Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt wrote:
> I tried to compile the issues people currently have with two player
> format and order them a bit. They are listed below each with A, B, C
> etc.
How about this. To most replicate the endgame, which is what a 2-player
game is:
Meths get to pick up to 5 (or more or less?) permanents out of their
deck. They put those aside. Then shuffle library. At this time, any
cards inappropriate for this format are removed from game (deflection
etc). Library must still be legal.
They draw 4 crypt cards as normal. They can put up to 25 points of
crypt cards in play immediately, and simultaneously. Each of those
crypt cards starts with half their blood, rounded down.
Then they put the 5 permanents in play.
Any contested cards start the game contested.
Each meth starts with 10 pool + (20-capacity of their in play vamps,
including contested ones).
Game begins with 4 transfers per Meth.
Should make game fast. Shouldn't have to make a special deck. Mostly
it's more like a playtest of endgame, but still is VTES.
Comments?
best -
chris
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:51:21 -0700, librarian wrote:
>How about this. To most replicate the endgame, which is what a 2-player
>game is:>Should make game fast. Shouldn't have to make a special deck. Mostly>it's more like a playtest of endgame, but still is VTES.>Comments?
Sounds very similar to Legbiter's End-Game 2/3 player variant.
http://legbiter.tripod.com/endgame.txt
[ quoted text not captured ]
Maybe that's where my idea came from.
I just am not seeing why everyone is up for re-inventing the wheel with
a new 2-player format.
best -
chris
[ quoted text not captured ]
I cant speak for what others are thinking, but for me its this:
- I want new players to be attracted to the game.
- I know from experience that many people buy a starter deck or two
and their first game experience is with one other player.
- Everybody (that I have spoken to at least) agrees that playing a two
player game with the standard rules is quite boring and doesnt give a
good representation of what the game can offer.
- The official rules in the starter decks currently dont list any
optional 2 player variants.
- New players get turned off by what seems to be an uncool game if
they only try the 2 player variant.
- We end up with no new players joining the community, and the game
slowly sells less and less. I am not basing this on actual sales
numbers of VTES, as I do not have those, but that seems to be the
logic progression.
- I dont want VTES to stop being produced and sold.
Are there any of these points that you dont agree with?
If the solution you proposed above would be fine with everyone, then
that is great. The important step for me, is to try and get this into
the media that new players see. The rulebook.
We cant count on new players to go to various websites to figure out
how to get a good 2 player game rules set.
librarian wrote:
> Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt wrote:
> > I tried to compile the issues people currently have with two player
> > format and order them a bit. They are listed below each with A, B, C
> > etc.
>
> How about this. To most replicate the endgame, which is what a 2-player
> game is:
>
> Meths get to pick up to 5 (or more or less?) permanents out of their
> deck.
If the desire is to help players get permanents in play earlier and
more quickly, then a more natural way to achieve this is to reduce the
size of the deck: say, to 40-60 cards, just as the current rulebook
says.
If you want to reduce a larger deck on the fly, then just cut the deck
in half, choose one as your deck, look quickly through the pile to be
removed, and pick up to 10 cards to shuffle into your deck.
> They put those aside. Then shuffle library. At this time, any
> cards inappropriate for this format are removed from game (deflection
> etc). Library must still be legal.
>
> They draw 4 crypt cards as normal. They can put up to 25 points of
> crypt cards in play immediately, and simultaneously.
If the desire is to help players evenly and fairly get minions into
play more quickly (and perhaps to disadvantage swarm strategies), then
a more natural solution would be to give more transfers. For
instance, first player gets 3 [or 4] on his first turn, both get 6 [or
8] thereafter. Weenie swarm decks, which in multiplayer often succeed
in downing their first prey, will quickly hit a wall when their
uncontrolled region runs out. Meanwhile, his opponent manages to
build up a defense more quickly.
Nikolaj Lord of the Betrayers Wendt wrote:
> I cant speak for what others are thinking, but for me its this:
> - I want new players to be attracted to the game.
> - I know from experience that many people buy a starter deck or two
> and their first game experience is with one other player.
> - Everybody (that I have spoken to at least) agrees that playing a two
> player game with the standard rules is quite boring and doesnt give a
> good representation of what the game can offer.
> - The official rules in the starter decks currently dont list any
> optional 2 player variants.
> - New players get turned off by what seems to be an uncool game if
> they only try the 2 player variant.
> - We end up with no new players joining the community, and the game
> slowly sells less and less. I am not basing this on actual sales
> numbers of VTES, as I do not have those, but that seems to be the
> logic progression.
> - I dont want VTES to stop being produced and sold.
>
> Are there any of these points that you dont agree with?
>
> If the solution you proposed above would be fine with everyone, then
> that is great. The important step for me, is to try and get this into
> the media that new players see. The rulebook.
A word of caution here. The rulebook has already become too long and
too complex as it is. The design team should think twice before
further complicating things by throwing in extra rules for 2-player
variants.
No game can be all things to all people. V:tES may not be as
successful as some of us would like, but it has still been a
reasonably successful game. Its claim to fame is that it is the best
MULTIPLAYER ccg out there.
Maybe it would be a good idea to design and playtest "starter decks"
with one eye on the goal of making sure that are reasonably fun to
play one-on-one. But if I were to suggest that the upcoming batch of
starters should not contain "Deflection", I think there would be howls
of protest.
John Whelan wrote:
> librarian wrote:>> Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt wrote:
>> > I tried to compile the issues people currently have with two player
>> > format and order them a bit. They are listed below each with A, B, C
>> > etc.
>>
>> How about this. To most replicate the endgame, which is what a 2-player
>> game is:
>>
>> Meths get to pick up to 5 (or more or less?) permanents out of their
>> deck.>
> If the desire is to help players get permanents in play earlier and
> more quickly, then a more natural way to achieve this is to reduce the
> size of the deck: say, to 40-60 cards, just as the current rulebook
> says.
>
I'm not sure how this gets permanents into play *at the start* of the
2-player game that is trying to replicate the end-game of a multi-player
game.
> If you want to reduce a larger deck on the fly, then just cut the deck
> in half, choose one as your deck, look quickly through the pile to be
> removed, and pick up to 10 cards to shuffle into your deck.
>
I like this as an add - it represents the endgame pretty well. Maybe
even divide your deck in half. Pick out up to 5 permanents and put them
in play, the rest then comprises your ash heap.
>> They put those aside. Then shuffle library. At this time, any
>> cards inappropriate for this format are removed from game (deflection
>> etc). Library must still be legal.
>>
>> They draw 4 crypt cards as normal. They can put up to 25 points of
>> crypt cards in play immediately, and simultaneously.>
> If the desire is to help players evenly and fairly get minions into
> play more quickly
This is not the desire. The desire of my proposed 2-player rules is to
replicate the endgame of a multi-player game. This will very likely
disadvantage swarm strategies. Open to suggestions.
best -
chris
librarian wrote:
> John Whelan wrote:>> If you want to reduce a larger deck on the fly, then just cut the deck
>> in half, choose one as your deck, look quickly through the pile to be
>> removed, and pick up to 10 cards to shuffle into your deck.>
>
> I like this as an add - it represents the endgame pretty well. Maybe
> even divide your deck in half. Pick out up to 5 permanents and put them
> in play, the rest then comprises your ash heap.> The desire of my proposed 2-player rules is to> replicate the endgame of a multi-player game. This will very likely
> disadvantage swarm strategies. Open to suggestions.
I like that idea.
Influence:
Draw five crypt cards. Put any of them you choose into your ready region, one at
a time in the order you choose (pay cost as normal, and burn 1 extra pool for
each infernal minion). (Alternating between players.)
Permanents:
Cut the library in half and choose one half (unseen) for your library. The other
half is the extras. Draw through your extras, one card at a time (alternating
between players), optionally putting any permanents you find in play as you find
them (requirements and cost apply as normal). You are limited to 4 master
permanents, 4 events, 2 minion-card permanents per minion, and 2 untap-card
permanents (convictions) per minion.
Damage:
Shuffle the remaining extras. Draw five cards from it and show them. X is the
total cost (blood and pool and life, but not conviction) of these cards. Any
cost of X is treated as 1. Remove a total of 20-X blood, life, and/or conviction
from among your ready minions.
Put your extras (including those five cards just drawn) into your ash heap.
Bleed:
First player burns 2 pool. Second may tap X of xer minions and then burn 3-X pool.
Go:
Begin play.
To those who wonder why reinvent?
As to myself, I would rather play 4/5 players, but that isn't always
an option, and too often when growing a group, you get the dreaded 6/7
night and then after awhile you get the fracking 11, so it is nice to
have tools to keep everyone bleeding.
librarian wrote:
> > If the desire is to help players evenly and fairly get minions into
> > play more quickly
>
> This is not the desire. The desire of my proposed 2-player rules is to
> replicate the endgame of a multi-player game. This will very likely
> disadvantage swarm strategies.
Well, I understand the "discourage swarm stratetegies" part. Swarm
strategies usually oust their first prey, then crash and burn on the
rocks of the endgame. So, in a 2-player, I can see the need to
balance things by making the game as a whole a bit more like the
endgame, so that swarm strategies don't automatically win.
But I do not see much INHERENT value in having a 2-player game
replicate the endgame, as opposed to permitting it to play out as a
game in its own right.
Every game of V:tES that I play does not have to be tournament
practice. That tends to put the cart before the horse.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I like this. This is probably the best way if you want two player
games to reflect the end-game. Some might not want that, but this is a
good way in my opinion.
It seems - in spite of the amount of text - like a relative simple way
to set it up, even for people who are not too familiar with the game
rules (terms like 'permanents' probably need to be explained though
unless it already is in the rulebook?)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Right. However, in this way, people do not have to have specific decks
designed for a 2-player game. There are many many many many other games
out there to entertain 2 people who want to play a game. I was thinking
that the reason to have rules *specifically* for 2-player VTES was in
the event there weren't 3 (rapid though) or 4-5 players around to play
regular VTES. So these guys are hanging around with their regular decks
- hey, we can do these modifications (perhaps as LSJ suggests), and play
a quick game with the decks we already have. But it will be different
than a normal game of VTES, but not too different.
It's not necessarily tournament practice, but it is practice.
Otherwise, why not just play some other game? Might I suggest Lost Cities?
best -
chris