Round 2.
I sit at the table, my grand-predator plays a Reversal of Fortune deck, his predator a deck without intercept or vote, and his prey plays intercept combat (Neighbour John, Gostdam the Tired Warrior).
Despite his first Madness Network washed vote cards discarded on each of his votes (including his Malkavian Justicar, but since he had 2 votes on that vote, it was useless) my Justicar hastily influenced with an Information Highway before he gets another prince (the vote balance is 3-3 at that point, but his prey agreeing to play with him, he always get the vote of the edge in favor) his praxis vote delayed his prey that could block him but accepts the proposition of getting the GW3
The Reversal of Fortune deck has played with his prey for 45 minutes, the other players being forced to sit down and watch, having no turn to play.
So basically, one hour after the start of the game, his little-prey (myself) was ousted, and the vampires of the other players in torpor or burned, thanks to Watenda with a Flamethrower and an Alastor.
I confess the deck is very tricky to play and funny at some point but being able to fully negate the other players turns is a bad thing for the game.
Furthermore, the deck has only two options:
- either his predator or prey cannot block him, and he wins the game without allowing other players except 1 to play
- either he lose-deals on turn 2 with the player that can block him, creating a king-making situation, while preventing the 3 other players from playing anyway.
Place-changing votes were disrupting enough, that one is even worse.
I petition so that Reversal of Fortune is either
- restricted to 1 or 2 per game
- banned.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
From what you describe, it sounds less problematic than Una or a Turbo deck: at least one other player gets to play, and the combo is easier to disrupt.
What was the Reversal's predator playing for him to prefer a losing deal with his prey?
Is there any particular reason to blame Reversal of Fortunes rather than blaming being able to act on other people's turns?
People may think it's cool or fun to be able to act on other players' turns, but that's a much greater breaking of the normal rules and has far more abuses.
On the other hand, if everybody does the same things all of the time, not really taking advantage of the possibilities games like this provide. Is this more gamebreaking than other combo decks? Maybe but not obviously so. Note that I'm not talking about how good it is when speaking of gamebreaking but how pointless it makes games.
Traveller Card Game
> Ankha wrote:
> I petition so that Reversal of Fortune is either
> - restricted to 1 or 2 per game
> - banned.
>
If[0] action were to be needed, how about:
"You cannot play Reversal of Fortunes as an out-of-turn action."
(Or some text functionally equivalent to that, such as "You may play Reversal of Fortunes only during your own turn.")
[0] This is the important word in this sentence
> Non-existant user wrote:
> From what you describe, it sounds less problematic than Una or a Turbo deck: at least one other player gets to play, and the combo is easier to disrupt.
>
Turbo deck often rely on one big-star vampire, meaning that people have more time to play before waiting for the turbo to end his turn, and it's easier to block one vampire than many.
But the comparison with turbo decks is not good anyway, as every player has a chance to play, whereas in our case, 3 players don't even get a third turn (or second turn if the Madness Reversal deck is lucky).
> Non-existant user wrote:
> What was the Reversal's predator playing for him to prefer a losing deal with his prey?
>
A FoS Spell of Life deck. He washed two Madness Network (unfortunately the second time another one was immediately replaced and played), so he did his job.
> ICL wrote:
> Is there any particular reason to blame Reversal of Fortunes rather than blaming being able to act on other people's turns?
>
It's the combinaison that is to blame. Removing the ability to play during other's players turns means that Enkil Cog should also be banned or somehow modified. I'm not against it as it would solve the problem, but it's easier to ban or restrict Reversal of Fortune (for the sake of those tier-3 Barrenness-Scourge decks).
> ICL wrote:
> Is this more gamebreaking than other combo decks? Maybe but not obviously so.
>
Definitively yes as it forces king-making in some configurations, and denies the ability to play of 3 persons on the table.
Being removed from the whole game on turn 2 is one of the definitions of "game-breaking".
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I dont disagree that reversal madness is viable or annoying, but several combos are as bad.
Madness network is one of, if not the only, interesting things about malkavians. Cog reshaped the metas, but id say legacy of pander is more abusable than network. Network is balanced. It only alloes untapped malks to act, so no forcexof will nonsense with Nergal clan impersonating with a concordance can happen.
Reversal is weqk in all other decks. This deck makes it a time walk. This deck is disruptable. Seating wrecked this game. Gotsdam doesnt care about watenda flamethrower, and cant be rotsxhrecked. Eagles sight and neighbor john, di2, sudden, dts, and more common stuff coulda put the breaks on this deck.
Tupdogs are hard to beat. Or so ive heard. My first casual game against them i made the player wish hed played weenie presence instead, because no secrets akunanse crushed it.
Una and girls are stupid good. And way harder to beat than this.
Id consider time walk madness like current imbued: not played much, hated when it is, and the table should kill it.id cross table contest madness network if i saw this at my table.
But i dont think it needs banned.
No more banned cards because of one deck 'who didn't even win the finals)... please...
He clearly played to lose... but he tried to have fun...
It looks like all the whiners on google groups that got PTO banned !!!!
Pentex Board of Directors
Prince of Oye Plage
Alastor Grand Nord
What about...
Reversal of Fortunes
Type: Political Action
If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. The direction of play is reversed. Prey is still to the left, however. Any vampire can call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action. Only one Reversal of Fortunes can be played during a game.
?
@ReverendRevolver: it's not about power, it's about game balance. The reference to Time Walk is pretty close. Being able to play even if crushed is not the same thing as having no turn (litterarily) to play.
> Vlad wrote:
> No more banned cards because of one deck 'who didn't even win the finals)... please...
>
> He clearly played to lose... but he tried to have fun...
>
Playing a deck that says: "Three people on this table won't play the game (litterarily)" is not acceptable because it denies play. I was there to play. I didn't play. I don't play V:TES to sit at a table and not play any turn. And there's the King Making aspect also:
On the three rounds:
R1: the Madness Reversal deck dealt a loosing 3-2 with his prey. His prey agreed and the game ended like that.
R2: same thing. Three players didn't play.
R3: there was apparently some deal, but the Madness Reversal made the GW and entered final.
In final, this kind of deck can't deal anymore so it really depends on seating and luck ("Do I draw Madness Network in my opening hand. If yes, I win. Otherwise, I've lost")
> derjudge wrote:
> What about...
>
> Reversal of Fortunes
> Type: Political Action
> If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. The direction of play is reversed. Prey is still to the left, however. Any vampire can call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action. Only one Reversal of Fortunes can be played during a game.
>
> ?
>
It won't change anything as the players don't have any turn to call that vote. The only person that could is the person the Madness Reversal deck has dealt with, so he will likely not call the vote. Even if he does, he'll probably have less votes that the Malkavian (otherwise the vote wouldn't have been successful in the first place).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > derjudge wrote:
> > What about...
> >
> > Reversal of Fortunes
> > Type: Political Action
> > If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. The direction of play is reversed. Prey is still to the left, however. Any vampire can call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action. Only one Reversal of Fortunes can be played during a game.
> >
> > ?
> >
> It won't change anything as the players don't have any turn to call that vote.
>
Given that it's playable only once per game, yes, the player(s) will get a turn shortly. Now yes, you could go A, B, C, D (reversal), C, B, A (out-of-turn burn reversal), B, C, D, E, but D only gets two turns preying on E, which is hardly the worst thing on earth.
How does making it once a game not allow the other players to play? The deck needs to continuously bounce play back and forth with its prey, at least until it's tooled up.
Now, I personally hate once a game as a fix to cards, so I'd much rather the proposed change of only can be called on your turn, if the path of not stopping out of turn actions isn't used (and I don't expect it to be used).
Traveller Card Game
I would say this deck is a healthy meta swing at best, another obnoxiuous one trick pony at worste.
Ive played and played against border skirmish malks, a disruptive wall type of thing. Those and googly moogly decks are the only decks ive ever had problems with that use madness network. Ive thought about doing versal madness, but Lutzs kin vs the world is more fun(unless spirit marionette is yoir predator. Then you just get bled alot with your own Lutz if you take any risks...)
Once per game makes reversal just a hair better than eyes of the dead.
With pod off the table, making more cards bad isnt what id think helps the game.
> ReverendRevolver wrote:
> Once per game makes reversal just a hair better than eyes of the dead.
>
Wrong. It still does a lot of thing, especially if you play cards that moves counter-clockwise (Milicent Smith, Scourge of the Ennochians...)
Do you consider that using Reversal of Fortune to perpetually play with only your prey or predator is the proper use of the card?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Honestly, the first time i comsidered using it was in a malk deck where i fed jack up to a ton and kept my predator in the game with games and pranks. So id consider its purpose perpetually playing with the two people on either side of me for 20 minutes then ousting the one to my left, after depleting my predators resources.
Now, the fact that this deck did what it did at a national event is the only reason im even watching this thread. A plainly big event, plainly good players, and somehow a deck like this got lucky.
Ive gave tournaments away by takng risks. One to rodd clossen, one to john bell. Undrestimating other decks and thinking id get luckier draws.
Thats not what seems to have happened here.
I think cards need chamged when it breaks the meta enough for everyone to get on the bandwagon, like with girls decks. No secrets wins a continental, we respect laibon for that card. Matt hirsch wins the NAC with a hannibal adv toolbox and i started using golconda more often.
Girls or imbued srart winning everyone starts using them, even though they are boring as hell.
I dont think thats what we have here. Jay Kristoff once won a large tourney in Atlanta with g2 gargoyles. The indy ones. I cant replicate such sucess with indy gargoyles. At all, even in casual, and i doubt jay would even try at this point.
Reversal madness has always been a "wouldnt it be cool if..." deck, and its had VERY little sucess. Googly moogly second trad earth meld is the clear strong madness network deck, followed by derange decks.
Its a cheesy mean card, but i dont (yet) see it being too much. PTO is errata-able imho. This card isnt hat good by any stretch.
I may agree with you in a year, but nit until reversal madness is the new flavor of the week deck like girls and weenie animalism were(both of which block or sudden this decks game away).
Winning a lot is a criterion for being concerned about a card. Just making games suck is another.
Nobody is arguing overpoweredness. The argument is that not getting to play the game just because someone has some trick deck is suboptimal. Sure, it's rare as hell. That's just more argument (in my analysis of CCG problems) for doing something to stop it from ever seeing play.
For those who haven't played against the deck, it's incredibly stupid to just watch other people, mostly one person when it works, play the game. Now, that's not terribly different from being Anarch Revolt bombed out of existence or having all of your minions rushed, having all of your minions stolen and nuked, or whatever. So, I don't hate this deck as much as I could, as there's too much hate to pass around. And, it can fail to get its (soft) lock, though it helps immensely if people understand how it works to prevent it from comboing off.
Traveller Card Game
People did understand how it worked, including his prey that could have stopped him. But since he was offered GW3 on turn 2, why would he have declined the offer?
The difference with being crushed by Anarch Revolt/Rush/whatsoever is that it's still a multiplayer game. People may help you. Table dynamics may change. With a Madness Reversal game, the whole multiplayer aspect is denied.
@ReverendRevolver: Dramatic Upheaval was banned for a similar kind of reason ("undermining predator-prey relationship"), not because it was a main archetype.
Except by putting 7 Dark Influences in the deck in case you're neither the deck's prey or predator, there's nothing much you can do against it.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Well, despite the fact that I pretty much agree with your analysis, Vincent, and think that it is stupid to watch people play (but in fact it's stupid the same with other decks imho), your statement of the fact that players don't get to play is false:
- game one, despite the 3/2 losing deal, all players still played their turn and I did not call any reversal of fortunes after the deal was accepted (the reason of the deal at the beginning was that I could not call them on that table)
- game 2, my prey played, my little prey was you and you got to play several turns during that game. I did not offer a turn 2 losing table, that's also a false statement. I offered a losing deal after my prey has had 3 vampires out including Gotsdam (congrats to the guy who found out about him) and Neighbor John. By that time, you also had Giotto Verducci and Lucinde Alastor. You had turns to play and offer me something, like backrushing my prey. Your deck could not do that, thus the reason why I offered a deal (another reason was that my predator was playing stealth/spell of life and I might have been dead in 3 turns).
- game 3 I made a deal with my little prey and we all got to play on the table. My predator missed me for one pool at some point, then for one stealth at some point. My ally broke the madness network cross-tabled, my prey played 50 cards in that game despite not being dealing with me.
- in the finals, I could not play so everybody else could
in the end, I played 4 rounds so 16 opponents against me and they all got at least 2 turns of play:
-> two got two turns
-> one got threee turns
other players could play normally at least five turns
so while I think it is a shame to steal someone's game from him, I think people misinterpret how rare the situation of complete lock is
IC Organized play coordinator
Please contact me with any OP query using the mail in my profile
> TapeTaChatte wrote:
> Well, despite the fact that I pretty much agree with your analysis, Vincent, and think that it is stupid to watch people play (but in fact it's stupid the same with other decks imho), your statement of the fact that players don't get to play is false:
>
> - game one, despite the 3/2 losing deal, all players still played their turn and I did not call any reversal of fortunes after the deal was accepted (the reason of the deal at the beginning was that I could not call them on that table)
> - game 2, my prey played, my little prey was you and you got to play several turns during that game. I did not offer a turn 2 losing table, that's also a false statement. I offered a losing deal after my prey has had 3 vampires out including Gotsdam (congrats to the guy who found out about him) and Neighbor John. By that time, you also had Giotto Verducci and Lucinde Alastor. You had turns to play and offer me something, like backrushing my prey. Your deck could not do that, thus the reason why I offered a deal (another reason was that my predator was playing stealth/spell of life and I might have been dead in 3 turns).
> - game 3 I made a deal with my little prey and we all got to play on the table. My predator missed me for one pool at some point, then for one stealth at some point. My ally broke the madness network cross-tabled, my prey played 50 cards in that game despite not being dealing with me.
> - in the finals, I could not play so everybody else could
>
> in the end, I played 4 rounds so 16 opponents against me and they all got at least 2 turns of play:
> -> two got two turns
> -> one got threee turns
> other players could play normally at least five turns
>
> so while I think it is a shame to steal someone's game from him, I think people misinterpret how rare the situation of complete lock is
>
In fact in round 3 if I remember well my first rush was to one of your vamps with Beast.
Since your prey was more concentrated in ousting me, than dealing to try and eliminate you from the table, my only chance of maximizing my VPs and not doing 0 was dealing with you.
Obviously, if Mattias would have been interested in dealing 3/2 loose with me I would have accepted, but I don't think we wold have managed to arrive at that point since you would be dead before I arrived to be your predator.
It's true that it's a horrible deck to play against, but it's easily stoppable too. +1 intercept or votes on the table end the combo easily.
It was a pleasure playing with you.
> TapeTaChatte wrote:
> Well, despite the fact that I pretty much agree with your analysis, Vincent, and think that it is stupid to watch people play (but in fact it's stupid the same with other decks imho), your statement of the fact that players don't get to play is false:
>
> <snip>
>
> in the end, I played 4 rounds so 16 opponents against me and they all got at least 2 turns of play:
> -> two got two turns
> -> one got threee turns
> other players could play normally at least five turns
>
I consider that playing 2 or 3 turns in a whole game (including the first turns of influence, meaning you'll be able to take 1 or 2 actions in the whole game) whereas 2 players on the table play 12+ turns matches what I said.
Speaking about that second round, I played exactly 3 turns:
- turn 1: Information Highway (lucky me), influence 6 on Lucinde (unfortunately, I didn't have any IC)
- turn 2: Lucinde gets out but too late: one of the Malk is already Justicar
- turn 3: Giotto gets out
That's all. I could have played one action with Lucinde, but unfortunately I didn't have the vote lock. I couldn't rush but I could have banished/taken care of the Madness Reversal's prey. But king-making was safer I suppose.
Other players played also 3 turns. The Madness Reversal's predator influenced out a vampire on turn 1 and got 2 actions. My prey influenced out on turn 2 and played 1 action.
Even if all players were somewhat lucky in their opening hand (Information highway, Wash, Delaying Tactics), the Madness Reversal deck couldn't be disrupted. The only solution would have been a DI on the Sargon Fragment (assuming you don't play a second copy of it).
I consider myself lucky since I managed to cycle many cards thanks to Giotto's ability. Other players could cycle no more than 3 cards through regular discard; it is extremely likely that in those conditions, even a deck that could intercept don't have the time to get what it needs to block.
PS: I don't use "you"/"your" on purpose because it has nothing to do with the player, but only with the abuse of Reversal of Fortune.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Brum wrote:
> I think the more important question here is: will you go to the EC?
> Note that I don't really care what deck you play.
>
I did not win so I won't come logically
IC Organized play coordinator
Please contact me with any OP query using the mail in my profile
> cordovader wrote:
> It's true that it's a horrible deck to play against, but it's easily stoppable too. +1 intercept or votes on the table end the combo easily.
>
You made me laugh. On round 2, there was an intercept deck AND a vote deck. King-making the intercept deck was the only solution. Three players played only 3 turns. This is unacceptable for a 5-player game.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
We'll start talk between French in English but that's fine. I am not saying playing 2 or 3 turns is good. I am saying it does not happen that often. In the past, I used to play horrible lock versions with Brainwash that could totally prevent the table from playing but I did not do that this time. All I am saying is out of 16 players I played against, 13 did have a mostly regular game, bare the fact that they could not do anything against me, but that would have been the same had I played Una, tupdog, or weenie DBR, or even weenie animalism rush. Look at my finals. I did only one action during all the finals, so I am also concerned. It happens sometimes that one cannot play, everybody needs to cope with it, I think.
I agree our game was special. Mostly in the fact that in 99% of the games, the first vampire of my prey won't be Gotsdam. That being said, without the Brainwash interaction, I would not consider the deck as a ban-needing card... Now with the brainwash, it's something else.
IC Organized play coordinator
Please contact me with any OP query using the mail in my profile
@Jorge: you're a very good player. Also, the only one I did not have a chance to play with before that tournament, which might explain the tension that might have occured then. Everything is fine for me and I congratulate you again with your last chance qualifier win with a very nice deck.
@everybody: for those who like good stories, reversal of fortunes in-and-out of games, and tournament reports, my next blog article will be a complete report of French championship. Probably around when the decklists will be out but I will need time to write it in French and English
remember the blog URL: ttcmaster.blogspot.fr
IC Organized play coordinator
Please contact me with any OP query using the mail in my profile
First: This thread has a terribly bad name.
> Ankha wrote:
> The Reversal of Fortune deck has played with his prey for 45 minutes, the other players being forced to sit down and watch, having no turn to play.
>
I have no idea why a) people would play such a boring, non-interactive deck, or b) why the card is not changed or banned.
> Ankha wrote:
> I petition so that Reversal of Fortune is either
> - restricted to 1 or 2 per game
> - banned.
>
Restricted to 1 or banned, whatever works for me.
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
> TapeTaChatte wrote:
> @Jorge: you're a very good player. Also, the only one I did not have a chance to play with before that tournament, which might explain the tension that might have occured then. Everything is fine for me and I congratulate you again with your last chance qualifier win with a very nice deck.
>
Thanks Orian, I think you're too kind with me considering me a very good player. I consider myself average, but I try my best.
About the tension well, let's say it was something from the moment of the game, from my side I won't take it into account. I told you already that sometimes when you talk really fast in french (not only you) I get a bit lost.
I congratulate you for the finals with an atypical deck, in my opinion not easy to play, mostly because intercept and vote lock problems.
I follow regularly your blog and I have to say that I really enjoyed your review about Giovanni Puppeteer decks. It really gives many clues about Giovanni deckbuilding in general, not only Puppeteers.
See ya in other tournaments I hope.
V:tes players, both French and English versions of my report of the 2013 French championship are online:
French:
www.veknfrance.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17530
English:
ttcmaster.blogspot.fr/2013/09/fortunes-and-misfortunes.html
IC Organized play coordinator
Please contact me with any OP query using the mail in my profile