Fixed (was Tournament Rules(was NRA (was Re: Experience)))

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:FG7v7.8916$Gd6.1...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net... > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:_N1v7.1834$2p1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > "Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message [clip] > > > Well, reading this got me thinkging..(way to go Fred) > > > > > > Anyway, why does rule 6.2 exist? > > > > > > 6.2. Constructed Deck Size Limits > > > > > > Standard Constructed decks must contain a minimum of sixty cards and a > > > maximum of ninety cards. The crypt must contain a minimum of twelve > > > cards. > > > > > > Why do tournaments require you to play with 60-90 card decks? When > > > the regular rules are 40+10/per player. Seems a little unnecessary > > > also. > > > > Since you can shift between 4 and 5 player tables, if you used the > rulebook's > > rules you'd be able to create a deck that is legal in one round (90 cards > in a > > five player game) and then illegal in the next round (90 cards in a > 5-player > > table). So, I can see that it makes sense to have a fixed number. Now > why that > > fixed number is 60-90 cards instead of 40-90, I don't know. > > That makes sense, if you played a 4 player you'd get 40-80 cards, then 5 > player would be 40-90. > But why not standardize this? This seems like an unnecessary conflict > between the VEKN tournament rules and the regular VTES rules. There would > be multiple ways to do this, and really it doesn't matter to me which way. > Just as long as it was standard? Would 40 card ultra thin decks be too > strong for predicitability? You'd trade knowing what you would draw for... > 1st you could only play 8 masters, let you totally jam to oblivian. > 2nd Figuring that you will draw 18% of your deck on turn 1, would you really > want to go that small? Figure you play 1 master a turn, 2 actions+1 > modifier(combat or reaction), you can only sustain that for 8 turns. > > If you came to a tournament, playing via VTES rules and only had a 50 card > deck, you cannot play....if you didn't know the errata for fame someone > would just point that out to you and you'd put it on the correct vampire. > > Hmm..possible fix? > VTES RULEBOOK: > 1.2.1.....Each player must have at least 12 cards in her crypt and at least > ** 50** cards in her library. Each player may add up to 10 additional cards > to her library per **OTHER** player in the game. Thus, in a six-player game, > each player may have a minimum of **50** and a maximum of 100 cards in her > library. > > VEKN TOURNAMENT RULES: > 6.2 Standard Constructed decks must contain a minimum of **FIFTY** cards > and a maximum of ninety cards. The crypt must contain a minimum of twelve > cards > > Tiny adjustment, to make them the same? Maybe 50 card decks would be only > slightly more predictiable then 60, but not as bad as 40?? > -- > Aaron > The Nosferatu Stuff Robert? Scott? Anybody? (afraid this might have gotten lost in the 'experience' thread?) Aaron

The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > > Hmm..possible fix? > > VTES RULEBOOK: > > 1.2.1.....Each player must have at least 12 cards in her crypt and at > least > > ** 50** cards in her library. Each player may add up to 10 additional > cards > > to her library per **OTHER** player in the game. Thus, in a six-player > game, > > each player may have a minimum of **50** and a maximum of 100 cards in her > > library. > > > > VEKN TOURNAMENT RULES: > > 6.2 Standard Constructed decks must contain a minimum of **FIFTY** cards > > and a maximum of ninety cards. The crypt must contain a minimum of twelve > > cards > > > > Tiny adjustment, to make them the same? Maybe 50 card decks would be only > > slightly more predictiable then 60, but not as bad as 40?? > > -- > > Aaron > > The Nosferatu Stuff > > Robert? Scott? Anybody? (afraid this might have gotten lost in the > 'experience' thread?) I don't see where it would make much difference. Besides, players apparently have a hard time just trimming down to 60 cards for a tournament (per recent thread). Why would we need to lower the minimum that no one seems to notice anyhow? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 07:15:14 -0400, LSJ wrote: >I don't see where it would make much difference. That's a good reason to get rid of the deck minimum - why retain a rule that is unecessary and unimportant? And the variable maximum should be scrapped too. Is there anyone in the world that plays with this rule? >Besides, players apparently have a hard time just trimming down to 60 cards >for a tournament (per recent thread). Why would we need to lower the minimum >that no one seems to notice anyhow? I played in a draft event at Origins and built a Malkavian antitribu deck with 40 something cards in its library. This seemed ok to me. If I had then wanted to enter a constructed event using the same deck, I wouldn't have been able to scale it up it because those were all the cards I had. Andrew

>>I don't see where it would make much difference. > >That's a good reason to get rid of the deck minimum - why retain a >rule that is unecessary and unimportant? And the variable maximum >should be scrapped too. Is there anyone in the world that plays with >this rule? (Although this point becomes moot in January when the table wins concept comes into play...) If there is no deck minimum, then what's to prevent one from playing with a deck with 0 library cards? First turn I announce a withdrawal and there's a decent chance I end up with 1 VP. Perhaps not the best situation but it's hypothethically possible for that 1 VP to win the table (if everyone else times out with 0.5 VP). Of course if your predator manages to bring out a one or two cap you're screwed but sort of amusing anyway, eh? Halcyan 2

> If there is no deck minimum, then what's to prevent one from playing with a > deck with 0 library cards? First turn I announce a withdrawal and there's a > decent chance I end up with 1 VP. Perhaps not the best situation but it's > hypothethically possible for that 1 VP to win the table (if everyone else > times out with 0.5 VP). Of course if your predator manages to bring out a one > or two cap you're screwed but sort of amusing anyway, eh? Well, I may have misread, but I thought you needed at least 2 VPs on a table to qualify for a table win. So we don't have to worry about some shmoe (probably me) getting into the finals without actually building a library. Fanboy

[ quoted text not captured ] The new tourney rules do not go into effect until January 1, 2002 (hence the disclaimer about it being moot once that happens). *Until* January 1, tournaments go along as normal (so there is no such thing as "table wins" and only VP's count toward the final). Hence one can "win" by having no library and having the only full VP at the table... Halcyan 2

On 07 Oct 2001 19:32:43 GMT, Halcyan 2 wrote: >*Until* January 1, tournaments go along as normal (so there is no such thing as >"table wins" and only VP's count toward the final). Hence one can "win" by >having no library and having the only full VP at the table... Suppose you manage to score a VP in each round. Suppose this qualifies you for the final in a small event. What then? You aren't going to win the final are you? And, as I understand it, there are many decks which can equally reliably score a VP before running out of steam. Andrew

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BBEE7C2...@white-wolf.com>... > ...players apparently have a hard time just trimming down to 60 cards > for a tournament (per recent thread). Why would we need to lower the minimum > that no one seems to notice anyhow? It would benefit decks designed to play with an empty library and use Potchtli/Summon Soul/Sargon Fragment/Waste Management to always draw the cards they want.

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<B9F1A20C7286D8E3.5DEE82E3...@lp.airnews.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Umm... It does make the card recycling vampires and cards far to powerful. Want to know exactly what your hand will be? play 7 cards and Carlotta, etc. That example is oversimplified, but lowering your deck far enough allows you to use things like reinforcements and Giovanni tricks to an unforseen level. I frankly think that would be unbalancing toward those cards. Cameron

[ quoted text not captured ] i beleive that the origional message mentioned it might not be a problem after jan 2002. however, if i was to build such a lack of deck, i'd make it just, say, 3 ascendances and 3 sudden reversals, just in case. salem.

In message <Pine.SOL.3.90.1011009164201.5747A-100000@bohm>, ....salem christ.... <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> writes >however, if i was to build such a lack of deck, i'd make it just, say, 3 >ascendances and 3 sudden reversals, just in case. Ascendances don't help. "The withdrawal fails if you lose a single pool or blood, even if you gain enough to make up for the loss. " [9.2] -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F 'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6 So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BBEE7C2...@white-wolf.com>... I don't see where it would make much difference. Besides, players apparently have a hard time just trimming down to 60 cards for a tournament (per recent thread). Why would we need to lower the minimum that no one seems to notice anyhow? For consistancy sake? So the tournament rules will match the "fun game" rules. Like how much difference would it make if you didn't make some of the slight clarifications you have done for tons of cards? Besides, I noticed. Thats not a good reason not to fix something. It seems like 60 is just as random a number as 50. But I would be interested in what could possibly come from using a 50 card library. Esp. if library destruction could become a possibility. Or if ash heap recycling comes as a more viable stragety.(ie waste managment etc) Aaron

On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, James Coupe wrote: > In message <Pine.SOL.3.90.1011009164201.5747A-100000@bohm>, ....salem > christ.... <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> writes > >however, if i was to build such a lack of deck, i'd make it just, say, 3 > >ascendances and 3 sudden reversals, just in case. > > Ascendances don't help. > > "The withdrawal fails if you lose a single pool or blood, even if you > gain enough to make up for the loss. " [9.2] the ascendances were for if the withdraw failed, and you were hoping you could hang on for the time limit (which, when you're not spending any pool, can sometimes be possible....) salem.

"....salem christ...." <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.3.90.1011010135815.9088A-100000@bohm>... > > the ascendances were for if the withdraw failed, and you were hoping you > could hang on for the time limit (which, when you're not spending any > pool, can sometimes be possible....) > I'd like to see the deck that couldn't bleed out a prey that just rolled over and died, even with your 3 pool from Ascendance. If you're going to go that way, play with 3 Secret Hordes, and spend like 8 pool on each. If I were doing it, I'd play with 2 Sudden Reversal, 2 Obedience, and 2 Telepathic Counter, with a crypt full of Aleph. If your predator doesn't bring out a vampire, you withdraw. If he does, then you bring out Aleph and try to withdraw next turn. Just hope that he doesn't get out a 4 cap, or use Zillah's Valley, ToRIII, or Info Highway first turn.

ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Chris Berger) wrote in message news:<5287ede4.01101...@posting.google.com>... > > If I were doing it, I'd play with 2 Sudden Reversal, 2 Obedience, and > 2 Telepathic Counter, with a crypt full of Aleph. If your predator > doesn't bring out a vampire, you withdraw. If he does, then you bring > out Aleph and try to withdraw next turn. Just hope that he doesn't > get out a 4 cap, or use Zillah's Valley, ToRIII, or Info Highway first > turn. > Just a clarification on the choice of Aleph... 1st position is an automatic vp, so we ignore it. Aleph will effectively protect you against any rush or non-stealthed action in 4th position, or against stealth bleeds of up to 2 bleed in 4th or 5th position. He will also protect against a rush or bruise/bleed (for more than 2 bleed) predator about 50% of the time in 5th position. There are, unfortunately no 3 caps with dom/aus. Otherwise I might seriously consider one. Using Isabella de Leon will effectively protect you against bleeds of up to 2 bleed in 3rd, 4th, or 5th position. She will not protect against any rush or against any bleed for more than 2. Using Brooke (or any 3 cap with dom) will protect you against any non-stealth action in 3nd position. She will also protect against rush or non-stealthed actions about 40% of the time in 4th position, and about 20% of the time in 5th position. Using Franciscus, or a 2 cap with aus, will protect you against bleeds for 1 in 2nd through 5th position. He will not protect against rush or bleeds for more than 2. You could also pack Redirection, in order to combat stealth bleeds for more than 2, but with only 6 cards to play with, it'd be tough. In any case, gaining 1 vp per game with this deck would not be difficult at all, and you can choose the vampire based on metagame. Probably too much analysis for a hypothetical situation, but hey, this is more fun than arguing with LSJ over a timing issue. ;) (Note: the % numbers above are based on assuming that 1st turn vampires are, if you have enough transfers, 50% likely to be 4 cap, 30% likely to be 3 cap, and 20% likely to be 2 cap. ZV, ToRIII, and IH will tend to invalidate dominate as a discipline choice. Also, this analysis didn't take into account that you're more likely to *need* a vamp in 4th or 5th position, which weighs things a little more in favour of Aleph.)

On 10 Oct 2001, Chris Berger wrote: > "....salem christ...." <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.3.90.1011010135815.9088A-100000@bohm>... > > > > the ascendances were for if the withdraw failed, and you were hoping you > > could hang on for the time limit (which, when you're not spending any > > pool, can sometimes be possible....) > > > > I'd like to see the deck that couldn't bleed out a prey that just > rolled over and died, even with your 3 pool from Ascendance. If no, the prey doesn't roll up and die. it sits tight on a poo-load of pool and acts like a mjor friggin' speed bump. you try cycling cards to get to the bleedy stuff when your prey has no vampires. it sucks. i had this happen to me in a tourney once in the final round yeeeaaaars ago. i hostile tookovered my prey's anson, he took the pool and then juust sat there (playing an anson deck and all he didn't think it'd be worthtrying to contest, and as he had plenty of vps going ito the finals he hoped to get a good placing even with 0 vps in the final round). No one else at the table will let you get that "free vp" without a struggle either. suddenly you become a threat, just because your prey is defenseless. damn table balancing and all that. > you're going to go that way, play with 3 Secret Hordes, and spend like > 8 pool on each. i suspect you'd not be alive long enough to even get back your investment, if you were spending that much pool up front. > If I were doing it, I'd play with 2 Sudden Reversal, 2 Obedience, and > 2 Telepathic Counter, with a crypt full of Aleph. If your predator > doesn't bring out a vampire, you withdraw. If he does, then you bring > out Aleph and try to withdraw next turn. Just hope that he doesn't yeah, that's a better way to go for the true withdraw. mind you, there's not really too much point discussin this as you can't actually have a less than 40 card lib, in tourneys or out. O:) salem.

>Just a clarification on the choice of Aleph... 1st position is an >automatic vp, so we ignore it. Aleph will effectively protect you >against any rush or non-stealthed action in 4th position, or against >stealth bleeds of up to 2 bleed in 4th or 5th position. He will also >protect against a rush or bruise/bleed (for more than 2 bleed) >predator about 50% of the time in 5th position. Actually, if you use Aleph or Isabel, you can use a My Enemy's Enemy. Only usable against predator bleeds (so doesn't do good if a bleed is deflected to you), but it'll protect you from weenie presence or dominate bleed that Telepathic Counter won't. Halcyan 2

Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:5287ede4.01101...@posting.google.com... > ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Chris Berger) wrote in message news:<5287ede4.01101...@posting.google.com>... > > > > If I were doing it, I'd play with 2 Sudden Reversal, 2 Obedience, and > > 2 Telepathic Counter, with a crypt full of Aleph. If your predator > > doesn't bring out a vampire, you withdraw. If he does, then you bring > > out Aleph and try to withdraw next turn. Just hope that he doesn't > > get out a 4 cap, or use Zillah's Valley, ToRIII, or Info Highway first > > turn. > > > > Just a clarification on the choice of Aleph... 1st position is an > automatic vp, so we ignore it. Aleph will effectively protect you > against any rush or non-stealthed action in 4th position, or against > stealth bleeds of up to 2 bleed in 4th or 5th position. He will also > protect against a rush or bruise/bleed (for more than 2 bleed) > predator about 50% of the time in 5th position. <snip> I'd try this instead: Information Highway 2x Sudden Reversal 1x Obedience 2x Redirection (or trade one SD for one Obedience, if you're expecting much combat) 12x Isabel Giovanni If your predator doesn't bring out any minions, you withdraw. Otherwise, you can play IH and bring out Isabel Giovanni from 3rd position. Except for ToR III/Zillah's Valley/etc, she covers any kind of bleed or combat. Flux

"....salem christ...." <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.3.90.1011011112701.24975A-100000@bohm>... > > no, the prey doesn't roll up and die. it sits tight on a poo-load of pool > and acts like a mjor friggin' speed bump. you try cycling cards to get to > the bleedy stuff when your prey has no vampires. it sucks. > That's what I call rolling over and dying. Of course, my latest deck is a Lasombra bleed/vote deck with light stealth, with which I think I could be assured of bleeding 30 pool in about 6 turns or less. And I'm sure my predator would cooperate, since I'm such a likable guy. ;) But I guess I can see how it might be a problem for a lesser deck. 8) Still, if it was that powerful, everbody would be doing it. > > you're going to go that way, play with 3 Secret Hordes, and spend like > > 8 pool on each. > > i suspect you'd not be alive long enough to even get back your > investment, if you were spending that much pool up front. > Well, you could play 1, spending about 5-8 pool on it, gain it back, then figure out how much to spend on the rest of them. Or just use 1 SH and a Parthenon or something. (Especially since now that I think about it, paying 24 pool on 3 Secret Hordes isn't too bright... might as well spend it all on *1* Secret Horde and save two master phases.) > > If I were doing it, I'd play with 2 Sudden Reversal, 2 Obedience, and > > 2 Telepathic Counter, with a crypt full of Aleph. If your predator > > doesn't bring out a vampire, you withdraw. If he does, then you bring > > out Aleph and try to withdraw next turn. Just hope that he doesn't > > yeah, that's a better way to go for the true withdraw. > mind you, there's not really too much point discussin this as you can't > actually have a less than 40 card lib, in tourneys or out. > *grins evilly* Sounds like a challenge to me. non-sanctioned Protected Resources Tournament: 40 card maximum, 1 card minimum. Maybe a 4 card maximum for the crypt. Oh yeah... and whoever said it... good point on My Enemy's Enemy... I was trying to think of Auspex bounce and only came up with Telepathic Misdirection, which of course is no good at all.