Rules Team Rulings - 22-APR-2013

As always, changes contained herein do not go into effect for sanctioned tournaments for 30 days. (So these become active on May 22nd, 2013.) Rulebook Impulse The notion of "impulse" has been added to the Rulebook. The "impulse" represents the next opportunity to play a card or use an effect. It respects the Sequencing Rule. Only the player with the impulse can play a card or use an effect. Additional Strikes A minion may only gain additional strikes after the initial strike resolution, or after the resolution of one of his or her additional strikes. A minion with unresolved additional strikes cannot gain additional strikes. A minion is limited to gaining additional strikes only from one source each round. A minion cannot pass on using an additional strike. Cardlist Some typos were corrected (Lilith’s Blessing reading "Duscipline"). Names of artists were harmonised ("Larry Snelly" becoming "Lawrence Snelly") Incomplete cardtext was completed (The Summoning was missing some characters). No change in other text. Banned Cards Lilith’s Blessing Lilith's Blessing has been added to the banned list. An alternative effect to bring its mechanics back to the tournament game is being investigated, and the card will be reintroduced once a solution has been found and tested thouroughly. Complete Rules Reference Some clean-up (that was necessary) - removal of outdated references, alignment with the Rulebook.A complete list will be available soon. General Rulings I have started including all the valid rulings I encounter (either here on vekn.net or in the Newsgroup) to the Card Rulings page. My objective here is to have that page become more of a database than a simple page. The long-term goal is to have it integrated in tools such as the SecretLibrary or VampiDroid. This will require some changes in the tables, to properly cross-reference cards, rules, and rulings. A "complete" (as far as the word applies to on-going processes) will be available soon.

Thanks for this update. But, ban Lilith's Blessing? Really? Clearly the Rules Team operates independently from the forum, but some context for why this card is to be banned would be helpful. In the latest poll, only 5 of 68 respondents said "Ban the thing, it's too bad for the game." vekn.net/index.php/forum/40-polling-forum/16066-poll-liliths-blessing From the TWDA since January 1, 2012: 255 Total Decks 76 had Lilith's Blessing 13 had Minion Tap 34 had Ashur Tablets 36 had Anthelios, The Red Star 40 had Parity Shift 58 had Blood Doll 73 had Vessel 102 had Villein 113 had Deflection 117 had Giant's Blood 178 had Pentex(TM) Subversion When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Im inclined to agree. Especially when an alternate to the mechanic is being investigated. Theres already a card that does this mechanic, and it had been a sought after promo card. Simply mandating the skill card makes it playable to the decks that neex the mechanic, and less playable to the decks abusing it. Several decks now become weakened to the point of unplayable, because 2 liliths with 2-3 skill cards means you get the skill card, but 5 skill cards means you normally clump, if you draw them early. Im not saying the game wont survive, but i said before a card that fetches disciplines was nescicary, and i also could have sworn the idea was if a card got banned not to make another nearly identical card that provides intended function without being broken. I always assumed thats why therez no memories of mortality that cant go on imbued. But, i will wait until a replacement is released, and be thrilled or irate depending on if it fetches masters or not. My question is, why no Ashur errata? I assumed the word "minion" would be added between 13 and "cards", or it would be banned.

> Jeff wrote: > Thanks for this update. But, ban Lilith's Blessing? Really? Clearly the Rules Team operates independently from the forum, but some context for why this card is to be banned would be helpful. > IANPB but since Villein is now an auto-include in 90% of tournament decks, a Lilith's Blessing is also a no-brainer auto-include as well. And their combined effect, continued throughout the game whenever a Villein is played -- contrast with the powerful Once Per Game effect of Giant's Blood-- is too powerful for a single MPA. 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

The effect of minion tap for everything as a trifle and then gain 3 blood is probably too strong, definately with multiple master phase actions. But having to fetch a skill card, or intending to fetch a skill card is fair for a mastercthat requires setup to activate. I do not question weakening those annoying mpa decks, i just dont see why the mechanic is now being removed when errata would have been easier, or at the least more practical. Also, Pascal: thank you for making Impulse go into a rulebook, thats needed to happen for awhile, and will hopefully make people less moronic when i interrupt thier transfering to act through madness network.

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > My question is, why no Ashur errata? I assumed the word "minion" would be added between 13 and "cards", or it would be banned. > IANPB but Ashur Tablets hasn't yet been shown to be overpowered and/or too efficient. Darby may have an answer to that at the NAC, but until then, I don't think Ashur Tablets is a problem. 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

> Jeff wrote: > Thanks for this update. But, ban Lilith's Blessing? Really? > > Clearly the Rules Team operates independently from the forum, but some context for why this card is to be banned would be helpful. > > In the latest poll, only 5 of 68 respondents said "Ban the thing, it's too bad for the game." > > vekn.net/index.php/forum/40-polling-forum/16066-poll-liliths-blessing > > From the TWDA since January 1, 2012: > > 255 Total Decks > 76 had Lilith's Blessing > 13 had Minion Tap > 34 had Ashur Tablets > 36 had Anthelios, The Red Star > 40 had Parity Shift > 58 had Blood Doll > 73 had Vessel > 102 had Villein > 113 had Deflection > 117 had Giant's Blood > 178 had Pentex(TM) Subversion > I'd also like to hear a justification for banning Lilith's Blessing. I don't feel strongly about keeping it or banning it, but I'd like to know that there's a logic to it, and that the logic was backed by conversation with playtesters or the VEKN community.

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > The effect of minion tap for everything as a trifle and then gain 3 blood is probably too strong, definately with multiple master phase actions. But having to fetch a skill card, or intending to fetch a skill card is fair for a mastercthat requires setup to activate. > Certainly, anyone who has built decks and played at tournaments since Villein was printed knows that Villein is the problem, not Lilith's Blessing. The problem becomes that Villein has already been reworded, so another look at it means that it is likely too powerful and is going to get banned. And if Villein gets banned, 90% of the tournament decks get significantly altered, and a sizable part of your player base probably just calls it quits right there. > ReverendRevolver wrote: > I do not question weakening those annoying mpa decks, i just dont see why the mechanic is now being removed when errata would have been easier, or at the least more practical. > What errata would that be? > ReverendRevolver wrote: > Also, Pascal: thank you for making Impulse go into a rulebook, thats needed to happen for awhile, and will hopefully make people less moronic when i interrupt thier transfering to act through madness network. > You never were allowed to do this, as the acting player always had the opportunity ("impulse") to act before you, so until they finished all their transfers, you didn't yet have a chance to act. 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

> DeathInABottle wrote: > I'd also like to hear a justification for banning Lilith's Blessing. I don't feel strongly about keeping it or banning it, but I'd like to know that there's a logic to it, and that the logic was backed by conversation with playtesters or the VEKN community. > Villein + Lilith's Blessing appeared in >90% of casual and tournament decks that I've seen and played since Lilith's was printed. The effect was too powerful and efficient for a single MPA. Did you not see this in your home games? Did you not see this in tournament play? If you did, was it not too powerful and efficient? 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: > > > DeathInABottle wrote: > > I'd also like to hear a justification for banning Lilith's Blessing. I don't feel strongly about keeping it or banning it, but I'd like to know that there's a logic to it, and that the logic was backed by conversation with playtesters or the VEKN community. > > > Villein + Lilith's Blessing appeared in >90% of casual and tournament decks that I've seen and played since Lilith's was printed. The effect was too powerful and efficient for a single MPA. > > Did you not see this in your home games? > Did you not see this in tournament play? > If you did, was it not too powerful and efficient? > No, I didn't see it in my weekly home games in Victoria, nor in either of the tournaments I played in the four years I played there. Note that I say "either" of the tournaments: Victoria, BC doesn't have a very active scene, so I doubt that it represents VTES as a whole. Even though your particular meta is undoubtedly more active than mine was, I doubt that it represents VTES as a whole either, or that any one meta - Pascal's included - could accurately represent VTES. That's why I restricted my question to a request for the logic that informed the banning of the card. As Jeff pointed out, discussions on the forum have not been univocal, so I'd like to know how the decision was arrived at.

> KevinM wrote: > IANPB but since Villein is now an auto-include in 90% of tournament decks, a Lilith's Blessing is also a no-brainer auto-include as well. > A bit of hyperbole there. Per my stats above from SecretLibrary.info, your statement is not borne out. In fact, only 48 of the 255 TWDs since 1/1/2012 feature both Lilith's Blessing and Villein. That means 25 of the decks using Lilith's Blessing (more than 1 in 3) declined to use Villein. IMO, that's a good thing for deck variety and construction. > And their combined effect, continued throughout the game whenever a Villein is played -- contrast with the powerful Once Per Game effect of Giant's Blood -- is too powerful for a single MPA. > In your opinion sure. Apparently also in the opinion of the Rules Team. Not in the opinion of the vast majority of respondents to the poll, for what that's worth. If it needs more testing, why not let it remain field tested while a fix is also being worked on? When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Kevin, madness network doesnt let me screw with someones transfer phase. The impulse passes from them onc they completexthier minion phase actions, and rerurns to them anytime after one of my untapped malkavians completes an action. Before it wasnt actually in the core rules, now it is. And Darby has with words explained how ashurs violates a core game concept. Making it apply only to minion cards is logical. As for lilliths, making the skill card mandatory fixes the problem of brokenness.

> KevinM wrote: > And if Villein gets banned, 90% of the tournament decks get significantly altered, and a sizable part of your player base probably just calls it quits right there. > > KevinM wrote: > Villein + Lilith's Blessing appeared in >90% of casual and tournament decks that I've seen and played since Lilith's was printed. The effect was too powerful and efficient for a single MPA. > > Did you not see this in your home games? > Did you not see this in tournament play? > If you did, was it not too powerful and efficient? > So, just to make it clear, your position is that you think Villein should not be banned because it's in 90% of decks you've seen, but Lilith's Blessing should be banned because it's in 90% of decks you've seen? I'm not sure I follow your logic here.

I really like the idea that the rulings page(s) will actually try to have all rulings. I frequently have found that I can't find a ruling for a card when I know my question has been asked and answered on the newsgroup or elsewhere. So, I'd like to extend thanks for the efforts to clarify things. Traveller Card Game

I don't mind seeing LB banned. The main effect of LB is that Villein is extra good, which it didn't need to be. Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

I don't know how I feel about this. Some players here will be angry about it. The card was problematic though. I was just hoping there could've been other ways to fix it. Maybe you'll find some solution before the end of the year though. I for one always thought that it made some deck types way better than they needed to be. Completely free Inner Circles? I don't know if that should be allowed to happen. Maybe this ruling will require some time to sink in. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

Banning LB is fairly easy to justify because it is a storyline promo card that was not (supposedly) playtested. Lots of people play LB in LA, so we see it a lot. Besides the problem with Villein, LB gives a stupid advantage in the war of attrition that is VTES.

Also, if the RT want to limit blood generation, Lillith Blessing is the first target. Taste of vitae cannot be banned without making a lot of deck unplayable, while only some cheesy deck are vitaly dependant on the Lillith Blessing.

Lilith's Blessing banned! Awesome As people have noted, the real problem is the Villein + LB combo, which is just Too Damn Good(tm). While I still hate Villein, at least seeing that combo go away from tournament games is a good thing in my book. Even on its own, LB is too good. It's usable in any deck, it's not unique, it gives tons of free blood, and it allows you to fetch a discipline card. It wallpapers many previous cards, in one neat package. Ideally, of course, the card could be reworded to make it permissible again (i.e. nerfed).

@Kevin: Villein is problem because lilith's blessing and giant's blood. Giant's Blood made villein autoinclude, not the other way around. @Jeff:Check how many deck sport Villein with either GB or LB. @All: It's blood creation that move from vampires into pool a problem, not just moving blood from vampires into pool. NC Qualifier Budapest, Hungary Rack, LB, GB, 5xV + Gora special El Barón se va a vender sus pieles Palma de Mallorca, Spain 3xLB, GB, 8xV, 2xGolconda, 12xAshur's T Crusade: Krakow Krakow, Poland GB, 2xLB, 5xV (3xHeidelberg - MRapes) Justicar Retribution XIII: Prince of the Rodeo Helsinki, Finland LB, 4xV, Blood Turnip There are more decks that share the pattern. There are also decks with token amount of villeins which opted to not use GB and LB. In top 20 decks with more than 3 villeins, no one opt to not use Lilith's Blessing, Giant's Blood or Voter Cap. Would they still use such amount of villeins without those cards ? Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

> AaronC wrote: > Banning LB is fairly easy to justify because it is a storyline promo card that was not (supposedly) playtested. > Aaron, that is incorrect. For some reason there is this persistent rumor / belief / urban legend that Lilith's Blessing was never playtested. I've mentioned it before, and I'll mention it again (to correct misinformation): 1. Lilith's Blessing was before my time as Storyline Coordinator (so I had nothing to do with it). 2. Lilith's Blessing was playtested in all of the playtest rounds for Heirs to the Blood. You are free to argue that the playtesting process was flawed, or the playtesters didn't do a good job, or LSJ dropped the ball. I take no position on the matter, but you have the right to your own opinion. But Lilith's Blessing *was* playtested (or available to playtest) for three rounds. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Lilith's Blessing nerf has already been heavily discussed. www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/41-card-balance-a-strategy-discussion/28610-liliths-blessing-a-poor-nyc-prince-simple-question www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/41-card-balance-a-strategy-discussion/14556-on-liliths-blessing-3-qproblematic-cardq www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/41-card-balance-a-strategy-discussion/14426-concerning-liliths-blessing-ashur-tablets-and-liquidation Maybe it's too good to gain 3 pool per vampire using Villein (like Political Stranglehold, but delayed in time). In truth, I don't really care if it's banned or not, and I don't want Pascal to say why, because it will start again the enless discussion about pros and cons. It would be like contesting a judge's decision. If Pascal is legitimate (and I think he is, and I'm sure he weighted pros and cons long enough), knowing why is irrelevant. I don't think LSJ ever explained why PTO had been banned, and it's maybe better like this. EDIT: more food for thoughts: newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/2007-12/msg00569.html Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

villein is a much much more unbalanced card than lilith's blessing ever was imo (but villein allows for high-caps to be played so i'm ok with it). having to retrieve a master discipline card or making it unique (less fun) seem like simple solutions to dealing with the card. giant's blood is also crazier than lilith's (i even accepted GB; it's just one of the -admittedly more unbalanced- parameters of the vtes-environment). combination with multiple master phase actions also seem like the way bigger problem (anson, girls -cybele-nana-aksinya). huitzilopochtli's special (pay 1:blood: might hold the key to that problem...) personally, i would have guessed it would have been ashur that got the ban as it's just terribly designed (it ridicules or recursion which it shouldn't imo as so many cards are specifically dedicated to that mechanic/lore)... voter cap (modifier) in priciple should never gain more blood than a fifth tradition (actual action requiring prince/justicar and other vampire). _sidenote, shouldn't it be 'It' instead of 'If' in the Impulse-section?

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > My question is, why no Ashur errata? I assumed the word "minion" would be added between 13 and "cards", or it would be banned. > The decision was taken not to errata any card until cards with updated cardtext are available.

> Ankha wrote: > Lilith's Blessing nerf has already been heavily discussed. > > www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/41-card-balance-a-strategy-discussion/28610-liliths-blessing-a-poor-nyc-prince-simple-question > www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/41-card-balance-a-strategy-discussion/14556-on-liliths-blessing-3-qproblematic-cardq > www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/41-card-balance-a-strategy-discussion/14426-concerning-liliths-blessing-ashur-tablets-and-liquidation > > Maybe it's too good to gain 3 pool per vampire using Villein (like Political Stranglehold, but delayed in time). > > In truth, I don't really care if it's banned or not, and I don't want Pascal to say why, because it will start again the enless discussion about pros and cons. It would be like contesting a judge's decision. If Pascal is legitimate (and I think he is, and I'm sure he weighted pros and cons long enough), knowing why is irrelevant. > That's not true. When a supreme court makes a decision, it issues a legal opinion that lays out the rationale for the decision. That's useful for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it offers the entire country, which knows that it is going to be bound now and forever by the decision of that court, a window into the process, granting the court a degree of legitimacy. Once the decision is made, people might grumble, but they know that it won't be changed. Similarly, I might know that the rules team's decision is final - at least until suitable errata are found and new cards are printed - but it would still help for me to know how that decision was made.

> Ankha wrote: > In truth, I don't really care if it's banned or not, and I don't want Pascal to say why, because it will start again the endless discussion about pros and cons. > That is a poor justification for not providing any context to this decision. If the worst thing is that people continue to debate the merits and flaws of the card, or any card, here or on any forum, that's not a heavy price to pay. Pascal can participate in such a debate or not. > It would be like contesting a judge's decision. If Pascal is legitimate (and I think he is, and I'm sure he weighted pros and cons long enough), knowing why is irrelevant. > Judges do not (should not) arbitrarily make decisions. They are rooted in precedence and justified by the rules. The word legitimate comes from "lex" (meaning law) in Latin. And every judge's decision that I've ever read quotes (or can quote) from the relevant sections. There is no argument whether Pascal and the Rules Team has gone through some thought process regarding this card. I think that many people are curious what that process is. I also am curious what changed between the last set of rulings and this one that necessitated this latest ban. Why now, and not on December 1, 2012? And if the card is going to be re-introduced as PB says in the ruling, perhaps even as early as December 1, 2013, why ban it at all when a future errata would be sufficient? When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > There is no argument whether Pascal and the Rules Team has gone through some thought process regarding this card. I think that many people are curious what that process is. I also am curious what changed between the last set of rulings and this one that necessitated this latest ban. Why now, and not on December 1, 2012? And if the card is going to be re-introduced as PB says in the ruling, perhaps even as early as December 1, 2013, why ban it at all when a future errata would be sufficient? > > Pascal wrote: > > > ReverendRevolver wrote: > > My question is, why no Ashur errata? I assumed the word "minion" would be added between 13 and "cards", or it would be banned. > > > The decision was taken not to errata any card until cards with updated cardtext are available. > There was a choice between ban and no ban. Given the choice, i applaud current ban as it was needed to stop the lb madness. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

> Jeff wrote: > There is no argument whether Pascal and the Rules Team has gone through some thought process regarding this card. I think that many people are curious what that process is. > Indeed so. unfortunately many people tend to keep on whining and everyone tends to have a (different) opinnion. And we all know what opinnion are like, donät we? And the rules team ain't us supreme court etc. Finnish Politics!

> Pascal wrote: > > > ReverendRevolver wrote: > > My question is, why no Ashur errata? I assumed the word "minion" would be added between 13 and "cards", or it would be banned. > > > The decision was taken not to errata any card until cards with updated cardtext are available. > So I assume this is a new change in policy developed some time in the past year? I ask because apparently this line of reasoning did not apply to the December 2, 2011 rulings which errata'ed Villein (and with minor erratas to Domain of Evernight and Pocket Out of Time). pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> echiang wrote: > > > Pascal wrote: > > > > > ReverendRevolver wrote: > > > My question is, why no Ashur errata? I assumed the word "minion" would be added between 13 and "cards", or it would be banned. > > > > > The decision was taken not to errata any card until cards with updated cardtext are available. > > > So I assume this is a new change in policy developed some time in the past year? > > I ask because apparently this line of reasoning did not apply to the December 2, 2011 rulings which errata'ed Villein (and with minor erratas to Domain of Evernight and Pocket Out of Time). > It's not new a thought - I assume the Villein errata was made because it was considered too crippling to a large number of players who did not have adequate access to villein in suitable quantities, not to be made. The other two minor errata as you said were helpful clarifications rather than a change that needs a print.

> Squidalot wrote: > > > echiang wrote: > > > > > Pascal wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ReverendRevolver wrote: > > > > My question is, why no Ashur errata? I assumed the word "minion" would be added between 13 and "cards", or it would be banned. > > > > > > > The decision was taken not to errata any card until cards with updated cardtext are available. > > > > > So I assume this is a new change in policy developed some time in the past year? > > > > I ask because apparently this line of reasoning did not apply to the December 2, 2011 rulings which errata'ed Villein (and with minor erratas to Domain of Evernight and Pocket Out of Time). > > > It's not new a thought - I assume the Villein errata was made because it was considered too crippling to a large number of players who did not have adequate access to villein in suitable quantities, not to be made. > > The other two minor errata as you said were helpful clarifications rather than a change that needs a print. > It's an "old" thought that has been reinforced by the PoD program sounding more and more realistic. Some changes in cardtexts that were considered for this RTR have been postponed (changes similar to the Psyche! changes in the previous RTR).

> Ankha wrote: > In truth, I don't really care if it's banned or not, and I don't want Pascal to say why, because it will start again the enless discussion about pros and cons. It would be like contesting a judge's decision. If Pascal is legitimate (and I think he is, and I'm sure he weighted pros and cons long enough), knowing why is irrelevant. > > I don't think LSJ ever explained why PTO had been banned, and it's maybe better like this. > I actually think it *would* have been helpful if LSJ (and past rules authorities) explained why the cards were banned, especially since they are no longer involved in the game. From what I've heard secondhand (i.e. Rumor Mill, Tabloid Newspaper B-) ), LSJ has mostly moved on from the VTES chapter in his life and isn't particularly interested in discussing past VTES matters. So having on record some explanations for some of his decisions could be very helpful. In the past there have been a handful of banned cards that were unbanned: Rowan Ring & Stake: Presumably because they had the old Paralyze keyword, but were simply errata'ed with new card text to simulate how Paralyze used to work. Monocle of Clarity: Unbanned and errata'ed so that answers to questions about the future are not binding. Return to Innocence: Went through a cycle of ban/unban with different card texts, but still ended up on the ban list. However, even with many of the current cards on the ban list, some of them still have supporters who believe that the card could be unbanned with only minor changes: - Some old school players were displeased when Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure were banned, and believed that some tweaks could be enough to bring them back. - Some players believe that the main issue with Memories of Mortality is that it works too well with Imbued. So changing its wording to non-Imbued allies (or maybe making it Unique) is all that is needed. - I've personally always thought that Succubus Club was fixable. My idea on how to prevent extremely unbalanced trades (and which I had wanted to implement in a Limited Storyline event) was that after tapping the Club, any Methuselah could prevent the trade by burning 1 or 2 pool. The game environment can drastically change in 5-10 years. Even more so if new cards are introduced. As a result, the reasoning why a card was originally banned may no longer apply. Knowing why a card was banned 10 years ago is helpful because then the current rules authority and players can better evaluate if the ban is still necessary. IMHO, that's better than the alternative of blindly accepting bans and other past decisions just because "that's the way it's always been." pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Squidalot wrote: > > > echiang wrote: > > > > > Pascal wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ReverendRevolver wrote: > > > > My question is, why no Ashur errata? I assumed the word "minion" would be added between 13 and "cards", or it would be banned. > > > > > > > The decision was taken not to errata any card until cards with updated cardtext are available. > > > > > So I assume this is a new change in policy developed some time in the past year? > > > > I ask because apparently this line of reasoning did not apply to the December 2, 2011 rulings which errata'ed Villein (and with minor erratas to Domain of Evernight and Pocket Out of Time). > > > It's not new a thought - I assume the Villein errata was made because it was considered too crippling to a large number of players who did not have adequate access to villein in suitable quantities, not to be made. > Wouldn't it have just been easier and more consistent to have simply banned Villein then? Especially since that mindset is apparently an "old thought." I can just imagine a parallel universe where the December 2, 2011 rulings errata'ed Lilith's Blessing and the April 22, 2013 rulings banned Villein. Also, did Lilith's Blessing just suddenly start wreaking the tournament scene this past year? If it was such a problem, maybe it should have just been errata'ed or banned back in December 2011 instead of now. Similarly, if a card like Deflection or Govern the Unaligned were banned, most people could probably guess why, but would be puzzled about why *now*. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > In truth, I don't really care if it's banned or not, and I don't want Pascal to say why, because it will start again the endless discussion about pros and cons. > > > That is a poor justification for not providing any context to this decision. If the worst thing is that people continue to debate the merits and flaws of the card, or any card, here or on any forum, that's not a heavy price to pay. Pascal can participate in such a debate or not. > For reference, other CCG's like Magic and L5R often provide explanations for their card bans. Now that is not to say that VTES should also provide explanations "just because everyone else does." But it does show that providing explanations isn't necessarily such a bad thing. B-) pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Lönkka wrote: > And the rules team ain't us supreme court etc. > Obviously not, but its decisions carry a similar game-defining weight, and there's no higher body of appeal. It's a reasonable parallel. Anyway, Pascal seems to be deliberately avoiding the question, so I guess this decision's going to remain mysterious. I can't understand the justification for that, frankly, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Edit to add: I'm grateful for the work that the rules team does. I know they're volunteers, and they're freely giving away their time. I hope questions like these aren't read as persecutions, because they're really not intended that way.

> echiang wrote: > I actually think it *would* have been helpful if LSJ (and past rules authorities) explained why the cards were banned, > ... > > However, even with many of the current cards on the ban list, some of them still have supporters who believe that the card could be unbanned with only minor changes: > > - Some old school players were displeased when Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure were banned, and believed that some tweaks could be enough to bring them back. > Which more or less flies in the face of "wouldn't it be helpful if LSJ explained his reasoning"? He explained his reasoning for seat-switchers at some considerable length, and there is no "tweak" that would address those. The fundamental issue is the predator-prey dynamic. Two players should not, in general, have the same goal, giving a third player two predators at once. That can happen, to an extent, where a player generates significant table hate by their own actions. It shouldn't happen just because I included three copies of Dramatic Upheaval in my Pander vote deck. A secondary concern is that they almost inevitably lead to long, long, long discussions if players have the ability to negotiate for any reason (blocking, voting it down, threats of retaliatory action etc). Every good player has to reassess the new table and the discussions can become extremely lengthy - and not include any element of stalling or slow play. Since you apparently believe that tweaks could fix these problems, in the face of extensive explanations by LSJ, it doesn't really seem that the details of why a card was banned matter.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Which more or less flies in the face of "wouldn't it be helpful if LSJ explained his reasoning"? He explained his reasoning for seat-switchers at some considerable length, and there is no "tweak" that would address those. > Yes, you are correct about LSJ explaining the seat-switching. My apologies for the confusion. I was quoting Ankha who was talking about LSJ not explaining PTO, but then also tying in additional related issues (cards that were banned and then unbanned, banned cards that some people think can be fixed). Sorry if things got a bit muddled. > Since you apparently believe that tweaks could fix these problems, in the face of extensive explanations by LSJ, it doesn't really seem that the details of why a card was banned matter. > That is incorrect James. I'm personally not that vested in tweaking DU/KR or Memories of Mortality but I just wanted to point out that some people are more passionate about it. I recall several old school players (many in the UK) who were quite dis-satisfied when the seat-switchers were banned, and didn't think that banning was necessary. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

I fully support the ban of LB. I think it's pretty obvious that the Bahari designation was meant to eventually incur some sort of negative effect (otherwise why introduce it at all, just "tap to...") I'd be fine with banning Villein too quite honestly as it was the most glaring example of power creep the game has ever seen (though I suspect more of it's ilk were in the planning prior to the WW buyout). At least the errata un-hosed minion tap, but the card was designed (again IMO) not for the good of the game but to boost card sales. As a player of the game I never cared for that tact personally... But certainly the two cards together, LB + V, allowing the use of insanely large crypts at zero risk was just the definition of broken combo. So good riddance. I'd be fine with Ahur Tablets going away too (though it sounds like it will be erratad when PoD is up and running). And for the record I'm using ALL of these cards in decks right now; so be it. No different than Memories of Mortality and Edge Explosion. Some cards really should not have ever been printed IMO (like Una).

> Soonerborn wrote: > I fully support the ban of LB. I think it's pretty obvious that the Bahari designation was meant to eventually incur some sort of negative effect (otherwise why introduce it at all, just "tap to...") > To prevent it being used repetitively. You could achieve the same effect with "A vampire can only benefit from Lilith's Blessing once per game." But LSJ's designs have a slight tendency to use keywords where they seem to make sense, even if there isn't any tech to interact with them right there and then - handy if you come up with an interesting effect in the future, and don't need to retro-errata a previous card to fit. Obviously you can go overboard with that sort of thing, and no-one wants every card covered with redundant, non-functioning keywords, but a handful scattered around providing possible seeds for future growth seems pretty cool.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Which more or less flies in the face of "wouldn't it be helpful if LSJ explained his reasoning"? He explained his reasoning for seat-switchers at some considerable length, and there is no "tweak" that would address those. > James, thanks for reminding me of that whole DU/KR discussion. It was certainly a trip down memory lane. B-) Refreshing myself with the Usenet archives, one might recall that players such as Johannes Walch, Mike Nudd, Rob Treasure, Reyda, Frederick Scott, and Joshua Feuerstein were not happy about the DU/KR bans at the time. (And David Buerger was very saddened by the Succubus Club ban). To reference a few quotes which are similar to questions people are asking now: JOHANNES WALCH: I just fell off my chair. Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure were/are cornerstones of V:TES. Care to explain why these cards were banned? I cannot see any apparent reason. Who decides which cards are getting banned? Why isn´t there any discussion about this? I am very disappointed by the fact that major things about this game are changed without taking into account the opinion of those who work countless hours in their spare time to promote and run the game. A sad, sad day for V:TES. HUGH ANGSEESING: However I'm suprised that WW went for a ban on these cards rather than perhaps limiting them to being played once per game per player or other adjustments. Will WW give a fuller description of their reasons of why they were banned (none of these cards are particularly broken over here and Succubus club i've not seen used at all in the UK) MIKE NUDD: Perhaps the most serious complaint (which I didn't raise before but which I've seen elsewhere) is how come after 10 years of V:TES, and DU and KR being available for the *entire* period should they be banned now? If they were such a problem then they should have been banned before - what changed in the last year or so that has made a ban so necessary all of a sudden? So in my personal opinion, I think it should be perfectly acceptable to ask the same questions (Why was it banned? What process was used in determining the ban? Why the ban now?) that Johannes, Hugh, and Mike asked many years ago. For those interested in viewing the threads themselves, the thread was "2005 Tournament Rules Options" from December 4, 2004. It's a good read, and there are some amusing posts about Johannes too! pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Pascal wrote: > > > Squidalot wrote: > > > > > echiang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pascal wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ReverendRevolver wrote: > > > > > My question is, why no Ashur errata? I assumed the word "minion" would be added between 13 and "cards", or it would be banned. > > > > > > > > > The decision was taken not to errata any card until cards with updated cardtext are available. > > > > > > > So I assume this is a new change in policy developed some time in the past year? > > > > > > I ask because apparently this line of reasoning did not apply to the December 2, 2011 rulings which errata'ed Villein (and with minor erratas to Domain of Evernight and Pocket Out of Time). > > > > > > > > It's not new a thought - I assume the Villein errata was made because it was considered too crippling to a large number of players who did not have adequate access to villein in suitable quantities, not to be made. > > > > The other two minor errata as you said were helpful clarifications rather than a change that needs a print. > > > It's an "old" thought that has been reinforced by the PoD program sounding more and more realistic. Some changes in cardtexts that were considered for this RTR have been postponed (changes similar to the Psyche! changes in the previous RTR). > How does this relate to Robert Goudie's "old" thought that: If cards can be rehabilitated with new text in a new printing, there's not much need to ban them. IMO (and Scott's too, AFAIK), Anarch Revolt falls into that category of redeemable cards. As Scott has posted elsewhere, if text were to be discovered that would redeem DU/KR, then they would be unbanned (Of course, given their nature, it will certainly be challenging to find appropriate text). Also, if a good solution had presented itself previously, the cards would never have been banned. With POD coming, new printings should be readily available. So shouldn't there be "not much need to ban" Lilith's Blessing right now, especially since it could be fixed and reprinted within the year? pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

I think the plan is: 1) take it out of the game 2) develop a suitable replacement 3) reintroduce the card under a new name if a suitable replacement can be made [Edit added after thinking my way through other cards that may be banned] Plus, LB actually reduces minion interactions by eliminating hunt actions. Regardless of the pool generation created by Villein + LB, LB removes the traditional risk of minion loss by blocking the hunt. It's also why I think Pentex should allow the minion it is on to remove the card but other than that edit, Pentex should potentially stay (increase in minion interaction). Sense Dep is considered incredibly powerful because of its ability to remove a minion from interactions. In general, I think, many of the players (new and experienced) want GREATER minion interaction in this game. LB removes a key minion action (Mandatory Hunts for empty vampires) and consequently represents a potential drastic reduction in minion interaction. If the Metagame does not significantly change with this banning, then obviously LB was either not influential enough OR there are other cards at fault for the problems players have with their Metagame. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > It's also why I think Pentex should allow the minion it is on to remove the card but other than that edit, Pentex should potentially stay (increase in minion interaction). Sense Dep is considered incredibly powerful because of its ability to remove a minion from interactions. > I think pentex should just have limited duration, autoremove clause (say burned in first/second discard of pentexed minion) would make it way better balanced, while still allowing some good lunge action. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

> echiang wrote: > > > Pascal wrote: > > It's an "old" thought that has been reinforced by the PoD program sounding more and more realistic. Some changes in cardtexts that were considered for this RTR have been postponed (changes similar to the Psyche! changes in the previous RTR). > > > How does this relate to Robert Goudie's "old" thought that: > > If cards can be rehabilitated with new text in a new printing, there's > not much need to ban them. IMO (and Scott's too, AFAIK), Anarch Revolt > falls into that category of redeemable cards. As Scott has posted > elsewhere, if text were to be discovered that would redeem DU/KR, then > they would be unbanned (Of course, given their nature, it will certainly > be challenging to find appropriate text). Also, if a good solution had > presented itself previously, the cards would never have been banned. > > With POD coming, new printings should be readily available. So shouldn't there be "not much need to ban" Lilith's Blessing right now, especially since it could be fixed and reprinted within the year? > I fully agree with Robert's statement. In the meantime, - I don't have a final cardtext for Lilith's Blessing *right now*. - We don't have printers printing the cards *right now*. By then, we used to have "frequent" sets, "frequent" releases, and "frequent" updates in cardtext. I think that's quite a difference in the hypotheses, but I might be wrong. Hence the difference in the result. In 8-month time, I might not have taken the same decision. 8 months ago, I might not have taken the same decision. Right now (and it's been so since a few months), I made this decision.

Couldn't see Echiang on the forum for ages. He just respawned to rant about Pascal's decision. And not in the form of one or two posts. Double the amount, make that a triple post sandwich please (see other thread) Sorry but it may really look like " foul play" to many. And digging 10 years old post is not smart either. I'm sure at some point during teenage years I said to my friends friends that my father is an asshat. Yet I expect that none of my friends are going to tell him today " oh btw your sons hates you because you're an asshat". Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > Couldn't see Echiang on the forum for ages. He just respawned to rant about Pascal's decision. And not in the form of one or two posts. Double the amount, make that a triple post sandwich please (see other thread) > > Sorry but it may really look like " foul play" to many. > And digging 10 years old post is not smart either. I'm sure at some point during teenage years I said to my friends friends that my father is an asshat. Yet I expect that none of my friends are going to tell him today " oh btw your sons hates you because you're an asshat". > "Rant"? I've found that he's been quite polite. I understand that it's difficult to hear tone in text, but he isn't using aggressive language or deploying ad hominem attacks - which, I feel like I have to note, you are. (As an aside: the aggressive environment that this kind of post generates is really starting to bother me. I don't see any need for it, and I wish it were more routinely condemned.) On old posts: I think that he was bringing them up in order to demonstrate that players in general, and not just particular malcontents, are regularly concerned with the rationale and process that informs decisions, and that this particular round of questions isn't any different. If people were concerned then, why wouldn't they be concerned now? And why would it be wrong to be concerned?

> Reyda wrote: > Couldn't see Echiang on the forum for ages. He just respawned to rant about Pascal's decision. And not in the form of one or two posts. Double the amount, make that a triple post sandwich please (see other thread) > > Sorry but it may really look like " foul play" to many. > And digging 10 years old post is not smart either. I'm sure at some point during teenage years I said to my friends friends that my father is an asshat. Yet I expect that none of my friends are going to tell him today " oh btw your sons hates you because you're an asshat". > I'm sure you are just trolling, but I need to get it off my chest. Your post was quite, quite unnecessary. I'd judge it "unnecessary roughness". I think it's interesting to read what people said years ago. It's a good read, and it might open up different perspectives. pckvtes.wordpress.com

> echiang wrote: > > HUGH ANGSEESING: > > However I'm suprised that WW went for a ban on these cards rather than > perhaps limiting them to being played once per game per player or > other adjustments. > > Will WW give a fuller description of their reasons of why they were > banned (none of these cards are particularly broken over here and > Succubus club i've not seen used at all in the UK) > That is hilarious (snipped the others for the sake of brevity)! I don't disagree with you Eric that it would be useful to have a page covering the banned cards with reasons. However I can also see now (that i'm no longer 23)that whatever LSJ or Pascal or Pacman wrote wouldn't satisfy everyone and could just cause the same cycle of pointless arguments on this forum (that might not be a good reason not to have it) I was lucky enough to be party to some of Pascal's thinking and I do know that he involved a fair number of experienced players from around the globe (who no doubt all came up with different views to keep him busy). I was certainly part of the lilith's blessing ban lobby (I also had Anthelios and to a lesser extent Ashur in my head as bads and was convinced by other to add ToGP and Giant's blood for different reasons to the list - not a fan of OPG game design) I also know that these discussions have been going on some time (since villein was 'corrected') and it's because Pascal wants to make as balanced a decision as he can that he really thinks it through. In terms of why Villein wasn't banned and LB was I would think something like this: - easy to correct Villein's card text as Pascal said (comparatively) - no obvious fix to LB currently - villein is definitely an enabler - it allows big fat decks that struggled to be competitive before to be competitive now - LB probably isn't an enabler in the same way (I've used in in a Gio deck to deliberately get DOM but generally it's used for 3 blood) - LB adds Bahari an unnecessary keyword to the game - Eric we clearly disagree on this last part but LB was poorly tested (not saying other cards haven't been) as part of the Heirs test - the reasons range from too much text, villein not pervading normal decks at that time so can't see combo and finally many playtesters were under the impression this was a storyline card (no rules included for Bahari) so didn't need to be tested in the way other cards in the set did

Id like to comment on the ealy part of Hughs post, that Pascal involved players from around the globe in his methods. Its sort of taken for granted on the vwkn forums that the vekn forums speak for the community. This is false, the forums speak for the partcof the community that uses the forums, and a tiny bit for thierxplaygroups or regions. Im onexof the leazt acxomplished players in my meta( no shame in it, its hard to win a final when at least 3 if not 4 of the other players arent just hall of famers, but high ranking ones, and you manage to oust 2 of them before yoit grand predator draws good and your screwex) but im on the forums more than most of the players in my state. I dont speak FOR them, but my views are often like thiers. Still, its not like im emailing Bell, Loughman, Kristoff, Cashdollar, Messer, and every other player in the state for an endousement on my every post, or asking for them to add on thier views. So, we have to assume that Pascal has received input enough to come to the most prudent andpractical decision he can currently, and thw fact is that it wasnt exclusively forum frequenters he consulted, so we lack ALL the information he used to decide(as we should , my proof being that we argue about EVERYTHING on here). In short, Pascal is a very calculating rules director and the last time i played witb him he was a very calculative andpersepive player(unfortunately for me, predator in my case). So, imwilling to trust his ideas are probably zolid, even if i lose several decks i enjoeyed due to no LB. Im not happy, but at leazt at this point, hes done nothing other than prove his prudence in anything to do with the game, and regardless of the forums being split on it, until Pascal gives me reason to doubt something, i trust him, his research, and his decision.

> Squidalot wrote: > That is hilarious (snipped the others for the sake of brevity)! > Yes, I found it hilarious as well! > However I can also see now (that i'm no longer 23)that whatever LSJ or Pascal or Pacman wrote wouldn't satisfy everyone and could just cause the same cycle of pointless arguments on this forum (that might not be a good reason not to have it) > > I was lucky enough to be party to some of Pascal's thinking and I do know that he involved a fair number of experienced players from around the globe (who no doubt all came up with different views to keep him busy). > Nothing is ever going to satisfy everyone but I don't think that's a good reason by itself to avoid transparency. The primary purpose I brought it up (and it was actually James who even reminded me of it) was like DeathInABottle said: these sorts of questions are natural and reasonable. They've been asked in the past. They're being asked now. And in 10 years time, when X is the new rules coordinator and they decide to ban card Y, it's likely that the exact same questions and concerns will come up again. It just happened to be extra irony that it was you (Hugh), Mike, and Johannes who were asking those questions back then. If anything, I would hope that you three would be especially tolerant and understanding of those with such concerns, since you have been in the same position before. Also, I believe it highlights the need for transparency, which is something that several people have asked for. Back then, you, Johannes, and Mike were on the outside so it made sense that you had concerns because you didn't fully understand the inner workings of the bans. Now, the roles have reversed and you three are privy to the inner workings of the VEKN. To poorly paraphrase Stefan Ferenci in a response to Johannes in that 2004 thread: you complain about thesystem because you are not part of it, as soon as you are the system is fine. Strip away the personal, emotional, and accusational sentiment for the underlying pattern which is my point. It happens all the time (and it's not necessarily a "good" or "bad" thing, it's just the way it often is). In politics, you commonly have newcomers claiming that they will change how things are done but once they are elected in office, they just end up becoming part of the status quo machine. Or people who are politically liberal when they are young (and don't have much wealth) but when they become older (and wealthier) then shift to a politically conservative stance. Although you now have secret knowledge and influence on how the rulings are made, for most people it is still an opaque black box. So I think it is understandable for people to pose questions and ask for more clarification and transparency. > In terms of why Villein wasn't banned and LB was I would think something like this: > - easy to correct Villein's card text as Pascal said (comparatively) > - villein is definitely an enabler - it allows big fat decks that struggled to be competitive before to be competitive now > Yes, the hoser aspect was easily fixed, but that's not where most of the power of Villein comes from. (I would argue it's the Trifle part, which was never playtested). I don't see why Villein should get a free pass just because it's an "enabler." Many people still strongly feel that it is overpowered. Wouldn't it be better to just ban Villein and then come up with a more balanced version (in the POD printing) that still allows big fat decks to be competitive but isn't so abusive with MMPA's, Voter Cap, and Renewed Vigor? > - LB adds Bahari an unnecessary keyword to the game > Then for consistency, why not ban Infamous Insurgent as well? > - Eric we clearly disagree on this last part but LB was poorly tested (not saying other cards haven't been) as part of the Heirs test - the reasons range from too much text, villein not pervading normal decks at that time so can't see combo and finally many playtesters were under the impression this was a storyline card (no rules included for Bahari) so didn't need to be tested in the way other cards in the set did > Hugh, you are twisting what I said. The point I have tried to make is that Lilith's Blessing was playtested (and playtested with the Heirs to the Blood set). It was. I have not taken a position on *how well* Lilith's Blessing was playtested. As I mentioned before, people are free to argue any of: 1. The playtest process (for HttB) was flawed which resulted in the poorly playtested Lilith's Blessing. 2. The HttB playtesters did a poor job (by not properly playtesting Lilith's Blessing, possibly ignoring it because it was "storyline"). 3. LSJ dropped the ball by not fixing the card in between the rounds. Or that LSJ/Swainbank poorly designed the card to begin with. People are free to argue any (or all) of the above based on their opinions. (I don't necessarily agree or disagree with any of those statements, I'm just saying that people can argue them if they want). But it is a fact that Lilith's Blessing DID go through 3 rounds of HttB playtesting. That's the point I'm trying to make and the misconception I keep trying to correct. On the issue of Lilith's Blessing, I do think it's on the strong side but I think there are plenty of more overpowered cards (Anthelios, Ashur Tablets, Pentex Subversion, Villein, Voter Cap, Deflection, Govern the Unaligned). In fact, wasn't it Derek Ray (from the Atlanta playgroup) who complained about how Anthelios wasn't thoroughly playtested and slipped through the cracks? I think that Lilith's Blessing was an easy and convenient choice for banning because it was a newer card (printed in 2010 instead of 1994 like Deflection) with fewer advocates, and a storyline/promo card (though Anthelios was also promo) with a much smaller circulation so it would likely cause less waves. I think that politically, it was a very logical choice. But on the merits of actual power levels and card balance, there were many, many better candidates that deserved to be hit with the ban hammer first. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> DeathInABottle wrote: > "Rant"? I've found that he's been quite polite. > Politeness aside (and did I mention anything about being not polite, ffs ?) you can not deny the fact that there is suddenly an avalanche of posts from echiang. That's the only thing I am pointing here. It's hard to say anything in this forum without being labelled a troll, really. > DeathInABottle wrote: > I understand that it's difficult to hear tone in text, but he isn't using aggressive language or deploying ad hominem attacks - which, I feel like I have to note, you are. > Where did I say "Echiang is a barbarian who mutilates grandmothers everywhere " ?? I just pointed a simple, actual fact : he does not post often, but here he's on a special ranting mode since the change of rules. A single, long, argumented post would have been sufficient. I can't understand the "I post 5 times in a row so my opinion is suddenly very important" move. Excuse me but where is this an ad hominem argument ? I have nothing about Echiang. I don't even know him ! Maybe he's the kindest, more adorable person in the world, and gives to charity (then we are all pleased and need more people like him.) What I see is a rant, wich may look a bit like a deliberate attempt to pass Pascal as incompetent. And I didn't even mention that. I was just suprised and a bit annoyed by all the posts he generated in a few hours. THAT IS ALL. > (As an aside: the aggressive environment that this kind of post generates is really starting to bother me. I don't see any need for it, and I wish it were more routinely condemned.) > It's the same thing for me, mind you. > On old posts: I think that he was bringing them up in order to demonstrate that players in general, and not just particular malcontents, are regularly concerned with the rationale and process that informs decisions, and that this particular round of questions isn't any different. If people were concerned then, why wouldn't they be concerned now? And why would it be wrong to be concerned? > I am ok with bringing old posts, especially to illustrate the fact that everyone can change his mind about a card or a certain aspect of a game. But these are nearly 10 year old posts, and at that time, we could not predict that the game would be better without seat switchers. Time made us realize LSJ was not wrong -we the ranting players where. So I guess Echiang's demonstration kind of backfires in a way ? And to be fully honest : he quoted some "key" people like Johannes to prove his thoughts, and that is not a clever move in my opinion. At that time Johannes was not supporting a game nor a community. His opinions were only theirs and did not engage other players I think. Anyway, it lokked a bit suspicious and I have the right to see it this way. Again , I Have nothing against Echiang. Why always bring this kind of stuff on the table when I disagree with someone ? When the "but he doesn't like him" became a real argument to dismiss people's thoughs or remarks ? I am not a fan of ohlmann, but when he says something clever, I am the first one to agree. Please stop this : it's only bringing noise to the conversation. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > Id like to comment on the ealy part of Hughs post, that Pascal involved players from around the globe in his methods. > And I'm sure LSJ also probably involved players from around the globe in his methods. > Its sort of taken for granted on the vwkn forums that the vekn forums speak for the community. This is false, the forums speak for the partcof the community that uses the forums, and a tiny bit for thierxplaygroups or regions. > I agree with you, that those on the VEKN forum only constitute a very, very small fraction of the actual players. > I dont speak FOR them, but my views are often like thiers. Still, its not like im emailing Bell, Loughman, Kristoff, Cashdollar, Messer, and every other player in the state for an endousement on my every post, or asking for them to add on thier views. So, we have to assume that Pascal has received input enough to come to the most prudent andpractical decision he can currently, and thw fact is that it wasnt exclusively forum frequenters he consulted, so we lack ALL the information he used to decide(as we should , my proof being that we argue about EVERYTHING on here). > Back when the banning decisions when made by LSJ, Steve Wieck, Robert Goudie, and Robyn Tatu (the old IC), that was not sufficiently satisfying for Johannes. According to Johannes: And I would like to see a few european guys involved. That´s all. Later clarified as those who are: Coordinating the big tournaments like the EC, qualifiers and national championships. Taking care of the pre-releases, prize support, promotion (e.g in local magazines) and so on. The national coordinators for example. Though Derek Ray and Stefan Ferenci were more skeptical of his motives (perhaps they were being too harsh?): Derek Ray: Is it not really that you are not on that list, and because they have made a decision you do not agree with, you think you can do better? Stefan Ferenci: so here we are you want andreas and stephane involved (two very good buddys of yours, and btw everybody knows that when it comes to vtes andreas and you are like twinbrothers, so when andreas is part of the discussion so are you) once again aren´t you hypocritical, you complain about thesystem because you are not part of it, as soon as you are the system is fine. > In short, Pascal is a very calculating rules director and the last time i played witb him he was a very calculative andpersepive player(unfortunately for me, predator in my case). So, imwilling to trust his ideas are probably zolid, even if i lose several decks i enjoeyed due to no LB. Im not happy, but at leazt at this point, hes done nothing other than prove his prudence in anything to do with the game, and regardless of the forums being split on it, until Pascal gives me reason to doubt something, i trust him, his research, and his decision. > I think Pascal's a great guy. And out of all the IC members, I think he's definitely done the best job so far (no offense to everyone else). However, we can't even say whether this was his decision (for better or for worse). It's also possible that the decision was an Inner Circle decision, or a Chairman decision (since the Chairman can appoint/dismiss IC members at will, except maybe the Vice Chairman). So we can't give Pascal credit or blame for this decision unless it actually was his ultimate decision. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> echiang wrote: > So we can't give Pascal credit or blame for this decision unless it actually was his ultimate decision. > Why do anyone would care ? You're talking to credit or blame a decision even before any tournament have been done with thoses changes, and we would need at least six month before seeing anything which isn't speculative chatter. I also propose we start to blame Johannes for the bad impression quality of the third POD set released in 2016 ; it make just about as much sense. Nobody should care what Johannes or anyone else were thinking ten year ago. There is way too little context to know if the situation were the same in what you give, and even if it was, he can change opinion in ten year. In other word, your post don't really say anything about the current rule change but make you look like a manipulative jerk. To be honest, I am happy to know it's not you who have taken the decision, seeing as that a lot of time you exclusively use your time to portray yourselve as a self-centered jerk and the PDF you released were ... less than inspiring.

> Reyda wrote: > Politeness aside (and did I mention anything about being not polite, ffs ?) > you can not deny the fact that there is suddenly an avalanche of posts from echiang. That's the only thing I am pointing here. > #1. I made a few posts, but then most of my other posts (what you consider an "avalanche") are in direct replies to responses from other posters (James Coupe, Hugh Angseesing, Pascal, you). Why is it surprising that as a discussion evolves (and includes more people) that one ends up posting more? #2. Not much has been going on with VTES for many, many months. So for many people (including me), there hasn't been much reason to post lately. New Tournament Rules with a new banned card is a major development. Why would it be so surprising if a number of people who haven't posted lately, post in response to this new change? #3. Over the past year or so, players have repeatedly offered the excuse "well the VEKN members are just volunteers and they have real world lives and real world responsibilities, so it's okay if they're not posting all the time or giving monthly updates." Is it so surprising that most of us probably have real world lives and responsibilities as well? Why is it such a big deal that I haven't posted in a while, when it's been specifically fine for other people to *not* have been posting? > What I see is a rant, wich may look a bit like a deliberate attempt to pass Pascal as incompetent. > I've had the pleasure of working with Pascal. Pascal is very, very competent. In fact, he's probably even more competent than you or I think he is. > I was just suprised and a bit annoyed by all the posts he generated in a few hours. > > THAT IS ALL. > Simple answer: The majority of all those posts are child posts in response to the replies of other people to my parent posts. That is all. Have a good day Reyda! pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Ohlmann wrote: > > > echiang wrote: > > So we can't give Pascal credit or blame for this decision unless it actually was his ultimate decision. > > > Why do anyone would care ? > Maybe I was being too subtle. This was indirectly referring to the issue of transparency on how the VEKN works and the process with which rulings/bans are decided (bottom up? top down? independent committee? etc.) > Ohlmann wrote: > Nobody should care what Johannes or anyone else were thinking ten year ago. There is way too little context to know if the situation were the same in what you give, and even if it was, he can change opinion in ten year. In other word, your post don't really say anything about the current rule change but make you look like a manipulative jerk. > > To be honest, I am happy to know it's not you who have taken the decision, seeing as that a lot of time you exclusively use your time to portray yourselve as a self-centered jerk and the PDF you released were ... less than inspiring. > Thank you for your input Ohlmann. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as am I. You can actually thank James Coupe for reminding me about that old discussion. If it wasn't for his reference about LSJ explaining the reasoning behind the DU ban, I wouldn't have remembered it, let alone brought it up. I'm glad we can agree on something. I am also happy that I did not make the decision and had nothing to do with it. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> echiang wrote: > You can actually thank James Coupe for reminding me about that old discussion. If it wasn't for his reference about LSJ explaining the reasoning behind the DU ban, I wouldn't have remembered it, let alone brought it up. > I correct my statement : you look like a needlessly smug selfless jerk. I have no idea who is James Coupe at all, and you're the first one who started to fling names, and in the apparent goal to fling mud to people ; there is litteraly no other value to your post. I sometime wonder if you're not trying to troll the forum.

> Ohlmann wrote: > > > echiang wrote: > > You can actually thank James Coupe for reminding me about that old discussion. If it wasn't for his reference about LSJ explaining the reasoning behind the DU ban, I wouldn't have remembered it, let alone brought it up. > > > I correct my statement : you look like a needlessly smug selfless jerk. > > I have no idea who is James Coupe at all, and you're the first one who started to fling names, and in the apparent goal to fling mud to people ; there is litteraly no other value to your post. > > I sometime wonder if you're not trying to troll the forum. > James Coupe = jamesatzephyr James is a renowned and well-respected UK player who is known for his mastery of VTES rules (which are probably on par with Pascal's). His post: > jamesatzephyr wrote: > Which more or less flies in the face of "wouldn't it be helpful if LSJ explained his reasoning"? He explained his reasoning for seat-switchers at some considerable length, and there is no "tweak" that would address those. > was my impetus for searching the Usenet archives for historical parallels. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Echiang is still more reasonable than people like peter bakija (mentioned some obscure person, too, yay!). Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

> Reyda wrote: > did I mention anything about being not polite, ffs ?) > Not directly, no, but you used the word "rant," which connotes impoliteness, among other things. It often involves swearing. "Ffs." > Reyda wrote: > you can not deny the fact that there is suddenly an avalanche of posts from echiang. That's the only thing I am pointing here. > First of all, he has over 1500 posts. It's not like he's brand new to the community. Secondly, he's probably posting because he cares about the issue in question and people continue to make points that he feels need to be addressed. Third, that's not at all the "only thing" you're pointing out here: you're insinuating that his reasons for posting ("ranting") involve ulterior motives ("foul play"). > Reyda wrote: > It's hard to say anything in this forum without being labelled a troll, really. > Try saying things politely. > Reyda wrote: > Where did I say "Echiang is a barbarian who mutilates grandmothers everywhere " ?? > You described his post as "foul play." > Reyda wrote: > I just pointed a simple, actual fact : he does not post often, but here he's on a special ranting mode since the change of rules. > 1500 posts. > Reyda wrote: > A single, long, argumented post would have been sufficient. I can't understand the "I post 5 times in a row so my opinion is suddenly very important" move. > Excuse me but where is this an ad hominem argument ?. > In the part where your tone - which is actually pretty audible to me - is sarcastic and demeaning, implying that the person you're imitating is a narcissist, an idiot, or both. > Reyda wrote: > I have nothing about Echiang. I don't even know him ! Maybe he's the kindest, more adorable person in the world, and gives to charity (then we are all pleased and need more people like him.) > What I see is a rant, wich may look a bit like a deliberate attempt to pass Pascal as incompetent. And I didn't even mention that. I was just suprised and a bit annoyed by all the posts he generated in a few hours. > Your irritation came through very clearly. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any point at which Eric has described Pascal as incompetent. Asking for clarification on process doesn't imply that the people following said process are incompetent. > Reyda wrote: > > > (As an aside: the aggressive environment that this kind of post generates is really starting to bother me. I don't see any need for it, and I wish it were more routinely condemned.) > > > It's the same thing for me, mind you. > I'm sorry if you feel persecuted, but the language that you're using and the way that you're writing your posts strikes me as unnecessarily aggressive. > Reyda wrote: > I am ok with bringing old posts, especially to illustrate the fact that everyone can change his mind about a card or a certain aspect of a game. > > But these are nearly 10 year old posts, and at that time, we could not predict that the game would be better without seat switchers. Time made us realize LSJ was not wrong -we the ranting players where. So I guess Echiang's demonstration kind of backfires in a way ? > I think you're really misunderstanding things. To speak for myself: I am entirely agnostic on Lilith's Blessing. I do not care if it is banned, reworded, or left alone. I don't use it much, and I don't see it used where I play. I don't particularly care about the tournament scene. I do, however, care about the process according to which cards are banned. I actually care more about explanations regarding the reason for banning: I like to know the logic behind things. I think that demonstrating that logic (and the process that informs it) helps an organization's transparency, granting it legitimacy. From my reading, Eric is asking for the same thing - an explanation of the decision rather than a reversal of it - which makes his reference to older posts perfectly legitimate. > Reyda wrote: > And to be fully honest : he quoted some "key" people like Johannes to prove his thoughts, and that is not a clever move in my opinion. At that time Johannes was not supporting a game nor a community. > That's precisely the point. > Reyda wrote: > His opinions were only theirs and did not engage other players I think. Anyway, it lokked a bit suspicious and I have the right to see it this way. > I guess you do, but you certainly don't have the right to accuse people of "foul play" or "suspicious" behaviour without incredibly good cause. I'm going to call you out for it, because it contributes to an atmosphere of intolerance. > Reyda wrote: > Why always bring this kind of stuff on the table when I disagree with someone ? > One last time: because of the style of your disagreement.

> Ohlmann wrote: > > > echiang wrote: > > You can actually thank James Coupe for reminding me about that old discussion. If it wasn't for his reference about LSJ explaining the reasoning behind the DU ban, I wouldn't have remembered it, let alone brought it up. > > > I correct my statement : you look like a needlessly smug selfless jerk. > > I have no idea who is James Coupe at all, and you're the first one who started to fling names, and in the apparent goal to fling mud to people ; there is litteraly no other value to your post. > > I sometime wonder if you're not trying to troll the forum. > Trolls don't post calmly and they don't carefully explain their reasons. They also don't refrain from responding to obvious provocation, like someone calling them "a needlessly smug selfless jerk," because trolls are interested in creating drama. I don't know a lot of trolls who are interested in the internal politics of volunteer organizations.

> echiang wrote: > > It just happened to be extra irony that it was you (Hugh), Mike, and Johannes who were asking those questions back then. If anything, I would hope that you three would be especially tolerant and understanding of those with such concerns, since you have been in the same position before. > Eric this is coincidence not irony - no where have I seen me, Mike or Johannes say that Pascal should definitely not post his reasons to explain his bannings. Infact if you read my post and don't just quote the bits you want you'll see I say he should have a page specifically covering the banned cards. I still don't understand the full workings of the bans - i'm sure I made it clear that I would have gutted anthelios, ToGP, Giant's blood (and maybe my old friend Ashur) - i'm not sure where I indicated that I did - i'm sure I said I was lucky enough to see some - perhaps I should have added a percentage maybe 5% of Pascal's workings I really don't see the relevance of anything you've posted regarding Stefan/Derek Ray or Johannes from 2005- please can you stop using any random post here as a personal attack on anybody as it's not an appropriate forum. > Although you now have secret knowledge and influence on how the rulings are made, for most people it is still an opaque black box. So I think it is understandable for people to pose questions and ask for more clarification and transparency. > did you even read what I wrote? "I don't disagree with you Eric that it would be useful to have a page covering the banned cards with reasons." Or do you deliberately cut pertinent text out to have random arguments with people? Pascal is the rules team guy - if you want to influence or make points on cards then make it to him - it's ultimately his decision on how cards change text or even if they are banned. I would encourage him, as I said to produce a page with perhaps a paragraph on each card (any more is a waste of time as whatever he writes some people would try and nitpick apart and get to a black and white answer when it's all pretty grey). > I don't see why Villein should get a free pass just because it's an "enabler." Many people still strongly feel that it is overpowered. Wouldn't it be better to just ban Villein and then come up with a more balanced version (in the POD printing) that still allows big fat decks to be competitive but isn't so abusive with MMPA's, Voter Cap, and Renewed Vigor? > villein might be marginally overpowered but that irrelevant to the issue with the first version - the issue was that it stopped another card that wasn't overpowered being used and that villein was unavailable in sufficient quantities to large portions of the playerbase (LSJ and others had a concept that tap-vote-vote cap was a problem and that tap was the problem as I see you're aware by your VC/Renewed vigor ref.) so it wasn't a requirement to re-design but to snip the impact on the other cards Villein is also a card that is far more prevalent in decks than lilith's (partly because of numbers per deck) or than Tap ever was - so banning it would have had a much larger impact on the community so why would you ban it? LB was a free card (at least for most players) so far easier to remove as little monetary impact and yes that is important. I'm not sure why you think enablers shouldn't get free passes as these are cards that grow the game by their very nature. If you don't produce enablers we may as well stick with the cards we currently have as we won't generate anything new - villein provided sustenance to decks that were previously flawed > Then for consistency, why not ban Infamous Insurgent as well? > works for me - so I don't see what your point is? I gave you my reasons for killing LB not the reasons for it being killed - they may or may not overlap with Pascal's - you'll have to ask him > The point I have tried to make is that Lilith's Blessing was playtested (and playtested with the Heirs to the Blood set). It was. > > I have not taken a position on *how well* Lilith's Blessing was playtested. > and as I keep telling you it wasn't playtested. Just because a card is in the playtest file doesn't mean it was actually playtested and this case it clearly wasn't buy a large number of groups. I don't know who you've talked to who 'playtested LB' but I can point you at the version files and the notes I have from myself and other groups that indicated precisely how much was done with the card. I hadn't realised that sharing a beer with a guy in Hungary counted as secret knowledge - you do make this all seem very cloak and dagger Eric - essentially if you want to see what is influencing Pascal look at the TWDa, look at the forum here and finally email him with your thoughts- that's exactly what is going on plus the addition of some people that he can bounce ideas of and get perspective (t's hard to get perceptive if you play only in one meta).

> DeathInABottle wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > did I mention anything about being not polite, ffs ?) > > > Not directly, no, but you used the word "rant," which connotes impoliteness, among other things. It often involves swearing. "Ffs." > no no no, wait : i don't buy this. You told me I used the word ranting, implying I said that Echiang was not polite. since english is not my first language, I doubted for a second. But let's thank "the internets", here is the definition according to the merriam webster online. 1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner 2 : to scold vehemently Where is politeness involved in this definition ? Can you tell me what made you jump on that post because politeness has no relation whatsoever with what you wrote. > DeathInABottle wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > you can not deny the fact that there is suddenly an avalanche of posts from echiang. That's the only thing I am pointing here. > > > First of all, he has over 1500 posts. > It's not like he's brand new to the community. Secondly, he's probably posting because he cares about the issue in question and people continue to make points that he feels need to be addressed. Third, that's not at all the "only thing" you're pointing out here: you're insinuating that his reasons for posting ("ranting") involve ulterior motives ("foul play"). > I know he has 1500 posts. It's written somewhere under his name. But what difference does it make, really ? You are under the 300 posts milestone, should i take what you write lightly ? No, it's not working this way. I know echiang is a good player, I know he's part of PCK and he made quite a cool expansion set. But I am not judging him based on his reputation or number of posts. Same thing for you, I am not assuming you are a novice just because you post less. > DeathInABottle wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > It's hard to say anything in this forum without being labelled a troll, really. > > > Try saying things politely. > I said it politely. I used the infamous "ffs" in another post, but of course you jumped right on it, as planned. Well, he wants explanation about bans, then that's cool. One or two post would have been ok. No need to be all over the place. He even answered to tell me that discussion and objections from other players have sparkled the need for more posts (which you can agree or not). So no need to continue your crusade here. No need for more noise in this conversation, don't you agree ? Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> echiang wrote: > Maybe I was being too subtle. This was indirectly referring to the issue of transparency on how the VEKN works and the process with which rulings/bans are decided (bottom up? top down? independent committee? etc.) > Why not just wait and see what is produced by these processes? If the processes work, the cards will be good, the tournaments will be good, the deck diversity will increase and the metagame will not be overly dominated by any specific decktype. Why focus on changing processes that might already happen to work? Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Squidalot wrote: > > > echiang wrote: > > > > It just happened to be extra irony that it was you (Hugh), Mike, and Johannes who were asking those questions back then. If anything, I would hope that you three would be especially tolerant and understanding of those with such concerns, since you have been in the same position before. > > > Eric this is coincidence not irony - no where have I seen me, Mike or Johannes say that Pascal should definitely not post his reasons to explain his bannings. Infact if you read my post and don't just quote the bits you want you'll see I say he should have a page specifically covering the banned cards. > I read your post and saw what you said in that section. I didn't have any issues with it, so I didn't feel the need to quote and respond to that portion. Sorry to get nitpicky but no, in your previous post you did *not* say that "he should have a page specifically covering the banned cards." Though I thank you for saying that now and I agree with you. For reference: > Squidalot wrote: > I don't disagree with you Eric that it would be useful to have a page covering the banned cards with reasons. > 1. Not disagreeing with someone is slightly different from agreeing with someone. 2. Saying that it would be useful to have X is different than seeing that we should have X. So no, it was not about "quot[ing] the bits want[ed]." It was more likely that I actually read what you wrote more carefully than you did! > I still don't understand the full workings of the bans - i'm sure I made it clear that I would have gutted anthelios, ToGP, Giant's blood (and maybe my old friend Ashur) - i'm not sure where I indicated that I did - i'm sure I said I was lucky enough to see some - perhaps I should have added a percentage maybe 5% of Pascal's workings > Sorry for inferring that you understood more than you do. Based on your post: > Squidalot wrote: > I was lucky enough to be party to some of Pascal's thinking and I do know that he involved a fair number of experienced players from around the globe (who no doubt all came up with different views to keep him busy). > > I was certainly part of the lilith's blessing ban lobby (I also had Anthelios and to a lesser extent Ashur in my head as bads and was convinced by other to add ToGP and Giant's blood for different reasons to the list - not a fan of OPG game design) > > I also know that these discussions have been going on some time (since villein was 'corrected') and it's because Pascal wants to make as balanced a decision as he can that he really thinks it through. > it sounded like you knew a lot more about what was happening behind-the-scenes. Furthermore, you are both a National Coordinator and the Playtest Coordinator, so you are also privy to a lot more information and influence than most people. And while you might not be as informed as the actual IC members, you would probably still rank in the 99th percentile when it comes to having such information. Apologies for misunderstanding just how much you were a "party to some of Pascal's thinking." > I really don't see the relevance of anything you've posted regarding Stefan/Derek Ray or Johannes from 2005- please can you stop using any random post here as a personal attack on anybody as it's not an appropriate forum. > And some people, such as DeathInaBottle, do see potential relevance: > DeathInABottle wrote: > From my reading, Eric is asking for the same thing - an explanation of the decision rather than a reversal of it - which makes his reference to older posts perfectly legitimate. > > did you even read what I wrote? > Yes I did. > "I don't disagree with you Eric that it would be useful to have a page covering the banned cards with reasons." > Or do you deliberately cut pertinent text out to have random arguments with people? > As answered above: No, I do not deliberately cut out pertinent text. 1. Not disgreeing is not necessarily equivalent to agreeing. 2. Would be nice is different than should. > Pascal is the rules team guy - if you want to influence or make points on cards then make it to him - it's ultimately his decision on how cards change text or even if they are banned. I would encourage him, as I said to produce a page with perhaps a paragraph on each card (any more is a waste of time as whatever he writes some people would try and nitpick apart and get to a black and white answer when it's all pretty grey). > Yes, Pascal is the rules team guy, but the question I'm trying to get at is that because how VEKN functions is still not transparent, it is not clear how the process works. If you recall from those old rulings posts, when Johannes asked LSJ who decides on the bans, LSJ's response was simply "the VEKN". Not "me [LSJ]" or even the "Inner Circle" it was a very vague "the VEKN". Pascal is the rules team guy, but it's unknown whether these decisions were *his* decision. For example, relevant questions that could shed light on the relationship between Rules Director / IC / Chairperson: 1. In theory, can Pascal enact a rules change that the rest of the IC opposes? 2. Can the rest of the IC force through a rules change that Pascal does not agree with? 3. In theory, can Pascal enact a rules change that the chairman opposes? 4. Can the chairman force through a rules change that Pascal does not agree with? Of course there is likely to be a canned response "X would never make such a decision without the consensus of Y." But what I'm trying to understand is the actual underlying relationship between Rules Coordinator, IC, and Chairperson, because that would help shed light whether this was Pascal's decision, the IC's decision, the chairperson's decision, or some combination of the above (and there might also be "approval" instead of "decision" in some cases). > Villein is also a card that is far more prevalent in decks than lilith's (partly because of numbers per deck) or than Tap ever was - so banning it would have had a much larger impact on the community so why would you ban it? > Simple really. If the purpose of a ban is to change a distorted environment, then you may *want* a larger impact. When it comes to MtG bans, they actually keep an eye out on how prevalent the card is, and as a card becomes more and more prevalent, they are more likely to ban it. > LB was a free card (at least for most players) so far easier to remove as little monetary impact and yes that is important. > ::shrugs:: I've seen plenty of Lilith's Blessing sell on eBay for a fair amount (I've never sold on eBay) so I wouldn't consider it "free" for those people. There have also been plenty of people who have traded for Lilith's Blessing as well. In the past (over a year ago), I traded away a lot of my Lilith's Blessing and I actually now feel bad for those I traded them to. > I'm not sure why you think enablers shouldn't get free passes as these are cards that grow the game by their very nature. If you don't produce enablers we may as well stick with the cards we currently have as we won't generate anything new - villein provided sustenance to decks that were previously flawed > Enablers are a good thing, but I don't think it necessarily outweighs other issues (how overpowered Villein is). Broadly speakly, I see it as akin to an issue of "selective enforcement" or "looking the other way." > > Then for consistency, why not ban Infamous Insurgent as well? > > > works for me - so I don't see what your point is? I gave you my reasons for killing LB not the reasons for it being killed - they may or may not overlap with Pascal's - you'll have to ask him > My point was that eliminating Lilith's Blessing still doesn't purge the game of the Bahari keyword. So I don't think it's a particularly strong or convincing reason. > > The point I have tried to make is that Lilith's Blessing was playtested (and playtested with the Heirs to the Blood set). It was. > > > > I have not taken a position on *how well* Lilith's Blessing was playtested. > > > and as I keep telling you it wasn't playtested. Just because a card is in the playtest file doesn't mean it was actually playtested and this case it clearly wasn't buy a large number of groups. I don't know who you've talked to who 'playtested LB' but I can point you at the version files and the notes I have from myself and other groups that indicated precisely how much was done with the card. > I guess we have differing definitions of "playtested." If absolutely no playtester playtested the card, then I would agree that "it was in the playtest file but was not actually playtested." But if at least some of the playtesters did playtest it, then it was playtested. But it's still possible it was not playtested thoroughly or playtested well. And for the record Hugh, *I* playtested Lilith's Blessing and complained to LSJ about how overpowered it was every single round of HttB playtest. > I hadn't realised that sharing a beer with a guy in Hungary counted as secret knowledge - you do make this all seem very cloak and dagger Eric > The main reason for the "cloak and dagger" atmosphere is the issue of transparency. Which is what Jeff, I, and numerous others have repeatedly asked for. (And what I've been asking for in this thread as well). pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > echiang wrote: > > Maybe I was being too subtle. This was indirectly referring to the issue of transparency on how the VEKN works and the process with which rulings/bans are decided (bottom up? top down? independent committee? etc.) > > > Why not just wait and see what is produced by these processes? > > If the processes work, the cards will be good, the tournaments will be good, the deck diversity will increase and the metagame will not be overly dominated by any specific decktype. > > Why focus on changing processes that might already happen to work? > You seem to be misunderstanding. As DeathInaBottle eloquently explained, it's more about trying to understand how the process works, rather than trying to change it or get a reversal. I understand that some forumites only care about the end product (i.e. "ends justify the means"). On the other hand, even if a process works spectacularly, there are still some of us who are interested in how it works. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

If the process involves divining new VTES cards by reading chicken entrails whilst consulting the I-Ching... and makes VTES a good game... I DON'T CARE If the process involves Ozzy Osbourne levels of cocaine before making banning decisions... and makes VTES a good game... I DON'T CARE If the process is to get a bunch of trusted and experienced players to give commentary on what they see happening in tournaments... and makes VTES a good game... I DON'T CARE Why do you care what method is used if it gets the results we want Eric? Don't we all want a good strong game that is fun to play? Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> echiang wrote: > As DeathInaBottle eloquently explained, it's more about trying to understand how the process works, rather than trying to change it or get a reversal. > > I understand that some forumites only care about the end product (i.e. "ends justify the means"). > I'm doubting that the VEKN will be doing anything at all to get to the "ends". I'm very much doubting that the means used involve taking people into darkened rooms and beating them up. It's the VEKN, not an international spy agency. I think that Hugh explained fairly carefully what the process is: - If you have a beef with a card in the game, you contact Pascal. - If you think a card needs revision, you contact Pascal. - If you have found a problem with how a card skews the metagame, you contact Pascal. - If you think others agree with your wish to nag Pascal, you put it on the forum and nag Pascal that way. And in many ways, it seems that Pascal is the Chief Officer of Rules & Cards and his word is VTES law. If you don't like that system, then I suggest you pester the IC. If they think it works fine, then you'll just have to suck it up and deal with the fact that Pascal makes the decisions. The decisions for cards and rules is not a democracy it is effectively a monarchy. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Reyda wrote: > here is the definition according to the merriam webster online. > > 1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner > 2 : to scold vehemently > > Where is politeness involved in this definition ? > A rant is impolite because it's noisy or vehement, to use the language from that definition. Polite conversation is not noisy or vehement. > Reyda wrote: > Can you tell me what made you jump on that post because politeness has no relation whatsoever with what you wrote. > Sure. I reacted to it because you used the word "rant," said that the posting strategy was "not smart," and accused Eric of "foul play." All of that is insulting and unjustified. I think that kind of language is bad for forums like this one because it makes conversation difficult and creates an inhospitable environment. It's also bad for discourse, which is the lifeblood of volunteer organizations. > Reyda wrote: > I know he has 1500 posts. It's written somewhere under his name. > But what difference does it make, really ? > In the first post I took issue with you said you "couldn't see Echiang on the forum for ages," and in the post referenced here, you said that there's "suddenly an avalanche of posts." I was just pointing out that he's an active, even voluminous contributor to the forums, so it's not like a string of posts is out of character. > Reyda wrote: > I said it politely. I used the infamous "ffs" in another post, but of course you jumped right on it, as planned. > "For fuck's sake" implies exasperation, which combines with the rest of your language to make your posts aggressive. Which is to say impolite. > Reyda wrote: > Well, he wants explanation about bans, then that's cool. One or two post would have been ok. No need to be all over the place. > Maybe. You're making a good point here: it might be the case that continually posting requests and explanations and responding to everything that everyone says can be counterproductive, since it runs the risk of irritating people. That said, I think it's worth running that risk when you think that there are important issues at stake that would otherwise go unaddressed, since the conversation will at least be on people's minds. It's akin to standing in front of city hall as a protester and requesting a meeting with the mayor: you're going to irritate some people, but at least those people will know that others think there's an issue that needs to be addressed.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > The decisions for cards and rules is not a democracy it is effectively a monarchy. > Leaving aside the question - which is worth asking - about whether or not the VEKN should operate "monarchically," I'll just point out that the monarch doesn't lose anything by at least explaining his decisions to his vassals. Why not make it standard practice that, when cards are banned, the reasoning for their banning is stated?

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > I DON'T CARE > > Why do you care what method is used if it gets the results we want Eric? Don't we all want a good strong game that is fun to play? > If you don't care, why are you chiming into this conversation? You are saying that because it doesn't matter to you, it shouldn't matter. Eric's points have been very well presented for the most part. - It's true that we don't know who is ultimately responsible for banning cards. - It's true that Johannes complained about the lack of transparency in the card-banning process about 10 years ago well before he was the chairman of the IC. Personally I don't care either how Lilith's Blessing got banned, because I like the ban. However, Eric's points are informative and reasonable. Nonetheless, his thorough and intense - yet polite - verbal sparring on the VEKN forum will probably not get the organization to change in the way he seems to want, but you never know.

They can if they want. They can not do it, if they want. If everyone is doing the process suggested (sending messages to Pascal, talking about cards in the forums and so on) then who needs to even ask why? Shouldn't it be obvious? People have nagged Pascal enough about LB + Villein to consider taking action. People have nagged Pascal enough about Girls Will XYZ (which frequently contains LB) to consider taking action. People have nagged Pascal enough about the S:CE + XYZ to consider taking action. People have nagged Pascal enough about what can happens with a Combat Ends to consider taking action. System is transparent (it often happens here on the forum). System works, because it has resulted in a number of modifications to the game and rules which will clear things up in the future. It seems that most of this is "The System made a controversial decision". Same from Eric. Same from many others. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > It seems that most of this is "The System made a controversial decision". > Right. So why did "the system" make that decision? Again, I don't see that there's anything to be lost by explaining the reasoning behind it, and there are definitely things to be gained. At a minimum, a statement included in the RTR would be useful to those people looking back on these rulings in the future, when the game will have changed. They won't have access to the kind of knowledge that we, as participants in the debates that informed the ruling, allegedly have.

@DeathinaBottle: You aren't asking about process now. You want justifications. That isn't process. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > If the process involves divining new VTES cards by reading chicken entrails whilst consulting the I-Ching... and makes VTES a good game... > > I DON'T CARE > > If the process involves Ozzy Osbourne levels of cocaine before making banning decisions... and makes VTES a good game... > > I DON'T CARE > > If the process is to get a bunch of trusted and experienced players to give commentary on what they see happening in tournaments... and makes VTES a good game... > > I DON'T CARE > > Why do you care what method is used if it gets the results we want Eric? Don't we all want a good strong game that is fun to play? > 1. I personally view that attitude as a "Bread and Circuses" mindset that abdicates a civic duty to be informed. It was prevalent during Roman times and even in the modern era you see it in all manner of governments and regimes (i.e. both dictatorships and democracies) - as long as people are happy, they don't really care what's going on. I love VTES and it is because of that love of VTES that I feel it is important to try and be informed. 2. Suppose an unknown process leads to a good result. Understanding how the process works might lead to improvements and refinements that can allow even better results. (In this case, my goal is not to change things, but it's an example of how understanding how something works can be helpful). 3. Wanting to know how and why is a very natural thing. Just look through the history of science and you'll find plenty of individuals who, despite knowing that X causes Y, were much more interested in understanding how and why X causes Y. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > I'm doubting that the VEKN will be doing anything at all to get to the "ends". I'm very much doubting that the means used involve taking people into darkened rooms and beating them up. It's the VEKN, not an international spy agency. > You're right - the VEKN is not an international spy agency. So why does there need to be so much secrecy and lack of transparency? I guess one issue where we disagree about is that you think that the VEKN is already very transparent whereas I do not think it is very transparent at all. Even when I was on the Inner Circle I didn't think the VEKN was very transparent and there were plenty of processes and inner workings which weren't clear at all (even to IC members)! B-) > I think that Hugh explained fairly carefully what the process is: > - If you have a beef with a card in the game, you contact Pascal. > - If you think a card needs revision, you contact Pascal. > - If you have found a problem with how a card skews the metagame, you contact Pascal. > - If you think others agree with your wish to nag Pascal, you put it on the forum and nag Pascal that way. > > And in many ways, it seems that Pascal is the Chief Officer of Rules & Cards and his word is VTES law. If you don't like that system, then I suggest you pester the IC. If they think it works fine, then you'll just have to suck it up and deal with the fact that Pascal makes the decisions. > And if this *was* all of Pascal's decision, then you are right. But if the decision was actually the Inner Circle's (and Pascal merely executed it), then all these "you contact"'s should be at the Inner Circle. Or if the decision was actually the Chairman's (and Pascal merely executed it), then all these "you contact"'s should be at Johannes. That is why it is important to understand the relationship between Rules Director / IC / Chairperson. > The decisions for cards and rules is not a democracy it is effectively a monarchy. > I agree it is not a democracy. Yet many officers of the VEKN commonly portray the VEKN as a representative body. And even amongst the National Coordinators, there is disagreement about how the VEKN actually functions (which is a different topic than how it "should" function). If even the NC's don't all understand the structure of the VEKN and how it works, then I think that's a big problem. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

I am an informed citizen. I read the forums, I read the cards, I look at decks winning tournaments, I run tournaments, I participate in playtesting, I enjoy speaking with a lot of people in the VEKN and playing VTES. I don't think we need to worry about the design process of cards, if the cards being produced are good. I don't think we need to worry about the details of Pascal's inner thoughts, if the changes he makes benefit the game. Especially since both Pascal and Hugh have said that he actively seeks expert opinions from around the world via direct conversations, emails and the forums. Just like I don't think the minutes of every VEKN IC meeting need to be public knowledge, the details of every thought of the RTR Process don't need to be justified heavily in public. If you'd like the level of transparency you want regarding RTRs (past, present and future), then we should also make public IC-Meeting minutes back to when VEKN got hold of the game. There isn't much point in insisting on one aspect of the VEKN being highly transparent and open to extensive scrutiny without doing it to the rest. That however, is a decision for the IC, because they would then have to consider how much of the rest of their activities should be highly transparent especially considering the chance for Commercial in Confidence items to appear on agendas and in the minutes. And this is a fairly cynical thought, even deliberately cynical, why is this important to you now when it was not important when you were on the IC as Storyline Coordinator? Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

Ok, i was starting to assume what eric was asking at awhile ago, but now im certain: Pascal making the decisionsxor it rolling onto him. Ad csrcws anyonexhas insinuated, its been all his area, hjs project, thus far. As far as transparency, if the ic claims to have X degreexof transparency, they should have it. If they dont, then they damn well better have a good reason. And, in my opinion, the fact is they seem to bexhinging many decisions and variables on the now very real possibility that we see print again. That entire situation being the paperwork hurricane it is, with thexpotentially volatile components of the licensing to OUR game, i think it may be a safexassumption that a large part of anything not being done in the open has everything to do with that. Id go as far as to say that after we seexprint, any member of the IC would probably talk ooenly in person or online about aspects of the process. As far as transparency to the processes, which is what Eric really has been asking for in this threads entirety, there may not be a simple process, and this being a volunteer organization, its probably way looser than that. While juggernaughts cocaine and entrails theories may be legit , i think theres probably just alot of pascal spending months researching things, bouncing ideas ofc of players and IC, then delivering his decision to the IC before posting it publicly. Speculation, obviously, but it seems realistic. Even though i think there should be a large couldron, a ritual dagger, and a human sacrifice involved .............

Also, did anyone else notice Reyda and Ohlmann agreeing on things? Someone should wrife this down. Record it for posteritys sake, so we can publish it in a book sometime...

> echiang wrote: > So why does there need to be so much secrecy and lack of transparency? > Very good question. It´s quite absurd. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

Ashur: The easiest answers are: Commercial-in-Confidence A lot of what the VEKN does involves the copyright held by others. Never done it before The VEKN has done little in the past except maintaining the Rankings and a few databases. (Yes I am sure they have done more but a lot of the things now done by the VEKN used to be done by WW employees who weren't required to explain their actions). Never been asked for The demands for transparency are recent. Mostly spear-headed by Eric and mostly occurring after he was ejected from the Inner Circle. Most players seem to run with the theory that if new cards come out and they work well, then that's good enough for me. VEKN is not a Democracy Eric has admitted this. The VEKN is NOT a democracy. And as a result, we should not expect the same transparency of decisions by default. While we may nominate some of our representatives (i.e. your local prince is nominated by at least 5 players) the NC is not directly elected by players and the Inner Circle is also not directly elected by players. It is NOT a democracy, and hasn't ever been one. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

Inplied in my comment was that I suggest that VEKN _should_ be a democracy. But hell I´m from Sweden, it´s in my blood. Around here I would not dream of starting a society/network/whatever without running it with transparecy and democracy (in some form). "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> AaronC wrote: > - It's true that we don't know who is ultimately responsible for banning cards. > I am responsible for the whole RTR. And for all of its subsections. I didn't flip a "Ban Lilith's Blessing" / "Don't ban Lilith's Blessing" coin, I took several arguments into consideration (including thoughts from other people). Does this unmake me responsible for the RTR? I'll leave it up to you.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Just like I don't think the minutes of every VEKN IC meeting need to be public knowledge, the details of every thought of the RTR Process don't need to be justified heavily in public. If you'd like the level of transparency you want regarding RTRs (past, present and future), then we should also make public IC-Meeting minutes back to when VEKN got hold of the game. There isn't much point in insisting on one aspect of the VEKN being highly transparent and open to extensive scrutiny without doing it to the rest. That however, is a decision for the IC, because they would then have to consider how much of the rest of their activities should be highly transparent especially considering the chance for Commercial in Confidence items to appear on agendas and in the minutes. > Straw man argument using slippery slope reasoning to portray that greater transparency would lead to an extreme situation. I recognize that there are some commercial issues that the IC may not want to reveal. But there are also plenty of other areas (such as explanations for the rulings, or how the rulings are decided) which don't fall under that purview so that excuse doesn't really apply. As an additional example, I applaud Szewski for posting the EC 2012 minutes last week. But given that the EC 2012 was in October 2012, I really don't understand why it took 6 months to release it, especially since it was apparently already typed up (and sent in an e-mail to the NC's). Maybe a few of the details regarding POD could have been temporarily redacted but most of the information could have been made publicly available earlier. The lack of transparency during those 6 months is a problem IMHO. Similarly, there have been multiple cases when a VEKN official has posted on the forum promising an update "in a few weeks" and then never followed up at all. In these cases the expectation for more information/transparency was created by the VEKN official but just not delivered. > And this is a fairly cynical thought, even deliberately cynical, why is this important to you now when it was not important when you were on the IC as Storyline Coordinator? > Oh it was certainly important to me then as well. When I was on the IC, I viewed the VEKN as a very flawed organization but one that could be improved and I was hopeful that I could help in improving it. I readily shared that personal opinion to people I talked to. And in fact, after being on the IC, I have an even better understanding of the problems with the VEKN than I did before I was on the IC. I still think the organization is very flawed and can be vastly improved. However, I'm now doubtful of what I can actually do in that regard, though that won't stop me from at least trying. > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Never been asked for The demands for transparency are recent. Mostly spear-headed by Eric and mostly occurring after he was ejected from the Inner Circle. Most players seem to run with the theory that if new cards come out and they work well, then that's good enough for me. > No, the demands for transparency are *not* recent, as seen with Johannes, Hugh, and Mike who asked for more transparency almost 10 years ago. And this is another example where means and process is important, not just ends. Hypothetically, if I was only concerned about the end result (as you are in your "I DON'T CARE" about process post) of VEKN being more transparent, I could actually force a greater degree of transparency simply by sharing every single detail I have available of my time as an Inner Circle member (for which I am *not* under any sort of non-disclosure agreement or confidentiality agreement). I choose not to do that because I believe that forcing it is less effective than trying to encourage it to organically develop. To use DeathInABottle's analogy I'd rather stand in front of city hall as a protester requesting a meeting with the mayor, even if I could achieve what I wanted through heavy-handed tactics. > VEKN is not a Democracy Eric has admitted this. The VEKN is NOT a democracy. And as a result, we should not expect the same transparency of decisions by default. While we may nominate some of our representatives (i.e. your local prince is nominated by at least 5 players) the NC is not directly elected by players and the Inner Circle is also not directly elected by players. It is NOT a democracy, and hasn't ever been one. > Yes, I have admitted it and you have admitted it. Too bad all of the NC's can't admit it nor most of the IC members. If they would acknowledge that the VEKN is a monarchy, as you argue, and not a democracy, that would actually make things a lot clearer and simpler. Also I want to point out that here you're saying that since the VEKN is not a democracy, we should not expect too much transparency but in your other post you argue that the system already is transparent. Maybe you could please clarify the apparent contradiction. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Pascal wrote: > > > AaronC wrote: > > - It's true that we don't know who is ultimately responsible for banning cards. > > > I am responsible for the whole RTR. Annd for all of its subsections. > > I didn't flip a "Ban Lilith's Blessing" / "Don't ban Lilith's Blessing" coin, I took several arguments into consideration (including thoughts from other people). Does this unmake me responsible for the RTR? I'll leave it up to you. > Thank you for the clarification Pascal. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

I think time and energy of elevant people is better served in making balanced decisions that make the game better than getting bogged in edlesss forum discussions on minutae details of the decisionmaking and the decisionmaking process. Which come to haunt you back even 10 years afterwards. If awful decisions were made I'd be among the first to cry wolf. Finnish Politics!

> echiang wrote: > > > VEKN is not a Democracy Eric has admitted this. The VEKN is NOT a democracy. And as a result, we should not expect the same transparency of decisions by default. While we may nominate some of our representatives (i.e. your local prince is nominated by at least 5 players) the NC is not directly elected by players and the Inner Circle is also not directly elected by players. It is NOT a democracy, and hasn't ever been one. > > > Yes, I have admitted it and you have admitted it. > > Too bad all of the NC's can't admit it nor most of the IC members. If they would acknowledge that the VEKN is a monarchy, as you argue, and not a democracy, that would actually make things a lot clearer and simpler. > I don´t find it particularly useful to compare a player´s organization to forms of government, but if I quote Wikipedia about Monarchy:"A monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is actually or nominally embodied in a single individual (the monarch)" Which is simply not true. The chairman appoints the IC. Once that is done he doesn´t infer with their decisions, so for example Pascal decides on RTR. Final say. The NCs are elected or otherwise determined by the princes from a country. Also the chairman is elected every 3 years by the NCs. This would limit it to some kind of special monarchy where the monarch is elected. Very rare if exists at all? OK, it is not a direct democracy (and it was never claimed to be!) Also I don´t understand how it was not clear that the Rules Director is responsible of rulings? It has been this way since 10+ years. Actually with Pascal it works exactly the same way as with LSJ. I feel that this discussion is being had for the sake of having an argument rather than having a point.

I also would appreciate if you would open new threads for such discussions. How is it helpful when on every news announcment which is releveant for all players there is pages and pages of bickering which is only relevant for a few.

> echiang wrote: > Straw man argument using slippery slope reasoning to portray that greater transparency would lead to an extreme situation. > > I recognize that there are some commercial issues that the IC may not want to reveal. But there are also plenty of other areas (such as explanations for the rulings, or how the rulings are decided) which don't fall under that purview so that excuse doesn't really apply. > Not intended at all as a "slippery slope" argument. I wanted to actually wonder where you thought this transparency should extend. It seemed strange that you would applaud the EC minutes being public, but not also call for the IC minutes to be public. Why insist on RTR notes/thoughts being public and not for the IC minutes to be public? This is not a slippery slope argument in the slightest. This argument is far closer to: If your representatives are going to be required to publish some reasons, why shouldn't they therefore publish all of them? The comments about commercial-in-confidence information is purely to acknowledge that contracts made by the VEKN should be honoured where they contain such non-disclosure clauses as may be relevant. > Oh it was certainly important to me then as well. When I was on the IC, I viewed the VEKN as a very flawed organization but one that could be improved and I was hopeful that I could help in improving it. I readily shared that personal opinion to people I talked to. > And where was this public discussion? Or was it for instance primarily limited to Carl P and Jeff Kuta? Where is the evidence of your efforts to increase transparency in your own area - Storyline Events - and for example, transcripts or excerpts of the proposed storylines, playtesting results, background thoughts on the development of storyline reward cards, etc? If you would not do these in your own role when you potentially had the power to do it, why do you now insist that Pascal do the same? If you would like transparency about your own role, I would like to register with you a complaint about the card Lilith's Blessing. It seems badly designed and prolongs the game by adding excessive amounts of resources into the game for a comparatively low opportunity cost. In addition, the design of the card also adds needless complexity by the addition of a new otherwise redundant keyword. To cap it off, and possibly the worst of the offences, is the fact that by design it eliminates hunt actions and reduces the number of potential minion interactions (which is a strength of the game). I would also bring you to task over the cards which were obvious Storyline cards which appeared in the playtesting I was part of. However, they are bound by NDA AND you are no longer involved in their design, so I unfortunately cannot raise my issues regarding those cards with you anymore. > No, the demands for transparency are *not* recent, as seen with Johannes, Hugh, and Mike who asked for more transparency almost 10 years ago. > Demands made back with it was run by a company and LSJ was an employee? Did you then proceed to attack LSJs decision making processes or WWs production processes back then? If not then, why do it now? > And this is another example where means and process is important, not just ends. Hypothetically, if I was only concerned about the end result (as you are in your "I DON'T CARE" about process post) of VEKN being more transparent, I could actually force a greater degree of transparency simply by sharing every single detail I have available of my time as an Inner Circle member (for which I am *not* under any sort of non-disclosure agreement or confidentiality agreement). I choose not to do that because I believe that forcing it is less effective than trying to encourage it to organically develop. > My position on means and process, when it comes to the design and development of a product is: does the product work? Since the production of these products involves basically testing of intellectual property, then if the method produces functional cards then the method is sound. That does not mean the method needs to be transparent. You would not ask Wizards of the Coast how they design editions of D&D (and gosh knows I want to know what kind of drugs were being smoked before they designed 4E) and then berate the company when they didn't tell you. They would probably tell you something like I am "Judge our methods on the product they create". On the same score, since Lilith's Blessing is presumably a card you were involved in designing then it reflects badly that it is the one which was banned. I would therefore suggest your design methods are flawed. (Of course predicated on the fact you were responsible for designing Lilith's Blessing). If you have no fear of releasing the details of the Inner Circle, the please prove it. Put your money where your mouth is Eric. Tell us why the Inner Circle decided to remove you. > To use DeathInABottle's analogy I'd rather stand in front of city hall as a protester requesting a meeting with the mayor, even if I could achieve what I wanted through heavy-handed tactics. > And that might work if anyone on the VEKN was an elected official instead of effectively an appointed member. See points about "VEKN is not a Democracy". The "mayor" in this case doesn't have to make an appointment with you. > Yes, I have admitted it and you have admitted it. > > Too bad all of the NC's can't admit it nor most of the IC members. If they would acknowledge that the VEKN is a monarchy, as you argue, and not a democracy, that would actually make things a lot clearer and simpler. > Why? It would be the same systems working in the same way with a new name. Unless you are going to suddenly gain control of the VEKN, sit down and draft a comprehensive constitution, enact that constitution AND have all of the membership agree to that constitution... I don't think you will either enlighten the NCs particularly, endear yourself to the IC or actually achieve particularly much. > Also I want to point out that here you're saying that since the VEKN is not a democracy, we should not expect too much transparency but in your other post you argue that the system already is transparent. Maybe you could please clarify the apparent contradiction. > Actually Eric, I think the system is stupidly obvious and simple. You seem to refuse to acknowledge (as Hugh, Pascal have) that the system is "Tell Pascal about it and he will make an informed decision". Where is the problem with its transparency? Pascal listens, thinks about it, maybe talks with some experienced and accomplished players and then makes a decision. Like any manager. Like any person given an office or role in a company, club or group. Like any Minister of Government. He has made a decision, it has caused a stir and you have demanded that you get the opportunity to dissect his thoughts on the subject. He refused you. This is NOT a Democracy Eric. It doesn't have to behave like one. Your continual requests for it to be a transparent democracy are wasted. If I was a paying member, with either an initial fee or an ongoing membership fee, then I would want very different things. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> DeathInABottle wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > here is the definition according to the merriam webster online. > > > > 1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner > > 2 : to scold vehemently > > > > Where is politeness involved in this definition ? > > > A rant is impolite because it's noisy or vehement, to use the language from that definition. Polite conversation is not noisy or vehement. > oh, if you say so, you must be a high authority in english language no ? Now I feel this conversation will never end. Partly because you just realize I was spot-on about this > > Reyda wrote: > > Well, he wants explanation about bans, then that's cool. One or two post would have been ok. No need to be all over the place. > > > Maybe. You're making a good point here: it might be the case that continually posting requests and explanations and responding to everything that everyone says can be counterproductive, since it runs the risk of irritating people. > But still, you are being very, uselessely, time consumingly bossy for no reason other than "I did not use the words which would have pleased you" ; 4 pages earlier. Well then, may i politely suggest that you go fuck yourself ? Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> johannes wrote: > I also would appreciate if you would open new threads for such discussions. How is it helpful when on every news announcment which is releveant for all players there is pages and pages of bickering which is only relevant for a few. > I think this is very relevant many players to know who decides which cards is to be banned. But admins can any time split/move/lock down threads that "gets out of hand", right? "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > > > johannes wrote: > > I also would appreciate if you would open new threads for such discussions. How is it helpful when on every news announcment which is releveant for all players there is pages and pages of bickering which is only relevant for a few. > > > I think this is very relevant many players to know who decides which cards is to be banned. But admins can any time split/move/lock down threads that "gets out of hand", right? > . Of course players shall now! But they will also know if one creates a thread "Who is responsible for the RTR and what is the process". Those who are interested anyway.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > @DeathinaBottle: You aren't asking about process now. You want justifications. That isn't process. > I've been pretty consistent in requesting both. They're hardly incommensurable. That said, I think that justifications or explanations would be more useful for the reasons of posterity I mentioned above.

> johannes wrote: > I also would appreciate if you would open new threads for such discussions. How is it helpful when on every news announcment which is releveant for all players there is pages and pages of bickering which is only relevant for a few. > Half of this conversation is bickering, but half is simple questioning. That's not "bickering." And it's relevant to everyone, given the universal applicability of rules decisions, even if it's only interesting to a few.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > There isn't much point in insisting on one aspect of the VEKN being highly transparent and open to extensive scrutiny without doing it to the rest. That however, is a decision for the IC, because they would then have to consider how much of the rest of their activities should be highly transparent especially considering the chance for Commercial in Confidence items to appear on agendas and in the minutes. > Right. Good point, Juggernaut1981. This gets back to the whole structure of the V:EKN and its role in the world of V:TES. Once the V:EKN set morphed from something done by volunteers into something potentially done for profit, the entire organization became tainted by the need for such "Commercial in Confidence" secrecy measures. Posts from as recently as 7 months ago had various people close to the project saying, "No, no one will ever get paid" or "There's no money involved" or "There's no way this could ever make a profit". And not too long ago Johannes said, "Yeah, we gotta figure out salaries." I *get* that printing new cards is a commercial enterprise. But what I don't get is that the V:EKN should be that commercial enterprise. In fact, it's not. But people here keep conflating the two because they are inextricably intertwined. I dunno. If the V:EKN Chairman is an elected position, then I certainly would expect a bit more transparency to permeate the organization. But when the person at the top is leveraging the work of volunteers into something...else...that really doesn't sit well with me. But hey, I'm not involved directly, so I don't have to worry about someone else capitalizing upon my altruism. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > But hey, I'm not involved directly, so I don't have to worry about someone else capitalizing upon my altruism. > Under the White Wolf regime, not a single volunteer at any level ever received any money. No play testers, no Princes, no one that ever ran a major event ever got paid for doing anything that they did. That's why they are "volunteers". People that ran major events like the EC, or the NAC when it was moving around, received monies to pay for the event itself, but those volunteers never received any monies. LSJ received money because he was an independent contractor for a decade, and was expected to be "working" for some number of hours per week. When the NAC moved to its "permanent" home at Origins, since I was running Origins, and Oscar -- a WW employee -- wasn't attending anymore, White Wolf paid for my hotel room and my food, because I was acting as an independent contractor (like LSJ) for the duration of the convention, but I didn't receive a wage of any kind. To suggest that a volunteer should worry about getting paid for their volunteerism suggests either a lack of education about the word "volunteer", or an interest in stirring up a hornet's nest for subversive reasons. 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

> echiang wrote: > "I don't disagree with you Eric that it would be useful to have a page covering the banned cards with reasons." > Or do you deliberately cut pertinent text out to have random arguments with people? > As answered above: No, I do not deliberately cut out pertinent text. > > 1. Not disgreeing is not necessarily equivalent to agreeing. > > 2. Would be nice is different than should. > By Thor's ungainly hammer you're really are a complete and utter pain in the posterior Eric. This really sums up why you're impossible to work with! You read every meaning you desire into every word rather than using any common sense or emotional acumen. As you lived in the UK you should also be able to interpret the American/British differences in phrases such as "Quite nice" British English = "This should be done" in American English It'd obviously be easier to pick that up if I was speaking to you.... > And for the record Hugh, *I* playtested Lilith's Blessing and complained to LSJ about how overpowered it was every single round of HttB playtest. > Good - but still materially the card wasn't tested or wasn't effectively tested which to all useful purposes are the same thing I have this great quote from an unnamed playtest groups file: "Liliths Blessing: should be unique to allow contest." and also this from another: "Lilith’s blessing – unique would be best perhaps? " I personally don't think it would have helped but it shows how poor the playtesting or designing (sorry Scott!) must have been for 3 groups to say change (including you) with no change during testing- hence VEKN playtest is as transparent within a limited group as feasible without designers getting all touchy feely with playtesters.

@ 10 pages of dissention If the purpose, really was to find out why, you could have read the original post more than once, while firing off a couple of brain cells. I for example, have(had) deck that went from 2 pool too over 30 in two turns with the help of lilth's blessing. That is not to say that it still could not function, but not as well. No matter how well you say it, it does not necessarily make it true. Matt

> Squidalot wrote: > > > echiang wrote: > > "I don't disagree with you Eric that it would be useful to have a page covering the banned cards with reasons." > > Or do you deliberately cut pertinent text out to have random arguments with people? > > As answered above: No, I do not deliberately cut out pertinent text. > > > > 1. Not disgreeing is not necessarily equivalent to agreeing. > > > > 2. Would be nice is different than should. > > > By Thor's ungainly hammer you're really are a complete and utter pain in the posterior Eric. > > This really sums up why you're impossible to work with! You read every meaning you desire into every word rather than using any common sense or emotional acumen. > Considering that I've been able to work with (for example) Carl and Jeff, that seems to refute your assertion that I am "impossible to work with." Didactically speaking, simply accusing someone of lacking "common sense" is often a convenient cover for xenophobia used by majority groups to oppress those who simply think differently. You also see it with words like "crazy," "heathen," "evil," towards those of different race, religion, culture, gender/sex, and sexual orientation. Instead of actually acknowledging their differences and point of view it's all too easy to dismiss them with a simple label. Getting back on track, I see it as a "Catch 22" scenario. Considering that I've previously been accused of misquoting by VEKN officials, I could have easily been pilloried for assuming what you meant (instead of what you wrote). > As you lived in the UK you should also be able to interpret the American/British differences in phrases such as > > "Quite nice" British English = "This should be done" in American English > It'd obviously be easier to pick that up if I was speaking to you.... > Yes, I spent some time in the UK but that doesn't mean I am familiar with all British colloquialisms. And in fact "quite nice" is one that I was not familiar with before this. Yes, if we were speaking face to face, context would probably reduce the level of miscommunication. But since the internet often doesn't transmit context and can exacerbate cultural differences, I don't see any reason to get upset or emotional (e.g. By Thor's ungainly hammer you're really are a complete and utter pain in the posterior). > > And for the record Hugh, *I* playtested Lilith's Blessing and complained to LSJ about how overpowered it was every single round of HttB playtest. > > > Good - but still materially the card wasn't tested or wasn't effectively tested which to all useful purposes are the same thing > > I have this great quote from an unnamed playtest groups file: > "Liliths Blessing: should be unique to allow contest." > > and also this from another: > "Lilith’s blessing – unique would be best perhaps? " > > I personally don't think it would have helped but it shows how poor the playtesting or designing (sorry Scott!) must have been for 3 groups to say change (including you) with no change during testing- hence VEKN playtest is as transparent within a limited group as feasible without designers getting all touchy feely with playtesters. > Which round(s) did those groups include those comments in their reports? If you recall, Lilith's Blessing was non-unique in Round 1 but was actually changed to be unique in Round 2, so it does seem like LSJ might have listened to your two groups. Of course it was then changed back to non-unique in Round 3 when it underwent several other changes, so did you also mention the importance of uniqueness in your Round 3 reports? In playtest Lilith's Blessing was even more overpowered since you simply chose a discipline (instead of grabbing a discipline card) and I spent a lot of my efforts trying to convince LSJ how problematic that was. Excerpts from my reports: Round 1: Lilith's Blessing [Master] VERY OVERPOWERED I'm mainly concerned about being able to grant any discipline to your vampires. Makes it too easy to get rare Bloodlines disciplines (Obeah, Temporis, etc.). Most Bloodlines disciplines are supposed to be difficult to get (for balance purposes), and Lilith's Blessing makes it too easy. The quickest and easiest example of abuse is with the Hermana Hambrientas. As non-unique Blood Brothers, they were intentionally designed to have only inferior Sanguinus. But now, every turn I bring out a 2-cap Menor. She burns 2 blood when entering play so she's empty and a prime candidate for Lilith's Blessing, which fills her up and gives her superior SAN. So now I have an easy way to get non-unique 2-caps all with superior Sanguinus. Rampant abuse with Shell Game (2 free stealth every action and more stealth if I need it) and Walk of Caine (usable any time at superior). Although a vampire needs to be empty to be Blessed, this can be achieved easily with Heidelberg Castle (take all the blood off during my predator's turn, and put it back after my untap phase). Or with Vessels. One partial solution is to limit the list of available disciplines (instead of allowing *any*) to some of the more common, basic ones. That's also fitting thematically (i.e. what Lilith taught Caine). Round 3: Lilith's Blessing [Master] VERY OVERPOWERED I've previously already mentioned the problem with hordes of non-unique Hermana Blood Brothers running around with superior Sanguinus. Other problems: - Abombwe is easily accessible without being Laibon or already having Protean. - Weenie breed decks become far too strong. Both Bamba and The Becoming create new minions who start with no blood and cannot act the first turn. That means they are prime targets for Lilith's Blessing (since they are empty), allowing you to easily create hordes of non-unique weenie 1-caps who nonetheless have disciplines. 1-caps with Presence or Potence or Melpominee (for epic level Choirs). - The card also makes it far too easy to acquire Obeah and Temporis. You can give every one of your minions inferior Obeah or Temporis. All it takes is a Spontaneous Power or Agent of Power plus Sanguine Instruction and you'll have the superior OBE or TEM to really start some abusive combos. It took awhile, but the final version did end up removing the "choose any discipline" (and replaced it with the skill fetching ability), so LSJ *did* eventually listen to me (and/or others) on this issue. Also, for the record, I did object to the Round 3 change of using Lilith's Blessing in the master phase (previously it worked in the untap phase) and highlighted potential problems with Villein if you had multiple master phase actions: Round 3: The latest change makes Lilith's Blessing even more powerful. Even though it does require the use of a master phase action, since it occurs in the master phase, it is significantly easier to make sure your vampire is empty. In addition to Vessel and Heidelberg, Blood Doll now works as well. And if you have more than one master phase action, Minion Tap and Villein are also quite effective. So while I wish LSJ had gone further to reduce the power level of Lilith's Blessing, there were clear cases where he did listen to the playtesters (making it unique for Round 2, restricting it to discipline cards instead of naming any discipline). Considering that Minion Tap + Lilith's Blessing isn't easily abusable, I still think that Villein (and specifically Villein's Trifle trait) is the real problem. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> So while I wish LSJ had gone further to reduce the power level of Lilith's Blessing, there were clear cases where he did listen to the playtesters (making it unique for Round 2, restricting it to discipline cards instead of naming any discipline). > > Considering that Minion Tap + Lilith's Blessing isn't easily abusable, I still think that Villein (and specifically Villein's Trifle trait) is the real problem. > So you understand the situation. Removing LB to effect Villien is much like removing Memories of Mortality to effect Imbued. The later of both is the problem, but too many people have invested(time/money) in them to be happy with them being removed. The earlier change to Villien was NEEDED to keep new and old returning players, likely there will be more changes to it sfter sets can be released. In the mean time LB is being removed, which you seem to think is a good thing as it is not properly balanced anyway. So whats all the hubbub, bub?

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Not intended at all as a "slippery slope" argument. I wanted to actually wonder where you thought this transparency should extend. It seemed strange that you would applaud the EC minutes being public, but not also call for the IC minutes to be public. Why insist on RTR notes/thoughts being public and not for the IC minutes to be public? This is not a slippery slope argument in the slightest. > Yes, I would also be in favor of making all IC minutes public. (And also making all of the Design Team and Playtester forums public after a certain amount of time). Were you expecting me to say "no" so that you could then attack me for hypocrisy? If so, sorry I didn't take the bait! There is a very simple reason why I am insisting on one and not actively insisting on the other. Unfortunately, I have limited time, resources, and yes, even patience! That does mean that I can't do everything and have to "pick my battles" (it's a saying). But if you (or anyone else) wants to lead the charge to ask that all the IC minutes be made public, I would be happy to support you! > This argument is far closer to: If your representatives are going to be required to publish some reasons, why shouldn't they therefore publish all of them? > I think a lot of it (most of it, in fact) could/should be published. Unfortunately, you seem to be asking me to draw a line (or set an exact definition) which can not be easily done. It's like trying to define the exact boundaries of free speech, or what happens when two principles conflict, or the exact definition of pornography! > And where was this public discussion? Or was it for instance primarily limited to Carl P and Jeff Kuta? Where is the evidence of your efforts to increase transparency in your own area - Storyline Events - and for example, transcripts or excerpts of the proposed storylines, playtesting results, background thoughts on the development of storyline reward cards, etc? If you would not do these in your own role when you potentially had the power to do it, why do you now insist that Pascal do the same? > I will happily answer your question, but in a different thread. > If you would like transparency about your own role, I would like to register with you a complaint about the card Lilith's Blessing. It seems badly designed and prolongs the game by adding excessive amounts of resources into the game for a comparatively low opportunity cost. In addition, the design of the card also adds needless complexity by the addition of a new otherwise redundant keyword. To cap it off, and possibly the worst of the offences, is the fact that by design it eliminates hunt actions and reduces the number of potential minion interactions (which is a strength of the game). > As I've mentioned multiple times, but most recently in this very thread, Check Page 3, in response to AaronC, I had nothing to do with the design of Lilith's Blessing. (All I did was playtest it, along with all of the other HttB playtesters): vekn.net/index.php/forum/6-rules-questions/47377-rules-team-rulings-22-apr-2013?limit=10&start=20 > echiang wrote: > > > AaronC wrote: > > Banning LB is fairly easy to justify because it is a storyline promo card that was not (supposedly) playtested. > > > Aaron, that is incorrect. For some reason there is this persistent rumor / belief / urban legend that Lilith's Blessing was never playtested. I've mentioned it before, and I'll mention it again (to correct misinformation): > > 1. Lilith's Blessing was before my time as Storyline Coordinator (so I had nothing to do with it). > > 2. Lilith's Blessing was playtested in all of the playtest rounds for Heirs to the Blood. > > You are free to argue that the playtesting process was flawed, or the playtesters didn't do a good job, or LSJ dropped the ball. I take no position on the matter, but you have the right to your own opinion. > > But Lilith's Blessing *was* playtested (or available to playtest) for three rounds. > So sorry Andrew, but you're complaining to the wrong person. Please forward your complaint to either LSJ or Ben Swainbank. > I would also bring you to task over the cards which were obvious Storyline cards which appeared in the playtesting I was part of. However, they are bound by NDA AND you are no longer involved in their design, so I unfortunately cannot raise my issues regarding those cards with you anymore. > Sure, I take full responsibility for those storyline cards. Yes, some of them had issues but that's why they call it "playtest." It's a shame I wasn't able to share the latest, improved versions before I left. > > No, the demands for transparency are *not* recent, as seen with Johannes, Hugh, and Mike who asked for more transparency almost 10 years ago. > > > Demands made back with it was run by a company and LSJ was an employee? Did you then proceed to attack LSJs decision making processes or WWs production processes back then? If not then, why do it now? > Uh, plenty of people did attack LSJ's decisions and White Wolf's decisions (and at the time we didn't always know whose decisions they were). In particular, Gehenna/Events and Nights of Reckoning got lots of heat. And as mentioned in that old thread, there was plenty of criticism regarding the Dramatic Upheaval / Kindred Restructure ban. > My position on means and process, when it comes to the design and development of a product is: does the product work? Since the production of these products involves basically testing of intellectual property, then if the method produces functional cards then the method is sound. That does not mean the method needs to be transparent. You would not ask Wizards of the Coast how they design editions of D&D (and gosh knows I want to know what kind of drugs were being smoked before they designed 4E) and then berate the company when they didn't tell you. They would probably tell you something like I am "Judge our methods on the product they create". > Yes, you can ask them. No they probably won't provide everything you want, but they actually will provide a good deal of transparency through their various online articles (which is far more transparency IMHO than White Wolf / CCP or VEKN ever provided). > On the same score, since Lilith's Blessing is presumably a card you were involved in designing then it reflects badly that it is the one which was banned. I would therefore suggest your design methods are flawed. (Of course predicated on the fact you were responsible for designing Lilith's Blessing). > As mentioned multiple times: your predicate is WRONG. I was not responsible in any way for designing Lilith's Blessing. So no, it doesn't reflect badly on me. Sorry Andrew, but you'll have to find someone else to lynch. > If you have no fear of releasing the details of the Inner Circle, the please prove it. Put your money where your mouth is Eric. Tell us why the Inner Circle decided to remove you. > You are correct that I have no fear of releasing such details. However, I am also cognizant that many people would also jump at the chance to attack me for releasing such information. If you recall, during the discussion last year, there were several forumites who said they simply didn't want to know what was going on in the IC. But to answer your question Andrew: Like in many situations, there are varying levels of complexity, which may also differ based on your particular perspective. At the most basic level: Johannes and the rest of the IC believed that my continued work with PCK was a conflict with my IC responsibilities. > > To use DeathInABottle's analogy I'd rather stand in front of city hall as a protester requesting a meeting with the mayor, even if I could achieve what I wanted through heavy-handed tactics. > > > And that might work if anyone on the VEKN was an elected official instead of effectively an appointed member. See points about "VEKN is not a Democracy". The "mayor" in this case doesn't have to make an appointment with you. > > .... > > This is NOT a Democracy Eric. It doesn't have to behave like one. Your continual requests for it to be a transparent democracy are wasted. > Andrew, you are right that since it's not a democracy, the mayor (or powers that be) don't *have* to listen to me or make an appointment with me. But that's not to say that they necessarily won't or that the efforts are "wasted." There are countless examples where private and public companies (also not democracies) acquiesce to calls for greater transparency or where the CEO agrees to meet with protesters. And there are PLENTY of cases where citizens in monarchies and dictatorships protest for greater transparency. A lot of the time they are ignored (or punished). But every now and then, they achieve some success. B-) pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Wedge wrote: > So you understand the situation. Removing LB to effect Villien is much like removing Memories of Mortality to effect Imbued. The later of both is the problem, but too many people have invested(time/money) in them to be happy with them being removed. The earlier change to Villien was NEEDED to keep new and old returning players, likely there will be more changes to it sfter sets can be released. In the mean time LB is being removed, which you seem to think is a good thing as it is not properly balanced anyway. > I agree that Lilith's Blessing is overpowered, but there are lots of overpowered cards (and plenty of cards more overpowered than Lilith's Blessing) and that doesn't necessarily justify banning. One of the major issues is that Lilith's Blessing is banned when other more problematic cards are not. For me, one of the issues is an underlying sense of "fairness" or "justice" (which may sound silly for a card game). But to illustrate with an analogy, think of crimes with varying degrees of culpability: 1. A bank robbery where the first person murders a teller, and a second person was driving the getaway car 2. A war crimes scenario where you have foot soldiers who committed the crimes by following orders and then the generals who committed the crimes and actually decided on the orders. Yes, I think the getaway driver or foot soldier is problematic and should be punished (Lilith's Blessing). But I think there are other culprits who are far more deserving to be punished like the shooter or general (Villein, Anthelios, Pentex). If all of them were punished (including Lilith's Blessing), that would be fairer. The issue is when the getaway driver and foot soldiers get punished, but the actual shooter or general get let off (maybe they have political connections or cut a deal by offering valuable information). That creates a sense of injustice because of selective justice and the real culprits getting away with it. > So whats all the hubbub, bub? > 1. Fairness and justice (as explained above). 2. Transparency 3. Process pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

It is the one front Eric. If you want transparency in one area, it seems strange to not demand it in the rest. I'm not trying to call you a hypocrite or planning to label you a hypocrite. It seems to be that there is an overt agenda, one which the IC seemed to think affected your role in the Storyline Coordinator role to the point where they removed you from the IC. You appear to be on a crusade to force the VEKN to change its conduct to suit you after you were forced to leave. That same Agenda lead to the PCK release of cards. That agenda is unwelcome to me as a player of this game. I am not interested in leading the charge for greater transparency on the decision process because it seems so ridiculously obvious that requiring greater transparency in this matter is like wanting more transparency from air. The process is to talk to Pascal about your complaints with the game (electronically, in person if you are lucky enough to live in France or in the forums). You insisting on Pascal to explain his decision to you in detail just seems to be a resentment agenda because you are no longer in the IC. There is a very easy definition for what you could make transparent: Any meeting minutes or playtest records which will not breach a non-disclosure clause in a contract made by the VEKN or will not prejudice the future sales of VTES products. What is simpler than that? The longer this goes on Eric, the more it becomes obvious to me at least that you are not advocating for the betterment of the VEKN for its own sake. You seem to be going about an agenda to harass and attack the members of the Rules Team, the Design Team and the IC for whatever role they had in removing you from the Inner Circle. Otherwise why did the following happen: - Within months of being removed from the IC and card design, you are involved in the release of a "rival" set of cards and belligerent action against the VEKN over IP. - When the RTR comes out, you demand transparency publicly, vociferously and persistently even when numerous people have answered your complaints, explained the processes. - You admit later (i.e. in your last post), that there was at least a perception that your PCK activities were in conflict with the IC. So that even when you were ostensibly working for the VEKN to better VTES and tournaments, you were working to your own agenda. In the end, this paints a picture to me Eric, even if to nobody else, that you are working for your own goals and not for the VEKN, the players or for VTES. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

I am not a fan of you using allegories, but here is one back at cha. Too big to fail. Thought I agree that those cards need errata along with aushers tablets. My choices would be ... Pentex the minion with it may take no action other than to remove it,otherwise the same. Anthelios ends you master phase Villien only playable on a vamp w/o a villien and at least 2 blood Aushers one a turn and only minion cards Liliths must find skill cards and replace bahari with red list ,but none of this has anything to do with this RTR, the changes are appropriate for the state of the game. as for your points 1. Fairness and justice (as explained above). Too big to fail 2. Transparency dissection, debate, and time consuming 3. Process I don't need for this RTR(bane), it seems obvious.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > It is the one front Eric. If you want transparency in one area, it seems strange to not demand it in the rest. > I also think the U.S. government should be more transparent. Sorry I'm not on the steps of Capital Hill protesting! > It seems to be that there is an overt agenda, one which the IC seemed to think affected your role in the Storyline Coordinator role to the point where they removed you from the IC. You appear to be on a crusade to force the VEKN to change its conduct to suit you after you were forced to leave. That same Agenda lead to the PCK release of cards. That agenda is unwelcome to me as a player of this game. > It seems to me that you (and some others) have an overt agenda in constantly asserting that I have an overt agenda. Anything I do immediately falls under suspicion as part of my "sinister plot" (that was sarcasm BTW). You (and others, like Reyda) seem entrenched in your beliefs and I doubt there's anything I could ever do to convince you otherwise. That's fine. You're entitled to your own opinions. > You insisting on Pascal to explain his decision to you in detail just seems to be a resentment agenda because you are no longer in the IC. > You are entitled to your opinion. > There is a very easy definition for what you could make transparent: Any meeting minutes or playtest records which will not breach a non-disclosure clause in a contract made by the VEKN or will not prejudice the future sales of VTES products. What is simpler than that? > At first glance, I think that seems reasonable. And I agree that VEKN should adopt that policy and release all meeting minutes and playtest records that fall under those terms. > The longer this goes on Eric, the more it becomes obvious to me at least that you are not advocating for the betterment of the VEKN for its own sake. > 1. I do think that the VEKN can be bettered and would like to better it 2. You are right that bettering the VEKN is not my primary objective. Yes, it is true that I am much more concerned about VTES and the players, then I am about VEKN. Unfortunately, in some people's minds, VEKN = VTES = the players. However, I do not think those three are the same thing (though they are related). > You seem to be going about an agenda to harass and attack the members of the Rules Team, the Design Team and the IC for whatever role they had in removing you from the Inner Circle. > 1. I do not see posing questions in a polite and calm way as "harass[ing] and attack[ing]." Apparently you see things differently (that is your right). Yes, I have questioned and challenged Pascal, but in a composed and respectful way that I do not consider an "attack" (as I've alluded to in other posts in this thread, I have the utmost respect for Pascal). 2. I am not bitter about being removed from the IC. As time passes, I am actually more and more grateful that I am no longer on the IC. Really! B-) > - Within months of being removed from the IC and card design, you are involved in the release of a "rival" set of cards and belligerent action against the VEKN over IP. > Fallacy because it didn't have to be a "rival" set. I believed then and I believe now that both sets could coexist. It's a "black and white" "us vs them" mindset to view anything that happens outside of the VEKN as a "rival." (And you saw similar themes in that thread about the rumored Fantasy Flight Game.) > - When the RTR comes out, you demand transparency publicly, vociferously and persistently even when numerous people have answered your complaints, explained the processes. > Some of my queries were eventually answered. Some of my (and other people's) queries still have not been addressed or answered. There were some cases where I asked detailed and nuanced questions, and some people responded but didn't actually address my question. (For example, only someone on the IC could tell us whose decision it really was. Pascal eventually confirmed it. Other voices, like yours, couldn't actually say for sure because you weren't privy to who made the decision.) And there were cases where non-official people like you provided answers but they were insufficient because those people (like you) are non-official. So even if I accepted what you said at face value, somewhere down the line there could be plausible deniability where VEKN could always claim "we didn't actually say that, some other non-official guy said it." > - You admit later (i.e. in your last post), that there was at least a perception that your PCK activities were in conflict with the IC. So that even when you were ostensibly working for the VEKN to better VTES and tournaments, you were working to your own agenda. > > In the end, this paints a picture to me Eric, even if to nobody else, that you are working for your own goals and not for the VEKN, the players or for VTES. > You seem deadset about what you think my agenda is. You're entitled to your opinion. Good luck with that! pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Wedge wrote: > Pentex the minion with it may take no action other than to remove it,otherwise the same. > Anthelios ends you master phase > Villien only playable on a vamp w/o a villien and at least 2 blood > Aushers one a turn and only minion cards > Liliths must find skill cards and replace bahari with red list > I would be interested in trying these changes. And in fact, for some time, I (and other people) actually thought that Villein could only target vampires with at least 2 blood! > 1. Fairness and justice (as explained above). > Too big to fail > Even "too big to fail" is applied inconsistently when you look at bailouts. There are cases when big Company X is allowed to fail (often as an "example"). And cases when "too big to fail" is used as an excuse to bail out companies, which ends up promoting inefficiency/corruption, and then the public later complains about the bailout. > 2. Transparency > dissection, debate, and time consuming > Alas, informative discourse often is. > 3. Process > I don't need for this RTR(bane), it seems obvious. > Not quite sure what you mean, but probably doesn't matter (I do not mean that condescendingly, it's a point which probably isn't worthwhile debating about right now with you ). pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> echiang wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > And where was this public discussion? Or was it for instance primarily limited to Carl P and Jeff Kuta? Where is the evidence of your efforts to increase transparency in your own area - Storyline Events - and for example, transcripts or excerpts of the proposed storylines, playtesting results, background thoughts on the development of storyline reward cards, etc? If you would not do these in your own role when you potentially had the power to do it, why do you now insist that Pascal do the same? > > > I will happily answer your question, but in a different thread. > Dearest Andrew, Since you asked so nicely, as promised, I have created a separate thread that details my many efforts to increase transparency as IC Storyline Coordinator. You can find it here: vekn.net/index.php/forum/5-generic-vtes-discussion/47740-eric-chiangs-transparency-as-ic-storyline-coordinator And to reiterate some of the final conclusions of that thread (which pertain to the transparency issue in this thread): I think I was very transparent as IC Storyline Coordinator and am "put[ting] [my] money where [my] mouth is." There were several public discussions I initiated on Usenet and the VEKN forums. Discussions which you contributed to, which makes me wonder why you are asking if there were any. And I contacted and solicited feedback (via e-mail) from many different people. And unlike the VEKN, I am actually providing names/details that can be verified. Andrew, I challenge you to name (and provide evidence of) a VTES Storyline Coordinator who was more transparent than I was. I will also assert that as an IC member fulfilling his responsibilities, I was easily among the upper tier when it comes to transparency. And I will also issue a challenge (but this is a *friendly* challenge ) to any former, current, or future member of the IC, to be as transparent as I was (or better, even *more* transparent) during my time as an IC member and also through my transparency with this post. And Andrew, since I did “increase transparency in [my] own area” and “in [my] own role when potentially had the power to do it,” I actually think that gives me A LOT of credibility when I ask Pascal (or the VEKN) to do the same. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Wouldn't it just make more sense to put an either/or restriction on Villein and LB? It just seems like an arbitrary decision that hurts decks that rely on it to prevent a specific, preventable combo. How do we vote on it?

> brm130 wrote: > Wouldn't it just make more sense to put an either/or restriction on Villein and LB? > Is there anything that create such a restriction right now ? Choosing the more complicated and convoluted way to do it seem stupid. > brm130 wrote: > How do we vote on it? > Why would we vote ? It's not like there was overwhelming amount of discussion about it on VEKN. It have been two years that this is talked about. I understand you disagree with the final decision, but sometimes non-unanimous decisions should be taken. Also, democracy is not alway the best way to take decision anyway. I'd better trust the vision of one group of expert (floppy with the other people who help him) than having a decision by commitee.

Adding "You may not play Villein" to LB's wording is convoluted and stupid? Democratization at least offers a discussion period. This just feels like a dissociated entity couldn't find a solution and gave up.

> brm130 wrote: > Adding "You may not play Villein" to LB's wording is convoluted and stupid? > Yes, it is. Just propose a wording, I need a laugh. Doubly so once you factor in that Villein is not the only source of trouble with Lillith : there is also Minion Tap, and simply the fact it can generate absurd amount of blood. There were more than 100 totals pages of discussion on the topic of lillith, Villein, and other blood and pool creation cards. > brm130 wrote: > Democratization at least offers a discussion period. This just feels like a dissociated entity couldn't find a solution and gave up. > People talk of that (I.E. if Lillith Blessing should be banned) since more than one year, two if I recall correctly. Implying they were no discussion period seem curious in this regard. Well, it don't seem curious if we suppose you're just hurt with the decision (which is debatable, and have been debated lengthy) and try to find any reason to negate it. But lack of consultation wasn't here ; it's just that the public consultation and the final decision didn't go the way you wanted.

> Is there anything that create such a restriction right now ? Choosing the more complicated and convoluted way to do it seem stupid. > Into thin air is not convoluted, nor stupid and solves the problem of 2 card combo generating unconditionless +4 stealth (AND conditional -1 intercept), which is too much from my point of view. Then again, maybe I am stupid, and same would not apply for braking Villein+LB combo. I'd have to remind that for comboing LB with Minion Tap would require an additional MPA, spending which IMHO would be balanced enough for LB effect. But then again, like most people around, I just sprout stupid ideas. Then again, there are certain ways to put your words, and some of them are... stupid. Especially when giving someone with obviously low count of posts (thus maybe, just maybe, low experience) a know-it-all lesson with belittling included and being lazy enough not to back one's words. That might look... what is that word?.. > Into Thin Air > Action Modifier > Obfuscate > Do not replace until your untap phase. > [obf] +1 stealth. Once this action, this vampire may burn 1 blood to give an ally or younger vampire -1 intercept. Into Thin Air and Lost in Crowds cannot both be played on the same action. > [OBF] As above, but for +2 stealth. > Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

> kombainas wrote: > Into thin air is not convoluted, nor stupid and solves the problem of 2 card combo generating unconditionless +4 stealth (AND conditional -1 intercept), which is too much from my point of view. Then again, maybe I am stupid, and same would not apply for braking Villein+LB combo. I'd have to remind that for comboing LB with Minion Tap would require an additional MPA, spending which IMHO would be balanced enough for LB effect. But then again, like most people around, I just sprout stupid ideas. > First part : I do believe that both Into Thin Air and Preternatural Strength are design fail, so there's that. Second part, instead of saying "it could be done like ...", could you actually do it ? People can use them at different master phase without much problem. People can - and have - used Minion tap for the same thing without too much problem. And I will actually laugh if you propose to slap the Bahari trait to every vampire you play a Villein / Minion tap on. Now, I don't care even one bit of the post count of anyone. I suppose people actually think their idea through at least a bit, which I believe is more than enough to see the problem of the idea here. Note that I didn't try to belittle the fact that he may have missed two years of discussion on the topic ; but they still exist and they are still evidences that it's not an autocratic idea taken without any kind of input.

What I find actually lacking from Pascal, is stating the exact problem with the LB, that is being solved by the ban and subsequent rewording. Without knowing that, there is, as you yourself stated, countless opinions about banning or not and most of them are well-backed and non-uniform. If Villein+LB were the problem, but not Minion Tap+LB, then doing explicit combobreaker might be ok way to fix it (if it is not considered bad design by Pascal), if it is (insert your scenario here), then (insert your solution) and so on. Not knowing the problem takes away possibility of constructive solution suggestions, which everyone is so eager to propose. Lack of a problem to solve is compensated by making the problems out or overexaggerating existing ones. Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

> echiang wrote: > I agree that Lilith's Blessing is overpowered, but there are lots of overpowered cards (and plenty of cards more overpowered than Lilith's Blessing) and that doesn't necessarily justify banning. > > One of the major issues is that Lilith's Blessing is banned when other more problematic cards are not. > > For me, one of the issues is an underlying sense of "fairness" or "justice" (which may sound silly for a card game). But to illustrate with an analogy, think of crimes with varying degrees of culpability: > Except, this isn't how CCGs work. What is fun is far more important to the publishers than what is fair, as fun sells. For all that people bitch about power rares, for instance, people hate weak rares. And, so forth. The more overpowered cards may not be touchable because people want to play with them more. Nevermind that the actual buying populace is different from people who post to forums, which produces some interesting disconnects on what is balanced and/or what is fun. Then, while I'd happily ban a bunch of cards - Nights of Reckoning set, events, unique promos, 10th Anniversary only cards, and others - there are extremely anti-ban sentiments among CCG playerbases to where a lot of cards that should have been banned from day one will never get banned. See how much people want to talk about Lilith's Blessing for how much people dislike banning, even though the ban's effect on people is minor. How hard do you think it would be to ban one of the "more overpowered" cards? Probably wouldn't happen, and so nothing would change, and we would still bitch about all of the same problem cards in the game. I find LB to be fun, for me to play. Lilith is a babe. I'm all in favor of her blessings. I like grafting/forcing/upgrading disciplines as can be seen in a recent deck posted in the events subforum. But, is the game more fun with or without LB? Is it fun that the majority of my decks play LB, more than the number of decks that play Villein? Are the decks built around the card really more fun than the decks that become worse because they don't leverage the card as well or don't play the card at all? People all of the time want to argue that such-and-such shouldn't be banned because it opens up possibilities that other cards don't. Sure. But, cards also close off possibilities by existing within card pools. The effect isn't direct, but it is prevalent, where a superior card or strategy makes other cards and strategies not worth playing. LB replaces a bunch of blood gain plays I have used. In fact, I was building a deck yesterday where not playing LB meant having to think about blood management differently and changed up master selection quite a bit. Put another way, the recent complaints of staleness in the game are really complaints of lack of fun. You could print a million new cards, but if they had no impact on the environment because they all sucked, then the game would still be lacking in fun, even with greatly increased variety. That's not what would actually happen, but it points to the fact that staleness in CCGs also comes from having cards people like/play so much that other possibilities already available get squeezed out. Hmmm, kind of got off on a tangent for why banning has more benefit to CCGs than people give it credit for, which really isn't the topic here. Wedge already brought up that it should be obvious how powerful the card is. And, I think some folks have brought up that it slows the game down, which may not be unfair, but is anti-fun, as the game is already too slow in many environments. I also find tracking Bahari is just another "accounting" aspect to the game, and I've become increasingly opposed to accounting in CCGs, as interaction should be the focus of games like this one (a reason to rein in masters and events, neither of which are interactive, by the way). As for why V:TES managers may not want to publish comments about decisions, I think it has something to do with how little respect they are shown in comparison to managers of other CCGs when it comes to decisions, not because the playerbase doesn't respect the individuals (necessarily) but because the playerbase doesn't respect the authority level in the same way Magic players respect the authority of those who change the banned/restricted lists, etc. Traveller Card Game

Dear Ian, Thank you for the informative post and thought-out response. I may not agree with everything that you said, but much of what you said makes a lot of sense (and even the stuff I disagree with makes sense) and provides a valuable perspective, especially given your wide expertise on so many CCG's. It is unique insights like these which made me greatly value your contributions when I consulted with you (back when I was IC Storyline Coordinator). To briefly touch upon a few things: > ICL wrote: > Except, this isn't how CCGs work. What is fun is far more important to the publishers than what is fair, as fun sells. > Yes, fun is good and important. Though interestingly enough, that doesn't seem to prevent many publishers from printing non-fun cards. Not in the meaning of "boring" cards, but cards that are actually not fun to play against (NPE, or "negative play experience"). > Then, while I'd happily ban a bunch of cards - Nights of Reckoning set, events, unique promos, 10th Anniversary only cards, and others - there are extremely anti-ban sentiments among CCG playerbases to where a lot of cards that should have been banned from day one will never get banned. > Of course for a lot of other CCG's, bannings are a lot less necessary due to natural set rotation. If you don't like a card and it isn't being banned, you often just need to wait a year or two and the card is gone anyway. > How hard do you think it would be to ban one of the "more overpowered" cards? Probably wouldn't happen, and so nothing would change, and we would still bitch about all of the same problem cards in the game. > Hard, but do-able. Just look at the case of Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure. (Yay for another point in relevancy! ). Hypothetically, if Pascal were to ban Pentex and Anthelios, then yes there would be an initial uproar from some players. But it would eventually pass and many people would admit that it was a "good" decision. > I find LB to be fun, for me to play. Lilith is a babe. I'm all in favor of her blessings. I like grafting/forcing/upgrading disciplines as can be seen in a recent deck posted in the events subforum. > > People all of the time want to argue that such-and-such shouldn't be banned because it opens up possibilities that other cards don't. Sure. But, cards also close off possibilities by existing within card pools. The effect isn't direct, but it is prevalent, where a superior card or strategy makes other cards and strategies not worth playing. > Yes, and many people argue that Pentex, Villein, Ashur Tablets, and Deflection also fit the bill. > LB replaces a bunch of blood gain plays I have used. In fact, I was building a deck yesterday where not playing LB meant having to think about blood management differently and changed up master selection quite a bit. > I agree that variety is good. As just one example, if LB were unique (say like Dreams) then that would affect its reliability and force you to restructure your deck differently. > Put another way, the recent complaints of staleness in the game are really complaints of lack of fun. You could print a million new cards, but if they had no impact on the environment because they all sucked, then the game would still be lacking in fun, even with greatly increased variety. > Well, there are people like you and me who see lots of underutilized cards from years of expansions and enjoy experimenting with them. Plus, there are often hidden gems ("power combos") that exist and just haven't been exploited yet. (Archon NRA is the most memorable, and was completely missed by everyone for many, many years). Thanks again for your valuable contributions in this thread ICL. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Ohlmann wrote: > Yes, it is. Just propose a wording, I need a laugh. > I realize you're just baiting me, but: Blood on a Bahari vampire may not be moved to your pool. > Ohlmann wrote: > There were more than 100 totals pages of discussion on the topic of lillith, Villein, and other blood and pool creation cards. > I don't remember the hundred pages of unanimously agreement that LB was hopelessly broken and needed banned. Could you link me to that? > brm130 wrote: > Implying they were no discussion period seem curious in this regard. > > Well, it don't seem curious if we suppose you're just hurt with the decision (which is debatable, and have been debated lengthy) and try to find any reason to negate it. But lack of consultation wasn't here ; it's just that the public consultation and the final decision didn't go the way you wanted. > There was a discussion, and many MANY reasonable alternatives to outright banning were proffered. It's a decision that hurts decks that don't exploit Villein. Hermanas and Discipline fetch both get gimped with this ban. Was fetching a discipline card too unbalancing? Were Mexico City Circle decks sweeping tabels? We don't know what was going on in the black box that dispensed the ban. If you want to pretend that discussion was framed as a legitimate conversation about the future of the card, that's on you. e: clarity

There were alot of various discussions and polls on liliths blessing, and from what i recall, about half of the forum users contributing to the conversation said it needed changed, maybe 2-5 people said ban in, and an equal amount said it was fine as is. The restcof who answered seemed to have an opinion of some kind, but implied they could care less either way. Of the people who wanted it changed, very few agreed on how it should be changed. This is a trend that carried over into debates on changing Ashur Tablets as well. It probably is well over 100 pages of discussing and bickering, cumulatively, across all the threads and polls on LB, tablets, anthelios, villein, and pentex. Thats counting all the debates, on threads for it, and threads that were um... threadjacked, not unlike this thread was threadjacked by things unrelated to the rules or the ban. But thats the nature of good cards anymore. You win a table or even dont get ousted at a few tables and everyone hates at leazt one card responsible for it. As long as we dont ban any vamps, i think we are ok. If we do ban vamps, may i request Van Buren? Ian Lee just won with Augustus, so that makes Josef Van Buren the worst 11 cap in the game statistically...... Liliths is gone for a few months, and while brm130 has the same issue i do with liliths being banned, the fact that people who dont play cheese decks justclost our discipline fetcher, there is at least the sentiment that Pascal and probably the DT is awarexof that issue, and plan on filling that niche with a replacement or an updated LB in the near future. Thats more than any other banned card has gotten, even if banning it doesnt sit well with people(like myself) when the idea is to introduce a replacement effect in X amount of months. So for now waiting is the only way to get the effect again. Or adding anothef almost 100 pages about ow not problematic LB is to counger the 100 ish saying otherwise

> brm130 wrote: > Blood on a Bahari vampire may not be moved to your pool. > Which don't work, since people actually use villein first, then Lillith Blessing. > brm130 wrote: > I don't remember the hundred pages of unanimously agreement that LB was hopelessly broken and needed banned. Could you link me to that? > Certainly because they don't exist and haven't been hinted to exist anywhere. What do exist is hundred of page on the subject, which have been used by Pascal for his decision. Maybe the discussion can be restarted, but it's not like there actually exist any new arguments, and the very existence of this debate for something like two year make any argument of autocratic behavior quite moot.

> brm130 wrote: > Blood on a Bahari vampire may not be moved to your pool. > > Ohlmann wrote: > Which don't work, since people actually use villein first, then Lillith Blessing. > The above suggestion could work, just now how *you* want it to work. > Ohlmann wrote: > ...make any argument of autocratic behavior quite moot. > That has never been a point of contention here. I think many people who are rushing to Pascal's defense are missing the point. Though now that you mention it, FZD/PB *is* the Rules Team. He said so above--at least he has final decision making authority. Technically, that gives him autocratic power, though it is more in line with the proverbial "benevolent dictator" who keeps everyone's best interests in mind. I don't think that's a bad analogy here, since that is more or less what LSJ was for many years. And again, that's *not* the point of contention at all. I commented... > Jeff wrote: > ...some context for why this card is to be banned would be helpful. > And then the discussion devolved from there with those *not even involved in the decision-making process* commenting frequently and vehemently. That's just how things go on a public forum with a poor signal to noise ratio. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > *first quote* > > > > Jeff wrote: > > ...some context for why this card is to be banned would be helpful. > > > *end first quote* > > And then the discussion devolved from there with those *not even involved in the decision-making process* commenting frequently and vehemently. That's just how things go on a public forum with a poor signal to noise ratio. > A two year long debate on the Forum doesn't constitute a potentially great context for why a card would potentially be banned with the publicly state objective of editing or replacing where possible? Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > Jeff wrote: > > *first quote* > > > > > > > > > Jeff wrote: > > > ...some context for why this card is to be banned would be helpful. > > > > > *end first quote* > > > > And then the discussion devolved from there with those *not even involved in the decision-making process* commenting frequently and vehemently. That's just how things go on a public forum with a poor signal to noise ratio. > > > A two year long debate on the Forum doesn't constitute a potentially great context for why a card would potentially be banned with the publicly state objective of editing or replacing where possible? > I'm sure that Jeff meant "context" to signal "official explanation." He's not obtuse.