Let's Talk Rapid Thought!

I like Rapid Thought. Best version of rules can be found here: members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt I have played this format on JOL, and it was fun. I have played it once in RL, but not tournament, and it was fun. I would like to see it become a standard tournament format, with everyone packing 2-3 Rapid Thought decks in their quiver, just in case. Sadly, in LA, Rapid thought lovers are too few for us to ever have a tournament of it. Unless they get their minds changed at Origins. What are your thoughts on Rapid Thought? Do you have any questions? Have you ever run a Rapid Thought tournament - please share your experience! chris

I like Rapid Thought, without having tried it. I only had one question though - why the 3-player tables? Adonai answered in the other thread "Three player tables eliminate the cross table turns that don't effect you. They also take an extra 40+ minutes out of the game because everyone's turn always matters to you so you're always paying attention." I don´t really like this. One of the cool things about VTES is the multiplayers crosstable-ally aspect. Maybe a compromise of 4 player tables? You still be forced to act fast because of the shorter round limit and no good pool gain. One thing that is nice with the format is that you can play 5 or 6 rounds before finals in a tournament. Here we usually only play 2 rounds, and then every round is so very important. 5-6 rounds is more "forgiving" considering beginner players, bad seatings etc, and means you can´t go to finals with only 1 vp or something like that. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > I like Rapid Thought, without having tried it. I only had one question though - why the 3-player tables? Adonai answered in the other thread "Three player tables eliminate the cross table turns that don't effect you. They also take an extra 40+ minutes out of the game because everyone's turn always matters to you so you're always paying attention." > > I don´t really like this. One of the cool things about VTES is the multiplayers crosstable-ally aspect. Maybe a compromise of 4 player tables? You still be forced to act fast because of the shorter round limit and no good pool gain. > > One thing that is nice with the format is that you can play 5 or 6 rounds before finals in a tournament. Here we usually only play 2 rounds, and then every round is so very important. 5-6 rounds is more "forgiving" considering beginner players, bad seatings etc, and means you can´t go to finals with only 1 vp or something like that. > I totally agree allowing more sanctioned official tournament formats Rapid thought included (but i'd like to see sanctioned also other format such as silence of death, shadow twin and warzone) I think that rapid thought tournament tables could be made of usual 4 o 5 players with 1 hour time limit Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

First of all, I have no practical experience with Rapid Thought .. From my point of view there are some cons and some pros: Pro: Different decks required as in constructed tournaments. Rounds do not take as many time as regular tournaments, i.e. you simply play more games in the same timeframe. Possibly use of different round system (swiss, for example), because you can play ~5-6 rounds. Con: Different decks required as in constructed tournaments . Also fragmentation of the tournament scene possible. If there are players won't like or are not willing to participate in this kind of tournaments (see the comment of Librarian with regards to the LA playgroup. Other players might skip a regular constructed tournament, when there's a Rapid Thought tournament upcoming in the same region/city in the same time frame. The table interaction (deals, votes, etc.) is reduced significantly, the multiplayer feel of VTES is definitely lost. This is the biggest drawback imho. All in all I would be willing to try that format, but I'll think there should be some further evaluation of the format before introducing it as new/alternative (official?) tournament format. I would like to see some test runs for Rapid Thought as side events during the continental championships this year.

> Ashur wrote: > I like Rapid Thought, without having tried it. I only had one question though - why the 3-player tables? Adonai answered in the other thread "Three player tables eliminate the cross table turns that don't effect you. They also take an extra 40+ minutes out of the game because everyone's turn always matters to you so you're always paying attention." > > I don´t really like this. One of the cool things about VTES is the multiplayers crosstable-ally aspect. Maybe a compromise of 4 player tables? You still be forced to act fast because of the shorter round limit and no good pool gain. > The *entire* *point* of the Rapid Thought format is to play three-player tables. To try to make the format into 4- or 5-player tables is missing the point entirely. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > > To try to make the format into 4- or 5-player tables is missing the point entirely. > I think that rapid thought is by definition just to speed up the play, cutting round time significantly. Wheter or not such format can be played just with 3 players table is a matter that can be tested. All imho, of course Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

> KevinM wrote: > To try to make the format into 4- or 5-player tables is missing the point entirely. > > nc-italy wrote: > I think that rapid thought is by definition just to speed up the play, cutting round time significantly. > And you'd be wrong. The purpose of Rapid Thought is just as Lasombra said earlier in the thread. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > > > KevinM wrote: > > To try to make the format into 4- or 5-player tables is missing the point entirely. > > > > nc-italy wrote: > > I think that rapid thought is by definition just to speed up the play, cutting round time significantly. > > > And you'd be wrong. The purpose of Rapid Thought is just as Lasombra said earlier in the thread. > Extending the purpose isn't necessary wrong. It will be wrong if someone proves that such format (or a similar one, that cuts in half round time) can't be played in a 4-5 table, actually. Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

> KevinM wrote: > The *entire* *point* of the Rapid Thought format is to play three-player tables. > > To try to make the format into 4- or 5-player tables is missing the point entirely. > Really? The *entire* *point*? I thought it was to have fun I´m all with nc-italy here. It would be great to play more games with different decks, that´s what I´m after. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> KevinM wrote: > To try to make the format into 4- or 5-player tables is missing the point entirely. > > nc-italy wrote: > I think that rapid thought is by definition just to speed up the play, cutting round time significantly. > > KevinM wrote: > And you'd be wrong. The purpose of Rapid Thought is just as Lasombra said earlier in the thread. > > nc-italy wrote: > Extending the purpose isn't necessary wrong. > Originally, you (and others) tried to redefine the purpose of Rapid Thought. I correctly pointed out that you were mistaken, as we know what the purpose of Rapid Thought is. Now you're saying something entirely different. Before taking the Rapid Thought rules as a base and modifying them to meet your personal standards, why not try playing them as-written first? Otherwise, you really don't know what you're talking about. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > The *entire* *point* of the Rapid Thought format is to play three-player tables. To try to make the format into 4- or 5-player tables is missing the point entirely. > > Ashur wrote: > Really? The *entire* *point*? I thought it was to have fun > Then please leave the Rapid Thought format alone and make your own format. Try creating something of your own instead of destroying what is already in place, something that multiple people have worked hard on and spent their valuable time making into something fun and good. Please. Seriously, I'd love to see you and Emiliano create some new format with the standard table size. Surprise us all. See what you two can come up with! But leave Rapid Thought alone. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > > > KevinM wrote: > > To try to make the format into 4- or 5-player tables is missing the point entirely. > > > > nc-italy wrote: > > I think that rapid thought is by definition just to speed up the play, cutting round time significantly. > > > > KevinM wrote: > > And you'd be wrong. The purpose of Rapid Thought is just as Lasombra said earlier in the thread. > > > > nc-italy wrote: > > Extending the purpose isn't necessary wrong. > > > Originally, you (and others) tried to redefine the purpose of Rapid Thought > Definition is clear: a rapid format tournament game. Otherwise if the purpose is just allowing 3 players to play at table, let's call it "three way" or something different like that To be straight: actually if that was made just for 3 players doesn't matter for the actual discussion, and the objection of disrputing the typical cross-table aspect (with 3 players) of vtes has been already made. More, having to be always in 3 multipliers number (for a playgroup or for a would be tournament) can be problematic. Point for me is: can be such rapid format be adopted/adapted (also) for a 4-5 table ? I think yes and personally i'll test that in my playgroup Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

The major things that slow down games are: - Bloating excessively - Having to make cross-table vote deals - General Cross-table interactions (like cross-table rescues). So by removing Villein, Minion Tap, Blood & Vessel the major bloat-only cards are gone. Speeding up games, but also ensuring that people play a different set of tactics. By removing the cross-table interactions, it means that voting decks won't have to worry so much with negotiating votes cross table, it means that combat decks don't have to worry about their prey being propped up by a cross-table who can spare the actions... Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> nc-italy wrote: > Definition is clear: a rapid format tournament game. > With three-player tables. You keep removing that point, and your removal of that point and attempted redefinition of the format keeps making it so that I have to reply to correct your untruths. > nc-italy wrote: > Otherwise if the purpose is just allowing 3 players to play at table, let's call it "three way" or something different like that. > No, YOU should call YOUR new format something other than by a name which is already taken by a well-established format that everyone knows means 3-player tables. Seriously, this format has been played at three conventions and is almost 10 years old. Leave it alone. Please. > nc-italy wrote: > To be straight: actually if that was made just for 3 players doesn't matter for the actual discussion, and the objection of disrupting the typical cross-table aspect (with 3 players) of vtes has been already made. > It matters because you are calling your new format by a name which is already taken by a format that everyone knows means 3-player tables. You're creating confusion and disharmony when someone is asking you not to. Why would you do such a thing? > nc-italy wrote: > More, having to be always in 3 multipliers number (for a playgroup or for a would be tournament) can be problematic. > You are absolutely correct in that regard. It's a failing of the format, which is why it'll likely never become a rated format. > nc-italy wrote: > Point for me is: can be such rapid format be adopted/adapted (also) for a 4-5 table? I think yes and personally i'll test that in my playgroup > I think that's an awesome idea on your part. Just don't call it Rapid Thought. Give it your own name and don't attempt to spread misinformation about a well-established, well-played, 10-year-old format. Please. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > > > nc-italy wrote: > > Point for me is: can be such rapid format be adopted/adapted (also) for a 4-5 table? I think yes and personally i'll test that in my playgroup > > > I think that's an awesome idea on your part. Just don't call it Rapid Thought. Give it your own name and don't attempt to spread misinformation about a well-established, well-played, 10-year-old format. Please. > I'm not misinforming anything, sorry for you, and you seems deliberately and uselessly pendatric on this. Unless there's some intellectual property copyrighted involved for a tournament format definition, and as long as credits of the original idea of the format are provided (which i will care of) everyone is free to share ideas, would be format names or whatever we can freely use for the sake of the game. Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

> nc-italy wrote: > I'm not misinforming anything, sorry for you, and you seem deliberately and uselessly pendatric on this. > That's because I know the format was created specifically as a 3-player format and you don't. Even though people are telling you that it was created as a 3-player format, you don't believe them. Feel free to ask LSJ if he specifically created the Rapid Thought format as a 3-player format and get back to us on his reply. > nc-italy wrote: > Unless there's some intellectual property copyrighted involved for a tournament format definition, and as long as credits of the original idea of the format are provided (which i will care of) everyone is free to share ideas, would be format names or whatever we can freely use for the sake of the game. > So someone spending the time that I've spent asking you multiple times in multiple ways to NOT do such a thing, and suggesting that you instead create your own fun format with its own name and its own place in the VTES world, you're just going to steal the name anyway, no matter what anyone says, creating confusion and disharmony along the way? That says a great deal about you and how much you value the opinions of others. I guess there's nothing left to say, so steal away. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

Hey Kev! I never tried that format. Is it 3 rounds, no finals? Can you get GWs ? Your TP matrix is missing a result (1-0.5-0)

Excluding time-outs (which this format is specifically aiming to avoid) there will always be a GW so long as one player is ousted (0.5 v 0.5 v 0.5, 1.5 v 0.5, 2 v 1, 3 v 0 are the VP splits). It is as many rounds as you'd want to play, since each round if 45min instead of 2h. I'd be suggesting you could run 5R + F. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> floppyzedolfin wrote: > I never tried that format. Is it 3 rounds, no finals? Can you get GWs? Your TP matrix is missing a result (1-0.5-0) > IIRC we played it as a 3R+F tournament last time. Even that is completely over and done with in 3 hours. It's totally awesome, let me tell you. Maybe we should run one at Origins! I cannot recall if we did Game Wins or not, although I suspect we did because we were playing all the other rules consistent with the standard rules. So, >=2VP = game win. One could argue for 1.5vp being the GW cutoff in Rapid Thought, I suppose, but I'm not sure there's enough data to support 1.5vp over 2vp, and it seems counter to the beat-the-crap-out-of-everyone mentality that has come to be associated with the RT format. How could three players in RT obtain 1vp-0vp-0.5vp? As you have 0.5vp there, you are obviously suggesting a timeout, but you cannot have a timeout without two players left at the table, since if you had only the one, you'd have another VP by definition. 1vp-0vp-0.5vp appears to be an impossible result. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Excluding time-outs (which this format is specifically aiming to avoid) there will always be a GW so long as one player is ousted (0.5 v 0.5 v 0.5, 1.5 v 0.5, 2 v 1, 3 v 0 are the VP splits). > That definitely depends on what your definition of a GW is. Standard tournament rules define a GW as "At least 2 VPs and strictly more VPs than anyone else". With this format, only 4 results (3-0-0, 2.5-0-0, 2-1-0, 2-0.5-0) lead to a GW. If you change the rules to make it "at least 1 VP and strictly more than other players", then only 3 results end up without a GW (0.5-0.5-0.5, 1-1-1, 1-1-0). I think all other possibilities lead to a GW, with that definition of a GW. Now, perhaps "1.5 VPs and strictly more than others" should be the definition. I'm not here to argue what it should be, I'm just asking if there is one (and the only point for having one being the finals, without finals there is no point in having GW definition, hence the initial question).

> KevinM wrote: > How could three players in RT obtain 1vp-0vp-0.5vp? As you have 0.5vp there, you are obviously suggesting a timeout, but you cannot have a timeout without two players left at the table, since if you had only the one, you'd have another VP by definition. 1vp-0vp-0.5vp appears to be an impossible result. > You gotta consider Life Boon and withdraw Player C is ousted. Player A plays Life Boon on Player C. Player C then withdraws. A has 0.5, C has 0. Then, have the game time out. 1-0.5-0.

> floppyzedolfin wrote: > With this format, only 4 results (3-0-0, 2.5-0-0, 2-1-0, 2-0.5-0) lead to a GW. > Well, some of those results aren't possible within a 3-player format. The only results which are possible are 3/0/0, 2/1/0, 1.5/.5/0, 1/1/1, and .5/.5/.5 , which is why I have them listed at the bottom. Am I wrong that those are not the only possible results? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

To all involved: The Rapid Thought Format is a specific game variant created and tweaked for a 3 player environment. The goal of the Rapid Thought Format is to make a 3 player variant which captures the fun and enjoyment of a 5 player game. To those interested in making a 4 or 5 player variant which is faster, I and many others here would be very interested, however, let's please leave the name "RAPID THOUGHT" to the 3 player variant. Best Dervish Ann Arbor More evidence that your deck need not be good in order to win: thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2011tottco

> KevinM wrote: > > > floppyzedolfin wrote: > > With this format, only 4 results (3-0-0, 2.5-0-0, 2-1-0, 2-0.5-0) lead to a GW. > > > Well, some of those results aren't possible within a 3-player format. > > The only results which are possible are 3/0/0, 2/1/0, 1.5/.5/0, 1/1/1, and .5/.5/.5 , which is why I have them listed at the bottom. Am I wrong that those are not the only possible results? > 3-0-0 A ousts B. A ousts C. 2-1-0 B ousts C. A ousts B. 1-1-1 A, B, C die simultaneously {Anarchist Uprising). 2-0.5-0.5 Probably not doable. 2.5-0-0 C is ousted. A plays Life Boon on C. C withdraws. A ousts B. 2-0.5-0 B withdraws. A ousts C. 1.5-0-1 A ousts B. A withdraws. 2-0-0 B is ousted. C plays Life Boon on B. C is ousted. A plays Life Boon on C. B withdraws. C withdraws. Easier: C is ousted. A plays Life Boon on C. A ousts B. Game times out. 1.5-0-0.5 A ousts B. Game times out. 1-0.5-1 B withdraws. A and C die simultaneously (Anarchist Uprising). 1-1-0 C is ousted. A plays Life Boon on C. C withdraws. A withdraws. 1.5-0-0 B is ousted. C plays Life Boon on B. C is ousted. A plays Life Boon on C. Then, game times out. (Life Boons don't burn until they awarded a full VP) 1-0.5-0.5 B withdraws. C withdraws. 0.5-0.5-0.5 Game times out. 1-0-0 Probably not doable. 0.5-0.5-0 Probably not doable. I might've missed some, but here are some doable ones.

> KevinM wrote: > How could three players in RT obtain 1vp-0vp-0.5vp? As you have 0.5vp there, you are obviously suggesting a timeout, but you cannot have a timeout without two players left at the table, since if you had only the one, you'd have another VP by definition. 1vp-0vp-0.5vp appears to be an impossible result. > > floppyzedolfin wrote: > You gotta consider Life Boon and withdraw > An excellent point, and one that I hadn't thought of. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. > floppyzedolfin wrote: > Player C is ousted. Player A plays Life Boon on Player C. > Ok, still A=0vp, B=0, C=0. > floppyzedolfin wrote: > Player C then withdraws. > Ok, so A=0, B=0, C=0.5 since C didn't earn a VP to be given via Life Boon to player A. > floppyzedolfin wrote: > Then, have the game time out. 1-0.5-0. > But then A=0.5, B=0.5, C=0.5 ? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

Pascal, It appears from this message groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/566a13ddd4347ed1 that since the Life Boon'ed withdraw'ing Methuselah is no longer in the game, their 0.5vp for withdrawing cannot be awarded to their Life Boon'er. Maybe we should ask LSJ? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

I gave some quick examples of possible results with Life Boon / Withdraws above. I think that, in that example, B plays Life Boon on A, and then B is ousted, thus removing B's Life Boon from the game. It's not the same case as when A plays Life Boon on B, and then B withdraws (the Life Boon A controls is then triggered) > KevinM wrote: > > > floppyzedolfin wrote: > > Player C is ousted. Player A plays Life Boon on Player C. > > > Ok, still A=0vp, B=0, C=0. > > > floppyzedolfin wrote: > > Player C then withdraws. > > > Ok, so A=0, B=0, C=0.5 since C didn't earn a VP to be given via Life Boon to player A. > Life Boon awards half-VPs when half-VPs are awarded (until a full 1VP is awarded) : [RTR 19991206] So it's A=0.5, B=0, C=0. > KevinM wrote: > > > floppyzedolfin wrote: > > Then, have the game time out. 1-0.5-0. > > > But then A=0.5, B=0.5, C=0.5 ? > With the correction above, it's 1, 0.5, 0.

> KevinM wrote: > So someone spending the time that I've spent asking you multiple times in multiple ways to NOT do such a thing, and suggesting that you instead create your own fun format with its own name and its own place in the VTES world, > You accused me of misinforming, which is ridicolous and really out of the scope of a polite and respecteful discussion. That's enough for me for ignoring such advice from you in this context. > you're just going to steal the name anyway, no matter what anyone says, creating confusion and disharmony along the way? That says a great deal about you and how much you value the opinions of others. > You are not in the position of accusing me of stealing anything, i've made clear from the start what's the point i adressed about rapid format, and it's blatantly obvious that speaking of some testing for the same format extend to 4-5 players table it's so pointless to being afraid of use, or refer to, a given name instead of another for such format (providing, as said, that the credits of the idea are always provided in the test) Ending up with positive test results, it's clear that a would be name would be different. Use common sense next time instead of being so pendatric thank you Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

So jumping in 10 minutes late... Rapid Thought is a great tournament format. I ran a fantastic event at Origins a couple years back with, like, 20+ people, where we did 2 preliminary rounds and a final in less than 3 hours. Very few games timed out with the 45 minute rounds. Rapid Thought uses, by design, 3 player games. As it means that everyone is directly interacting with everyone else and when someone is ousted, the game rapidly accelerates towards an end as opposed to plateauing and rebalancing. Which happens a lot in 5 player games. It also means that you can build your deck specifically knowing there will be exactly 3 players in each game, as opposed to maybe 4, maybe 5 (like in regular games). Having 3 players also means that everything will go a lot faster every time. I'm not convinced, still, that there need to be different deck construction rules for this format (at some point, Kevin was using a "you only need 6 vampires in your crypt" rule. I mean, it is helpful if you want to use it, but it also is a stumbling block for folks to jump in on the fly.

> bakija wrote: > So jumping in 10 minutes late... > > Rapid Thought is a great tournament format. I ran a fantastic event at Origins a couple years back with, like, 20+ people, where we did 2 preliminary rounds and a final in less than 3 hours. Very few games timed out with the 45 minute rounds. > Did you use game wins? Which definition did you use?

> bakija wrote: > So jumping in 10 minutes late... > > Rapid Thought is a great tournament format. I ran a fantastic event at Origins a couple years back with, like, 20+ people, where we did 2 preliminary rounds and a final in less than 3 hours. Very few games timed out with the 45 minute rounds. > > Rapid Thought uses, by design, 3 player games. As it means that everyone is directly interacting with everyone else and when someone is ousted, the game rapidly accelerates towards an end as opposed to plateauing and rebalancing. Which happens a lot in 5 player games. It also means that you can build your deck specifically knowing there will be exactly 3 players in each game, as opposed to maybe 4, maybe 5 (like in regular games). Having 3 players also means that everything will go a lot faster every time. > Aren't the banned cards also (and more anyhting else) speeding up the such rapid games ? I mean, with no pool recovery from master cards, the typical game should accelerate a lot Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

Let's play MTG? NC Russia

> nc-italy wrote: > You accused me of misinforming, which is ridiculous and really out of the scope of a polite and respectful discussion. > I have been polite and respectful with you this entire thread, Emiliano. Do you feel that someone within your community, asking you multiple times to please not do a thing, showing proof of why it would be a bad thing for you to do, and showing you facts to support their reasons why they are asking you not to do such a thing, is disrespectful? If you were to call your new format "Rapid Thought" when there is already a well-established, well-known, well-liked format with the *exact* *same* *name*, that would be the perfect definition of "misinformative". It was not a personal attack upon you and I am sorry if you took it that way. You say "You are not in the position of accusing me of stealing anything," even though you stated very clearly your intent to use the name for your different format unless it was a "legal" name for the format. You say "i've made clear from the start what's the point i addressed about rapid format," even though it wasn't clear to me, and so I kept asking you not to use the name. I am sorry if you thought that was pedantic, but until now you never answered that question. You say "and it's blatantly obvious that speaking of some testing for the same format extend to 4-5 players table it's so pointless to being afraid of use, or refer to, a given name instead of another for such format (providing, as said, that the credits of the idea are always provided in the test). Ending up with positive test results, it's clear that a would be name would be different." I'm glad to see that you aren't going to use the name "Rapid Thought" for your new format. That is all I have ever asked of you. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > > > nc-italy wrote: > > You accused me of misinforming, which is ridiculous and really out of the scope of a polite and respectful discussion. > > > I have been polite and respectful with you this entire thread, Emiliano. > Accusing me out of nothing is not respecteful or polite. Other than that, all of this is pretty OT right now in an otherwise interesting and useful topic Feel free to contact me privately if you want, i'll gladly clear with you any question arisen from typical internet misunderstandings. thank you Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

> floppyzedolfin wrote: > I gave some quick examples of possible results with Life Boon / Withdraws above. > I see those, but I think you are misunderstanding the ruling that you are quoting. It is possible that I am the one misunderstanding but if that is the case it is only because LSJ's language is sometimes written for a specific answer to a specific question and not for a general answer, and the ruling I cited is a perfect example of this. Indeed, you even reworded the ruling that he posted when you say > > floppyzedolfin wrote: > Life Boon awards half-VPs when half-VPs are awarded (until a full 1VP is awarded): [RTR 19991206] > Perhaps we should get a more clear, more exact ruling from LSJ? I cannot post on BSG, unfortunately. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

Ok, I'll ask Scott on BGG (no stars involved )

> bakija wrote: > I'm not convinced, still, that there need to be different deck construction rules for this format (at some point, Kevin was using a "you only need 6 vampires in your crypt" rule. I mean, it is helpful if you want to use it, but it also is a stumbling block for folks to jump in on the fly. > The way the rules are written, it isn't a stumbling block except to players who wish to be running only decks that are hyper-tuned to the format. Any player can play any constructed tournament deck with any legal crypt and library size they wish with nearly zero difficulty. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > > > nc-italy wrote: > > You accused me of misinforming, which is ridiculous and really out of the scope of a polite and respectful discussion. > > > I have been polite and respectful with you this entire thread, Emiliano. > I disagree. Accusing people like you do is not polite. HOWEVER, I apologize if someone think I was off-topic in my post. I want to explore possibilities for faster VTES formats, not *destroying* anything for anyone. Just keep calm and quit getting so upset all the time, it´s ridiculous. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> floppyzedolfin wrote: > Ok, I'll ask Scott on BGG (no stars involved ) > Hahaa I just found him on GMail chat and he confirmed that you are correct. So no need to ask. I'll get to work on those other tables. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> nc-italy wrote: > You accused me of misinforming, which is ridiculous and really out of the scope of a polite and respectful discussion. > > KevinM wrote: > I have been polite and respectful with you this entire thread, Emiliano. > > Ashur wrote: > I disagree. Accusing people like you do is not polite. > I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I stated the facts using properly defined words, said what I believed the effect would be, and gave proof as to why I thought those were what the effects would be. Saying to someone "If you do X then I believe Y will be the result" is not an accusation. It's discussion and postulation. Saying to someone "You did X and Y resulted!", whether Y happened or not, that is an accusation. I'm sorry that you and Emiliano misunderstood and didn't like the words that I used, and I agree that we should get back to talking about the format and its usefulness and limitations. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > The way the rules are written, it isn't a stumbling block except to players who wish to be running only decks that are hyper-tuned to the format. Any player can play any constructed tournament deck with any legal crypt and library size they wish with nearly zero difficulty. > There were also, IIRC, banned cards (pool gain masters, etc.) that also provided a problem when porting regular decks to rapid thought. Nothing huge, but something that someone who was not super inclined would say "Huh. I don't have a deck made..."

> KevinM wrote: > The way the rules are written, it isn't a stumbling block except to players who wish to be running only decks that are hyper-tuned to the format. Any player can play any constructed tournament deck with any legal crypt and library size they wish with nearly zero difficulty. > > bakija wrote: > There were also, IIRC, banned cards (pool gain masters, etc.) that also provided a problem when porting regular decks to rapid thought. Nothing huge, but something that someone who was not super inclined would say "Huh. I don't have a deck made..." > Right, but we made that burn option rule on the spot for those cards, remember? I think we even used GWs because I was getting on your case about it and you didn't really care. members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

Btw, regarding the "Burn option" on cards - it might not be the best way of doing it. "Burn option" has a specific definition (== you can burn the card if you don't meet the requirements for playing it), which isn't really appliable to Minion Tap (or, that would mean, burnable when you control no vampire) or to vampires (unless you already control one vampire of the same name). I'd change it to "Must be discarded when drawn / seen" or something like that.

> floppyzedolfin wrote: > Btw, regarding the "Burn option" on cards - it might not be the best way of doing it. "Burn option" has a specific definition (== you can burn the card if you don't meet the requirements for playing it), which isn't really appliable to Minion Tap (or, that would mean, burnable when you control no vampire) or to vampires (unless you already control one vampire of the same name). I'd change it to "Must be discarded when drawn / seen" or something like that. > Hmmmm you may have a point regarding the terminology. Sounds like another good change to make. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

I played in the tournament Bakija ran, and it was a ton of fun. I don't think it'd work very well without using decks specifically suited to it, but I dunno that standard decks would be unplayable in the format (assuming they took out any cards banned in RT), just not quite as good. I really, really don't think it'd work very well with more than three people. While I understand people saying that three-player VTES isn't "real" VTES, a big part of the point of RT is that it's not standard VTES. If you want to be able to make crosstable deals with someone who isn't your predator or prey, don't play RT, which won't give you enough time to do so.

Honestly, with the rare event of a player successfully completing a Withdrawal in 5-player VTES... Why should we even consider allowing a Withdraw from Rapid Thought? The requirements on a Withdraw should almost preclude it from happening in Rapid Thought. (No pool changes, no blood/life on minion changes for a complete turn). Rather than set up those additional tables that will basically never really happen... the only ones to consider would be the scenarios presented by Life Boon. Most of those would seem to be covered by the existing VP-splits. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

Sorry right away: I have no time to read this thread through now. I just wanted to ask if you guys have already considered to add Ashurs Tablets and Liquidation to the banned list (or watch list at least). An Anson Gunner, Nanalism, Khazar1s Diary, etc. could be off balance... NC for Hungary hunfragment.blogspot.com

> Mephistopheles wrote: > I just wanted to ask if you guys have already considered to add Ashurs Tablets and Liquidation to the banned list (or watch list at least). An Anson Gunner, Nanalism, Khazar1s Diary, etc. could be off balance... > Good idea. Or hasn´t the Tablet-Liquidation-plague reached the US yet? Someone in Europe is printing Liquidations and pushing cheap to the kids in every street corner "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Kushiel wrote: > I played in the tournament Bakija ran, and it was a ton of fun. I don't think it'd work very well without using decks specifically suited to it, but I dunno that standard decks would be unplayable in the format (assuming they took out any cards banned in RT), just not quite as good. > > I really, really don't think it'd work very well with more than three people. While I understand people saying that three-player VTES isn't "real" VTES, a big part of the point of RT is that it's not standard VTES. If you want to be able to make crosstable deals with someone who isn't your predator or prey, don't play RT, which won't give you enough time to do so. > Just wondering: as the original RT format is intended out of the standard cross-table aspect of vtes, could make sense to consider a rapid format with tables of 3 and 2 players ? Maybe with a rule clause that in the case of a 2 players table the bleed bouncer-only cards can be burned as much as the banned cards of the format ? Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

2-Player would heavily favour a very limited number of decks: Rush Combat, Wall Combat and potentially Reduce-Walls. Most other decks would find it incredibly difficult to succeed in a 2-player format. Rapid Thought does potentially favour combat decks as it is. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> I cannot recall if we did Game Wins or not, > Yes we did GWs. And I don't only remember that just because I had 3GW 9VP, only to die to some loser's ANI cheese rush. Any deck can be converted to rapid thought. I took a 90 card Renegade Garou deck and took it down to the minimum deck size right before we started and did just fine. I'd totally jump inline for an Origins 2011 Rapid Thought tourney. It'll only cost one side game of BSG too since it's over fast. I do agree with the above ideas too that Ashur's Tablets should join the other good cards on the banned list.

And thouse people are against errating villein! NC Russia

I'm jumping into this very late, but so be it. I've played in two Rapid Thought tournaments and I was annoyed as hell by two things: 1) If we're eliminating pool gain, ELIMINATE pool gain entirely other than the oust. It was annoying watching a vote deck (which is more powerful in this format to begin with) power up with constant voter cap. I would argue that ANY pool gain would go to the blood back other than the oust, much like the ancient WOTC Gehenna version of the original Jyhad. 2) In most three player tables, the preferred method is kill your pred and then win the head to head game. I think my first rule would go a long way towards stopping this, but perhaps a change in how VPs are handed out as well? Perhaps a negative VP award for the person backousting should they win the head to head? Maybe this is unnecessary, but I'd love to hear some thoughts. Robba Yaga

> Pagan wrote: > Yes we did GWs. And I don't only remember that just because I had 3GW 9VP, only to die to some loser's ANI cheese rush. > Not that I necessarily disagree with the point about GWs, but I find it hard to fathom how you can get 3GW/9VP in 3 rounds of Rapid Thought with a deck that could somehow not be called "cheese" by someone, and then end your sentence with "only to die to some loser's ANI cheese rush." Really?

> Robba wrote: > 1) If we're eliminating pool gain, ELIMINATE pool gain entirely other than the oust. It was annoying watching a vote deck (which is more powerful in this format to begin with) power up with constant voter cap. I would argue that ANY pool gain would go to the blood back other than the oust, much like the ancient WOTC Gehenna version of the original Jyhad. > I think that is a completely reasonable view point (although I don't know if it is worth being annoyed as hell by this...) Perhaps simply making a blanket rule in Rapid Thought of something like: Any time you would gain pool for any reason other than by ousting your prey, that pool goes to the blood bank instead. Which would do away with having to ban anything (other than, say, Una)--you could still use Blood Doll or Vessel if you really wanted to to push blood on your dudes; you could still use Voter Cap to fill up your guys; you could still use Parity Shift to damage someone (ya know, if you *really* wanted to for whatever reason). > 2) In most three player tables, the preferred method is kill your pred and then win the head to head game. I think my first rule would go a long way towards stopping this, but perhaps a change in how VPs are handed out as well? Perhaps a negative VP award for the person backousting should they win the head to head? Maybe this is unnecessary, but I'd love to hear some thoughts. > I don't know that it is actually necessary--I mean, yeah, it is a pain to have to deal with 2 predators, but if everyone's plan is "back oust your predator, and then win the head to head", then everyone is in the same boat. This being said, I have seen a lot of Rapid Thought games go 3-0 to a guy with a weenie [dom/pre/dem] bleed deck that just went forward a lot. But then, both RT tournaments I ran were won by combat decks that won 2-1 by killing their predator and then winning the head to head.

> bakija wrote: > Not that I necessarily disagree with the point about GWs, but I find it hard to fathom how you can get 3GW/9VP in 3 rounds of Rapid Thought with a deck that could somehow not be called "cheese" by someone, and then end your sentence with "only to die to some loser's ANI cheese rush." > > Really? > Not to worry. Kevin was directing that at me - he and I have known each other (and enjoyed each others' company, as far as I know) for a while now. His tone doesn't always translate well to the intertubes, but I took it for the friendly mockery that I'm pretty sure it was meant to be. On the other hand, if he was deliberately being rude, out the airlock he goes next time I see him. > Robba wrote: > 1) If we're eliminating pool gain, ELIMINATE pool gain entirely other than the oust. It was annoying watching a vote deck (which is more powerful in this format to begin with) power up with constant voter cap. > I dunno, man. Said cheezy ANI rush that I played was actually a very even mix of rush and Raven Spies, and in one round I totally shut down one guy's attempt to abuse Voter Cap like you're saying here by simply blocking all his votes. I don't think stealth/vote is really viable in the RT format - too many moving parts - and it's easy enough to build a deck that prevents Voter Cap from having a chance to happen that I don't really see a need to ban it. FWIW, the three decks that made the finals of that tournament didn't exactly have much in the way of bloat. > Robba wrote: > 2) In most three player tables, the preferred method is kill your pred and then win the head to head game. > That's totally a player-based decision, though. I got to the finals without doing that even once, and I think that people will know going into the format that it's a possibility and plan for it. That does argue further that you need a specific deck for RT, though.

> nc-italy wrote: > Just wondering: > as the original RT format is intended out of the standard cross-table > aspect of vtes, could make sense to consider a rapid format with tables > of 3 and 2 players ? > Please take this in the spirit of curiousity on my part, rather than rudeness, but why would you want to do that?

Awesome discussion guys. Glad to hear in the NAC thread that Kevin has added a RT tournament to the NAC. Finally coming back to read the thread. Glad Emiliano and Kevin agreed to disagree. Emiliano - 2 player tables in RT would really suck I think, having played. It would actually be a lot like playing regular VTES, but with only 3 players, and you get to play 20 pool worth of vampires and have out/burn the first 20 cards in your deck or something. > 1) If we're eliminating pool gain, ELIMINATE pool gain entirely other than the oust. It was annoying watching a vote deck (which is more powerful in this format to begin with) power up with constant voter cap. I would argue that ANY pool gain would go to the blood back other than the oust, much like the ancient WOTC Gehenna version of the original Jyhad. > Cap-vote is strong in this format, agreed. Until it meets Mr. Tupdog/Weeniemalism/Pot-Cel/Celeriguns etc etc. One thing I like about the pool gaining rule is that the banned card list shrinks, a lot. On the other hand, it now makes a lot more of people's regular decks useless - and you can't burn cards like Lilith's Blessing, Ashur, Liquidation because they aren't on the current banned list. chris

> bakija wrote: > So all things as they are, anyone can sit down, play a game with whatever deck they happen to have around, even with illegal cards. So there is no barrier to entry at all. > No. The sentence "All V:EKN rules are in effect, see below for exceptions." takes care of things like that. > Pagan wrote: > Yes we did GWs. And I don't only remember that just because I had 3GW 9VP, only to die to some loser's ANI cheese rush. > > bakija wrote: > Not that I necessarily disagree with the point about GWs, but I find it hard to fathom how you can get 3GW/9VP in 3 rounds of Rapid Thought with a deck that could somehow not be called "cheese" by someone, and then end your sentence with "only to die to some loser's ANI cheese rush." > Where did Pagan say that his deck could somehow not be called 'cheese'? There is no connection between him calling someone else's deck 'cheese' and him sweeping all three rounds. Especially as Pagan was playing combat with zero bleed boost. You are manufacturing controversy. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Not that I necessarily disagree with the point about GWs, but I find it hard to fathom how you can get 3GW/9VP in 3 rounds of Rapid Thought with a deck that could somehow not be called "cheese" by someone, and then end your sentence with "only to die to some loser's ANI cheese rush." > It was sarcasm to evoke a response from someone I owe an airlocking to already active in the topic on that final. Though my deck was abysmally bad. Renegade Garou with no pool defense/gain. Yet somehow it killed people until it ran into a deck it had no chance against(ANI cheese) > Not to worry. Kevin was directing that at me - he and I have known each other (and enjoyed each others' company, as far as I know) for a while now. His tone doesn't always translate well to the intertubes, but I took it for the friendly mockery that I'm pretty sure it was meant to be. > Well it was nice until you called me Kevin. It's David, the Archbishop of Las Vegas. ... Okay I give up trying to get the pic or link to actually work in this forum's software. Let's just say Joomla goes next to WinME on my list of recommended software.

> bakija wrote: > Not that I necessarily disagree with the point about GWs, but I find it hard to fathom how you can get 3GW/9VP in 3 rounds of Rapid Thought with a deck that could somehow not be called "cheese" by someone, and then end your sentence with "only to die to some loser's ANI cheese rush." Really? > > Kushiel wrote: > Not to worry. Kevin was directing that at me - he and I have known each other (and enjoyed each others' company, as far as I know) for a while now. > Ok Kushiel, just calm down about your friend Kevin, who **didn't even make the remark that you think he made**. Bakija is quoting Pagan, who translates even worse than I do. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Kushiel wrote: > > > nc-italy wrote: > > Just wondering: > > as the original RT format is intended out of the standard cross-table > > aspect of vtes, could make sense to consider a rapid format with tables > > of 3 and 2 players ? > > > Please take this in the spirit of curiousity on my part, rather than rudeness, but why would you want to do that? > Actually i'm wondering by the remark already done at beginning of the topic: having to be always in 3 multipliers number for such format can be somewhat problematic, above all in the respect of considering it for an official tournament (which would be otherwise great, as i'd like a lot to have new official tournament formats) By that also my intention of testing it in 4 o 5 players table Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

> Robba wrote: > I'm jumping into this very late, but so be it. > > I've played in two Rapid Thought tournaments and I was annoyed as hell by two things: > > 1) If we're eliminating pool gain, ELIMINATE pool gain entirely other than the oust. It was annoying watching a vote deck (which is more powerful in this format to begin with) power up with constant voter cap. I would argue that ANY pool gain would go to the blood back other than the oust, much like the ancient WOTC Gehenna version of the original Jyhad. > Do you consider Powerbase: Montreal as pool gain? (due to the possibility of retro-influencing) Do you consider superior Govern as pool gain? (due to the possibility of retro-influencing) Do you consider superior Legal Manipulations as pool gain? (due to the conditional "gain 1 pool" effect) Do you consider Kindred Spirits as pool gain? (due to the conditional "gain 1 pool" effect) Do you consider Frontal Assault as pool gain? (due to the conditional "gain 1 pool" effect) Do you consider Rabbat's hunt as pool gain? (due to the conditional "gain 1 pool" effect) Do you consider Off Kilter as pool gain? (due to the conditional "gain 1/2 pool" effect) Do you consider Victoria's ability as pool gain? (due to the conditional "gain 2 pool" effect) Do you consider Regaining the Upper Hand to be a pool-gaining card? (due to the conditional effect of awarding the edge, which can be used to gain pool)? Do you consider Computer Hacking as pool gain? (due to the conditional effect of awarding the edge, which can be used to gain pool) Do you consider KoKo as pool gain? (due to the possibility KoKo has of bleeding, and thus gaining the edge, which can be used to gain pool) Do you consider banning all this bunch of cards (including all vampires except very few) for the sake of "Pool should only go down, except when you're ousting someone" ? Might I say I'd find it ridiculous?

> floppyzedolfin wrote: > > > Robba wrote: > > I'm jumping > > > > Might I say I'd find it ridiculous? > > > I agree with Floppy. It doesn't make sense to eliminate every single pool gaining ability. > > Though I still think that Ashur + Liquidation should be at least on the watch list. Partly because of the strong pool gain, but also because it has the real potential to steal on time heavily, which combined with the pool gain isn't too good... > NC for Hungary hunfragment.blogspot.com

> floppyzedolfin wrote: > > > Robba wrote: > > I'm jumping into this very late, but so be it. > > > > I've played in two Rapid Thought tournaments and I was annoyed as hell by two things: > > > > 1) If we're eliminating pool gain, ELIMINATE pool gain entirely other than the oust. It was annoying watching a vote deck (which is more powerful in this format to begin with) power up with constant voter cap. I would argue that ANY pool gain would go to the blood back other than the oust, much like the ancient WOTC Gehenna version of the original Jyhad. > > > Do you consider Powerbase: Montreal as pool gain? (due to the possibility of retro-influencing) > Do you consider superior Govern as pool gain? (due to the possibility of retro-influencing) > Do you consider superior Legal Manipulations as pool gain? (due to the conditional "gain 1 pool" effect) > Do you consider Kindred Spirits as pool gain? (due to the conditional "gain 1 pool" effect) > Do you consider Frontal Assault as pool gain? (due to the conditional "gain 1 pool" effect) > Do you consider Rabbat's hunt as pool gain? (due to the conditional "gain 1 pool" effect) > Do you consider Off Kilter as pool gain? (due to the conditional "gain 1/2 pool" effect) > Do you consider Victoria's ability as pool gain? (due to the conditional "gain 2 pool" effect) > Do you consider Regaining the Upper Hand to be a pool-gaining card? (due to the conditional effect of awarding the edge, which can be used to gain pool)? > Do you consider Computer Hacking as pool gain? (due to the conditional effect of awarding the edge, which can be used to gain pool) > Do you consider KoKo as pool gain? (due to the possibility KoKo has of bleeding, and thus gaining the edge, which can be used to gain pool) > > Do you consider banning all this bunch of cards (including all vampires except very few) for the sake of "Pool should only go down, except when you're ousting someone" ? > > Might I say I'd find it ridiculous? > I think that the pool gain disallowance clause (imho much easier to implement than banning a number of cards) should be applied just to effect causing direct pool gain (thus: blood doll, sup voter cap, ashur, liquidation and the like) ; undirected way of (re)gaining pool (that mostly comes by influencing back) should/could be still allowed That should mean, say, that with blood doll you can still run dry your vampires, but that the blood goes to the bank instead of your pool Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

> Mephistopheles wrote: > I agree with Floppy. It doesn't make sense to eliminate every single pool gaining ability. > I also agree, and I, along with several other players, discussed for some time which cards should be banned, and there was some disagreement. Bakija, for example, doesn't believe that any cards need to be banned, whereas the majority of players believed the original version of the Rapid Thought Revised rules Banned List was too comprehensive (it included, fr.ex., Tupdog and Kindred Spirits). So we have the list of cards that we have now, which seems enough to create a feeling of a *very* different format as well as restraining the obvious, often-used cards for this purpose. > Mephistopheles wrote: > Though I still think that Ashur + Liquidation should be at least on the watch list. Partly because of the strong pool gain, but also because it has the real potential to steal on time heavily, which combined with the pool gain isn't too good... > Yesterday, I put up a new, slightly updated link for the Rapid Thought Revised rules: members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt Four things were changed: 'Rules for "found" Banned Crypt or Library cards' was updated Ashur Tablets and Liquidation were added to the Watch List Tournament Points were expanded, allowing for all possibilities Pascal Bertrand was given credit for his help Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> floppyzedolfin wrote: > Do you consider banning all this bunch of cards (including all vampires except very few) for the sake of "Pool should only go down, except when you're ousting someone" ? > > Might I say I'd find it ridiculous? > As I pointed out, it might be prudent (in the name of making things go faster) to make a blanket rule that said: "Any time you would gain pool unless it is from ousting your prey, move that pool to the blood bank instead". All those cards are still playable. You just can't gain pool.

> bakija wrote: > As I pointed out, it might be prudent (in the name of making things go faster) to make a blanket rule that said: > > "Any time you would gain pool unless it is from ousting your prey, move that pool to the blood bank instead". > > All those cards are still playable. You just can't gain pool. > This seems definitively a very good option/solution, althought it could also penalize big cap deck too much (that is, with a total disallowance of pool regain a weenie or mid cap bleed deck could crush a big cap one very quickly) Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

You really don't like Life Boon, do you ? I also agree with Emiliano about the "let's all contest Aranthebes or time out" play.

> bakija wrote: > As I pointed out, it might be prudent (in the name of making things go faster) to make a blanket rule that said: > > "Any time you would gain pool unless it is from ousting your prey, move that pool to the blood bank instead". > > All those cards are still playable. You just can't gain pool. > That's an easy rule to remember, granted, but that's also a hell of a lot of effects that gain you pool that now don't. I'm not sure I want THAT large a change to the format. And what about PB:Montreal, Govern/Enchant "down", and similar "efficiency" effects? Wouldn't those be the next targets? And then where does it stop? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > That's an easy rule to remember, granted, but that's also a hell of a lot of effects that gain you pool that now don't. I'm not sure I want THAT large a change to the format. > Well, sure. Robba suggested that pool gain should be removed, and rather than banning a bunch of cards, you could just do this instead. I don't know that it is something that *needs* doing, but if the intent is to reduce pool gain, and if you are going to go down a path of banning cards that gain you pool (which often has been a part of this particular format), rather than banning all those cards, a rule like I suggest is probably a better way to go. Clean, easy, simple, and doesn't ban a whole bunch of cards. Again, to be clear, I'm not necessarily arguing that this is the most optimal plan or anything. But if you are going to ban Blood Doll and Vessel and Villein and Minion Tap and Tribute and Voter Cap and Con Boon and whatever, why not just cut out the middle man? > And what about PB:Montreal, Govern/Enchant "down", and similar "efficiency" effects? Wouldn't those be the next targets? And then where does it stop? > The rule I presented was incredibly cut and dry, intentionally--if you are going to gain pool from any source other than ousting someone, you don't gain that pool (I also probably should have left the Edge in there too...). Those cards (Govern, Montreal, whatever) don't add counters to your pool. So they don't fall under the rule I suggested. Yeah, they effectively give you pool, but as they aren't actually adding counters to your pool and instead are just getting you more guys, and more guys speeds the game up anyway, it seems reasonable to leave those effects alone. If you can't pull blood off your guys, or gain pool from votes, or transfer blood off your uncontrolled guys, and you can only gain pool from ousting someone (and possibly the Edge), that will vastly reduce the amount of pool floating around the table. Yeah, Montreal and Govern still get you guys out faster and freer, but that strikes me as completely reasonable for this format.

> nc-italy wrote: > This seems definitively a very good option/solution, > althought it could also penalize big cap deck too much > (that is, with a total disallowance of pool regain a > weenie or mid cap bleed deck could crush a big cap one > very quickly) > The *format* penalizes big cap decks too much already. Most decks that do well in this format are: A) Weenie sleaze bleed. or B ) Weenie sleaze rush. (For the love of punk rock. Can we turn off the part of the board where typing a B followed by a ) results in a "cool" smiley face with sunglasses? Please?) And by "sleaze", I really mean "optimally suited for this environment, and totally the best idea if you want to do well". Big cap decks that are sitting between a weenie rush deck and a weenie bleed deck isn't going to fair too well in any case. (This being said, the deck that won the Origins RT tournament I ran a couple years back was a Jaroslav 2nd blocky/fighty deck. But it also didn't rely on pool gain. Just blocking and killing folks a lot.)

> Pagan wrote: > Well it was nice until you called me Kevin. It's David, the Archbishop of Las Vegas. > > KevinM wrote: > Ok Kushiel, just calm down about your friend Kevin, who **didn't even make the remark that you think he made**. > Yes, the rumors are true: I'm an idiot. I was thinking of David, and was picturing David's face while typing, but somehow managed to type "Kevin" anyway. Go me.

> nc-italy wrote: > Actually i'm wondering by the remark already done at beginning of the topic: > having to be always in 3 multipliers number for such format can be somewhat > problematic, above all in the respect of considering it for an official tournament (which would be otherwise great, as i'd like a lot to have > new official tournament formats) > By that also my intention of testing it in 4 o 5 players table > Ah, okay. Well, if I were running the tournament, my solution to that issue would be to socially engineer the crowd such that we ended up with a playsize in a multiple of three, and one or two sad faces who didn't get to play because they didn't sign up quickly enough. But that's probably part of the reason that I don't run tournaments.

All of the items listed are pool gain. However, I will admit I forgot the Edge. I believe the Edge (no matter how it is attained, since one generally must have it during your Untap phase to benefit) and the Oust should be the only sources of pool gain. Even Vampire text such as Rabbat or Hartmut Stover should be disallowed. I would argue that Govern the Unalighned, Enchant Kinfred and even Saulot's text still work, but one cannot transfer that pool back in order to bloat. There was some discussion not long ago about changing that rule in the regular rules (which I am STRONGLY against), but here is an excellent place to put that rule variant in place. It seems to me a strong secondary point of Rapid Thought was to speed things up by preventing bloating. Why ban some bloating mechanisms and not others? I understand that this format will punish decks that rely on multiple large cap vampires in some cases, but not star-vampire decks. Besides, most large caps have ways to multi act or might be favored for some other reason. Which is better, three 5 caps or an 11 cap, a 3 cap and a 1 cap? Depends on the deck one is playing.

Regarding direct to pool cards: How about something along the lines of: Any card that would give you pool give you 1 pool instead. Basically making all of those cards still playable (so you don't have to modify your decks much), but turning them into Ascendences. Specific wording I would leave to those who are better at that than I, like Floppy etc. Yes, you could still gain 2 pool from Parity Shift/Voter Cap - but that's better than say 5 pool if played straight up. Chris

Here's another suggestion: > > Pool gained* is put aside instead and can be used to pay card pool costs and pool lost/paid during the non-minion phases (such as infernal penalties, Anarch Revolt, Eye of Hazimel, Dragonbound...). > * except for ousting a prey or the edge > Of course, other pool damage such a bleed/vote/Fame (when sending to torpor) can't be paid with it (since they occur during the minion phase)! This offers a middleway alternative between no pool gain and normal pool gain, allowing the play of pool-costing cards that would otherwise disappear. Parity Shift should be banned then because the pool of the player playing it never incresaes. Note that "non-minion phases" could be replaced by "untap phase", if the intend is to reduce further the pool gain (making Dragonbound quite dangerous for instance). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

How about limiting pool gain to untap phase and influence phase? With an exception of regarding ousting of course. I'm aware, that Enchant Kindred, PB: Montreal, PB: Chicago and alike cards would be usable then. If you don't like Enchant Kidred bloat, you can limit pool gain to untap phase (and oust). Master cards and action cards that have direct pool gain could have both burn option AND option to be played. You can for example play Villein, but only result is that you lose 2 blood from a vampire but gain none. Or, you could play Art Scam, but result is to gain nothing. ---- Banging trashcans, breaking windows We'll wake you up tonight We like the good time, we scream and shout And that's what fun's about

I like the idea of making some sort of rule around pool gain, rather than banning cards outright. What about the following rule: "Players cannot gain pool unless they control the Edge." That way, you could still play with say, Minion Tap, but it'd be utterly useless unless you started your turn with the Edge. This would minimize pool gain, but not eliminate it entirely (IMO it should be part of the game in some form, in order to make large-cap vampires more viable) Another interesting thing about this, is that if your prey is ousted while you don't control the Edge, say by a KRC or something instead of bleeding, you don't gain the 6 pool for it, just the victory point. Just a thought...I would think this restriction alone would speed up games significantly on its own, without the need for any additional bannings (and I don't see why Una is banned, either)

> Robba wrote: > All of the items listed are pool gain. However, I will admit I forgot the Edge. I believe the Edge (no matter how it is attained, since one generally must have it during your Untap phase to benefit) and the Oust should be the only sources of pool gain. Even Vampire text such as Rabbat or Hartmut Stover should be disallowed. > Well, that is exactly what the rule I suggested does. "Any time you would add counters to your pool, unless it comes from the Edge or ousting your prey, move those counters to the blood bank instead." You can't gain pool. Unless you keep the edge or oust someone. You can still add counters to uncontrolled dudes with Govern and Montreal and whatever, but if you take blood with a Villein or gain pool with a Con Boon, all that blood just goes away instead. Clean, simple, unambiguous. Doesn't require banning anything, and while it effectively bans a lot of cards by making them completely useless (Con Boon, Villein, whatever), you can still have them in a deck if you want to do something tricky (use Villein to empty a vampire for some sort of turbo trick) or mundane (include Blood Dolls just to push blood on your guys), you still can.

> Ankha wrote: > Pool gained* is put aside instead and can be used to pay card pool costs and pool lost/paid during the non-minion phases (such as infernal penalties, Anarch Revolt, Eye of Hazimel, Dragonbound...). > * except for ousting a prey or the edge > I think this, and other suggestions for limiting pool gain other than simply making all pool gain just not happen (other than the Edge and ousting your prey) are extra, unnecessary complication for limited gain. If the format simply disallows pool gain all together, decks that are built for the environment will be built to work without pool gain. And in the end, everything will work out fine. I don't think adding sort of bending over backwards hoop jumping to allow limited pool gain is a good direction to go in. Removing all direct pool gain other than the Edge and ousting your prey is simple, clean, not confusing, and while it certainly limits what decks will be viable in the format, the format already limits what decks will be viable in the format.

Might need to also adjust for these....or not, if you like tac nukes. Ancient Influence Political Action Successful referendum means each Methuselah may choose a ready vampire he or she controls. Each Methuselah gains an amount of pool from the blood bank equal to his or her chosen vampire's capacity. Each Methuselah then burns 5 pool. Only one Ancient Influence can be played in a game. Reins of Power Political Action Successful referendum means each Methuselah may choose a ready vampire he or she controls. Each Methuselah gains 6 pool. Each Methuselah also burns an amount of pool equal to the capacity of his or her predator's chosen vampire. Only one Reins of Power can be played or called in a game. -- salem

> salem wrote: > Might need to also adjust for these....or not, if you like tac nukes. > Heh. Well, on the upside, they totally hose *everyone*--Ancient Influence is just "everyone lose 5 pool." which is far more likely to be bad for you than not. And the other one is "everyone lose pool equal to their predator's biggest vampire", which is also likely to make you lose by playing it. I suspect that they would be not used much, due to simply them being a bad idea.

> And the other one is "everyone lose pool equal to their predator's biggest vampire", which is also likely to make you lose by playing it. > If you play an IC, it's an 11 pool loss for your prey. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I know that everybody loves to tinker and experiment and offer their suggestions for changes and all, but for what it's worth, I feel like the current RT rules worked just fine when I played them. I could see adding Ashur Tablets to the banned list, just because of the delay of game they seem to inevitably cause, but other than that I don't think the format needs any "fixing."

> Ankha wrote: > If you play an IC, it's an 11 pool loss for your prey. > Sure. And if your predator is playing an IC, that is 11 pool loss for you. That, and as we already established, a rule like this (i.e. you can't gain pool except by ousting someone or keeping the edge) completely disadvantages large vampires (if you can't villein or minion tap huge vampires, and your opponents are probably playing weenie bleed or weenie rush anyway, being an 11 cap is likely to get you killed before you can call an Ancient Influenza) such that the likelihood of someone playing an 11 cap in the first place is very small.

> Kushiel wrote: > I know that everybody loves to tinker and experiment and offer their suggestions for changes and all, but for what it's worth, I feel like the current RT rules worked just fine when I played them. I could see adding Ashur Tablets to the banned list, just because of the delay of game they seem to inevitably cause, but other than that I don't think the format needs any "fixing." > Oh, I thought they worked fine too. I think they'd work just fine if the rules were: "3 player games, 45 minute time limit per round, end of line." as well. That being said, a lot of people seem to have a negative view of this particular event style, and a lot of people who played in these tournaments were like "Huh. That was almost fun. Maybe if something got changed, I'd like it more...", which isn't an insignificant issue. When I ran the event at Origins, there were a lot more people there playing VTES than in the RT tournament. Sure, it was late at night and a lot of people were off drinking beer at that point, but a lot of folks also were like "Yeah, that is a stupid format. I'm gonna go to bed/drink/play BSG instead.", which isn't an insignificant issue. Maybe if a couple things were changed, more people would like playing.

> bakija wrote: > That being said, a lot of people seem to have a negative view of this particular event style, and a lot of people who played in these tournaments were like "Huh. That was almost fun. Maybe if something got changed, I'd like it more...", which isn't an insignificant issue. > > When I ran the event at Origins, there were a lot more people there playing VTES than in the RT tournament. Sure, it was late at night and a lot of people were off drinking beer at that point, but a lot of folks also were like "Yeah, that is a stupid format. I'm gonna go to bed/drink/play BSG instead.", which isn't an insignificant issue. > > Maybe if a couple things were changed, more people would like playing. > Well, here's a needless digression: BSG hadn't been printed at that point, or I'd have been off playing it. Not because there's anything wrong with RT, mind you, just because BSG > VTES. But anyway, you're ever the populist, eh, bakija? Always worried about what "the people" think? You're a softie, but that's why I keep you around. Keeps my own despotism from spiralling completely out of control. (Which is to say, I doubt that a few rules tweaks here and there would convince people who were otherwise completely uninterested in the format to try it out, and I suspect a lot of the people who wandered off were burnt out on VTES more than lacking the desire to play RT, specifically. But who knows for sure?)

> Kushiel wrote: > Well, here's a needless digression: BSG hadn't been printed at that point, or I'd have been off playing it. Not because there's anything wrong with RT, mind you, just because BSG > VTES. > Huh. I guess I was just retrofitting my memories. If it wasn't BSg, it was beer then. > But anyway, you're ever the populist, eh, bakija? Always worried about what "the people" think? You're a softie, but that's why I keep you around. > Well, ya know. Fight the Power and all. But really, my whole line of thought here stems from Robba being all "RT would be awesome if only it didn't suck!", and really, I think there is something to be said for the incredibly simple, low effort rule I suggested. Again, I'm not, like, saying it Must Be Implemented or anything. But if you are going to go through the effort to ban things like Blood Doll and Villein (which are banned from RT already) and possible Voter Cap and Con Boon (which may or may not be banned at any given moment, depending on which rules set is being looked at), I think just going straight to the source with a nice, clean, simple rule has a lot to recommend it. > Keeps my own despotism from spiralling completely out of control. (Which is to say, I doubt that a few rules tweaks here and there would convince people who were otherwise completely uninterested in the format to try it out, and I suspect a lot of the people who wandered off were burnt out on VTES more than lacking the desire to play RT, specifically. But who knows for sure?) > Oh, I'm not, like, trying to use the tournament I ran at Origins as a case study or anything. But there were a lot of people who were specifically not wanting to play Rapid Thought as opposed to just not wanting to play more VTEs at that point. BSG or no...

> bakija wrote: > That being said, a lot of people seem to have a negative view of this particular event style, and a lot of people who played in these tournaments were like "Huh. That was almost fun. Maybe if something got changed, I'd like it more...", which isn't an insignificant issue. > > When I ran the event at Origins, there were a lot more people there playing VTES than in the RT tournament. Sure, it was late at night and a lot of people were off drinking beer at that point, but a lot of folks also were like "Yeah, that is a stupid format. I'm gonna go to bed/drink/play BSG instead.", which isn't an insignificant issue. > > Maybe if a couple things were changed, more people would like playing. > > Kushiel wrote: > But anyway, you're ever the populist, eh, bakija? Always worried about what "the people" think? > It certainly helps his non-confrontational, argumentum ad populum discussion style, John. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

I wonder how people prioritize the various aspects of Rapid Thought: Here are my priorities: 1. A game of VTES for 3 players 2. Fast game 3. Different Format 4. No one deck type (Una) totally dominates. 5. Ability to use my existing decks How would people adjust those priorities? If we can get some sort of consensus on priorities, then perhaps we can then focus on rule-changes that lean towards the priorities. chris

> librarian wrote: > I wonder how people prioritize the various aspects of Rapid Thought: > > Here are my priorities: > > 1. A game of VTES for 3 players > 2. Fast game > 3. Different Format > 4. No one deck type (Una) totally dominates. > 5. Ability to use my existing decks > I'd probably put Fast Game above 3 players. But otherwise, that looks good. I personally don't think being able to use my existing decks is particularly important, but it seems like people tend to want to just be able to sit down and play a game, and having different decks for different formats is another possible stumbling block. > How would people adjust those priorities? If we can get some sort of consensus on priorities, then perhaps we can then focus on rule-changes that lean towards the priorities. > Consensus, eh? You've been to the internet before, yes? : )

> Consensus, eh? You've been to the internet before, yes? > > : ) > Hahaha! Ok, well, maybe just a way to see where people stand and what is important to them. For instance, the reason 3 player is more important to me - if we have 4 or 5, might as well play regular VTES. Bonus is that the Rapid Thought is quick, so it's a good one to play as you wait for the 4th to show up. In theory. OT: my kids are watching the dumbest movie evar - MegaPiranha, starring Tiffany, which is even worse than MegaShark vs Giant Octopus (starring Deborah Gibson - seeing a trend there?) Chris

Last Sunday at Ropecon we played a 6-player 3 round Rapid Thought tournament (www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/9-event-reports-and-twd/7217-ropecon-rapid-thought-july-31-2011) using Kevin's revised rule set (members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt). Generally the format seems to work great and it was lots of fun. A perfect format for the last day of a convention, when time is limited and a tournament with 2 hour time limits would require participants to wake up at ungodly hours. Few comments below... 1) Time limit seems to be good. Although the decks were bashed together from standard constructed decks within two hours before the tournament started only 2 out of 6 tables timed out. And neither of them would've lasted much longer. 2) Ashur Tablets was the only card on the watch list that made an appearance. The deck wasn't using multiple MPAs to boost it and at least for that deck it didn't help at all. 3) Tournament Point division of Kevin's rules seem a bit skewed. I'd suggest following changes: Basic distribution of tournament points 6/4/2. If someone gets 2 VP or more, he gains 2 extra TP and the other players lose 1 TP each. Jussi Hattara Webmaster Extraordinaire Finnish Politics!

> jhattara wrote: > 2 out of 6 tables timed out... > > 2) Ashur Tablets was the only card on the watch list that made an appearance. The deck wasn't using multiple MPAs to boost it and at least for that deck it didn't help at all. > Any connection between these two? I'd thought that the reason Tablets was on the watch list was because of how ungodly long people take when picking their cards.

> Kushiel wrote: > > > jhattara wrote: > > 2 out of 6 tables timed out... > > > > 2) Ashur Tablets was the only card on the watch list that made an appearance. The deck wasn't using multiple MPAs to boost it and at least for that deck it didn't help at all. > > > Any connection between these two? I'd thought that the reason Tablets was on the watch list was because of how ungodly long people take when picking their cards. > Didn't see the tables that much, but I doubt it was the issue. The one time I saw Ashurs fire it was handled in under a minute. I think it was more of the fact that the decks in question weren't fast ousters anyways. Jussi Hattara Webmaster Extraordinaire Finnish Politics!

> jhattara wrote: > Didn't see the tables that much, but I doubt it was the issue. The one time I saw Ashurs fire it was handled in under a minute. I think it was more of the fact that the decks in question weren't fast ousters anyways. > Gotcha. Thanks for the reportage!

I tend to think that people who can't decide what to get from Ashurs Tablets don't spend enough time thinking in advance. You should know what is in your ashheap, you should know if you have the last one in your hand or if you should expect it soon... So why are you waiting around for the last Ashur Tablet to think? Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418