VTES Sideboards (Was RE: Time for a Change)

Sten wrote: >>Either that or (starts diving for cover) a sideboard. The merits of a sideboard (still ducking desperately) would most probably be that we'd see clan/sect/whatever -hosers used a lot more.>> Sideboards are useless in VTES. You only play three games (sometimes only two) before the finals. In each of those games, you are quite likely to be playing against completely different opponents. You can't sideboard before your first game, 'cause you don't know what you are playing against. You can only sideboard before your second game if you happen to know what your opponents are playing, which means either you were in a game with them in the first round or you have "scouted" information (which might be wrong). This gives a disadvantage to folks who haven't seen their opponents decks. Third game and final is the same as the second. Including sideboards is simply asking for crazy rules about "scouting", which is just stupid. Tournament Babylon 5 CCG worked much like VTES in many ways--you would play against multiple opponents in a small number of games (3 or 4, just like VTES), but had a sideboard option. The game was structured such a way that you knew what faction your opponents were playing before the game started, and as such, you could sideboard based on the knowledge of your opponent's factions, and not need "scouted" knowledge, in theory. Sadly, this wasn't actually the case, and scouting your opponents was a huge part of the game (and using your sideboard), such that they had to invent all sorts of really absurd anti-scouting rules for tournaments, that didn't actually work, and didn't actually prevent scouting your opposition. People constantly argued over this very point. It was really dumb. Consequently, our local group didn't use sideboards in out B5 tournaments, 'cause they were stupid. Sideboards work in Magic because you generally play best 2 out of 3 vs your opponent--you sit down to play a match with your unmodified deck, play a game, and then sideboard for the next game based on your in game knowledge of your opponent. Same goes for the thrid game. As far as I understand, use of scouted information is limited a great deal, as you *must* play with your registered, unmodified (i.e. un-sideboarded) deck in the first game of a match, even against opponents you have played against before, thus, scouting and out of match knowledge is not particularly useful, or at least minimized. VTES doesn't work like this. You play 3 or 4 games, total (as opposed to, like, 18-24 in a Magic tournament), against different opponents every time (as opposed to playing against the same opponent 2 out of 3 games). Sideboards in VTES will not work, cannot work, and are just a bad idea. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "We have no pages lefted. It is too deep." -The deeply bizzare and inexplicable error message my junky windows machine at work gave me one day.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Sten wrote: > >>>Either that or (starts diving for cover) a sideboard. The merits of a >>> > sideboard (still ducking desperately) would most probably be that we'd > see clan/sect/whatever -hosers used a lot more.>> > > Sideboards are useless in VTES. > > You only play three games (sometimes only two) before the finals. In each of > those games, you are quite likely to be playing against completely different > opponents. > > You can't sideboard before your first game, 'cause you don't know what you are > playing against. > > You can only sideboard before your second game if you happen to know what your > opponents are playing, which means either you were in a game with them in the > first round or you have "scouted" information (which might be wrong). This > gives a disadvantage to folks who haven't seen their opponents decks. > > Third game and final is the same as the second. > > Including sideboards is simply asking for crazy rules about "scouting", which > is just stupid. > I knew ducking and dodging was going to be needed :) Please at least give me some credit by referring to my idea as a whole. I did after all suggest that all core-decks (decks apart from sideboards) should be published before the tournament in order to make 'scouting' an integrated part of each players tournament-planning. Sten During

Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comantispam> wrote: [snip] : Sideboards in VTES will not work, cannot work, and are just a bad idea. Between-game sideboards will not work, but those are not the only kind. The old Middle Earth: The Wizards CCG used an in-game sideboard, i.e. cards from your sideboard could enter your deck during play. Something like this could be useful in VTES - the problem is coming up with a VTES-workable concept. Key questions: 1. How many cards should the sideboard contain? I suspect 15-20 card sideboards should be plenty - at least I can't off the top of my head of any game I've recently played where that wouldn't have been large enough. [Well, unless I wanted to include one of every clan hoser... but, we wouldn't want sideboards to be large enough to allow that AND useful cards on top of that.] 2. How are cards exchanged between library and sideboard? [One might ask whether cards are actually exchanged or just added to the library from the sideboard - the latter would imo be counterproductive in VTES, where sideboarding should mean replacing cards of little use at a particular table with ones useful at a particular table.] 2a. Is there a "cost"? A cost might be something like using a MPA, paying pool or taking actions. Taking actions is out - it effectively eliminates the possibility of sideboarding in stealth, which one would only do if one can't get actions through without it. Paying transfers (as an idea) would clearly favor weenie decks, is therefore unbalanced and can thus be disregarded. MPAs or paying pool might be options, so might be other things I have failed to consider. Personally, I'd favor no cost, or a low cost (see 2c). 2b. How many times a turn can you sideboard? If there is no cost, or a cost that could be paid multiple times a turn, this question arises. (I can't think of a cost that is guaranteed to apply only once a turn.) At no cost, a "once per turn" limit is necessary (see 2c); personally, I'd prefer a limit on anthing but a high pool cost. 2c. How many cards can you sideboard per "sideboarding"? One will not normally want to sideboard on the first 1-3 turns (when it's not yet apparent what decks one is facing), but will want to be able to sideboard a good portion of the sideboard befor the endgame - probablz giving a range of 5-8 turns during which sideboarding would normally take place. If sideboarding is free, this'd mean something like 2-3 cards per turn might be acceptable. if there is a cost, the figure should probably be higher (making the cost fairly low). 2d. What are the mechanics? I'd go with removing x cards from the library (either moving them to the sideboard or removing them from the game... the latter forces more thought about good sideboarding, because mistakes cannot be rectified), then adding x cards from the sideboard and shuffling. As an option, it might be possible to remove some or all cards from one's hand instead, and redraw after the shuffle (redrawing first makes little sense... you might draw another copy of the card you're ditching), which would make sideboarding slightly more powerful. 3. When does sideboarding take place? During one's own turn, of course, but when exactly? If there is a MPA cost, the answer is obvious; under all other circumstances, the question has some significance as to when drawing a sideboarded card becomes possible. Before/during the master phase? Possible redraw before the minion phase, even if sideboarding is from/to library only. Before/during the minion phase? Possible redraw during this phase. After the minion phase? Unless removing cards from hand is possible, only one redraw at end of turn. --- My suggestion would be: * 20 card sideboard. * Sideboard 2 cards once during a turn, with the option to burn 1 pool to sideboard one additional card. [No cost, with an expensive "upgrade."] * Sideboarding takes place during the master phase [allows for future sets to introduce master cards that affect sideboarding, which seems like a good idea]. * Removing cards from hand is not possible. [Might be abused as a redraw if opening library draw is bad.] * Cards sideboarded out go to the sideboard. [Allows sideboarding on early turns based on "guesses" with the option of getting the cards back into the deck.] Thomas

> The old Middle Earth: The Wizards CCG used an in-game sideboard, i.e. > cards from your sideboard could enter your deck during play. > Something like this could be useful in VTES - the problem is coming up > with a VTES-workable concept. Two words will keep this from *ever* happening, workable concept or no. Archon Investigation. 'nuff said. Sorrow --- "I am Jack's wasted life." - Narrator

<snip> > > Sideboards work in Magic because you generally play best 2 out of 3 vs your > opponent--you sit down to play a match with your unmodified deck, play a game, > and then sideboard for the next game based on your in game knowledge of your > opponent. Same goes for the thrid game. As far as I understand, use of scouted > information is limited a great deal, as you *must* play with your registered, > unmodified (i.e. un-sideboarded) deck in the first game of a match, even > against opponents you have played against before, thus, scouting and out of > match knowledge is not particularly useful, or at least minimized. > Heard a funny thing about sideboarding in M:tG (I haven't played it since Fallen Empires came out) A guy actually won a tourney by (ab)using his sideboard. The first game he played a creature deck, For the second game he took 15 creatures out and replaced them with direct damage. (His opponents were busy sideboarding against creatures). The third game he let fate decide wih version of his deck he was going to play. > > Sideboards in VTES will not work, cannot work, and are just a bad idea. Agree completely Jeroen

pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >Sten wrote: >>>Either that or (starts diving for cover) a sideboard. The merits of a >sideboard (still ducking desperately) would most probably be that we'd >see clan/sect/whatever -hosers used a lot more.>> > >Sideboards are useless in VTES. > >You only play three games (sometimes only two) before the finals. In each of >those games, you are quite likely to be playing against completely different >opponents. .. unless you're playing at a small tourney. In a 4- or 5-player "tournament" you'll be seeing the same decks all the time. Sideboarding may help in this case, to alleviate some of the problems with such repetition. Of course, currently that would mean the difference between playing a sanctioned tournament and an unsanctioned one. But if the players' preferences run the other way, it could be worth it. You'd also have to decide whether to sideboard before or after the seating positions for the round were determined. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson

"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:3CA2DC06...@netg.se... > Please at least give me some credit by referring to my idea as a whole. > I did after all suggest that all core-decks (decks apart from > sideboards) should be published before the tournament in order to make > 'scouting' an integrated part of each players tournament-planning. Of course, that screws people that decide to show up at the last minute. Or rather, it doesn't screw them, it screws everyone else. Or you restrict the attendance at tournaments even further, which is probably not what we want. And it prevents people from tweaking last minute, and... Not really an ideal situation, IMO. Xian

> --- > My suggestion would be: > * 20 card sideboard. > * Sideboard 2 cards once during a turn, with the option to burn 1 pool to > sideboard one additional card. [No cost, with an expensive "upgrade."] > * Sideboarding takes place during the master phase [allows for future sets > to introduce master cards that affect sideboarding, which seems like a > good idea]. > * Removing cards from hand is not possible. [Might be abused as a redraw > if opening library draw is bad.] > * Cards sideboarded out go to the sideboard. [Allows sideboarding on early > turns based on "guesses" with the option of getting the cards back into > the deck.] > > Thomas I think this could work: - 15 card sideboard - Once during the game you could exhange 1-5 (?) cards between library and sideboard I think it would take too much time from the game itself if sideboards were big and you could transfer only two cards per turn. smaller sideboard, and one sideboarding per game would be much simplier. I think it would have a small influence on the game. You could for example put in more deflections if your predator is power bleeder, or more stealth if you are facing a intercept deck. That way you could trim your deck a bit.

Thomas Pichler <to.pi...@NOSPAMaon.at> wrote in message news:<3ca3014a$0$8780$3b21...@news.univie.ac.at>... > Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comantispam> wrote: > [snip] > : Sideboards in VTES will not work, cannot work, and are just a bad idea. > > Between-game sideboards will not work, but those are not the only kind. What about sideboarding as a discard phase "modifier"? During your discard phase, you may opt to discard from your hand to your sideboard. Instead of drawing, select one card from your sideboard then shuffle it into your library. Draw to your full hand size. If people would be concerned about people essentially playing with 105 card decks, you could make the sideboard discard a "remove from the game" action. You'd then have to consider sideboards "part of the game" but I'd expect the rule mechanics could be worked out.

L Scott wrote: >>.. unless you're playing at a small tourney. In a 4- or 5-player "tournament" you'll be seeing the same decks all the time.>> True, true, but then you are playing a non sanctioned tournament, and you can do anything you want, now can't you? Even with, say, 8 players (isn't that the minimum for a sanctioned game?), you can have the following seatings in the first three rounds: 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 6, 7, 8 1, 5, 7, 3 2, 6, 4, 8 1, 4, 8, 6 2, 5, 3, 7 And never have the same two people sitting next to each other in a preliminary game, making sideboarding useless. Sure, in game number 2, player 1 and 3 can sideboard against each other, having played together in the previous game, but as they are sitting across the table from each other, how much help is it actually going to be? [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas wrote: >>Between-game sideboards will not work, but those are not the only kind.>> I know in game sideboards are used in certain games--I know Star Trek uses such a thing, and one of the last, really contriversial promo cards for the B5 CCG did just that (get a card from outside of the game and put it into play), and while this too is certainly a possibility, it does one thing better than even regular (between game) sideboarding does--it makes hoser cards *really* powerful. The current batch of VTES hoser cards (Malkavian Dementia, Out of Control, Letter from Vienna, Ancillae Empowerment, Archon Investigation, whatever) all are very powerful, but balanced out by their extreme opportunity cost. Whenever you get to play an Out of Control, it has an incredibly powerful effect, but the number of times you are going to play it in reality is so limited that adding it to your deck blind is generally not worth it. Once you add in a sideboard option, these hoser cards increase in power--their opportunity cost lessens. You know your opponent is probably going to have a Malkavian, as you saw their deck before, so putting in a Malkavian Dementia becomes a good idea, and in all likelyhood, it will be useful. Now if you go to a plan where you get to put the hoser cards into your deck (or hand) *during play*, you know *exactly* that these hoser cards will be useful. You know that your predator is playing with cap <5 !Brujah, as they are already on the table, so putting that Out of Control into your deck or hand *is* going to be useful. You know your prey has Lucian in play, so putting that Malk Dementia in your deck or hand *will* get him killed. This makes the already quite questionable hoser cards from marginally useful cards that are very powerful but rarely actually useful into tactical nuclear strikes, which just isn't a good idea. The Malkavians simply aren't powerful enough to justify *totally* hosing them by allowing everyone in the game to strategically add Malkavian Dementias to their deck during the game when neccessary. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sten wrote: >>Please at least give me some credit by referring to my idea as a whole. I did after all suggest that all core-decks (decks apart from sideboards) should be published before the tournament in order to make 'scouting' an integrated part of each players tournament-planning.>> I considered that idea, and while it certainly is a soultion to the problems caused by scouting and out of game information, it really isn't a particularly practical (or even possible) plan. Expecting players to submit deck lists ahead of time, and then get those deck lists out to all the players ahead of time is asking: -Everyone to be organized, which we know they aren't. -Everyone to be willing to do this much work to go to a tournament, which is unlikely. -The tournament director to do an awful lot of work before the event, which not many will be willing to do. -Everyone to know exactly what deck they will be playing a substantial amount of time before the event, when we all know that many people, if not all of them, tweak their decks right up until play starts, even going to an event hoping to trade for cards to make their deck work at the event. And how is everyone going to get the decklists before the tournament, let alone submit their deck lists to the director? E-Mail? Still, not everyone has reliable access to this. Snail mail? Increases time and costs. While your idea certainly was a well thought out one, and addresses many of the flaws of using a sideboard in VTES, it isn't a particularly realistic one. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > L Scott wrote: > >>.. unless you're playing at a small tourney. > In a 4- or 5-player "tournament" you'll be seeing the same decks all > the time.>> > > True, true, but then you are playing a non sanctioned tournament, and you can > do anything you want, now can't you? No. The assumption was that you were playing a sanctioned tourney. > Even with, say, 8 players (isn't that the minimum for a sanctioned game?), you No. 4 is the minimum (on account of it's the smallest number that can be evenly split into groups of 4 and 5 :-). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Howabout a variant involving a sideboard, instead of a rules change? I do think the "storyline" tournament was a welcome change (from the feedback here). I suggest a sideboard variant something like, "A player may, up to three times per game, play a card requiring one or more Disciplines from outside the game." Make the player choose, say, 10 cards in advance, and not let them also include those cards in their decks! If you want to change the "three times per game" and 10 cards, I do think I set them too conservatively, but remember that setting them too high would make Tremere Infernal Familiar decks /really/ great. This variant would let you play Eldritch Glimmer or even Riposte if circumstances allow, maybe Auspex or Eyes of the Night in a Brujah deck, actual BLEED in a combat deck without taking up card slots, Burning Wrath from Emerson Bridges...Ian Forestal would be in something other than an Ian Forestal deck! Anything that you wouldn't normally do, either because it's too corner case (taking up space in your hand) or because you don't have enough minions that can do it regularly, but you would if you knew you'd ONLY get the cards when you needed them. It might also make, say, splashing Bloodlines clans more viable. ("I've only got two Baali in the crypt, but I can play Daimoinon if I need to"). I'm always a bit annoyed at the idea that my vampire has a given discipline, but because of who's around, he/she cannot use it. Homogeny of disciplines doesn't (from a storyline perspective) make a lot of sense to me.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > The current batch of VTES hoser cards (Malkavian Dementia, Out of Control, > Letter from Vienna, Ancillae Empowerment, Archon Investigation, whatever) all > are very powerful, but balanced out by their extreme opportunity cost. In the course of making an argument I basically agree with, I do have to challenge this. IMHO, it is completely wrong. None of these cards can remotely be called "balanced". They're all wallpaper due to the extreme risk in using them when one will seldom ever encounter the clans they are intended to hose. That might be just as well in that certain clan hosers are so powerful under the right conditions that the opponent would really be unjustly punished for extreme bad luck. This in and of itself does not balance a card. It does, however, point at another reason to leave well- enough alone and not deliberately attempt to devise a system wherein they might become playable. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3CA3CFAD...@removethis.com... > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > > The current batch of VTES hoser cards (Malkavian Dementia, Out of Control, > > Letter from Vienna, Ancillae Empowerment, Archon Investigation, whatever) all > > are very powerful, but balanced out by their extreme opportunity cost. > > None of these cards can > remotely be called "balanced". They're all wallpaper ... > Umm... Archon Investigation is wallpaper? What??? I'd go so far as to say it's broken, as there's essentially no cost to play it, and no way to cancel it. The chances of sitting at a table with a deck that bleeds for 3 or more is reasonable, especially in a tournament. I'm really surprised more people don't pack at least 3 of these in every deck. The only reason I don't is that I don't have any (never got much V:TES, and haven't gotten around to trading for stacks of them just yet). The others are wallpaper, but they exist as a metagame tool. If Malkavians are too nasty in your metagame, you pack their hoser, people play them less, you forget about the hoser and all stays balanced. I usually pack one Malkavian Dementia in all of my tournament decks. If I played Brujah in a tourney (yeah, right), I'd probably pack Troile's Revenge as well. Unfortunately, Cultivated Blood Shortage doesn't make the cut. In general, you don't get punished for being unlucky, you get punished for being predictable. People who "randomly" include clan hosers are stupid, but for the most part those people don't exist. People who pick your clan's hoser because your clan is overpowered are simply playing the percentages. You should be less predictable. ;) If the cards were simply based on luck, they would be extremely annoying, but their focus is on the metagame, and the general calming effect they are meant to have if things get out of hand (frex. maybe the designers never expected Tremere to be an uber-powerful clan with their intercept combat... but just in case they turned out to be so, Letter From Vienna would tap them all, so they'd at least need a lot of untap - and it wouldn't hurt the Tremere in general play, because it'd only get played *if* the Tremere turned out to be too powerful). On the other hand, I do like the precedent set forth by Poker (one of the precedents, that is... I still don't approve of creating specific rules text for one obscure clan's weakness) of having a decent card with an additional clan hosing effect on it.

Chris Berger wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message > news:3CA3CFAD...@removethis.com... > > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > > > > The current batch of VTES hoser cards (Malkavian Dementia, Out of Control, > > > Letter from Vienna, Ancillae Empowerment, Archon Investigation, whatever) > > > all are very powerful, but balanced out by their extreme opportunity cost. > > > > None of these cards can > > remotely be called "balanced". They're all wallpaper ... > > > Umm... Archon Investigation is wallpaper? What??? Nope, nope, sorry. I read the first two or three and thought Peter was listing the clan hosers. Nope, you're entirely correct, Archon Investigation and Ancilla Empowerment are a different breed of card than the former. Don't know what Peter was doing speaking this list of names in the same breath (series of keyclicks...you know what I mean...). I suppose you can say Archon and AE _are_ "hosers" of a sort. They're just a lot different than clan hosers and such cards shouldn't be grouped together when making sweeping statements about their functionality. > The others are wallpaper, but they exist as a metagame tool. If Malkavians are > too nasty in your metagame, you pack their hoser, people play them less, you > forget about the hoser and all stays balanced. I usually pack one Malkavian > Dementia in all of my tournament decks. Well, if you hadn't just told me, I would have sworn it was never done. Holy cajoles, someone actually _does_ bother to stick such things in their deck. I've never come close to thinking it was remotely worthwhile to do that. > In general, you don't get punished for being unlucky, you get punished for > being predictable. That seems like a pretty academic distinction to me. If you rarely see many Malkavians (true in my part of the world) and rarely see any Malkavian hosers (definitely true - in fact I never do) and you happen to play Malkavians and hit the guy who packs a Malkavian Dementia and it comes up for him, *THAT'S* what I call "unlucky". Sure, if half the decks were Malk Stealth and Bleed and every third non-Malk-S&B had some number of Malk hosers, then it would punishment for choosing the popular choice. But that's so far my experience that I'm surprised anyone would see it as you do. Fred

Sorrow wrote: > > The old Middle Earth: The Wizards CCG used an in-game sideboard, i.e. > > cards from your sideboard could enter your deck during play. > > Something like this could be useful in VTES - the problem is coming up > > with a VTES-workable concept. > > Two words will keep this from *ever* happening, workable concept or no. > > Archon Investigation. > > 'nuff said. Presumably, if a card isn't broken now (since AI has never been errated or banned, presumably, it is not), it shouldn't be broken if sideboards are introduced. Thomas

[ quoted text not captured ] Opportunity cost is one of the balancing factors for cards. Alter the opportunity cost, and you may alter the balance of those cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

Fred wrote: >>Nope, nope, sorry. I read the first two or three and thought Peter was listing the clan hosers. Nope, you're entirely correct, Archon Investigation and Ancilla Empowerment are a different breed of card than the former. Don't know what Peter was doing speaking this list of names in the same breath (series of keyclicks...you know what I mean...).>> 'Cause they are rather similar. Sure, ok, Letter from Vienna and Cultivated Blood Shortage are pretty much total wallpaper in any situation, but comparing Archon Investigation to Malkavian Dementia and Out of Control is, I'd say, perfectly reasonable. AI is a card with a very powerful effect (save pool and burn vampire) with a high opportunity cost (need to have a heavy bleed predator--less common than many would claim). Malk Dementia is a card with a very powerful effect (steal a vampire, often resulting in it's destruction ["Gilber Duane is *outraged* by his own act of diablere! He calls for a blood hunt!"]) with a high opportunity cost (need to be at table with Malkavian). Both cards, in many circumstances, are completely unplayable--no Malkavians or a predator that never bleeds for more than 3. >>I suppose you can say Archon and AE _are_ "hosers" of a sort. They're just a lot different than clan hosers and such cards shouldn't be grouped together when making sweeping statements about their functionality.>> Not really, when compared to the actually "good" clan hosers. Ancillae Empowerment (that is the "burn one pool for each minion controlled" one, correct? I always get that confised with Autarkis Pursecution) is a less viable comparison, as it is always playable at least, and will always have some sort of effect, but it is defenitely *more* useful in the correct circumstances (when you have a weenie horde prey). AI, on the other hand, strikes me as identical to, say, Malkavian Dementia and Out of Control (and to a lesser extent, Vicsisitude Poisoning, Obsession, and even Fear of Mekhet)--it has a very powerful effect that is "balanced" (in the sense that the powerful effect is difficult to actually use) by its high opportunity cost. When you are at a table with zero Malkavians, Malk Dementia is unplayable and can be used for nothing but a discard. When you are sitting as the prey of a deck that doesn't even bleed for more than 3, AI is unplayable and can be used for nothing but a discard. >>Well, if you hadn't just told me, I would have sworn it was never done. Holy cajoles, someone actually _does_ bother to stick such things in their deck. I've never come close to thinking it was remotely worthwhile to do that. >> Malk Dementia is a powerful card when you can play it, and as the Malkavians are a very popular clan, including a MD in a tournament deck (especially one that already has obfuscate in it) is a low risk proposition--at the NE Quallifiers, there were active Malkavian vampires in *every* game I played. If I had included a MD in my deck, I would have been able to play it, and probably do something good with it (as there were also always torporized vampires :-) in every game. Sure, most other clan hosers are much less likely to be useful, let alone useable, but even going blind into a tournament, a few of them are reasonably worth considering, even without sideboard rules. >>That seems like a pretty academic distinction to me. If you rarely see many Malkavians (true in my part of the world) and rarely see any Malkavian hosers (definitely true - in fact I never do) and you happen to play Malkavians and hit the guy who packs a Malkavian Dementia and it comes up for him, *THAT'S* what I call "unlucky".>> Oh, absolutely--but if you are walking into a large tournament blind, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to think you'll be able to play Malk Dementia at some point, and given room for Hail Mary masters, throwning one in isn't that unreasonable. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas wrote: >>Presumably, if a card isn't broken now (since AI has never been errated or banned, presumably, it is not), it shouldn't be broken if sideboards are introduced.>> Currently, AI is a card with a very powerful effect--burn a vampire for effectively zero, if not negative, cost (it works on a vampire bleeding you for more than 3--it cancels the bleed, saving you pool, and burns the vampire commiting the action). This very powerful effect is balanced out by its high opportunity cost. If your predator does not ever bleed you for more than 3, i.e. they are playing a vote deck, a weenie bleed deck, a responsible S+B deck, a Rush deck, and Intercept deck, etc, any AIs that you have in your deck and happen to draw are completely dead cards--you can't even play them just to cycle them. Thus, including an AI in a deck blindly is a decision of opportunity cost/effect--is the high opportunity cost (you very well might not be able to play it) outweighed by the effect or neccessity of the card? Often, the answer is no. Now once you include sideboarding, the opportunity cost of the card becomes *much* less severe--you can leave AIs in your sideboard until you *know* that you are sitting next to a deck that is very likely to bleed you for more than 3 per action. You then slap some AIs in your deck, and you suddenly have a very powerful effect (save pool and burn vampires) with a nullified opportunity cost (as you know what deck you are sitting next to, and you know the AIs are going to be playable). Thus, by changing the environment the card is in (i.e. adding sideboarding rules) you reduce the opportunity cost and increase the utility and power of the card. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris wrote: >>I'd go so far as to say it's broken, as there's essentially no cost to play it, and no way to cancel it. The chances of sitting at a table with a deck that bleeds for 3 or more is reasonable, especially in a tournament.>> But not neccessarily as high as most people think. Not that many decks bleed for more than 3 that often--a steamroller S+B deck does, but it is very succeptibe to other defenses (bounce and Rush). Bruise Bleed decks often do, but they suck anyways. Other than that? Maybe a all DOM Govern/Bonding deck. Weenie horde decks rarely bleed for more than 3 an action, and when they do and get burned by AI, who cares? Vote decks, Rush decks, Bloat decks, and Intercept decks are mostly unaffected by AI. >>I'm really surprised more people don't pack at least 3 of these in every deck.>> 'Cause they really aren't that useful. Assuming that you do end up next to a predator that bleeds for more than 3 per action, and you happen to have an AI in your hand when they bleed for more than 3, and you do burn one of their vampires, it is unlikely that the next 2 AIs in your deck will be playable (as your predator will slow down the bleeds, but getting bled for 3 per action instead of 5 is still going to kill you unless you have other viable bleed defenses than AI). Having one in a deck is unlikely to be useful (as your chance of having it when you need it is slim), but having more than one isn't really useful either (as you will probably never get to play more than one per game, leaving you with dead cards in your deck that would much better be cards that make your deck go). AI is a Hail Mary card, just like any other hoser--relying on them as a bleed defense doesn't work so well, and you are much better off simply having a deck that has more reliable ways to defend against big bleeds (bounce, pre-emptive killing, rampant pool gain, heavy intercept) and using those master slots for more cards that make your deck work better, rather than occasionally useful hoser cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

[snip previous posts] So basically, there is *one* card that people are worried about getting broken if a sideboard were introduced: Archon Investigation. Explanations on why are given and seem sound. Unless there are more cards that suffer from this problem than just this *one* (and nobody mentioned any cards that would get broken, just ones that would at last be useful - like clan hosers), I personally would be inclined to presume part of the problem must stem from the card itself, and would not consider banning it from competetive play entirely too high a price to pay for some fresh wind in the game. Thomas

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20020329094855...@mb-mc.aol.com... > Chris wrote: > >>I'd go so far as to say it's broken, as there's essentially no cost to play > it, > and no way to cancel it. The chances of sitting at a table with a deck that > bleeds for 3 or more is reasonable, especially in a tournament.>> > > But not neccessarily as high as most people think. Not that many decks bleed > for more than 3 that often--a steamroller S+B deck does, but it is very > succeptibe to other defenses (bounce and Rush). Bruise Bleed decks often do, > but they suck anyways. Other than that? Maybe a all DOM Govern/Bonding deck. > Weenie horde decks rarely bleed for more than 3 an action, and when they do and > get burned by AI, who cares? Vote decks, Rush decks, Bloat decks, and Intercept > decks are mostly unaffected by AI. > Intercept decks are mostly Tzimisce. Tzimisce often bleed more than 3 in an action. (Living Manse, Changeling, The Little Tailor, Pentex Loves You!, plus the retainers and Laptops that you have to pack and which don't have much opportunity cost because of all of your untaps.) Rush decks are sometimes Blood Brothers. Blood Brothers often bleed for more than 3 at least once per game. Bloat decks are often Ventrue, or have an I.C. member in them. Etc., etc., etc... And the most common archetype to get screwed by AI is the Bruise & Bleed. Without big bleeds, a B&B is just SOL. Even my Settite Corruption deck bleeds for 4 on occasion. You don't have to bleed for more than 3 that often. You only have to do it once. If I see that you have any bleed disciplines at all, I'll hold onto that AI all game. Sure, that's a big opportunity cost, but it's nowhere near outweighing the effect. You have a 6 card hand size for the first 8 turns. I spend 11 pool on an I.C. and have them burned by Archons. Bleh. If you don't use it, you discard it. Sure, it becomes a dead spot in your deck, but decks can afford up to about 5-10 dead spots per game without jamming too hard. If you have a well-tuned flowing deck, putting in 3 AI's will not hinder you much, and will kill bugs dead.

I think sideboards are a terrible idea. No matter how you slice it, they enhance use of the utter hoser cards, like clan-hosers, Archon Investigation, and the like. These are bad cards; to be the target almost always spoils your game. More use of them is a bad thing. Their purpose is that if, for some reason, one or two deck styles became utter killers, the corresponding hosers could rein them in. But we don't need them now, why screw up player's games? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

Thomas wrote: >>So basically, there is *one* card that people are worried about getting broken if a sideboard were introduced: Archon Investigation. Explanations on why are given and seem sound.>> AI wouldn't be anymore broken than it already is or is not--it would just be much more effective, which it doesn't need to be. That and it isn't just the one card--it is any card that has an opportunity cost that currently balances its powerful effect: -Ancillae Empowerment, which is incredibly powerful against weenie horde decks, but mostly debilitating otherwise becomes a tactical nuclear device. -Fear of Mekhet, which can burn IC members for little cost, suddenly becomes a very viable card, if you only have to put it in your deck if you *know* you are facing IC members. -The brutal Sabbat clan hosers (Out of Control, Viscisitude Poisoning, Obsession) become very playable and overly powerful if you only have to put them in your deck when you know you will see the appropriate clan. -Mundane powerful but balanced cards, like Deflection, lose all their balancing factors. If I could swap out all of my Deflections in a situation where I know my predator is playing a deck that doesn't bleed much, if at all, and replace them with more useful cards for that situation, I would in a second. Say I had 8 extra bleed cards in the sideboard for my Giovanni toolbox deck, and sat down with a vote or rush predator? I'd swap out the otherwise useless Deflections for something else that makes my deck go better, and suddenly all the disadvantages of putting Deflection in my deck just go away. >>Unless there are more cards that suffer from this problem than just this *one* (and nobody mentioned any cards that would get broken, just ones that would at last be useful - like clan hosers),>> Too useful. A Malkavian Dementia that is always going to be playable is too powerful. An Out of Control that is always going to be playable is too powerful. An Ancillae Empowerment that is in a deck that *knows* it's prey is a weenie horde is suddenly much more useful than it originally was. >>I personally would be inclined to presume part of the problem must stem from the card itself, and would not consider banning it from competetive play entirely too high a price to pay for some fresh wind in the game.>> AI is currently a highly questionable card, but is balanced by its extreme opportunity cost. Remove this, and it becomes way too good. Just like many other similar cards. AI isn't the problem. The idea of sideboards is. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris wrote: >>Intercept decks are mostly Tzimisce.>> Umm, ok, if you say so. >>Tzimisce often bleed more than 3 in an action. (Living Manse, Changeling, The Little Tailor, Pentex Loves You!, plus the retainers and Laptops that you have to pack and which don't have much opportunity cost because of all of your untaps.)>> Uhh, ok. It also seems like the effort it takes to bleed for more than 3 per action in this situation is *wayyy* more than it is worth. >>Rush decks are sometimes Blood Brothers. Blood Brothers often bleed for more than 3 at least once per game.>> Yokay. >>Bloat decks are often Ventrue, or have an I.C. member in them. Etc., etc., etc...>> Which need to bleed for more than 3 why? >>And the most common archetype to get screwed by AI is the Bruise & Bleed. Without big bleeds, a B&B is just SOL.>> Yes, which is why AI is a stupid card, but fear of already useless B+B decks is hardly automatic justification for inclusion of multiple AIs in every deck. >>Even my Settite Corruption deck bleeds for 4 on occasion.>> Sure, there are plenty of decks that *can* bleed for more than 3 per action, but they are all decks that are better dealt with using a solid anti-bleed strategy (bounce, rush, bloat, race) than relying on a prayer card that will just as often not be playable is it will. Especially one that requires you to include multiples of them to be sure of having them when you actually want them. >>You don't have to bleed for more than 3 that often. You only have to do it once. If I see that you have any bleed disciplines at all, I'll hold onto that AI all game. Sure, that's a big opportunity cost, but it's nowhere near outweighing the effect. You have a 6 card hand size for the first 8 turns. I spend 11 pool on an I.C. and have them burned by Archons. Bleh.>> Yes, or you could have another Master that helps your deck go, and not have to worry about the bleed of 5 anyway. >>If you don't use it, you discard it. Sure, it becomes a dead spot in your deck, but decks can afford up to about 5-10 dead spots per game without jamming too hard. If you have a well-tuned flowing deck, putting in 3 AI's will not hinder you much, and will kill bugs dead.>> Of course it will hinder you somewhat--you'll have 3 cards that are often completely useless, and even if you manage to play 1 of them, the other two will cease to be useful, generally speaking. Sure, when AI works, it can be devestating at best, or handy at least, but I am rarely in a situation where I say to myself "Man, I gotta get an AI in this deck...". I have, like, 3 or 4 AIs floating around, but while I have about 12 currently built and viable decks, not a single one of them has an AI in it, 'cause the opportunity cost is simply too high to be valuable, and other important masters in those slots that I *know* will be useful are far more valuable. Sure, throwing an AI in every deck you build is probably not going to kill you, and occasionally it will actually be helpful, but I find that it usually just isn't worth the effort, and whenever I even consider putting an AI in one of my decks, it is always the first card cut for something more important. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Fred wrote: > >>Nope, you're entirely correct, Archon Investigation and > Ancilla Empowerment are a different breed of card than the former. Don't know > what Peter was doing speaking this list of names in the same breath (series > of keyclicks...you know what I mean...).>> > > 'Cause they are rather similar. Sure, ok, Letter from Vienna and Cultivated > Blood Shortage are pretty much total wallpaper in any situation, but comparing > Archon Investigation to Malkavian Dementia and Out of Control is, I'd say, > perfectly reasonable. AI is a card with a very powerful effect (save pool and > burn vampire) with a high opportunity cost (need to have a heavy bleed > predator--less common than many would claim). Malk Dementia is a card with a > very powerful effect (steal a vampire, often resulting in it's destruction > ["Gilber Duane is *outraged* by his own act of diablere! He calls for a blood > hunt!"]) with a high opportunity cost (need to be at table with Malkavian). > Both cards, in many circumstances, are completely unplayable--no Malkavians or > a predator that never bleeds for more than 3. They don't even compare. The event which allows AI to be used happens about more often is so much of a better effect that I have no clue where you're coming from. Out of Control is a little closer but I still don't care. I frequently go whole tournaments and never see an anti-Brujah. People actually fear Archon Investigation, which is one of the main reasons (though Bleed Bounce is really the better reason) that you don't see bleeds for more than three, even if the prey is tapped out. > >>I suppose you can say Archon and AE _are_ "hosers" of a sort. They're just a > lot different than clan hosers and such cards shouldn't be grouped together > when making sweeping statements about their functionality.>> > > Not really, when compared to the actually "good" clan hosers. There are no "actually 'good' clan hosers". > >>Well, if you hadn't just told me, I would have sworn it was never done. Holy > cajoles, someone actually _does_ bother to stick such things in their deck. > I've never come close to thinking it was remotely worthwhile to do that. >> > > Malk Dementia is a powerful card when you can play it, But the when is so seldom that it doesn't matter - not for the effect you get. Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20020329134132...@mb-fd.aol.com... > Chris wrote: > >>Intercept decks are mostly Tzimisce.>> > > Umm, ok, if you say so. > Well, they're either Tzimisce or they suck (i.e. are Tremere...) ;) > >>Tzimisce often bleed more than 3 in an action. (Living Manse, Changeling, > The Little Tailor, Pentex Loves You!, plus the retainers and Laptops that you > have to pack and which don't have much opportunity cost because of all of your > untaps.)>> > > Uhh, ok. It also seems like the effort it takes to bleed for more than 3 per > action in this situation is *wayyy* more than it is worth. > You have so many untaps in a Tzimisce deck, that you want to be taking actions. Generally, the best actions for you are permanent bleed and permanent intercept. You put in a few of each, then you bleed, either at stealth or as a B&B backup to your intercept combat. Because the bleed is permanent, you don't have to worry about jamming on it, as you have something like 10-15 bleed cards in the whole deck, including Changelings, which are also your stealth for those times when you want it. Most of the good Tzimisce are big (and it's worth playing with them because you have a lot of untaps), so in order to be a bleeder and not just a crappy wall deck, you need to load up those monsters. Changeling is pretty much a given, since it's such a great card, and Living Manse is really good too. The retainers, I see in all kinds of decks, since they're free, and almost always worth the action to recruit. Suffice it to say that a Tzimisce deck that can actually win, rather than one that's just a wall of agg damage, needs to bleed big. Most of their bleeds will be in the 2-3 range, but with Pulse, or with Little Tailor and a Living Manse, you get to the point where one Changeling puts you in the danger zone. I guess the fear of pumping it any further is what AI was made for. FYI, I'm just saying the Tzimisce need to bleed here. As far as I'm concerned, there's no real argument about AI. It's powerful. I'm on the borderline of thinking it's broken, but I'm not going to argue for it to get errata'd or banned or anything silly like that. We can agree to disagree on whether it's actually worth including in any non-Dominate deck, I guess. But whenever I see them played, it's a huge game-turning effect, for basically no cost.

Fred wrote: >>They don't even compare.>> Of course they do. But then we could go back and forth with this "Yes it is! No it isn't! This isn't even an argument!" for days. Again, AI has a big effect with a noticable opportunity cost (I'd argue more of an opportunity cost than most, but that is me). The moderately effective clan hosers (Malk Dementia, Out of Control, Viscisitude Poisoning) have big effects with a noticable opportunity cost. If there were sideboarding rules (the context of this discussion), all of these cards (AI and Clan Hosers) would become much more powerful, as their opportunity cost would go away. Sure, AI is still going to be more effective than any 3 clan hosers combined, but without opportunity cost, Malk Dementia and Out of Control suddenly become very playable. >>The event which allows AI to be used happens about more often is so much of a better effect that I have no clue where you're coming from.>> Where I'm coming from is a discussion about how sideboarding rules would negatively impact the game. Much of my point revolves around how removing the opportunity costs of hoser cards like AI and Malk Dementia make them more powerful than is acceptable. >>Out of Control is a little closer but I still don't care.>> There once was a boy named Pierre, ya know... >>I frequently go whole tournaments and never see an anti-Brujah. People actually fear Archon Investigation, which is one of the main reasons (though Bleed Bounce is really the better reason) that you don't see bleeds for more than three, even if the prey is tapped out.>> Ok. Good to know. Still, in the context of the sideboarding discussion (you did notice the name of the thread, right?), AI and Malkavian Dementia are very similar. >>There are no "actually 'good' clan hosers".>> If you can manage to play Out of Control, you burn a vampire for 2 pool. That is always good. If you can manage to play Malkavian Dementia, you generally can get a Malkavian burned ot torporized, or at the least, get a good, free bleed through, which is always good. If you can manage to play a Viscisitude Poisoning, you again, effectively burn a vampire, which is always good. Notice the "manage" included. Given the context of sideboarding in this discussion, that "manage" becomes a "when" and all of these cards become good. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Fred wrote: > >>I frequently go whole tournaments and never see an anti-Brujah. People > actually fear Archon Investigation, which is one of the main reasons (though > Bleed Bounce is really the better reason) that you don't see bleeds for more > than three, even if the > prey is tapped out.>> > > Ok. Good to know. Still, in the context of the sideboarding discussion (you did > notice the name of the thread, right?), AI and Malkavian Dementia are very > similar. They're qualitatively similar in being smalls-odds, big-results types of cards. They are far from quantitatively similar as AI has the big edge, both in terms of how small the odds are and how big the effect is. The point is that Archon Investigation is actually a card you would use in a real deck, not just a side board. The name of this thread isn't the issue here. I was distinguishing the two types of cards in terms of refuting your statement that they were both "balanced". I agree that Archon Investigation is fairly well balanced for the reasons you give. I do agree that the clan hosers are balanced because the odds of being able to use one is too small for the benefit you get. Cards like Malkavian Dementia may have been arguably balanced when Jyhad was first published. I wouldn't know, since I didn't play enough or remotely know the game well enough at that time. Though I'm simply using my judgment to state that clan hosers are wallpaper, I can also lay out a logical argument to the same end which I feel is pretty hard to dispute: a) Clan hosers were not overpowered/undercosted when first released. (Had they been, you would have heard complaints about them, calls to have them banned or errataed, they would have turned up in numerous decklists.) b) Clan hosers must have a significantly lower reward-to-risk ratio now than they had when they were first released. (There were originally only seven clans and a few Caitiff; now there are 19 main clans not counting Pander, Pander, more Caitiff, and a dozen bloodlines. However, the reward from using one when you can is no better - assuming you accept that Sabbat clan hosers are generally no worse than the Camarilla. The match isn't exact but I think on the whole, it's a pretty fair statement.) c) Therefore, having significantly less chance of using one with no better of a payoff over a card that was originally an average card (at best), must mean that these cards are now significantly less useful than average. Fred

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Fred wrote: > >>I frequently go whole tournaments and never see an anti-Brujah. People > actually fear Archon Investigation, which is one of the main reasons (though > Bleed Bounce is really the better reason) that you don't see bleeds for more > than three, even if the > prey is tapped out.>> > > Ok. Good to know. Still, in the context of the sideboarding discussion (you did > notice the name of the thread, right?), AI and Malkavian Dementia are very > similar. They're qualitatively similar in being smalls-odds, big-results types of cards. They are far from quantitatively similar as AI has the big edge, both in terms of how small the odds are and how big the effect is. The point is that Archon Investigation is actually a card you would use in a real deck, not just a side board. The name of this thread isn't the issue here. I was distinguishing the two types of cards in terms of refuting your statement that they were both "balanced". I agree that Archon Investigation is fairly well balanced for the reasons you give. I do not agree that the clan hosers are balanced because the [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3CA5142C...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled something about: >Cards like Malkavian Dementia may have been arguably balanced when Jyhad was >first published. I wouldn't know, since I didn't play enough or remotely know >the game well enough at that time. Though I'm simply using my judgment to state >that clan hosers are wallpaper, I can also lay out a logical argument to the >same end which I feel is pretty hard to dispute: This would be the real key. Clan hosers made their debut at a time when there were seven clans, no more, and some random Caitiff that would ONLY be making an appearance as an adjunct to those clans. Clan decks would be far more common, as the discipline combos needed to make many off-key decks simply didn't exist. The seven clan hosers in Jyhad were: Ventrue - Cultivated Blood Shortage Malkavian - Malkavian Dementia Brujah - Brujah Frenzy Tremere - Letter from Vienna Toreador - Tragic Love Affair Nosferatu - Nosferatu Putrescence Gangrel - Gangrel Devolution ...and there may be some more that I don't remember. Overall, they were basically balanced from design intent, although Malkavian Dementia ends up having a significantly larger effect than all the others. In an "Original" environment, Gangrel Devolution would have been much more significant, as Gangrel inherently had little way to increase their bleed. Letter from Vienna would have made short work of Tremere intercept/combat decks. Tragic Love Affair is a "don't untap" card, and with no stealth available to the Toreador, it would have been difficult to gain the Edge against a Methuselah who was willing to defend. Brujah Frenzy would be very irritating when trying to oust someone and very beneficial to the card-player, especially if you were forced to enter combat with your own predator. The Ventrue card seems to be direct bait for the three interceptor clans, although the design team clearly didn't foresee the heavy use of Voter Captivation and 5th Tradition that goes on in the average Ventrue deck. But that's been a given for awhile, that the design team didn't expect the HUGE piles of cards that people were willing to collect for the game. Nosferatu Putrescence probably has the least effect of any, but it is also the sole non-Master card and the most easily cyclable in multiples if necessary. Assuming you played a 4- or 5- player game, it was WELL worth your time to include at least one clan hoser (preferably chosen to impact the clan that you were most worried about; Gangrel would pack Tragic Love Affair, Brujah would carry Gangrel Devolution, all the interceptors would carry Cultivated Blood Shortage, anyone who felt like it could use Malk Dementia, and the non-combat clans would have Brujah Frenzy. Letter from Vienna and Nossie Putrescence would show up occasionally. >c) Therefore, having significantly less chance of using one with no better of a >payoff over a card that was originally an average card (at best), must mean that >these cards are now significantly less useful than average. Well, with well over 15+ clans at this point, any clan hoser would have to be on the level of Out of Control to be worth playing. Malk Dementia, for example, isn't generally included these days unless someone also has cards such as Golconda, or other ways to make extreme use of the pilfered Malk. And cards such as Out of Control don't need to exist, as they basically punish one player very heavily for bad luck. So there you go. Clan Hosers: originally a viable idea, now simply a relic of the past. I note that the primary clan hoser in Bloodlines (Cold Iron) comes attached to an otherwise handy card. (because it's FREE. Sure, it's got a Fortitude weakness, but if you're trying to beat up Fortitude with melee weapons, you might be screwed anyway.) -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

Fred wrote: >>c) Therefore, having significantly less chance of using one with no better of a payoff over a card that was originally an average card (at best), must mean that these cards are now significantly less useful than average.>> I'm not saying that, in general terms, clan hosers are useful--they aren't (except maybe a few situations where I might consider throwing a Malk Dementia in a deck I was taking to a tournament, as the chances of running into a Malk in such an environment is pretty high). Even the powerful ones aren't generally useful--the opportunity cost is too high. AI has less opportunity cost and a greater effect than any clan hoser. In a general sense, AI is completely better in any way than any single clan hoser. Correct. Given the existance of hypothetical sideboards, however, clan hosers (well, a few of them anyways) suddenly become just as useful as AI. They lose all opportunity cost, and their benefit is significant--if you are in a situation where you feel justified in putting a Malk Dementia or Out of Control into your deck, using hypothetical sideboarding rules, it is going to be worth your effort, just as if you were in a similar situation where you felt it was worth putting AI in your deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Fred wrote: > >>c) Therefore, having significantly less chance of using one with no better of > a payoff over a card that was originally an average card (at best), must mean > that these cards are now significantly less useful than average.>> > > I'm not saying that, in general terms, clan hosers are useful--they aren't > (except maybe a few situations where I might consider throwing a Malk Dementia > in a deck I was taking to a tournament, as the chances of running into a Malk > in such an environment is pretty high). Even the powerful ones aren't generally > useful--the opportunity cost is too high. Well, that's pretty much my case, then. A card that is not "useful" or generally usable (unusual local metagames notwithstanding) is poorly balanced if not out and out wallpaper. I'm not sure if you were still defending the premise that clan hosers were "balanced", but you seem to respond ever time I post something to dispute it. > Given the existance of hypothetical sideboards, however, clan hosers (well, a > few of them anyways) suddenly become just as useful as AI. I can't see how they would become as useful as AI. I suppose they would gain something over AI in that players can build heavy bleed decks and then just choose not to bleed if they suspect an AI coming for whatever reason. But it's pretty hard to not use the vampires you have in your crypt. But other than that thought, I don't see how AI doesn't lose its opportunity cost as much as a clan hoser, thus making the sideboard thing mostly a wash. Also, the fact that you could sideboard the AI out if it's not needed actually helps it over the clan hosers which would never (except for Chris, I guess) make your main deck in the first place. Whatever. It is not my intent to dispute that clan hosers would be usable in an environment that allowed sideboarding and provided a decent way to anticipate what cards your opponents are using. Fred

CurtAdams wrote: > I think sideboards are a terrible idea. No matter how you slice it, they > enhance use of the utter hoser cards, like clan-hosers, Archon Investigation, > and the like. These are bad cards; to be the target almost always spoils your > game. More use of them is a bad thing. According to the utility-based rarities theory/fairy tale, original designer intent must have been be for these cards to be occasionally useful (unlike, say, Freak Drive), which - the way the game currently works - they are not. [WW even paid tribute to this fact by making all of them rare in SW.] > Their purpose is that if, for some > reason, one or two deck styles became utter killers, the corresponding hosers > could rein them in. Unless these were clan-oriented as opposed to discipline-oriented decks, this would not actually work [with the possible exception of some fringe, (almost) single-clan disciplines, such as vic or qui]. And even if these decks were clan-oriented, constant contesting would likely be a much more balancing factor than the odd clan hoser. > But we don't need them now, why screw up player's games? Changing the game is not necessarily equivalent to screwing up the game. Personally, I think it'd be worth testing if sideboards would make the game more interesting (a series of non-sanctioned tournaments, maybe), and abandoning the idea if and after it actually proves to be harmful. Thomas

"Thomas Pichler" <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:3CA588CD...@aon.at... [hosers] > According to the utility-based rarities theory/fairy tale, original designer > intent must have been be for these cards to be occasionally useful (unlike, say, > Freak Drive), which - the way the game currently works - they are not. [WW even > paid tribute to this fact by making all of them rare in SW.] They are currently "occasionally useful" if you bother to put them in your deck. The problem is that "occasionally useful" is not often enough for most people to bother putting them in a deck. If you were to put pretty much any hoser in your deck, it's pretty certain that you'd have a chance to play the card at a large tournament. On the other hand, the chances of the card actually being in you hand when you're sitting next to a deck you can use it on is slim. That's the problem. Feel free to try sideboards with your group and let us know how it goes. Of course, the best way to "try" it would be to try and break sideboards. If you can't break sideboards after trying to do so, then it might be more likely to see the general light of day. Most of us won't believe it, though. :) Xian

Fred wrote: >> I'm not sure if you were still defending the premise that clan hosers were "balanced", but you seem to respond ever time I post something to dispute it.>> You're argumentitive. I'm argumentitive. Thus, dispute :-) Also, this seems to be a quibble over what we are meaning by "balanced". I guess I am meaning by balanced "a card with a powerful effect that pays for its powerful effect with high opportunity cost"--given the (extremely) high opportunity cost of, say, Malk Dementia and Out of Control, when they are playable, they are generally very useful. But you almost never get to play them, so they aren't really worth putting in a deck (although I would still defend the idea of occasionally including a Malk Dementia in a deck for a tournament that has ways to capitalize on stealing someone's Malkavian, like lots of dominate, stealth to commit diablere, or Hidelburg to take all their blood and stuff. But then I wouldn't defend it that much :-) You seem to be using the word "balanced" to mean "a card that is good", which one could argue that AI, in a general sense, is while one could not actually argue that clan hosers are, 'cause they simply aren't. >>I can't see how they would become as useful as AI.>> Well, AI is really good if your predator is playing a heavy bleed deck. Out of Control is really good if your predator is playing a !Brujah deck. Viscisitude Poisonoing is really good if your prey is playing a Tsimiscee deck. Malk Dementia is really good if somone is playing a Leandro deck. Strikes me as just as useful. But again, just me. >>But other than that thought, I don't see how AI doesn't lose its opportunity cost as much as a clan hoser,>> It does. >>thus making the sideboard thing mostly a wash.>> It is. You seem to be under the impression that I'm saying that clan hosers become better than AI or something. No, they just become useful, as opposed to not, which is the case normally. AI also becomes useful (keep in mind here that I am under the belief that Archon Investigation just isn't very useful, and I never include any in any decks--I guess you did not read my posts to Chris on this matter). Both of them become useful when sideboarding is an issue. Without sideboarding, clan hosers are mostly useless. Without sideboarding, AI is marginally more useful to include in a deck than out of control, but not much (keeping in mind that my opinion on AI isn't really an issue here--it is just the basis for many of my comments that you seem to be misunderstanding). >>Whatever. It is not my intent to dispute that clan hosers would be usable in an environment that allowed sideboarding and provided a decent way to anticipate what cards your opponents are using.>> Ok then. As that is the very basis of this discussion, I guess we can stick a fork in it :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

tom.p...@aon.at writes: >CurtAdams wrote: >> I think sideboards are a terrible idea. No matter how you slice it, they >> enhance use of the utter hoser cards, like clan-hosers, Archon Investigation, >> and the like. These are bad cards; to be the target almost always spoils your >> game. More use of them is a bad thing. >According to the utility-based rarities theory/fairy tale, original designer >intent must have been be for these cards to be occasionally useful (unlike, say, >Freak Drive), which - the way the game currently works - they are not. [WW even >paid tribute to this fact by making all of them rare in SW.] I think the original designers were aware of the limitations of their playtesting and forecasting. Long ago, I wrote articles pointing out a big thing about CCGs is that you can play something that's never been specifically designed. Jyhad used a cute tactic of putting out hosers for most tricks so that if anything turned out to be too good the players could compensate by putting in an appropriate # of hosers. Of course the hosers had to be common enough they could be used. Due partly to clan # expansion, we all know clan hosers won't really be useful even if some clans are too good, so it's appropriate for them to be rare, and my complements to WW for recognizing that. In Jyhad, the rarity was appropriate; as it turned out Malk Dementia helped bring the Malks down and the rarity was pretty appropriate for its use rate. The other hosers were overprinted, but it was a sensible overprint as the designers didn't know in advance which hosers would be needed. >Unless these were clan-oriented as opposed to discipline-oriented decks, this >would not actually work [with the possible exception of some fringe, (almost) >single-clan disciplines, such as vic or qui]. It wouldn't get everything, but it would get some things, and in point of fact it *did* help with the main "killer" strategy in the Jyhad set, S&B. Now, clan-based decks are a smaller set of what's really good, so they wouldn't work as well. >> But we don't need them now, why screw up player's games? >Changing the game is not necessarily equivalent to screwing up the game. We're not discussing change in general but sideboards in particular. Hosers pretty much screw their targets, and this is a bad thing. It stinks to be unable to play as two vampires are trashed by single cards you can't do anything about. If you have to do that for game balance, you have to, but you need a big payoff to justify ir. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Fred wrote: > >> I'm not sure if you were still defending the premise that > clan hosers were "balanced", but you seem to respond ever time I post something > to dispute it.>> > > ...this seems to be a quibble over what we are meaning by "balanced". I > guess I am meaning by balanced "a card with a powerful effect that pays for its > powerful effect with high opportunity cost"--given the (extremely) high > opportunity cost of, say, Malk Dementia and Out of Control, when they are > playable, they are generally very useful. You're right. That is the dispute. To me, this is an insufficient definition. A card can oust all of your opponents and retroactively take away victory points previously won by them and give you an immediate sweep of the table and I would call that a highly powerful effect. But if, on the other hand, it is so difficult to play as to make unlikely anyone will ever accomplish it (say, flip 30 coins and have them all come up heads: a one in a billion shot), then it can not be called balance. Balance is balance, equality between difficulty in using and the magnitude of the effect. Just show the effect is powerful, no matter how powerful, is insufficient to prove balance and incorrect to call balance when the difficulty of using it effectively is even more extreme. It's a judgment call, as always. But to me, the power of "borrowing" an opposing vampire for a turn is insufficient in comparison to the difficulty of only being able to use it when a Malkavian is in the game. Especially if you don't have anything in your deck that will allow you to do anything particularly vicious with it, such as Golconda or Khobar Towers. > You seem to be > using the word "balanced" to mean "a card that is good", which one could argue > that AI, in a general sense, is while one could not actually argue that clan > hosers are, 'cause they simply aren't. Balance is balance. Not too good, not too bad. That's we say cards that are undercosted or overpowered to the extent we would call for them to be errataed or banned are not balanced. Nor is wallpaper. As you say, you would not normally ever use Malkavian Dementia because its opportunity cost is too high. It's basically wallpaper. Therefore, it is not balanced. > >>But other than that thought, I don't see how AI doesn't lose its opportunity > cost as much as a clan hoser,>> > > It does. > > >>thus making the sideboard thing mostly a wash.>> > > It is. You seem to be under the impression that I'm saying that clan hosers > become better than AI or something. No, they just become useful, as opposed to > not, which is the case normally. AI also becomes useful (keep in mind here that > I am under the belief that Archon Investigation just isn't very useful, Ah, that's where we disagree. I use Archon Investigation from time to time. I would never dream of using a clan hoser unless and until something very bad happens to the current metagame. I would use AI more often except the thing it's really good against has an even better counter for decks with Auspex or Dominate: bleed bounce. For decks that have little recourse against fast, hard stealth bleed, I will try to slip in one or two if I have any free master card space to speak of at all. Fred

>> Even with, say, 8 players (isn't that the minimum for a sanctioned game?), >you > >No. 4 is the minimum (on account of it's the smallest number that can be >evenly split into groups of 4 and 5 :-). With 4 or 5 players, I'd lobby for having the tournament be a single round. I can't imagine it being worth replaying the same game with the only difference being seating positions. Now, if the players switched decks every round ...

Xian wrote: > "Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message > news:3CA2DC06...@netg.se... > >>Please at least give me some credit by referring to my idea as a whole. >>I did after all suggest that all core-decks (decks apart from >>sideboards) should be published before the tournament in order to make >>'scouting' an integrated part of each players tournament-planning. >> > > Of course, that screws people that decide to show up at the last minute. Or > rather, it doesn't screw them, it screws everyone else. Or you restrict the > attendance at tournaments even further, which is probably not what we want. > And it prevents people from tweaking last minute, and... > > Not really an ideal situation, IMO. > Agreed, but the idea I came up with was to enable 'fair' sideboarding - if one wants sideboarding at all, which is not certain. I don't believe that sideboarding is the way to go for every tournament, but it might work as one type of format in for example the advertised Week of Nightmares (may be mistaken about name here) which is suppoed to be a full week of playing. It's unlikely that players will attend such an event without prior planning - in which case the setup I suggested would be quite viable. Sten During

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020401134249...@mb-da.aol.com... > With 4 or 5 players, I'd lobby for having the tournament be a single round. > > I can't imagine it being worth replaying the same game with the only difference > being seating positions. Really? Why not? I mean, doesn't each game have its own dynamic based on who randomly gets what vampires, what cards, etc out of their decks? And the seating-position difference isn't a trivial one either, especially as it compensates for the "getting screwed by sitting next to the guy with your anti-deck" factor. I'd certainly expect to get bored replaying the 'same game' eventually, but as a rare thing I could see doing it three or four times for a mini-tournament. (Three might be better than four; two round prelim plus final.) Josh easily amused

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Sten wrote: > >>>Please at least give me some credit by referring to my idea as a whole. >>> > I did after all suggest that all core-decks (decks apart from > sideboards) should be published before the tournament in order to make > 'scouting' an integrated part of each players tournament-planning.>> > > I considered that idea, and while it certainly is a soultion to the problems > caused by scouting and out of game information, it really isn't a particularly > practical (or even possible) plan. Expecting players to submit deck lists ahead > of time, and then get those deck lists out to all the players ahead of time is > asking: > <snipping away all the correct reasons why sideboards would create problems - I fully agree> Wheeezz, I did write that I ducked, but I actually didn't realize that the topic was as inflamed as for example Succubus Club :) The thread did start out as a request for input by Legbiter, asking if there were ideas for different tournamentformats. I didn't interpret it as replacing the current standard constructed format, something I wouldn't want to happen. I'm just rather fascinated with the (previous deck-scouting allowed) horribly powerful hoser-cards, and it would be interesting to see how the metagame would be impacted if you knew that you could put those into your deck before a round, and correspondingly - if you knew that your opposition could do the same, so I came up with a format that requires all the planning and extra work, so in reality it's only viable as a format for some kind of VTES-event that's supposed to run over several days, because you'd have to plan for it anyway. I guess I'm simply attracted to the idea of posting my core-deck knowing that I'll have to wait some days to see it and all others and then plan from that point on. It's different, but in reality very much the feeling of playing with your local group with it's knowledge of each persons favourite. Sidenote: I have followed the subthreads debating if the game would break or not, but a limited size of the sideboard combined with the knowledge that every other player may do the same would most probably force players to make a design based on a balanced choise of agressive cards and countercards (assuming a higher ratio of Sudden Reversals and the likes). Sten During

>> I can't imagine it being worth replaying the same game with the only >difference >> being seating positions. > >Really? Why not? > >I mean, doesn't each game have its own dynamic based on >who randomly gets what vampires, what cards, etc out >of their decks? Not necessarily. Some decks are consistent. Most of my tournament decks are very consistent, even the Ravnos deck I played (the one you've might have seen with all the one ofs) in our last tournament was fairly consistent for some reason. >And the seating-position difference isn't >a trivial one either, especially as it compensates for the >"getting screwed by sitting next to the guy with your >anti-deck" factor. Seating isn't trivial. However, when you know precisely how every deck works, what is likely to happen is table management to where you've neutralized the difference in seating. >I'd certainly expect to get bored replaying the 'same game' >eventually, but as a rare thing I could see doing it three >or four times for a mini-tournament. (Three might be better >than four; two round prelim plus final.) I must admit I get bored of playing the same deck pretty fast. But, I held off from mentioning that as a reason against replaying single table tournaments because it's not the only argument I have against them. I don't think there's enough benefit in changing seating positions to overcome how predictable the game will become. And, to an extent, when you sit down for a single game, you have a neutral situation. Luck is a part of all CCGs, the primary effect of replaying is to reduce it, yet how important is it to reduce it? And, one other thing. Everyone makes the finals. So, the only benefit to playing the prelim games is to determine who gets to choose seating. Except, whoever does well in the prelims will likely be considered the greatest threat, which should remove any advantage in getting to choose seating. I've played in a single table multiplayer CCG tournament where we did 3 rounds. We all felt like shooting ourselves for our stupidity afterwards. Now, if other people can stand the monotony, whatever. But, there should at least be an option to play a single round when you have a single table.

Curevei wrote: > > >> Even with, say, 8 players (isn't that the minimum for a sanctioned game?), > >you > > > >No. 4 is the minimum (on account of it's the smallest number that can be > >evenly split into groups of 4 and 5 :-). > > With 4 or 5 players, I'd lobby for having the tournament be a single round. > > I can't imagine it being worth replaying the same game with the only difference > being seating positions. We did this in Phoenix last fall. I can't speak for Scott's (the Prince's) reasons for doing it but if it were up to me, what we did was just fine. It was advertised as a two-rounds-plus-final tournament and the fact that only five people showed up, shouldn't change things. Nor would I have wanted them to change, either. I had my hooks out for three games of tournament play that day and I was happy to play them in whatever form they took. The results: I won the two preliminary games and got horribly ganged up on in the final, getting ousted without a point and finishing fourth. Oh, well. It wasn't like I really needed to win a five-person tournament. And all three games were fun. > Now, if the players switched decks every round ... That would have been better, I agree. Perhaps this really should be an option? Fred

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020402153058...@mb-fy.aol.com... [each game, even with same players/same decks, different due to randomness?] > Not necessarily. Some decks are consistent. Most of my tournament decks are > very consistent, even the Ravnos deck I played (the one you've might have seen > with all the one ofs) in our last tournament was fairly consistent for some > reason. Speaking of that deck, it looks like you only have three vampires in the crypt and one Auspex master to support four Nightmare Curses? That was enough? And it is kinda surprising that that deck was consistent, it looks like a pile of not-doing-much on paper. ;-) > Seating isn't trivial. However, when you know precisely how every deck works, > what is likely to happen is table management to where you've neutralized the > difference in seating. Hmm. So you find that politics becomes the dominant game being played in that situation, to the point that you don't enjoy it anymore? But it's not when people only know after vampires start coming out what each opponent is playing? Or is it more an issue of playing against the same people each time that causes this behavior, rather than that they're playing the same decks each time? > And, to an extent, when you sit down for a single game, you > have a neutral situation. Luck is a part of all CCGs, the primary effect of > replaying is to reduce it, yet how important is it to reduce it? Well, to me, it seems like it'd be interesting to reduce it this way at least on relatively rare occasions. I mean, the reason 'normal' tournaments have two/three preliminary rounds is to reduce the amount of luck affecting who/what decks get into the finals, right? > And, one other thing. Everyone makes the finals. So, the only benefit to > playing the prelim games is to determine who gets to choose seating. Except, > whoever does well in the prelims will likely be considered the greatest threat, > which should remove any advantage in getting to choose seating. Well, as you say, table management probably becomes a big thing, but that would be the case regardless of how you determined the finals and how much you did beforehand. You're right, though, that it's probably not going to be that much of an advantage to be able to pick your seating for this kind of final game, and as such, you might as well cut to the chase pretty quickly in terms of how many games you're going to play before "the one that counts". I do think it'd be worthwhile to at least have *one* game before the final, though, so that all the interesting effects get a chance to come into play in the final, ie so that it's *not* just a neutral-starting-point game. (IOW I would have no problem with the introduction of a 1-preliminary-round option for VEKN tournaments, whether or not they felt the need to limit its use to small tournaments.) Josh stupid is as stupid does or something like that ;-)

>> Seating isn't trivial. However, when you know precisely how every deck >works, >> what is likely to happen is table management to where you've neutralized >the >> difference in seating. > >Hmm. So you find that politics becomes the dominant game >being played in that situation, to the point that you don't >enjoy it anymore? To an extent. I enjoy CCGs a lot more when I don't know what's going to happen. Given full knowledge of the decks, the personality of the players involved, and where they are seated, I have a pretty good idea of what is likely to happen. >But it's not when people only know after >vampires start coming out what each opponent is playing? Difference between knowing 50% of a deck v. 75% v. 100%. Once you see a part of a deck, it's rare for the rest of the deck to be a surprise, but that doesn't mean it can't be surprising. >Or is it more an issue of playing against the same people >each time that causes this behavior, rather than that they're >playing the same decks each time? I'd rather play against the same people with different decks than the same decks with different people, though I don't think that's what you are getting at. My take on everyone playing the same decks is that you are conducting an exercise rather than playing a game. Theoretically interesting, it's a bore to play as players know too much and adopt strategies based on their excess knowledge. Also, while you learn something from such an exercise, what you don't learn is how the tournament would have turned out if the players didn't have full knowledge of each others' decks. >> And, to an extent, when you sit down for a single game, you >> have a neutral situation. Luck is a part of all CCGs, the primary effect >of >> replaying is to reduce it, yet how important is it to reduce it? > >Well, to me, it seems like it'd be interesting to reduce it >this way at least on relatively rare occasions. I mean, >the reason 'normal' tournaments have two/three preliminary >rounds is to reduce the amount of luck affecting who/what >decks get into the finals, right? Okay, but I was thinking of luck within any individual game. If you really want to reduce the luck involved in winning a tournament, dispense with the final table all together, play another full round, and go by most TWs and most VPs. You eliminate the "top pairings" table, but you better balance match ups throughout the entire tournament. It's not that I'm against mechanics that minimize luck. The question was in reference to how important is it to do so given the costs involved in replaying games. I don't consider it important enough to justify replaying games. >> And, one other thing. Everyone makes the finals. So, the only benefit to >> playing the prelim games is to determine who gets to choose seating. >Except, >> whoever does well in the prelims will likely be considered the greatest >threat, >> which should remove any advantage in getting to choose seating. > >Well, as you say, table management probably becomes a big >thing, but that would be the case regardless of how you >determined the finals and how much you did beforehand. >You're right, though, that it's probably not going to be >that much of an advantage to be able to pick your seating >for this kind of final game, and as such, you might as >well cut to the chase pretty quickly in terms of how many >games you're going to play before "the one that counts". > >I do think it'd be worthwhile to at least have *one* game >before the final, though, so that all the interesting effects >get a chance to come into play in the final, ie so that it's >*not* just a neutral-starting-point game. (IOW I would have >no problem with the introduction of a 1-preliminary-round >option for VEKN tournaments, whether or not they felt the >need to limit its use to small tournaments.) I don't see it as interesting. The games will just see the same card interactions over and over. The only thing that might be interesting is seeing how well players execute their adjusted strategies given full knowledge of what everyone else's decks are designed to do. In other words, see if who you predict to win actually wins. This, to me, is of interest to an observer but not necessarily of any interest to the players. Something for computers to do - run a simulation of what would happen when these 4-5 decks are played against each other in every possible seating position.

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020403144745...@mb-mc.aol.com... > To an extent. I enjoy CCGs a lot more when I don't know what's going to > happen. Given full knowledge of the decks, the personality of the players > involved, and where they are seated, I have a pretty good idea of what is > likely to happen. In most of the games my regular group plays, most people are playing decks they've played several times before. (since hardly any of us have time to make lots of new decks each week.) This means that we often have all of the knowledge mentioned above, but I still find the games interesting... there's a lot going on in the actual playing that interests me, and a substantial-enough amount of variability just in how the decks come up/interact on different occasions. (I should probably qualify this by saying that most people also have enough different (if recurring) decks that we don't often "repeat a game" on a given night in the sense of the same people with the same decks on the same table, but "repeat games" in different weeks are certainly not inconceivable.) Now, I'd certainly also say that games can be more unpredictable, and therefore potentially (though not really necessarily) more interesting, when no one is already familiar with what anyone else is playing. But that's not even achievable for us, most of the time, and it's not, for me, the only thing that makes a game of VTES fun or interesting. > >Or is it more an issue of playing against the same people > >each time that causes this behavior, rather than that they're > >playing the same decks each time? > > I'd rather play against the same people with different decks than the same > decks with different people, though I don't think that's what you are getting > at. No, it wasn't exactly; I was just trying to get a handle on whether what you found boring or table-management-causing or whatever was objectionable was caused mainly just by the one-table-tournament games being played by the same *people* every time, or if it relied on them also playing the same *decks* every time. Which I think is answered by what you said, anyway. > My take on everyone playing the same decks is that you are conducting an > exercise rather than playing a game. Theoretically interesting, it's a bore to > play as players know too much and adopt strategies based on their excess > knowledge. Also, while you learn something from such an exercise, what you > don't learn is how the tournament would have turned out if the players didn't > have full knowledge of each others' decks. No, naturally. I don't always find it a bore to play, since to me (as I just wrote a moment ago) a lot of the game's interest is in the actual play, not just in how deck X interacts with deck Y in theory or on average. Which obviously doesn't invalidate your feeling that it *is* boring, I just apparently don't find it as boring as you do. :-) > I don't see it as interesting. The games will just see the same card > interactions over and over. The only thing that might be interesting is seeing > how well players execute their adjusted strategies given full knowledge of what > everyone else's decks are designed to do. In other words, see if who you > predict to win actually wins. This, to me, is of interest to an observer but > not necessarily of any interest to the players. Something for computers to do > - run a simulation of what would happen when these 4-5 decks are played against > each other in every possible seating position. Well, this is all true if what you're interested in is only the abstract "who/what deck should win" and then what/who wins "on average". It's less true if you see the gameplay as an end (or at least topic) in itself. To me, there are in most games of VTES a lot of decisions that are *not* simply matters of correct vs incorrect, even when you know what your opponents' decks "are about"; no one's deck is so predictable as to always have exactly what it "should" have and so information is always somewhat limited; beyond that, even given perfect information, reasonable players can have different opinions on the best course of action to take in any given situation. There's always the possibility of simple mistakes, misjudgments, and immediately-regretted foolishness, but those aren't the only things (IMO) that can determine the course of games like these. For whatever that's worth. Josh or you'll be stricken bound kicking up dirt