Finalist decks include--no Gehenna decks.

I'm really quite amazed at the amount of bitching about things that DON'T win in big tournaments, and the complete dearth of bitching about things that DO win in big tournaments. I was just reading about Gehenna events--apparently people think they're devastating if not ganged up on. There is usually a lot of fuss about Protect Thine Own. And LSJ himself made some comment about weenie Auspex being strong, although I can't remember where I saw it. And yet, none of these decks are even close to being dominant in the tournament scene. Since Gehenna was printed, there haven't been many (any?) qualifier- or continental championship-level tournament winning Gehenna decks. In major continental championships, I only know of one PTO called in any of the four finals games in the last two years, and only one weenie Auspex deck among the 20 decks involved. In the last two years, the finalist decks at the North American and European championships (a combined 20 decks) breaks down as follows: 2004 NAC !Malk bleed !Toreador embrace Ventrue (OBF) CEL guns Ventrue (OBF) 2004 EC Ventrue (OBF) Malkavian vote !Malk bleed War Ghouls Lucas Halton wall 2005 NAC Ventrue (OBF) Ventrue (no OBF) Nos princes Giovanni CEL guns 2005 EC Panders Ventrue (OBF) !Malk bleed Ventrue (OBF) Giovanni By category: 5 stealth bleeders 9 obf voters 1 non-obf voter 2 rush combat 1 weenie embrace 1 War Ghoul 1 Intercept wall So, weenie intercept was not dominant in any way. "Gehenna event decks" weren't represented at all--I played in all of these four tournaments and didn't even encounter any in the preliminary rounds. Stealth vote, on the other hand, is grossly overrepresented, perhaps under-complained-about. Why no bitching about stealth vote? Forgotten Labyrinth is hugely good, and there's no intercept card that matches it. Granted, people bitch about Arika from time to time, but I think most of the Ventrue with OBF decks would work fine with Marcus Vitel + Queen Anne + Lucinde. It seems like a lot of what people bitch about is actually stuff that wins or is omnipresent in the last-chance qualifier (incidentally). Going back to the last-chance qualifier finalists in the last two years, much more weenie AUS and embrace hordes existed: 2005 NAC LCQ Black Hand ? 2005 EC LCQ Ravnos embrace Ravnos embrace ? 2006 NAC LCQ something Ventrue Ravnos embrace Huitzilopochtli + Great Beast ? 2006 EC LCQ 2 Auspex intercept wall ? Now, I don't have all of the data (maybe someone could help fill this out?), but I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least one additional intercept deck and one additional embrace deck, some stealth-bleed and some stealth-vote, and absolutely no Gehenna event decks at all. I suppose I'm making this post for three reasons: 1) I want to know what was played at the last 4 last-chance qualifiers 2) I want to know why everyone's so mad about decks which aren't so great 3) I want to know whether something should be done about the decks which are actually dominant And I suppose the last two answers are probably 2) Cause they are dominant, in that playgroup 3) no I know if I were in charge, Week of Nightmares and Palla Grande would only give +1 bleed to vampires of that clan with capacity >2, just to get all masters that generate +20 bleed back down to something reasonable. But after writing this, I have to wonder whether that's only a minor problem, and therefore not worth changing, given the actual spread of deck types at the highest level of tournament play. So in conclusion: --Hey, anybody know what was played in the qualifiers? --To the complainers, Gehenna events / PTO / AUS wall etc. isn't so bad, you just have a jerkass in your playgroup who likes to ruin the game and he's not anything to be worried about at any higher-level tournament, -- Current decktypes have a good amount of diversity, except a bit top heavy with stealth-vote, but there's no immediate need to fix that. -- Brian

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > I suppose I'm making this post for three reasons: > 1) I want to know what was played at the last 4 last-chance qualifiers > 2) I want to know why everyone's so mad about decks which aren't so > great 'Cause the cards you mention (Gehenna Events and PTO) are problematic, primarily, for reasons other than winning the game. Both Gehenna Events and PTO 'cause problems by wildly disrupting the game (Gehenna Events always, and PTO when it is used in the way that tends to make most folks mad--i.e. cross table) in the sense that people play them and they don't win--they just make someone else win, usually randomly. Which is, for my money, that which people (well, the competetive minded ones) really object to. No one is bothered by decks that win by being effective. People are bothered by decks that turn the game into a random crap shoot. Gehenna Event decks are incredibly damaging to the table. Sometimes the deck that plays the Events can take advanatge enough to win, but more often than not, they don't. They just make the table a crazy mess, slow everything down in a irritating way ("What happens when I have the audacity to play this card in conjunction with those 5 cards on the other side of the table with lots of text on them?"). PTO often gets called cross table in some crazy attempt to "balance the table", which generally leads to outrage. And someone random (i.e. not the PTO guy) winning. Which people don't like. Anarch Revolt, pre repair, did the same thing. So it got repaired. The problem is rarely "this deck wins too much". It is "this deck demolishes the table, and yet doesn't win enough." > 3) I want to know whether something should be done about the decks > which are actually dominant. Unlikely. 'Cause the deck types that are dominant (S+B, stealth vote, whatever) win without demolishing the table. They sit down, oust their prey, and win. Which is what people like to see in a game. And these sorts of things are usually controlled by self correcting measures--the defenses of good decks are worth playing in a general sense, so they show up (i.e. bleed bounce and vote defense). It is possible that every once and a while, a card/strategy shows up and is *too* effective, but those aren't common, and tend to get fixed eventually. -Peter

> I'm really quite amazed at the amount of bitching about things that > DON'T win in big tournaments, and the complete dearth of bitching about > things that DO win in big tournaments. If you're looking for a polite, well-reasoned response from people it's generally advised not to paint a wide range of possibly related activities and people with the same brush. Using the word "bitching" implies that people are complaining without any good reason, and without backing up their arguments, so of course that's a negative thing. If this were universally the case, you'd be right to criticize this kind of behavior. However, it's my impression that a fair number of players have given some fairly well thought out arguments for why they think certain things are bad for the game. You don't have to agree with these arguments, but when you make a blanket characterization of them as "bitching" you're essentially precluding the possibility of reasoned discussion. Some people do bitch and moan, and my feeling is that they should generally just be ignored. Others have reasonable arguments, and those are the ones that deserve attention (though ironically people often pay the most attention to the least attention-worthy posters). Starting a conversation with this kind of rhetoric would be liking me asking you: "why are you such an asshole?" I might pretend that I'm asking a serious question to which I expect a serious response, but my choice of words has already betrayed a general unwillingness to discuss anything. When you start this topic by asking others "why are you bitching?", you assume/imply that they are just bitching. So try to be a little more polite. > And yet, none of these decks are even close to being dominant in the > tournament scene. Since Gehenna was printed, there haven't been many > (any?) qualifier- or continental championship-level tournament winning > Gehenna decks. In major continental championships, I only know of one > PTO called in any of the four finals games in the last two years, and > only one weenie Auspex deck among the 20 decks involved. I don't know what universe you live in, but in the one I've been inhabiting weenie auspex (or midcap mono-AUS) is a very strong archetype. The primary reasons for the success of such a strategy, in my analysis, is the over-reliance on high-stealth, heavy-payload style decks at many tournaments. A metagame more geared towards combat is not especially friendly for the auspex wall decks. > In the last two years, the finalist decks at the North American and > European championships (a combined 20 decks) breaks down as follows: You might think these statistics are meaningful, but I really don't. You're looking at only 20 decks out of all the players at these events (some of which were quite large, and which in and of themselves hardly represent the entire range of competetive VTES), and assuming that they are a representative sample of what works. In large tournaments full off good players and good decks, luck is very important. If seating orders or deck shuffles had been different throughout the day the results could have been very different. And again, as Peter says, the problem isn't decks that win. The problem is decks that break the table in an obnoxious way whether or not they win. > Why no bitching about stealth vote? Forgotten Labyrinth is hugely > good, and there's no intercept card that matches it. Granted, people > bitch about Arika from time to time, but I think most of the Ventrue > with OBF decks would work fine with Marcus Vitel + Queen Anne + > Lucinde. I would characterize the level of complaints re: Arika to be much more than "from time to time". In fact, she is almost certainly the most hated vampire in the game, now that Anson + Anarch Revolt is on ice. You're certainly right that Ventrue with obfuscate would be good even without Arika, but that's all the more reason to consider Arika overpowered. > I suppose I'm making this post for three reasons: > 1) I want to know what was played at the last 4 last-chance qualifiers > 2) I want to know why everyone's so mad about decks which aren't so > great > 3) I want to know whether something should be done about the decks > which are actually dominant Don't forget: 4) To indescrimantly make fun of a whole lot of people who spend a lot of time making suggestions they think would improve the game. > And I suppose the last two answers are probably > 2) Cause they are dominant, in that playgroup I seriously doubt that this is a correct interpretation. I think a lot of peoples' complaining about certain decks, cards, or strategies is purely theoretical. Obviously, noone has seen their metagame destroyed by Imbued + Gehenna apocalypse yet. They're complaining because they analyze such a deck as being highly possible (and I agree with that view; you don't have to), and highly disruptive in the event that it does see play. > I know if I were in charge, Week of Nightmares and Palla Grande would > only give +1 bleed to vampires of that clan with capacity >2, just to > get all masters that generate +20 bleed back down to something > reasonable. Stop bitching. >But after writing this, I have to wonder whether that's > only a minor problem, and therefore not worth changing, given the > actual spread of deck types at the highest level of tournament play. Oh wait. You're making an argument. It's a good thing I can tell the difference, even if you can't. --Jesse

But not everyone plays tournaments...imagine a casual playgroup with a pool of rough ly 15 players in total (of which not a single one ever played a tournament). Thy don't care about it's ability to win a tournament they care about its ability to make it the most unfun game......which screws with the playerbase of the game and one should never do that in order to keep the playerbase healthy and growing. Adding the added rules which make it even more difficult for a beginner to learn this game and you have some predictable problems for the future. firstco...@aol.com schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ]

<pd...@lightlink.com> a écrit dans le message de news: 1145224083.7...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > firstco...@aol.com wrote: > > I suppose I'm making this post for three reasons: > > 1) I want to know what was played at the last 4 last-chance qualifiers > > 2) I want to know why everyone's so mad about decks which aren't so > > great > > 'Cause the cards you mention (Gehenna Events and PTO) are problematic, > primarily, for reasons other than winning the game. Both Gehenna Events > and PTO 'cause problems by wildly disrupting the game (Gehenna Events > always, and PTO when it is used in the way that tends to make most > folks mad--i.e. cross table) in the sense that people play them and > they don't win--they just make someone else win, usually randomly. > Which is, for my money, that which people (well, the competetive minded > ones) really object to. No one is bothered by decks that win by being > effective. People are bothered by decks that turn the game into a > random crap shoot. I totally second this. > Gehenna Event decks are incredibly damaging to the table. Sometimes the > deck that plays the Events can take advanatge enough to win, but more > often than not, they don't. They just make the table a crazy mess, slow > everything down in a irritating way ("What happens when I have the > audacity to play this card in conjunction with those 5 cards on the > other side of the table with lots of text on them?"). PTO often gets > called cross table in some crazy attempt to "balance the table", which > generally leads to outrage. And someone random (i.e. not the PTO guy) > winning. Which people don't like. Anarch Revolt, pre repair, did the > same thing. So it got repaired. > > The problem is rarely "this deck wins too much". It is "this deck > demolishes the table, and yet doesn't win enough." > > > 3) I want to know whether something should be done about the decks > > which are actually dominant. > > Unlikely. 'Cause the deck types that are dominant (S+B, stealth vote, > whatever) win without demolishing the table. They sit down, oust their > prey, and win. Which is what people like to see in a game. And these > sorts of things are usually controlled by self correcting measures--the > defenses of good decks are worth playing in a general sense, so they > show up (i.e. bleed bounce and vote defense). It is possible that every > once and a while, a card/strategy shows up and is *too* effective, but > those aren't common, and tend to get fixed eventually. Sure. Stealth bleed used to dominate all, but people play more and more crosstable-able decks, and will vote or rush down any too fast bleeder who can't deal (as a matter of facts I'm suprised about those 2 Giovanni wins mentionned, maybe not both power-bleeders...). Fatties vote are still pretty effective, and swarm bleed is still abused, but the presence of much intercept and rush hinders both a lot. Weenie Aus was good but now has to fight too if it intends on surviving, so is much less good. Midcap aus / fight still works quite well. @ Cthulukitty : > Obviously, noone has seen their metagame destroyed by Imbued + Gehenna apocalypse yet. Metagame certainly not, but a few games obviously. -------- Orpheus

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 firstco...@aol.com wrote: > In the last two years, the finalist decks at the North American and > European championships (a combined 20 decks) breaks down as follows: > > 2004 EC > Ventrue (OBF) > Malkavian vote > !Malk bleed > War Ghouls > Lucas Halton wall The War Ghoul deck won by playing Dragonbound. I don't think he ever bled at all. He just made War Ghouls, rushed people and played Dragonbound. Maybe you meant none of these decks were Gehenna-heavy (playing one every turn or whatever), but I'd say Dragonbound was certainly significant here. Matt Morgan

<firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1145220569.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > I was just reading about Gehenna events--apparently people think > they're devastating if not ganged up on. There is usually a lot of > fuss about Protect Thine Own. And LSJ himself made some comment about > weenie Auspex being strong, although I can't remember where I saw it. > > And yet, none of these decks are even close to being dominant in the > tournament scene. Since Gehenna was printed, there haven't been many > (any?) qualifier- or continental championship-level tournament winning > Gehenna decks. In major continental championships, I only know of one > PTO called in any of the four finals games in the last two years, and > only one weenie Auspex deck among the 20 decks involved. It's probably not surprising that I'm going to agree with the other people who've chimed in here... (a) I don't think the decks that *did* appear in the four Continental Championship finals that you name are necessarily representative of "dominant" archetypes, and (b) the inspiration for complaint is not necessarily "strength" so much as "annoyingness". As Peter said, people don't mind when other people play decks that are good at winning in Championship events. They mind when other people play decks that mess up table dynamics and the normal rules of the game. That's why Gehenna events and Protect Thine Own and things of that nature are despised (by some). > I suppose I'm making this post for three reasons: > 1) I want to know what was played at the last 4 last-chance qualifiers > 2) I want to know why everyone's so mad about decks which aren't so > great > 3) I want to know whether something should be done about the decks > which are actually dominant To respond to your specific questions - I am also sadly unaware of the answer to (1). (2), because being beaten isn't as annoying as being frustrated. (3), probably not. I do very much like your idea of Palla Grande, Week of Nightmares, etc only affecting vamps of 3+ capacity on a personal level, but I doubt that change would actually be made. Josh has played a spot of stealth vote in the past

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > The problem is rarely "this deck wins too much". It is "this deck > demolishes the table, and yet doesn't win enough." ... > 'Cause the deck types that are dominant (S+B, stealth vote, > whatever) win without demolishing the table. They sit down, oust their > prey, and win. Missing logic IMO. If there would be to much decks that demolish the tables, random decks would win the tournaments, not the one that primarily oust their prey. That strong decks that oust their prey are not "demolished" shows there is no problem with those decks. The arguments against "demolishing" decks look very subjective. Very fast decks (like disciplineless weenies), very killing decks (weenie POT), very wallish decks "demolish" table balance the same way, are very "unfunny" for many players and seldom win the table. That a Arrika deck waits until the midgame to demolish table balance can give some naive players more fun. They dont know better ... Frank

x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > Missing logic IMO. If there would be to much decks that demolish the > tables, random decks would win the tournaments, not the one that > primarily oust their prey. Hardly. In current game play, given a pre-tournament overview, you can *usually* pick the top contenders (deck-wise) from the get go; the final round will tend to be, for at least 3 or 4 placers, completely unsurprising. Yeah, there are usually some crazy wild cards in the final, and some surprise hosings, but generally speaking, the "good" decks in any given tournament tend to do well. Decks that are "good", generally, tend to be ones that are good at ousting their prey. > That strong decks that oust their prey are > not "demolished" shows there is no problem with those decks. I'm unclear on what you mean here. > The arguments against "demolishing" decks look very subjective. Very > fast decks (like disciplineless weenies), very killing decks (weenie > POT), very wallish decks "demolish" table balance the same way, are > very "unfunny" for many players and seldom win the table. Sure it is subjective. But one thing that makes such decks more noticable is that they tend to blanketly affect the whole table (as opposed to just their prey)--Gehenna decks, say, throw a whole lot of debilitating, global misery on the table--it isn't just their prey that suffers, *everyone* suffers. That is the kind of thing that people seem to be most bothered by. Anarch Revolt decks (pre fixed AR) did the same thing--*everyone* at the table got screwed, and it tended to turn the game into a random crapshoot. Gehenna decks tend to do the same thing. > That a Arrika > deck waits until the midgame to demolish table balance can give some > naive players more fun. They dont know better ... How is the Arika deck demolishing table balance? If it does so by, ya know, ousting its prey, and it is demolishing table balance in its favor, that isn't a problem. That is just good play. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > That strong decks that oust their prey are > > not "demolished" shows there is no problem with those decks. > > I'm unclear on what you mean here. Sorry. What i mean is: If the "demolishing" decks that turn the table into random crap would be really a problem, we would see random decks in the finals. Not the good ones, we see at the moment. ... > Sure it is subjective. But one thing that makes such decks more > noticable is that they tend to blanketly affect the whole table (as > opposed to just their prey)--Gehenna decks, say, throw a whole lot of > debilitating, global misery on the table--it isn't just their prey that > suffers, *everyone* suffers. A disciplineless weenie deck (A) will bleed his prey for 4 in turn two without normally any defence. Usually his prey (B) will turn his attention completely backwards. He still will often die. His prey (C) has only few problems for a strong start. If the table tries to counter the unbalancing effect of the weenie, the weenie deck (A) will be killed. Giving methuselah E a cheap VP. There is IMO the whole table blanketly affected, even if A only goes forward. What is the difference to a Gehenna deck? I play a top of the art wall deck. Maybe i will not win, but you can be sure my predator will not get any VP (maybe 0,5). Random crap? Fun for him? I play Ventrue vote. Against my vote predator i play Ventrue HQ, get the vote majority and shut him down. I play !Tori embrace/Foundation Exhibit. Against my vote predator i play Fall of the Camarilla and shut him down. Why is the second but not the first a debilitating global misery? In the end: The game is about putting the table into global misery to win. IMO it is an (american player?) illusion that everyone plays honest and plain to the left and only the bad Gehenna (and in the future imbued) players play demolishing and debilitating crosstable. And the fun part of the game. To lose is not fun, to lose by random crap is not fun. In the end it is not more or less fun to be killed by the bleed for 8 of a Giovanni powerbleed deck, by a crosstable Parity Shift because i have more pool, or by a Fall of the Camarilla. I can defend against all three, but if i am not able to defend, it is not fun. I know players, who think it is not fun, that wall decks block sup GtU because thats only building your own position ... Shall i stop playing wall decks? Frank

> Sorry. What i mean is: If the "demolishing" decks that turn the table > into random crap would be really a problem, we would see random decks > in the finals. Not the good ones, we see at the moment. That seems to me like a pretty absurd extrapolation from: "some decks throw the table into disarray and make the result more or less random" to "therefore tournament results are totally random." If the tournament were 1 round and 1 table that could be true, but that's not what a tournament is. > A disciplineless weenie deck (A) will bleed his prey for 4 in turn two > without normally any defence. Usually his prey (B) will turn his > attention completely backwards. He still will often die. His prey (C) > has only few problems for a strong start. If the table tries to counter > the unbalancing effect of the weenie, the weenie deck (A) will be > killed. Giving methuselah E a cheap VP. There is IMO the whole table > blanketly affected, even if A only goes forward. What is the difference > to a Gehenna deck? Jeez. It's a good thing noone ever complains about weenie decks. If they did, that whole point would be moot. Oh wait. They do. And it is. > I play a top of the art wall deck. Maybe i will not win, but you can be > sure my predator will not get any VP (maybe 0,5). Random crap? Fun for > him? No deck can guarantee that your predator won't oust you. Most wall decks do a very good job of defening agaisnt stealth+x style strategies by packing tons of intercept, bounce, and vote defense. However, a good combat deck should crush a wall deck prey without any trouble at all. It is possible for the wall player to pack more combat defense, but then he'll be less able to reliably shut down bleed and vote decks. Plus, he'll probably end up with a more expensive crypt since he'll need to run two ore more disciplines instead of just one (disciplineless combat defense is not sufficient against a dedicated rush deck--except maybe weenie pot). Another option available for the predator of a wall deck is to make a deal with his grandprey. Help your grandprey munch his way through his first two VPs (your own forward motion is probably halted anyhow, so send your offense elsewhere), then team up to kill the wall in the 3 player phase and withdraw. You give away your chance of winning, but you're claiming that you never had one anyhow. 2 vp is better than 0. > I play Ventrue vote. Against my vote predator i play Ventrue HQ, get > the vote majority and shut him down. I play !Tori embrace/Foundation > Exhibit. Against my vote predator i play Fall of the Camarilla and shut > him down. Why is the second but not the first a debilitating global > misery? Look. Noone is saying that Gehenna cards hurt the game because they have the word "Gehenna" written on them. If examples of getting screwed by Gehenna were as clean-cut as the one you present, the problem would be largely non-existent. But they aren't, and even your example fails to make a decent analogy. First, Ventrue HQ requires a specific clan to play it. Fall of the Camarilla does not. Second, Ventrue HQ can be dealt with by a wide variety of fairly flexible means, from SRing it immediately to burning it or stealing it later (it is a location after all). In some cases, one could even contest it. Further, the effect is totally different. In both fictional examples, you do happen to be gaining an advantage by shutting down your predator's ability to pass votes against you. In one case, you can stop one vote a turn. In the other, you stop all of them. One card will prevent your predator from playing a potentially very large portion of their deck (traditions, parity shift, etc.). The other won't. And what if the other vote deck at the table isn't even your predator or prey? One of these cards gives you a resource that you can you use to your own advantage, and to help/hurt other players according to the needs of your position. The other just screws someone else. It's pretty obvious that these are different things. > In the end: The game is about putting the table into global misery to > win. IMO it is an (american player?) illusion that everyone plays > honest and plain to the left and only the bad Gehenna (and in the > future imbued) players play demolishing and debilitating crosstable. Good lord. I got into this post because I had to tell one person not to make sweeping generalizations about entire groups of people, and now I see this? Yes, all Americans beleive in playing to their left and never doing anything that could have an effect on the other players. Except Matt Morgan, because he's a communist. > And the fun part of the game. To lose is not fun, to lose by random > crap is not fun. In the end it is not more or less fun to be killed by > the bleed for 8 of a Giovanni powerbleed deck, by a crosstable Parity > Shift because i have more pool, or by a Fall of the Camarilla. I can > defend against all three, but if i am not able to defend, it is not > fun. I know players, who think it is not fun, that wall decks block sup > GtU because thats only building your own position ... Shall i stop > playing wall decks? If people get upset when they try using the cheesiest discipline in the game and other players do things to stop them from winning, then they're just whiners. But seriously, how is having your predator block your pool gaining actions in any way similar to seeing some jerk across the table lock all your vampires into a hunt loop and screw over their ability to play disciplines? I struggle to find much of any similarity at all, except that they both involve playing with cards. Jesse

x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > Sorry. What i mean is: If the "demolishing" decks that turn the table > into random crap would be really a problem, we would see random decks > in the finals. Not the good ones, we see at the moment. I'm not quite sure why you think that--if everyone is in the same crap situation, then the "good" decks are just as likely to win as not. Sure, a "global demolishing" deck turns the game into a crap shoot, but one game thrown to random odds isn't going to keep a "good" deck from getting into the finals if it wins another game or two by design, rather than random chance. > A disciplineless weenie deck (A) will bleed his prey for 4 in turn two > without normally any defence. Usually his prey (B) will turn his > attention completely backwards. He still will often die. His prey (C) > has only few problems for a strong start. If the table tries to counter > the unbalancing effect of the weenie, the weenie deck (A) will be > killed. Giving methuselah E a cheap VP. There is IMO the whole table > blanketly affected, even if A only goes forward. What is the difference > to a Gehenna deck? A) The weenie deck will not necessarily die like this and B) the weenie deck, by design, ousts its prey, and anything else that happens isn't really its fault. Like, I'm unconvinced that a powerful weenie deck will result in the table ganging up on it by defenition--if I'm sitting at a table with a deck like this, but not next to it, I'll just let it do what it is going to do while I do what I'm gonna do. I'm yet to be convinced that table ganging to counter a strong deck is ever a good idea. A Gehenna deck blanketly affects everyone at the table negatively, by design. > I play a top of the art wall deck. Maybe i will not win, but you can be > sure my predator will not get any VP (maybe 0,5). Random crap? Fun for > him? Self defeating, as you are unlikely to win. You will, at best, get 2VP, while your prey gets 3VP. So unlikely to show up. Sure. People can play stupid decks all the time that don't win and make the game suck a lot for everyone. But doing so generally means you don't win. The problem with the Imbued/Gehenna decks is that, on first look, the strongest option the Imbued have is playing a cray, blanket hosing Gehenna heavy deck. That still is unlikely to actually win. Which isn't really that much different from *any* deck that screws up the whole table while being unable to win. But one that is newly encouraged. > I play Ventrue vote. Against my vote predator i play Ventrue HQ, get > the vote majority and shut him down. I play !Tori embrace/Foundation > Exhibit. Against my vote predator i play Fall of the Camarilla and shut > him down. Why is the second but not the first a debilitating global > misery? 'Cause the first is not a global misery. It is your predator being shut down. The Fall of the Camarilla likely affects other players than your predator (and likely someone not next to you), *and* comes with other debilitating events as a cost to put Fall of the Camarilla in play. > In the end: The game is about putting the table into global misery to > win. No, it isn't. The game is about ousting your prey. Usually, you oust your prey without demolishing the whole table at the same time, and when you unbalance it by going forward, you unbalance it in your favor. > IMO it is an (american player?) illusion that everyone plays > honest and plain to the left and only the bad Gehenna (and in the > future imbued) players play demolishing and debilitating crosstable. No, not everyone plays plain and to the left. But they should. And it is best for the game when everyone does. Lots of people play stupid and do idiodic things cross table in some attempt to "balance" the table (which usually fails). But most of the good players, really, tend to focus on ousting their prey while minimizing random table destabalization. Which is one of the reasons they are good and win a lot. > And the fun part of the game. To lose is not fun, to lose by random > crap is not fun. In the end it is not more or less fun to be killed by > the bleed for 8 of a Giovanni powerbleed deck, by a crosstable Parity > Shift because i have more pool, or by a Fall of the Camarilla. Yeah, see, I disagree. It *is* better to lose by being ousted by your predator who kills you by being a strong predator than it is to lose by random cross table spite or idiocy. 'Cause your predator is *supposed* to kill you, and he is simply playing the game well when he does so, where someone killing you 'cause they randomly PTOed you cross table or played 8 horrible Gehenna events that just made someone random win the table is not playing the game well. I'm much happier losing to someone who beats me by playing well than by random idiocy. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > I'm not quite sure why you think that--if everyone is in the same crap > situation, then the "good" decks are just as likely to win as not. > Sure, a "global demolishing" deck turns the game into a crap shoot, but > one game thrown to random odds isn't going to keep a "good" deck from > getting into the finals if it wins another game or two by design, > rather than random chance. I thougth your crap shoot situation is defined that a random deck wins. If the best deck still wins it sounds for me like usual VTES: chaos and the best wins. > A Gehenna deck blanketly affects everyone at the table negatively, by > design. A very fast weenie bleed deck affects also the whole table. If you are his Grandpredator you will usually have a predator without any pressure. So you are affected. > > I play a top of the art wall deck. Maybe i will not win, but you can be > > sure my predator will not get any VP (maybe 0,5). Random crap? Fun for > > him? > > Self defeating, as you are unlikely to win. You will, at best, get 2VP, > while your prey gets 3VP. So unlikely to show up. ??? I thought your Gehenna deck will also not win, but only screw the table. Or do you say, my !Toreador/Forndatzion Exhibt deck that plays every Gehenna card with full knowledge, what will happen, and with the intent to win, is no problem? > Sure. People can play stupid decks all the time that don't win and make > the game suck a lot for everyone. And here i agree. But I dont see the difference between a stupid Baltimore Purge deck, a stupid bleed weenie deck, a stupid played combat deck or a stupid Gehenna deck. All will affect the whole table in an unbalancing way. Good players will always have options to rebalance the table or to be the winner in the unbalancing situation. > > IMO it is an (american player?) illusion that everyone plays > > honest and plain to the left and only the bad Gehenna (and in the > > future imbued) players play demolishing and debilitating crosstable. > > No, not everyone plays plain and to the left. But they should. And it > is best for the game when everyone does. No, you have to play to win the game. That usually involves playing to the left, but not always. Read the strategic artivle in the player guide by Jay - is that playing to the left. Why are we talking about Gehenna events? If there is a card that has the effect you describe, it is Kindred Spirits. I was until now never ousted by a Gehenna event, i was ousted crosstable very often by !Malkavian making deals. I can defend against the !Malkavian, i can defend against the Gehenna events - no problems. > Yeah, see, I disagree. It *is* better to lose by being ousted by your > predator who kills you by being a strong predator than it is to lose by > random cross table spite or idiocy. 'Cause your predator is *supposed* > to kill you, and he is simply playing the game well when he does so, > where someone killing you 'cause they randomly PTOed you cross table or > played 8 horrible Gehenna events that just made someone random win the > table is not playing the game well. I'm much happier losing to someone > who beats me by playing well than by random idiocy. So you accept that you are ousted crosstable by 8 Gehenna events, if the player playing them played clever and won the table? So we can agree, playing stupid is bad for the game. But that has nothing to do with events. Frank

CthuluKitty wrote: > Jeez. It's a good thing noone ever complains about weenie decks. If > they did, that whole point would be moot. Oh wait. They do. And it > is. Ok. You are right. Because people on this list complain about everything, we can also complain about events and hunters. But maybe the complain about the hunters is at the same level like the complains about Michael Luther? [Ventrue HQ vs. Fall of the Camarilla] ... One of these cards gives you a resource that you can > you use to your own advantage, and to help/hurt other players according > to the needs of your position. The other just screws someone else. > It's pretty obvious that these are different things. Do you really think, i play Fall of the Camarilla and have one fewer hand size, because i can or because i want to screw a random player? I play it because i want to win the table. > Good lord. I got into this post because I had to tell one person not > to make sweeping generalizations about entire groups of people, and now > I see this? Yes, all Americans beleive in playing to their left and > never doing anything that could have an effect on the other players. You have seen the "?" at the end? It was no "sweeping generalization". We have different playing cultures in different countries. I have seen some americans complaining that in europe is too much crosstable activity - thats all. > seeing some jerk across > the table lock all your vampires into a hunt loop and screw over their > ability to play disciplines? Are we talking about bad crosstable play or crosstable play at all? Playing stupid with Gehenna events is bad, playing stupid with Smiling Jack or Kindred Spirits or Parity Shift or Bums Rush is also bad. Frank

CthuluKitty wrote: > > I'm really quite amazed at the amount of bitching about things that > > DON'T win in big tournaments, and the complete dearth of bitching about > > things that DO win in big tournaments. > > If you're looking for a polite, well-reasoned response from people it's > generally advised not to paint a wide range of possibly related > activities and people with the same brush. Using the word "bitching" > implies that people are complaining without any good reason, and > without backing up their arguments, so of course that's a negative > thing. Firstly, "bitching" isn't always negative. For example, in the above, I state my amazement that there isn't MORE bitching about a thing. Obviously if it were something I was opposed to I wouldn't be asking for more of it. If you took the first part to be insulting, then I apologize, because that's not how I meant it. The second part, however, bemoans a lack of bitching about other things, implying that bitching can be useful. Taken together, the opening paragraph was not supposed to paint all comments against [x] as baseless, nor people concerned about [x] as moronic, but rather all comments against [x] as not as important as comments against [y] would be, which are conspicuously missing. > If this were universally the case, you'd be right to criticize > this kind of behavior. However, it's my impression that a fair number > of players have given some fairly well thought out arguments for why > they think certain things are bad for the game. Well, good thing I'm not criticizing the behavior, then. Good thing I'm wondering why there is quite a lot of one kind and very little of another. > When you start this topic by asking others "why are you > bitching?", you assume/imply that they are just bitching. So try to be > a little more polite. I don't want to know why they are bitching. I want to know why SO MANY are bitching. I bitched about Gehenna events once, and so did my whole playgroup. We thought they were really scary and we all thought they were a bad thing for the game--that is, in the first month of playtesting. By the end, though, we were all convinced through play that they weren't nearly as abusable as we had originally thought, and that the ones that were abusive or disruptive had been sufficiently reworded as to be acceptable. The sheer volume of people who, through years of play, have failed to come to this conclusion leaves me wondering, "Why is this still a big deal, when there are so many other things that need concern?" It's like having more meth labs in your county than anywhere else in America, and yet people want an increase in traffic cops. (That's in Washington, by the way.) > > And yet, none of these decks are even close to being dominant in the > > tournament scene. Since Gehenna was printed, there haven't been many > > (any?) qualifier- or continental championship-level tournament winning > > Gehenna decks. In major continental championships, I only know of one > > PTO called in any of the four finals games in the last two years, and > > only one weenie Auspex deck among the 20 decks involved. > > I don't know what universe you live in, but in the one I've been > inhabiting weenie auspex (or midcap mono-AUS) is a very strong > archetype. The primary reasons for the success of such a strategy, in > my analysis, is the over-reliance on high-stealth, heavy-payload style > decks at many tournaments. A metagame more geared towards combat is > not especially friendly for the auspex wall decks. And as I noted in the original post, weenie Auspex is quite good in qualifiers for some reason. But later, when they are taken to higher level games, people who can have 6 stealth on a vote using only 2 cards (and then still fail a block if necessary) seem to beat them. > > In the last two years, the finalist decks at the North American and > > European championships (a combined 20 decks) breaks down as follows: > > You might think these statistics are meaningful, but I really don't. I always thought the aim of bitching about a card was to eventually get the card reworded or banned. If among the main criteria for rewording or banning a card (or printing a counter to it, etc.) is its effect on serious tournament play, then finding that that card has made few or no appearances in serious tournaments is extremely meaningful. Additionally, if there are other cards which consistently see more play in championship finals than the cards in question, then perhaps those other cards deserve consideration for rewording or banning first. > You're looking at only 20 decks out of all the players at these events > (some of which were quite large, and which in and of themselves hardly > represent the entire range of competetive VTES), and assuming that they > are a representative sample of what works. In large tournaments full > off good players and good decks, luck is very important. If seating > orders or deck shuffles had been different throughout the day the > results could have been very different. I'm going with what I have. If all the players who measurably succeeded in an extremely large and serious tournament are not representative of what succeeds in an extremely large and serious tournament, then I'm not sure what else COULD be representative of that. About my data: I can only remember finals tables from 4 NACs and 2 ECs, because that is what I have attended. I decided not to include things from more than two years ago, so as not to bore readers with excessively long lists, and not to include cards which were obviously instrumental in victory but subsequently changed or banned. I decided not to include data from other continental championships because not only would the data be difficult to acquire, but I understand other continents to have much smaller championship events than North America or Europe. Perhaps I am mistaken, but if I am not, then I think I have excluded all non-extremely-high-level data from my list. Therefore, I have included what is arguably all of the relevant major-Championship-event-level data available. > And again, as Peter says, the problem isn't decks that win. The > problem is decks that break the table in an obnoxious way whether or > not they win. Well, that's an interesting concept, but can a card be banned simply because it can be used by incompetent players? > > Why no bitching about stealth vote? Forgotten Labyrinth is hugely > > good, and there's no intercept card that matches it. Granted, people > > bitch about Arika from time to time, but I think most of the Ventrue > > with OBF decks would work fine with Marcus Vitel + Queen Anne + > > Lucinde. > > I would characterize the level of complaints re: Arika to be much more > than "from time to time". Hmm. They have some regularity, but they have nothing like the frequency or intensity of complaints that Anarch Revolt or Succubus Club or table switching used to have. And, in fact, nothing like the current level of complaints about PTO or Gehenna event decks. From what I've seen. > > I suppose I'm making this post for three reasons: > > 1) I want to know what was played at the last 4 last-chance qualifiers > > 2) I want to know why everyone's so mad about decks which aren't so > > great > > 3) I want to know whether something should be done about the decks > > which are actually dominant > > Don't forget: > 4) To indescrimantly make fun of a whole lot of people who spend a lot > of time making suggestions they think would improve the game. No, you can ascribe intent all you want, but I can assure you it never helps either side understand anything. > > And I suppose the last two answers are probably > > 2) Cause they are dominant, in that playgroup > > I seriously doubt that this is a correct interpretation. I think a lot > of peoples' complaining about certain decks, cards, or strategies is > purely theoretical. OK, I agree with this. > Obviously, noone has seen their metagame destroyed > by Imbued + Gehenna apocalypse yet. They're complaining because they > analyze such a deck as being highly possible (and I agree with that > view; you don't have to), and highly disruptive in the event that it > does see play. Gehenna Events + Imbued decks = "geid" for short I think geid concerns are very similar to normal Gehenna deck concerns. It appears that only those players who think Gehenna events ruin a table are concerned that geid can win it. Players who think Gehenna events are overrated (like me) don't care if you mix them with Imbued or not, they're still not really that bad most of the time. My point being that since "Gehenna events are too disruptive" is a claim that's had plenty of time to be confirmed or refuted by actual play by now, concerns that geid will be too disruptive fall into exactly the same category. And if you're not concerned about victory, only table disruption, how exactly would having Imbued make the Gehenna events more disruptive? > > I know if I were in charge, Week of Nightmares and Palla Grande would > > only give +1 bleed to vampires of that clan with capacity >2, just to > > get all masters that generate +20 bleed back down to something > > reasonable. > > Stop bitching. What is this, an invitation to a fight? Stop missing the point. The first post wasn't made to start a flame war, it was made to understand why, of two or more things, only those which are less powerful are causing concern. This made itself apparent to at least some of the other readers, judging from their responses. > >But after writing this, I have to wonder whether that's > > only a minor problem, and therefore not worth changing, given the > > actual spread of deck types at the highest level of tournament play. > > Oh wait. You're making an argument. It's a good thing I can tell the > difference, even if you can't. I'm going to ignore this and continue to reply to your post, because other than this insult, your post contains interesting points which deserve responding to. The Palla Grande/WoN statement wasn't an argument. An argument would be a series of statements which support a conclusion, whereas the above is more of a rhetorical question or a musing. Either way, I fail to see how some good old-fashioned bitching is unable to form a very important part of an argument. In fact, I'd say the bitching on THIS VERY NEWSGROUP was likely influential in the changing of cards for years now, in dozens of cases. In conclusion, there's bitching about something you don't understand, without fundament. There's bitching about something in the proper forum (possibly this one) in order to discern other people's opinions on the subject. And then there's looking at all the facts and going, "when you look at it that way, it's kind of messed up", which is, when presented to another with the facts, likely going to cause another "yeah, that IS kind of messed up" response, which is how broke cards get fixed. Which is what I was encouraging in the original post, although I was attempting to redirect some of the existing bitching by showing that there were better things to be bitching about. -- Brian

x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > I thougth your crap shoot situation is defined that a random deck wins. > If the best deck still wins it sounds for me like usual VTES: chaos and > the best wins. In a given game, a stupid deck makes a random deck win. In a three round tournament, that effect is, thankfully, minimized due to 2 other games. That doesn't make the game with the random table screw deck any less of a crappy game, however. > A very fast weenie bleed deck affects also the whole table. If you are > his Grandpredator you will usually have a predator without any > pressure. So you are affected. You are affected by someone ousting their prey. Which is what is supposed to happen. > ??? I thought your Gehenna deck will also not win, but only screw the > table. What are you even talking about here? I was discussing your hypothetical wall deck. I don't know where you are going now. > Or do you say, my !Toreador/Forndatzion Exhibt deck that plays every > Gehenna card with full knowledge, what will happen, and with the intent > to win, is no problem? If the deck wins reliably, it isn't a problem, no. Decks that use a lot of Gehenna events and then win a lot aren't disruptive stupid decks. They are good decks. But most decks that use a lot of Gehenna events aren't like this. They use a lot of Gehenna events, screw up the whole game for everyone, and lose, making someone else random win. There is a difference there. > And here i agree. But I dont see the difference between a stupid > Baltimore Purge deck, a stupid bleed weenie deck, a stupid played > combat deck or a stupid Gehenna deck. All will affect the whole table > in an unbalancing way. Good players will always have options to > rebalance the table or to be the winner in the unbalancing situation. Unbalancing the table while winning /= bad. Unbalancing the table while not winning = bad. > No, you have to play to win the game. That usually involves playing to > the left, but not always. Read the strategic artivle in the player > guide by Jay - is that playing to the left. I would surmise that the vast majority of the time that people play in the wrong direction, or cross table, in the name of balancing the table or unconventional victory, they are actually just playing badly, and it doesn't work. > Why are we talking about Gehenna events? 'Cause that is what the poster who started this thread was talking about? > If there is a card that has > the effect you describe, it is Kindred Spirits. I was until now never > ousted by a Gehenna event, i was ousted crosstable very often by > !Malkavian making deals. People cross table ousting you with Kindred Spirits = bad play. There is nothing that can be done to help you from people playing stupid. Other than convincing them to not play stupid. It isn't generally a good idea, however, to make the game further encourage stupid play. > So you accept that you are ousted crosstable by 8 Gehenna events, if > the player playing them played clever and won the table? If they won the game, their deck isn't disruptive. It is effective. > So we can agree, playing stupid is bad for the game. But that has > nothing to do with events. Events cause stupid play. Events are, by design, global table hosers that, more often than not, turn the game into a random crap shoot. Kindred Spirits can be used stupidly, but more often than not, simply ousts someone's prey (just like KRC and Bum's Rush). A deck full of Gehenna Events, history has shown, more often than not is stupid, but without ousting its prey. -Peter

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 firstco...@aol.com wrote: > I don't want to know why they are bitching. I want to know why SO MANY > are bitching. I bitched about Gehenna events once, and so did my whole > playgroup. We thought they were really scary and we all thought they > were a bad thing for the game--that is, in the first month of > playtesting. Perhaps you were right and it just hadn't come about yet. > By the end, though, we were all convinced through play > that they weren't nearly as abusable as we had originally thought, and > that the ones that were abusive or disruptive had been sufficiently > reworded as to be acceptable. Perhaps what you don't see is people trying to abuse them. > The sheer volume of people who, through > years of play, have failed to come to this conclusion leaves me > wondering, "Why is this still a big deal, when there are so many other > things that need concern?" It's like having more meth labs in your > county than anywhere else in America, and yet people want an increase > in traffic cops. Because whether or not the decks actually DO win, the perception for many players is that "disrupting the table so that nobody else can play their deck and combining that with fast offense == teh win.", and so these decks _do_ get played. When sufficiently disruptive decks are at the table, it DOES turn the game into a random crapshoot... more random than people would like, I believe. People's natural tendencies to "play something flexible/fun that can also win", for the most part, override the "play the best deck available" option; or you'd see a lot different environment in tournaments. But that doesn't hold true for _everyone_, and whether or not Gehenna + weenie bleed actually _is_ the best deck available, it is perceived as such by enough people to be disruptive. - -- Derek why _did_ i retire before Black Hand came out, anyway? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFERNtFtQZlu3o7QpERArz0AKDswPZ/Y/Zd8TlCV5wcFx1DdFYBXwCffF8J ISMmEX4B8FDsGiilqDAAl8A= =2PyG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > My point being that since "Gehenna events are too disruptive" is a > claim that's had plenty of time to be confirmed or refuted by actual > play by now, concerns that geid will be too disruptive fall into > exactly the same category. Well, here is the thing--Gehenna Events *are* disruptive, but they don't necessarily make you win. As such, since the Gehenna expansion came out, most folks have had enough experience with them to realize that decks that make heavy use of Gehenna Events make the table into a nightmare, make everyone mad, and don't necessarily make you win, so they have kind of been self selected out of the gene pool. Now, with the Imbued in circulation, who on the surface look like they will benefit from the inclusion of heavy Gehenna Events, the same problem comes up again--people fear seeing a lot of heavy Gehenna Event based decks (due to the new Imbued expansion) which, if history has told us anything, will likely make the table a nightmare and will tend to make everyone mad, and still, probably not actually win that much. > And if you're not concerned about victory, > only table disruption, how exactly would having Imbued make the Gehenna > events more disruptive? They don't make the Gehenna Events more disruptive. They make them more likely to show up. Here is the other thing. If it turns out that Gehenna+Imbued decks aren't any better at winning than Gehenna+Kindred decks, then, well, they'll infect the environment for a bit while they are still new, make everyone mad, not win much, and again get weeded out of the gene pool. If, however, it turns out that Gehenna+Imbued decks *are* better at winning than Gehenna+Kindred decks, they'll see play a lot. Which is bad for people who, ya know, like using vampires in a game about vampires. 'Cause even if the Gehenna+Imbued decks are good and win (which on one hand is good, as decks that win aare much better than decks that don't win but screw up the game for everyone), they still will tend to make the game suck for eveyone else ("Uhh, lets see. I can't replace my cards, my cards cost an extra blood, I can't hunt, I have to hunt, the Camarilla don't exist, all of my actions effectively have -1 stealth, hunting has effectively -2 stealth, which I can't do but am forced to do, uh and whenever I play cards of a certain discipline, I have to check for other effects. Is that everything? Oh, wait, there is more...") I figure that everyone is, generally, ok with Gehenna Events in an environment where playing them is usually self defeating. On the other hand, it seems likely that no one is looking forward to a game environment where playing them is no longer necessarily self defeating -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > firstco...@aol.com wrote: > > And if you're not concerned about victory, > > only table disruption, how exactly would having Imbued make the Gehenna > > events more disruptive? > > They don't make the Gehenna Events more disruptive. They make them more > likely to show up. > > Here is the other thing. If it turns out that Gehenna+Imbued decks > aren't any better at winning than Gehenna+Kindred decks, then, well, > they'll infect the environment for a bit while they are still new, make > everyone mad, not win much, and again get weeded out of the gene pool. > If, however, it turns out that Gehenna+Imbued decks *are* better at > winning than Gehenna+Kindred decks, they'll see play a lot. Which is > bad for people who, ya know, like using vampires in a game about > vampires. 'Cause even if the Gehenna+Imbued decks are good and win > (which on one hand is good, as decks that win aare much better than > decks that don't win but screw up the game for everyone), they still > will tend to make the game suck for eveyone else ("Uhh, lets see. I > can't replace my cards, my cards cost an extra blood, I can't hunt, I > have to hunt, the Camarilla don't exist, all of my actions effectively > have -1 stealth, hunting has effectively -2 stealth, which I can't do > but am forced to do, uh and whenever I play cards of a certain > discipline, I have to check for other effects. Is that everything? Oh, > wait, there is more...") See, I actually think that the imbued angle will end up making the events less disruptive, because the imbued themselves have enough other weaknesses for you to take advantage of on a metagame level. If the vast majority of Gehenna decks are playing imbued, you can add things like Anarch Revolt or Smash and Grab to your deck and have a reasonable way to help remove the events (by ousting) if it's necessary (or the imbued deck is your prey). Cards like these give you the option of going crosstable if the events are truly wrecking your game, but if they're being played at a more reasonable pace and not actually ruining your chance at VPs you can hold onto them for a few turns or use them in other ways. I predict that most decks will begin to > I figure that everyone is, generally, ok with Gehenna Events in an > environment where playing them is usually self defeating. On the other > hand, it seems likely that no one is looking forward to a game > environment where playing them is no longer necessarily self defeating I think it will *become* self-defeating to play events _willy-nilly_ with imbued because of how easy it can be to oust them cross-table if you want or need to. The metagame just has to shift far enough that most decks have those kinds of tools available. Then the Gehenna player has to adjust his deck/play (saving certain events for the endgame, or even discarding them as a sign of good faith or part of a deal) so that removing him *isn't* the best way for his cross-table buddies to restore their chances of reasonably earning VPs of their own. Witness1 -ItE

> Firstly, "bitching" isn't always negative. For example, in the above, > I state my amazement that there isn't MORE bitching about a thing. > Obviously if it were something I was opposed to I wouldn't be asking > for more of it. Maybe we're using the same word to mean different things. It's my impression that bitching is usually taken to mean "whining" or "complaining without good reason". Maybe you don't agree with those definitions, or consider the word "bitching" pejorative, but I do, and I suspect that most other English speakers do as well. > I'm going with what I have. If all the players who measurably > succeeded in an extremely large and serious tournament are not > representative of what succeeds in an extremely large and serious > tournament, then I'm not sure what else COULD be representative of > that. The problem with doing this is that you're only looking at the end result, and not the process by which it derived. In large tournaments, the gap between 5th and 6th place (ie, in the finals or not) is likely to be very small, and may even come down to tournament points or another tie breaker. And again, random elements such as seating, draw order, and the possibility of playing against table breaking decks does have an effect on who gets to the top. Seeing only the finalists' decks (especially in such vague terms) doesn't really tell you much of anything about what's going on at these tournaments. > I think geid concerns are very similar to normal Gehenna deck concerns. > It appears that only those players who think Gehenna events ruin a > table are concerned that geid can win it. Players who think Gehenna > events are overrated (like me) don't care if you mix them with Imbued > or not, they're still not really that bad most of the time. Peter already responded to this point sufficiently, so I'm only elaborating. Very few people think that Gehenna decks, pre-NoR had much chance of winning. Almost everyone agrees that these decks are highly disruptive both to having fun and competing in a manner that has much to do with skill. Luckily, such decks have historically sucked and don't see much play. With the Imbued coming out, many people are worried that there will be a return of Gehenna event decks because the new minions are largely immune to their negative effects. That's why people are complaining--not because they suddenly discovered that events exist and don't like them. Anyhow, the fact that Gehenna events suck (or have sucked) is all the more reason to suggest that they should never have been printed. Cards that ruin the game when they see play are bad for the game. Cards that are so bad they never do see play are a waste of money and natural resources. Many Gehenna events are both those things. Also, some people (including me) took issue with the idea of a discard phase action being used to play cards altogether. Some people also take issue with the presence of non-vampires in the crypt. These are issues related to game style more than play balance (though the latter is still important), but the arguments/complaints have been made. > My point being that since "Gehenna events are too disruptive" is a > claim that's had plenty of time to be confirmed or refuted by actual > play by now, concerns that geid will be too disruptive fall into > exactly the same category. And if you're not concerned about victory, > only table disruption, how exactly would having Imbued make the Gehenna > events more disruptive? The claim above has been confirmed. It's just that the decks using the Gehenna events don't win enough to justify the kind of rage they inspire. GEID decks, as you call them, might. It looks to me like playing vampire crippling Gehenna events with the Imbued is such a no-brainer that it will be seen just about everywhere. If the decks that do this aren't good, then it will probably because the Imbued are just lame even when vampires can't do anything. So we have a new set that will likely either disrupt the game horribly every time it sees play, or just never see play at all. Neither of those options is good for the game, as discussed above. > The Palla Grande/WoN statement wasn't an argument. An argument would > be a series of statements which support a conclusion, whereas the above > is more of a rhetorical question or a musing. Either way, I fail to > see how some good old-fashioned bitching is unable to form a very > important part of an argument. In fact, I'd say the bitching on THIS > VERY NEWSGROUP was likely influential in the changing of cards for > years now, in dozens of cases. Sure. The above suggestion is more like a conjecture, which is a conclusion without the intervening logical steps. I think the logical steps to that conclusion are pretty easy to figure out though, so it is a kind of argument, if not a well-elaborated one. Anyhow, maybe I overreacted to what I percieved to be the tone of your original post. Sorry if I misinterpreted some of what you were saying. But seriously, I would still refrain from using words like "bitching" when you're not actually trying to criticize people, because people take words like that as insulting whether you meant it or not.

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > So, weenie intercept was not dominant in any way. "Gehenna event > decks" weren't represented at all--I played in all of these four > tournaments and didn't even encounter any in the preliminary rounds. > Stealth vote, on the other hand, is grossly overrepresented, perhaps > under-complained-about. The over-representation of Stealth-Vote is there, no doubt. But in my opinion it is not based on the fact that S&V is the better strategy but on the fact that the tournament format doesn´t work for big tournaments. The events you spoke about had 80+ players. In this environment you need not only 2GW to make the final but also a lot of VP, most of the time more than 7. Intercept and Combat decks have problems making GWs with more than 3VP, but S&V as well as S&B CAN sweep tables. So I would say that the spots right behind the final are often occupied by the former archetypes, while the finals AND the end of the ranking are occupied by the stealthy decks. Why is S&V more represented than S&B? Quite easy: almost everbody packs bleed-defence (like 8 Deflections), vote defence is often neglected (perhaps 2 Delaying Tactics). So it´s no wonder that S&V (and S&B) IS overrepresented, but that can not be fixed by banning PTO or the like but rather by fixing the tournament format as Stephane Lavrut and I have suggested before. Some part of the format change HAS allready been adopted for the NAC 2005, but since it was the very first appearance the impact was probably not fully developed. But interestingly in this final there was a combat deck (the year before, too, I know, but that NAC was kinda small in terms of participating players). -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch wrote: > So it´s no wonder that S&V (and S&B) IS overrepresented, but that can > not be fixed by banning PTO or the like but rather by fixing the > tournament format as Stephane Lavrut and I have suggested before. I'm intrigued. Like, I see what the issue you are adressing (a need to have 3GW and 11+ VPs to get into the finals in a huge event), but what are your sugestions for fixing it? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I think the NAC format from 2005 should (did?) deal with all the problems outlines by Johannes, hopefully these will be used in the EC 2006, as I understood it it was not possible for the organisers of the EC2005 to do so due to time demands, but it should really be a requirment for all future Cont Champs imo, at least those where you get 60+ players to reduce the problems he mentions. If thats done I dont think there will be a problem to deal with anymore. Anthony

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks for lighting that up a bit. In case you don´t remember: The first day of the championship is the "qualifying round" with all the players. The Top50 (or 45) players advance to the second day and play the second round of the tournament plus the final. If a Last-Chance Qualifier on the first is required you can give the 5 finalists of this tournament (where only non-qualified players can play) a direct shot to the second day super-tournament. Johannes

Johannes Walch wrote: > Thanks for lighting that up a bit. In case you don´t remember: The first > day of the championship is the "qualifying round" with all the players. > The Top50 (or 45) players advance to the second day and play the second > round of the tournament plus the final. Huh. That really only seems to fix the "you need 3GW and 11 VPs to get into the finals" only slightly--yeah, it whittles the field down to 50 or so, but of those 50, you are still likely to need an awful lot of GW/VP to get into the final round (anyone have handy data on what you needed to get into the finals of the NAC this year?), meaning again, folks are gonna be playing high yeild decks (S+B/S+V) disproportionately. Or not? -Peter

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1145491527.8...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Didn't Stefan have something like 1 GW, 5 VP? I seem to recall that only Peter and Jared had 2 GW... but I missed the initial seating, so I could well be wrong. - Pat

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Pat wrote: > <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message > news:1145491527.8...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > > Huh. That really only seems to fix the "you need 3GW and 11 VPs to get > into the finals" only slightly--yeah, it whittles the field down to 50 > or so, but of those 50, you are still likely to need an awful lot of > GW/VP to get into the final round (anyone have handy data on what you > needed to get into the finals of the NAC this year?), meaning again, > folks are gonna be playing high yeild decks (S+B/S+V) > disproportionately. > <<<<<<<<<<< > > Didn't Stefan have something like 1 GW, 5 VP? I seem to recall that only > Peter and Jared had 2 GW... but I missed the initial seating, so I could > well be wrong. I think you're correct about that, Pat. I also think it was only the top 40 players for round 2, but I could be mistaken. I do know Ben Swainbank got a clean sweep of 5 VPs in his third round game (as I was one of them), so he probably sat down thinking he wasn't going to be a finalist but ended up like 3rd seed. Stefan Ferenci was (if memory serves) 5th seed with a Celerity gun deck, which isn't really considered to be that high yield, I don't think. At least I can never get the stupid things to work. The fact is, if it's possible to see the final table with 1 and 5, even if you get zilch in the first two rounds, you've still got a shot at that final table. My third round at the EC last year was like "Anyone got game wins yet? No? We're all losers then, so let's at least try to have a fun game." Not there's really anything wrong with that. It was a fun game. Matt Morgan

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:e24ups$iar$1...@news01.versatel.de... > Why is S&V more represented than S&B? Quite easy: almost everbody packs bleed-defence (like 8 Deflections), vote defence is often > neglected (perhaps 2 Delaying Tactics). Here's my private, amaturish theory about that: vote decks are incredibly inconsistant. At least, that's why I shy away from playing them. They can absolutely suffocate if your predator happens to playing Arika (gee, THAT never happens... :-P ) and your prey happens to have, say, some damn Nofsfertu princes deck. That is, if the votes on the table that people have for whatever reason line up wrong, you may wind up having to make medocre deals in order to get anywhere at all or you may be just basically stonewalled. Even so, they also work incredibly well: no one on the table is hardly playing with titles at all or no one drew their titled vampire(s) this game or the only other guy who has votes is an idiot who gives his votes away for a song to the vote deck player or whatever. And, of course, some people are David Tatu. Anyway, to get to the point, I suspect vote decks can vary greatly in their results from one game to the next to where a guy with a vote deck who happened to land in a couple of very advantageous positions will vault into the finals with the same deck that got 0 VPs in the last tournament. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :-) > So it愀 no wonder that S&V (and S&B) IS overrepresented, but that can not be fixed by banning PTO or the like but rather by fixing > the tournament format as Stephane Lavrut and I have suggested before. I missed it apparently. Can you review it? Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > "Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message > news:e24ups$iar$1...@news01.versatel.de... > > Why is S&V more represented than S&B? Quite easy: almost everbody packs bleed-defence (like 8 Deflections), vote defence is often > > neglected (perhaps 2 Delaying Tactics). > > Anyway, to get to the point, I suspect vote decks can vary > greatly in their results from one game to the next to where > a guy with a vote deck who happened to land in a couple of > very advantageous positions will vault into the finals with > the same deck that got 0 VPs in the last tournament. Ok, here is my argument - and it is has many to do with what we are disussing here. Vote decks have the best crosstable capacity in the whole game. And to win, you must be able to play crosstable (even to counter someone who play crosstable against you). S&B decks are very strong, but apart from !Malk they lack the crosstable capacity. Games are often won by deals. Its very simple to make a deal with a vote deck, he can kill everyone he likes. S&B can only kill forwards. (Example: A rush deck will be killed by its predator. Can he make a losing deal if that predator is S&B: usually not. But if he is S&V: no problems. The two will easy rule the table (and the rush deck with its own crosstable power can help the Vote deck by killing title vampires.) Frank

> Even so, they also work incredibly well: no one on the table is > hardly playing with titles at all or no one drew their titled > vampire(s) this game or the only other guy who has votes is an > idiot who gives his votes away for a song to the vote deck > player or whatever. And, of course, some people are David > Tatu. Could you please elaborate on this, Fred? As in, how does being David Tatu affect a vote deck? And moreover, exactly how many people know how to successfully "be David Tatu"? > Anyway, to get to the point, I suspect vote decks can vary > greatly in their results from one game to the next to where > a guy with a vote deck who happened to land in a couple of > very advantageous positions will vault into the finals with > the same deck that got 0 VPs in the last tournament. Interesting, but I've found vote decks to be extremely consistent in terms of results. It really takes there being 3 or 4 vote decks at a table for the votes to stop getting called successfully; otherwise, you have to know how to swing a deal and it's not all that hard to say "I won't fail all your crap and make you lose if you won't fail all my crap and make me lose." I think vote decks gain their consistency, as Johannes pointed out, from the lack of defense the table brings against them (do you know how easily Forgotten Labyrinth + Private Audience passes almost any vote?) and also from the crosstable ability that x5m mentions below. In addition, you can look inoffensive to the table--if you have like 3 Ventrue and another guy has 5 !Malks and another guy has 20 !Toreador, then you're priority #3 at the table, even though you might be in the BEST position to get a VP in one turn out of the three of you. Or more concisely put, vote decks, by using large minions, have most of their power hidden effectively in their hand. > > So it´s no wonder that S&V (and S&B) IS overrepresented, but that can not be fixed by banning PTO or the like but rather by fixing > > the tournament format as Stephane Lavrut and I have suggested before. > > I missed it apparently. Can you review it? The one that stops "high-yield strategies"? I've been in the finals in an 80-player GenCon game in Indy with an intercept-combat deck, across from Jay's intercept weenies, and next to Forrest's Daughters of Cacophony. There have been card changes since then, so I'm not sure the decklists are relevant in the lists at the beginning of the page, but I would hardly consider two intercept decks or a Daughters deck "high-yield". I'd have to see a lot more results in order to think that this "yield" thing is really a concern--I don't think we're seeing stealth-vote in these finals because they're playing a "high-yield strategy", but because they beat intercept-based strategies in tournaments where intercept is prevalent. -- Brian

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > (anyone have handy data on what you > needed to get into the finals of the NAC this year?) Day 1. To make top 40 (and go on to day 2): 0GW 2VP 102TP Day 2. To make finals: 1GW 6VP

x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > Vote decks have the best crosstable capacity in the whole game. And to > win, you must be able to play crosstable (even to counter someone who > play crosstable against you). See, that is not actually the case. Maybe it is just your play environment, but I rarely see cross table activity do anything other than make someone else win. > S&B decks are very strong, but apart from > !Malk they lack the crosstable capacity. Games are often won by deals. They are more often won by ousting your prey. I fail to see how deals make you win, as any deal that is going to make you win is a deal that your opponents should not be making. So why are they making them? > Its very simple to make a deal with a vote deck, he can kill everyone > he likes. S&B can only kill forwards. Which is all you really need to be able to do. You generally win by ousting your prey a couple times. You generally don't win by PTOing that guy on the other side of the table, or back ousting your predator with KRC. -Peter

<firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1145523783....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Even so, they also work incredibly well: no one on the table is > > hardly playing with titles at all or no one drew their titled > > vampire(s) this game or the only other guy who has votes is an > > idiot who gives his votes away for a song to the vote deck > > player or whatever. And, of course, some people are David > > Tatu. > > Could you please elaborate on this, Fred? As in, how does being David > Tatu affect a vote deck? And moreover, exactly how many people know > how to successfully "be David Tatu"? Erm, David is famous for inducing other people to BECOME "that idiot who gives his votes away for a song" - even those who are not normally known for making bad deals. In short, I just mean that some people (David is one of the poster boys) have reputations for striking great deals at advantageous moments. > > Anyway, to get to the point, I suspect vote decks can vary > > greatly in their results from one game to the next to where > > a guy with a vote deck who happened to land in a couple of > > very advantageous positions will vault into the finals with > > the same deck that got 0 VPs in the last tournament. > > Interesting, but I've found vote decks to be extremely consistent in > terms of results. It really takes there being 3 or 4 vote decks at a > table for the votes to stop getting called successfully; otherwise, you > have to know how to swing a deal and it's not all that hard to say "I > won't fail all your crap and make you lose if you won't fail all my > crap and make me lose." The "3 or 4 vote decks" thing has not been my experience. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how to swing that deal if my prey and predator together can outvote me. Waiting for Bewitching Oratation or other sources of transcient votes to come up can help at times but it's tricky to turn that into VPs. "I won't fail all your crap and make you lose if you won't fail all my crap and make me lose" only works if you're not dealing with your prey and predator. The other inconsistancy I didn't mention is the ability to even get votes off. Lasombra decks work pretty good in that respect but most of the other sorts of classic vote decks don't have a lot of ready sources of stealth and tend to rely on the inherent +1 stealth augmented by various things (e.g. Ventrue decks will use Kiss of Ras). This can wildly successful or wildly unsuccessful, depending on the nature of both predator and prey decks and the forms of combat that you choose and your opponents choose. I guess if you find vote decks to be consistent then I respect your opinion about it. But I've just never observed that myself. I agree that people don't tend to specifically put much defense against vote decks that are cards that are exactly intended to defend against votes. It's just that a lot of casual stuff tends to randomly "defend" against votes - like someone using Arika for her inherent bleed capability and, oh, by the way, she happens to have four votes. Or the Tzimisce Wall deck that walls up just fine against a vote deck just as it walls up against a bleed deck. > (do you know how easily Forgotten Labyrinth + Private Audience > passes almost any vote?) Actually, I'm not taking such a thing into account, no. I mean, Private Audience - besides being kind of random in its effect - is like Bewitching Oration and Awe: if you have to rely on them, they tend to slow your deck down when don't draw them. And even having to put them into your deck robs it of other moving parts, like stealth or voter caps. If it pops up and allows you to pass a key vote at a critcical moment and that's what makes the game (like your Pander deck getting its LoP passed), then fine. But that strikes me as an unusual property of a "consistent" deck. Usually, I would think making a vote deck work consistently would hinge on knowing you can pass lots of votes consistently. > and also from the crosstable ability that x5m mentions below. In > addition, you can look inoffensive to the table--if you have like 3 > Ventrue and another guy has 5 !Malks and another guy has 20 !Toreador, > then you're priority #3 at the table, even though you might be in the > BEST position to get a VP in one turn out of the three of you. You always want to look inoffensive, I agree - just not at the cost of actually _being_ inoffensive. If you have vote lock, then you _will_ look offensive. If you don't, the problem is that you have dance real fast to get around it. And it's difficult to do that dance to get an oust. > Or more concisely put, vote decks, by using large minions, have most of > their power hidden effectively in their hand. I think that's where our perceptions diverge. If Arika's on the table, I just assume the power is in the hand. I don't care if I haven't seen the actual cards and I don't think most others do, either. Fred

LSJ wrote: > Day 1. To make top 40 (and go on to day 2): 0GW 2VP 102TP > Day 2. To make finals: 1GW 6VP Huh. That seems to have fixed the problem then. Cool. Thanks! -Peter

> Erm, David is famous for inducing other people to BECOME "that idiot > who gives his votes away for a song" Ha ha! I remember my first game against David, he called a Dramatic Upheaval with no titled vampires--he talked me into putting 6 votes in favor! OK, I see what you mean. > The "3 or 4 vote decks" thing has not been my experience. Maybe I'm > missing something but I don't see how to swing that deal if my prey > and predator together can outvote me. If your predator and prey are voting, and you are too, then that's the "3 vote decks" I was talking about right there. And if they're not vote _decks_, I would imagine they don't have more than 4 or 5 votes between them, which shouldn't be all that hard to overcome for you as an actual vote deck. Just influence out another titled vampire. In my experience, you need between 6 and 15 votes for lock, but only 2 to 4 in order to pass things regularly, because most good votes (KRC, Parity Shift etc.) inherently generate something to offer someone else. As you get stronger and your prey gets weaker, people will start to vote against you--which is what the Bewitching Orations are for. > Waiting for Bewitching Oratation > or other sources of transcient votes to come up can help at times > but it's tricky to turn that into VPs. "I won't fail all your crap > and make you lose if you won't fail all my crap and make me lose" > only works if you're not dealing with your prey and predator. Not all players are completely opposed to voting with their prey or predator. I will work with my prey or predator if they ask, it's just harder to find terms for a given vote which are in both of our interests. You only (usually) have to wait for Bewitching Oration in order to oust, not in order to set up the oust. > The other inconsistancy I didn't mention is the ability to even > get votes off. Lasombra decks work pretty good in that respect > but most of the other sorts of classic vote decks don't have a > lot of ready sources of stealth Ventrue, in their original (G1)ory, aren't what they used to be. But Lasombra, Nosferatu, Malkavian, Gangrel, some Tzimisce, and _most notably_ G2+G3 Ventrue all have access to plenty of stealth and make excellent vote decks. Also please note that most of them have a S:CE card that fits their disciplines. > I guess if you find vote decks to be consistent then I respect > your opinion about it. But I've just never observed that myself. Maybe you build and play vote decks differently than I do. I am best at intercept or bruise and bleed; stealth vote is all the way on the other side of the color wheel for me. I decided to play it 2 or 3 years ago because I am poorest at it, and in that time I have learned these three rules for building and playing vote decks: 1.) You don't need vote lock to pass a vote. If you play KRC, and then call terms 3 / 1 without discussing it, players will usually take the one on their prey as a gesture of goodwill and vote for it. (This rule is out the window when your prey is in ousting range.) 2.) You DO need vote lock to completely devastate a table. Weenie voters need to have lock, cause everyone will certainly cast all of their votes against anything they call. 3.) Your crypt should be only titled vampires. If you need more weenies to call votes, play with 3rd Tradition or Creation Rites or whatever. > > (do you know how easily Forgotten Labyrinth + Private Audience > > passes almost any vote?) > > Actually, I'm not taking such a thing into account, no. I mean, > Private Audience - besides being kind of random in its effect - > is like Bewitching Oration and Awe: if you have to rely on them, > they tend to slow your deck down when don't draw them. And True, so don't rely on them. Use votes that help pass themselves, like KRC. > even having to put them into your deck robs it of other moving > parts, like stealth or voter caps. If it pops up and allows > you to pass a key vote at a critcical moment and that's what > makes the game (like your Pander deck getting its LoP passed), > then fine. But that strikes me as an unusual property of a > "consistent" deck. Usually, I would think making a vote deck > work consistently would hinge on knowing you can pass lots of > votes consistently. "Passing lots of votes consistently" is like "bleeding every turn consistently": It requires lots of cards, and scares the table sometimes. Voting sporadically, and using Bewitching (or Awe, etc.) as a finisher is rather like bleeding for 1 or 2 sporadically, and using Conditioning as a finisher. > You always want to look inoffensive, I agree - just not at the cost > of actually _being_ inoffensive. If you have vote lock, then you > _will_ look offensive. If you don't, the problem is that you > have dance real fast to get around it. And it's difficult to do > that dance to get an oust. If you spend the first 7 turns voting here and there, and setting up your hand in the meanwhile, then on turn 8 or 9 you can probably do the dance once or (if you're lucky) twice, which would net you 1 or (if you're lucky) 2 VPs. > > Or more concisely put, vote decks, by using large minions, have most of > > their power hidden effectively in their hand. > > I think that's where our perceptions diverge. If Arika's on the > table, I just assume the power is in the hand. I don't care > if I haven't seen the actual cards and I don't think most others > do, either. I think people feel confident that Arika has power in her hand, sure. I was only saying that if there's also power on the table, then I think it's more threatening, because it's a REAL threat instead of a projected one. 20 !Toreadors would almost always scare me more than Arika, even with TWO other Ventrue. If my cross table ally asks for help with Arika, then I might help, I might not. You don't have to ask for help against 20 !Toreadors cause the table is already scared and is doing what it can. -- Brian

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > See, that is not actually the case. Maybe it is just your play > environment, but I rarely see cross table activity do anything other > than make someone else win. Peter, we agree in many things, but all the difference between our arguments in the end is from a different view of VTES as a multiplayer game. IMO good play in VTES (and i am still not able to handle this level of play) is the ability to read the whole table, interfere at the whole table in your own interest and especially defend against your predator. Playing against your left gives you VPs, playing against your right let your survive. The best player will interfere at the whole table with the fewest ressources as possible, so you often dont notice that they interfere. Thats another reason why vote decks are strong, you can for example help another vote without using any cards or tapping any minions just by giving your votes. Because bad crosstable activities make more noise (like rushing your grandprey) doenst mean that the silent good crosstable activities arent important and not be very effective in winning the game. > They are more often won by ousting your prey. I fail to see how deals > make you win, as any deal that is going to make you win is a deal that > your opponents should not be making. So why are they making them? A standard situation. 4 player table A, B, C, D. Lets say D is the strongest deck at the monent, he will kill A probably in five rounds (he can play a S&B deck, a Rush deck - not important). Because A will be weakened in a few turns, he will not make pressure on B, so C is also in trouble. If A and C are S&B decks that can only go against their prey, they will lose. If A is a vote deck, it can make a simple deal with C. "We both kill our preys and afterwards we fight for the GW. We start with D." With that deal and the crosstable ability of A (to oust its predator) they are able to kill D before he can kill A. B if he has no crosstable ability will not be able to stop that happening, because his pressure on C will not be fast enough. (Please dont be nitpicking - i know sometimes A and C are already toasted, than there is nothing that can save them.) Frank

x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > Peter, we agree in many things, but all the difference between our > arguments in the end is from a different view of VTES as a multiplayer > game. Seems likely. > IMO good play in VTES (and i am still not able to handle this level of > play) is the ability to read the whole table, interfere at the whole > table in your own interest and especially defend against your predator. Yeah, see, where I come from, good play in VTES is having the ability to oust your prey. A few times. While not dying. I find the whole concept of "deal making" to be a pointless endeavor, except in the most immediate quid-pro-quo situations ("Hey--vote for this and I'll rescue your guy from torpor"). I find the whole concept of trying to much with people cross table in the name of slowing down someone who you think is doing to well or "balancing the table" to be a pointless endeavor, as most of the time, it doesn't actually work the way you want it to. > If A is a vote deck, it can make a simple > deal with C. "We both kill our preys and afterwards we fight for the > GW. We start with D." With that deal and the crosstable ability of A > (to oust its predator) they are able to kill D before he can kill A. B > if he has no crosstable ability will not be able to stop that > happening, because his pressure on C will not be fast enough. (Please > dont be nitpicking - i know sometimes A and C are already toasted, than > there is nothing that can save them.) Yeah, see, deals like that don't happen in games that I play. 'Cause I am unwilling to make deals like this, so if someone at the table is not willing to play along, the whole "deal making table split" or whatever fails to happen. Sometimes it gets me ousted. But it certainly helps to make the games a lot more "forward momentumy" and a lot less "let's spend half an hour premeptively making deals based on speculation about what might happen in the future". But that is me. -Peter