Attempt to Fix (not ban) Events

Events are global disruptors, and have rightly earned quite a bit of community hate. But they were designed from the beginning to be global disruptors, to shake up the full table state. The cleanest solution is to say this idea was entertaining in theory but ugly in practice and to ban the whole thing outright. This is not that topic. This topic is to explore a rule change -- not a new card, because that silver bullet tech has been out en masse and the issue is still with us -- to keep events while mitigating their swingy and hard-to-respond presence. Rule Change Idea A non-transient Event may be played, ignoring requirements, to destroy another non-transient Event in play. Both events are destroyed and move to the ash heap. And non-transient Events can only be played once per game. So it removes the problematic event, and since both were played, prevents using multiple copies of the same event as means to destroy other events. Extra copies stay as dead cards. Further it is just one slot that is more flexible than just a silver bullet. Even Becoming Ennoia becomes playable.. Well, no, but it is an easier to stomach flexible dilution of one's deck.

Is this the right thread to ask that we ban all events?

Meh. I personally find events entertaining, mostly because everyone else "hates" them. But if I had to choose between your proposal and banning, I'd rather ban them outright. Everyone will just have an event in their deck to remove other heinous events, but not to actually use it as written.

Yea, i fail to see how events are the biggest problem we have right now. Imbued with events is a problem, but only if the table wont cope immidiately with them. Veil, blood weakens, and torpid blood are hurdles, recalled to the founder is a big ouch for a small amount of decks, fall of the cam can CRIPPLE many decks, but we all know how hard it is to make that happen, then theres FBI special affairs thats ok for ally decks, but mostly imbued, wormwood also helps imbued more than anyone, dragonbound is the most balanced event i know of, since it helps combat decks, has huge impact, costs you a hand slot, and can backfire. Now, Anthelios i like, but it can be abused. Mpa rules chamges are needed anyway before event ones though. Nra pac is cool, unbroken. Rising is pretty cool way to not time the table oit. Nightmares upon nightmares is neat i run it in my ghoulet deck. Fueled by heartsblood is freakin sweet, since carlton still can kill you, eleimelech amd saulot and fakir can eat people with little worry Blood trade is basically to set up other events. Unmasking is GREAT for allies. I dislike imbued decks, but unmasking is great forcmakimg rock cats, war ghouls, garou, etc run good. Edge explosion should stay banned, buried in a desert somewhere in a hole next to ET Atari cartridges. Most other stuff doeant matter, the three anti events serve a purpose(4th cycle, breaking the code, uncoiling) Then theres the badass name, awesome art, useless as hell club occupied by Conquest of Humanity. But (sorry if i missed something hugely important, fall of sabbat doesnt matter and is a bitch to get to play) there is one very broken card that ruins my day and makes me wantcto throw my deck at anyone who plays it, mayne even beat them into a coma with my shoe. A card so rediculously overpowered, ive seen weak men imstitutionalized for reading it while not sitting down. And that card, which is so good it needs banned is....,.......................... .............. Becomming of Ennoia.

> Dorrinal wrote: > Is this the right thread to ask that we ban all events? > No.

The proposed change is WAY too easy way to remove an annoying Event. I see no reason to resort to that heavy Event termination. Events can be annoying as hell but certainly adding this change would kill several deck types which would be way more harmful for the game than the proposed change is beneficial. So in the words of Mr. Horse: "No Sir, I don't like it!" Finnish Politics!

From what I have seen, the problems usually arise not because a certain event is present, but due to multitude of them breaking the game completely for anyone other than someone who plays them with synergy. Perhaps the number of events should be limited? E.g. if more than three events of the same type are present, the meth(s) controlling the most events of that type are ousted. I.e. I do not want to see "requires at least 2 Gehena cards in play" to become unplayable, but I do want the meth playing such events to weigh the risk, and not just casually play a card disabling whole archetypes while it is in play. Removing No Secrets is far easier than dealing with Fall of Camarilla... Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

> Lönkka wrote: > The proposed change is WAY too easy way to remove an annoying Event. > > I see no reason to resort to that heavy Event termination. > > Events can be annoying as hell but certainly adding this change would kill several deck types which would be way more harmful for the game than the proposed change is beneficial. > > So in the words of Mr. Horse: > "No Sir, I don't like it!" > Way too easy like the already extant silver bullets? You still have to draw the card out of 70+ cards. You'd have to run an event to nuke another, and multiple copies add no value. And I am wholly OK with shake ups to the metagame. I don't find Anthelios and Unmasking decks to be in a crippled position from this. Are there other decks you'd care to name that this will cripple?

I think that this change would increase number of events played. If you need the unmasking, well then you need to play some really irritating events first to bite out those events that others have just to counter events. And what about when there ain't anyone in the table that would play events? Well then all those events that were in the decks to just counter others will get played. And if decks that used to play just unmasking and fbi start to add wormwood, veil of darkness, blood weakens and slow withering just to get others to destroy those with their events before they play unmasking, others need to pack more different events for countering. So in the end everyone will need to add event module to their decks. Marko, Prince of Helsinki

> a-e wrote: > I think that this change would increase number of events played. If you need the unmasking, well then you need to play some really irritating events first to bite out those events that others have just to counter events. And what about when there ain't anyone in the table that would play events? Well then all those events that were in the decks to just counter others will get played. > > And if decks that used to play just unmasking and fbi start to add wormwood, veil of darkness, blood weakens and slow withering just to get others to destroy those with their events before they play unmasking, others need to pack more different events for countering. So in the end everyone will need to add event module to their decks. > this is what I think too, it creates a cold war! either everyone packs events as silver bullets against other people's silver bullet events, or all VTES players have a friendly disarmament treaty to never use events in decks again. if the latter, you might as well skip ahead to the banning phase.

> Azel wrote: > EA non-transient Event may be played, ignoring requirements, to destroy another non-transient Event in play. Both events are destroyed and move to the ash heap. > This affects all non-transient events, when plenty of them are fine. Looking at, for example, the Inconnu and Government events, I don't think any of them are problematic - and several of them do see semi-regular play in the TWDA. For example: - NRA PAC is pretty solid for making equipment less annoying to use. - Narrow Minds sees pretty regular play without totally hosing bounce. - Dr. Marisa Fletcher is not especially more hateful than Millicent Smith. - FBI Special Affairs Division has a pretty consistent presence in decks packing multiple allies. - Bitter and Sweet Story is quietly awesome, and turns up a fair bit. And yet if you're incentivising players to pack a bunch of Events in order to nuke Anthelios and friends, they also have the tech to wipe out these events that aren't causing problems. So if the issue is largely confined to Gehenna events, perhaps the right thing to do is to create a few multi-functional cards that also harm Gehenna events in some way, but which are playable in their own right - by, perhaps, giving an ability to a clan/sect/whatever that doesn't already have access to it, or creating something brand new, or creating a subtle variation on an existing card that is similar but also hurts Gehenna events. Say: Watch the World Burn Political Action Requires a Cardinal, Regent or Seraph. Unique. Put this card in play. During each Methuselah's minion phase, the acting Methuselah must pay a pool before attempting any actions (including mandatory actions), or skip the rest of the phase. If that Methuselah controls a Gehenna event, they must burn one additional pool. Some burn clause. The idea is a mini-First Tradition type thing. Death Cult Bulletin Board Master: unique location. 2 pool. Tap to give +1 intercept to a vampire or mortal you control. If the acting minion's controller also controls a Gehenna event, your vampire or mortal gains an additional +1 intercept. Comparable to other intercept locations. Modelled on KRCG but slightly less versatile (not able to give it to any minion for your Unmasking ally spree, not able to give it to other Methuselahs), but with a bonus vs Gehenna. The Gathering Storm Action Modifier. Requires a titled, Independent vampire, greater than 4 capacity. 1 blood. This vampire gains 3 votes. If any other Methuselah controls a Gehenna event, this vampire gains an additional 2 votes. Only one Gathering Storm can be played per turn. Not super great for those Independent clans who have solid vote push anyway e.g. is Bewitching Oration at PRE just better for Setites? But is it potentially interesting for those who have some titles they can't currently make much use of?

Ummm, if you have an issue with events, what about The Uncoiling ? A one card module to deal with events.

Any Event deck would be stupid NOT to play Not To Be just because Uncoiling exists. To get around THAT you need a crosstable buddy to Wash/Sudden Not To Be. Or you have to be able remove it from the player's hand. Bit much hassle, ain't it? Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

I don't understand the topic. Usually, we try to fix a problem, not a type of cards. Or are you saying that events are a problem? Or some events among others? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Good question. Are Events the issue? Or is it the decks they enable/support (ie, non-discipline decks or MMA Decks)?

Hands down, the deck, like weenie dbr, imbued, etc are more the problem thanevery event. Why wont anyone agree we should ban becomming of Ennoia?

Predominantly the Gehenna events are the problem, so I can see adjusting the rule to non-transient Events nuking just Gehenna events in play. Actually makes Inconnu and Government events somewhat thematic, as their efforts sink into destroying the start of the end of the world.

Gehenna events stupid the game, never should have been printed, and should be banned. Why does there even need to be discussion? How many players would actually care if they were banned tomorrow?

We need Unmasking for the game imho. Ally decks are unplayable to me without it.

> Dorrinal wrote: > Gehenna events stupid the game, never should have been printed, and should be banned. Why does there even need to be discussion? How many players would actually care if they were banned tomorrow? > So that people that share your opinion can express themselves. I do think the opposite by the way. Gehenna are interesting cards. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Dorrinal wrote: > How many players would actually care if they were banned tomorrow? > Here is one, so I counter your vote... Finnish Politics!

And remember what a vote in Finnish Politics is.

> Dorrinal wrote: > Gehenna events stupid the game, > Please explain your position in detail, using examples to back-up your claim. > Dorrinal wrote: > never should have been printed, > Please explain your position in detail, using examples to back-up your claim. > Dorrinal wrote: > and should be banned. > Please explain your position in detail, using examples to back-up your claim. > Dorrinal wrote: > Why does there even need to be discussion? > The fact that not everyone believes as you do. > Dorrinal wrote: > How many players would actually care if they were banned tomorrow? > My guess? At least half of the player base. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

I don't see any reasons to fix/ ban events. They are making game richer and there are currently no decks based on events that are winning 80% (or similar portion) of tournaments. They were a problem some time ago with unfamous hunter decks but appropriate bans put those decks in line with other constructions.IMO there is no rational reason to change anything about events now.

Part of me feels bad because there's a lot of Gehenna ideas I was toying with, like Torpid Blood to slow down casual cross table rescue, or Thirst as a grind against weenies (but Scourge just nukes 'em, so...). Or things like Slow Withering for anarchs and 3-ways, or study table collapse in the face of Restricted Vitae + Blood Trade. Yet several powerful cards get all the "lovin'" with event spam following close behind. There's some ideas in the rest of the pool that I'd like to see before we scrap it because of difficulty of interaction. That's personally why this isn't another "let's ban it already" topic. Just about every deck will have Master and Minion cards, thus golden bullets like Sudden and DI will routinely have metagame value. Not everyone plays events (nor should they feel they have to, but...), however that raises its golden bullets -- Not to Be, Uncoiling -- opportunity cost. And if a golden bullet has trouble making the deck cut (even Suddens have trouble making the cut at times) any silver bullet card we dream up really isn't going to do much besides kill more trees, IME&O.

> I don't see any reasons to fix/ ban events. > Perhaps you are looking at a point which events do not break. From my point of view, events are good enough if used sparingly. If they go in multitudes just for having a Gehenna event in play or something, they have a ridiculously disrupting influence on the game. Combat is quite similar in terms of table effect. It just stops you from playing. However, you do not enter combat with all table at once and disable them in one turn and one card. Events do that (not all though). They are broken in terms of "fun", not power level. Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

> Zenedar wrote: > We need Unmasking for the game imho. Ally decks are unplayable to me without it. > Is that because you only want to build ally decks that block? You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but I'm on the other side of the fence. I believe that if a deck can use a card, then finds it almost MUST, that card is probably too good. When they're including 3-4 copies of a single unique card to access the effect, warning bells ring. When other players almost start actually playing tech designed remove said near-mandatory card (without any other benefit to them), then something really is wrong - it's too good. Unmasking fits in that category. It's so strong that people can (and often do) actually forego intended deck function in favor of what the Unmasking offers. War Ghouls and Garou are strong acting allies. Ever seen 3 of them sit untapped on sentinel duty with the Unmasking in play? Blocking really isn't supposed to be their things, I've seen world-class players force-fit the ally into a unfamiliar (but effective) role when the intercept effect is present. I get that the Gehenna is supposed to be disruptive, global, persistent and maybe even annoying. It's Gehenna, after all. But none of the other events spawned a whole series "suddenly viable" decks (that were viable, but less good, before).

> alek wrote: > I don't see any reasons to fix/ ban events. They are making game richer and there are currently no decks based on events that are winning 80% (or similar portion) of tournaments. > Perhaps there's a difference between "decks with events" and "event decks." Perhaps the TWDA isn't the only relevant metric. Perhaps I'm completely clueless. All are possible. Decks that play Unmasking/Anethelios for a tactical advantage are "decks with events" and they tend to reach finsls with regularity (depending on meta). Some folks' issues with these cards are that they are in the upper registers of power, yet very difficult to stop or remove. Decks that play Wormwood are "event decks" and they lose, often horribly, but in a painful process. These are usually the ones people hate - it's difficult to handle on a bookkeeping level and the events tend to restrict peoples' ability to play (and therefore, to have fun). I wonder if you see some of the first type, but none of the second, in your metagame. As to which ban "fixed" the Imbued.....you guessed it, the event.

Without Unmasking it's just too easy to steal your allies from you. Around here it's hard to play allies even with Unmasking as people really love to take them from you

> Zenedar wrote: > Without Unmasking it's just too easy to steal your allies from you. Around here it's hard to play allies even with Unmasking as people really love to take them from you > A fair point, and one that forced me to start lobotomizing War Ghouls in tournament use. I wonder if seeing that much more ally theft is egg, or chicken? More Unmasking = more allies = more stealing? In the days before Unmasking was printed, I saw a LOT fewer ally stealing cards used in decks. It could be that we were less refined players at that time, or it could be the 10th Anniversary Carlton also tends to be worth stealing (and show up at every table at least once). But your point is well taken - thanks for mentioning it.

> Zenedar wrote: > Without Unmasking it's just too easy to steal your allies from you. Around here it's hard to play allies even with Unmasking as people really love to take them from you > I totally agree. Playing allies is hard even with the Unmasking. I'm against banning The Unmasking simply since I can't see why we would like to reduce the number of viable decks. If anything, I would like more viable decks, and I don't think the solution to that is banning cards, its making new ones. Cards that makes previously less good decks viable is probably exactly what VTES needs to keep people interested in the game and attracting new players. And I know very few people (if anyone) who think ally decks are broken. Don't fix it if it ain't broken. Andreas Thomasson Prince of Linköping

what I mean is that you need to have really good reasons to ban cards and/or change rules and by it I mean REALLY good reasons. It was like this when they decided to ban Edge Explosion. What I see are decks with events that come into finals, sometimes winning tournaments but it is true for may other cards and they're for sure not dominating world metagame. In my book this means no reason for ban/fix. As for the restricting fun part, it's always matter of preferences. What is fun for one can be opposite what is fun for others (f.e. not being able to play my game vs. fighting against coming gehenna in hostile environment - it;s just point of view)

The "fun" part of the game is not something freely defined. We can have our own tastes, but the game essentially is about minion interactions. Let's not forget that. Events mostly limit those interactions (your cammies lose titles, you take damage, your vampires burn, your convictions burn, etc., all unblockable), however there are rare cases enriching the game enviroment, for example Unmasking (intercept=interactions), Anthelios (more options for MPA), etc. The problem is not in the design of the events, it is in synergy of imbued AND events, which kill the game entirely. Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

> Nightbringer wrote: > I'm against banning The Unmasking simply since I can't see why we would like to reduce the number of viable decks. If anything, I would like more viable decks, and I don't think the solution to that is banning cards, its making new ones. Cards that makes previously less good decks viable is probably exactly what VTES needs to keep people interested in the game and attracting new players. And I know very few people (if anyone) who think ally decks are broken. Don't fix it if it ain't broken. > Banning cards often makes more *viable* decks, not less. Well, I'd say that's more true for other CCGs where the main reason a card is banned is power concerns and not "this it too annoying for us to enjoy the game" concerns. Good cards squeeze out not only bad but less good. V:TES has a much larger cardpool for what's viable at the tournament level for a few reasons, with it being multiplayer being at the top. So, yes, banning the best cards from V:TES may not have the same impact that banning the best cards in another CCG would have, which would be opening up the metagame for more lesser tier strategies. I had plenty of fun playing allies before The Unmasking. I've tried building ally decks recently without The Unmasking and it never makes any sense. It's one card that won't go away while I'm in the game that gives a vast, open-ended advantage where V:TES is mostly a game of small effects. I have far, far less fun playing at tables when The Unmasking is in play. I almost never see Events removed because The Uncoiling kind of sucks at its job and people don't play the Event removers, anyway, because it's really not that fun to load up all of your decks with a bunch of silver bullets. Traveller Card Game

But I still can't see which decks become more viable by banning The Unmasking (or other events for that matter). If it doesn't make any sense to build an ally deck without The Unmasking as it is now, by banning The Unmasking it will not make any sense at all. Ally decks without The Unmasking does not become more viable by banning The Unmasking. I totaly agree that if a single card breaks the game and makes a lot of other decks unplayable or the game less fun to play, they should be banned, but I don't feel that way about the events currently in the game. Andreas Thomasson Prince of Linköping

> Nightbringer wrote: > But I still can't see which decks become more viable by banning The Unmasking (or other events for that matter). If it doesn't make any sense to build an ally deck without The Unmasking as it is now, by banning The Unmasking it will not make any sense at all. Ally decks without The Unmasking does not become more viable by banning The Unmasking. > > I totaly agree that if a single card breaks the game and makes a lot of other decks unplayable or the game less fun to play, they should be banned, but I don't feel that way about the events currently in the game. > Ally decks don't become more viable with The Unmasking gone. Decks that don't run allies do. There's a difference between value in absolute terms and in relative terms. Every card (that does something) increases value, but the "size of the pie" doesn't matter. What matters is how a card affects the "portion of the pie" that a deck can claim. The pie always, always gets bigger as cards are introduced. I just don't like the slice size that ally decks have. I got shutdown in the endgame of a recent tournament because I couldn't get past Underbridge Strays and The Unmasking with my casual stealth. I'm not saying that's evidence of a problem, but it points to how by making allies stronger, everything else gets weaker in relative terms. There is no "Put this card in play, only a few cards can remove this and only like one card can cancel this as played. Give all Anarchs [Primogen, 6-caps, vampires with fangs in the art, or whatever] +1 Intercept." card. Why allies get such a card escapes me, as it was entirely possible to play with the allies I commonly see today before The Unmasking came around. There were Shamblers, War Ghouls, Nephandi, even some folks played Bane Mummies back when there was such a things as Bane/Mummies before The Unmasking showed up, and there would be ally decks if The Unmasking was gone. To Darby's point, the more powerful something is, the more counters people play for it, so the commonality of ally steal (or nuke) correlates to how powerful allies are. Btw, that Primogen card should totally be made, only not +1 Intercept because (only somewhat on topic) +1 Intercept is the most game altering of the +1's that the game uses (+1 Stealth is situationally better but less game altering). The Masking Event All Primogen get +1 vote, +1 strength, +1 bleed, and +1 awesome. "I don't know. We still might suck." - Elisabetta Romano Traveller Card Game

LBanning is big. Some stuff isnt powerful enough to deserve it: Memories of mortality(pre-imbued) Lilliths Blessing (before it was notorious for mmpa girls. First twd i saw it in was potence kindred spirits) Madness of the Bard(not banned for power, banned for terrible levels of annoying, even moreso with a large playerbase who speak English as not a native tongue Then theres cards banned or changed because they enable(enabled) complete crazyness and or bullshit: Return to Innocence(bleed big. Too big...) Protect thine own(blow shit up. If we all played one clan, this wouldnt be banned ) Edge Explosion (I asked Scott what the deal was printing this. He kinda shrugged, with a half sigh, and went baxk to looking over a menue. A texas player told me it did get called out in his playtest notes. Its bad enough they get conviction at untap, entering play, and via cards, but double it, and say they all can ignore a "disciplime requirement" for 1 power?ouch) Fame(hahahaha, before RTA, im famous, I bleed for like 6, seduce blocker, force of will bleed for, hell, lets say 6, and boom, take another pool hit.) Misdirection(i cant explain it, just try it if you cant fifure out why its so good. In mtg, Solemn Similacrum looks like shit, until you realize hes king of chump blockers. Same level of thinking) Succubus club(roughly 94% of "good old days" talks have something to do with this cars. Interestingly, 97% of those storues probably involve alchohol ) Anyway, Uasking, and frankly all events arwnt that bad YET. Imbued break them some, but frankly MMPA shit is more broken, and we are 2-4 errattas away from fixing that. Or one erratta and a rules change for non trifle sources of additional MPAs. Darby, acting allies are solid, and i like war ghouls, garou, and the 2 good (at rushing ) banezmummeys, along with shamblers and dead hookers. But some allies become unplayable (Hellhound) and others way worse (member of entourage, stray) without unmasking. Not aaying the game needs it to survive, but ally decks are pretty damn limited to the only good ones without unmasking. (Yes, i know NOBODY plays hellhound, but you get the idea, some alliez suck too bad to even look at without unmasking) So, i still have never (EVER) gotten stopped by an unmasking-granted imtercept lockdown that wasnt 80 times less likely and easier to deal with than no secrets, weenie eyeball/animalism, or any wall deck worth playing. Now, arguably the card makezxall ally decks into somethng that CAN block, but no secrets without additional intercept is just as hard, if not harder, to deal with in the absense of stealth. I hate tablepoison imbued, but the problem is way deeper than the unmasking. And i hate mmpa girls alot more than any imbued. We still need to ban becoming of ennoia though. Its ruining the game for me........

> ICL wrote: > I got shutdown in the endgame of a recent tournament because I couldn't get past Underbridge Strays and The Unmasking with my casual stealth. > Let say it was not a Stray with Unmasking but Carna the Bitch (a primogen, yes) you would have been a lot more screwed and it does not require any action to put in play (unblockable !!!) and not even possible to "cancel as it is play" it AND it is a lot more difficult to destroy than a stray (or, arguably, even a war ghoul). And you know what, Carna can usually and easily block 3 different actions in the same turn and will have friends who can do the same. > ICL wrote: > Why allies get such a card escapes me, as it was entirely possible to play with the allies I commonly see today before The Unmasking came around. There were Shamblers, War Ghouls, Nephandi, even some folks played Bane Mummies back when there was such a things as Bane/Mummies before The Unmasking showed up, and there would be ally decks if The Unmasking was gone. > Again, let's replace Unmasking by Eye of Argus. Nowaday, you can't see an deck without a bunch of it and if I recall correctly, there allready was based deck before it and they didn't especially suck. Like The Unmasking, it is a (very) good card and yes, if the related tech is part of your strategy, you add it without too much considerations (and no, it is NOT automatic to add Unmasking in a deck with allies or Eye of Argus in a deck with e.g. if I play Carlton and Jake, I don't see the point in adding Unmasking).

> BenPeal wrote: > And remember what a vote in Finnish Politics is. > Awwwwww (BTW I think we need a smiley with a black eye...) Finnish Politics!

> Timo wrote: > Let say it was not a Stray with Unmasking but Carna the Bitch (a primogen, yes) you would have been a lot more screwed and it does not require any action to put in play (unblockable !!!) and not even possible to "cancel as it is play" it AND it is a lot more difficult to destroy than a stray (or, arguably, even a war ghoul). And you know what, Carna can usually and easily block 3 different actions in the same turn and will have friends who can do the same. > Carna is a single minion which can be Seduced. Strays can be blocked, but Nephandi frequently enter into play with Antonio d'Erlette. Turbo War Ghoul or Garou are very fast getting the first ally. It's much harder to get past 4x allies with +1 intercept (maybe with Carlton or intercept locations to support) than 1x Carna, who is frequently Pentexed, same as any Magaji who gets No Secrets. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Timo wrote: > > > ICL wrote: > > I got shutdown in the endgame of a recent tournament because I couldn't get past Underbridge Strays and The Unmasking with my casual stealth. > > > Let say it was not a Stray with Unmasking but Carna the Bitch (a primogen, yes) you would have been a lot more screwed and it does not require any action to put in play (unblockable !!!) and not even possible to "cancel as it is play" it AND it is a lot more difficult to destroy than a stray (or, arguably, even a war ghoul). And you know what, Carna can usually and easily block 3 different actions in the same turn and will have friends who can do the same. > > > ICL wrote: > > Why allies get such a card escapes me, as it was entirely possible to play with the allies I commonly see today before The Unmasking came around. There were Shamblers, War Ghouls, Nephandi, even some folks played Bane Mummies back when there was such a things as Bane/Mummies before The Unmasking showed up, and there would be ally decks if The Unmasking was gone. > > > Again, let's replace Unmasking by Eye of Argus. Nowaday, you can't see an deck without a bunch of it and if I recall correctly, there allready was based deck before it and they didn't especially suck. Like The Unmasking, it is a (very) good card and yes, if the related tech is part of your strategy, you add it without too much considerations (and no, it is NOT automatic to add Unmasking in a deck with allies or Eye of Argus in a deck with e.g. if I play Carlton and Jake, I don't see the point in adding Unmasking). > You are bringing up using transient effects. The Unmasking is a permanent. The other intercept permanents either go on a specific minion, which means they can be lost if the minion is dealt with, or they tap to use, e.g. intercept locations, which, again, affects one minion (at a time). The Unmasking affects every ally, all of the time. So, I don't find your comparison at all relevant. Traveller Card Game

> Jeff wrote: > Carna is a single minion which can be Seduced. Strays can be blocked, but Nephandi frequently enter into play with Antonio d'Erlette. Turbo War Ghoul or Garou are very fast getting the first ally. It's much harder to get past 4x allies with +1 intercept (maybe with Carlton or intercept locations to support) than 1x Carna, who is frequently Pentexed, same as any Magaji who gets No Secrets. > Yes Carna can be seduced, pentexed or elder imped but you come with lost in crowds and you can by-pass any number of nephandi. Carna with a bowl is a very different thing when it comes to that (and you know what, it is VERY easy for her to get it). Different decks, different solutions. In the end, nothing is perfect and every technique has it flaws. For example, if you dislike unmasking (or Carna for that matter), you play Beast or Enkidu and the nephandi, Carna (or in a lesser extent the war ghouls) would be screwed.

I see the logic ICL has, since NOBODY has a "we all get +1 intercept" card with no built in burn mechanism. That parts important. Week of nightmarez makes yoir deck fom swarm of meh or group of ok dudes into the table threat, but you also have a finite amount of turnz before your game emplodes. Revel gives gangrel more punch(still not great, poor gangrel...) but is burnable Freaking New Carthage is the closest to unmasking, and i think its roughly 12x scarier. It gives votes, bleed, and lessenz ventrue votes. Is kinda stupid. But, changing it or banning it (the unmasking, that is) doesnt seem proper. Maybe non-imbued should get the perk? Theme is, vamps arent as good at hiding from things wanting to see them, and imbued can see em fine, its just a queztion of ability to do anything about it. Imbued can find thier own damn intercept. If we ban unamsking, im in favor of events to grant werewolvez and zombies/wraiths/mummies(gehenna event called the great maelstorm?) Intercept. But unmasking is cleaner. And other events arent as cool.

I think we are getting lost in theoretical example-counter examples, "if this was played you could do that; but if that was played I could respond with this instead!" It reads like Yu-Gi-OH! fiction, and I'll just call it the Yu-Gi-OH! defense from here on out as it skips design discussion for getting lost in the weeds. There are plenty of examples of events having hugely disruptive permanent swing effects. If one was corrected, another would be pointed out. However the point is not about micro-adjusting those effects. In fact the genesis for events as a card type, gehenna events, has their very raison d'être in "hugely disruptive permanent swing effects." The issue is we have a card type that was designed with the above purpose in mind. And while their power ranges from wallpaper to questionably disruptive/broken, we are losing sight of the entertainment level. That's due to the lack of interactive responses to this card type. For a game of small effects, a whole card type dedicated to big swing effects makes a messy ripple but does not seem to add much beyond that. That is what I want to address. I feel that contesting a space is a better design solution. By having more players vying for that space helps mitigate it. And wherever enough people vie a space, it lowers opportunity cost to make counters an easier sell. So, how would I raise the interest in contesting that space, so as to bring down the price of including counters? Well, I could fashion another event focused set like Gehenna -- and great gnashing of VtES players' molars are heard around the world. It would involve card design needing a fine-toothed comb to bring out something viable and not over the power curve. Or I could abort it as an abomination, ban the entire card type and move on. Or I could leave things as they are, which still leaves the event card design space as a big booby trapped field for any future design team. Or I could kill two birds with one stone by letting events explode events. It serves several functions: no new card creation needed, raises each event's value to counter status, invites contesting of event space, and lowers average in-play time of events in general. And all while still being an uncommon 1-in-80+ card deck counter bullet. Clean, discreet, and reopened design space (discard phase cards). Of the above ideas it's the one that currently intrigues me the most.

> Azel wrote: > I think we are getting lost in theoretical example-counter examples... > > ...That's due to the lack of interactive responses to this card type. For a game of small effects, a whole card type dedicated to big swing effects makes a messy ripple but does not seem to add much beyond that. > > ...Or I could kill two birds with one stone by letting events explode events. > I think your original idea has merit: A rule based way to get rid of dramatically game-changing events could be very good for VtES. However, I think it's overly expansive. Paradoxically, it also encourages Methuselahs to play with *other* events to counteract the really bad (Gehenna) events. I'm not sure whether this is a positive consequence of the proposal. I would be in favor of a more focused rule change. For the most part, decks with events choose them for their specific purpose. There are only a few deck archetypes, like Imbued, which spam events to disrupt the entire game. Those are less problematic in my opinion because of their relative scarcity. So, a proposed change to your proposal: Once each discard phase, a Methuselah may use a discard phase action to discard an event from his or her hand to burn an event card of the same name which is in play. This means if you expect that The Unmasking is going to really wreck your casual stealth game, you can put a copy of it into your deck to burn one that makes it into play. If MMPA decks really crimp your style, use Anthelios to remove recursion tech option from them. If events are generally a problem in your metagame, then The Uncoiling is still your best bet. This narrow focus allows players to make strategic decisions about what they may see in a game, while keeping the opportunity cost relatively high so entire archetypes aren't wiped out with one broad stroke. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > > > Azel wrote: > > I think we are getting lost in theoretical example-counter examples... > > > > ...That's due to the lack of interactive responses to this card type. For a game of small effects, a whole card type dedicated to big swing effects makes a messy ripple but does not seem to add much beyond that. > > > > ...Or I could kill two birds with one stone by letting events explode events. > > > I think your original idea has merit: A rule based way to get rid of dramatically game-changing events could be very good for VtES. > > However, I think it's overly expansive. Paradoxically, it also encourages Methuselahs to play with *other* events to counteract the really bad (Gehenna) events. I'm not sure whether this is a positive consequence of the proposal. > > I would be in favor of a more focused rule change. For the most part, decks with events choose them for their specific purpose. There are only a few deck archetypes, like Imbued, which spam events to disrupt the entire game. Those are less problematic in my opinion because of their relative scarcity. > > So, a proposed change to your proposal: > > Once each discard phase, a Methuselah may use a discard phase action to discard an event from his or her hand to burn an event card of the same name which is in play. > > This means if you expect that The Unmasking is going to really wreck your casual stealth game, you can put a copy of it into your deck to burn one that makes it into play. If MMPA decks really crimp your style, use Anthelios to remove recursion tech option from them. If events are generally a problem in your metagame, then The Uncoiling is still your best bet. This narrow focus allows players to make strategic decisions about what they may see in a game, while keeping the opportunity cost relatively high so entire archetypes aren't wiped out with one broad stroke. > Good for stopping abuse and also a spite play, which is solid in vtes I dont feel we need "vessel events" (vessel event, type event inconnu, requires another event in play, when vessel event enters play, you may burn a gehenna event in play. Titled independent vampires get +1 stealth on nonbleed D actions directed at non-Laibn vampires and players who control any camarilla or sabbat vampires) But, our problem: Limiting the foudation of the game, interaction, by creating OVER-RELIANCE on cards that arent interactive. Unmasking, no interaction to play, keep there, but its purpose is to make allies block, which is interacting. So its not optimal or terrible. Mmpa issues are he biggest offender with the problem, and i still feel only one additional mpa should be obtainable from a non trifle source. Trifle once a turn, then mpa, and mpa from a vamp, parthenn, or vote in play. Thats it. So, trifles arent too hurt, vamps with extra mpa arent, but they arent as abusable as before. Also, anthelios removing cards from the game would be possible.

> Jeff wrote: > Once each discard phase, a Methuselah may use a discard phase action to discard an event from his or her hand to burn an event card of the same name which is in play. > OK, so you propose a RTR with a rule change which nobody will use 99% of the case ? Let's be honest : if I am afraid of Unmasking hitting the table, I will still pack Uncoiling because there will ALLWAYS be a case when I will have 3 vampires in torpor and a dragonbound in play, or a MMPA deck sitting next to me with an Anthelios in play or really any type of situation where a disruptive event will wreck my game. And come on, I thought the process was to lower the opportunity cost of counter to event, not the exact opposit...

> Jeff wrote: > Once each discard phase, a Methuselah may use a discard phase action to discard an event from his or her hand to burn an event card of the same name which is in play. > Isn't this just a 'silver bullet' to solve a problem, when we already effectively have a Silver Bullet for Events (as people have mentioned before... The Uncoiling.) This is terrible design philosophy. This is, to a certain extent, the same 'arms race' philosophy that says that every deck should have Pentex Subversion purely because someone ELSE might play Pentex Subversion on you. It's just not sensible. If we want a diversity of deck style and types that can win tournaments, then we need to encourage a diversity of cards to be used. It will probably mean that the Design Team will have to heavily favour minion interactivity over the various cards that have contributed to "The Master Phase Game" that people seem to be objecting to in the MMPA decks*. *MMPA decks are clearly an attempt to solve the problem of other people having 'better answers' for my minion interactions. Either they block better, stealth better or sent my minions to torpor... The end result in the same: deck designers have aimed for a more 'solitaire playstyle' because it provides consistency against the variability of minion interactions and other people's deck choices. MMPA (and Una decks) answer the variability between seating placement and pred/prey deck choices by attempting to render them irrelevant to the deck design of the MMPA deck. It drives down the variability of its performance by removing minion interactions where possible and thereby eliminating both the play decisions, deck building decisions and table-state of all other decks. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

Im not sure pentex deserves to be treated as an arms race type thing, as there are clear examples of such stuff: Your prey is dropping nocturns, so you and your war ghouls/garou need to find and play unmasking asap, otherwise, once you oust your prey, no more unmasking if they control it. Combat decks will sometimes play secure haven, as its the easiest (see:doesnt use up an action and cant get blocked) way to deal with a secure haven on a vamp that NEEDS TO GO. as for uncoiling, i feel i own enough uncoiling amd narrow minds to not need any more of them, and run both cardsrarely. Why? Who freaking cares. Most events dont bother most of my decks. If i run shooty agg and olay against war ghouls and imbued, oops, meta gamed. If i run my infinate earth meld and am downwind of stealthbleed or powerbleed, oops, the one thing i fant deal with well, other than grapples, im metagamed. Shit happens. Now, girls decks, ige built dexks just ti foil, but without mmpa crap, i just have a so-so deck. Ive thought about running giants blood in my malk94 to stop other decks from using it. Like, my predator gets convert turn one, my turn one is GB convert, just because. Does anyone remember that 5 month stretch when imbued were popular again in like 2009 ish, when everyone ran 4th cycle, or was looking to trade for one? That card sucks. Unless reliably each or at least every other table you see table poison imbued. We have anti event events, im cool with them, but people seem to think events are worse than mmpa, which i think makes them seem like they havent realized how much bigger a problem the latter is, but oh well i suppose.

@ReverendRevolver : I am no Native English and I can't understand what is your point here ?

> Timo wrote: > @ReverendRevolver : > > I am no Native English and I can't understand what is your point here ? > People are complaining about the wrong thing. Kutas post was a simple, but arguably too narrow approach, as uncoiling and BH ritual are already silver bullet answers to events. Events WERE a problem when Imbued were popular again in roughly 2009. But thats the last time all events were a problem, and even then, it was imbued+events, and everyones answer was 4 th cycle. Now, Unmasking is strong, but so far only it, Anthelios, and then "imbued table poison, being imbued+events in large numbers" have been mentioned as problematic. Mmpa/girls builds abuse anthelios, but its only part of the real problem with those decks. Now, how those decks work and should be tamed via erratta is in at least one or more threads other than this one. But, those decks are a much bigger issue than events as a whole. Now, imbued+events is viable for discussion, albeit not as pressing of a concern due to: Decrease is popularity, The global meta adapting to(learning to deal with) table poison imbued, as well as differentiating between normal evil to the tabke imbued and other builds, And lastly, there are other complaints about imbued, like not being able to rip thier heads off, or thier arms, with related cards. Other than joking about banning the undesputed KING of not useful events, Beccomming of Ennoia, most of my comments on this thread say: Events can be dealt with if they will be your undoing, so run ways to deal with them.(if the contesting thing was confusing, i was agreeing that Jeff Kutas way was another viable option for this if it were a rule, and ive said a "VESSEL EVENT" isnt an optimal way to address the issue, but is a way) Events is broad, just 3 ish are strong alone, and one of those is banned. Unmasking and Anthelios are the targets. Anthelios is just part of a bigger issue, the real problem, MMPA decks and how broken they are, and making anthelios say "masters cant be played" wouldnt even stop that issue. Unmasking enables alot, disables some (not getting into the broad argument over that, allies are strictly worse to build a deck around without unmasking) but overall, isnt a HUGE problem, like other things. No reason to ban it, really, or change it. Anthelios, is: A cool gimmick in older mmpa and imbuex decks, along with thin decks running limited master slots. A way to get "requires other gehenna" cards, like fueled by heartsblood in gimmick decks, to be playable. And one of about 8 broken parts of MMPA decks, namely "Girls will find(more gw than they should)" decks. The last of those is the only REAL problem i have with events being too strong, most other problems are them being useless, or close to it, like Conquest of Humanity. Since this problem i admit is a big deal isnt with all events, or even JUST with anthelios, i was hoping someone would convince me that i was wrong, or find a problem with events that i missed somehow.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Isn't this just a 'silver bullet' to solve a problem, when we already effectively have a Silver Bullet for Events (as people have mentioned before... The Uncoiling.) > > This is terrible design philosophy. > > This is, to a certain extent, the same 'arms race' philosophy that says that every deck should have Pentex Subversion purely because someone ELSE might play Pentex Subversion on you. It's just not sensible. If we want a diversity of deck style and types that can win tournaments, then we need to encourage a diversity of cards to be used... > Have you ever sat at a table where you played The Uncoiling and it *randomly* burned the wrong event, so your prey (who had the bad event(s) you wanted gone) gladly paid 1 or 2 pool to keep their "screw the entire table" events in play? I have. It happens. The Uncoiling, Black Hand Ritual, and Not To Be are *bad* anti-event cards. BHR requires an action and NTB needs to be in hand before the event is played. The Uncoiling is closest to being reasonable since it always burns something that is already in play. But it is random and some events are overly powerful. I'm almost to the point where I could support the "Ban all events" movement, but I'm not quite there yet. I like some of the minor enablers like The Bitter and Sweet Story, NRA PAC, and Urban Jungle, as well as hosers Narrow Minds and Scourge of the Enochians. But I'm glad you call my solution a silver bullet because that's exactly what it is supposed to be: precisely countering a problem card with itself. In fact, it's better than The Uncoiling because you can 100% anticipate that it will work when the "anti"-event card is in your hand. Maybe countering highly-powered cards with highly-powered and highly-targeted effects is just what the game could use. It's not card design at all. It's a rule change that could provide another non-card, non-ban solution to a pervasive and wide-spread problem. It lowers the opportunity cost because it provides *yet another* solution to the event problem, one that happens to not require developing a new card to implement. I can easily imagine decks playing with both the above-mentioned "good" events and "anti"-events because they don't have to use The Uncoiling as protection against "bad" events. Seems like a good thing to me, one that would encourage deck diversity, not inhibit it. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

I am finding the "never seen it really bother me" defense as de ja vu from all those discussions we had of the currently small banned list. We had similar anecdotal rallies for PTO, seat switchers (a.k.a. VP snipers), etc. VtES is renowned as a reactionary slow paced community to pick up on and successfully petition against problem cards in their environment. By not going into block rotations we end up with a massive card pool to deal with unexpected combos. None of those "meh, doesn't bother me, let's stay still" defenses really held water then, and I don't see them holding water now. Event card type is a glaringly obvious design problem amid a game with plenty of legacy issues. It's a card type designed to be outside the general power curve, both in swing and duration. Further, it is designed to be outside the traditional play structure of master and minion cards, and currently is such a small card pool number, that brakes and counters are woefully inadequate to bring their power potential to heel. As a legacy design space left rather anemic, without active contestation it will remain a problematic design space.

Events are global enchantments in a game without much already played ways to kill them. Im not now, probably never will be, convinced non-interactive cards are a great thing for the game. But, name a non-gehenna event that you feel breaks the game enough to justify banning. 4 th cycle was all the rage for a few months, people seriously played it. Ive just never felt a need to. Yes, we hate change as a playerbase. Yes, bad a few years ago, didnt hold water. Now, no real cards get made, so why bad ones that arent ruining the game globally? Someones answer last time banning was thrown all around was wed all be computer hacking with Apolonious if we banned everything strong, then the stuff taking its place, etc. Unrealistic, but still shows the point . Master phase action rules need changed, lets do that and while testing it, see if Jeffs amswer is ok or not. Whats it gonna hurt?

> Jeff wrote: > Have you ever sat at a table where you played The Uncoiling and it *randomly* burned the wrong event, so your prey (who had the bad event(s) you wanted gone) gladly paid 1 or 2 pool to keep their "screw the entire table" events in play? I have. It happens. > > The Uncoiling, Black Hand Ritual, and Not To Be are *bad* anti-event cards. BHR requires an action and NTB needs to be in hand before the event is played. The Uncoiling is closest to being reasonable since it always burns something that is already in play. But it is random and some events are overly powerful. > > I'm almost to the point where I could support the "Ban all events" movement, but I'm not quite there yet. I like some of the minor enablers like The Bitter and Sweet Story, NRA PAC, and Urban Jungle, as well as hosers Narrow Minds and Scourge of the Enochians. > > But I'm glad you call my solution a silver bullet because that's exactly what it is supposed to be: precisely countering a problem card with itself. In fact, it's better than The Uncoiling because you can 100% anticipate that it will work when the "anti"-event card is in your hand. Maybe countering highly-powered cards with highly-powered and highly-targeted effects is just what the game could use. > So you are in favour of a solution that limits interaction in a game which has, at its core, been about minion interaction and resource attrition? You are in favour of a non-interaction arms race? The suggestion you have made is effectively the 'current Pentex Solution'... hold a silver bullet or get screwed. The reduction in opportunity cost only places the risk into deck design, which is basically where the Pentex Arms Race is currently held. This is always the problem of Silver Bullet solutions... you are taking all of your risk with the Silver Bullet before you even sit down. > Jeff wrote: > It's not card design at all. It's a rule change that could provide another non-card, non-ban solution to a pervasive and wide-spread problem. It lowers the opportunity cost because it provides *yet another* solution to the event problem, one that happens to not require developing a new card to implement. > I didn't mention card design, I said DESIGN. The game is more than cards. Your rule promotes another form of non-interaction between minions. That would be a bad design for a game supposed to be focused on Minion Interactions... Inventive Card Design might come up with something that has general utility (without just being Computer Hack v2 in the same way many of your "Aye/Orun" set was just Camera Phone v2) and an ability to interfere with Events. > Jeff wrote: > I can easily imagine decks playing with both the above-mentioned "good" events and "anti"-events because they don't have to use The Uncoiling as protection against "bad" events. Seems like a good thing to me, one that would encourage deck diversity, not inhibit it. > Your list of 'good events' is arbitrary and seems to have no basis on something than opinion. Please explain why you chose THOSE cards and not others, such as The Unmasking, Breaking the Code, The Rising, Marisa Fletcher and so on. Banning is a Knee-Jerk reaction, and I'm sure there are a plethora of people who would want to add cards to the "Ban This" list... I myself would start with Imbued because they break the general game structure of depleting resources (their own resources are effectively bottomless and regenerating). But then, as said, banning cards all over the place just means other cards rise to prominence and you keep on banning cards until there are very few left in the game. I am aware I am making something of a slippery slope argument, but it also connected in with ICL's comments regarding relative power fluctuations earlier in this thread. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > So you are in favour of a solution that limits interaction in a game which has, at its core, been about minion interaction and resource attrition? > You are in favour of a non-interaction arms race? > Apparently you didn't read my post. I am proposing a rules-based solution to the VTES problem that is poor access to event removal, since many of them are over-powered, global events. I think it's a stretch to claim that events encourage minion interaction. What they really do is fundamentally change the rules of the game. > The suggestion you have made is effectively the 'current Pentex Solution'... hold a silver bullet or get screwed. The reduction in opportunity cost only places the risk into deck design, which is basically where the Pentex Arms Race is currently held. This is always the problem of Silver Bullet solutions... you are taking all of your risk with the Silver Bullet before you even sit down. > Actually, my suggestion gives everyone *another* silver bullet for the problem they expect to have, if they want it. Azel's original solution was even more far-reaching. A bit too far in my opinion, but nonetheless a great kernel of an idea. > I didn't mention card design, I said DESIGN. The game is more than cards. Your rule promotes another form of non-interaction between minions. That would be a bad design for a game supposed to be focused on Minion Interactions... > Actually, as you may know, events are put into play outside of normal minion interaction. As such, there should be ways outside of normal minion interaction to counter or burn them. The solutions that exist are too weak for the strength of existing event cards. > Inventive Card Design might come up with something that has general utility (without just being Computer Hack v2 in the same way many of your "Aye/Orun" set was just Camera Phone v2) and an ability to interfere with Events. > And just the way that Camera Phone was Laptop Computer v2, and Scouting Mission was Govern the Unaligned v2. Ere Ibeji was designed quite quite a few synergies in mind, not least of which were African cultural and spiritual references. Speaking of our PCK Laibon set, thanks for the opportunity to plug it again. Check out Champions of Cagn here: pckvtes.wordpress.com/set-pdfs/ > Your list of 'good events' is arbitrary and seems to have no basis on something than opinion. Please explain why... > Go read my post again. It is very clearly my opinion. Good vs bad. Some events are over powered, some are useless, some are in between. You know, like all cards? > Banning is a Knee-Jerk reaction... > Um, re-read my post again. In fact, re-read the whole thread again, starting with the title "Attempt to Fix (not ban) Events". My proposal follows of the original post and tries to modify the idea to something I find a bit more targeted. I think there is merit to the suggestion by others to "ban all events" because it is a clean solution to a large problem. And that suggestion is by no means a knee jerk reaction--we've had events for almost ten years now (May 17, 2004)--despite how much you may want to ascribe that motive or trait to me by implication. Keep trying, I know you will. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Ok, I know ....... I came up with this, unrelated to the topic idea like 2 years back: Attachment advancedappolonius.jpg not found Now, lets add "appolonious may burn any event controlled by another methuselah as a D action. If that action is successful, you gain 4 pool" after the words "advanced, independent" (I was going to make a new card, but its alot of work to do via cellphone) Also, Juggernaut, stop letting this happen: Jeff Kuta wrote [Quote/]Speaking of our PCK Laibon set, thanks for the opportunity to plug it again.[/quote]

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Inventive Card Design might come up with something that has general utility [] and an ability to interfere with Events. > There could be cheap minions which could have the ability to sacrifice themselves in order to burn events in play. This burn-ability should not be an action (The Unmasking would create a natural barrier here), but rather "instead of taking an action, burn this <minion> to burn an event in play". You could use the minion for actions and blocking, and if the need arises burn an event with it. pckvtes.wordpress.com

The whole discussion seems very rhetorical. I read "overpowerful cards" here and there, or "good events", but without a solid ground. Once again, what's the issue? and what are people here trying to fix? I suppose it's not the event mecanics itself (using a DPA to put a card in play, and the once-per-game aspect), so the topic isn't about "fixing events". Is there an issue with a specific card? Which one? In which situation? Trying to adress a vague issue with generic solutions seems a very bad idea. At least, it will never result in a consensus. I have a more important issue to fix: some decks have too many minions. Let's create a rule that limit the number of controlled minions to 5. Existing cards are bad, they require an action whereas influencing a vampire out can't be countered. Ancilla Empowerment? Requires an action and votes. Plus it may damage other players. Aranthebes? It's unique, costs pool and doesn't work against 5 cap vampire. * pun inside* Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Since having many minions (>5 in your suggestion) puts a big red cross the player, I'd not count poltical part of PA as a cost. This is how politics should have been played in the first place, from the general look of them. Coercing others to take mutually beneficial PAs. If damaging someone with 5+ minions is not mutually beneficial for the whole table, I do not know what is... The problem with weenies in most cases is that you die well before you draw your silver bullets. Perhaps errata-ing one of existing cards to have a limited help against weenies might be worthwhile. For example, adding "burn/send to torpor up to two vampires, controlled by your predator with capacity 2 or less". You take a card, which is exclusively used with (and limited to) archetypes most vulnerable to a horde of weenies, and give it a high-opportunity cost high-focus high-effectiveness effect. Or just a make a slightly weaker version of high-cap accelerator to compete for card slots with a similar opportunistic side-effect. Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

> kombainas wrote: > Since having many minions (>5 in your suggestion) puts a big red cross the player, I'd not count poltical part of PA as a cost. This is how politics should have been played in the first place, from the general look of them. Coercing others to take mutually beneficial PAs. If damaging someone with 5+ minions is not mutually beneficial for the whole table, I do not know what is... > > The problem with weenies in most cases is that you die well before you draw your silver bullets. Perhaps errata-ing one of existing cards to have a limited help against weenies might be worthwhile. For example, adding "burn/send to torpor up to two vampires, controlled by your predator with capacity 2 or less". You take a card, which is exclusively used with (and limited to) archetypes most vulnerable to a horde of weenies, and give it a high-opportunity cost high-focus high-effectiveness effect. Or just a make a slightly weaker version of high-cap accelerator to compete for card slots with a similar opportunistic side-effect. > Well, I indicated it was a pun, but at least it illustrates my point: taken generally, any aspect of the game is subject to discussion and various points of views. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Yes, but the argument that there are other problems more pressing does not mean other should be left alone. For the constructiveness, this topic is about the events . Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

For what it's worth, I think Events are (mostly) fine. I think if MMPAs were fixed (I'm not sure how; probably by putting a hard (and low) limit on how many MPAs you can have), Anthelios becomes okay, too. My playgroup doesn't have any Allies decks, or Imbued at all, so I've no experience there. For all I know, Unmasking ruins everything. Dunno, can't say. I think the idea(s) of "events remove events" will create a problem. Events would become a required card type, and that's ... not great. After all, if I have to include Anthelios to remove Anthelios, well, then that's incentive to use Anthelios, too. I don't think "printing" new cards is a great solution - but it's the one I like most. In fact, print two cards - a Minion card that lets you burn an Event as an action, and a Master card that lets you burn an Event (Arson and Unnatural Disaster, but for Events) and suddenly, they're throttled, without being choked out.

> ThatGuyThere wrote: > I don't think "printing" new cards is a great solution - but it's the one I like most. In fact, print two cards - a Minion card that lets you burn an Event as an action > There are already two I can think of, first one requiring a Black Hand, the second an anarch with dementation. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Once again, what's the issue? and what are people here trying to fix? > From the OP: > > Events are global disruptors, and have rightly earned quite a bit of community hate. But they were designed from the beginning to be global disruptors, to shake up the full table state. The cleanest solution is to say this idea was entertaining in theory but ugly in practice and to ban the whole thing outright. > > This is not that topic. > > This topic is to explore a rule change -- not a new card, because that silver bullet tech has been out en masse and the issue is still with us -- to keep events while mitigating their swingy and hard-to-respond presence. > Azel wants to fix the event mechanic, not one particular event. I agree with him that something should be done. The currently existing methods of removing events are way too weak compared to the strength of the event cards that exist. Either proposed rules change would provide players with more opportunities to counter events which they believe are too powerful overall, or at the very least too disruptive to their deck's ability to win a table. The beauty of a rules change is that it doesn't require creation of a new card to implement. Better still, the more powerful an event card is, the more incentive there is for players to use the new and better countermeasures available to them. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> There are already two I can think of, first one requiring a Black Hand, the second an anarch with dementation. > I'd argue that those are too niche.

> Amenophobis wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > Inventive Card Design might come up with something that has general utility [] and an ability to interfere with Events. > > > There could be cheap minions which could have the ability to sacrifice themselves in order to burn events in play. This burn-ability should not be an action (The Unmasking would create a natural barrier here), but rather "instead of taking an action, burn this <minion> to burn an event in play". > You could use the minion for actions and blocking, and if the need arises burn an event with it. > By making the burning of an event not an action, you reduce interaction between minions. It becomes a trivial matter of putting Wider View into almost every deck, one or two copies of Dave-the-Event-Killer and then shredding your crypt until he turns up. Spend a couple of pool (probably 2 or so since you mentioned cheap) and then it's done. Another Silver Bullet that does not increase minion interaction. Same proposal wearing new clothes. Emperor's New Clothes. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Jeff wrote: > Apparently you didn't read my post. I am proposing a rules-based solution to the VTES problem that is poor access to event removal, since many of them are over-powered, global events. I think it's a stretch to claim that events encourage minion interaction. What they really do is fundamentally change the rules of the game. > A Silver Bullet in the rules is still a Silver Bullet. Putting it in the rules doesn't change the Silver Bullet nature of the response, just where it is recorded. > Jeff wrote: > Actually, my suggestion gives everyone *another* silver bullet for the problem they expect to have, if they want it. Azel's original solution was even more far-reaching. A bit too far in my opinion, but nonetheless a great kernel of an idea. > See above. Silver Bullet is a Silver Bullet. > Jeff wrote: > Actually, as you may know, events are put into play outside of normal minion interaction. As such, there should be ways outside of normal minion interaction to counter or burn them. The solutions that exist are too weak for the strength of existing event cards. > So what you are saying is that we should push the game away from minion interactions even for cards that are put into play without minion interactions. We should ban Arson and Rampage then because they are minion interaction solutions to potentially non-minion-based problems. > Jeff wrote: > And just the way that Camera Phone was Laptop Computer v2, and Scouting Mission was Govern the Unaligned v2. Ere Ibeji was designed quite quite a few synergies in mind, not least of which were African cultural and spiritual references. > I can't really stop the poor decisions made in the past to duplicate cards with a blood-cost difference (GtU & Scouting Mission, Social Charm & Legal Manipulation, etc) or the subtle variations such as the 3 or so discipline-less Enter Combat cards. What I can say, is that they aren't particularly inspiring card design. There is a functional difference between Camera Phone and Laptop Computer, because the Laptop is a bonus on all bleed actions but Camera Phone provides the action; not a huge difference but not terrible. > Jeff wrote: > Go read my post again. It is very clearly my opinion. Good vs bad. Some events are over powered, some are useless, some are in between. You know, like all cards? > If they are opinion, what causes us to accept that list? Is there some kind of statistical analysis you have done on which Events are the most problematic? > Jeff wrote: > Um, re-read my post again. In fact, re-read the whole thread again, starting with the title "Attempt to Fix (not ban) Events". My proposal follows of the original post and tries to modify the idea to something I find a bit more targeted. > See the "Make a Silver Bullet" critiques above. > I think there is merit to the suggestion by others to "ban all events" because it is a clean solution to a large problem. And that suggestion is by no means a knee jerk reaction--we've had events for almost ten years now (May 17, 2004)--despite how much you may want to ascribe that motive or trait to me by implication. Keep trying, I know you will. > And I would have the almost entirely opposing position. There are so few events regularly played that banning all events is a stupidity. Of course it is a knee-jerk reaction... the logic you are advocating is "An event has once made my game difficult, we should ban all of them." That would be a knee-jerk reaction. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Jeff wrote: > Azel wants to fix the event mechanic, not one particular event. I agree with him that something should be done. The currently existing methods of removing events are way too weak compared to the strength of the event cards that exist. > The Event Mechanic is to put in a global once-per-game effect into play as a Discard Phase Action. Not a terrible option. Probably not much worse than Antidiluvian Awakening or Tensions in the Ranks. > Jeff wrote: > Either proposed rules change would provide players with more opportunities to counter events which they believe are too powerful overall, or at the very least too disruptive to their deck's ability to win a table. The beauty of a rules change is that it doesn't require creation of a new card to implement. Better still, the more powerful an event card is, the more incentive there is for players to use the new and better countermeasures available to them. > As mentioned a couple of times, your rules change promotes a Silver Bullet Arms Race. You are suggesting that any deck that doesn't want to see Anthelios in play puts Anthelios in the deck and then waits for the card to turn up. Ditto for things such as The Unmasking and so on. Minion Interactive solutions could be... Pushing out the Deadline Action As a action burn any Event in play or instead you may put this card in play and move any amount of blood from the acting minion to this card. You may use counters on this card instead of pool for bleed actions against you. You may only have one copy of this card in play. Burn it when it has 0 counters. Dave-the-Event-Killer Caitiff 3 cap [aus] Dave may take a +1 stealth action that costs 3 blood to burn an Event in play. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > Decks that play Wormwood are "event decks" and they lose, often horribly, but in a painful process. These are usually the ones people hate - it's difficult to handle on a bookkeeping level and the events tend to restrict peoples' ability to play (and therefore, to have fun). > Darby gets it. This is why he's a genius and I am a forum troll. Anyway I would gladly trade unmasking and anthelios (the "good" ones) if it meant all the fun-ruining events never saw play again.

Off-the-cuff terrible idea: what if an event can be cancelled as it is played if all the other methuselahs at the table agree to each pay 1 pool to cancel it? that way if someone tries to play an event that makes the entire table shit its pants, it can be quietly made to go away for a cost. I had a more detailed explanation but my post didn't take the first time and i can't be bothered to retype it right before bed.

> Dorrinal wrote: > Darby gets it. > Perhaps not. Last year, I put together a "Helsinki Syndrome" deck - Wormwood vampires to 3 cap with Carver's in play, then drop 4th Cycle and send everything to torpor with hostage counters Too bad I didn't read the sequencing on 4th Cycle well enough Not to mention that I got 4th Cycled by other players before I could drop my own in both rounds of the tournament. The block denial Wormwood + Project module worked well enough that I'm actually considering keeping that part to get people to exactly 6 cap with non-poison events. But experience (and this thread) suggest the Imbued-event stigma ensures the deck gets gang-raped.

> TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > > > Dorrinal wrote: > > Darby gets it. > > > Perhaps not. > > Last year, I put together a "Helsinki Syndrome" deck - Wormwood vampires to 3 cap with Carver's in play, then drop 4th Cycle and send everything to torpor with hostage counters > > Too bad I didn't read the sequencing on 4th Cycle well enough Not to mention that I got 4th Cycled by other players before I could drop my own in both rounds of the tournament. > > The block denial Wormwood + Project module worked well enough that I'm actually considering keeping that part to get people to exactly 6 cap with non-poison events. But experience (and this thread) suggest the Imbued-event stigma ensures the deck gets gang-raped. > Playimg wormwood before insisting that you ARENT table poison imbued is alot like govern bleeding with command of the beast and conditioning on a cogged Arika on your preys turn, then saying "i only bled for ten that you cant archon, but this isnt a table threat Arika deck...." I mean, im more likely to believe other probably-lies than one about imbued and events, just because they need dealt with in a timely fashion. The coolest event combo i can think of with (limited) use is running Rise of the Nephtablahblahblah in an anarch deck, and the uncoiling, and having convert become a liason before Rise burns.... so shovelface gets unretractable votes

> TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > Perhaps not. > > Last year, I put together a "Helsinki Syndrome" deck - Wormwood vampires to 3 cap with Carver's in play, then drop 4th Cycle and send everything to torpor with hostage counters > > Too bad I didn't read the sequencing on 4th Cycle well enough Not to mention that I got 4th Cycled by other players before I could drop my own in both rounds of the tournament. > > The block denial Wormwood + Project module worked well enough that I'm actually considering keeping that part to get people to exactly 6 cap with non-poison events. But experience (and this thread) suggest the Imbued-event stigma ensures the deck gets gang-raped. > I've been dabbling with ideas like... Wormwood to 3 then Chair of Hades the 'nasty' vampires and Wormwood everyone to 3 or less then temptation & Form of Corruption my way to victory... Neither works as awesomely as they sound... Oh and a Wormwood Module in a Spell Of Life-Inner Circles deck so that its easy for my 11-cap Mummies to beat the snot out of the Vampires... (Note: Not just Inner Circles, I do reserve a special place for Saulot and one or two others in there... along with Halim Bey just to make the mummies stealthed...) Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> self wrote: > Off-the-cuff terrible idea: > > what if an event can be cancelled as it is played if all the other methuselahs at the table agree to each pay 1 pool to cancel it? that way if someone tries to play an event that makes the entire table shit its pants, it can be quietly made to go away for a cost. > > I had a more detailed explanation but my post didn't take the first time and i can't be bothered to retype it right before bed. > Going this way have 2 effects : it have about the same effect than banning the "poison-events" which is not a good idea IMO. And for less problematic events, it will lead to 5+ minutes discution each time an event come into play and frankly, nobody wants that.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > Amenophobis wrote: > > > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > > Inventive Card Design might come up with something that has general utility [] and an ability to interfere with Events. > > > > > There could be cheap minions which could have the ability to sacrifice themselves in order to burn events in play. This burn-ability should not be an action (The Unmasking would create a natural barrier here), but rather "instead of taking an action, burn this <minion> to burn an event in play". > > You could use the minion for actions and blocking, and if the need arises burn an event with it. > > > By making the burning of an event not an action, you reduce interaction between minions. It becomes a trivial matter of putting Wider View into almost every deck, one or two copies of Dave-the-Event-Killer and then shredding your crypt until he turns up. Spend a couple of pool (probably 2 or so since you mentioned cheap) and then it's done. Another Silver Bullet that does not increase minion interaction. > > Same proposal wearing new clothes. Emperor's New Clothes. > First, the starting premise is that there are too few ways to remove events once they are in play, considered that they can have a rather huge impact on the table. If you compare to Master cards, their powerlevel is generally balanced by cost, uniqueness, drawbacks and/or built-in burn-ability. Events have none of these counterweigths. It's assumed that because a single event can only ever be played once in a game, it's more or less balanced. Some have the need to have other events in play. Not a big thing. Those that reduce handsize are seldom played apart from Dragonbound, which is a very strong event in the right deck. There should be more ways to remove events. This has been asked for by players, and I have tried to contribute solutions while part of the VEKN DT. Second, regarding your perceived silver bullet. A card that can be used to good effect and also removes events is not a silver bullet. You stated that a minion with a "remove event"-ability is a silver bullet. I beg to differ. What about this version, then: Druze Clan: Cap: Grp: 5 Sabbat. Black Hand: Druze may remove himself from the game to burn a Gehenna event as a +2 stealth -action. Druze takes 1 damage if any Gehenna events are in play at the end of your minion phase. Silver bullet? Surely not. Even if the removal was not an action, but just occurred like my other suggestion, it's still no silver bullet. There is still plenty of minion interaction in the game. If a card that is put into play without a iota of interaction gets burned without interaction, I call this plain and fair. But I agree, Druze above is maybe the more widely accepted way to do things. You will notice that he has 2 inherent stealth with his action. You guess it correctly, that is because of The Unmasking. An ability to remove an event as an action without inherent stealth is bad design - we have to take The Unmasking into account. Even 2 stealth might not be enought against dedicated ally decks. I strongly believe that in VTES, there should be non-master, non-event ways to remove events. If with or without minion-interaction is debatable, I could see arguments for both ways. pckvtes.wordpress.com

> Amenophobis wrote: > What about this version, then: > > Druze > Clan: > Cap: > Grp: 5 > > Sabbat. Black Hand: Druze may remove > himself from the game to burn a Gehenna > event as a +2 stealth -action. Druze takes > 1 damage if any Gehenna events are in play > at the end of your minion phase. > Good or not, this solution is irrelevant because it is something which is and will be forbidden to people playing according to the official rules.

> Timo wrote: > > > Amenophobis wrote: > > What about this version, then: > > > > Druze > > Clan: > > Cap: > > Grp: 5 > > > > Sabbat. Black Hand: Druze may remove > > himself from the game to burn a Gehenna > > event as a +2 stealth -action. Druze takes > > 1 damage if any Gehenna events are in play > > at the end of your minion phase. > > > Good or not, this solution is irrelevant because it is something which is and will be forbidden to people playing according to the official rules. > There are way more casual VTES players in the world than tournament players. But this is a bit beside the point. The above vampire was used as an example to emphasize my point. pckvtes.wordpress.com

Also, as was made clear, this dude and anything possibly percieved as a derivative thereof cannot be used to make a real card by the folks making real cards. That was very unambiguous. Lets just add that Convert can burn to burn an event.... you know, since: 1. Hes not expensive enough yet And 2. Hes not already burned for a useful effect. Lets just make him the swiss army knife of crypt cards. Like an Umezawas Jitte with fangs and a very high mortality rate. Oh, also Tupdog. Same text. And Ezmerelda. Edit: note casual players are more than capable of using house rules against events, or, and probably more fun for them, making thier own ideas and answers via Damnams awesome card maker. Its quite fun having yoir face on a card. Even if its not in the same capacity as Hugh, Robin, Goudie, Ben, Ian,SteveWeick, etc....

> Amenophobis wrote: > First, the starting premise is that there are too few ways to remove events once they are in play, considered that they can have a rather huge impact on the table. If you compare to Master cards, their power level is generally balanced by cost, uniqueness, drawbacks and/or built-in burn-ability. > Events have none of these counterweights. It's assumed that because a single event can only ever be played once in a game, it's more or less balanced. Some have the need to have other events in play. Not a big thing. Those that reduce hand size are seldom played apart from Dragonbound, which is a very strong event in the right deck. > > There should be more ways to remove events. This has been asked for by players, and I have tried to contribute solutions while part of the VEKN DT. > > ... > > I strongly believe that in VTES, there should be non-master, non-event ways to remove events. If with or without minion-interaction is debatable, I could see arguments for both ways. > To follow onto this point: The major issue with events is that they almost certainly cannot be stopped before they enter play. If you want to talk about silver bullets, then Not to Be is your card. It is useless unless an event is played while Not to Be is in your hand. It bears repeating for those who don't quite get it: Events are put into play without minion interaction. Therefore, there should be good ways to remove them outside of minion interaction. From Day One, VtES has had a major balancing factor against the power level of most cards: the unique trait. Contestation provides a way for players to counteract extremely powerful cards. Master cards enter play without minion interaction. That's why Sudden Reversal exists. Unique masters can be contested. From a role-playing perspective, Methuselahs are the game "masters" so they generally control how master cards enter and leave the game. It is quite fundamental. None of this is true for events. After having a recent discussion with Amenophobis, he suggested further modifying my proposal as so: Once each discard phase, a Methuselah may use a discard phase action to discard an event from his or her hand to burn an event card in play with the same trait as one which is in play. This is somewhat of a compromise rule change between Azel's original proposal and my modification. It provides more flexibility to get rid of pesky events while keeping most of the "harmless" ones protected. For example, Methuselah A is playing a Girls Will Find/Ashur Tablet deck with Anthelios, The Red Star. Methuselah B is playing a Antonio d'Erlette/Nephandus ally horde deck with The Unmasking. Both Methuselahs pack multiple instances of their Gehenna event of choice to mitigate randomness. If the rule above were implemented, the Girls player could use a DPA to discard an extra Anthelios from their hand to burn the Nephandus player's Unmasking, and the inverse would also be true. And there would be much rejoicing from the other three Methuselahs. Complain all you want about "minion interaction" but that's sidestepping the real issue: There aren't any truly good ways to counteract events. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

So I've been patiently watching this thread develop for 8 pages. Now it's time to chime in with some observations. It's impossible for me to buy into the underlying premise that events, as a class, are broken or in need of "fixing" or "silver bullets" beyond already-existing solutions. Proposing a bunch of ill-considered fixes to an entire class of cards without identifying specific issues is not helpful. In my mind, many of thing things people are complaining about seem to be brilliant design solutions that align with thematic intent. First, you have to remember that Events were introduced to integrate Gehenna into V:tES. Hindsight suggests Gehenna itself was a blunder, but V:tES players didn't have a lot of leverage in driving policy and most of us were giddy just to be back in print. But it's still worth considering that the design intent was to shake up the game, without making it unplayable. "They're not interactive!" Duh. Gehenna came to us, we didn't instigate it and we sure as hell shouldn't be able to stop it with a snap of the fingers. Personally, I think the creating the event class of cards was a stroke of design brilliance, given the intent of introducing something representing an external force. It doesn't collide with the survival tools often present in MPA space, so people can actually include it in decks. It doesn't consume minion actions and can't be blocked or DI'ed, so it will actually work as intended when included. It still consumes a player's in-turn resource (DPA), so there is an opportunity cost beyond card slots. Mechanically, aren't all of these good decisions given the stated intent? "They can't be easily removed!" Double Duh. You don't just laugh away the end of times over a cup of coffee. Further, I suggest that if 4 players at a table really need to fix a widespread event problem, it can be orchestrated by removing the offending Methesulah, or in the absolute worst case, creating an unfavorable VP cascade. "They're global, persistent and cramp my style" Gee whiz. I don't see Gehenna starting on Tuesday and being over at the end of the work week. Nor was it intended to make your life easier - you aren't supposed to loko forward to it like a schoolboy anticipating recess. "They're too powerful!" Now that's just silly. There are 37 legal events which create an game effect (other than removing other events). I challenge any you to build a deck that can robustly abuse ANY one of these 33 cards: Absimiliard's Army; Becoming of Ennoia; Bitter and Sweet Story, The; Blood Cult Awareness Network; Blood Trade; Blood Weakens; Break the Code; Conquest of Humanity; Dr. Marisa Fletcher, CDC; Dragonbound; FBI Special Affairs Division; Fall of the Camarilla; Fall of the Sabbat; Fueled by Heart's Blood; Hunger Moon; Inconnu Tutelage; NRA PAC; NSA Trio; Narrow Minds; New Inquisition, The; Nightmares upon Nightmares; Port Authority; Recalled to the Founder; Restricted Vitae; Rise of the Nephtali; Scourge of the Enochians; Slow Withering, The; Thirst; Torpid Blood; Urban Jungle; Waiting Game; White Nights Massacre; Wormwood. Sure, there are plenty of stupid pet tricks you can use to get a VP or two, or blow up a table if people get greedy and careless. There are several things in that list having synergy with a larger deck construct (Hunger Moon with blood deprivation). But is anyone really complaining about Absimiliard's + ally theft + Autaurkis or Absimiliard's + Ancilla Empowerment? Or ANYTHING with Blood Trade? Heck, even the card giving one of the most potentially powerful effects in the game (library search) is in the TWDA a grand total of.....wait for it.....4 times. I believe that the most-used used of those cards (Scourge) doesn't really make you win, it just makes someone else lose. That leaves 4 potentially abuseable events: - Anthelios, The Red Star (MMPA, especially with massive discard mechanics); - Rising, The (non-Master based pool gain, out-of-turn action); - Unmasking, The (allies); - Veil of Darkness (discipline-less bleed/combat). Of that subset, the Unmasking and the Rising arguably address specific problems with deck archetypes. Even the annoying Veil is most-often used either as bleed defense or anti-S:CE tech in rush decks. I haven't yet seen "the deck carries 4 copies and a Fortschritt" evidence that Veil and Rising are game breaking. "Events are a pain in the ass to bookkeep!" Yeah, there is truth here. I have enough trouble keeping track of mechanical bits like Fame/Anarch Revolt ticks, Perfectionist blood gain, empty minions must hunt first and whatever else. Overlay all that with getting a strategically correct order of actions in my turn. Chaos ensues. But it's a part of the game we already cooperatively deal with - the whole table has to join in to police the effects and deal with the mental fatigue that results. Inconvenience doesn't seem like a justifiable reason to nerf a large class of cards. SUMMARY: If you want to fix anything, fix demonstrated problems after you have clearly identified them. I suggest that Events, considered as a game mechanic, is not one of them.

> self wrote: > Off-the-cuff terrible idea: > > what if an event can be cancelled as it is played if all the other methuselahs at the table agree to each pay 1 pool to cancel it? that way if someone tries to play an event that makes the entire table shit its pants, it can be quietly made to go away for a cost. > > I had a more detailed explanation but my post didn't take the first time and i can't be bothered to retype it right before bed. > That's actually a pretty nice idea. Only change I would make is "table sacrifices enough pool equal to number of current players" so that no almost-unanimous vote is necessary. Someone plays Anthelios at a 5 person table, Meths may in turn order pay up to 5 pool to burn. Once 5 pool is reached, Anthelios burns. No silver bullet effect, still costly to wipe out. I might even like the idea that this is an ongoing burn clause, instead of just cancel while played. Thanks for contributing to the topic! Good answer, good answer... edit PS: I still see the Yu-Gi-OH defense and Bothers Me None defense trotted out again. The mechanics and design space are my concerns, your card power details and anecdotes are not.

> Azel wrote: > > > self wrote: > > Off-the-cuff terrible idea: > > > > what if an event can be cancelled as it is played if all the other methuselahs at the table agree to each pay 1 pool to cancel it? that way if someone tries to play an event that makes the entire table shit its pants, it can be quietly made to go away for a cost. > > > > I had a more detailed explanation but my post didn't take the first time and i can't be bothered to retype it right before bed. > > > That's actually a pretty nice idea. > That's actually pretty bad, making events a big lottery: successful (or not) if you draw it early (4 or 5 players left), but surely unsuccessful otherwise. Given a chance to deny you an advantage, most players will use it. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Amenophobis wrote: > Second, regarding your perceived silver bullet. A card that can be used to good effect and also removes events is not a silver bullet. You stated that a minion with a "remove event"-ability is a silver bullet. I beg to differ. > > What about this version, then: > > Druze > Clan: > Cap: > Grp: 5 > > Sabbat. Black Hand: Druze may remove > himself from the game to burn a Gehenna > event as a +2 stealth -action. Druze takes > 1 damage if any Gehenna events are in play > at the end of your minion phase. > I would love to debate the previous version of this card with you (since I do know it existed), but I am bound by the NDA I agreed to before the Danse Macabre set to reserve all opinions I have given in the past for the Playtesting environment until the 'sunset clause' kicks in. Based on the card idea here... #1 Why is a Tzimisce getting +2 stealth on removing an event? I would understand a Malkavian, Lasombra, Gangrel... something with a real STEALTH discipline getting that sort of massive head-start. #2 Yes, it is a silver bullet. Its primary reason for existing is to destroy events, and when that is done, it is RFG (no Hand of Conrad or Redeem the Lost Soul or other shennanigans to recycle him). This is exactly the kind of minion I described as a bad idea. Making it be an action option that requires all of the blood on the minion and doesn't come with much stealth at all seems far more likely to promote minion interaction. #3 Black Hand: Just in case you couldn't get rid of it with the built-in actions you'd like to hedge your bets and allow Black Hand Ritual to be an option as well? #4 Damage for Gehennas: Once he's in play you have at most 4 turns to remove ALL Gehenna or he will go to torpor. That's a penalty that means you basically will never use him in a deck where you do not intend him to be The Uncoiling as a Vampire. Conclusion: VERY Silver Bullet. Action targets Gehenna. Black Hand allows second bite of the cherry. Penalty rewards going after Gehenna events at every action available. Large stealth advantage to a clan and discipline spread that does not promote either. > Amenophobis wrote: > There is still plenty of minion interaction in the game. If a card that is put into play without a iota of interaction gets burned without interaction, I call this plain and fair. > Every card created that discourages less minion interaction creates more 5-player solitaire games. Anthelios encouraged the heavy master-style game because it allowed for recycling... the major reincarnation of the AAA-Master Deck is to put in Anthelios to remove the variability of card draw... if you have the Minion Tap/Villein and or Golconda in the ash heap, you just fish it out with the spare TGBs (as an example). One card pushed a whole metagame development which still resonates in the wider metagame. I'm not trying to say that VTES doesn't have minion interaction, but the more non-interactive paths you open up, the more likely people are to take a path which may provide safer smaller results. Its risk management (which I'd have guessed from Jeff's posts on the forum previously he would understand at least a little). People will evaluate the gain and associated risk of each path, if the low-risk path provides enough of a gain then it will probably be taken more often than a high-risk path with immense rewards. This is one of the things people are constantly looking at when they talk about streamlined and focussed decks... removing the variability and risks to ensure the gains designed into the deck. > Amenophobis wrote: > But I agree, Druze above is maybe the more widely accepted way to do things. > I would like to see your statistics, surveys and analysis on that claim. > > Amenophobis wrote: > You will notice that he has 2 inherent stealth with his action. You guess it correctly, that is because of The Unmasking. An ability to remove an event as an action without inherent stealth is bad design - we have to take The Unmasking into account. Even 2 stealth might not be enought against dedicated ally decks. > So you feel the need to directly metagame the metagame during card design?? Rather than providing players with cards that are interesting and let the metagame develop, you'd prefer to dictate the metagame to the player base? From reading that, it is a VERY arrogant impression you are giving off. > Amenophobis wrote: > I strongly believe that in VTES, there should be non-master, non-event ways to remove events. If with or without minion-interaction is debatable, I could see arguments for both ways. > There is one, as Darby has noted... Oust the player. Another is... win games despite the Gehenna cards. A third option is to try design interactive cards that give new tactics or new spins on old tactics. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Ankha wrote: > > > Azel wrote: > > > > > self wrote: > > > Off-the-cuff terrible idea: > > > > > > what if an event can be cancelled as it is played if all the other methuselahs at the table agree to each pay 1 pool to cancel it? that way if someone tries to play an event that makes the entire table shit its pants, it can be quietly made to go away for a cost. > > > > > > I had a more detailed explanation but my post didn't take the first time and i can't be bothered to retype it right before bed. > > > > > > > > That's actually a pretty nice idea. > > > That's actually pretty bad, making events a big lottery: successful (or not) if you draw it early (4 or 5 players left), but surely unsuccessful otherwise. Given a chance to deny you an advantage, most players will use it. > And that is without people trying to get a dog-poo-deal and polish into a diamond-deal so you'll agree to your predator burning 1 pool, you burning 3 and your cross table burning 1 pool... Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> self wrote: > Off-the-cuff terrible idea: > > what if an event can be cancelled as it is played if all the other methuselahs at the table agree to each pay 1 pool to cancel it? > I don't even want to start considering how many more Parity Shifts I would see with the ruling in place.

well, i did say it was a terrible idea.

> TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > Personally, I think the creating the event class of cards was a stroke of design brilliance, given the intent of introducing something representing an external force. It doesn't collide with the survival tools often present in MPA space, so people can actually include it in decks. > say what? it's never an external force. the only external forces in VTES show up during storyline events. building a deck around them is no more external than playing a govern or KRC. hey you suddenly lost 3 pool, sorry, i guess these things just happen! and creating the mechanic as a clone of masters isn't elegant design, just convenient. I'm pretty sure the intention was to create "big" master cards like Week of Nightmares, without being so vulnerable to sudden reversal. not getting in the way of existing masters was just a bonus. > "They can't be easily removed!" > > Double Duh. You don't just laugh away the end of times over a cup of coffee. Further, I suggest that if 4 players at a table really need to fix a widespread event problem, it can be orchestrated by removing the offending Methesulah, or in the absolute worst case, creating an unfavorable VP cascade. > they can't be easily removed, except when they are? kill the guy who unleashed Wormwood on the world, that'll solve everything. play the Uncoiling, that'll reverse The Unmasking and all memories will be wiped. if you want to defend VTES for thematic consistency, events are the worst offenders of all. a cardtype that encourages 4 players dogpiling on 1 is acceptable in VTES? weird, I thought that's what the game was trying to avoid. > "They're global, persistent and cramp my style" > > Gee whiz. I don't see Gehenna starting on Tuesday and being over at the end of the work week. Nor was it intended to make your life easier - you aren't supposed to loko forward to it like a schoolboy anticipating recess. > the point of Gehenna in the story was not to cramp every vampire's style and be annoying. it was to END VAMPIRES and sometimes also the world (also to end the game product line forever so it could be rebooted). unfortunately, the Gehenna cards don't do a very good job of speeding up the end of the table, they tend to prolong it by making everyone weaker. funny how the most used event cards DO make someone's life easier, at everyone else's expense. players do look forward to getting them in play because that's when they get their own personal recess. > "They're too powerful!" > > Now that's just silly. > > Sure, there are plenty of stupid pet tricks you can use to get a VP or two, or blow up a table if people get greedy and careless. There are several things in that list having synergy with a larger deck construct (Hunger Moon with blood deprivation). But is anyone really complaining about Absimiliard's + ally theft + Autaurkis or Absimiliard's + Ancilla Empowerment? Or ANYTHING with Blood Trade? Heck, even the card giving one of the most potentially powerful effects in the game (library search) is in the TWDA a grand total of.....wait for it.....4 times. > odd strawman choices. absimiliard tend to not be a game-winning strategy since it only lasts for 1 VP, so it's not worth jumping through all those hoops. Blood Trade is used to enable other Gehenna events, and is very good at that because there's no penalty. Inconnu Tutelage is one of the weakest library-search cards in the game for various reasons, I'm actually surprised its count is as high as 4. (TWDA statistics are flimsy evidence for discussing relative power level anyway) the existence of weak/unpopular events means nothing, even Dominate has some stinkers in its card pool. and it's not about the strong individual Events either. the "too powerful" argument here is that Events as a concept are too powerful compared to other concepts, because of the way they're integrated. they're global, they're persistent, they cost 0 pool, and they change the rules of the game. they're MASTER PHASE'S EVIL TWIN BROTHER, with red food coloring! they're immune to suddens, but since we get silver bullets of a different caliber it's supposed to be fair. It's much like the Imbued, there's some crappy Imbued cards nobody uses, and the standard set everybody uses. they're powerful not because they can bleed for 6 or call parity shifts, they're powerful because of the way they interact with many existing cards. cards that assume the game is about vampires and not allies. on top of that they get special protection from most existing ally weaknesses. it's yet another part of the meta guessing game you have to prepare for. it's interesting how the post-Gehenna events were much more reasonable in design and power level. they might as well be inoffensive master cards... which is kind of stupid, it makes it all inconsistent. are they supposed to be huge gamechangers or red-flavored masters? anyway, it's like a hostage situation, as the other events certainly don't deserve to be hosed just because Gehenna causes trouble. > "Events are a pain in the ass to bookkeep!" > > Yeah, there is truth here. I have enough trouble keeping track of mechanical bits like Fame/Anarch Revolt ticks, Perfectionist blood gain, empty minions must hunt first and whatever else. Overlay all that with getting a strategically correct order of actions in my turn. Chaos ensues. > > But it's a part of the game we already cooperatively deal with - the whole table has to join in to police the effects and deal with the mental fatigue that results. Inconvenience doesn't seem like a justifiable reason to nerf a large class of cards. > keeping track of blood gains/losses is one thing. many players unconsciously keep mental tallies of where the blood counters are on the table. if someone made an error with blood counters, it's trivial to correct in 90% of cases. this is a very different ballpark from those Gehenna cards that require memorizing someone's entire turn. is this the first discipline card played by that vampire this turn? did you remember not to replace? did you illegally hunt? which vampires didn't hunt this turn? did you commit diablerie before or after the last gehenna card was played? but this only applies to certain vampire ages! did you calculate your vampire's new capacity after wormwood? WELCOME TO VAMPIRE: THE ETERNAL SPREADSHEET, NO FUN ALLOWED. "inconvenience" might not be a valid reason to deal with these cards, but it certainly is a reason to not want to play VTES and go setup some other game instead. mass bookkeeping events may be grudgingly tolerated in tournaments, but it's almost always a faux pas in casual games. it certainly doesn't motivate me to improve my game, more like I'll just avoid that person. actually I take that back, inconvenience was half the reason Madness of the Bard was banned. If it were up to me, I'd just ban all Gehenna events and let the game sort itself out. a few cards and vampires will become unplayable, but whatever. maybe we can keep Dragonbound, the rest aren't too important.

Haze, Gehenna Events are 'an external force' in the sense that: 1) Other vampires aren't behind it. 2) It was meant to be the 'end of the Vampiric and Supernatural World' in VtM (which conveniently allowed designers to end one edition before starting another much like they do in D&D but with more theme than just... we want to sell you 45 more books for $50 each) 3) They are meant to screw the supernaturals and the vampires most in the RPG, so they did in the game. They do a rather good job of ending the vampires when there are other things in play other than vampires (Hence why I was trying to work Wormwood and Spell of Life together in a deck) Four players dogpiling on one is acceptable VTES strategy Haze. If you deck will take out the rest, then the solution to survival is to dogpile the one, and then fight it out amongst the rest. The choice of events isn't a strawman, it's to point out that of the 37 events people are claiming to want to ban... roughly 4 regularly see play. So to confirm your claim that ALL events should be banned, kindly prove how these events (i.e. Absimiliard's and the other 33 infrequently used Events) can be 'broken' in the game to result in the need for them to be banned. You need to wreck the game as badly as PTO or the Seat Switchers to get to that goal. Events are global, they are persistent. Only some are Gehenna cards. They last as long as the Methuselah does. Most of them hamstring the player playing them... the majority have DNR clauses such as "Until a vampire commits diablerie" or "Until a vampire successfully hunts". A large majority have a requirement for other Gehenna cards to be in play, most of the seriously style-cramping ones require two Gehenna cards to be in play. The irritating ones are usually one Gehenna card in play... the screw you all ones a 3 Gehenna requirement. Heck if you're trying to play a Wormwood Deck at full speed you will probably have a 3 card handsize without some kind of other tech to bump it up. Been there, done that, got the tshirt and the ousted-by-my-predator for it. I'd be suggesting that Madness of the Bard got banned because "rhyming" doesn't work in all languages easily, on top of its primary effect being to cause irritation. I know a game where Madness of the Bard would be IDEAL... It's often called Bartok or its nastier version called Chairman Mao. Happy to talk about both in another thread. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Haze, > Gehenna Events are 'an external force' in the sense that: > 1) Other vampires aren't behind it. > methuselahs are vampires. in VTES, methuselahs play the events and control them. there's nothing external about the way they're handled. do you consider Smiling Jack or Pentex Subversion to be some uncontrollable external force? > 2) It was meant to be the 'end of the Vampiric and Supernatural World' in VtM (which conveniently allowed designers to end one edition before starting another much like they do in D&D but with more theme than just... we want to sell you 45 more books for $50 each) > isn't that what i said? > 3) They are meant to screw the supernaturals and the vampires most in the RPG, so they did in the game. They do a rather good job of ending the vampires when there are other things in play other than vampires (Hence why I was trying to work Wormwood and Spell of Life together in a deck) > more like the game goes on forever because minions are constantly screwed and can't effectively go on the offensive (annoying event deck). either that or the events enable turtling and master recursion (top tier event decks) Dragonbound seems to be the only one designed for direct ousting power. Dragonbound's cool. > Four players dogpiling on one is acceptable VTES strategy Haze. If you deck will take out the rest, then the solution to survival is to dogpile the one, and then fight it out amongst the rest. > yes thank yuo I am new 2 game, plz explain why party shift is good? the entire game was designed to discourage 4v1s except in extreme dire circumstances. everyone talks big about table threats but in practice they are very fucking rare. Only once have I seen the 4v1 legitimately happen, everyone instantly agreed they were in trouble, and even still one player backstabbed the alliance to get his 1 VP. but when someone plays mass Gehenna events? every single time, I've seen it turn into the dogpile. that's how much impact those little cards have, they drive everyone crazy in a way that even tier-1 tablesweep decks rarely do. (coincidentally, the one time I saw the 4v1 happen, it was also a mass Gehenna event deck. but that wasn't the real reason everyone was scared) > The choice of events isn't a strawman, it's to point out that of the 37 events people are claiming to want to ban... roughly 4 regularly see play. So to confirm your claim that ALL events should be banned, kindly prove how these events (i.e. Absimiliard's and the other 33 infrequently used Events) can be 'broken' in the game to result in the need for them to be banned. You need to wreck the game as badly as PTO or the Seat Switchers to get to that goal. > do you know what a strawman is? maybe I missed the post where people complained about absimiliard's army appearing, ever. people aren't suggesting to hose events because 100% of events are broken, it's because they want a way to fix the problem events. because they can't fix them in-game because the entire concept is a broken non-interactive mechanic. but I don't really like the rules suggestions as they'd unfairly hose the balanced (non-Gehenna) events too. I don't want to ban all events, just the 23 Gehenna cards, minus Dragonbound. the game would lose nothing important if they disappeared, except for Dragonbound. burn them all. there's 4 individually powerful events that could go to trial for individual bans, all of which are Gehenna type. the other "problem card" is actually a string of Gehenna events that causes headaches for everyone because of the cumulative effects and rules-refereeing. it's not one card, it's a collective. the disruptive power of these events are amplified by the fact they are master phase's evil twin brother and can't be interacted with normally. you need specialized silver bullets wait I already explained all this in the previous post goddamnit Anthelios is definitely broken on its own, and I would argue the Gehenna string is game breaking in its own way. it breaks the fun with its constant rules-upkeep. not all of the banned list is RtoI powerful, in my opinion most of those cards belong there because they interfere too much with the dynamics of VTES. hell, I could argue that none of them are overly powerful, and that players should just learn to adapt against them. with silver bullets! use more deflection, delaying tactics, sudden reversal, and arson! there, now we can unban the entire current list, right? maybe it's a stretch to get all of them banned, but I figure it'd nicely clean up all the event problems with minimal collateral damage. it started as hyperbole but now I'm seriously thinking it'll work out. > Heck if you're trying to play a Wormwood Deck at full speed you will probably have a 3 card handsize without some kind of other tech to bump it up. Been there, done that, got the tshirt and the ousted-by-my-predator for it. > yeah boo hoo. lots of sympathy for Wormwood. everyone knows Gehenna string decks don't try to win, they just want to watch the world burn. > I'd be suggesting that Madness of the Bard got banned because "rhyming" doesn't work in all languages easily, on top of its primary effect being to cause irritation. > that's why I said half. it discourages and disrupts communication. even if you could make a consistent judgment on rhyming, I'm pretty sure it would still be banned.

> Haze wrote: > everyone knows Gehenna string decks don't try to win, they just want to watch the world burn. > You must be playing with unimaginative players that don't try to win with Event decks. Controlling your rage over arbitrary game components and focusing on ousting your prey usually helps. 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

We had a final like that in LA, Kevin. Your Afifa deck should be burned to the ground. It caused so much trouble for the players that we let a Meddling of Semsith deck win.

(Many of the points you make are pretty sensible, I'm only picking up on ones where I have something to say that isn't "Yeah, cool.") > TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > "They're not interactive!" > > Duh. Gehenna came to us, we didn't instigate it and we sure as hell shouldn't be able to stop it with a snap of the fingers. > In Dog Poo: The Eternal Struggle, many players want a good, interesting game with subtleties and power struggles and multiple viable avenues to victory, and they care absolutely zip for "Well, of course it's sensible that My New Card ousts you immediately, it summons Caine for 1 pool, and he eats your face, and that's totally allowed because I've read the third supplement to the Book of Nod where it totally says this thing." > TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > Personally, I think the creating the event class of cards was a stroke of design brilliance, given the intent of introducing something representing an external force. It doesn't collide with the survival tools often present in MPA space, so people can actually include it in decks. It doesn't consume minion actions and can't be blocked or DI'ed, so it will actually work as intended when included. It still consumes a player's in-turn resource (DPA), so there is an opportunity cost beyond card slots. > Mechanically, aren't all of these good decisions given the stated intent? > You're conflating an awful lot of things here under the heading of "interactivity", to do with WoD theme, design goals, precise implementation, player in-game resources etc. It would be possible to have created events such that they were more interactive, while still allowing them to explore a different or disparate design space. The current implementation is clearly not the only possible implementation. For example: (Obviously, for everything that follows, you might well have changed current cards to be more or less powerful, or work differently.) - it would be possible to have Events go off in the Discard phase as normal, but declare them to be to a special type of master card that can only be played in the Discard Phase. Effective net change: Wash, Sudden Reversal etc. can affect them. More interactive, but still not competing with your own MPA space, not consuming minion actions, can't be blocked etc. And Pentex Subversion works as intended when included most of the time, so it's not hard to envisage that Fiery Mouth of Hell Opens Up will work just fine most of the time. And if that weakens them too much (which it might), maybe there's a rule that says "Cancelling events cost 3 extra pool." (Where 3 could be any number. Just something big.) I'm pretty certain that a few players would happily use Sudden and 3 pool to stamp on Anthelios. It also opens up a fun line in decoy masters. If you Sudden my Pentex, will I be able to sneak my Lilith's Baby Shower through unchallenged? Alternatively, you might tweak the rule about playing events once a game - Events can only be played once a game, but cancellation of the event as played does not exhaust this limit. That sort of thing. - In quite a few instances, protagonists do and/or can know about significant events and delay them, postpone them, push them away. Where events represent - say - the rise of antediluvians (and earlier), is it so impossible to believe that they may be acting through vassals to re-awaken themselves? That doesn't have to be represented by actions (necessarily), but it's possible that a Methuselah might be able to intervene somehow. You say "We didn't instigate it", but in V:TES it is precisely us who instigate it, every time we put a Gehenna card in our decks. - Interactivity doesn't have to mean 'use an action to put this in play'. Certainly, that's one good way of making a card interactive, but it's far from the only way. There are a variety of really nasty cards in the game that are tempered by burn clauses. For example, Smiling Jack is vicious and can form the cornerstone of some really unpleasant wall-ish decks, but there is an innate way of burning it. Ditto Madness Network, with its potential for horrible abuses. And quite a few others - Antediluvian Awakening, say. And burn clauses don't have to be as straightforward as "Take an action" - they can take time and resources (cards, actions, pool, blood, turns). And it would be possible to make a burn clause reasonably onerous, such that only the most motivated of Methuselah would seriously consider it, more a considered "Aargh, that deck is going to get me off the table so I'm going to do <tricky detrimental thing> to survive it" in a way that isn't "You smell, so I take the action to burn your The Crone Returns, because I'm going to be ousted anyway." (For example, requiring several steps, with the actual anti-event effect only going off at the final trigger.) - Cards don't have to take effect the instant they're played. One problem with a number of event cards is that they just come from nowhere while being extremely broad and/or deep in their effects. Perhaps you design the mechanic exactly as it is now, but events take effect the following turn (by, say, coming into play tapped, or something like that). Or perhaps you add that to some events. So maybe, from a strategy angle, you have some impetus to force through several actions this turn, because you don't want to face The Unmasking. Maybe you call that Public Villification now, because Fall of the Sabbat has just been played. - Cards can have downsides. Maybe you decide that you don't want players to have warning because of theme. But if other Methuselahs get screwed by an earth-shattering event that comes from nowhere, why do I - as the playing Methuselah - get off with close to zero ill effects? (Because I know that Irad Returns is in my deck, so I build around it to minimize the effects.) If I can, apparently, predict and control this happening, so can other Methuselahs, no? But as the source of the really bad thing happening, perhaps there should be some consequences for me. Perhaps I have to burn pool every turn. Perhaps other players can get a bleed bonus vs me. Perhaps damage votes do more damage to me. Perhaps people can rush me. Perhaps some of those might be once per turn, perhaps they might be once per action, perhaps the action has a cost in life or pool or blood or anything else. The exact implementation would obviously be up for grabs - it could be card text, it could be rules text, maybe a little of both - but most of the responsibility should probably rest with other players. Making 'Vanguard' style cards where I cause havoc on the table but my minions can't play Strike: Combat Ends isn't great for a game as diverse as V:TES, because I design around that. (We already see that sort of 'ignore the problem' deck design with, say, Talbot's Chainsaw.) My predator being able to get additional bleed against me is something that's more tricky for me to deal with. Nothing about any of the above should be taken as saying "Well, this would just have made Events totally unplayable." It would be more about striking a different balance, whereby a card could still be vicious, in an altered framework. (And if you've made events totally unusable, that framework is wrong.) Indeed, it might be possible for some cards to be more vicious than they are currently, because you can reasonably say that the opponents have a variety of ways they can deal with it (which aren't just "Well, play a Black Hand deck if you hate it so much"). > TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > Double Duh. You don't just laugh away the end of times over a cup of coffee. Further, I suggest that if 4 players at a table really need to fix a widespread event problem, it can be orchestrated by removing the offending Methesulah, or in the absolute worst case, creating an unfavorable VP cascade. > This exacerbates a problem that Garfield has talked about as being significant downer in game design. He added the deliberately artificial predator-prey, VP dynamic - rather than, say, the more obvious "last man standing" alternative - to reduce but not eliminate the situations where some multiplayer board games turn into a heated argument of "I'm not the threat, he's the threat!" "No, shut up, she's the threat, she's just trying to manipulate you." "No, God, look, he's got three pieces there and..." (Talk to anyone who's played - for example - Diplomacy a lot and you will quickly run into that sort of tale.) The fact that each player has distinct goals was supposed to grease that wheel slightly. Yes, there are benefits to me ousting that deck cross-table. Yes, there are times I want to rush my grand-predator. But giving another player a VP is intended to be a strong disincentive to arbitrary "Let's all pile on this player and oust them." That player's grand-predator is almost always going to be thinking "Oh god, I really don't want my prey to have 6 more pool, and he's expended almost zero resources in the process, because all four of us have just cross-table ousted JesseMae when she played Countdown to Oblivion on turn three." If whole-table alliances are the right way to deal with the deck, there's probably something wrong going on, absent a special set of circumstances like the Nergal storyline. For example, watching the table crumble to a well-played, pre-errata Anarch Revolt deck (replete with all sorts of hideous, hideous vote defence) was soul-destroying.