Infernal Plague Storyline Announcement

THE INFERNAL PLAGUE Barbaro hadn't officially been welcome at the Vatican for centuries but made it a point to be owed favors by no fewer than two stewards of the church's archives at any given time. His scandalous behavior and subsequent excommunication from the church were ancient events and it was unlikely that anyone there today would recognize the name Barbaro Lucchese. A young priest named Anthony gave Barbaro full access to the archives whenever Barbaro visited. Barbaro was a knowledgeable historian and scholar and taught Anthony many things in exchange for his hospitality and unfettered access to the church's ancient texts. Tonight, however, Barbaro neglected the lesson and quickly sought the solitude of the dusty ledgers and worn leather volumes. Barbaro pecked at the keyboard with his index fingers, duplicating and simultaneously translating the venerable manuscripts. He tore the printed sheet off the printer and penned several diagrams on the page before locking up and leaving the sleeping Anthony a pint low but otherwise intact. * * * Archbishop of Rome was certainly not a respected position and Sela's claim on that title amounted to little more than squatter's rights. Rome was essentially abandoned, as it had long been inhospitable to Kindred due chiefly to the activities of the Society of Leopold. In addition, any kind of a successful operation in Rome would require a subtlety that most Sabbat were unable or unwilling to pursue. Sela, however, saw Rome as a shortcut to power and worked feverishly to make the best of the situation. Sela's first taste of fortune came when she enlisted the help of Barbaro Lucchese, a Tremere antitribu and former priest who knew much about Rome's inner workings. In less than a decade, Sela created an infrastructure that would allow them to thrive in relative safety within the Society's backyard. With the aid of sewer-dwelling Nosferatu antitribu, Sela created a niche for herself as an information broker, her Rome listening posts helping Kindred around the world stay beyond the Society of Leopold's lengthening reach. Entering Sela's office unannounced, Barbaro said, "I have completed the instructions." "Let us not sit idle then. The Society of Leopold's noose tightens with each passing night," replied Sela. Barbaro sensed rightly that there was no longer any need for pretense and freed a leer that had been fermenting since the day he first met the power-hungry Sela. He offered Sela his arm, saying, "Walk with me this night my Lady, and you will receive power from the god of both this world and the world below." * * * Alan Sovereign produced yet another stack of bank statements for Quentin King, saying, "Lorance had knowledge of these accounts as well and withdrew all of the funds with wire transfers to numbered accounts overseas." "Have you stopped the bleeding?" asked Quentin. "Yes, I believe so. All of the remaining accounts were closed and balances redistributed," Sovereign responded. "Are we sure that Lorance is the culprit?" Sovereign explained, "Lorance's main haven was torched two nights ago. He probably did it himself to cover his tracks but the fire department extinguished the flames fairly quickly. Based on some of the notes we found there, it seems Lorance is part of a cabal of infernalists that has spent centuries infiltrating the Camarilla and Sabbat." "Have the primogen account for every one of their clan in the city," ordered Quentin. "I will do so immediately." Sovereign added, "I've also arranged that meeting for you with Prince Vargoss in St. Louis. He has been victimized by the demons more than most - his sheriff and two of the city's primogen were found to be in with the infernalists." Quentin looked away and muttered, "How deep is this wound?" *************** INFERNAL PLAGUE STORYLINE TOURNAMENTS ===================================== Between October 15 and November 30, 2004 results of special Vampire: The Eternal Struggle tournaments from around the world will create the next chapter of this story. Each player attending a designated storyline tournament will receive a special promo-only card of Barbaro Lucchese. The Barbaro Lucchese promo-only card will remain in tight circulation for at least one year before being released into general support packages. THE RULES ========= Except as noted in these instructions, the tournament will follow the Standard Constructed Tournament format and current V:EKN rules. * At least 75% (e.g., 9 out of 12) of the vampires in a player's crypt must be the same clan. * Players will each receive one Barbaro Lucchese and may add him to his or her crypt before play begins. Only one Barbaro Lucchese may be used in each crypt. For purposes of this event only, Barbaro Lucchese's group number is ignored, and he may be mixed with any otherwise legal crypt. The resulting crypt must still meet the 75% rule above. * Recalled to the Founder is banned (due to the clan focus rule above). * Players will participate in an auction (as described below) to determine who plays for the infernal faction and how much pool each player in the infernal faction receives. INFERNAL AUCTION ================ After players select their decks and before play begins, the event organizer will attempt to split the players into two factions, infernalists and non-infernalists. It is the event organizer's goal to have one-half (rounded down) of the tournament participants voluntarily choose to play for the infernalists. Players who are playing Baali clan decks must choose to play for the infernalist faction. Players who join with the infernalists (including Baali players forced to join) will pay the infernal pool penalty as described in Section 4 of the V:TES rulebook for each of their own crypt cards that enter play. If card text already identifies a minion as infernal, the infernal pool penalty is doubled for that minion. Initially, it is unlikely that the event organizer will reach his or her goal of one-half of the participants playing for the infernalist faction. If that goal has not been met, the event organizer will conduct an auction. The event organizer will offer an additional amount of starting pool to lure players to play for the infernalist faction. The organizer will increase the amount of additional pool until enough players accept the offer and the goal of one-half of the field (rounded down) is met. The organizer will use a random method to decide among players who accept infernalism for the same bid amount. After the auction, each player who is now part of the infernalist faction will receive an amount of additional starting pool equal to the bid amount of the last player to accept the infernalism offer. Sample Auction: John's event has 17 players so it is his goal to bribe 8 players (one-half of the field, rounded-down) to join the ranks of the infernalists. One player is playing a Baali clan deck and is automatically counted among the infernalists. John now needs 7 volunteers to choose infernalism. Two players volunteer to play for the infernalists without any further inducements, leaving John the task of finding 5 additional players who are willing to "sell their souls". John begins the auction by offering 2 additional pool to each player who joins the ranks of the infernalists. He gets no volunteers at this level. John sees that he has a tough crowd on his hands and raises the offer to 8 pool. John gets one more volunteer. 4 more to go! John tries 10, 12, and then 14 pool, at which time 5 players raise their hands to volunteer. Since John only needs 4 additional volunteers and he has 5, John has each player roll a die to randomly determine which 4 of the 5 volunteers will get to play for the infernalists. Now John has his 8 volunteers. Each of the infernal faction players will now receive an extra 14 pool at the beginning of each round (the amount is determined by the bid amount of the last player who accepted the infernalism offer). THE WINNING CLAN ================ For the purposes of our tally of the winning clans, players who play for the Infernalists will be considered separate clans. For example, a player who wins an event with a Ventrue clan deck will achieve a win for the Ventrue. If however, that player played for the Infernalists, "Ventrue (Infernal)" will be given credit for the win. The winning clan for each faction will each receive a special reward in the next available expansion. FINDING AN EVENT NEAR YOU ========================= Check out the event calendar [http://206.65.59.246/vtes/calendar/events.tpl] to search for Infernal Plague events near you. Many tournaments will not be listed on the calendar until early October, so be sure to check back often. Also feel free to contact the V:EKN Prince [http://206.65.59.246/vtes/calendar/princes.tpl] or tournament organizer in your area to help them organize your local event. Princes please see details on the Conclave mailing list for information on how to organize your event. Other tournament organizers please e-mail Robert Goudie at inferna...@vtesinla.org for details.

<snip> Bring Parity Shift and True Faith -Bram Vink

Steve Wieck wrote: > INFERNAL AUCTION > ================ > After players select their decks and before play begins, the event organizer > will attempt to split the players into two factions, infernalists and > non-infernalists. It is the event organizer's goal to have one-half > (rounded down) of the tournament participants voluntarily choose to play for > the infernalists. Players who are playing Baali clan decks must choose to > play for the infernalist faction. Players who join with the infernalists > (including Baali players forced to join) will pay the infernal pool penalty > as described in Section 4 of the V:TES rulebook for each of their own crypt > cards that enter play. If card text already identifies a minion as > infernal, the infernal pool penalty is doubled for that minion. > Initially, it is unlikely that the event organizer will reach his or her > goal of one-half of the participants playing for the infernalist faction. If > that goal has not been met, the event organizer will conduct an auction. > The event organizer will offer an additional amount of starting pool to lure > players to play for the infernalist faction. The organizer will increase > the amount of additional pool until enough players accept the offer and the > goal of one-half of the field (rounded down) is met. The organizer will use > a random method to decide among players who accept infernalism for the same > bid amount. After the auction, each player who is now part of the > infernalist faction will receive an amount of additional starting pool equal > to the bid amount of the last player to accept the infernalism offer. I suppose this thing is a done deal, but this idea is horrible. The auction opens up all kinds of problems. Players holding out for infinite pool. Other players just Parity Shifting it all to their side. If the Infernal mechanic is so bad that players need a bribe of 30 pool to play with it, perhaps the mechanic itself needs to be revisited. It would be a better idea, I think, to just waive the whole infernal cost for this storyline and play on. But I suppose it's too late for that. Hopefully, though, I'm just being dense, and this was actually playtested by more than a one small group of players, once, and someone can hop in and point out what I'm missing. Any takers? -- David Cherryholmes

Two mechanical questions: If a player is playing !Malkavians and happens to have Midget, or if they happen to have a Baali in their crypt but end up playing for the non-Infernal team, is the Infernal cost still doubled? SUGGESTION: Could Infernal minions who are playing for the non-Infernal side lose their Infernal trait? Also, what happens in the (extremely unlikely, but mathematically possible) event that more than half (or even less likely, ALL) of the participants show up to the event with "Baali clan" decks? Will more than half of the group be on the Infernal team, or will the "more than half" overflow Baali players be pushed to the non-Infernal side?

jja....@hccnet.nl (Darky) wrote in message news:<93148a54.04091...@posting.google.com>... > <snip> > > Bring Parity Shift and True Faith > Muddled Vampire Hunter and True Faith!! Woo Hoo! Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:58:20 GMT, "Steve Wieck" <stevewNOS...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >THE INFERNAL PLAGUE >Barbaro hadn't officially been welcome at the Vatican for centuries but made >it a point to be owed favors by no fewer than two stewards of the church's >archives at any given time. His scandalous behavior and subsequent >excommunication from the church were ancient events and it was unlikely that >anyone there today would recognize the name Barbaro Lucchese. Barbaro's stats revealed: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=plague

> I suppose this thing is a done deal, but this idea is horrible. The > auction opens up all kinds of problems. Players holding out for > infinite pool. Other players just Parity Shifting it all to their side. > If the Infernal mechanic is so bad that players need a bribe of 30 > pool to play with it, perhaps the mechanic itself needs to be revisited. For once agreed with you ;-). The problem is that usually infernal minions have advantages (specials/disciplines) making up for their infernal disadvantage. If some minions suddenly become infernal you have to make up for the disadvantage (usually resulting in about 10 pool lost during a normal game). Auctioning off for pool isn´t probably the best idea, as you allready mentioned. Probably giving the players to choose some other "advantage" would be better. The whole auction thing has the problem anyway that nobody needs to step in unless someone else steps in, that means that waiting for 40-50 pool isn´t really a risk because you can always be one of those in it (except when everybody wants to be in, in that case it is a 50% chance). I don´t see people switching to the infernal side for nothing or 4 pool. I guess the average "switch-point" will be between 10-20 pool more. > It would be a better idea, I think, to just waive the whole infernal > cost for this storyline and play on. But I suppose it's too late for > that. Hopefully, though, I'm just being dense, and this was actually > playtested by more than a one small group of players, once, and someone > can hop in and point out what I'm missing. Any takers? I guess there isn´t much to change about it, but storylines are optional anyway aren´t they. I will in any case happily grab my Anson deck and switch to the infernal side for heaps of extra pool, having those Delaying Tactics ready for the Parity Shifts and paying 1 pool per turn (it untapping is needed at all) isn´t a big deal either ... :-) -- johannes walch

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Steve Wieck wrote: > Players who join with the infernalists > (including Baali players forced to join) will pay the infernal pool penalty > as described in Section 4 of the V:TES rulebook for each of their own crypt > cards that enter play. If card text already identifies a minion as > infernal, the infernal pool penalty is doubled for that minion. So, are all crypt cards played by an infernal player considered to have the Infernal trait, or do they simply pay the cost to remain untapped? Marc G.

>...Players who join with the infernalists > (including Baali players forced to join) will pay the infernal pool penalty > as described in Section 4 of the V:TES rulebook for each of their own crypt > cards that enter play. If card text already identifies a minion as > infernal, the infernal pool penalty is doubled for that minion. Does this mean that the vampires that player brings out are actually Infernal for card text purposes, or is it just a disadvantage for that player, requiring them to pay the pool, but not actually making them infernal? Taken literally, you seem to mean the latter, but I'm not that that's your intent. A few pertinent situations and cards come to mind: Path of Evil Revelations: Will this work for infernalist players? Also, what about vampires that are already infernal in this case? If you pay to untap them with PoER, do you still have to pay the extra cost per Storyline rules? True Faith, various Daimonian cards, etc.: Who is and is not considered infernal for the purpose of these cards? Control effects: If one of an infernalist players vampires is stolen, does it reamain infernal and/or does the cost to untap come with it? Current text says that players only pay for their own vampires, but what about stolen "infernal" vampires? that's all I can think of for now. I'm looking forward to seeing the answers to these questions.... Cthulukitty

Here's the link to the white wolf page on this, by the way. Apparently Barbaro is a Baali.... http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=plague

I think it was Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu>, who once wrote: > Two mechanical questions: > > If a player is playing !Malkavians and happens to have Midget, > or if they happen to have a Baali in their crypt but end up > playing for the non-Infernal team, is the Infernal cost still > doubled? The first paragraph of the auction rules section states that players who join the infernalists pay the extra pool, so the answer to your question would be no. More interestingly though, having to pay the infernal pool penalty for all your crypt cards in play, does that imply that all those vampires have the Infernal trait, and can play cards that require an Infernal vampire, like Contagion, if they somehow get Daimonion? Rogar

" Players who join with the infernalists (including Baali players forced to join) will pay the infernal pool penalty as described in Section 4 of the V:TES rulebook for each of their own crypt cards that enter play " Just to understand this right, this means that the vampires playing for the "Infernalist side" aint actully infernal, but just paying ths cost. S Tru Faith or Path of Evil... havent any effect on them??? Or is just just "writed wrong" Cheers /Jesper

Peace Mark, [ quoted text not captured ] Looks pretty clear to Me: "pay the infernal pool penalty ... for each of their own crypt cards that enter play" does not make those minions Infernal. You just pay the pool penalty as if they were. If they wanted to assign Infernal to all the Infernalists' minions, they would have said something like, "each of their own crypt cards are considered Infernal". James R. McClure Jr. future Prince of Louisville

"Johannes Walch" <joha...@scram.de> wrote in message news:<chv7b9$t8u$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>... > > I suppose this thing is a done deal, but this idea is horrible. The > > auction opens up all kinds of problems. Players holding out for > > infinite pool. Other players just Parity Shifting it all to their side. > > If the Infernal mechanic is so bad that players need a bribe of 30 > > pool to play with it, perhaps the mechanic itself needs to be revisited. > > For once agreed with you ;-). The problem is that usually infernal minions > have advantages (specials/disciplines) making up for their infernal > disadvantage. If some minions suddenly become infernal you have to make up > for the disadvantage (usually resulting in about 10 pool lost during a > normal game). Auctioning off for pool isn´t probably the best idea, as you > allready mentioned. Probably giving the players to choose some other > "advantage" would be better. The whole auction thing has the problem anyway > that nobody needs to step in unless someone else steps in, that means that > waiting for 40-50 pool isn´t really a risk because you can always be one of > those in it (except when everybody wants to be in, in that case it is a 50% > chance). I don´t see people switching to the infernal side for nothing or 4 > pool. I guess the average "switch-point" will be between 10-20 pool more. And, for I change, I disagree with both of you. I will tell you why: 1. Holding out for infinite pool: I would have no problem, as judge, getting around this. Ok, it might mean a ruling that some mightn't like (and it may even need discussion on whether sactioning would still be possible, after that), but no group of players is going to come and mess up my tournament with that kind of attitude. I'll start by gently reminding them they're here to play the infernal plague tournament first. After that, blind auctions, or "I am setting the limit at X and will choose half of you to play infernal at random if you don't agree on things (as announced beforehand)" are possible options. 2. "Just parity shifting it to their side", sure, PS is a strong vote, but to shift 30-50 pool (I know David, that's not just your number but also Johannes') by PS is no mean feat. Some cards will be (expected to be) better in this format - strategies and counter-strategies will shift. 3. I think a lot of the initial reaction is of the knee-jerk type that we also saw with, for instance, the grouping rule, or with meddling of semsith (and where I foolishly did that myself). I am not saying that you two are indulging in this [yet ;)], but if you are similar to me, you're also discussing this outside this group, and are getting some heavy reactions. I'm inclined to the 'It will be ok' side. Just to let you know that aspect of my opinion. 4. I guess you cannot argue both the 'infernals have it bad' and 'infernals will get too much pool and will so be overpowered' arguments at the same time. I understand you think the first will/may lead to the second, but in the end, infernalism will either rock hard, suck hard, or be balanced pretty well. The last option is not a problem. The problem I *can* see happening is that uncertainty about the 'power' of 'going infernal' will cause some tournament locations to bid low on infernalism, some to hold out and big high. That uncertainty can be offset by accurate discussion of the mechanics of the tournament. And (possibly) at some point what the introduced specials would need to be to allow for balance. Also, there's plain old human greed involved in this - every player can benefit equally from switching (or not switching). Some deck strategies will thrive under the optional rules better than other will - always the case with optional rules in a game of this complexity. In this case, a deck strategy that normally has it bad (infernalism) is probably getting a boost in a few ways at least - this is a cool thing to me, since it's a wonderful to way to give it some time in the spotlight, as well as play hypothetical 'what if VTES was like X' games? It's expected the whole infernalism thing will get more important in VTES anyway (IMHO). Continuation of the storyline started in the WoD's "Demon", but then in the cardgame. This is a good way for the waters to be tested. It's only one tournament, guys, where's your sense of adventure? Try to break it, if you were right in the end, best we know ASAP. Anyways, I'm derailing the thread by now, I think. > > It would be a better idea, I think, to just waive the whole infernal > > cost for this storyline and play on. But I suppose it's too late for > > that. Hopefully, though, I'm just being dense, and this was actually > > playtested by more than a one small group of players, once, and someone > > can hop in and point out what I'm missing. Any takers? I'd be interested in this myself, of course. But I have True Faith in "It will all be ok". Ok, ignorance may indeed be bliss.... >:) Still, if we're going to mess around with rules in the SL tournaments, might as well mess around bigtime. Think of it as a big, world-wide open playtest, if you like. :) > I guess there isn´t much to change about it, but storylines are optional > anyway aren´t they. I will in any case happily grab my Anson deck and switch > to the infernal side for heaps of extra pool, having those Delaying Tactics > ready for the Parity Shifts and paying 1 pool per turn (it untapping is > needed at all) isn´t a big deal either ... :-) Taking a decktype that is currently considered broken (or at least bloody annoying) by many as an example, is, IMHO, a better point for a discussion on that decktype than on the validity of the optional rules in this tournament. So let's not get into the particulars of Anson here. I'll happily play infernal as well, and try to get the bottom out the can as to compensation for it, of course. I might even put an Anson, recruitment, bleeding the vine and succubus club in my deck just to contest the heck out of you. (Please do not consider this last paragraph as part of any serious discussion). Tobias Deventer

> 1. Holding out for infinite pool: I would have no problem, as judge, > getting around this. Ok, it might mean a ruling that some mightn't > like (and it may even need discussion on whether sactioning would > still be possible, after that), but no group of players is going to > come and mess up my tournament with that kind of attitude. I'll start > by gently reminding them they're here to play the infernal plague > tournament first. After that, blind auctions, or "I am setting the > limit at X and will choose half of you to play infernal at random if > you don't agree on things (as announced beforehand)" are possible > options. [snip] > This is a good way for > the waters to be tested. It's only one tournament, guys, where's your > sense of adventure? Try to break it, if you were right in the end, > best we know ASAP. Anyways, I'm derailing the thread by now, I think. I see a controversy here. I would also like to point out that a tournament that can be broken by the players is not the best of ideas. Also note that if you as the judge intervene you probably strip your particular tournament of the possibility to be an official storyline tournament (by imposing additional rules). That said, I really think the only real problem is going to be the 2-hour time limit. If you go blocker, the table will time out, if you go FFW, you probably have about 40 pool to cleave through (as opposed to about 20). Meaning you either dilute your deck or settle for 2-3 ousts... What it might actually be good for (aside of Master Card decks and weenie princes with 30 Parity Shifts) are toolboxes. An infernal toolbox might get the head start needed to grab some essential permanents that will set up some bloat and some defences that may last through the bulk of a non-infernal predator's offence. However, I'm kind of sure I'll be playing infernalists and include at least one copy of Marlene, the Infernalist... ;) Maybe Dylan too! Best Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > I would also like to point out that a tournament that can be broken by the > players is not the best of ideas Sure, yeah, the tournament can be broken by the players (for instance, if no one agrees to be on the Infernal team till they get 90 extra pool each...). But so what? It is one tournament that is going to run for one event. Some people might be fortunate and get to play twice. But overall, it is a single wacky tournament with wacky rules that may or may not work really well, but is likely to be entertaining anyway. If it works, great! If not, is it going to be disasterous? No, it'll just be kinda funny and the general reaction will be "well, ok, maybe not such a good idea..." So is this format, like, the best idea ever? Probably not. But it'll still likely be pretty entertaining, at least to some extent, and as long as everyone just goes with it, it'll be just fine. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home." -Elvis

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:34:43 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: > >> I would also like to point out that a tournament that can be broken by >> the >> players is not the best of ideas > > Sure, yeah, the tournament can be broken by the players (for instance, > if no > one agrees to be on the Infernal team till they get 90 extra pool > each...). > But so what? Come to think of it, such concerted action seems unlikely. The reason is quite simple: if more than enough players volunteer for the last bid, then randomization will be employed. Now, if everyone agrees that they will be playing for the 90 pool, and everyone cuts in at 90, then there will be 50% chance of getting 90 pool, and 50% chance of playing against people who got 90 pool. Also, even if you get 90 pool, half of the other players also got 90 pool. Note the time limit for preliminary rounds. So all in all I think most players will adapt one of three strategies after meditating upon the intricacies of getting tempted into infernalism: 1. No Way, No How: Make a deck that takes advantage of others having more pool and/or having to burn pool for their minions. You theoretically hold out till infinity and under no circumstances join the infernals. 2. Every Man Has His Price: Make a normal deck, decide upon a cut-off point and wait and see. If the cut-off point is reached (from where your deck starts to profit from getting infernal), you give in, otherwise you stay pure. 3. Long Hard Road: Either go for fatties to minimize the drawback, or employ some other method to reduce the hindrance. Do Paths, go Baali, either from a practical POV, or from a "heck, this is a one of a kind tournament" perspective. I think that most people will belong to #2 with maybe a preference for either extreme (which will likely be influential of the individual cut-off point). Bye, Daneel

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2qgco9F...@uni-berlin.de... > I suppose this thing is a done deal, but this idea is horrible. > The auction opens up all kinds of problems. Players holding out > for infinite pool. Huh? OK, great. Hold out for infinite pool. I'll be infernal for, say, 5 billion pool. Now, try and oust me and my 5 billion pool before I can oust you and your 30 pool. I mean, they _can_ - but it seems like a pretty stupid move on their part. I'm confused why people keep bringing this up. > Other players just Parity Shifting it all to their side. Well, that's an interesting point, I agree. Of course, there are plenty of cards to stop such things. (I guess it's good that you can't somehow pass a Parity Shift with a Dia de los Muertos.) But Parity Shift does sound like a pretty strong card to show up with, none the less. Of course, as politics go, Dramatic Uphevel is still better and doesn't even require a title. > If the Infernal mechanic is so bad that players need a bribe > of 30 pool to play with it, perhaps the mechanic itself needs to > be revisited. The point of the auction is to handicap the disadvantage of being infernal. If you insist on calling it a "bribe" and looking on it as a bad thing, I suppose you're not going to like the format. Such attitudes are a matter of choice, however. To me, it looks like an interesting side contest. Fred

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsd9un3...@news.chello.hu... > I would also like to point out that a tournament that can be broken by > the players is not the best of ideas. Sure. And as soon as someone actually demonstrates how this can be "broken" by players, I'll worry. The point that players are likely to bid infinite pool is not a concern, however. It seems like not everyone in this forum understands the rules - or else they're not thinking through the strategy very well, one or the other. Fred

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:<opsd9un3...@news.chello.hu>... > > 1. Holding out for infinite pool: I would have no problem, as judge, > > getting around this. Ok, it might mean a ruling that some mightn't > > like (and it may even need discussion on whether sactioning would > > still be possible, after that), but no group of players is going to > > come and mess up my tournament with that kind of attitude. I'll start > > by gently reminding them they're here to play the infernal plague > > tournament first. After that, blind auctions, or "I am setting the > > limit at X and will choose half of you to play infernal at random if > > you don't agree on things (as announced beforehand)" are possible > > options. > > [snip] > > > This is a good way for > > the waters to be tested. It's only one tournament, guys, where's your > > sense of adventure? Try to break it, if you were right in the end, > > best we know ASAP. Anyways, I'm derailing the thread by now, I think. > > I see a controversy here. > > I would also like to point out that a tournament that can be broken by the > players is not the best of ideas. Any tournament can be broken, by the players. If only just by not showing up. That response aside, sure, tournaments with well-balanced rules are better than unbalanced tournaments in my opinion as well. > Also note that if you as the judge > intervene you probably strip your particular tournament of the possibility > to be an official storyline tournament (by imposing additional rules). As I noted in my earlier post, yes. That's something we'd need to ask. > That said, I really think the only real problem is going to be the 2-hour > time limit. If you go blocker, the table will time out, if you go FFW, you > probably have about 40 pool to cleave through (as opposed to about 20). > Meaning you either dilute your deck or settle for 2-3 ousts... Could be. That +20 pool you need to cleave through will be dropping by itself, though. > What it might actually be good for (aside of Master Card decks and weenie > princes with 30 Parity Shifts) are toolboxes. An infernal toolbox might > get the head start needed to grab some essential permanents that will set > up some bloat and some defences that may last through the bulk of a > non-infernal predator's offence. Who knows? Tobias

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:37:01 -0700, "Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> scrawled: >"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message >news:2qgco9F...@uni-berlin.de... >> I suppose this thing is a done deal, but this idea is horrible. >> The auction opens up all kinds of problems. Players holding out >> for infinite pool. > >Huh? OK, great. Hold out for infinite pool. I'll be infernal >for, say, 5 billion pool. Now, try and oust me and my 5 billion >pool before I can oust you and your 30 pool. > >I mean, they _can_ - but it seems like a pretty stupid move on >their part. I'm confused why people keep bringing this up. if i see someone holding out for a very very large pool amount, and i was previously planning on being the non-infernals, i jump ship and join the infernals, with 'near' very large pool bonus, and that guy that was holding out is now on the non-infernal team, and i have a butt-load more pool than him. that's how i see things going. no-one is going to get infinite pool. as soon as 1 player thinks another will have too big an advatage with the pool the bidding is at, _they_ will opt for that poo increase instead, by the definition of them thinking it's too much of an advantage. unless they really really really don't wanna play for the infernals. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

"Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> wrote in message news:_Zr1d.88232$yh.84365@fed1read05... [ quoted text not captured ] Posting to the forums without pausing to think it through? That's crazy! :-) -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:<opseagky...@news.chello.hu>... > Come to think of it, such concerted action seems unlikely. The reason is > quite simple: if more than enough players volunteer for the last bid, then > randomization will be employed. > > Now, if everyone agrees that they will be playing for the 90 pool, and > everyone cuts in at 90, then there will be 50% chance of getting 90 pool, > and 50% chance of playing against people who got 90 pool. Also, even if > you get 90 pool, half of the other players also got 90 pool. > > Daneel Of course, if everyone agrees that they will be playing for the 90 pool and waiting for that to cut in, the first person to say 'I lied, 89 is enough for me, I'm infernal' has not 50 but 100% chance of getting (at least) 89 pool... and somehow, I suspect more than a few players would happily trade one potential pool for a guaranteed 59. And yeah, excellent point. The more pool you hold out for, the more pool you're giving roughly half of the decks you have to beat, too... -John Flournoy

What i fear is that everybody non-infernal will use Parity Shift and a lot of infernal decks will be allies decks since you dont pay the infernal cost with allies. just my 2 cents ... Mechadick

"Steve Wieck" <stevewNOS...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Players who join with the infernalists > (including Baali players forced to join) will pay the infernal pool penalty > as described in Section 4 of the V:TES rulebook for each of their own crypt > cards that enter play. If card text already identifies a minion as > infernal, the infernal pool penalty is doubled for that minion. Restated/amended to avoid confusion: Every vampire in the crypts of the players who join with the infernalists (including all vampires in the crypts of the Baali players) gains the infernal attribute (see section 4 of the rules). If the vampire's card text already identifies him as infernal, the infernal pool penalty is increased by one pool (the controller must burn 2 pool or tap that vampire). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > "Steve Wieck" <stevewNOS...@white-wolf.com> wrote >> Players who join with the infernalists >> (including Baali players forced to join) will pay the infernal pool penalty >> as described in Section 4 of the V:TES rulebook for each of their own crypt >> cards that enter play. If card text already identifies a minion as >> infernal, the infernal pool penalty is doubled for that minion. > Restated/amended to avoid confusion: > Every vampire in the crypts of the players who join with the > infernalists (including all vampires in the crypts of the Baali > players) gains the infernal attribute (see section 4 of the rules). If > the vampire's card text already identifies him as infernal, the > infernal pool penalty is increased by one pool (the controller must > burn 2 pool or tap that vampire). What happens if you, as a non-infernalist player, steal a Baali from an Infernalist player, with a permanent effect like Corruption? Does the "extra Infernal" level stick? What happens if you, as a non-infernalist player, happen to have Baali in your crypt? Are those Baali "extra Infernal" or just "plain Infernal"?

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:dxF1d.48021$D%.10319@attbi_s51... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > "Steve Wieck" <stevewNOS...@white-wolf.com> wrote > >> Players who join with the infernalists > >> (including Baali players forced to join) will pay the infernal pool penalty > >> as described in Section 4 of the V:TES rulebook for each of their own crypt > >> cards that enter play. If card text already identifies a minion as > >> infernal, the infernal pool penalty is doubled for that minion. > > > Restated/amended to avoid confusion: > > > Every vampire in the crypts of the players who join with the > > infernalists (including all vampires in the crypts of the Baali > > players) gains the infernal attribute (see section 4 of the rules). If > > the vampire's card text already identifies him as infernal, the > > infernal pool penalty is increased by one pool (the controller must > > burn 2 pool or tap that vampire). > > What happens if you, as a non-infernalist player, steal a Baali from > an Infernalist player, with a permanent effect like Corruption? > Does the "extra Infernal" level stick? Note the "Every vampire in the crypt" verbiage. Was the Baali one of the vampires in the infernalists crypt? > What happens if you, as a non-infernalist player, happen to have Baali > in your crypt? Are those Baali "extra Infernal" or just "plain Infernal"? Was the Baali one of the vampires in an infernalists crypt? [ quoted text not captured ]

Mechadick wrote: > What i fear is that everybody non-infernal will use Parity Shift and a > lot of infernal decks will be allies decks since you dont pay the > infernal cost with allies. So play with a bunch of Poision Pills and Entrancements. Metagame, baby. Metagame. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <eb4eb7f8.04091...@posting.google.com>, vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) mumbled something about: >"Steve Wieck" <stevewNOS...@white-wolf.com> wrote >> Players who join with the infernalists >> (including Baali players forced to join) will pay the infernal pool penalty >> as described in Section 4 of the V:TES rulebook for each of their own crypt >> cards that enter play. If card text already identifies a minion as >> infernal, the infernal pool penalty is doubled for that minion. > >Restated/amended to avoid confusion: > >Every vampire in the crypts of the players who join with the >infernalists (including all vampires in the crypts of the Baali >players) gains the infernal attribute (see section 4 of the rules). If >the vampire's card text already identifies him as infernal, the >infernal pool penalty is increased by one pool (the controller must >burn 2 pool or tap that vampire). Hopefully this repairs most of the confusion, as well as providing a certain amount of benefit to actually going infernal. However, this does mean that Baali decks are non-viable for this tournament, since you are stuck with whatever everyone _else_ accepts for a pool bonus as infernal, and you're paying twice as much. With no way to guarantee any influence over your own starting pool bonus, I can't see any good reason to play Baali, unless you just WANT to lose horribly. Oh, and I forgot to mention that you also lose any surprise value for your deck -- when you're announced as forced-infernal at pool 0, everyone knows you're playing a Baali deck. This is pretty grim, overall; was the intent of the format to exclude Baali? -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

Derek Ray wrote: > However, this does mean that Baali decks are non-viable for this > tournament, since you are stuck with whatever everyone _else_ accepts > for a pool bonus as infernal, and you're paying twice as much. Well, ecxept that if you bring a Baali deck, you are gauranteed a spot on Team Infernal, meaning you *will* in all likelyhood, get extra pool, where the players who are not Baali don't have this insurance. If, for instance, you are the only player to bring a Baali deck to the tournament, I think you are in a good position (assuming you build the deck to mitigate the extra pool cost as much as possible)--you know that you are on Team Infernal, but there is likely to be alot of pool extra due to 4 or 5 or 10 other players bidding. Bringing a non Baali deck, you have no reasonable assurance that you will be on Team Infernal, so building the deck to deal specifically with the Infernalism (say, you have 4 Path of Evil Revelations in your deck, and a bunch of Poison Pills to fight the inevitable Parity Shifts) is a significant gamble, as there is always the possibility that everyone else will underbid you, or you will be frozen out by virtue of random selection. If you are a Baali, you *know* you are going to be Team Infernal. You know the Paths are going to be good. You know the Poison Pills are going to be good. Yeah, 2 pool per minion per turn is a lot. But you could make the deck to specifically work while tapped (say lots of Fortitude skill cards, Force of Will/Freak Drive, and a lot of Concordance...), while the non Baali decks don't have this option, at least safely. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BD6D08D0.196AE%pd...@lightlink.com... > Well, ecxept that if you bring a Baali deck, you are gauranteed a > spot on Team Infernal, meaning you *will* in all likelyhood, get > extra pool, where the players who are not Baali don't have this > insurance. If you're a non-Baali player, you can always bid zero, too. This is just as much of a gurantee of being infernal as the Baali player will get and will result in just as large of a bonus - excepting one scenario: there are more than the necessary number of infernal players who show up with Baali decks and/or who volunteer to be infernal at a bid of zero. In that case, just as well NOT be infernal. (I don't care how many PoER you brought...) Of course, I can't think of any reason to recommend bidding zero as a non-Baali player. But the point is, it's not any kind of an advantage for the Baali player, either - other than if you think the ability to use vampires possessing Daimoinon is a good thing. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > If you're a non-Baali player, you can always bid zero, too. Well, ya know, *everyone* could bid zero, and then they'd get randomly selected... [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: >> If you're a non-Baali player, you can always bid zero, too. > Well, ya know, *everyone* could bid zero, and then they'd get randomly > selected... Nobody ever answered my question along these lines,.. What if more than half (or EVERYONE) brings a Baali clan deck? What does that do to the "half and half" ratio? Will there be Baali forced onto the non Infernal side?

In message <BD6D08D0.196AE%pd...@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: > >> However, this does mean that Baali decks are non-viable for this >> tournament, since you are stuck with whatever everyone _else_ accepts >> for a pool bonus as infernal, and you're paying twice as much. > >Well, ecxept that if you bring a Baali deck, you are gauranteed a spot on >Team Infernal, meaning you *will* in all likelyhood, get extra pool, where Which won't be enough to compensate for the fact that your minions cost 2 pool each to untap -- and you don't have any way to influence the extra pool amount you gain. If the bidding goes lightly (ie, many people jump to the infernal side early, due to deck construction focused on parity shifts, etc.), then you'll likely be unable to play your deck at all. >the players who are not Baali don't have this insurance. If, for instance, But the players who aren't Baali don't need it. They can sit on their duffs until the pool gets high enough to convince them to jump. >you are the only player to bring a Baali deck to the tournament, I think you >are in a good position (assuming you build the deck to mitigate the extra I think if you bring a Baali deck to this tournament, you should expect to lose horribly. You will be competing against tournament-grade decks with both half your penalties, and NONE of your penalties -- and the Baali are hard enough to win with when you only need ONE pool to untap them. Competing against a non-infernal Ventrue Law Firm, who pays 2 pool less per minion per turn than you? Forget it; your deck has lost. >pool cost as much as possible)--you know that you are on Team Infernal, but >there is likely to be alot of pool extra due to 4 or 5 or 10 other players >bidding. There won't be enough. If you get 3 minions, they are 6 pool per turn. That is awful. That's like taking Govern + Conditioning to the head every single turn, with NO guaranteed means of recouping. >Bringing a non Baali deck, you have no reasonable assurance that you will be >on Team Infernal, so building the deck to deal specifically with the >Infernalism (say, you have 4 Path of Evil Revelations in your deck, and a >bunch of Poison Pills to fight the inevitable Parity Shifts) is a >significant gamble, as there is always the possibility that everyone else >will underbid you, or you will be frozen out by virtue of random selection. Or you simply build to be non-infernal and know that you aren't going to switch for anything less than an unbelievable amount of pool. >If you are a Baali, you *know* you are going to be Team Infernal. You know >the Paths are going to be good. You know the Poison Pills are going to be >good. Yeah, 2 pool per minion per turn is a lot. But you could make the deck >to specifically work while tapped (say lots of Fortitude skill cards, Force >of Will/Freak Drive, and a lot of Concordance...), while the non Baali decks >don't have this option, at least safely. You surely aren't recommending trying to play a trick deck under a 2-pool-per-minion penalty, right? With the prevalence of Direct Intervention these days , _needing_ Freak Drive is going to hurt. Clan Impersonation/Blessing of the Name is going to hurt. Just about anything you try that isn't insane amounts of Minion Tap/Voter Cap is going to hurt... and even that is probably not going to be enough to win, just enough to allow you to bring 3 minions out without dying. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >Restated/amended to avoid confusion: > > > >Every vampire in the crypts of the players who join with the > >infernalists (including all vampires in the crypts of the Baali > >players) gains the infernal attribute (see section 4 of the rules). If > >the vampire's card text already identifies him as infernal, the > >infernal pool penalty is increased by one pool (the controller must > >burn 2 pool or tap that vampire). > > Hopefully this repairs most of the confusion, as well as providing a > certain amount of benefit to actually going infernal. > AND allowing you to pack PoER, because if you join the infernal team, your minions will be infernal and thus will be able to use it. Hey! A real !tremere infernal deck is possible. infernal familiar, infernal pact, lots of rutor's, several concordance, condemnations, conflagrations ...

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:9gffk0pis1fainbv7...@4ax.com... > In message <BD6D08D0.196AE%pd...@lightlink.com>, > Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> mumbled something about: > > >Derek Ray wrote: > > > >> However, this does mean that Baali decks are non-viable for this > >> tournament, since you are stuck with whatever everyone _else_ accepts > >> for a pool bonus as infernal, and you're paying twice as much. > > > >Well, ecxept that if you bring a Baali deck, you are gauranteed a spot on > >Team Infernal, meaning you *will* in all likelyhood, get extra pool, where > > Which won't be enough to compensate for the fact that your minions cost > 2 pool each to untap -- and you don't have any way to influence the > extra pool amount you gain. If the bidding goes lightly (ie, many > people jump to the infernal side early, due to deck construction focused > on parity shifts, etc.), then you'll likely be unable to play your deck > at all. I think the only real answer to this is Path of Evil Revelations. Besides "stupid tricks" like Rutor's Hand, Freak Drive, etc. Path + Clan Impersonation + Blessing of the Name is actually pretty hilarious (if not actually *good* it can at least win games) in my experience, too. Yes, Baali don't need to be doubly infernal to be balanced even with extra pool. (One and a half times would probably be more than enough, even if it'd be a little silly-sounding to write a rule that way.) Yes, they are still going to be "a challenge" to play in this storyline. (which I suspect means that there won't actually be any tournaments facing Josh Feurstein's dilemma of having *more* than 50% Baali players show up... :-) But I don't think they'll be *totally* unplayable. Just somewhere around the same level of unplayability that they usually have. Josh an infernal racketeer

I am more concerned with the problems that Firm Law decks can have sure infernal will pay, and baali will pay a lot, but PoER needs only 1 pool per turn both to baali and other infernal decks to untap. i think we will see a lot of PoER on top of this infernal deck could be able, if the players are not dumb, to jump to impossible high levels of pool nothing prevents players who wants to go infernal to agree not to go infernal before the bid goes around 260-290 pool what are you going to do if your infernal ventrue prey has 200 or more pool? play a KRC for 3/1 pool damage? pray to be a malkavian B&S DOM? Taglio

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BD6CC7E5.19695%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Mechadick wrote: > > > What i fear is that everybody non-infernal will use Parity Shift and a > > lot of infernal decks will be allies decks since you dont pay the > > infernal cost with allies. > > So play with a bunch of Poision Pills and Entrancements. > Metagame, baby. Metagame. Or maybe try Ventrue Barons with lots of Firebrands. Choose a specified amount where you can consider infernalism profitable. Choose between two paths: 1. Better to Rule in Hell than to be a Pawn on Earth: If the bid reaches that far, accept the offer and use it to compensate the slow build-up usual to anarchy. Arrange deals with the Camarilla's big voters to support their Parity Shifts against other infernalists in exchange of maintaining your Barons' titles. Once you're set up with 3+ minions and Firebrand, you can refrain from paying infernalism most of the time. 2. Freedom is most important to Anarchists: If the bid is not enough to entice your anarchs to join the darker side, just keep going with your Firebrand strategy and start to bloat. Either case, make sure to include some events to build up to the Fall of the Camarilla. If all goes well, you achieve vote lock somewhere at the midgame, prevent people from playing more annoying Parity Shifts and make the weenie Prince's player stuck wityh lots of votes he just can't pass. It's a risk. But it can work. best, Fabio Sooner V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil

[ quoted text not captured ] Most players will play decks that can go either way. They might have a preference, but they will just jump in when the incentive is high enough. Even if I'm playing lawfirm with the intention of using Parity Shifts to strip infernalists of their pool, I might be inclined to jump on the infernal bandwagon if the bid is high enough. There will always be people who have more pool than I do, and if there are none, then likely I'm not in that big of a trouble. Also, even if I aim to be non-Infernal, I will surely include at least one Path of Evil Revelations. Just in case I feel like being tempted to join the infernals (or to contest someone else's Path...) Bye, Daneel

Derek Ray wrote: > You surely aren't recommending trying to play a trick deck under a > 2-pool-per-minion penalty, right? Well, ya know, I am. I don't necessarily think it is a good idea (heck--I'm not playing the Baali...). But is is certainly a possibility. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9gffk0pis1fainbv7...@4ax.com>... > You surely aren't recommending trying to play a trick deck under a > 2-pool-per-minion penalty, right? With the prevalence of Direct > Intervention these days , _needing_ Freak Drive is going to hurt. Clan > Impersonation/Blessing of the Name is going to hurt. Just about > anything you try that isn't insane amounts of Minion Tap/Voter Cap is > going to hurt... and even that is probably not going to be enough to > win, just enough to allow you to bring 3 minions out without dying. > > -- Derek Wow, I was all set to play my kick ass Baali deck, but now Derrek has made me rethink the whole thing ;)