > game has unfolded? ;-) sorry, i'm not going to answer that, because it would all degenerate into a quarrel about what is "reasonable". > > > It forces the perpetrator to adopt a strategy which can be > > carried out with a reduced hand size. Such a strategy is typically if > > not in fact absolutely always based on a degenerate library and weenie > > crypt. > > That's the main difference in our experience. My Baali, > Huitzilopochtli, Daughters of Cacophony, Followers of Set, Gangrel, > Werewolves, Gargoyles, Gargoyle Anarchs, Ishtarri, Panders, Tremere, > old Tremere, and Ventrue would have little difficulty playing against a > Meddling. > > My Nagaraja would have some difficulty lunging, against a Meddling. > > My Akunanse, Blood Brothers, and !Tremere would probably have some > difficulty, but it would not be a death sentence by any means. > > My Gwendolyn deck (in the process of building) and my Tariq deck > (disassembled) would have some serious difficulty playing around it, > but they're both freak drive cheese so I have it coming :) > > (Note also that Gwendolyn's votes and Tariq's special allow diablerie, > so Gehenna events wouldn't affect me as much as other players.) OK, but by "perpetrator" i mean "person who played the Meddling card", so i'm having difficulty seeing how the above, very interesting, list of decks follows on from the paragraph you've appended it to. > <snip some stuff which threatens to require me to engage with the question of how fast is too fast> <snip stuff about machine decks and soft combos where we pretty much [a] agree now, and [b] rock as concept-definers> > > i USED to enjoy the game as it stood. Now i'm not so sure. > > And you think that restricting the use of Meddling, Slow Withering, > Blood Weakens, etc. would make the game enjoyable again? Do these > actually get played against you with regularity? They do get played against me fairly regularly and banning them might make the game more enjoyable for me again. However, what is good for me is not the point here, i think. i actually do believe that there is a problem with people leaving the game and not enough new people coming into it. i could be wrong about that, and suspect that only White Wolf knows the truth of the matter. But if i AM right then i will bet MONEY that removing some of the blocks to the smooth functioning of the game, including Meddling and some Gehenna events, will bring some old players back in. Enough to make a difference? i don't know. > > > > > and will begin to see that getting soundly beaten in > > > > three turns is an essential first step to moving your game up a gear. > > > > > > I agree with that. My first "breakthrough" was including wakes. :) > > > > ;-) a major design flaw, wake. Shoulda been thaumaturgy card as in the > > RPG. > > I agree, I always thought it should have been limited, especially > because Rat's Warning was often underpowered in comparison. But, there > are other ways to take an action and still block, like Freak Drive or > Forced Awakening. I think it's too late to really do anything. i agree completely, but will just add that a LOT of the history of Jyhad has been increasingly-desperate attemtps to make the Tremere competitive. This has lead to some real stinkers, like original Thoughts Betrayed. None of that would have been necessary if Wake had been a thaumaturgy card, but to repeat your point, it's too late now. [ quoted text not captured ] No, it is exactly the same. If you look back at my original reply to Wes's post about reasons for quitting the game you will see Improved Intercept right there in the list. In the same spirit as the earlier comment about wake, i think the rot set in with the introduction of the Tzimisce, because they had TWO intercept disciplines. It seems to me as i think i said in that post [if not, it was a comment i made to Hugh at the Bath tournament] that the trouble with the game now is that there are too many ways to stop people doing things. Odd that we turn out to agree completely, after all that! Power of debate sorta thing, i feel. > > -- Brian