What should be done with Reversal of Fortune?

The culprit: > > Name: Reversal of Fortunes > Cardtype: Political Action > Successful referendum means direction of play is reversed. Prey is still to the left, however. > Typically a magic-like card that has no big impact on the game and can serve in some few decks: - a Milicent Smith deck - a Barrenness / Scourge of the Enochians deck - ... But of course, it's not really what I want to talk about. The big problem (IMHO) is Madness / Reversal* decks. It's a very technical deck to build and play but that disrupts the whole game to its very core. Either it works and 3 players sit down doing nothing while the deck wins; Either it works but the player has no choice to propose some king making to his prey because otherwise the Madness/Reversal would lose; Or it doesn't work and it's a free VP for his predator as the whole table teams up against it. Playing alone with no interaction from the other players is not the spirit of VTES. (You could add Turbo Una to the list, but it's worth another topic.) As a side note, it's very difficult to play and usually doesn't win tournaments. But it shows up from times to times and cripples the game experience. Some possible suggestions: - ban the card. - limit it to "twice per game" (rather than "once per game", to cover the 0.0001% possibility that two players plays it. "Twice" would give the possibility to switch back to the normal order.) Please share your opinions. *for those who don't know what I'm talking about: www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k9battlefrenzypf Basically, with some Malkavians under Madness Network, call Reversal of Fortune during your turn and your prey (or predator's) turn so only 2 players play. Accumulate some counters on the Smiling Jack, then stop calling the votes when you have enough counters to watch the table die. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I don't really think its big enough problem to need anything done, its just a silly gimmick deck that loses more than wins. Frankly, during the ten or so years I have played the game, I have never seen that card played.

I also think it is just a silly gimmick. But problem comes when player tries to build deck focused on that card. You can't force players not to use bad and lame decks. Usually it doesn't matter when players play bad deck but it is different thing with Reversal of Fortunes. I would just ban it because it messes the basics of the game. It is only used bad decks that can disturb the whole game anyway so it is not big loss. EDIT Reversal of Fortunes usually loses totally most of time so that is not the point. Problem is it can mess the whole table and I feel Reversal of Fortunes deck is against what kind of game Vtes should be like.

> Ankha wrote: > The big problem (IMHO) is Madness / Reversal* decks. It's a very technical deck to build and play but that disrupts the whole game to its very core. > Either it works and 3 players sit down doing nothing while the deck wins; > Either it works but the player has no choice to propose some king making to his prey because otherwise the Madness/Reversal would lose; > Or it doesn't work and it's a free VP for his predator as the whole table teams up against it. > That is not different from any turbo deck, and as you said it performs much worse than Una. I don't think it requires any change. And free VPs happen. The only other option is to ban bad players from tournaments, and I for sure don't want to be banned from tournaments

Only played once against it, when it won the table. Embarassing, and easy to let it accidentaly slip out of control (especially in big-cap heavy meta), and then it usually wins the table. I hate the deck, but definitely against banning because of the rare appearance.

The card breaks the game. Ban is ok with me. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

i never actually seen it win. It did annoy people, but much less than , in my experience, Una freakshow does, or any soul gem deck...

> Pendargon wrote: > i never actually seen it win. It did annoy people, but much less than , in my experience, Una freakshow does, or any soul gem deck... > I tend to agree. We begin by banning Reversal of Fortune, then Tupdog, then every fun-but-exploitable card. I also agree that multi acting with "infinite" freak show is a problem. But it hard to say that putting a limit of, say, 3 action per minion per turn, would worth the hassle, or broad enough to stop the playing alone deck.

Neither Reversal of Fortune nor Tupdog qualify as a "fun" card by any sort of standards. Both cards are only capable of making games unfun for someone or everyone else. > And free VPs happen. The only other option is to ban bad players from tournaments, and I for sure don't want to be banned from tournaments > No, the solution is to make bad, but game-destroying decks even worse so that even bad players recognize that they should not play those bad decks, which would make them play other decks which will inevitably make them better players. On top of that cards that require several pages and threads of clarifications and rulings should be banned too. Mask of a Thousand Faces springs to mind. Rötschrek does as well. I'm sure there's a few more (Groundfighting... lol!) And then there is also Direct Intervention and its modernized equivalent Dark Influences whose sole existance makes high-stakes games an endless repetition of "DI?" "DI?" "DI?" "DI?" "DI?" on EVERY GODFORSAKEN CARD that's being played. There's a lot more stuff that needs fixing if National Championship level games and up are ever going to be somewhat more interesting and -omg- FUN TO PLAY. Unfortunately our new rulemonger seems rather conservative in his decisions.

compare to the Rachel Brandywine decks where she gets Madness Network and Homunculus and bleeds for 10+ per turn cycle. the real problem card with these combos is the Madness Network, not Reversal of Fortunes or Homunculus.

> Izaak wrote: > Neither Reversal of Fortune nor Tupdog qualify as a "fun" card by any sort of standards. > For you. Both have fun and zany effect ; it's when you try to play them as your main strategy that problems occurs. One tupdog or one Reversa won't completely wreak havic on your game ; it's when you see your first three vampires destroyed by a tupdog that there is a problem. > > Izaak wrote: > On top of that cards that require several pages and threads of clarifications and rulings should be banned too. Mask of a Thousand Faces springs to mind. Rötschrek does as well. I'm sure there's a few more (Groundfighting... lol!) > I tend to agree. Good idea, poor execution.

If you are having problems with Tupdogs (or any rush decks for that matter, tupdogs aren't really any worse than say weenie potence) then play more combat defense.

Nobody is claiming they are having problems with Tupdogs. I, and many others, have been claiming that Tupdogs are either hardcountered and are a free VP or generally ruin the game for 4 other people. Just like Reversal of Fortunes does. That they are "fun" and "thematic" (and also "useless") cards when used in small quantities doesn't change the fact that both these cards make the game they are used in stupid from the start. > or any rush decks for that matter, tupdogs aren't really any worse than say weenie potence > You clearly don't understand the difference between a Tupdog deck and a weenie potence deck, so seriously, just stop commenting. They're so far apart in what they can achieve and how they work that you might as well compare Tupdogs to a lawfirm deck. As an aside, your "advice" to include more combat defense when dealing with Tupdogs is so laughable that I have to start wondering if you have EVER played against a proper one...

Why yes I have, last time tupdog deck was my predator when I was playing !Nos toolbox, I just stealth rushed his !Tremere to torpor and rest of the game he was forced to go on full defense against his predator. Main difference between tupdog and weenie potence is that tupdogs generally use aggravated damage, if you are using prevent it doesn't make much difference (unless your prevent is like soak or something), if you aren't using prevent the difference is just that you go into torpor with blood instead of empty.

No. The main difference between Tupdog and weenie Potence is that weenie potence has to deal with his vampires dying and decrypting up new ones. It's perfectyly possible to weather the storm at the beginning until the weenie potence player runs out of steam and has to go backwards. Tupdog decks, meanwhile, get on-demand rushes at the cost of 1 pool (or more realistically, a tapped dreams or a powerbase montreal that nobody will even attempt to block when you try and take it back). Tupdogs are 100% expendable and never a liability. Unlike torped potence weenies. The next difference is that weenie potence has to rely on his weenie potence guys bleeding for 1 to oust his prey, while the Tupdog deck can Raw Recruit himself new vampires and has !Tremere that come with dominate on the table anyway. The next difference is that weenie potence has to rely on backrushing to stay alive, while Tupdogs can just use the !Tremere to bounce bleeds. Furthermore, weenie potence is just that - weenie potence. It does Signpost-Grapple-Smack-Disarm and that's it. And since you can only play Disram on vampire, the after the inevitable torp safe, you're going to need to hit for tons. Which you cannot, because you're a 2-cap with inferior potence and 1 blood. It get royally screwed by maneuvers, can't really deal with prevent because they dion't have prevent themselves and are, ya know, weenies. Tupdog on the other hand, has basically answer to everything and expendable to boot. Their combat cards are free, can do everything they need and to add insult to injury they ALSO get a rush at stealth and an untap. These decks are not even *remotely* similar unless you're claiming that "all combat decks are the same" in which case I suppose we can stop discussing. > Why yes I have, last time tupdog deck was my predator when I was playing !Nos toolbox, I just stealth rushed his !Tremere to torpor and rest of the game he was forced to go on full defense against his predator. > Yes, the deck has weaknesses. A lot of them, actually. The vast majority of them is unlikely to come up unless you meta specifically against it. And yes, if you happen to play something that exploits said weakness it can't do anything. Which is what I said earlier, which is why it's a retarded deck, spawned by a retarded crypt card that never saw proper playtesting.

Main reason I don't like Reversal of Fortune deck is because it messes basics of the game too much. I feel it is same reason why seat switchers was banned (of course there were too powerful, but there never will be seat switcher again even with more balanced cards). Switching seats messes about basics of predator/prey. Reversal of Fortunes messes basics of turn order. Some major change of game effects from cards are ok but it shouldn't let other players suffer too much. Madness Network is one of the best designed cards IMO and totally ok because it lets other players play also. I am not fan of turbo decks either. I don't feel I am playing Vtes anymore when I see them. Tupdog is a bit different topic. Important question when designing cards is if the card is fun at all to play against. Tupdog is maybe biggest mistake about this because it doesn't even allow other player to play his deck (some could argue Pentex makes same also, but I don't agree). I think tupdog deck shows what games might turn out to be more if combat is given more ousting power. I agree with Izaak that Tupdog is failed design. Crypt cards should be permanents you have to protect and not something you can just get massive amounts and throw to fire like Tupdogs.

FYI there was a discussion about Tupdog here and a poll here. Maybe some arguments are interesting. Baron of Frankfurt

I was at a table with a Reversal of Fortune-deck once played by Pascal at the EC on Mallorca. His predator, my prey was a Tupdog-deck. Both decks were annoying for sure. Gladly the players were nice (my pred was David Tatu, always a pleasure to play with) so the decks didn't matter that much, we had fun talking. But of course that's no parameter to measure the quality of the game. Pascals engine sputtered now and then, enough to make him lose the table. We others didn't saw much gaming time and the table timed with my prey gaining 1,5 VPs. It still was an interesting game as I never saw a RoF-deck before. Most likely I'd have been bored if it turned up more often before. To cut a long story short: I'm very careful with calls for banning because I think that is an easy and too common reflex when a card seems to be strong. I have the impression people rather call for a ban of a card instead to think how to counter its threat gamewise. But I'm not sure on this card, because that decktype lowers the game-experience of too many other players. Watching just one guy playing is seldom fun (it was for me at Mallorca as I didn't see the deck work before). OTOH that deck is really not that succesful. Is it played so often that we have to care? Baron of Frankfurt

> Joscha wrote: > To cut a long story short: I'm very careful with calls for banning because I think that is an easy and too common reflex when a card seems to be strong. I have the impression people rather call for a ban of a card instead to think how to counter its threat gamewise. > But I'm not sure on this card, because that decktype lowers the game-experience of too many other players. Watching just one guy playing is seldom fun (it was for me at Mallorca as I didn't see the deck work before). > OTOH that deck is really not that succesful. Is it played so often that we have to care? > I don't think anybody is saying that Reversal of Fortune is strong. I just wouldn't like to see Reversal of Fortune decks possible because I feel the game is not Vtes anymore. Same reason I wouldn't want to see seat switchers ever again even as super weak card or better turbo decks. Some could of course argue that combo decks should be part of Vtes. But Reversal of Fortune is not a major problem. I have seen the deck once or twice. So banning is not so necessary. Also Reversal of Fortune is only used in annoyed not "Vtes decks" so I can't see many arguments to not ban it. I feel Vtes doesn't gain anything by allowing Reversal of Fortune to be playable. So I guess best way is just hope players realize that deck is bad and don't play it. That situation is happening now and I hope it doesn't change. But if it would change, I would first persons to jump in ban wagon.

Just because a deck makes it not much fun for the table or a few at other players doesn't mean it or a card should be banned. I play a malkav deck that kills the whole table and myself but still allows me to take out my prey most of the table in order for me. I have played with it and against it and it sucks but doesn't mean it should be banned. I think thats part of the problem when people build decks.They re so stream lined that when someone throws a wrench into their deck 1st reaction is thats broken and I shouldn't have to put a card into my deck to defend that.

I've tried to play a lot of VTES tournaments and I've NEVER seen a RoF+Madness Network deck played. It doesn't mean I don't think they would be horridly annoying, but then again Madness Network would mean that someone still has to get the chance to take actions to kill the Madness Network. I've got my own Rachel Brandywine Homonculus Network Breeder (it's actually not a "Rachel bleeds for Mucho" but Rachel makes babies and the babies Night Moves you to gain the edge before you gain another with Victoria). Kill the Network and the deck works reasonably, but nothing as insane as it was before. Kill the Network, remove your Reversal of Fortunes problems. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > I've tried to play a lot of VTES tournaments and I've NEVER seen a RoF+Madness Network deck played. It doesn't mean I don't think they would be horridly annoying, but then again Madness Network would mean that someone still has to get the chance to take actions to kill the Madness Network. I've got my own Rachel Brandywine Homonculus Network Breeder (it's actually not a "Rachel bleeds for Mucho" but Rachel makes babies and the babies Night Moves you to gain the edge before you gain another with Victoria). Kill the Network and the deck works reasonably, but nothing as insane as it was before. > > Kill the Network, remove your Reversal of Fortunes problems. > As you said, you haven't seen the deck working. You can't break the Madness Network when you get no turn to play at all (which is happening with this deck). (BTW assuming that players don't know how to play is a bit offensive.) I don't mind the deck being strong. What I dislike is that it breaks the game mecanics and the whole player relationship, just as Kindred Restructure did. If the card is played 0.0001% of the time, then banning it won't change anything in the 99.99999% remaining games. But for the 0.0001% games, it will be a major improvement to the game experience. Or fix it to being playable twice per game. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

The problem with RoF+madness network is that it more often than not help its prey. When the deck works fine only RoF's prey (and the RoF player) will get a minion phase. The prey can often quite easily help the table by removing madness network or block the vote but why should he? He is the chosen one out of two who get game turns. The RoF player basically helps his prey with a free turn everytime the deck succeeds. Sure, the RoF player can still vote and bleed his prey but that tech is seriously crippled due to how many cards is needed to uphold the RoF strategy. Prey win by seating order.

> Ankha wrote: > If the card is played 0.0001% of the time, then banning it won't change anything in the 99.99999% remaining games. > But for the 0.0001% games, it will be a major improvement to the game experience. > Or fix it to being playable twice per game. > Gameplay wise it would the most logical choice to ban Reversal of Fortune. Whole game would totally improve 0.0001% or some random number. But there is other point too. I can picture banning a card causing some argues that Vekn is changing the game too much or some other random cryings. Also there haven't been any banned cards for a long time and it is cool to say that Vtes has very few banned cards. So it is quite heavy price to pay just for 0.0001% improvement. So I guess best would be just hope Reversal of Fortune decks doesn't show up.

What should be done with Reversal of Fortune? You should try to break the card and have fun with it. If anyone wants to post their best copy of the most heinously evil Reversal of Fortune/Madness Network/Smiling Jack/You Die Now deck, please do. That way everyone can try to abuse it and once it becomes the dominant tournament winning and game mechanic destroying archetype, the card will be banned. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

The deck has been playable since Jyhad, and the whole crypt for it has been available since Ancient Hearts. Why do you think it is a problem now, and why wasn't it before?

> Jeff wrote: > If anyone wants to post their best copy of the most heinously evil Reversal of Fortune/Madness Network/Smiling Jack/You Die Now deck, please do. > > That way everyone can try to abuse it and once it becomes the dominant tournament winning and game mechanic destroying archetype, the card will be banned. > I have already provided the link of a TWD. > Non-existant user wrote: > The deck has been playable since Jyhad, and the whole crypt for it has been available since Ancient Hearts. Why do you think it is a problem now, and why wasn't it before? > It has always been a problem since its creation. It's just that it required time to be discovered. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

How is it more of an issue than Una + Freak Drive ? Is it because it plays on turn 2 rather than on turn 4 ?

> Pascal wrote: > How is it more of an issue than Una + Freak Drive ? > Is it because it plays on turn 2 rather than on turn 4 ? > I never stated it was more or less an issue than Una Freak Show. Or Tupdogs. This topic is about Reversal of Fortune. > Ankha wrote: > (You could add Turbo Una to the list, but it's worth another topic.) > Now that this is clear, we can resume. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

As Juggernaut said I think the problem here is Madness Network, not Reversal of Fortune. But if something has to be done with Reversal, here's two simple suggestion for errata: 1. A metuselah can play only one Reversal of fortune. 2. You can not play this card if you have another copy of Reversal of Fortune in your ash heap. Option 1. is perhaps the easiest and least disruptive. Option 2. would still allow aformentioned madness + reversal to be played, but would put a serious wrench in its wheels(requiring some sort of card recycling).

> Whisker wrote: > Option 2. would still allow aformentioned madness + reversal to be played, but would put a serious wrench in its wheels(requiring some sort of card recycling). > Making it harder to play doesn't help. As has been pointed out, the deck is already hard to play, and is unfun for everyone else at the table whether or not the deck wins. Causing it to lose more often doesn't address the issue of not allowing other people to play the game. I'm curious to hear what the allure of the deck is from people who've played it. Pascal, you've poked your head up in this thread; care to share why you like the deck (or why you played it if you don't)?

> Kushiel wrote: > > > Whisker wrote: > > Option 2. would still allow aformentioned madness + reversal to be played, but would put a serious wrench in its wheels(requiring some sort of card recycling). > > > Making it harder to play doesn't help. As has been pointed out, the deck is already hard to play, and is unfun for everyone else at the table whether or not the deck wins. Causing it to lose more often doesn't address the issue of not allowing other people to play the game. > > I'm curious to hear what the allure of the deck is from people who've played it. Pascal, you've poked your head up in this thread; care to share why you like the deck (or why you played it if you don't)? > I played the deck twice. It's really difficult to play. One of the hardest I've had in my hands. Sadly, it's not really my type of deck. It gets too much table hate after 5 mins. But that's quite irrelevant to the current discussion. The deck is strong thanks to Madness Network and Reversal of Fortunes. Taking any of those two out removes the deck from the list. I'm listening to your remarks. I have seen the deck played (mainly by Orian and by Romain, another French player), and it requires at least 3 games of "testing" to get why this vampire should play that action. The deck itself has weaknesses. If your predator brings out a rusher on turn 1, he gets to rush one of your two initial vampires (which is quite bad, even if he simply reduces it to 0 blood). If your prey bring out a cheap titled guy (Victor Pelletier being the easier pick), you're in a bad situation. Depending on the version played, fortitude combat might be your biggest ennemy. And, finally, if the table talks, they might get your Malkavian Justicar vote fail by discarding a political action card each. If you miss your window, or let slip a turn, there are almost no chances of getting a second shot at the GW. The biggest issue I have with the deck is that it is stored on the Internet without any "Attention! Run this deck at home, alone, first!" warning. It definitely isn't for those who want to test something new.

> Kushiel wrote: > I'm curious to hear what the allure of the deck is from people who've played it. Pascal, you've poked your head up in this thread; care to share why you like the deck (or why you played it if you don't)? > The appeal is, I suspect, that it is a tricksy puzzle to solve (for the person playing it), and when it goes off, it can be very effective while being "clever". To be fair, I have never played such a deck. Wampler had one that he worked on for years and years, and he always warned us ahead of time that he was playing it. A lot of the time, it didn't work. Sometimes it did, and the two people on the other side of the table literally got to leave the game and go play something else for an hour, checking in once and a while, and either Steve got wiped out due to bad cards or a convenient DT or something, or he wiped everyone out with Smiling Jack. I'm of the mind that the card is, in the right context, incredibly bad for the game, but given that it is really hard to make work (a few DTs at the right time, or DI, or a bad draw, or some early unexpected vote defense, and it all falls apart), I'm not convinced that it needs any actual action.

> bakija wrote: > I'm of the mind that the card is, in the right context, incredibly bad for the game, but given that it is really hard to make work (a few DTs at the right time, or DI, or a bad draw, or some early unexpected vote defense, and it all falls apart), I'm not convinced that it needs any actual action. > It sounds like you're describing it as a card which is really hard to play correctly but wins you the game when you do? That's really bad tech for a game that's mostly built on the accumulation of small effects, like VTES. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong (because I've never seen either of these in actual play), but isn't that the same kind of card as Return to Innocence, different in degree rather than kind?

> Kushiel wrote: > I mean, correct me if I'm wrong (because I've never seen either of these in actual play), but isn't that the same kind of card as Return to Innocence, different in degree rather than kind? > I don't think a lot of people think that the Reversal of fortune deck is what we want for VtES. It's more that the deck is neither powerful enough nor played enough to warrant something as problematic as a ban. Or maybe even an errata.

> Ohlmann wrote: > I don't think a lot of people think that the Reversal of fortune deck is what we want for VtES. It's more that the deck is neither powerful enough nor played enough to warrant something as problematic as a ban. Or maybe even an errata. > To my mind, "it's not played very often" means that banning it would be more or less painless and affect the game very little. That it's apparently very disruptive when it is played is just more evidence in favor of a ban. I don't really have a horse in the race, just pointing out which side of logic this evidence lands on.

> Kushiel wrote: > To my mind, "it's not played very often" means that banning it would be more or less painless and affect the game very little. > The problem is, people who don't stay tuned on VEKN but play VtES. The more card ban there is, the more likely they will play a deck with a random Reversal of Fortune and don't understand why the deck is "illegal". That's why ban and erratas should be sparse : we don't want to require knowing this site to play.

> Ohlmann wrote: > > > Kushiel wrote: > > To my mind, "it's not played very often" means that banning it would be more or less painless and affect the game very little. > > > The problem is, people who don't stay tuned on VEKN but play VtES. The more card ban there is, the more likely they will play a deck with a random Reversal of Fortune and don't understand why the deck is "illegal". > > That's why ban and erratas should be sparse : we don't want to require knowing this site to play. > You don't need to abide by the VEKN tournament rules to play VTES. Not that I want to play a casual game with Madness of the Bard.

> The problem is, people who don't stay tuned on VEKN but play VtES. The more card ban there is, the more likely they will play a deck with a random Reversal of Fortune and don't understand why the deck is "illegal". > > That's why ban and erratas should be sparse : we don't want to require knowing this site to play. > This is completely redundant. You have ALWAYS had to check up on the latest tournament rules and errata when wanting to play competitive VTES and have never had to when you just played it casual. Since there is no other official website than this one and the old White Wolf link in fact points towards this one, there is absolutely no way someone will randomly show up with an illegal deck on a tournament without knowledge of this website. For any non-tournament situation where someone would show up without knowledge of the latest card-texts and banlists you can just use common sense and let the guy play his 1 copy of Reversal of Fortune and gently point out that this card is banned for official play. Just as has always been the case.

> Izaak wrote: > For any non-tournament situation where someone would show up without knowledge of the latest card-texts and banlists you can just use common sense and let the guy play his 1 copy of Reversal of Fortune and gently point out that this card is banned for official play. Just as has always been the case. > And have alway worked because ban and erratas are not that numerous, especially thoses without a lot of correct reprint.

What exactly is "not numerous"? Because on the website I'm looking at the errata/ruling/clarification list is divided into 5 seperate pages, that are all several pages long. There is literally HUNDREDS of them. How is that "not numerous"?

> Ohlmann wrote: > we don't want to require knowing this site to play. > The VEKN disagrees. See: Villein.

> Izaak wrote: > There is literally HUNDREDS of them. How is that "not numerous"? > For numerous years, magic was far, far worse (in proportion, because Magic may have something like 10 to 100 more cards), to the point they actually have reversed most of them, so that people can actually play the card without having to reads thousands of pages of erratas.. > Kushiel wrote: > The VEKN disagrees. See: Villein. > The VEKN have talked about half a dozen cards to ban or errata. One have been errated. So, as you see, the VEKN don't like to ban or errate card. In both case, would you support an errata for Tortured Confession that remove the blood cost ? It's more or less the same reasoning : bothering to errata or ban the card can be thought as not worth the effort. It's just that changing Reversal is a bit more meaningful (and controversial) than Tortured Confession or Twisting the Knife. But in both case the "no need to act for something so small" is a valid argument that you may or may not adhere to.

> Ohlmann wrote: > The VEKN have talked about half a dozen cards to ban or errata. One have been errated. So, as you see, the VEKN don't like to ban or errate card. > Completely irrelevant. You said that it's bad if players need to be familiar with this site in order to play in official VEKN tournaments. That's already the case, because there's never been a print of Villein that has the proper card text. Since players already need to be familiar with this site in order to play in a tournament (at least according to your standards of personally needing to know all current rules, banned cards and cardtexts) that argument against banning RoF is a total non-starter. It's just objectively wrong. *shrug* > Ohlmann wrote: > In both case, would you support an errata for Tortured Confession that remove the blood cost ? It's more or less the same reasoning : bothering to errata or ban the card can be thought as not worth the effort. > I've never heard of the play of a Tortured Confession that disrupted a VTES table, let alone prevented two or three players from being able to do anything for an hour. Your analogy is poor.

> For numerous years, magic was far, far worse (in proportion, because Magic may have something like 10 to 100 more cards), to the point they actually have reversed most of them, so that people can actually play the card without having to reads thousands of pages of erratas.. > So because another game has even MORE errata, the HUNDREDS we have for VTES are not numerous suddenly? FYI, while Magic may a larger number of actual errata, the number that are relevant at any given (somewhat meaningful) tournament is much smaller. > In both case, would you support an errata for Tortured Confession that remove the blood cost ? It's more or less the same reasoning : bothering to errata or ban the card can be thought as not worth the effort. > No it's not. When tortured confession gets played people just go "wut, really... lol?". When Reversal of Fortunes gets played, it breaks the game.

Now just waiting for lame argument: "If Reversal of Fortune is banned next is gonna be Una, Tupdogs, Deflection etc. and banning will never end." Anyway only good arguments not to ban Reversal of Fortune I see are. 1. Somebody thinks Reversal of Fortune decks are actually cool and good for game. 2. Reversal of Fortune still is very minor problem and banning would cause argues + ban list would go larger. I feel especially Vtes players can be a bit stubborn and old school so banning minor thing might not be best option even if game would improve by tiny amount.

Overall this looks to me like the original poster wants it banned simply because his 'invincible deck of doom' got ousted by reversal of fortunes deck once, and thus it must obviously be broken! From what I can see of the ban list, only ONE card has ever been banned because of reasons other than it being too good (not counting the ante cards), and that is Madness of the Bard, which was banned simply because it was too much a pain in the ass to monitor if everyone was talking in rhymes all the time.

> Klaital wrote: > Overall this looks to me like the original poster wants it banned simply because his 'invincible deck of doom' got ousted by reversal of fortunes deck once, and thus it must obviously be broken! > I just re-read the OP, and can't see how you came to that conclusion. From Ankha's post: "The big problem (IMHO) is Madness / Reversal* decks. It's a very technical deck to build and play but that disrupts the whole game to its very core. "Either it works and 3 players sit down doing nothing while the deck wins; "Either it works but the player has no choice to propose some king making to his prey because otherwise the Madness/Reversal would lose; "Or it doesn't work and it's a free VP for his predator as the whole table teams up against it. "Playing alone with no interaction from the other players is not the spirit of VTES." His complaint is that the card is unduly disruptive to what he sees as the spirit of the game. If you want to argue against that, go nuts, but nowhere does he mention ever getting ousted by the deck, or even that he thinks it's good. If you haven't read the rest of the thread, nobody is arguing that it might warrant errata or banning because it's too good, even the people who want it errata'd or banned. > Klaital wrote: > From what I can see of the ban list, only ONE card has ever been banned because of reasons other than it being too good (not counting the ante cards), and that is Madness of the Bard, which was banned simply because it was too much a pain in the ass to monitor if everyone was talking in rhymes all the time. > The seat-switchers weren't banned for being too good, but because they destroyed the predator/prey relationship that's so central to the game. It's pretty easy to see how RoF can be considered a parallel to those cards, given that it destroys the mechanic whereby players take turns one after another.

RoF doesn't do anything about the mechanic of people taking turns one after another, its Madness Network that enables that to happen. Thats the whole point of Madness Network to allow you to take extra turns so to speak, and RoF isn't nearly the only card it is abused with, see the various Rachel Brandywine decks for example. If you want to remove the someone taking extra turns thing you should ban Madness Network.

> Klaital wrote: > RoF doesn't do anything about the mechanic of people taking turns one after another, its Madness Network that enables that to happen. Thats the whole point of Madness Network to allow you to take extra turns so to speak, and RoF isn't nearly the only card it is abused with, see the various Rachel Brandywine decks for example. If you want to remove the someone taking extra turns thing you should ban Madness Network. > Madness Network doesn't give anyone at the table any more phases (untap, master, minion, influence, discard), even in the purely optimal circumstance of no one removing it and having all your Malks untapped every turn. MN/RoF gives two players more phases while taking away all phases from other players at the table. See the difference? You're right that MN is usable in more decks than MN/RoF (though I think "abusable" is too strong a word for it). That's why, if the MN/RoF deck needs to be removed from the tournament environment, RoF is the card that should go, because that'll have no impact on the tournament scene other than removing the MN/RoF deck, which is the goal of the proposed errata'ing/banning. Changing or banning MN would have much wider implications, and disallow perfectly balanced decks. That's the opposite of the desired outcome here, for everyone.

You cite a very specific example of Madness Network and Reversal of Fortune causing a problem. Each of those cards on their own is fine. Part of any collectible card game is the possibility that a player will find a combination of cards that produces an undesirable effect. In the case of "turbo" decks it's generally acceptable, because it's fairly hard to do. It could be argued that Madness Network + Reversal of Fortune goes well beyond what is "acceptable." But as I mentioned above, both cards are fine by themselves, so it would be prudent to find a solution that hoses the combination without wallpapering either card. Reversal of Fortune was printed in the original set: It was intended to be common enough that the counter to it was the card itself. After X number of expansions, that is no longer relevant. A simple solution could be to add "Another Reversal of Fortune cannot be called until each Methuselah has taken his or her turn." Or "This Methuselah may not call another Reversal of Fortune until another players calls a Reversal of Fortune." Please, keep it simple, keep it elegant. Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.

What about "only usable by a vampire above 7" ? or "unique, put in play, during your untap phase burn this card ?" or "only 2 Rof can be played in a game"

Hi guys, I've played like 5 or 6 tournament games against Una and had to wait between 30 and 60 minutes in most of them after Una went viral. I've played maybe 8 to 10 tournament games against turbo-type or Tupdog decks which really screwed the table dynamics. I've played numerous tournament games against weenies which ousted me or someone else in less then 30 minutes or left a screwed table dynamics. I've played zero tournament games against Reversal of Fortune. In case I had, maybe I would have to wait an hour or would experience a screwed table. Nothing from this above would made me - stop playing the game - cry for banning card X - hope that card Y gets errata. Maybe that's just me. Cheers Alf <INSERT CLEVER QUOTATION HERE>

Well, good for you and the 3 people that "liked" your post. I'm glad for you that you don't feel having broken strategies and decks possible is harmful for the game. It's very nice for you and the people you play with that they don't mind traveling 3-4 hours to a tournament only to get 2 of their 3 games getting messed up by aforementioned broken decks. It's wonderful that these people still return to tournaments even if it's just a complete waste of their free saturday or sunday. However, for everyone else, I'd MUCH prefer these three specific zero-fun decks to go. Not because I hate them personally (which I still do), but also because I want people to have a good time at my tournaments and return next time because they had FUN. I have "lost" at least two new players from returning to a tournament three years ago because they both had to sit with an Una deck in two of their three games. These two people decided that tournaments were stupid, unfun and a waste of their time. Only because they had to sit next to Una for 45 minutes. I never heard from them again. This is BAD FOR THE GAME. That alone is enough reason to fix Una (once per turn Una can..., see also Nergal), ban Reversal of Fortunes (nobody plays it anyway unless it's in a stupid deck) and ban Tupdog (because the card by its very design is broken). The collateral damage would be so minimal it's not even worth discussing.

I completely agree that it is utterly unfun sitting at the same table with reversal deck. However, in all my years, i have seen it actually ONCE, and then it did not win. However, at almost EVERY tournament i go there is AT LEAST one stupid una freakshow, that is for me EVEN MORE unfun to sit at the same table with, as at lest reversal deck constantly does something and is, at least to me, that one time, interesting to watch it move, and eventually, in my case, break down. With Una, it is even more boring,- something-freak-hunt-freak-hunt-freak-equip-freak-rush-freak-something-freak... for a good 30-50 minutes .. It is also exactly the opposite of what vtes should be, and Una actually wins tournaments and plays finals on regular basis, yet i haven't seen 6 pages long discussion over it is ok to ban Una...? That is all i am trying to say.

Yeah, and btw, while we're at it: Ban Turbo-X. Ban Weenie Potence. Ban Weenie Dementation. Ban Weenie Presence. Ban Weenie Auspex. All of those can be of varying un-fun as prey or predator and really wreck your game. So where do you stop before basically heading towards: Ban X, where X = (makes my game un-fun). If my playgroup had stopped playing certain stuff whenever someone had a certain amount of un-fun we'd be playing 4CL or preconstructed starters at most. If players judge their tournament experience after 1 participation, hell, their choice. Off Topic: I defenitly wouldn't drink any beer nowadays if I had stopped trying after the first time Alf <INSERT CLEVER QUOTATION HERE>

Although I agree with most of what Izaak wrote I just have to point out that people who cry foul might claim unbalanced, broken or unfun first time they see cards like Mind Rape, No Secrets from Magaji, Baltimore Purge, Sensory Deprivation, Corruption, Temptation, Form of Corruption, Shatter the Gates, Shattering Crescendo, Enkil Cog (to name a few) also. The shock effect some cards/decks cause for an untrained or easily swayed person could force a strong reaction.

This is pointless. The RoF is so rarely encountered that it's not a need to be banned. The Una deck can be stopped several ways, and rarely wins tournaments. Generally, it only win tables where the players, his predator and prey let it slip away. If it stopped early, then it usually a free VP or just sits there doing nothing for an hour. If Una gets banned or errata, then many cards should get one (Baltimore Purge, for example). About Tupdog, I see nothing seriously wrong. Yeah, it's insanely good, but not broken. The game was fine with it since it came to light, and now it seen rarely as a before, mainly just for some support is nephandus, rock cat decks. A few years ago, the ban would've been more valid than nowadays. If the players you mentioned did what you said, then it's their problem. They were not committed to the game, if 2 bad rounds turned them away form it. I've never played with this decks, so I'm not against the changes because I have 15+ tupdogs for the ridiculous amount of money the cost (actually I have none, but would be seriously pissed if I would be one with that many...) I just simply against it because this cards not worthy a ban/errata. Succubus Club, PTO, Edge Explosion was. Villein was worthy of an errata. This cards are simply just as good as they are now.

> The Una deck can be stopped several ways, and rarely wins tournaments. > Wrong on both accounts. It's not easy to stop and requires some bad luck on Una's part. It also *does* win a tournaments somewhat regularly. > About Tupdog, I see nothing seriously wrong. Yeah, it's insanely good, but not broken. > Ye see, this is the problem. It's not insanely good. It's broken. It's rush combat without the usual caveats combat has, which I all mentioned earlier. It usually makes other people win randomly and causes games to be shit. Just like the old Anarch Revolt did, which got fixed for that reason alone. > Ban Turbo-X. > Ban Weenie Potence. > Ban Weenie Dementation. > Ban Weenie Presence. > Ban Weenie Auspex. > Again, there is a difference between RoF, Tupdog and Una and all the other hate decks people are throwing up here: with all these decks you can actually *interact*. Sure, you may get destroyed but at least you can ya know, try and block, bounce, take an action or two, talk crosstable, get rescues, etc etc. And in the worst case scenario, you actually get *gasp* OUSTED and you´re free to do whatever else you want in the remaining hour. With Una and RoF decks you *cannot* interact and the game turns into a playground for the player piloting the deck. With Tupdog decks it depends a bit on the player, but usually it just means staring at 20-something pool counters and an empty ready and torpor region for at least two people. > If the players you mentioned did what you said, then it's their problem. They were not committed to the game, if 2 bad rounds turned them away form it. > Well that can be your attitude, of course. It's also a fairly easy one to assume as an established player and not one that will keep casual players interested for very long. I'm pretty sure that when I played my first tournament in 2001 and my day had consisted of staring at my hand doing nothing for 4 hours I would not have been posting here. If people try out a tournament and it's the opposite of fun, they're not going to try again. They´re going to keep playing with whomever they were playing with before and have some actual fun. If you think otherwise, you're delusional.

> Izaak wrote: > However, for everyone else, I'd MUCH prefer these three specific zero-fun decks to go. Not because I hate them personally (which I still do), but also because I want people to have a good time at my tournaments and return next time because they had FUN. > I'm not even asking for people to have fun. I'm asking that people may be allowed to play a turn during the game (and not the kind where you lose 10 pool on your first turn because Smiling already has 10 counters when you start to play). For people who wants to discuss about Una and Tupdogs, please do it in a separated thread (that I'll surely enjoy reading, but don't mix up things here). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

That happened me, exactly. When I started, in a casual play (maybe my 4th-5th game or so), I played against a Tupdog deck, and against a RoF deck in the next game. Both decks won their respective games. It was not so much fun, but educational. Yeah, it's like playing against SB in casual games, which is kinda sucks, but happens sometimes. The new players will also encounter those decks and its better in casual plays than in a tournament scene, 2nd time they'll know what to do against it. I'm not saying about Una that it doesn't win tables, it just doesn't really win tournaments. On Secret library, maybe 3 MonoUna decks won a tournament total (definitely more in fact, but not reported), but that's not too many. It was discussed that combat is inferior as it is. Tupdog is an exclusion to some extent, a deck that can win almost only with combat. I know that it's bad to lose 2 players whom you'd worked with to be new players for the game, but those things happen. You're doing a great job in keeping the dutch community alive and you know how hard it is, it's a fact. I'm just simply saying that the game should have more new cards as it is planned rather than ban the already existing (and not entirely gamebreaking) cards.

> Ankha wrote: > I'm not even asking for people to have fun. I'm asking that people may be allowed to play a turn during the game (and not the kind where you lose 10 pool on your first turn because Smiling already has 10 counters when you start to play). > This. I would've simply thanked this post, but I just wanted to add that fun/unfun really aren't relevant issues here. That they literally break the most basic structure of the game (Player A takes a turn, Player B takes a turn, etc) is the issue with the RoF/MN decks, not whether or not they meet any given player's subjective value of fun. As a parallel example, the seat-switching votes weren't banned because of any negative value they had on the fun spectrum, but because they broke another of the most basic foundations of the game.

> Kushiel wrote: > It sounds like you're describing it as a card which is really hard to play correctly but wins you the game when you do? That's really bad tech for a game that's mostly built on the accumulation of small effects, like VTES. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong (because I've never seen either of these in actual play), but isn't that the same kind of card as Return to Innocence, different in degree rather than kind? > Kind of? Reversal of Fortune isn't so much a card that you can play "correctly" and then win the game. There are simply too many outside forces that you have no control of. For a Reversal/Madness Network deck to go off, you need to get out a quick weenie Malkavian, get a Madness Network in play, get a Malkavian Justicar vote off, and then start an endless chain of Reversal of Fortunes. All of which can be stymied by any number of common enough defenses (Delaying Tactics, Sudden Reversals, Direct Interventions, enough intercept, more votes on the table than you had hoped for, etc) or simply a bad card draw. So you need to build a complicated, tricksy deck and then have everything in the right place at the right time. I mean, this is a deck that has been in existence since the day Jyhad was originally published, and how many times has such a deck hit the TWDA? Again, I think when this deck/card *does* go off and works as hoped, it is incredibly bad for the game--playing a 5 player game where 2 of the players don't ever get to have turns is abominable. In an absolute sense, I'd be perfectly happy for it to be banned (along with plenty of other cards that make the game less good), but in a practical sense, I know a lot of people hat the idea of banning anything, and given the difficulty of making this deck go, there are other, more commonly damaging cards I'd like to see get fixed/banned before Reversal of Fortune.

It's low-hanging fruit, though. If Reversal of Fortune were to be banned no one would care and the game would be better off.

> Izaak wrote: > I have "lost" at least two new players from returning to a tournament three years ago because they both had to sit with an Una deck in two of their three games. These two people decided that tournaments were stupid, unfun and a waste of their time. Only because they had to sit next to Una for 45 minutes. I never heard from them again. This is BAD FOR THE GAME. > You have to think other side too. Very few players want any changes to game or ban any cards (even if that would make sense by game play standards and I agree your reasons to ban Reversal of Fortune). So banning cards and gaining minor improvement might be bad for the game also because it could alienate some players. I also think Vtes hasn't never been so much about attracting new players because it requires so much commitment. It has always been more about pleasing the existing players but that discussion is other topic.

> bakija wrote: > Reversal of Fortune isn't so much a card that you can play "correctly" and then win the game. > Yeah, I get now that if action needs to be taken on the card, it's because it falls into the "messes with the fundamentals of the game" category rather than "brokenly overpowered." Thanks. And here's a smiley for you, because I know how much you love them!

> Izaak wrote: > > > The Una deck can be stopped several ways, and rarely wins tournaments. > > > Wrong on both accounts. It's not easy to stop and requires some bad luck on Una's part. It also *does* win a tournaments somewhat regularly. > There are 4 Una Freak Show decks in the TWDA. 2011 16 players 2011 10 players 2010 35 players 2008 12 players Not an opinion, just the facts.

Asking to ban the wrong card. The card you should want banned is Madness Network. The complaint that RoF breaks the basic rules of the game is just as true with Madness Network. Madness Network is very powerful and rarely a low value play where RoF is usually awful, sometimes quirky, and only problematic enough to generate this thread because of the far better card. I could also point out that Madness Network isn't the only "act of turn" card that can be annoying, though I'd rate MN as the worst simply because its only meaningful requirement is that you play a clan that has such a hard time winning like Malks. Traveller Card Game

> ICL wrote: > Asking to ban the wrong card. The card you should want banned is Madness Network. The complaint that RoF breaks the basic rules of the game is just as true with Madness Network. > RoF/MN gets you extra untaps, MPAs, transfers, discards and actions, and prevents other people from having any of same. Since all the cards in the game are balanced around the premise that players will take turns in order, bypassing that premise throws everything out of whack. MN alone just gets you extra actions. That those actions take place on other players' turns doesn't overturn the basic structure of the game, it just makes minion phases more complicated (and, interestingly, has the potential to increase interactivity between players by adding a small minigame that doesn't exist otherwise). Since an RoF ban affects one game-breaking deck, but a MN ban affects loads of non-game-breaking decks, it's unfair to ruin non-game-breaking decks as collateral damage when there's a much more elegant solution.

> ICL wrote: > Madness Network is very powerful and rarely a low value play. > Well, Madness network alone is also arguably less powerful than, for example, Freak Drive, Govern the unaligned, or deflection. And less disruptive to play than, say, Direct Intervention or First Tradition. And as you say there is a lot of deck that can play Madness Network as a regular, non broken card. Reversal of fortune is the main target because it's not exactly widely used outside of combo decks. As would say Izaak, it's not that the card is powerful that cause trouble here : it's that it's bad for the game.

> ICL wrote: > Asking to ban the wrong card. The card you should want banned is Madness Network. The complaint that RoF breaks the basic rules of the game is just as true with Madness Network. Madness Network is very powerful and rarely a low value play where RoF is usually awful, sometimes quirky, and only problematic enough to generate this thread because of the far better card. > > I could also point out that Madness Network isn't the only "act of turn" card that can be annoying, though I'd rate MN as the worst simply because its only meaningful requirement is that you play a clan that has such a hard time winning like Malks. > This has been already discussed in this topic so I don't say it again. I don't think your reasoning is right. I think Madness Network is a example of a good card designed which bends the rules but doesn't break the game. Kushiel said: > Madness Network doesn't give anyone at the table any more phases (untap, master, minion, influence, discard), even in the purely optimal circumstance of no one removing it and having all your Malks untapped every turn. MN/RoF gives two players more phases while taking away all phases from other players at the table. See the difference? > > You're right that MN is usable in more decks than MN/RoF (though I think "abusable" is too strong a word for it). That's why, if the MN/RoF deck needs to be removed from the tournament environment, RoF is the card that should go, because that'll have no impact on the tournament scene other than removing the MN/RoF deck, which is the goal of the proposed errata'ing/banning. Changing or banning MN would have much wider implications, and disallow perfectly balanced decks. That's the opposite of the desired outcome here, for everyone. > I don't understand this opinion of yours "I'd rate MN as the worst simply because its only meaningful requirement is that you play a clan that has such a hard time winning like Malks." Malks make very good S+B deck but MN will not benefit that deck a lot. MN offers completely new strategy and deck type for the game. That is the best card design in my book. I would be totally up for giving strong combat deck for Malks also if it would bring new interesting decks to table and not make the existing malk decks stronger at same time.

> Surreal wrote: > > I don't understand this opinion of yours "I'd rate MN as the worst simply because its only meaningful requirement is that you play a clan that has such a hard time winning like Malks." > > Malks make very good S+B deck but MN will not benefit that deck a lot. MN offers completely new strategy and deck type for the game. That is the best card design in my book. I would be totally up for giving strong combat deck for Malks also if it would bring new interesting decks to table and not make the existing malk decks stronger at same time. > I think he was being facetious. I don't think he really thinks Malks have a hard time winning. Sometimes communicative intent is lost on the internet. I hope he was being facetious fa·ce·tious [fuh-see-shuhs] adjective 1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark. 2. amusing; humorous. 3. lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.

> TorranceCircle wrote: > I think he was being facetious. I don't think he really thinks Malks have a hard time winning. Sometimes communicative intent is lost on the internet. I hope he was being facetious > I think Surreal have understood that ; what he disagree is that Madness Network help the winning strategy for malkavian (usually said to be S+B)

Nevermind, Ohlmann to the rescue. I wonder if the cancel-button still submits?

Some data: Total number of decks in TWDA with... Reversal of Fortunes: 2 (10 and 12 out of 60 cards) Madness Network: 41 (median = 3) There are 7 Madness Networks in each of the TWDs with Reversal of Fortunes. Combo decks are fragile. They are annoying and typically lock down the game when they work, but they are easily defeated. Both victories for Reversal of Fortunes came in tournaments held in Paris(22 and 24 player sizes). This suggests to me it is a local phenomenon. That doesn't mean it can be annoying to deal with such a situation for the locals, but it probably doesn't warrant banning at this time. I know there are folks in Los Angeles who are trying to make it work in tournaments, but it hasn't happened yet. It would be enlightening to hear from anyone who is trying to break it, but is not having success as to their motivations. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > > I know there are folks in Los Angeles who are trying to make it work in tournaments, but it hasn't happened yet. It would be enlightening to hear from anyone who is trying to break it, but is not having success as to their motivations. > I was at another table during a tournament in L.A. I heard a lot of moans and groans coming from the table where the R0F deck was being played. The deck didn't win but it was the most talked about.

> Ohlmann wrote: > > I think Surreal have understood that ; what he disagree is that Madness Network help the winning strategy for malkavian (usually said to be S+B) > It appears I was the one who misunderstood. I am writing a paper about communicative intent and, lately, I see everything through that lens. I think MN alone does help stealth bleed, in the same way that enkil cog does. You can set up to bleed on your predators turn then bleed again on your turn. Effectively doubling your stealth bleed actions. I also think Anka was right when he said, "Playing alone with no interaction from the other players is not the spirit of VTES."

> TorranceCircle wrote: > I think MN alone does help stealth bleed, in the same way that enkil cog does. > The amount of infrastructure needed to actually defend the Network is non-trivial, though, and does have a significant impact on the raw effectiveness of the stealth/bleed parts of the deck. There's a reason why weenie DEM and vanilla stealth/bleed decks win more than MN decks.

> Jeff wrote: > Both victories for Reversal of Fortunes came in tournaments held in Paris(22 and 24 player sizes). This suggests to me it is a local phenomenon. That doesn't mean it can be annoying to deal with such a situation for the locals, but it probably doesn't warrant banning at this time. > I don't think the deck is a local phenomenon. People have been monkeying with that deck since the day the game was invented. I think it has a significant bar which discourages it from being played at tournaments a lot, however--as noted, if it works, it prevents at least 2 people from ever playing the game (in a literal sense). As such, it is a really seriously douchey deck, and folks tend not to play it much.

> bakija wrote: > I don't think the deck is a local phenomenon. People have been monkeying with that deck since the day the game was invented. > > I think it has a significant bar which discourages it from being played at tournaments a lot, however--as noted, if it works, it prevents at least 2 people from ever playing the game (in a literal sense). As such, it is a really seriously douchey deck, and folks tend not to play it much. > Perhaps I should have said, "This suggests to me that {success with the deck} is a local phenomenon." I do agree that peer pressure likely suppresses most decks which intentionally create non-interactive situations. Paradoxically, peer pressure against certain archetypes makes it harder for problematic cards to be banned. Those decks don't see as much play at the tournament level, so action against them relies more heavily on philosophical argument rather than empirical evidence. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > Perhaps I should have said, "This suggests to me that {success with the deck} is a local phenomenon." > Ah, yes. That is certainly a possibility. I think to make this particular deck work, you need to: A) Be really clever in design and play. and B ) [Dear Board Controllers. Please please please make the auto smiley function go away. Not being able to make a B followed by a ) without it automatically turning into a asinine smiley face with sunglasses on it makes me want to shoot someone in the face.] Really, really not give a crap if everyone else at the table totally hates your guts for wasting their time for two hours. If you got A and B going for you, you can make a good go of the Madness Network/Reversal of Fortune deck. I don't know that there are a lot of folks who can pull this off, however. > Paradoxically, peer pressure against certain archetypes makes it harder for problematic cards to be banned. Those decks don't see as much play at the tournament level, so action against them relies more heavily on philosophical argument rather than empirical evidence. > Oh, absolutely. Like, there are a lot of decks that are super douchey, but most of them tend to just oust folks quickly, and getting ousted quickly is *vastly* less irritating than being in a game for 2 hours and not ever getting to take an action 'cause of Reversal of Fortune. Una Freak Show is similar, but at least other folks get to interact some.

> bakija wrote: > B ) [Dear Board Controllers. Please please please make the auto smiley function go away. Not being able to make a B followed by a ) without it automatically turning into a asinine smiley face with sunglasses on it makes me want to shoot someone in the face.] Really, really not give a crap if everyone else at the table totally hates your guts for wasting their time for two hours. > The "B)" issue has been fixed by changing the characters you have to type to display that icon to "B - )" (without spaces) instead. V:EKN Website Coordinator

> Damnans wrote: > The "B)" issue has been fixed by changing the characters you have to type to display that icon to "B - )" (without spaces) instead. > A) Whoah. Thanks! I didn't think that was something that could be fixed. I was just ranting aimlessly. That's awesome! B) I just wanted to write B). Hurrah! Thanks!

> bakija wrote: > > > Damnans wrote: > > The "B)" issue has been fixed by changing the characters you have to type to display that icon to "B - )" (without spaces) instead. > > > A) Whoah. Thanks! I didn't think that was something that could be fixed. I was just ranting aimlessly. That's awesome! > > B) I just wanted to write B). Hurrah! > > Thanks! > B-) Edit: Hey, that B- ) thingy works too, great. Baron of Frankfurt

I am the guilty party from LA that played this deck. I had seen versions in the past and playing around with my variant, but when I saw Orians I built it with a few changes. The one I played went off about a third of the time. By that I mean complete lock out, no actions for anyone but me. the key to that is Brainwash, Pentex and Ossian, though I included Muddled Vampire Hunter and Temptation of Greater Power for added effect. It is a difficult deck to play. Defiantly all or nothing, either you win and everyone hates you or you loss and hate yourself. There really is no place for the vote other than this deck type. The deck is not fun accept maybe saddists anyone who thinks differently has not been on enough tables with it. By the way great deck Orian, it inspires much hate a round here. Deck Name: Battle Frenzy: Saveurs et Arômates de France Author: Orian Gissler (TTC) Description: Battle Frenzy Paris, France November 1, 2009 22 players Better but still not the one I was going to play at the EC Crypt (13 cards; Capacity min=1 max=3 avg=1.77) =============================================== 1x Anarch Convert 1 -none- Caitiff:ANY 1x Antoinette DuChamp 1 cel pre Caitiff:2 1x Brazil 2 aus Malkavian:1 1x Dollface 3 aus obf Malkavian:1 1x Franciscus 1 aus Caitiff:2 1x Igo the Hungry 1 pre pro Caitiff:1 1x Nik 1 cel Caitiff:1 2x Normal 2 obf Malkavian:1 1x Ohanna 2 dom Malkavian:2 1x Smudge the Ignored 1 Caitiff:1 1x Watenda 3 obf Malkavian:2 1x Zöe 3 cel obf AUS Malkavian:2 Library (60 cards) ================== Master (39) 3x Ashur Tablets 7x Brainwash 2x Dreams of the Sphinx 1x Fragment of the Book of Nod 2x Information Highway 1x Last Stand 7x Madness Network 1x Metro Underground 6x Parthenon, The 4x Pentex(TM) Subversion 1x Perfectionist 1x Powerbase: Montreal 1x Smiling Jack, The Anarch 1x Storage Annex 1x Wash Event (1) 1x Anthelios, The Red Star Action (1) 1x Constant Revolution Political Action (16) 3x Malkavian Justicar 1x Parity Shift 1x Praxis Seizure: Stockholm 10x Reversal of Fortunes 1x Rumors of Gehenna Equipment (2) 1x Heart of Nizchetus 1x Sargon Fragment, The Ally (1) 1x Ossian