The Monocle ban

Since Deja/Google is back up, but the thread hasn't been revisited, I thought I'd post (one of?) the reasons that Monocle was banned. Maybe this should be archived on Jeff's site or something. Anyway, this is a pretty good one...perhaps LSJ can explain what the house rules on Monocle were. Enjoy. Xian ------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Kwan (kw...@cs.cornell.edu) Subject: The Indecent Proposition Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Date: 1995/04/26 The Indecent Proposition A lesson in Superior Logic by Alan Kwan --------------------------- Conjecture: Asking a question on (P=Q) while controlling the result of P allows one to enforce Q. Situation: High-stacks tournament, final round. LSJ House Rules on Monocle are in effect. Turn 2, Logician gets out Normal and Dollface. Equip with Monocle on Dollface successful on turn 3. Turn 4, Logician's Untap. Question to prey: "Taking the Indecent Proposition to be the proposition that, from now on, you will not declare any blocking attempt nor play any Reaction Card during ALL of my actions, AND you will not perform any non-mandatory action for the remainder of the game; will the truth value of the Indecent Proposition be equal to the truth value of the proposition that the next action I declare an attempt will be attempted by Dollface?" Ruling Team Decision: Somehow, poor prey ends up being unable to block nor play Reaction Cards during Logician's actions, nor can the poor prey perform any actions (except forced hunting) for the remainder of the game. Turn 5, Logician's predator suffers the same fate ... Logician easily ousts everybody around the table, as all players just sit there, their hands put face-down on the table, sitting ducks unable to block, play reaction cards or perform any actions ... --------------------------- Conclusion: if the Meth. whose minion controls the Monocle has Superior Logic, all his actions become unblockable and no one else may perform any actions (after a few turns). -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 17:43:28 -0500, "Xian" <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Since it's so small (a monacle!) you should only be able to ask (Y/N) if a person has a certain card in their hand. But that just would have been THE EASY FIX.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 17:43:28 -0500, Xian wrote: >A lesson in Superior Logic Someone trying this nonsense on me would get a lesson in superior logic, all right. The statement fails on several grounds, not least that it contains a typo which makes it gibberish. The computer game contains the Monocle though I never figured out what it did there. Its description is "This device, created by the Tremere for unmasking Nosferatu spies, appears a heavy glass monocle framed in gold and silver filigree." I suppose that it's a counter to the obfuscate discipline. The game could use such a thing as a balance to the over-mighty stealth-and-bleed strategy, e.g. Monocle of True Clarity Equipment Cost: 1 pool "When blocking, the minion with this equipment may ignore all stealth granted by <obfuscate> action modifiers." Andrew

Jack Crow wrote: [76 lines of unused quotes and .sigs deleted - please quote responsibly] > > Since it's so small (a monacle!) you should only be able to ask (Y/N) > if a person has a certain card in their hand. But that just would have > been THE EASY FIX. That fix is roughly equivalent to banning. That is, the card is reduced to such low utility that virtually no one would play competitively with it. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

>"Taking the Indecent Proposition to be the proposition that, >from now on, you will not declare any blocking attempt nor play >any Reaction Card during ALL of my actions, AND you will not perform >any non-mandatory action for the remainder of the game; will the truth >value of the Indecent Proposition be equal to the truth value of >the proposition that the next action I declare an attempt will >be attempted by Dollface?" Pretty nasty. One minor loophole that I think will work the first time around is to continue to perform minion actions. You can argue that *you* (as a Methusaleh) does not and cannot perform actions. (Either your minions perform actions, or you declare them). But then he/she just rephrases the question for next turn. Alternatively, if you're in a real nit-picky mood you can try using alternative definitions for some of the key words (such as "declare" or "perform). Thus you maintain the letter (though not the intent) of the original question. Or...since the question is so convoluted itself, you could very well simply ask him to repeat the question. And keep insisting you don't understand what he's asking, or the full ramifications of what he's asking... In addition, why are we sticking to only two conditions? Why not throw a few more "AND" statements while we're at it? ;) Furthermore, won't this mess up the languages problems even more? Even if The Monocle's questioning ability couldn't be abused so horribly, couldn't it still be banned on similar grounds to Madness of the Bard? Halcyan 2

In message <1BC9C28DD762B08F.8C551962...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >Monocle of True Clarity >Equipment >Cost: 1 pool >"When blocking, the minion with this equipment may ignore all stealth >granted by <obfuscate> action modifiers." Where one card effectively nullifies all other cards of a class worthless, there is an argument to be made for it being over-powered, unless it has a significant cost. An example of a successful argument of this nature would be Thoughts Betrayed. Obviously, such an argument might - in the end - fail. However, consider an intercept combat deck which used this. Effectively, you can't get more than 3 or 4 stealth on most actions, and most likely less than that unless you are playing *heavy* stealth (which is difficult outside of Obfuscate, though Obtenebration/Lasombra and Protean/Gangrel can have a go). The intercept deck no longer has to waste any intercept on an Obfuscate based deck, and can save it as necessary for other decks. (Put good cards under a Storage Annex for cycling etc.) This basically gives them "free block" against an Obfuscate oriented deck. The current environment does not show, in my experience, a deluge of Obfuscate based stealth decks walking over every tournament, and so such a re-write would unbalance the situation. At 1 pool, it's a bargain, when compared to London Evening Star or Sport Bike. When you're written it as non-unique. Oh, the horror, the horror.... *enter triffids stage left* -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F HEY, MOM! I FOUND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET B457CA213D7E6 YOU WERE TELLING ME TO NOT TALK TO! 68C3695D623D5D

"Xian" <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote in message: > "Taking the Indecent Proposition to be the proposition that, > from now on, you will not declare any blocking attempt nor play > any Reaction Card during ALL of my actions, AND you will not perform > any non-mandatory action for the remainder of the game; will the truth > value of the Indecent Proposition be equal to the truth value of > the proposition that the next action I declare an attempt will > be attempted by Dollface?" IP=no blocks, no reactions, no non-mandatory reactions DA=next action is attempted by Dollface The question, if answered "yes," means: DA=true :. IP=true and if answered, "no," means: DA=false :. IP=true Nasty little logic trap. Andrew, if you can beat it, I'd be interested in knowing how. But this brings up the propsition that the Monocle only be used regarding the current state of affairs, not future intentions or events. While LSJ may feel that the Monocle would be rendered useless if the only thing you could ask about was what was in someone's hand, my feelings are quite contrary. If I'm playing a bleed deck, I would find it quite useful to ask, "Do you have a card in your hand that can be used by your minions to deflect a bleed?" Regards, Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit

Don't ask me why this turned into an intercept diatribe/rant/mumble. My hand slipped or something, OK? :) On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:44:36 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <1BC9C28DD762B08F.8C551962...@lp.airnew >s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >>Monocle of True Clarity >>Equipment >>Cost: 1 pool >>"When blocking, the minion with this equipment may ignore all stealth >>granted by <obfuscate> action modifiers." > >However, consider an intercept combat deck which used this. Hush. I like intercept. ;) >Effectively, you can't get more than 3 or 4 stealth on most actions, and (not a disagreement, just a parallel point) Realistically, you only need to generate a consistent +3 intercept to shut down stealth decks. And as long as you also have some transients floating around to move yourself up to +4/+5 in emergencies, you should definitely be OK. Protean will consistently take +1 stealth actions with +2 from Earth Control and +1 extra from Form of Mist. It's still worth your time to block those, make them spend the cards, and "fail" to catch the Form of Mist despite having a transient in hand; so what if they get a Laptop at 4 stealth? They won't ever get the bleed through. Save your panic transients for something that REQUIRES a panic, such as that same person with the Laptop bleeding for 4 with Force of Will. (and then you'll be glad that you've burned all their Earth Control out of their hand early on.) Obfuscate has the single most powerful 'sneak' card in the game, Forgotten Labyrinth. Fortunately, it's only usable on non-bleeding actions, which means your worst-case scenario is a Nossie vote deck chucking these around. Superior gives +4 stealth on votes, and most vote decks won't bother including more than a few Cloaks as backup, with good reason. Again, your best option is to keep attempting blocks, and burn transients as you can; a deck with inherent stealth on its actions will include far less transient stealth than it could, and you can often run them out of Forgotten Labyrinths, leaving them in a real bind. OBF bleed decks will cycle some combination of Lost in Crowds, Cloak, and Faceless Night at you. That never comes out to more than +4, and they have to really work at it to get that high. Again, save your transients for when you need it, and watch out for carelessly chasing Faceless Night with your untapped guys. As tempting as it may be to block inferior Night Moves, do not waste your time unless you have the cards to kill in hand. You will do better by letting them move through their deck, and then catching them only on the non-NM bleed actions. Elder Impersonation and Call of the Grateful Dead -do- suck to have to defend against, but you -can- be ready after you see the first one hit the table; it's just a lot trickier. Obtenebration has Shadow Play and Shroud of Night as its "stock" stealth, but even in a vote deck, these will rarely generate much more than a total of +3 stealth on any action. Again, save your transients and catch what you need to. (disclaimer: the above assumes that you are playing an intercept deck. The construction of an intercept deck that can generate +3 intercept consistently AND kill things, while still being able to oust its prey, is left for the reader. It's not impossible... but it's not easy, either, which is why I point out elsewhere that stealth is still more powerful than intercept.) >At 1 pool, it's a bargain, when compared to London Evening Star or Sport >Bike. Quite. The card above (even unique) would be just painfully brutal, especially with a Tzimisce deck. -- Derek Jesus saves, and only takes half damage

On 27 Jul 2001 15:21:14 GMT, Halcyan 2 wrote: >>"Taking the Indecent Proposition to be the proposition that, >>from now on, you will not declare any blocking attempt nor play >>any Reaction Card during ALL of my actions, AND you will not perform >>any non-mandatory action for the remainder of the game; will the truth >>value of the Indecent Proposition be equal to the truth value of >>the proposition that the next action I declare an attempt will >>be attempted by Dollface?" > >Pretty nasty. It falls foul of two specific constraints which were added to the Monocle - it's a question about questions and it tries to bind a player for the rest of the game. >...since the question is so convoluted itself, you could very well simply ask >him to repeat the question. And keep insisting you don't understand what he's >asking, or the full ramifications of what he's asking... This would be reasonable as the statement has insufficient punctuation to be unambiguous even in written form. I would dismiss it because it's not a yes-no question; it's clearly a "huh?" question. Andrew

Noal McDonald wrote: > While LSJ may feel that the Monocle would be rendered useless if the > only thing you could ask about was what was in someone's hand, my > feelings are quite contrary. If I'm playing a bleed deck, I would find > it quite useful to ask, "Do you have a card in your hand that can be > used by your minions to deflect a bleed?" This is different than what I responded to. Jack Crow's suggestion was that you could only ask if a player had a "certain" card in his or her hand. i.e. "Do you have a Deflection in your hand?" Obviously, if you extend the power to groups of cards, the ability is better. It may still be weak (ask the players who think Tortured Confession is weak), but it's less clearly wallpaper. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On 27 Jul 2001 15:21:14 GMT, Halcyan 2 wrote: > > >>"Taking the Indecent Proposition to be the proposition that, > >>from now on, you will not declare any blocking attempt nor play > >>any Reaction Card during ALL of my actions, AND you will not perform > >>any non-mandatory action for the remainder of the game; will the truth > >>value of the Indecent Proposition be equal to the truth value of > >>the proposition that the next action I declare an attempt will > >>be attempted by Dollface?" > > > >Pretty nasty. > > It falls foul of two specific constraints which were added to the > Monocle - it's a question about questions and it tries to bind a > player for the rest of the game. It is not a question about a question. It is a question about a statement. The "for the rest of the game" is trivially changed to meet the subsequent errata on Monocle in the obvious way. As has been illustrated, trying to legislate this card into tournament playability is futile. Someone will find a loophole, given the amount of flexibility offered by the English language. > > >...since the question is so convoluted itself, you could very well simply ask > >him to repeat the question. And keep insisting you don't understand what he's > >asking, or the full ramifications of what he's asking... > > This would be reasonable as the statement has insufficient punctuation > to be unambiguous even in written form. I would dismiss it because > it's not a yes-no question; it's clearly a "huh?" question. This is a large part of the reason that the card is still banned. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:01:00 -0400, LSJ wrote: >> It falls foul of two specific constraints which were added to the >> Monocle - it's a question about questions and it tries to bind a >> player for the rest of the game. > >It is not a question about a question. It is a question about a statement. >The "for the rest of the game" is trivially changed to meet the subsequent >errata on Monocle in the obvious way. That's not what you said on 1998/03/27: >Monocle of Clarity - Unique Equipment > * Questions about questions may not be asked. > [RTR 950530] > * Question about the future are only binding until > your next untap. [RTR 950530] >The first inspired by Alan Kwan's indecent proposition of 1995/04/26 >The next in general response to the variations of Kwan's proposition. >This is a large part of the reason that the card is still banned. It's mostly inertia. As I've observed before, the card has already been fixed. That still leaves some strong questions but if you want to make it perfectly safe for tournament use then just disallow questions about the future, as many folk have suggested here. A simple practical test would be - "Can the judge determine the correctness of the answer immediately, given that he can't read the subject's mind or reliably divine his intent?" This restricts you to questions about objective facts - mostly the nature of cards which are face down, in hand or in the deck. That's at least as useful as Tortured Confession, as you indicate elsewhere. And it stops people asking, "Are vampires evil?" too ... Andrew

On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 19:04:37 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:01:00 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >>It is not a question about a question. It is a question about a statement. >>The "for the rest of the game" is trivially changed to meet the subsequent >>errata on Monocle in the obvious way. > >That's not what you said on 1998/03/27: > >>Monocle of Clarity - Unique Equipment > >> * Questions about questions may not be asked. >> [RTR 950530] >> * Question about the future are only binding until >> your next untap. [RTR 950530] > >It's mostly inertia. As I've observed before, the card has already >been fixed. That still leaves some strong questions but if you want >to make it perfectly safe for tournament use then just disallow >questions about the future, as many folk have suggested here. No, it hasn't. Since it's a question about a statement, it satisfies the first ruling. And, as LSJ pointed out, you simply change the tactic to ask your prey that question EVERY turn, and he can't block/deflect until his untap, which satisfies the second ruling. With a nice l'il weenie bleed deck, it should be no trouble to burn through each individual prey. To make it safe for tournament use, now a THIRD ruling must be made on a card that was Jyhad-only, hasn't been seen since, and is ridiculously-rare in the first place (I have only one out of 2374207 boxes)? What a total and complete waste of time. If there's a place in the game for such a card, and the designers feel the need to add it, then they can print something in a future expansion named "Crystal Ball", and write appropriate text for it that ISN'T broken and is more specific. This would be a much better *and* more productive course of action. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <63DE40D1DA31D79B.B0DF2151...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >>This is a large part of the reason that the card is still banned. > >It's mostly inertia. As I've observed before, the card has already >been fixed. As has been shown, you've yet to undermine the fact that it's a question about a statement, not a question about a question. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:01:00 -0400, LSJ wrote: > > >> It falls foul of two specific constraints which were added to the > >> Monocle - it's a question about questions and it tries to bind a > >> player for the rest of the game. > > > >It is not a question about a question. It is a question about a statement. > >The "for the rest of the game" is trivially changed to meet the subsequent > >errata on Monocle in the obvious way. > > That's not what you said on 1998/03/27: > > >Monocle of Clarity - Unique Equipment > > > * Questions about questions may not be asked. > > [RTR 950530] > > * Question about the future are only binding until > > your next untap. [RTR 950530] > > >The first inspired by Alan Kwan's indecent proposition of 1995/04/26 > >The next in general response to the variations of Kwan's proposition. That the then-current RT didn't succeed in legislating the "question about statements" doesn't mean that the attempt was not inspired by Alan Kwan's example. It is clearly a question about a statement, and can be trivially and obviously modified to meet the "next untap" requirement. If you cannot see the two posts as compatible, then I happily retract the earlier, in the interest of curtailing this pointless tangent. > >This is a large part of the reason that the card is still banned. > > It's mostly inertia. I see. Well, you must know better than I. > As I've observed before, the card has already > been fixed. That still leaves some strong questions but if you want > to make it perfectly safe for tournament use then just disallow > questions about the future, as many folk have suggested here. As we've just illustrated, the card has not been properly fixed. The only fixes that prevent any sort of new "Indecent Proposition" neuter the card beyond recognition (as in: only question about the current contents of a player's hand may be asked). > A simple practical test would be - "Can the judge determine the > correctness of the answer immediately, given that he can't read the > subject's mind or reliably divine his intent?" This restricts you to > questions about objective facts - mostly the nature of cards which are > face down, in hand or in the deck.X Restricting questions about the future is contrary to the explicit card text. While doing so would prevent the card from being abused, it would not make the card "fixed", IMO, since it would then be too weak. > That's at least as useful as > Tortured Confession, as you indicate elsewhere. I've indicated no such thing. I also state now that it is not. Looking at all the cards in someone's hand is vastly more useful than asking a small series of isolated yes/no question about the contents thereof. I indicated that those who suggest the Tortured Confession is weak would, IMO, find the proposed Monocle weak. All that does is suggest that I think the utility of the proposed Monocle is not greater than the utility of Tortured Confession. This is a long way off from "at least as useful". [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 14:16:54 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >No, it hasn't. Since it's a question about a statement, it satisfies >the first ruling. You're being obtuse. The Rules Team Ruling appears to have been written specifically to deal with Alan Kwan's construct. LSJ understood that at one time. >If there's a place in the game for such a card The card exists. There is already official errata for it which is designed to make it playable. If that errata is felt to be deficient then please fix it. It's like the NRA issue. Why persist in keeping this divide between tournament and non-tournament play? Following Origins, I built a antitribu Malkavian deck and have put a Monocle in it because it combos nicely with Malkavian Game. If people moan and groan when I play this in a club game, then we're less likely to play Vampire again and more likely to play some other CGG which has more consistent rules. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > The card exists. There is already official errata for it which is > designed to make it playable. If that errata is felt to be deficient > then please fix it. It's like the NRA issue. Why persist in keeping Return to Innocence has errata and is banned. Some things simply cannot be adequately fixed. Errata'ing a card to be wallpaper is tantamount to banning it, so if you like, play with the following errata: Monocle of Clarity: The answerer need not be truthful. Return to Innocence: Replace card text with "Bleed at +1 bleed." Such a pointless exercise isn't like to become official, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Jack Crow wrote: > > [76 lines of unused quotes and .sigs deleted - please quote responsibly] > > > > > Since it's so small (a monacle!) you should only be able to ask (Y/N) > > if a person has a certain card in their hand. But that just would have > > been THE EASY FIX. > > That fix is roughly equivalent to banning. That is, the card is reduced > to such low utility that virtually no one would play competitively with it. Sure they would. The question would always be: Do you have a Deflection? Go Fish? I bleed you for 6. - Jason Bell

In message <DA9DF60269CF2DC4.3D0952B4...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >>No, it hasn't. Since it's a question about a statement, it satisfies >>the first ruling. > >You're being obtuse. The Rules Team Ruling appears to have been >written specifically to deal with Alan Kwan's construct. LSJ >understood that at one time. It was. That doesn't mean it fixed the issue. Frex: a fix was issued for RtoI. It still ended up getting banned, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3B619D19...@white-wolf.com... > Noal McDonald wrote: > > While LSJ may feel that the Monocle would be rendered useless if the > > only thing you could ask about was what was in someone's hand, my > > feelings are quite contrary. If I'm playing a bleed deck, I would find > > it quite useful to ask, "Do you have a card in your hand that can be > > used by your minions to deflect a bleed?" > > This is different than what I responded to. Jack Crow's suggestion > was that you could only ask if a player had a "certain" card in his > or her hand. > > i.e. "Do you have a Deflection in your hand?" > > Obviously, if you extend the power to groups of cards, the ability > is better. It may still be weak (ask the players who think Tortured > Confession is weak), but it's less clearly wallpaper. Well, it's currently toilet paper, as it's banned. If there's no easy way to rule out the extended, tortured questions (IP example floating around) through question length or content restriction, just tack a pool loss penalty on lies instead of trying to enforce an answer with the rules. As an added bonus, trivial lies (do you have this card?) can be found out immediately, since the liar will immediately have to burn pool as soon as the lie is a lie (as opposed to during his attempt to block in other examples). By the way, what is a "truth value" and how can something that is indeterminate have one? - Jason Bell

On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 19:49:28 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 14:16:54 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > >>No, it hasn't. Since it's a question about a statement, it satisfies >>the first ruling. > >You're being obtuse. The Rules Team Ruling appears to have been >written specifically to deal with Alan Kwan's construct. LSJ >understood that at one time. (shrug) I wasn't there. All I know is: the question that was posted in this thread is a question about a statement. If the ruling mentioned WAS written specifically to deal with Kwan's pile of glop, then it failed to, because there's a hole in it a washerwoman could waddle through. >>If there's a place in the game for such a card > >The card exists. There is already official errata for it which is >designed to make it playable. If that errata is felt to be deficient >then please fix it. It's like the NRA issue. Why persist in keeping Don't look at me. I'm not on the Rules Team. I -do- know that I think wasting time and errata on an out-of-print card is just that; a waste of time and errata. A solution to make both of us happy would be to MRP the damn thing in "X" future expansion, with nice, new, simple card text that leaves no room for bozonic word-loopholes. >this divide between tournament and non-tournament play? Following >Origins, I built a antitribu Malkavian deck and have put a Monocle in >it because it combos nicely with Malkavian Game. If people moan and >groan when I play this in a club game, then we're less likely to play >Vampire again and more likely to play some other CGG which has more >consistent rules. I doubt anyone will moan and groan when you play the Monocle and ask things like "What will you choose when I play this Malkavian Game on my master phase?" That seems like a perfectly sane use of the card. I expect that if you read them the Kwestion, however, they would tell you to stuff it and ask something "real". Which is great for club play, but it doesn't fly in a tournament. =/ I doubt I'd bitch if someone locally played with the Monocle. A sensible person who wants to keep his friends won't go out of his way to ask stupid logic-trick questions like that. But, again, that won't fly in a tournament; "anything to win" is always the rule for some players. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jason Bell wrote: > By the way, what is a "truth value" and how can something > that is indeterminate have one? Truth value is one thing if true and another if false. If you like, select 0 for false and 1 for true. Indeterminate truth values are handled by card text, inasfar as future is concerned. If you have an example of some other indeterminate truth value of an in-game question, I'll be happy to address it directly. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Return to Innocence has errata and is banned. >Some things simply cannot be adequately fixed. > Not that it much matters here, but the National Jyhad League (NJL) errata so that Return to Innocence can not be used with Action Modifiers worked very well A creative player could still work a mega-bleed, but they would have to take the time/actions to set up the combo. Unlike it's original text where it was instant death. RtI is what killed me in the finals at Origins, back in what? 96?? Sound right Matt? Nothing like sucking up a bleed for 13 early in the game. Without being able to play action mods, I could have dealt with the RtI action. Anyhow, Bernie Bresnahan Prince o' Lansing

97 I think, Oh Master of Origins. Matt Sheriff to the Prince of Lansing MI

On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 14:33:46 -0400, LSJ wrote: >It is clearly a question about a statement It's a question about several questions. The awkward language of "truth values" doesn't fool me - I understand boolean logic quite well. But what these terms mean is ultimately a matter of definition. I understand perfectly what the rules team meant. If you now have trouble with what their form of words then you might improve upon it by forbidding "self-reference". >The only fixes that prevent any sort of new "Indecent Proposition" >neuter the card beyond recognition (as in: only question about the >current contents of a player's hand may be asked). Not just their hand. You might ask questions about their crypt, their inactive vampires and the content of their library. You might also ask questions about their past - their rating, their tournament standing and so forth. Objective, ascertainable facts. It might be interesting to allow questions about intent too but one would then have to put players upon oath - on their honour to respond truthfully. >Restricting questions about the future is contrary to the explicit >card text. After what you did to Fame and many other cards, you've got some nerve saying that. But the sacred text on the card has already been violated by the rules team who gave it errata. The issue now is arriving at the best formulation of this errata. Such errata text is mutable - it only exists in a web site which can be changed overnight. >I've indicated no such thing. I also state now that it is not. >Looking at all the cards in someone's hand is vastly more useful >than asking a small series of isolated yes/no question about the >contents thereof. I disagree. The Monocle is a permanent and so allows provides repeat uses. Unlike Tortured Confession, it has no blood or pool cost. If questions about the future were forbidden, then I'd use to ask questions like: * Do you have any (more) Archon Investigation left? * Is the proportion of stealth cards in your deck greater than 10%? * Does that inactive vampire have a capacity greater than 8? Andrew

BernieTime wrote: > >Return to Innocence has errata and is banned. > >Some things simply cannot be adequately fixed. > > Not that it much matters here, but the National Jyhad > League (NJL) errata so that Return to Innocence can > not be used with Action Modifiers worked very well > > A creative player could still work a mega-bleed, but > they would have to take the time/actions to set up > the combo. Unlike it's original text where it was > instant death. Equip with Concoction of Vitality (with stealth, if needed), Freak Drive, R2I. Instant death. I appreciate the idea, but it lacks a bit in comprehensiveness. And players in V:EKN tournaments would merrily jump on this sort of thing, IMO. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <AD3E2B7308DEB713.90EC5D11...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 14:33:46 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >>It is clearly a question about a statement > >It's a question about several questions. It can be re-written as such. The intricacies of the English (any many others) language, however, mean that a question about a question can be phrased as a question about a statement. Unfortunately, it's not within the domain of the Rules Team to errata language. [ quoted text not captured ]

>BernieTime wrote: >> >Return to Innocence has errata and is banned. >> >Some things simply cannot be adequately fixed. >> >> Not that it much matters here, but the National Jyhad >> League (NJL) errata so that Return to Innocence can >> not be used with Action Modifiers worked very well >> >> A creative player could still work a mega-bleed, but >> they would have to take the time/actions to set up >> the combo. Unlike it's original text where it was >> instant death. > >Equip with Concoction of Vitality (with stealth, if >needed), Freak Drive, R2I. Instant death. In your example cited above, you would 1. Need to equip, and not too many Fortitudinous Vampires able to whip out stealth. Per Monger, there are 25 vaampires that have at least minor Obf & For. In the new play environment expect to see more wake/intercept played to adjust for all the new (D) actions hitting the table. 2. Freak Drive; Requires that it be in hand and your vamp has fortitude. 3. RTI will still require a Vampire with capacity 6 or more (4 blood for the card, 1 for freak drive, need one more blood to avoid hunting). 4. Allies can still block a minion with Concoction of Vitae. Which will probably occur more often in the new environment. * Note, I detest playing What-If's. However there is always good ol' Direct Intervention too.. While RtI obviously is still a dangerous card, to make it an unstoppable combo requires many more moving parts than in it's original form. Does the NJL fix work? In our environments it did. On paper it may not sound like a strong fix, but in actual play it seemed to hold up okay. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20010728215732...@ng-fm1.aol.com>, BernieTime <berni...@aol.com> writes >1. Need to equip, and not too many Fortitudinous Vampires >able to whip out stealth. Per Monger, there are 25 vaampires >that have at least minor Obf & For. 26, according to the current listing. And remember, the number of vampires able to do it isn't really an issue in a highly, highly focussed deck - which a deck set out to abuse the card would quite possibly be. Also, consider: With Fortitude: Dominate (you can't block, you can't block etc., get it out early) 53 Obtenebration (Shadow play etc.) (And Elysian Fields if you do Lasombra) 8 Protean (Earth Control, Rapid Change, Form of Mist, Horrific) (And Backways, if you go for Gangrel, of course) 32 Daring the Dawn/Heart of Darkness (useful for most of your unblockable needs) 5 vampires *and* 4, 7, 9, 9, 10 <------ good RtoI fodder Ravnos/Chimerstry/Fortitude (giving you Fortune Teller Shop) (Mirror Image, Fata Morgana, Rom Gypsy) 19 Tha/For (giving you the sickosity of +3 stealth via Magic of the Smith) 3 biggies (7, 9, 10) 7 = Muaziz for +4 Consider also: Malkavian Out of Turn Madness Network deck, Malk/obf (Equip the CofV at the end of your predator's minion phase) 20 A potential spin-off involves Dramatic Upheavaling yourself (I shan't quote numbers here, the decks are difficult anyway) around as well, by way of strategic denial and targetting. Consider also: Storage Annex may allow you to assemble the combo more efficiently [ quoted text not captured ]

"BernieTime" <berni...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010728215732...@ng-fm1.aol.com... LSJ wrote: > >Equip with Concoction of Vitality (with stealth, if > >needed), Freak Drive, R2I. Instant death. > > In your example cited above, you would > > 1. Need to equip, and not too many Fortitudinous Vampires > able to whip out stealth. Per Monger, there are 25 vaampires > that have at least minor Obf & For. In the new play environment > expect to see more wake/intercept played to adjust for all > the new (D) actions hitting the table. Ummm...you have seen PRO stealth, right Bernie? :) Stanislava, Equip, Earth Control/Seduction/Form of Mist as necessary. > 2. Freak Drive; Requires that it be in hand and your vamp > has fortitude. Eh. *Lots* of vampires have fortitude. > 3. RTI will still require a Vampire with capacity 6 or more > (4 blood for the card, 1 for freak drive, need one more blood > to avoid hunting). Yes, but it does more damage that way, anyway. > While RtI obviously is still a dangerous card, to make it an > unstoppable combo requires many more moving parts than in > it's original form. Not too many. Original form, RTI/Horrific Coutenance was pretty easy. Expensive as hell, but it worked. Xian

BernieTime wrote: > > >BernieTime wrote: > >> >Return to Innocence has errata and is banned. > >> >Some things simply cannot be adequately fixed. > >> > >> Not that it much matters here, but the National Jyhad > >> League (NJL) errata so that Return to Innocence can > >> not be used with Action Modifiers worked very well > >> > >> A creative player could still work a mega-bleed, but > >> they would have to take the time/actions to set up > >> the combo. Unlike it's original text where it was > >> instant death. > > > >Equip with Concoction of Vitality (with stealth, if > >needed), Freak Drive, R2I. Instant death. > > In your example cited above, you would > > 1. Need to equip, and not too many Fortitudinous Vampires > able to whip out stealth. Per Monger, there are 25 vaampires > that have at least minor Obf & For. In the new play environment > expect to see more wake/intercept played to adjust for all > the new (D) actions hitting the table. I would suggest Earth Control and Form of Mist for stealth. > 2. Freak Drive; Requires that it be in hand and your vamp > has fortitude. Same as any other action modifier that requires a Discipline. > 3. RTI will still require a Vampire with capacity 6 or more > (4 blood for the card, 1 for freak drive, need one more blood > to avoid hunting). Attempting to RtI with a 5-cap isn't what got the card banned. (Govern+Condition is a better option for that kind of thing). > 4. Allies can still block a minion with Concoction of Vitae. > Which will probably occur more often in the new environment. > > * Note, I detest playing What-If's. However there is always > good ol' Direct Intervention too.. Always has been. If that were sufficient, RtI wouldn't need errata at all. > While RtI obviously is still a dangerous card, to make it an > unstoppable combo requires many more moving parts than in > it's original form. 2 more. Equipment and Freak Drive. > Does the NJL fix work? In our environments it did. Anyone try the example above? No offense, but I was under the impression more people set out to "break" the official tournaments than set out to "break" the NJL tournaments. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >BernieTime wrote: > >> >Return to Innocence has errata and is banned. > >> >Some things simply cannot be adequately fixed. > >> > >> Not that it much matters here, but the National Jyhad > >> League (NJL) errata so that Return to Innocence can > >> not be used with Action Modifiers worked very well > >> > >> A creative player could still work a mega-bleed, but > >> they would have to take the time/actions to set up > >> the combo. Unlike it's original text where it was > >> instant death. > > > >Equip with Concoction of Vitality (with stealth, if > >needed), Freak Drive, R2I. Instant death. > >> In your example cited above, you would > >> 1. Need to equip, and not too many Fortitudinous Vampires >> able to whip out stealth. Per Monger, there are 25 vaampires >> that have at least minor Obf & For. In the new play environment >> expect to see more wake/intercept played to adjust for all >> the new (D) actions hitting the table. >I would suggest Earth Control and Form of Mist for stealth. >> 2. Freak Drive; Requires that it be in hand and your vamp >> has fortitude. >Same as any other action modifier that requires a Discipline. >> 3. RTI will still require a Vampire with capacity 6 or more >> (4 blood for the card, 1 for freak drive, need one more blood >> to avoid hunting). > Attempting to RtI with a 5-cap isn't what got the card banned. > (Govern+Condition is a better option for that kind of thing). >> 4. Allies can still block a minion with Concoction of Vitae. >> Which will probably occur more often in the new environment. > >> * Note, I detest playing What-If's. However there is always >> good ol' Direct Intervention too.. >Always has been. If that were sufficient, RtI wouldn't need >errata at all. >> While RtI obviously is still a dangerous card, to make it an >> unstoppable combo requires many more moving parts than in >> it's original form. > 2 more. Equipment and Freak Drive. And in the "What If" scenario (Ugh!), all it takes is a Deflection/Redirection/Telepathic Misdirection/Archon Investigation/ My Enemy's Enemy/ Protected Resources to ruin the intent of the action. I suppose the Acting Methuselah would now include Contingency Planning (which adds another factor for a successful combo). >> Does the NJL fix work? In our environments it did. >Anyone try the example above? >No offense, but I was under the impression more people set out >to "break" the official tournaments than set out to "break" >the NJL tournaments. > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) No offense taken. When we formed the NJL, our Rules Team looked long and hard at each of the 7/7 rulings. We spent a lot of time & thought on each of the issues raised. Not all of the discussions were pleasant or easy (which gives us (NJL) a bit more respect for the current RT, than previously). Of the NJL suggestions for how to bring RTI back into the play environment, the No Action Modifier rule played out best. Our Rules Team attempted to create broken decks with RTI on JOL (as I recall) to test it out, and were pretty pleased with the result. It's still a strong card in the right deck, but no more broken than some other cards/combos that currently exist. The point is; In deckbuilding creating a combo to pull off an outcome/effect, the likelyhood of achieving your result is diminished as more moving parts are required to achieve the desired result. <To James> Your points are well taken, that yes an action can be make unblockable with some effort. Let's compare it to this. With Koko and either a Haven / Bum's Rush I can engage in combat with a minion (cap 6+) Immortal Grapple (a what-if card) Smack my target with an Undead Strength Disarm my Target Amaranth Koko may burn, but you have effectively bled a Methuselah for 6+ and removed an important resource. Is this not as effective, if not moreso than an RTI? - Koko will probably burn, an RTI vampire will definitely burn. - The RTI vampire will likely take 2 turns to get into play. - You can easily get 1-3 Weenie potence Vamps out on turn One. - The RTI vampire will need to setup a combo to ensure success of it's action (Concoction, Freak Drive, RTI) - Koko simply needs to enter combat. There is no preperation required for Koko to pull this off, as opposed to all the setup to make an RTI unblockable. Maybe we should ban Koko? Just kidding Pete :-) Regards, Bernie Bresnahan Prince of Lansing, MI.

BernieTime wrote: > > >BernieTime wrote: > > >> Not that it much matters here, but the National Jyhad > > >> League (NJL) errata so that Return to Innocence can > > >> not be used with Action Modifiers worked very well [snip] > >> 4. Allies can still block a minion with Concoction of Vitae. > >> Which will probably occur more often in the new environment. > > > >> * Note, I detest playing What-If's. However there is always > >> good ol' Direct Intervention too.. > > >Always has been. If that were sufficient, RtI wouldn't need > >errata at all. > > >> While RtI obviously is still a dangerous card, to make it an > >> unstoppable combo requires many more moving parts than in > >> it's original form. > > > 2 more. Equipment and Freak Drive. > > And in the "What If" scenario (Ugh!), all it takes is a > Deflection/Redirection/Telepathic Misdirection/Archon > Investigation/ My Enemy's Enemy/ Protected Resources > to ruin the intent of the action. Those have always been valid defenses against R2I. If they were sufficient to consider the card "balanced", it wouldn't have errata at all. > I suppose the Acting Methuselah would now include > Contingency Planning (which adds another factor > for a successful combo). Well, he can with the current official errata. Playing Contingency Planning on the as-printed R2I or with the NJL errata isn't what I'd call a "successful" combo - burning your vampire for a bleed of 1. [snip] > The point is; In deckbuilding creating a combo to pull off an > outcome/effect, the likelyhood of achieving your result is > diminished as more moving parts are required to achieve > the desired result. I heartily agree. It just seems that the equip-freak-R2I combo isn't sufficiently difficult to achieve. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20010730132318...@ng-ck1.aol.com>, BernieTime <berni...@aol.com> writes ><To James> >Your points are well taken, that yes an action can be make >unblockable with some effort. If the NJL looked at it believing that only obfuscate/fortitude was a problem possible problem, I'd suggest they were very wrong to do so. If I can come up with the list I managed with 30 minutes effort (checking back and forth around card texts, Deck Monger and so on), I'm sure there are dozens more out there. I'd also note that a deck that set out to actively abuse this wouldn't regard the combo as "effort" but as bread and butter. Let's see: A potential vote deck wants in its hand: Kine Resources Contested Awe/Bewitching Oration Voter Captivation/Bribes A potential stealth and bleed deck might want: Govern the Unaligned Lost in Crowds Bonding/Threats/Conditioning (whichever it prefers) (Possibly) Contingency Planning A potential combat deck might want: Bum's Rush (or similar) Torn Signpost Flash Disarm Taste of Vitae A Tremere combat deck might want: Apportation (potentially x2) Theft of Vitae Telepathic Tracking Walk of Flame A Rotschreck deck might want: A Madness Network in play A Madness Network/2nd Tradition knocking around in hand for defence/replacement Bum's Rush (or similar) Claws of the Dead (or similar) Rotschreck A Giovanni bleed deck might want: Kine Dominance Claws of the Hungry Dead Bonding A Gangrel deck might want: Quick Meld (or some other maneuver source) Scorpion Sting (to evade the one point prevade and possibly burn) Claws of the Dead Skin of Rock/Steel/Whatever None of these are considered particularly difficult to pull off. Three or four card combos form the basis of many decks which consistently work. Why is: Concoction of Vitality Forgotten Labyrinth Freak Drive Return to Innocence so much more "effort"? If your deck wants a 4 card combo *and* you build it well, it will get it, unless you manage to shuffle it exactly into order, or something equally silly. (Though exactly the same applies to other decks.) If we were doing something like Pulse of the Canaille first, and that made the card combo unbalanced, then there would be a significant downside. Anatole - 8 capacity - OBF AUS for - 5 card look-ahead/shuffle Could be fun anyway. >With Koko and either a Haven / Bum's Rush I can >engage in combat with a minion (cap 6+) Block potential. >Immortal Grapple (a what-if card) Range potential. >Smack my target with an Undead Strength You present yourself as a target to be hit. What happens when the Gangrel deck kicks you back? >Disarm my Target Assuming you've managed the above. And I haven't played a Skin of Steel, of course. Or a Leather Jacket. >Amaranth Blood Hunt. Unless you can block the Concoction equip, an unblockable bleed comes through. You can bounce it onto your prey, then they just get an unbalanced bleed instead. Hurrah. The number of moving parts in the stripped down Concoction/Freak Drive/Return to Innocence deck is very, very small indeed. And in your combat deck, since you have more cards and moving parts, Direct Intervention has a greater significance. In a deck with typically only four cards needed (Freak Drive, Concoction, Forgotten Labyrinth, Return) I'm more likely to have a replacement in my hand than in your deck with five basic cards (Rush, Immortal, Undead Strength, Disarm, Amaranth) and multiple points of attack. Your lack of defence against Fake Out, say, or a Skin of Steel, Leather Jacket, Claw (thus giving mutual annihilation for no real net gain to either of us, in balance), necessity for large vampires (you could be rushing a weenie deck) to get your 6 bleed, that you're attacking a secondary resource (I'm bleeding you for things you've already spent - if you have, say, Thomas Thorne out - the 6 cap vampire - and I bleed you for 6, you're down 12 pool from 30. If I rush you, you're down 6. With RtoI, this is significantly more because the deck is focused around Arika, Fortitude, Obfuscate for a bleed of 14.) I could Obedience your combat (or the Dementation equivalent). I could tap the Elysium, or tap Mariel. I could Weather Control you before anything happens on your side. I could block your combat. How does this compare to the suggested RtoI set-up? Far more balanced, from where I stand. Far more opportunities to interact, defences possible and so on, surely? [ quoted text not captured ]

>>Your points are well taken, that yes an action can be make >>unblockable with some effort. > >If the NJL looked at it believing that only obfuscate/fortitude was a >problem possible problem, I'd suggest they were very wrong to do so If you consider that part of the NJL Rules Team constituted of myself, Noal, Dave McCarty (and others).. You'd note the diversity of play styles. So yes, we did look at other combos aside from obfuscate/fortitiude. The obf/for combo was initially brought up as a simple example. <Snip: References to similar combos >> >Why is: >Concoction of Vitality >Forgotten Labyrinth >Freak Drive >Return to Innocence > >so much more "effort"? If your deck wants a 4 card combo *and* you >build it well, it will get it, unless you manage to shuffle it exactly >into order, or something equally silly. (Though exactly the same >applies to other decks.) <Snip: References to stopping Koko> James, you are indeed the "what-if" guy.. I can play "what-if" all day too, but simply chose to keep these potential example combos in their simplist form. In military terms you are "nuking" the subject, meaning that you are overthinking the process making it more complex than it needs be. Not always a bad thing mind you, in this instance though I believe you're crying foul without seeing the chicken. The example of Koko is what a weenie potence Vampire can concievably do on turn 2 (presuming you had a nice fatty target in play). And if your 1-2 cap potence boy gets burned by blood hunt, it's not like you won't make more. Point being the loss of a 2 cap is more often than not less of a loss than your 6+ cap vampire. >Unless you can block the Concoction equip, an unblockable bleed comes >through. You can bounce it onto your prey, then they just get an >unbalanced bleed instead. Hurrah. Okay, I guess it's my turn to play "what-if" guy [sigh], Direct Intervention, Bounce the bleed, Reduce all stealth on the Equip action, Auspex, Bad Luck (you don't get all the moving parts to pull it off), Anarch Troublemaker, Archanum Investigator (to burn concoction), any Ally as a blocker, Fleecing the Gaje, and more.. Rather than speculate on what will/won't work, show me that unstoppable RTI deck and play it local. Then give me feedback. Speculation is great on paper, and doesn't always work out in the real world. >The number of moving parts in the stripped down Concoction/Freak >Drive/Return to Innocence deck is very, very small indeed. > >And in your combat deck, since you have more cards and moving parts, >Direct Intervention has a greater significance. In a deck with >typically only four cards needed (Freak Drive, Concoction, Forgotten >Labyrinth, Return) I'm more likely to have a replacement in my hand than >in your deck with five basic cards (Rush, Immortal, Undead Strength, >Disarm, Amaranth) and multiple points of attack. That's an odd statement coming from you as I know you've played rush combat in the past. I've yet to see a good combat deck that can't pull off the above combo if they wanted to. > Your lack of defence against Fake Out, say, or a Skin of Steel, \ > Leather Jacket, Claw (thus giving mutual annihilation for no real >net gain to either of us, in balance), necessity for large vampires > (you could be rushing a weenie deck) to get your 6 bleed, that > you're attacking a secondary resource Never seemed to stop Peter's rush deck (slow it down some maybe, that's about it) >(I'm bleeding you for things you've already spent - if you have, say, >Thomas Thorne out - the 6 cap vampire - and I bleed you for 6, you're >down 12 pool from 30. If I rush you, you're down 6. With RtoI, this is >significantly more because the deck is focused around Arika, Fortitude, >Obfuscate for a bleed of 14.) I could Obedience your combat (or the >Dementation equivalent). I could tap the Elysium, or tap Mariel. I >could Weather Control you before anything happens on your side. I could >block your combat. Could, could, could. Prove it. I am done playing "what-if" guy today. >How does this compare to the suggested RtoI set-up? Far more balanced, >from where I stand. Far more opportunities to interact, defences >possible and so on, surely? About balanced I'd say, and will agree to disagree.. Bernie B. >-- >James Coupe

I question why either of you are even wasting time on this particular topic? Since the NJL as for all intents and purposes returned to its core principles, Local play and local tournaments for the State and region, and dropped the cantankerous RtR's, there is little be be gained going over this, and much to lose. Raille

[ quoted text not captured ] For the same reason, at least on my part, that I participated in the recent Monocle thread - to debate ideas for improving the cardset. I don't see this thread as being about the NJL as much as it is about "fixing" Return to Innocence. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Raille wrote: >> >> I question why either of you are even wasting time on this particular >> topic? >> >> Since the NJL as for all intents and purposes returned to its core >> principles, Local play and local tournaments for the State and region, >> and dropped the cantankerous RtR's, there is little be be gained going >> over this, and much to lose. > >For the same reason, at least on my part, that I participated in the >recent Monocle thread - to debate ideas for improving the cardset. > >I don't see this thread as being about the NJL as much as it is about >"fixing" Return to Innocence. > >-- >LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) I agree wholeheartedly with LSJ. The only reason I bring up the NJL in this manner was to notate that our "fix" to RTI seemed reasonable and had been tested by our Rules Team back when we were a distinctly seperate group. I have absolutely no idea what you refer to as "much to lose". Since White Wolf regained control of the Vampire CCG most of our discontention was resolved by reprinting cards with corrected text. The basis of our original discontent being that cards errata'd on the newsgroup were generally unknown to the gaming public. Today, it's mostly moot (thank you White Wolf). The NJL does still exist (in conscience), though in a different capacity than before. I'd prefer to think of us (NJL) as contributors of constructive criticism as warranted. I'd like to believe that the White Wolf Team is open to such contributions which may provide a benefit to the game. If RTI is "fixable" to the point that it could be removed from the banned list, I would consider that beneficial. If you feel I've misrepresented our (NJL) findings on RTI, please say so. After all, it has been 2+ years.. Maybe I'm forgetting something? If you have no interest in Return to Innocence, skip the thread. For my part I will attempt to keep things constructive, but will NOT engange in a multitude of "what-if" scenarios that provide no real answers to specific questions. In our big game of Rock/Paper/Scissors (V:TES) there are always going to be weaknesses within a given deck's design, which is how it's supposed to be. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3B659D9F...@white-wolf.com>... > BernieTime wrote: > > > >BernieTime wrote: > > > >> Not that it much matters here, but the National Jyhad > > > >> League (NJL) errata so that Return to Innocence can > > > >> not be used with Action Modifiers worked very well Why, if it's such a big deal, isn't the card just limited in opertunity? Whats the point of changing the intent of the card? If the idea, is for a vampire to return to a place where they don't have to worry about the world of darkness, why are 10 caps allowed to do it? Can you seriously imagine Harrod, inner circle of the Nosferatu getting bored and killing himself? He's so far away from his humanity there would be no desire to RtI. It makes much more sense for smudge the ignored to miss his humanity and blow himself up. He's at the bottom of the rungs, and has just become a vampire. Whats the looking forward to? (besides diab-ing someone with disciplines!) Easy fix for RtI. Drop the 4 blood cost, and make a 4 cap restriction. Bringing out 3, 2 cap vampires, then using tons of stealth to sneak by results in a bleed for 6, with a cost of 3 vampires, and a minimum of 6 cards from the hand, in the correct order. Not too broken. Or if you like the big guys make it cost 4, but instead of capacity bleed make it X, which is the remaining blood on the vampire. Too strong...hmm looks like Spiridonis can do it for cheaper, and he doesn't get burned. Whats the big deal with this card? Why is it so hard to fix, but stuff like mind rape(card ended up with the intent, but whole new text) and the tomb are no problem?

"Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7ab27d37.01073...@posting.google.com... [clip] > Whats the big deal with this card? Why is it so hard to fix, but > stuff like mind rape(card ended up with the intent, but whole new > text) and the tomb are no problem? In my estimation, its because some effects are too great no matter what cost is proposed for a card. If a "Die, Prey, Die!" action card were created ("(D) Oust your Prey!"), we wouldn't be able to come up with a cost that would make the card appropriate. I'm personally bothered by the thought of any player losing 1/2 of their starting pool with a single RTI action. -Robert

> > >BernieTime wrote: > > > >> Not that it much matters here, but the National Jyhad > > > >> League (NJL) errata so that Return to Innocence can > > > >> not be used with Action Modifiers worked very well > >Why, if it's such a big deal, isn't the card just limited in >opertunity? Whats the point of changing the intent of the card? < Snip: Aarons fix for Return to Innocence > In bringing up the NJL contextual change for RTI, our focus back then was that if any errata needed to added to a card, it should be in such a way that it wouldn't prevent a player (without net/newsgroup knowledge) from being able to play their deck if they showed up at a function/tournament. The errata of not being able to play action modifiers fulfilled our mission statement. >Whats the big deal with this card? Why is it so hard to fix, but >stuff like mind rape(card ended up with the intent, but whole new >text) and the tomb are no problem? The Tomb fix was a slight change in how it played (ie. Tomb Counters). No comment on Mind Rape.. I could be wrong, but it would seem that RTI has a bit of prejudice against it where people would rather leave it banned than see it fixed for legal play. Granted that there are plenty of ways to increase bleed as is. What makes RTI especially nasty is that it doesn't require anything aside from having the 4 blood to burn to create potentially tremendous bleeds. Again, I'm not up on all the RPG implications of what happens when a Vampire returns to innocence. I just play the game.. Bernie

"Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> > Why, if it's such a big deal, isn't the card just limited in > opertunity? Whats the point of changing the intent of the card? (snip parts of the nice theory) > Can you seriously imagine Harrod, inner circle of the > Nosferatu getting bored and killing himself? He's so far away from > his humanity there would be no desire to RtI. It makes much more > sense for smudge the ignored to miss his humanity and blow himself up. Strange, cause i would have thought the exact opposite ! I think that small vamps have a lot to discover when they are embraced in good conditions. Older vamps tend to be more depressive, they have all the knowledge they want, they have achieved so much, survived so many things yet they know the beast is still there, invincible. They can only be beaten by an immortal and intangible ennemi : what the poets call "ennui". But again it's only my point of view =) Now for the card : When Return to innocence first popped up with Ancient Hearts, i thought : "wow what a great card ! at least, clans who does not possess bleeding disciplines like Nosferatu or Ravnos can bleed effectively, even if that implies the sacrifice of a vampire. I can put opposing vamps in torpor with my Nosfe fighters and go for the final blow when there is no blocker left." Of course i soon realized that combined with the built in bleed bonus, extra bleeds modifiers and the high capacity of the IC, that that could mean one unblockable bleed for 16 to 17 pool which is arguably "deraisonnable". Why didn't the design team saw that in the first place ? I always thought that the good way would be something like "Burn X/2 blood to Bleed your prey for X, where X is the capacity of this acting vampire. No action modifier can be used for the duration of that action. No equipment may be used for the duration of that action. Remove this vampire from the game if the action succeds". I would replace it by "Burn all equipment /loquipments and retainers on this acting vampire when announcing that action. Burn 5 blood to bleed your prey for X, where X is the capacity of this acting vampire (ignore excess bleed). No action modifiers can be played for the duration of that action. this vampire is then removed from the game". It makes the card strong but not unbeatable. And it is okay for a quick finish when playing rush combat or stealthy politics... reyda 'comments welcome'TM

Sorry Bernie, I seem to have missed the point there earlier. Carry on, and ignore me. Raille

On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 16:11:33 -0400, LSJ wrote: >For the same reason, at least on my part, that I participated in the >recent Monocle thread - to debate ideas for improving the cardset. > >I don't see this thread as being about the NJL as much as it is about >"fixing" Return to Innocence. From my memory of past Return to Innocence discussions and the details of Alix's Eurika! deck, it appears that you banned the wrong card. It seems that Soul Gem is the real problem. Andrew

On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 02:38:19 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 16:11:33 -0400, LSJ wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Piffle. I have yet to see a successfully abusive deck focused around the Soul Gem itself, and doubt I ever will. The pre-errata Golconda/SG decks were a visible flaw with Golconda being extremely overpowered, as opposed to Soul Gem letting you retrieve the vamps. Alix's deck has a demonstrated 50% success ratio; well within ANY limits for "abusive" that I might decide upon. Decks that sweep half the time and get mugged half the time are neat ideas, but nothing I'd go out of my way to be fixing. It would also be curious to see exactly what the table setup was during the two sweeps, and during the two non-sweeps.... was there anyone with any intercept handy? how about combat? plain old Deflection? hmm. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20010730173743...@mb-mg.aol.com>, BernieTime <berni...@aol.com> writes >If you feel I've misrepresented our (NJL) findings on RTI, please >say so. After all, it has been 2+ years.. Maybe I'm forgetting >something? How many of the given ways around "No action modifiers" were actively tried under NJL? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20010730154458...@mb-mg.aol.com>, BernieTime <berni...@aol.com> writes >In military terms you are "nuking" the subject, meaning that >you are overthinking the process making it more complex >than it needs be. Not always a bad thing mind you, in this >instance though I believe you're crying foul without seeing >the chicken. The "what ifs" on your copy of Koko seem to be far more "what if" than those on the obf/for situation given. It (obf/for) requires fewer cards and has fewer points for interaction. Fact. [ quoted text not captured ]

"BernieTime" <berni...@aol.com> wrote > The Tomb fix was a slight change in how it played (ie. Tomb > Counters). No comment on Mind Rape.. What about only being able to trigger those counters when transfers are made to the "Tombed" vampire? Was that a clarification or part of the fix? - Jason Bell

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3B65BF75...@white-wolf.com... > Raille wrote: > > > > I question why either of you are even wasting time on this particular > > topic? > > > > Since the NJL as for all intents and purposes returned to its core > > principles, Local play and local tournaments for the State and region, > > and dropped the cantankerous RtR's, there is little be be gained going > > over this, and much to lose. > > For the same reason, at least on my part, that I participated in the > recent Monocle thread - to debate ideas for improving the cardset. > > I don't see this thread as being about the NJL as much as it is about > "fixing" Return to Innocence. > Thanks LSJ, maybe one day all those ancient heart rares will become at least useful and stop taking up space. At least you take some interest in player ideas. Does that mean if there was some fix you though was good you'd use it? Or is there still some 'no player ideas for cards' rule in effect? I'd rather see a card errated to hell, re-released in the next set, and playable again. Banning cards is about the worse thing possible. At least the Jyhad banned list can fit on an index card, unlike some other game.... Aaron.

The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3B65BF75...@white-wolf.com... > > Raille wrote: > > > > > > I question why either of you are even wasting time on this particular > > > topic? > > > > > > Since the NJL as for all intents and purposes returned to its core > > > principles, Local play and local tournaments for the State and region, > > > and dropped the cantankerous RtR's, there is little be be gained going > > > over this, and much to lose. > > > > For the same reason, at least on my part, that I participated in the > > recent Monocle thread - to debate ideas for improving the cardset. > > > > I don't see this thread as being about the NJL as much as it is about > > "fixing" Return to Innocence. > > > Thanks LSJ, maybe one day all those ancient heart rares will become at least > useful and stop taking up space. At least you take some interest in player > ideas. Does that mean if there was some fix you though was good you'd use Sure. Like the current Tomb was based on players' ideas (ideas from players who found the original errata distasteful). > it? Or is there still some 'no player ideas for cards' rule in effect? I'd There is no such rule, no. WW is not soliciting card ideas, but that certainly doesn't stop you from having them and making them public. See Lasombra's collection of fan-made cards. > rather see a card errated to hell, re-released in the next set, and playable > again. Banning cards is about the worse thing possible. At least the Jyhad > banned list can fit on an index card, unlike some other game.... > > Aaron. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<D4DAABFDDAB2B4FA.6D1E696E...@lp.airnews.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] If you were to read the thread describing this deck, you would note the several different ways to trip it up. Soul Gem abuse requires a lot of moving parts, and has the potential to net you nothing (not in the Arika Deck Case, but often) making it a change. With RtI I know I'm about to nuke someone for a bleed of 13+. Troll elsewhere, or play the game before posting. Cameron

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<dmjcmt083tk73dieq...@4ax.com>... > On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 02:38:19 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> > wrote: > >From my memory of past Return to Innocence discussions and the details > >of Alix's Eurika! deck, it appears that you banned the wrong card. It > >seems that Soul Gem is the real problem. > > Piffle. I have yet to see a successfully abusive deck focused around > the Soul Gem itself, and doubt I ever will. The pre-errata > Golconda/SG decks were a visible flaw with Golconda being extremely > overpowered, as opposed to Soul Gem letting you retrieve the vamps. > > Alix's deck has a demonstrated 50% success ratio; well within ANY > limits for "abusive" that I might decide upon. Decks that sweep half > the time and get mugged half the time are neat ideas, but nothing I'd > go out of my way to be fixing. Really? I would. Sweeping half the time is pretty damn good. Most tournament-caliber decks, in the hands of most tournament-caliber players, sweep much less than that. Otherwise you'd see the top five finalists with quite a few more VPs than they actually have, eg at Origins, where at the Friday tournament they had, after three rounds, 8, 6, 5.5, 5, 4. Saturday, the qualifier, 6, 6, 8, 7, 6. If a deck really consistently sweeps 50% of the time, I think it's a pretty good candidate for being "broken", even if it gets 0 VPs the other 50%. What remains to be seen is whether that deck will be that consistent. Josh and frankly, the soul gem really is the "most broken" part of this combo - getting out vampires filled to capacity for free is something that kinda cries out for breaking, and that *is* probably why it's figured prominently in most of the "oust the entire table in one turn" schemes that have been proposed...

> > it? Or is there still some 'no player ideas for cards' rule in effect? I'd > > There is no such rule, no. > > WW is not soliciting card ideas, but that certainly doesn't stop you from > having them and making them public. See Lasombra's collection of fan-made > cards. > Someone had mentioned that if you post cards that you create, that there is no possible way that it could become a card. So I figured posting possible errata would result in the same thing. There are always multiple ways to change things. I mean, RtI could be made to be only once per game, like giants blood. Kinda pointless to build a entire deck around a one time bleed for 15? Restrictions on who can use it, and when are also good. Or possibly adding the statement that the bleed is for the capacity of the vampire, and cannot exceed that amount. Now you either max out at 11 point bleeds, or play an all master card deck. Allow the bleed to be for a huge amount, but allow vampires in play to soak up the damage instead of the players pool taking the hit(see smiling jack) How about being able to cancel the action, like chas? Burn a vampire you control to make this action fail etc... Aaron.

In message <7ab27d37.0107...@posting.google.com>, Aaron <roans...@yahoo.com> writes >I mean, RtI could be made to >be only once per game, like giants blood. Kinda pointless to build a >entire deck around a one time bleed for 15? It's still an almost guaranteed oust when it happens, unfortunately. A card that says: (D) Oust your prey. Only usable once per game. would still be broken. In a coherently built deck, that's what RtoI normally does say. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7ab27d37.0107...@posting.google.com... > Someone had mentioned that if you post cards that you create, that > there is no possible way that it could become a card. So I figured Ages ago. WotC. Don't worry about it. :) I'm sure LSJ/design team has plenty of ideas already, but LSJ has indicated at least a few times that they're not necessarily ruling anything out. > posting possible errata would result in the same thing. There are Nah. Actually, I think that's how some of the better errata has come up. Pulled Fangs among others, IIRC. > always multiple ways to change things. I mean, RtI could be made to > be only once per game, like giants blood. Kinda pointless to build a > entire deck around a one time bleed for 15? Oooog. Still horribly nasty, and almost everyone would include at least one in a deck with big enough vampires, just in hopes of drawing it first. And James is right, it does pretty much read "(D) Oust your prey." Etrius. RtI, Perfect Clarity, Horrific Countenance, Conditioning. Ouch. Undeflectable (Telepathic Misdirection excepted), unblockable bleed for 17. Big ouch. Sure, Direct Intervention or Anarch Investigation would work, but I tend to discount counter cards during play, because the chance of actually having it in hand when the combo goes off is relatively low. Xian, not posting again until after GenCon [ quoted text not captured ]

"Xian" <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote in message news:3oI97.1470$YJ3.2...@news.uswest.net... > Xian, not posting again until after GenCon Yep, me too. See everybody there. -Robert Robert Goudie rob...@vtesinla.org

On 31 Jul 2001 14:47:56 -0700, duff...@bls.gov (Joshua Duffin) wrote: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<dmjcmt083tk73dieq...@4ax.com>... >> Alix's deck has a demonstrated 50% success ratio; well within ANY >> limits for "abusive" that I might decide upon. Decks that sweep half >> the time and get mugged half the time are neat ideas, but nothing I'd >> go out of my way to be fixing. > >Really? I would. > >If a deck really consistently sweeps 50% of the time, I think it's >a pretty good candidate for being "broken", even if it gets 0 VPs >the other 50%. What remains to be seen is whether that deck will >be that consistent. Hmm. By that logic, I have a !Brujah vote-and-pound deck that's unquestionably broken; it's swept 4 out of 5 times it's been played. The first time it got 0 VPs through tragic crypt screw. Some decks ARE awfully damned good. But a 50/50 success-or-zero ratio isn't something I want to bring into a tourney. I want something that's a lot more evenly spread out. >and frankly, the soul gem really is the "most broken" part of this >combo - getting out vampires filled to capacity for free is something >that kinda cries out for breaking, and that *is* probably why it's >figured prominently in most of the "oust the entire table in one turn" >schemes that have been proposed... Oh, it's certainly the big problem in -this- combo. But the previous message was referring to Golconda, which is a seriously high-powered card; "I erase this vampire in torpor and gain 8 pool. I transfer out this vampire..." It's worth consideration for inclusion in any high-cap deck. Never know when someone's going to blow Emerson's brains out.. and he might be worth more as 8 pool than not. [ quoted text not captured ]

Aaron wrote: > Someone had mentioned that if you post cards that you create, that > there is no possible way that it could become a card. So I figured No one official. [ quoted text not captured ]

Xian wrote: > > Sure, Direct Intervention or Anarch Investigation would work, but I > tend to discount counter cards during play, because the chance of > actually having it in hand when the combo goes off is relatively low. > Also Protected Resources. Reduce that 17 bleed back to 2! Raille

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1igfmtogq913dpbq2...@4ax.com>... > On 31 Jul 2001 14:47:56 -0700, duff...@bls.gov (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > > >If a deck really consistently sweeps 50% of the time, I think it's > >a pretty good candidate for being "broken", even if it gets 0 VPs > >the other 50%. What remains to be seen is whether that deck will > >be that consistent. > > Hmm. By that logic, I have a !Brujah vote-and-pound deck that's > unquestionably broken; it's swept 4 out of 5 times it's been played. > The first time it got 0 VPs through tragic crypt screw. If it's going to keep sweeping 80% of the time forever, then yeah, it's probably broken. (Or else your opponents just suck a whole lot. ;-) Having swept in four of the five games it's ever been played in is, of course, not proof of brokenness. Just like Alix's 50% sweeping record at one tournament isn't proof of brokenness. But I would consider a deck that sweeps half the time it's played, with any arbitrary opponents, to be excessively strong. > Some decks ARE awfully damned good. But a 50/50 success-or-zero ratio > isn't something I want to bring into a tourney. I want something > that's a lot more evenly spread out. Why? In three rounds, you'd expect 7.5 VPs with a 50/50 deck. That's almost always enough to get into the finals. A deck at, say, 60% 2 VPs, 10% 0 VPs, 10% 1 VP, 10% 3 VPs, 10% 4 VPs (much more even distribution) would have an expected outcome of 6 VPs (and only a 20% chance of outright winning the final game, compared to a 50% chance for the half-working deck). That's all just arbitrary estimates, obviously. But in real life, I doubt that any deck/player combination can be quantified to such precision as "this deck always gets 2 (or 3) VPs" or "this deck sweeps 50% of the time and gets 0 VPs 50% of the time". In actual play, I think *all* decks are at least as random as 50/50, probably more. [soul gem] > Oh, it's certainly the big problem in -this- combo. But the previous > message was referring to Golconda, which is a seriously high-powered > card; "I erase this vampire in torpor and gain 8 pool. I transfer out > this vampire..." Sure, Golconda is also strong. I didn't realize we were talking about that. :-) Josh ten hours to milwaukee!

>How many of the given ways around "No action modifiers" were actively >tried under NJL? > >-- >James Coupe To the best of my recollection, each member of the Rules Team was asked to create decks which would abuse RtoI and we'd give them some play. Having been 2+ years ago, I'm a bit fuzzy on some of the decks played (of which there were between 4-8? deck types played). None of these decks dominated the tables they were played at, that much I do remember. Maybe Noal's recollection would be better than mine on this.. Bernie

On 1 Aug 2001 08:34:41 -0700, duff...@bls.gov (Joshua Duffin) wrote: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1igfmtogq913dpbq2...@4ax.com>... >> On 31 Jul 2001 14:47:56 -0700, duff...@bls.gov (Joshua Duffin) wrote: >> >> >If a deck really consistently sweeps 50% of the time, I think it's >> >a pretty good candidate for being "broken", even if it gets 0 VPs >> >the other 50%. What remains to be seen is whether that deck will >> >be that consistent. >> >> Hmm. By that logic, I have a !Brujah vote-and-pound deck that's >> unquestionably broken; it's swept 4 out of 5 times it's been played. >> The first time it got 0 VPs through tragic crypt screw. > >If it's going to keep sweeping 80% of the time forever, then yeah, >it's probably broken. (Or else your opponents just suck a whole >lot. ;-) Having swept in four of the five games it's ever been Remember: "sucky Atlanta metagame". ;) Which reminds me, I didn't find this out until Monday, for response to Aaron's thread. Out of Atlanta, we have a 100% qualifier ratio; all of us who attended a tournament qualified. I think we're only actually sending three people to GenCon out of those, too. =/ kind of a shame, but most of us have pretty obnoxiously "full" lives for some reason. Might just be the city. >played in is, of course, not proof of brokenness. Just like Alix's >50% sweeping record at one tournament isn't proof of brokenness. >But I would consider a deck that sweeps half the time it's played, >with any arbitrary opponents, to be excessively strong. If it flops dead the other half of the time it's played? I wouldn't. =/ I mean, I'm pretty sure I can design some sweep-or-die decks out of the current cardset -- that rely totally on getting a good early start, and have just a HAIR too many moving parts to be reliable. But if you stack up the start right, zoom! >> Some decks ARE awfully damned good. But a 50/50 success-or-zero ratio >> isn't something I want to bring into a tourney. I want something >> that's a lot more evenly spread out. > >Why? In three rounds, you'd expect 7.5 VPs with a 50/50 deck. That's >almost always enough to get into the finals. A deck at, say, 60% Because once I'm in the finals, I want a better than 50% chance of winning. I want to think that I have a 100% chance of winning when I sit down, and that only decreases as people put functional defenses against me into play, which I can then remove to restore my 100% chance. ;) >2 VPs, 10% 0 VPs, 10% 1 VP, 10% 3 VPs, 10% 4 VPs (much more even >distribution) would have an expected outcome of 6 VPs (and only a >20% chance of outright winning the final game, compared to a 50% chance >for the half-working deck). OK, I'm going to poke your math here a second, since you actually have to allow for the 5-VP outcome as well. Assume a pure spread with 16.6% in each bin, for 0/1/2/3/4/5VP. Now adjust for "good deck"; take 6% out of the 0-VP and 5-VP, and most out of the 1-VP bin, and spread accordingly, under the assumptions that in a good deck, outright sweeps are rare, outright losses are rare, and if it gets 1VP, it can generally get a 2nd. 0VP: 10% 1VP: 3% 2VP: 24% 3VP: 24% 4VP: 24% 5VP: 10% The decimals got lopped in the interest of speed, which is why I've lost about 5% in the mix, but it only affects each number by less than 1%. Anyway: this is not an unreasonable winning assumption for a "good" deck, I believe. To win the finals, you need 3VP or better; this deck has a 60% chance of doing that. >That's all just arbitrary estimates, obviously. But in real life, Yep, I'll agree. Anyone can make up numbers and scatter them to show something -- the above was just an "it's POSSIBLE, ya know" type of thing. >I doubt that any deck/player combination can be quantified to >such precision as "this deck always gets 2 (or 3) VPs" or "this deck >sweeps 50% of the time and gets 0 VPs 50% of the time". In actual I -do- think you can build a deck that either gets "lots or none", actually. Just look at the Malkavians. ;) >play, I think *all* decks are at least as random as 50/50, probably >more. I'm curious as to how something can be more random than 50/50, given only two possible outcomes ;) But really, I don't actually think that's true, or we'd never have developed "strong deck" archetypes such as the Malk S&B, Ventrue Law Firm, etc. (although some are discredited these days). Some decks MUST tend to win a good bit when people play them. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > OK, I'm going to poke your math here a second, since you actually have > to allow for the 5-VP outcome as well. Assume a pure spread with > 16.6% in each bin, for 0/1/2/3/4/5VP. Now adjust for "good deck"; > take 6% out of the 0-VP and 5-VP, and most out of the 1-VP bin, and > spread accordingly, under the assumptions that in a good deck, > outright sweeps are rare, outright losses are rare, and if it gets > 1VP, it can generally get a 2nd. > > 0VP: 10% > 1VP: 3% > 2VP: 24% > 3VP: 24% > 4VP: 24% > 5VP: 10% > > The decimals got lopped in the interest of speed, which is why I've > lost about 5% in the mix, but it only affects each number by less than > 1%. Anyway: this is not an unreasonable winning assumption for a > "good" deck, I believe. To win the finals, you need 3VP or better; > this deck has a 60% chance of doing that. Flaw: a "pure" spread isn't 16.6% in each bin. It's 20% chance of winning (a five-player table). Consider a "pure" game like "high card" :-) Take 5 cards: an ace and four non-aces. Deal them out to the players randomly. Ace gets a VP. Repeat 5 times (5 VPs). Percentages now look something like: 0: 32.8% 1: 41.0% 2: 20.5% 3: 5.12% 4: 0.64% 5: 0.032% This table implies at first glance that the winner will typically be the one with 2VP (a 2-1-1-1-0) split). I won't bother checking to see if that's actually the case, however. To more adequately model V:TES, eliminate a player after each round and, when a player gets an ace, increase her chance of getting it again in the future. This too is left for the interested student. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3B67F297...@white-wolf.com>... > > Someone had mentioned that if you post cards that you create, that > > there is no possible way that it could become a card. So I figured > > No one official. Well, I'd like to propose my own fix for the card, then. My changes are in [brackets] below. The Return to Innocence Cardtype: Action Cost: 4 blood (D) Bleed. If you successfully bleed your prey for one or more, put this card on the acting vampire. Burn this card if this vampire loses any blood or goes to torpor, or if your prey is ousted. During your [untap phase], this vampire is removed from the game and your prey burns X pool, where X is the capacity of this vampire[, unless burning that pool would oust your prey]. This fix still leaves the card as a big, scary pool burner, but keeps it from being an automatic oust and gives the target some interesting ways to weasel out from under it.

In message <3B67F297...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes >Aaron wrote: >> Someone had mentioned that if you post cards that you create, that >> there is no possible way that it could become a card. So I figured > >No one official. Slightly fuller explanation: No one official now the game is managed by White Wolf. Wizards *had* stated this, via Ryan S. Dancey, as I recall. (They certainly had stated it via someone.) [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3B67F297...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes > >Aaron wrote: > >> Someone had mentioned that if you post cards that you create, that > >> there is no possible way that it could become a card. So I figured > > > >No one official. > > Slightly fuller explanation: > > No one official now the game is managed by White Wolf. Wizards *had* > stated this, via Ryan S. Dancey, as I recall. (They certainly had > stated it via someone.) Quite right. Ryan said something around that sort of thing. And I think Shawn or Paul or Jon stated it directly. At any rate, no /currently/ official source has said it. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3B6858E3...@white-wolf.com... > James Coupe wrote: > > > > In message <3B67F297...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > > wolf.com> writes > > >Aaron wrote: > > >> Someone had mentioned that if you post cards that you create, that > > >> there is no possible way that it could become a card. So I figured > > > > > >No one official. > > > > Slightly fuller explanation: > > > > No one official now the game is managed by White Wolf. Wizards *had* > > stated this, via Ryan S. Dancey, as I recall. (They certainly had > > stated it via someone.) > > Quite right. Ryan said something around that sort of thing. And I think > Shawn or Paul or Jon stated it directly. > > At any rate, no /currently/ official source has said it. > Cool, can you make my card. It's called "Brass Balls" and is an equipment that gives you superior Fortitude. Oh and this other one called...hehe just kidding! They probably didn't want them because they get pestered with everyone 'great new cards' Haven't you ever seen that convention shirt: "DON'T TELL ME ABOUT YOUR CHARACTER!" Aaron

[ quoted text not captured ] As a party of that, I thought I'd drop something here fitting. A possible fix for RTI would be to limit the card to a vampire of less than 6 capacity. or text to the effect of. "This action cannot be made unblockable and no action modifiers may be used." Raille

On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 02:29:41 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >Alix's deck has a demonstrated 50% success ratio; well within ANY >limits for "abusive" that I might decide upon. Decks that sweep half >the time and get mugged half the time are neat ideas, but nothing I'd >go out of my way to be fixing. Do the math. A deck that can sweep half the time is very good for a 5-player game. Assuming that you need two sweeps to guarantee a place in the final, such a deck would win 1 in every 4 events. Of course, no deck is that good. No VTES deck can guarantee a better than 20% success ratio against a field of identical decks. Andrew

On Thu, 02 Aug 2001 11:51:04 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 02:29:41 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > >>Alix's deck has a demonstrated 50% success ratio; well within ANY >>limits for "abusive" that I might decide upon. Decks that sweep half >>the time and get mugged half the time are neat ideas, but nothing I'd >>go out of my way to be fixing. > >Do the math. A deck that can sweep half the time is very good for a >5-player game. Assuming that you need two sweeps to guarantee a place >in the final, such a deck would win 1 in every 4 events. You know, if Francois Alix wins 1 of every 4 events he plays in, I don't believe it's going to be a problem at all. Especially when the alternative is outright failure - the Big Zero. I mean, look at the math more closely. Tourney Round: 1 2 3 Final Outcome ========================================================= Event 1 Sweep Flop Sweep Sweep = win! Event 2 Sweep Flop Sweep Flop = loss :( Event 3 Sweep Flop Flop -- = loss :( Event 4 Sweep Flop Flop -- = loss :( In two events, the deck fails to reach the final and goes nowhere. In one event, it reaches the final and becomes a free VP for someone. And in one event, it wins. Where's the problem? And more importantly, where's the desire to play the deck when you have a 75% chance of failing miserably? I don't gamble on those odds; I'd rather have a deck that interacts with the table more, and relies on my own skilled play, dealmaking, and taking advantage of opportunities. Perhaps I'm just coming at this from an odd perspective. Pool tournaments are generally dominated by a very small group of players who are just THAT much better than everyone else (in the UK: Hendry, White). In one of the weekly tournaments I play in, I have the following record over the past 8 weeks: 5 outright wins 2 second place finishes 1 third place finish (too sloshed to stand straight) A 62.5% success ratio is ridiculously abusive, no matter what face you want to put on it. I call it my "beer money tournament". Why do people still play? Because they want to try to beat me, to test their skills against one of the best. (And it's a cheap entry fee, too, and they really don't give a damn about the money.) If the organizers wanted to even things out a bit, they should bar me from that tournament on the spot, or force me to give up some sort of handicap. But as it stands, I'm totally abusing the tournament... I'm the equivalent of a broken deck. In contrast, if I won the tournament only 25% of the time, it CERTAINLY wouldn't be abusive at all, and nobody would even consider forcing me to be handicapped or barring me. >Of course, no deck is that good. No VTES deck can guarantee a better >than 20% success ratio against a field of identical decks. No V:TES deck can "guarantee" ANY success ratio, IMO. Some decks will tend to do better than others, but the nature of the game precludes any guarantees... making a lot of that math up there worthless in practice. -- Derek "Nice girl, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - F. Leghorn

berni...@aol.com (BernieTime) wrote in message news: > To the best of my recollection, each member of the Rules Team was > asked to create decks which would abuse RtoI and we'd give > them some play. I recall that and there were some steam rollers. However pitting several RtI decks against each other is not a fair assessment. LSJ's suggestion of Concoction of Vitality, Freak Drive, Return to Innocence (with a dash of Minion Tap for flavor) is rather nasty, but not nearly as bad as the fully tweaked Setite Temptation/RtI deck that I had since RtI was tournament legal. The only time that it fell down was when we had that 14 player game at U-CON. The NJL errata didn't affect it much as I was using Temptation to steal the blockers. Anyway, the really telling story was the universal disdain for RtI throughout Michigan. I reamin convinced that while our fix was more playable for a player coming off the street, which was our primary goal, but it was still not better than banning the card altogether. In this case, I think Scott made the best decision for VTES as a whole. Regards, Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ps8gmt08tas6h4sni...@4ax.com>... > On 1 Aug 2001 08:34:41 -0700, duff...@bls.gov (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > > >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1igfmtogq913dpbq2...@4ax.com>... > >> On 31 Jul 2001 14:47:56 -0700, duff...@bls.gov (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > >> > >> >If a deck really consistently sweeps 50% of the time, I think it's > >> >a pretty good candidate for being "broken", even if it gets 0 VPs > >> >the other 50%. What remains to be seen is whether that deck will > >> >be that consistent. > >> > >> Hmm. By that logic, I have a !Brujah vote-and-pound deck that's > >> unquestionably broken; it's swept 4 out of 5 times it's been played. > >> The first time it got 0 VPs through tragic crypt screw. > > > >If it's going to keep sweeping 80% of the time forever, then yeah, > >it's probably broken. (Or else your opponents just suck a whole > >lot. ;-) Having swept in four of the five games it's ever been > > Remember: "sucky Atlanta metagame". ;) > > Which reminds me, I didn't find this out until Monday, for response to > Aaron's thread. Out of Atlanta, we have a 100% qualifier ratio; all > of us who attended a tournament qualified. I think we're only > actually sending three people to GenCon out of those, too. =/ kind > of a shame, but most of us have pretty obnoxiously "full" lives for > some reason. Might just be the city. We only got one of three pre-qualified DCers to GenCon. Too bad... > >played in is, of course, not proof of brokenness. Just like Alix's > >50% sweeping record at one tournament isn't proof of brokenness. > >But I would consider a deck that sweeps half the time it's played, > >with any arbitrary opponents, to be excessively strong. > > If it flops dead the other half of the time it's played? I wouldn't. > =/ I mean, I'm pretty sure I can design some sweep-or-die decks out > of the current cardset -- that rely totally on getting a good early > start, and have just a HAIR too many moving parts to be reliable. But > if you stack up the start right, zoom! > > >> Some decks ARE awfully damned good. But a 50/50 success-or-zero ratio > >> isn't something I want to bring into a tourney. I want something > >> that's a lot more evenly spread out. > > > >Why? In three rounds, you'd expect 7.5 VPs with a 50/50 deck. That's > >almost always enough to get into the finals. A deck at, say, 60% > > Because once I'm in the finals, I want a better than 50% chance of > winning. I want to think that I have a 100% chance of winning when I > sit down, and that only decreases as people put functional defenses > against me into play, which I can then remove to restore my 100% > chance. ;) Fair point. I think this all comes down *much* more to play skill than "flop-or-sweep" decks, most of the time. (Probably mainly because people rarely play those "flop-or-sweep" decks, since they feel the same way about not wanting to put all their eggs in one basket in the final game.) > OK, I'm going to poke your math here a second, since you actually have > to allow for the 5-VP outcome as well. Assume a pure spread with > 16.6% in each bin, for 0/1/2/3/4/5VP. Now adjust for "good deck"; > take 6% out of the 0-VP and 5-VP, and most out of the 1-VP bin, and > spread accordingly, under the assumptions that in a good deck, > outright sweeps are rare, outright losses are rare, and if it gets > 1VP, it can generally get a 2nd. Well, the math is all arbitrary, and as LSJ pointed out, not at all a good model of actual VTES games. You don't *have* to allow for the 5-VP outcome, just as the 50% sweep/50% flop ignores the 1, 2, 3, and 4-VP possibilities. > I -do- think you can build a deck that either gets "lots or none", > actually. Just look at the Malkavians. ;) Malk S/B *can* get lots or none, but it can also get two and then run into trouble, much like any other aggressive forward-moving deck. And any deck at all is vulnerable to becoming the big scary monster and having the rest of the table start working against it. > I'm curious as to how something can be more random than 50/50, given > only two possible outcomes ;) Heh. Maybe what I should have said is that, in play, it takes an extraordinary deck/player to even have a better than 1 in 5 (on a 5-player table) chance of winning, and actually doing well involves a lot more factors than just the deck and the shuffle. > But really, I don't actually think that's true, or we'd never have > developed "strong deck" archetypes such as the Malk S&B, Ventrue Law > Firm, etc. (although some are discredited these days). Some decks > MUST tend to win a good bit when people play them. Some decks are good, and others aren't; I think the archetypes are just "things that are good and well-known". I don't mean to imply that a random pile of crap will win just as much as a good archetypal deck, but even the strong archetypes have their limits, especially in competitive games where everyone is playing something relatively strong. Josh they call me half-point (0.5 VPs at the GenCon qualifier)