Re: your opinion about all TCG you tested ?

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:33:48 GMT, David Zopf wrote: >> Vampire/Jyhad >My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best Multiplayer >TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic when... Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. It is still retains Magic's dwindling life mechanism and is all about eliminating other players from the game. This is ok for a two-player game like Magic - the game ends when one player is out. But it's a poor basis for a multiplayer game. Play a fun, theme deck and *bam* you're ousted and go off to weep while the other players finish the game. And a game can take hours to finish. While you're waiting, you can look through the game's art and then tear your eyes out. A more suitable title would be the best TCG for masochistic Goths ... Meanwhile, as I said in the other post, the best multiplayer TCG is Shadowfist. Everyone gets to play the game until it's complete and the process is usually more upbeat - building to a crescendo rather than fading into nothingness. But I'm reminded of the last episode of Angel, "Not Fade Away", which aired here yesterday. And I really must go do something about that. Grrrr... Andrew

> >> Vampire/Jyhad > >My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best Multiplayer > >TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic when... > Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. This is, of course, your opinion and to which you are certainly allowed. However, it was voted the "Best Multiplayer TCG Ever" by the readers of InQuest magazine. Sorrow --- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives." - Tyler Durden

In rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: : On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:33:48 GMT, David Zopf wrote: : Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. It is still retains : Magic's dwindling life mechanism and is all about eliminating other : players from the game. This is ok for a two-player game like Magic - : the game ends when one player is out. But it's a poor basis for a : multiplayer game. Play a fun, theme deck and *bam* you're ousted and : go off to weep while the other players finish the game. And a game : can take hours to finish. While you're waiting, you can look through : the game's art and then tear your eyes out. A more suitable title : would be the best TCG for masochistic Goths ... Sounds like a bitter first attempt to making a "fun" deck thinking that as you're playing with a "fun" deck, nobody should beat you because of that, and because you didn't bother with pool/blood gain and no bleed nor combat defense, not to mention anything that would actually oust your prey ;) : Meanwhile, as I said in the other post, the best multiplayer TCG is : Shadowfist. Everyone gets to play the game until it's complete and : the process is usually more upbeat - building to a crescendo rather : than fading into nothingness. Most games work a bit like Chez Geek (for example). Everyone goes forward and the first to cross the line wins. In most games there's either little you can do to stop someone from winning with interesting mechanics or table dynamics or, the outcome of the game is determined mostly by luck and the cards people (happen to) have in hand. Games like these wont last very long as anything but casual entertainment in a bar twice a year. A good Jyhad game is nothing like that. Instead of one "building to a crescendo" arc (as you describe it), a Jyhad game has a multitude and every change in the game affects the game state. True, palyers drop from the game before the game is finished, but with an experienced table no-one should get out without a good fight. If you get a crappy start it's built into the table dynamics that other players have an interest for keeping you going and alive until you're back on your feet. If they shrug and let you die, they aren't either thinking straight when they play or they weren't thinking straight when they build a deck without options to influence the game - or, as mentioned earlier, you built a squishy deck and can only blame yourself =) //T

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:pm9ec0p3l506rjjbf...@4ax.com... > On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:33:48 GMT, David Zopf wrote: > > >> Vampire/Jyhad > >My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best Multiplayer > >TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic when... > > Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. Why do Shadowfist players come across so repulsively arrogant, elitist and condescending in on-line fora? I've met you IRL and you seem a perfectly reasonable fellow, likewise the other 'fist players involved in the 'dice' discussion the other month were really personable once they stopped over-reacting and started posting constructively. I swear this sort of attitude puts people off playing Shadowfist. And for what? What a pointless discussion. I don't care what game you end up playing Cure as long as you enjoy it. Matt Green

In article <2ioojjF...@uni-berlin.de>, Sorrow <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Vampire/Jyhad >> >My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best >Multiplayer >> >TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic when... >> Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. >This is, of course, your opinion and to which you are certainly allowed. No, it's just correct. A vast majority of those who have tried both Fist and Jyhad consider Fist considerably better. >However, it was voted the "Best Multiplayer TCG Ever" by the readers >of InQuest magazine. Which is a good sample why? -- Joshua Kronengold (mneme@(io.com, labcats.org)) |\ _,,,--,,_ ,) --^-- "Get your mind right and you can make a stick /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;' /\\ your wand and the sky your hat and a puddle |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\ /-\\\ your magic..." -- Granny Weatherwax '---''(_/--' (_/-'

In article <ca7chh$d7q$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>, Matt Green <ma...@rid0utass0ciates.c0.uk> wrote: >Why do Shadowfist players come across so repulsively arrogant, elitist and >condescending in on-line fora? Trash talk, mostly. Note that we get on each other's nerves sometimes too. >I've met you IRL and you seem a perfectly >reasonable fellow, likewise the other 'fist players involved in the 'dice' >discussion the other month were really personable once they stopped >over-reacting and started posting constructively. Went the other way too, I'll note -- there were a lot of annoying miscommuncations early in the "dice" thread, which turned into a useful conversation once some of them were smoothed out a bit. I'll note that I have something of an "old usenet" style, which tends to cover both not "suffering (apparent) fools gladly" as well as a few other things. >I swear this sort of attitude puts people off playing Shadowfist. And for >what? What a pointless discussion. I don't care what game you end up playing >Cure as long as you enjoy it. Absolutely. But discussion can be fruitful anyway. BTW, if one is interested in trying Fist without having to invest in cardstock and all that garbage, there's now a way to try it, for free, online (at least if, unlike me, you have a Windows box). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message news:tJCdnWJfHaH...@io.com... > In article <2ioojjF...@uni-berlin.de>, Sorrow <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> Vampire/Jyhad > >> >My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best > >Multiplayer > >> >TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic when... > >> Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. > >This is, of course, your opinion and to which you are certainly allowed. > > No, it's just correct. > A vast majority of those who have tried both Fist and Jyhad consider Fist > considerably better. > > >However, it was voted the "Best Multiplayer TCG Ever" by the readers > >of InQuest magazine. > > Which is a good sample why? Because its the Only sample. There are not enough fist players to get a statistically significant sampling. Now if you can pull off another vote and have a higher turn out than the inquest vote, then you can make a claim that fist is better. Until then Vtes is supreme. Raille

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:pm9ec0p3l506rjjbf...@4ax.com... > On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:33:48 GMT, David Zopf wrote: > > >> Vampire/Jyhad > >My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best Multiplayer > >TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic when... > > Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. Sorry, but it is, too, Troll... (Nyah, nyah! thpffft! etc... Who peed in _your_ Cheerios this morning..? I thought this was an opinion thread, and not an Andrew S. Davidson opinion thread. You'll be happy to know, I've altered the header title appropriately :P ) > It is still retains > Magic's dwindling life mechanism and is all about eliminating other > players from the game. This is ok for a two-player game like Magic - > the game ends when one player is out. But it's a poor basis for a > multiplayer game. Play a fun, theme deck and *bam* you're ousted and > go off to weep while the other players finish the game. ...Or start another game with others so ousted. Note, if you agree with others as to the relative competitive level of decks, this doesn't happen in casual play. If you attend a tournament with a fun, theme deck, you should have the sense to know ahead of time that you'll be sitting around a lot... > And a game can take hours to finish. For inexperienced players, yes. I'll admit the slow play early on tends to convince a lot of people to not stick with the game. Most groups with even a moderate level of experience can reduce game lengths to less than two hours, often less than an hour. If your attention span cannot tolerate that, well then, you shouldn't be playing a multiplayer game... As with all games, circumstances of deadlock can arise. > While you're waiting, you can look through > the game's art and then tear your eyes out. A more suitable title > would be the best TCG for masochistic Goths ... > Andrew, you're going to make an excellent old person someday (soon), you crotchety old fart... That aside, the majority of the VTES players out there aren't from the goth subculture, nor are they Vampire RPG types. The typical VTES player is a strategic-minded gamer with the rare trait of actually enjoying social interaction while gaming. As to the artwork, everyone has their preferences. I like many of the (non-Christopher Shy) vampire portaits, and have my favorite artists for the game (Kieran Yanner is a recent fave). The artword for VTES strikes a wide range of quality, if only becuse there are now so many cards... By contrast (and since you seem to _want_ to get in a 'my opinion is worth more than yours' contest), the cartoonish style of Shadowfist is cute, but approaches tedium quickly for me. I _do_ like LA Williams' "Hopping Vampire", though, even if it does have two legs... > Meanwhile, as I said in the other post, the best multiplayer TCG is > Shadowfist. Again, the popularity of Shadowfist is so deplorable, I cannot really comment other than from a read-through of the multiplayer rules. > Everyone gets to play the game until it's complete and > the process is usually more upbeat - building to a crescendo rather > than fading into nothingness. > Conversely, dog-piling a single player is much easier (even encouraged) in Shadowfist's environment. Just surviving as someone else's Tool until the end of a multiplayer game can often be more of a bore than getting ousted, and moving on strightaway to the next game at another table. Say, come to think of it, a poorly built or thematic deck in multiplayer Shadowfist would roughly result in the same effect as in VTES. The only difference; you have to play it out to the bitter end... DaveZ Atom Weaver

Raille wrote: > > Because its the Only sample. There are not enough fist players to get a > statistically significant sampling. > > Now if you can pull off another vote and have a higher turn out than the > inquest vote, then you can make a claim that fist is better. Until then > Vtes is supreme. Quantity is not quality. Just because a minor majority voted George Bush to the White House does not mean he is the best president. Jyhad sure is the best Multiplayer TCG, I agree, but not because so many people say so. It just IS very good. And well, basically there haven't been that many Multiplayer TVGs, and even VTES is not doing too great. It has a steady group of loyal followers, but so does Quake2 (the dead computergame). Pro's about Jyhad/VTES: -it's not over in 5-10 minutes -you have to actually think -you have to talk to other players (coherent talk, not just 'Lightning Bolt on your Hypnotic Spectre') -(in Jyhad at least) the cards are pretty and dark :) -it's about vampires, how cool can you get? -it was built to be multiplayer, and is fun for all players. I've played 10-player games that lasted till sunrise (some players suddenly had to leave at that time *gg*) and were interesting all through the game. And yeah, some were ousted before it ended. Didn't see them sulk, they just stayed to watch. Con's? -They changed the card's backs. -They tried to copy Magic for too long and wanted VTES to be as succesful. //Doc. -- "Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje begin Your_MS_program_incorrectly_interprets_this_as_an_attachment.txt

In article <133b01c4b2342ec6...@news.teranews.com>, Raille <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message >news:tJCdnWJfHaH...@io.com... >> In article <2ioojjF...@uni-berlin.de>, Sorrow <jcb...@yahoo.com> >wrote: >> >> >> Vampire/Jyhad >> >> >My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best >> >> >Multiplayer TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the >> >> >flaws of Magic when... >> >> Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. >> >This is, of course, your opinion and to which you are certainly allowed. >> >> No, it's just correct. It's a matter of opinion. I don't have one, not having ever played Vampire. Shadowfist is a very good multiplayer game, however. (It is possible that I may be biased. :) >> A vast majority of those who have tried both Fist and Jyhad consider Fist >> considerably better. >> >> >However, it was voted the "Best Multiplayer TCG Ever" by the readers >> >of InQuest magazine. >> >> Which is a good sample why? > >Because its the Only sample. There are not enough fist players to get a >statistically significant sampling. Yes there are. >Now if you can pull off another vote and have a higher turn out than the >inquest vote, then you can make a claim that fist is better. Until then >Vtes is supreme. If people who have played Vampire but not Shadowfist think Vampire is the best multiplayer CCG ever, does that mean they are right, or that they have not played the better game? (Of course, the same can be said of those who have played Shadowfist but not Vampire, who think Shadowfist is the best.) Popularity polls only work when those polled have sufficient familiarity with the subject. Due to the expense of following a CCG, most people don't widely sample the field. Consider what CCG would win an InQuest poll for the best CCG ever. It it really the best, or just the most popular?

. Hey, Andrew. We've told you a bazillion times. Quit cross-posting to other newsgroups. To everyone else: Look at your To: header before posting. - Ben Peal fu...@mindstorm.com

In article <UnJxc.6834$ak3....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: >"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message >news:pm9ec0p3l506rjjbf...@4ax.com... >> Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. >Sorry, but it is, too, Troll... (Nyah, nyah! thpffft! etc... Who peed in >_your_ Cheerios this morning..? Because someone disagrees with you does not mean they're a troll Aside from that...you're wrong. >only becuse there are now so many cards... By contrast (and since you seem >to _want_ to get in a 'my opinion is worth more than yours' contest), the >cartoonish style of Shadowfist is cute, but approaches tedium quickly for >me. Fist does not have a single art style. >Again, the popularity of Shadowfist is so deplorable, I cannot really >comment other than from a read-through of the multiplayer rules. You can play online... >and moving on strightaway to the next game at another table. Say, come to >think of it, a poorly built or thematic deck in multiplayer Shadowfist would >roughly result in the same effect as in VTES. The only difference; you have >to play it out to the bitter end... Nope. There's always a chance, if you can seize your time -- the very factors that allow multiple players to gang up to take down, or more often, slow down, a leader also allow a weaker player to grab a win if the table exhausts itself. Unless, of course, you are sitting for two hours with one card left in your deck and a hand full of junk (but then, you -can- always just discard cards and force yourself out of the game, since running through your deck is the one way to "oust" yourself in Fist). [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > A more suitable title would be the best TCG for masochistic Goths ... This assertion is ridiculous. I've been consistently amazed at the _lack_ of goths playing V:TES. I really have no idea why more goths aren't into the game. I think the total of goths I've known in the past ten years who have played V:TES are: Me Chris O'Brien (local Boston guy) Xian Chad Brinkley Aaron Steele Johnny Tullner Sorrow some guy I met at GenCon three years ago Tamas from Budapest A woman from Sweden A man from Sweden Jan Roger Pettersen from Norway In ten years, that's it. > Meanwhile, as I said in the other post, the best multiplayer TCG is > Shadowfist. Everyone gets to play the game until it's complete and > the process is usually more upbeat - building to a crescendo rather > than fading into nothingness. Where "crescendo" means "everyone takes a turn trying to win while the entire table tries to stop them, until someone lucks into a win". The game could just as easily be called "Hot Potato". Mind you, I'm very, very glad that both games are doing well. I was happy to see that new expansions started coming out for Shadowfist. Despite my complaints about the endgame, it's a fun game and has fantastic flavor. Alas, I can only afford one CCG at a time. - Ben Peal fu...@mindstorm.com

Joshua Kronengold wrote: >>>> Vampire/Jyhad >>> My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best >>> Multiplayer TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of >>>Magic when... >> Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. >>This is, of course, your opinion and to which you are certainly allowed. > > No, it's just correct. > A vast majority of those who have tried both Fist and Jyhad consider Fist > considerably better. And this assertion is based on...er...what, exactly? > >However, it was voted the "Best Multiplayer TCG Ever" by the readers > >of InQuest magazine. > > Which is a good sample why? Because readers of InQuest magazine may have tried both Shadowfist and Jyhad? ;) - Ben Peal fu...@mindstorm.com

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 10:30:31 -0500, Sorrow wrote: >This is, of course, your opinion and to which you are certainly allowed. >However, it was voted the "Best Multiplayer TCG Ever" by the readers >of InQuest magazine. No, it wasn't a vote. It was a bit of fluff by the staff writers. The title of the article was "Lord of Chaos" and what they were thinking of was what they call chaos games, "a game where eight ain't enough". I suppose that's why they included Magic the Gathering - a game that doesn't have any proper multiplayer rules as I recall - just a bunch of variant formats. Their selections were LotR, Magic, Game of Thrones, B5 and Vampire. Read what they had to say about Vampire. "Two is okay; four is ideal". They didn't even know that the tournament standard for Vampire is five players. Clueless. Andrew

Sez Andrew S. Davidson: : Meanwhile, as I said in the other post, the best multiplayer TCG is : Shadowfist. Everyone gets to play the game until it's complete and : the process is usually more upbeat - building to a crescendo rather : than fading into nothingness. He's right, you know. Bob Rossney r...@well.com

"The Doctor" <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message news:40C77CF9...@freemail.nl... : Quantity is not quality. : : Just because a minor majority voted George Bush to the White House does : not mean he is the best president. A minor majority of Supreme Court justices, even. A minority of, you know, voters. Not that I wish to besmirch InQuest's methodology by comparison. Bob Rossney r...@well.com

Sez Teemu T Vilen: : Most games work a bit like Chez Geek (for example). Everyone goes : forward and the first to cross the line wins. In most games there's : either little you can do to stop someone from winning with interesting : mechanics or table dynamics or, the outcome of the game is determined : mostly by luck and the cards people (happen to) have in hand. Games like : these wont last very long as anything but casual entertainment in a bar : twice a year. Are you talking about Shadowfist? Because if so, you're sadly mistaken. A game in which everyone is trying to win on every turn is a game between people who haven't learned how to play the game well. It's sort of like saying that VtES isn't a good multi-player game because you can't attack the person across the table from you. Bob Rossney r...@well.com

Sez "Matt Green" : > >> Vampire/Jyhad : > >My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best Multiplayer : > >TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic when... : > : > Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. : : Why do Shadowfist players come across so repulsively arrogant, elitist and : condescending in on-line fora? "[VtES] deserves the 'Best Multiplayer TCG, Ever' title.": Not arrogant, not elitist, not condescending. "Sorry, but this is not the best multiplayer TCG.": Arrogant, elitist, and condescending. Buh? Bob Rossney r...@well.com

In article <ca7cbp$h9m$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>, Teemu T Vilen <tvi...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote: >In rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >: Meanwhile, as I said in the other post, the best multiplayer TCG is >: Shadowfist. Everyone gets to play the game until it's complete and >: the process is usually more upbeat - building to a crescendo rather >: than fading into nothingness. > >Most games work a bit like Chez Geek (for example). Everyone goes >forward and the first to cross the line wins. In most games there's >either little you can do to stop someone from winning with interesting >mechanics or table dynamics or, the outcome of the game is determined >mostly by luck and the cards people (happen to) have in hand. Games like >these wont last very long as anything but casual entertainment in a bar >twice a year. However, Shadowfist is nothing like this. While it is, when distilled down to the very basic concept, a "race to the finish" game, to say all such games are similar is much like saying all "eliminate other players" games are similar. (One of the main points that distinguishes Shadofist from the generic "race" game is that you need Feng Shui Sites to win, but you can't win by playing all the ones you need; the last one must be taken from somebody else, and everybody gets to try and stop you, with the same cards they're going to try to win with themselves. There is much more to it than that, of course.) >A good Jyhad game is nothing like that. Instead of one "building to a >crescendo" arc (as you describe it), a Jyhad game has a multitude and >every change in the game affects the game state. True, palyers drop from >the game before the game is finished, but with an experienced table >no-one should get out without a good fight. If you get a crappy start >it's built into the table dynamics that other players have an interest >for keeping you going and alive until you're back on your feet. If they >shrug and let you die, they aren't either thinking straight when they >play or they weren't thinking straight when they build a deck without >options to influence the game - or, as mentioned earlier, you built a >squishy deck and can only blame yourself =) Or you're more dangerous to them than the player eliminating you is, or the resources expended to keep you alive are not worth the expense. I'm sure there are other perfectly good reasons, too.

In article <Y6mdnSVGkcX...@io.com>, Joshua Kronengold <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote: >In article <UnJxc.6834$ak3....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>, >David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: >>"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message >>news:pm9ec0p3l506rjjbf...@4ax.com... >>> Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. >>Sorry, but it is, too, Troll... (Nyah, nyah! thpffft! etc... Who peed in >>_your_ Cheerios this morning..? > >Because someone disagrees with you does not mean they're a troll Whether somebody who cross-posts to the Jyhad group just to stir its residents up might well be considered one, however. >>only becuse there are now so many cards... By contrast (and since you seem >>to _want_ to get in a 'my opinion is worth more than yours' contest), the >>cartoonish style of Shadowfist is cute, but approaches tedium quickly for >>me. > >Fist does not have a single art style. Well, yes and no. There's considerable variation, but a large percentage of the art is of the same basic style. Of course, that style is more "realistic, or as realistic as you can get with insane kung fu, cyborged demons, etc.", not "cartoonish". (http://www.shadowfist.com/html/7M_card_preview.htm for example.) >>Again, the popularity of Shadowfist is so deplorable, I cannot really >>comment other than from a read-through of the multiplayer rules. BTW, "deplorable" is not the word I think you mean here.

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:18:12 GMT, David Zopf wrote: >For inexperienced players, yes. I'll admit the slow play early on tends to >convince a lot of people to not stick with the game. Most groups with even >a moderate level of experience can reduce game lengths to less than two >hours, often less than an hour. If your attention span cannot tolerate >that, well then, you shouldn't be playing a multiplayer game... As with all >games, circumstances of deadlock can arise. You misunderstand me - I don't mind games which take over an hour - I was quite happy playing a four hour Shadowfist game the other weekend. But it wouldn't have been so much fun if it had been Vampire and one or more players had to sit out for most of that time. Your estimates of Vampire game length seem understated. There's a current thread observing that many tournament games are timing out with the current time limit of two hours. And, in the finals, where we may suppose all the players to be experienced, even more time is required, it seems. But it's not the length of time that's the problem so much as the fact that players are eliminated during this time and so can't play any more. >I _do_ like LA Williams' "Hopping Vampire", though, even if it does >have two legs... That art was wrong. Chinese Hopping Vampires are so-called because they have rigor mortis, not because they have one leg. There's a more accurate picture on the remake of this card in the latest expansion. But it's Doomtown which did this best with its Gyonshee card - excellent art by Dan Frazier (the guy who did Magic's Jester's Cap, Jyhad's Change of Target and Shadowfist's Neutron Bomb). >Conversely, dog-piling a single player is much easier (even encouraged) in >Shadowfist's environment. You can dog-pile in Shadowfist but it's not especially rewarding as there are no points for ousting someone in that game and it's almost impossible to do. Players can bounce back quite quickly and I get lots of practise at that myself, as I'm often a tall poppy. If you're worried about this then it's easy to pack your deck with cards that let you thrive upon punishment - like a bloodstained HK movie hero or Hollywood terminator type. Hence card titles like "Is that All You Got?" and "That Which Does Not Kill Me..." Andrew

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Matt Green wrote: >Why do Shadowfist players come across so repulsively arrogant, elitist and >condescending in on-line fora? I've met you IRL and you seem a perfectly >reasonable fellow, likewise the other 'fist players involved in the 'dice' >discussion the other month were really personable once they stopped >over-reacting and started posting constructively. The other guys you're probably referring too are New Yorkers - 'nuff said :) Me, I favour a provocative net style as it makes more interesting reading - like a pungent editorial or a debating show such as Crossfire or Question Time. Paradoxically, I don't like extended debate and discussion during the play of these games - just a background of witty banter. Hence the apparent difference perhaps. Game forums often have routine wars between the "fanboys" and the "whiners" and I'm sometimes assigned to the latter camp. When taken to task about this recently, I cited an amusing story by Robert Sheckley which I was pleased to find is online now. It's worth sharing and is only 5000 words or so: http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/sheckley3/sheckley31.html Andrew

On 9 Jun 2004 15:21:37 -0700, fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) scrawled: >Andrew S. Davidson wrote: >> A more suitable title would be the best TCG for masochistic Goths ... > > This assertion is ridiculous. I've been consistently amazed at the > _lack_ of goths playing V:TES. I really have no idea why more goths > aren't into the game. most goths, i guess, who actually know about the game, wouldn't play it because they are woried their peers might think of them as geeks. and as far as i can tell (from the Sydney and melbourne Australian scene at least) the goth scene seems to be very much about being cool. so cool. and uber, and loved by all. or aloof, and thus cool and uber by dissassociation ("I'm not a goth, don't associate me with _them_. oh, well, yes i am at a club where they play goth music. which i like. well, yes, i am wearing black. and black eyeliner. and pale foundation. and doc martins. and i mope a lot. but don't call me a goth". you know the types.) ok now i am ranting off topic..... :) salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email) "I like to play the field"-LSJ

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:<UnJxc.6834$ak3....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>... > That aside, the majority of the VTES players out > there aren't from the goth subculture, nor are they Vampire RPG types. The > typical VTES player is a strategic-minded gamer with the rare trait of > actually enjoying social interaction while gaming. Yes. When I started roleplaying (quite a long time ago) I was in my angsty I-wear-black-to-show-the-world-I-know-everyone-hates-me kind of period. Now I dress lighter, but I still have no sense of strategy (and am still diligently antisocial). It's good to be the atypically typical VTES player. ;) > The artword for VTES strikes a wide range of quality, if > only becuse there are now so many cards... Euphemism. Allow me to rephrase. The artwork of VTES generally sucks. ;) It's not dark enough to be Dark, and it's not vivid enough to be Vivid... It's Ragish blood-n-gore plus some photocopies from C. "Xerox" Shy, topped with hilariously outrageous changes in the card layouts and one major aspect of thematic consistency - the uniform presence of inconsistency. Bye, Daneel

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:bf72a12e.04060...@posting.google.com > Joshua Kronengold wrote: > >>>> Vampire/Jyhad > >>> My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best > >>> Multiplayer TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of > >>>Magic when... > >> Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. > >>This is, of course, your opinion and to which you are certainly allowed. > > > > No, it's just correct. > > A vast majority of those who have tried both Fist and Jyhad consider Fist > > considerably better. > > And this assertion is based on...er...what, exactly? i was wondering that too. i have played both. Based on my experience i cannot see how ANYONE could possible consider multi-player Shadowfist superior to multiplayer Jyhad/VTES, unless, just possibly, multiplayer for Shadowfist always means three. > > > >However, it was voted the "Best Multiplayer TCG Ever" by the readers > > >of InQuest magazine. > > > > Which is a good sample why? > > Because readers of InQuest magazine may have tried both Shadowfist > and Jyhad? ;) > > > - Ben Peal > fu...@mindstorm.com To echo a point Matt made, and just as a piece of friendly advice from a well-wisher, i do not think Shadowfist players do their game any favours by knocking Jyhad/VTES. i quite like Shadowfist and occasionally play it [also Rage, which i will clearly have to inflict on Atomweaver at the first convenient opportunity. The way to unbreak it, David, is to do what you did with the version of Yu-Go-I you play with Amy, and/or play theme decks, which is what i will bring next time i see you]. But i'm not going to play ANY sort of game with fundamentalist fanatics, and that really is how the Shadowfist bunch come across online, nice guys 'n' gals as they undoubtedly all are IRL. And as for the original topic, my own experience/opinion is: Jyhad/VTES is the best multiplayer game i've ever played. Netrunner is the best duel CCG i've ever played, with Eagles a close second. Also worth a look are Magic, Pokemon, Yu-Go-I [but take out all the power rares with a tip o' the hat to Atomweaver], Rage 1 & 2, Marvel Heroclix [don't like DC], Lunch Money [not really collectable in the usual sense], Chez Geek/Goth [not really collectable in the usual sense], Munchkin [original version is probably the best,not really collectable in the usual sense], Mechwarriorclix, Shadowrun Duels [not really collectable in the usual sense], Arcadia/KIHM [basic Arcadia is weak], Shadowfist, Mythos. i even quite like Battletech. Hard as i have tried to, i don't like any version of Lord of the Rings card games, and have no significant experience of Legend of the 5 rings or babylon 5. And i *REALLY* don't like any of the Star Trek/Star Wars card games. Clunky and dull is my experience of them. -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

legbiter <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote: : Netrunner is the best duel CCG i've ever played, with Eagles a close : second. Netrunner seems to be an all too forgotten and underestimated game, which I don't see played as often as it should. Doesn't of course have nowhere close the card base of M:tG, but is a very good game for for instance a "let's all buy starters and play a casual fun league for ante". Lots of fun with minimal investment, I can tell you. A quite recommendable game indeed. //T

> Jyhad/VTES is the best multiplayer game i've ever played. I agree, although Doomtown is a close second. I'd also recommend Heresy: Kingdom Come, although you'd be lucky to find the OOP cards these days (and you need a long afternoon or evening to play it). > Netrunner is the best duel CCG i've ever played, with Eagles a close > second. I'd actually rate the new Cthulhu CCG as one of the coolest two-player games I've seen in a long time. > Also worth a look are Magic, Pokemon, Yu-Go-I [but take out all the > power rares with a tip o' the hat to Atomweaver] You forgot Harry Potter? :) > i even quite like Battletech. Didn't rate it that much, along with Shadowrun, and Dune. Dark Eden was marginally better, but it didn't get that support. > Hard as i have tried to, i don't like any version of Lord of the Rings > card games, and have no significant experience of Legend of the 5 rings > or babylon 5. Likewise LotR. L5R is pretty good, although apparently the designers were playing V:TES first, and Vampire is far superior IMHO. B5 is an interesting concept but usually tres dull in practice - you can play for hours and still never get anywhere without someone helping you win... > And i *REALLY* don't like any of the Star Trek/Star Wars card games. > Clunky and dull is my experience of them. Yuk. Not as crap as Bloodwars, Star of the Guardians or Wyvern though! :D Regards, Mike

"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message news:Y6mdnSVGkcX...@io.com... > In article <UnJxc.6834$ak3....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>, > David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > >"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message > >news:pm9ec0p3l506rjjbf...@4ax.com... > >> Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. > >Sorry, but it is, too, Troll... (Nyah, nyah! thpffft! etc... Who peed in > >_your_ Cheerios this morning..? > > Because someone disagrees with you does not mean they're a troll Taking what was basically an opinion thread, and twisting it into a cross-posted pissing match over who's CCG is best certainly is trollish... > Aside from that...you're wrong. > Heh. So you're making it an Olympic Team pissing contest with Andrew, then? Fine. Opinions aren't 'wrong', Joshua, they're just opinions... But hey, I _did_ respond to this (stupid me), so lets spin the wheels for a few rounds... > >Again, the popularity of Shadowfist is so deplorable, I cannot really > >comment other than from a read-through of the multiplayer rules. > > You can play online... I would hesitate to draw any conclusions about how multiplayer tabletop Shadowfist stacks up by using CCG Workshop... Multiplayer interaction online is never the same as when people sit down to a real, wooden table to have it out, regardless of the game played. Were you implying here that the player interaction of Shadowfist is so simplistic, that an IRC window and an online card shuffler is adequate to depict this 'Best Multiplayer Game'..? ;-) VTES has Deckbot, and a CCG Workshop project in the works, but I'd never recommend either to a person as a means of grasping the game's depth... > > >and moving on strightaway to the next game at another table. Say, come to > >think of it, a poorly built or thematic deck in multiplayer Shadowfist would > >roughly result in the same effect as in VTES. The only difference; you have > >to play it out to the bitter end... > > Nope. There's always a chance, if you can seize your time -- the very factors > that allow multiple players to gang up to take down, or more often, slow down, > a leader also allow a weaker player to grab a win if the table exhausts > itself. > Ahh, you miss the point (or ignore it entirely)... Andrew's scenario was for a weak (fun, theme) deck seated at a table full of powerhouse tourney style decks. If Shadowfist's enviroment such that a comparatively weak deck can 'grab the win', it doesn't seem like 'Fist is so much a strategic multiplayer, as it is a random fortune multiplayer game. Not my cup of coffee... For VTES, the weak player can be ousted quickly, and go on to play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until the end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?) But insofar as comparing VTES to Fist in this new scanario you redirected us to above, given a player with a deck of equivalent power to the table, who is just down on his luck, the chance for a comeback is roughly equivalent. I've seen a wealth of people bounce back on a VTES table, often because their prey got a bit too Machiavellian (sp?) with their table manipulations, but just as often because the player got their game up and running. This sceraio is a wash between the two games... No net gain for either... DaveZ Atom Weaver

OOOOOOHHHHH! They made a new version of Mythos!!! a reprint or redo of Cthulhu CCG!!!?!????! OOOOHHHHHH! YAY! Tell me where now, where can I find the pallid mask!

found the Doomtown cards, but never the players... same problem i had with Legend of the Burning Sands... always wondered how it was... :( I LOVE Heresy art. But the cards were an absolute <<pain>> to find. I could never get enough for myself, let alone enough for other players. i'll never get to play it... :(

"Robert Rossney" <r...@well.com> wrote in message news:KqPxc.73602$Ly.12698@attbi_s01... [ quoted text not captured ] Condescending arrogant and elitist perhaps because Andrew so often assumes that his opinion is of greater value than others... Within the context of the topic (mere solicited opinion) of the thread, Andrew assuming his opnion is best certainly _is_ elitist. His online attitude is, in Matt Green's experience, indicative of the posting habits of other Shadowfist players who frequent the online community. I've had a lesser number of similar experiences, so I wouldn't paint the lot with a single brush. I do know that Matt Green is one of those who frequents more online communities than I, though, so I value his opinion in this. I post to a thread soliciting player opinions, give Shadowfist its full props as a nice game, but express my personal preference for another game in multiplayer , and Andrew turns it into this crossposted pissing match we see before us. Andrew's online attitude is a serious detriment to the promotion of Shadowfist, which has few enough advocates as it is... Whatever he's like IRL, he consistently posts with a grating, 'Holier than Thou' attitude, especially when it pertains to VTES. If there was ever a single community which _might_ be supportive of anothers' efforts at raising interest in a good, multiplayer TCG from the early days of game play, VTES is it. VTES and 'Fist have a similar historical arc, in that both sustained through a long dark on the backs of a few avid fans. Any pre-disposition that the VTES community online (as a whole) might have had towards trying 'Fist has been likely knocked out of them by the consistently unsavory posts of a select few, led by Mr. Davidson. Way to go Andrew, alienating your favorite game to a group pre-disposed towards actually liking multiplayer TCGs... DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Azel" <opao...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:5I6dnfigj4o...@comcast.com... > found the Doomtown cards, but never the players... same problem i had with > Legend of the Burning Sands... always wondered how it was... :( Doomtown players were fairly easy to find until they canned the game. AFAIK they still come out of the woodwork for stuff like GenCon. Some of the newer cards are totally broken though, and the errata/ruling doc is the size of a phonebook... :( > I LOVE Heresy art. But the cards were an absolute <<pain>> to find. I could > never get enough for myself, let alone enough for other players. i'll never > get to play it... :( Apart from myself I've only met about five other people *ever* who managed to get any cards. I'd be well up for a game though if you're ever in London... :) Regards, Mike

"Azel" <opao...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:x7KdnemuMq6...@comcast.com... > OOOOOOHHHHH! They made a new version of Mythos!!! a reprint or redo of > Cthulhu CCG!!!?!????! OOOOHHHHHH! YAY! Tell me where now, where can I find > the pallid mask! It's an entirely new game by Fantasy Flight: www.cthulhuccg.com. The artwork looks at least as cool as the old game though. Regards, Mike

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:ab3gc0pm8k3u03fbu...@4ax.com... > On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:18:12 GMT, David Zopf wrote: > > >For inexperienced players, yes. I'll admit the slow play early on tends to > >convince a lot of people to not stick with the game. Most groups with even > >a moderate level of experience can reduce game lengths to less than two > >hours, often less than an hour. If your attention span cannot tolerate > >that, well then, you shouldn't be playing a multiplayer game... As with all > >games, circumstances of deadlock can arise. > > You misunderstand me - I don't mind games which take over an hour - I > was quite happy playing a four hour Shadowfist game the other weekend. > But it wouldn't have been so much fun if it had been Vampire and one > or more players had to sit out for most of that time. > Again, I'll put it back to you; for what value of 'Fun' is it fun to sit around for X hours in a game you have little to no chance of winning, or even positively participating? If your premise is one weak deck at a table of powerhouses, then VTES wins out as the better multiplayer, based on the fact that it releases the weak player from the game earlier. My recreational time is limited, and if I was in that four hour 'Fist game and being obviously outclassed (and not learning more about the game by sticking around), I'd be looking to get out and go play something (even another 'Fist game) where I wasn't so much as a speed bump to another's victory... If 'Fist's environment is such that an obviously outclassed deck and/or player has a fair chance to win by sticking it out to the end of a long game, then it shouldn't really be classified as a strategic multiplayer CCG, but is rather a random, fun multiplayer CCG. > Your estimates of Vampire game length seem understated. Maybe. I play with experienced players quite a lot. > There's a > current thread observing that many tournament games are timing out > with the current time limit of two hours. Correction, the current time limit is a minimum of two hours. Longer time limits may be established, if desired. This is the reason I chose not to participate in that thread, the solution to tables timing out is already in the rules. > And, in the finals, where > we may suppose all the players to be experienced, even more time is > required, it seems. A separate problem from the 'early oust' issue. Finals may be lengthened, such that the full strategic capabilities of the players may be realized. > But it's not the length of time that's the > problem so much as the fact that players are eliminated during this > time and so can't play any more. > In the VTES circles I've played in, the players ousted early don't mill about and drool waiting for the current game to finish(OK, maybe Derek, but that was only when he was eyeballing my glass of MacAllan's)... They play pick up games, they try out other CCGs, they start a new VTES table with the first four ousted (a 'self-righting' mechanism for differences is deck strength, BTW, if people choose to play the same decks again.) It may be that your local group has made you accustomed to very small groups where those players _must_ wait for that multiplayer game to end before another may begin. Sorry for you if thats the case. I had that problem for a while, living in Charlotte. In playgroups of six or more, with the first game being a four player, it is typically a twenty minute wait for the next four-player VTES game to get started. > >Conversely, dog-piling a single player is much easier (even encouraged) in > >Shadowfist's environment. > > You can dog-pile in Shadowfist but it's not especially rewarding as > there are no points for ousting someone in that game and it's almost > impossible to do. Players can bounce back quite quickly and I get > lots of practise at that myself, as I'm often a tall poppy. If you're > worried about this then it's easy to pack your deck with cards that > let you thrive upon punishment - like a bloodstained HK movie hero or > Hollywood terminator type. Hence card titles like "Is that All You > Got?" and "That Which Does Not Kill Me..." > I'll have to take your word for it, but I still value the 'limited direct interaction' principle, maybe a bit overmuch. I don't see it as being preserved in the Shadowfist multiplayer rules. DaveZ Atom Weaver

(Daneel) wrote: > ...and one major aspect of thematic consistency - the uniform > presence of inconsistency. That reminds me of Unix a lot. No wonder I'm drawn to Jyhad. FWIW, I trimmed the cross posting to RGTM. I don't see the point in a pissing contest between two obscure TCGs with fanatic cult-like followings. Oh...and I missed the last few meetings. Can someone e-mail me the updated password and secret hand shake? Regards, Noal

re: Shadowfist Is Shadowfist better than V:TES? I know a lot of 'fist players. Some of the ones I know best also play V:TES. They make pretty good arguments for why 'fist works better than I think it does. Personally, I've always found it annoying to play, but I don't like mass removal and easy comeback, and I'll have a bias towards any game I've invested in and built decks for. Bottom line - it's not impossible. Which leads to InQuest commiting a crime. It doesn't bother me that IQ put V:TES at the top for multiplayer CCGs. It's ridiculous that 'fist didn't make the list. #5 - Lord of the Rings I'm sure it can be played multiplayer. Have never seen it myself. #4 - Magic *shrug* Not a multiplayer CCG by nature but played so many different ways I can give it a pass for being in the top 5. #3 - A Game of Thrones I think people have figured out a way to make multiplayer *not* suck by messing with the rules some. I don't know if they ever became official or not. #2 - Babylon 5 I can see this making the list. For one thing, there aren't really that many notable multiplayer CCGs. It's actually a more competitive market than two-players because you need more opponents, so you get more established groups, and you get less frenzy for cards (less profit). But, is it better than 'fist? I have a hard time with that, though maybe being too close to the game creates a bias. re: Other, multiplayer Skimming through the previous issue of IQ, where they rate ~150 CCGs, in terms of multiplayer, I've enjoyed: Mythos - fairly whack in certain ways and very possibly quite broken, still the only system that ever seemed to approximate telling a story. Tomb Raider - really more of a boardgame than a CCG, surprisingly not as bad as its rep or its presentation, much rather play HeroQuest (the boardgame) if I'm going to do a dungeon crawl boardgame but TR can be okay, very easy to mess around with the scenario's rules to find ones that work better (more fun). Other CCGs' multiplayer experiences were largely or entirely negative. re: Other, taking a shot at IQ Again, looking at the ratings for every CCG, I find primarily one problem with their ratings. They rated some games much too high. But, then, there's always personal bias. A funny thing is how highly they rate Wheel of Time. I really enjoyed WoT but not so much the playing of it - it was a mediocre game overall. A Game of Thrones may be just flat out better. Okay, both games make their top group. 7th Sea, B5, Battletech, Magi Nation, Shadowfist, and possibly quite a few others would probably be considered better CCGs. Of course, I despise Doomtown, so what do I know?

>Again, I'll put it back to you; for what value of 'Fun' is it fun to sit >around for X hours in a game you have little to no chance of winning, or >even positively participating? If your premise is one weak deck at a table >of powerhouses, then VTES wins out as the better multiplayer, based on the >fact that it releases the weak player from the game earlier. My >recreational time is limited, and if I was in that four hour 'Fist game and >being obviously outclassed (and not learning more about the game by sticking >around), I'd be looking to get out and go play something (even another 'Fist >game) where I wasn't so much as a speed bump to another's victory... Shadowfist has massive and easy comeback potential. If the players and decks are in reasonable balance, it's much easier to be "in" a 'fist game than a V:TES game. I've found that to be annoying for some reason. OTOH, if I had ever built decks for the game, I might find it far less so. I might have really liked the game. I was first turned off by the mixed genre, something that couldn't bother me less anymore as I really like Feng Shui (the RPG). Then, I was turned off by the easy come, easy go which reminded me too much of Magic's stupid mass destruction. Now, I'm turned off by not wanting to invest in another CCG and not wanting to try and catch up with a CCG. >'Fist's environment is such that an obviously outclassed deck and/or player >has a fair chance to win by sticking it out to the end of a long game, then >it shouldn't really be classified as a strategic multiplayer CCG, but is >rather a random, fun multiplayer CCG. Out here, the same player wins almost every major tournament. His opponents even know this and they even know his style, and he still wins. While I've heard some rumblings about how he isn't as good as it appears, he does seem to win every tournament.

"Azel" <opao...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<5I6dnfigj4o...@comcast.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I've actually got a fairly sizable pile of Heresy cards won in a bulk Gen Con auction a few years back. If you actually want to buy them from me, feel free to email me directly to talk about it... -John Flournoy

In article <gTYxc.25087$YW7...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: >"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message >news:Y6mdnSVGkcX...@io.com... >> >and moving on strightaway to the next game at another table. Say, >> >come to think of it, a poorly built or thematic deck in >> >multiplayer Shadowfist would roughly result in the same effect as >> >in VTES. The only difference; you have to play it out to the >> >bitter end... >> >> Nope. There's always a chance, if you can seize your time -- the >> very factors that allow multiple players to gang up to take down, >> or more often, slow down, a leader also allow a weaker player to >> grab a win if the table exhausts itself. >> >Ahh, you miss the point (or ignore it entirely)... Andrew's scenario was >for a weak (fun, theme) deck seated at a table full of powerhouse tourney >style decks. If Shadowfist's enviroment such that a comparatively weak deck >can 'grab the win', it doesn't seem like 'Fist is so much a strategic >multiplayer, as it is a random fortune multiplayer game. Multiplayer Shadowfist is much more skill-dominant than it is deck-construction-dominant. A good player with a bad deck always has a chance. He'd have a better chance with a good deck, but he cannot be counted out. Yes, sometimes the winner of a game is determined by who got lucky, but the same players do well consistently. Two of the players from the 2002 World Championships final were in the 2003 final, and neither of the other finalists from 2002 were there, or it probably would have been three. > Not my cup of >coffee... For VTES, the weak player can be ousted quickly, and go on to >play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until the >end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?) Games between well-matched good players can take a long time, especially if the players are conservative in style. It's a consequence of the way the game works, and the fact that players aren't eliminated. (From what I understand of Vampire, the total amount of blood at the table mostly decreases over time, which creates a game clock of sorts.) But they usually don't.

In article <iD%xc.551$Pt....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: >"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message >news:ab3gc0pm8k3u03fbu...@4ax.com... >> >Conversely, dog-piling a single player is much easier (even encouraged) >> >in Shadowfist's environment. >> >> You can dog-pile in Shadowfist but it's not especially rewarding as >> there are no points for ousting someone in that game and it's almost >> impossible to do. Players can bounce back quite quickly and I get >> lots of practise at that myself, as I'm often a tall poppy. Furthermore, jumping on the weak player is usually bad play for everybody except the guy in the lead. >> If you're >> worried about this then it's easy to pack your deck with cards that >> let you thrive upon punishment - like a bloodstained HK movie hero or >> Hollywood terminator type. Hence card titles like "Is that All You >> Got?" and "That Which Does Not Kill Me..." > >I'll have to take your word for it, but I still value the 'limited direct >interaction' principle, maybe a bit overmuch. I don't see it as being >preserved in the Shadowfist multiplayer rules. It's not. Shadowfist's multiplayer rules use the "you against the world" principle. If you don't like games like that, you won't like Shadowfist. Still, it's entirely possible to take on the world, and kick all their butts.

Howdy Azel, > OOOOOOHHHHH! They made a new version of Mythos!!! a reprint or redo of > Cthulhu CCG!!!?!????! OOOOHHHHHH! YAY! Tell me where now, where can I find > the pallid mask! Here's their new site: http://www.cthulhuccg.com/ It's from Fantasy Flight Games, under license from Chaosium. It is not compatible with Mythos, and apparently only a two-player game. Mythos itself is available online at CCGWorkshop; I run a Tour twice weekly. I'm am also (slowly) working on a revised version which is somewhat more balanced than the original. The beginnings of this effort can be found in the CCGW Forum for Mythos under the heading 'Repoined Adventures'. Hope that helps, Alex

"Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote in message news:10chd9h...@corp.supernews.com... > In article <gTYxc.25087$YW7...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, > David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > >"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message > >news:Y6mdnSVGkcX...@io.com... > > >> >and moving on strightaway to the next game at another table. Say, > >> >come to think of it, a poorly built or thematic deck in > >> >multiplayer Shadowfist would roughly result in the same effect as > >> >in VTES. The only difference; you have to play it out to the > >> >bitter end... > >> > >> Nope. There's always a chance, if you can seize your time -- the > >> very factors that allow multiple players to gang up to take down, > >> or more often, slow down, a leader also allow a weaker player to > >> grab a win if the table exhausts itself. > >> > >Ahh, you miss the point (or ignore it entirely)... Andrew's scenario was > >for a weak (fun, theme) deck seated at a table full of powerhouse tourney > >style decks. If Shadowfist's enviroment such that a comparatively weak deck > >can 'grab the win', it doesn't seem like 'Fist is so much a strategic > >multiplayer, as it is a random fortune multiplayer game. > > Multiplayer Shadowfist is much more skill-dominant than it is > deck-construction-dominant. In VTES, skill in deckbuilding is needed in roughly equivalent portions to skill in playing the game. > A good player with a bad deck always has a > chance. He'd have a better chance with a good deck, but he cannot be > counted out. > I see this happening through two elements, the 'ignore the down-trodden' dynamic, and the 'trip the leader' dynamic that Shadowfist lends itself to. > Yes, sometimes the winner of a game is determined by who got lucky, > but the same players do well consistently. Two of the players from the > 2002 World Championships final were in the 2003 final, and neither of > the other finalists from 2002 were there, or it probably would have > been three. > > > Not my cup of > >coffee... For VTES, the weak player can be ousted quickly, and go on to > >play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until the > >end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?) > > Games between well-matched good players Why do the 'Fisters (heh) keep re-inserting this (games of balanced players and decks) in the part where we're trying (at Andrew's behest) to assess the effect of each game on the single lamb with a mediocre deck (or skill) at a table of 'lions'? At some point in the next few posts, I'm going to consider this point conceded in the favor of VTES by lack of response... > can take a long time, > especially if the players are conservative in style. It's a > consequence of the way the game works, and the fact that players > aren't eliminated. (From what I understand of Vampire, the total > amount of blood at the table mostly decreases over time, which creates > a game clock of sorts.) But they usually don't. Your points, while not a response to Andrew's scenario, are well taken, but can be assumed to apply equally to VTES. The pool (life) total which you expend to amass offensive and defensive resources in VTES is also what keeps you in the game. If we are assuming well-matched, good players, we can also assume they have the sense enough to build decks which replenish this valuable resource, and so it has only an modest, indirect effect on VTES game length. The pool total of players erodes over time as they exert themselves against one another, but the total blood pool available is much the same as the bank in Monopoly; it is theoretically infinite. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"David Zopf" wrote: > I post to a thread soliciting player opinions, give Shadowfist its full > props as a nice game, but express my personal preference for another game in > multiplayer , and Andrew turns it into this crossposted pissing match we see > before us. Andrew's online attitude is a serious detriment to the promotion > of Shadowfist, which has few enough advocates as it is... Whatever he's > like IRL, he consistently posts with a grating, 'Holier than Thou' attitude, > especially when it pertains to VTES. I've met him IRL multiple times. He's a quiet shrew. Quite the opposite of the confrontational "gentleman" we know and love online. Regards, Noal

(Joshua Kronengold) wrote: > BTW, if one is interested in trying Fist without having to invest in > cardstock and all that garbage, there's now a way to try it, for free, online > (at least if, unlike me, you have a Windows box). Would you care to explain how, for the benefit of those that came in late to this bru-ha-ha? I'm always interested in trying out new games. But before I do, a couple of quick questions. Is there a tendency for 'Fist players to show up with a milk crate of extra card stock to get new players started as there is in Jyhad? How essential are rare cards to a winning deck in 'Fist? Regards, Noal

In article <bb705c59.04061...@posting.google.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >(Joshua Kronengold) wrote: >> BTW, if one is interested in trying Fist without having to invest in >> cardstock and all that garbage, there's now a way to try it, for free, online >> (at least if, unlike me, you have a Windows box). > >Would you care to explain how, for the benefit of those that came in >late to this bru-ha-ha? There's a site where you can play on-line for free. ccgworkshop or something like that. (I don't play there, since I don't do Windows.) You can get the rulebook from shadowfist.com. >I'm always interested in trying out new games. But before I do, a >couple of quick questions. > >Is there a tendency for 'Fist players to show up with a milk crate of >extra card stock to get new players started as there is in Jyhad? For somebody who drops by, we're more likely to lend a deck to get them started playing, but people who are building up their collections are likely to have surplus cards donated. >How essential are rare cards to a winning deck in 'Fist? Most of the major utility cards are common. Rares tend to be specialized cards or big unique hitters. You need hitters, but it's rare to need a specific hitter. There are also very playable premade starter decks, which contain a selection of useful cards.

>In VTES, skill in deckbuilding is needed in roughly equivalent portions to >skill in playing the game. If you take out talking your way to VPs from skill in playing the game, I could see where deckbuilding is just as trivially important as skill in playing is. Oddly, I don't think that was what you were saying. What evidence exists that suggests skill in deckbuilding is important to winning? Glancing at TWDs as they get posted, I see no correlation between having the best deck and having the best results. Some make sense as winning decks, quite a few don't. Often, when all of the decks for a finals are posted, it's not at all clear that the winning deck was better than the others. Then, I don't recall ever hearing someone say "well, he/she won because his/her deck was better". Rather, there seems to be a high correlation between being a skilled player (talking included) and results.

> #5 - Lord of the Rings > > I'm sure it can be played multiplayer. Have never seen it myself. I play LotR multiplayer quite a lot, although never in a tourney environment. It works very well, and is probably more balanced on the whole. 'Problem with 2 player is that one turn of bad luck in your shadow phase usually spells certain victory for your opponent. However, having never played Shadowfist, I can't say which I think is better. noodleboy

On 10 Jun 2004 18:33:39 -0700, noodleboy wrote: >> #5 - Lord of the Rings >> >> I'm sure it can be played multiplayer. Have never seen it myself. > >I play LotR multiplayer quite a lot, although never in a tourney >environment. I've played multiplayer LotR a few times and seen played by others even more. It's quite interesting as an example of a MP game in which collusion, dogpiling and the like are almost eliminated - much more so than VTES. This makes almost a pure race game and that makes it too dry and predictable for my taste. But it's better than the two-player version IMO. Andrew

"Mike" <mi...@vekn.org.uk> wrote in message news:eFXxc.13234$NK4.1...@stones.force9.net > > > Jyhad/VTES is the best multiplayer game i've ever played. > > I agree, although Doomtown is a close second. I'd also recommend Heresy: > Kingdom Come, although you'd be lucky to find the OOP cards these days (and > you need a long afternoon or evening to play it). i liked Doomtown and i have some Heresy cards, but don't recall ever playing with them, and have possibly confused Heresy with Kult. Doomtown is certainly worth a go, David and Robyn Tatu also play it to my certain knowledge. > > > Netrunner is the best duel CCG i've ever played, with Eagles a close > > second. > > I'd actually rate the new Cthulhu CCG as one of the coolest two-player games > I've seen in a long time. Where have you seen it, Mike? We are all GAGGING for Cthulhu in Portsmouth and have been put off with paltry excuses about it not coming out till July. > > > Also worth a look are Magic, Pokemon, Yu-Go-I [but take out all the > > power rares with a tip o' the hat to Atomweaver] > > You forgot Harry Potter? :) No, i didn't. i just couldn't think of anything nice to say about it. Forced to comment, i'll say that the starter decks for the original game were THE most unbalanced thing i've seen in TCGs. > > > i even quite like Battletech. > > Didn't rate it that much, We used it for a while to generate campaign settings for the FASA minis game. along with Shadowrun, and Dune. Shadowrun i thought was AWFUL, such a shame! Nice that Shadowrun duels is good. No experience of Dune. Dark Eden was > marginally better, but it didn't get that support. Golly, never even HEARD of that one! > > > Hard as i have tried to, i don't like any version of Lord of the Rings > > card games, and have no significant experience of Legend of the 5 rings > > or babylon 5. > > Likewise LotR. L5R is pretty good, although apparently the designers were > playing V:TES first, and Vampire is far superior IMHO. > > B5 is an interesting concept but usually tres dull in practice - you can > play for hours and still never get anywhere without someone helping you > win... > > > And i *REALLY* don't like any of the Star Trek/Star Wars card games. > > Clunky and dull is my experience of them. > > Yuk. Not as crap as Bloodwars, Star of the Guardians or Wyvern though! :D <wipes away a tear> Ah, Wyvern. Could there ever, EVER be a worse game than Wyvern? But while i share your views about Bloodwars, quite a surprising number of respected gamers DO rate it, along with Guardians. > > > Regards, > > Mike Whenever i make lists of this kind i always forget something important, and this time it was On the Edge. i agree with Teemu that Netrunner is the big underachiever of TCGs but On the Edge is almost as severely neglected in my view. It is one of a group of "positional" games that ought to be played more, i think, including Coppertwaddle, XXXenophile and Girl Genius [the latter two are essentially the same game, but not compatible]. i'm trying to think of something else they are like and the closest i can manage is German board-rearrangement games of which the best IMO is Master Labyrinth and the most beautiful [and not necessarily German] Zzert, aka the Game At Which Scott Always Kicks My Ass. Hive, by a British designer from the Finchley group, is another good game of the same type, as of course is Tile Chess. Since the original poster mentioned miniatures i want to put in a plug also for Crimson Skies clix which sank like a Lead Zeppelin, but is really alright in respect of the air-combat side of things [pitifully poor ground skirmish game, nice figures though]. Its big trouble is that it is inferior to the original FASA Crimson Skies game, and oddly enough this has a lot to do with background IMO. For those who don't know, both games are set in a fantasy 1930s with lots of cool never-made-it-off-the-drawing-board designs, and at least for the FASA game the air-combat simulation is very exciting and not AT ALL realistic [a good thing]. However, the background is SOOOO awful that i can't bring myself to explain it. This didn't matter with the original game cos you could buy lead minis and paint them up in [say] Spanish Civil War [as i did], Sino-Japanese or Gran Chaco liveries, totally ignoring the suggested background. It does matter with the pre-painted minis you get for the clix game [though you can repaint these, and i have done this to make a WW2 Eastern front set]. Finally, yesterday i bought the English language version of an Italian card game about WW1 air fighting [Wings of War in English]. It isn't cheap but visually it is stunning and the COMPLETE rules run to three [3] pages. Alright, six if you count suggested variants. The cards are like the old cigarette cards and they are VERY lovely; the rules are simple and elegant [translation is possibly a BIT wobbly and i'm not sure the secret damage rule is necessary or workable], and even though i've not played it yet i know i'm going to love it because we already play something quite similar [a home-made game]. [ quoted text not captured ]

"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:6feb88b3db33f4af35d...@mygate.mailgate.org... > i even quite like Battletech. Battletech... we enjoyed that game for long enough that I sunk considerable money into it. Sigh. Now that I think it, I find it interesting that one of the things that unbalanced the CCG (Vehicles) appears to be overly powerful in mechwarrior. As you appear to have played the original Fasa, the card game, and mechwarrior, I'm curious to know if you feel the mechs are underpowered in mechwarrior or are they where they should have been all along? Also thought I would add that Illuminati:NWO is a highly amusing card game if you invest the time to understand the rules. Also helps if you played the original illuminati game. An of course works best with many players. (just to drag my post back on the topic of multiplayer games). -JTP

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:25:32 +0000 (UTC), legbiter wrote: >Finally, yesterday i bought the English language version of an Italian >card game about WW1 air fighting [Wings of War in English]. Wandering way off topic here but, if you like this sort of thing, you should get Ace of Aces which is a sui generis classic. Crimson Skies might have worked better using the styrene card tech that they're using for the Pirates of the Caribbean game. It would then have been easy to have appropriate slivers of plastic for the weapons like aerial torpedoes and the planes would be assembled from pieces which would come apart as you damaged them. That was always the best bit about the board game - crossing out those boxes as the planes were shot to pieces... Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<pm9ec0p3l506rjjbf...@4ax.com>... > On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:33:48 GMT, David Zopf wrote: > > >> Vampire/Jyhad > >My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best Multiplayer > >TCG, Ever' title. When Mr. Garfield saw all the flaws of Magic when... > > Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. I think VTES and Shadowfist are both superior multiplayer ccgs for different reasons, and the dwindling life in vtes has nothing to do with it. VTES was built from the ground up to be specefically multiplayer and it shows. It is the ultimate chess/political card game. In that regard it is the best at focusing and providing for mp interaction. Shadowfist is great for the built in comeback, joint attack/defence, and the 'never quite out' player features. Does this make it the best mp game? Maybe, depending on how much you value them. Overall, I have to say I prefer shadowfist right now because it is fun and fast, not because it has better mp functionality, which I'm not sure it does. G

The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message news:<40C77CF9...@freemail.nl>... > Raille wrote: > > Keep in mind I love both games, but; > > Pro's about Jyhad/VTES: > -it's not over in 5-10 minutes Exceedingly rare in fist, although possible with trick dueling decks. > -you have to actually think umm, yeah...your point? > -you have to talk to other players (coherent talk, not just 'Lightning > Bolt on your Hypnotic Spectre') Tabletalk is pretty important in Fist. > -(in Jyhad at least) the cards are pretty and dark :) In fist, the cards are dramatic and flashy! > -it's about vampires, how cool can you get? Its about kung fu, demons, tanks, evil sorcerors...and oh yeah, vampires! :) > -it was built to be multiplayer, and is fun for all players. Fist was built to be either MP or duel, and is definitely fun for all players. I wouldn't say the same for VTES at all. G

> i liked Doomtown and i have some Heresy cards, but don't recall ever > playing with them, and have possibly confused Heresy with Kult. This is easily done, as IIRC the same artists did a lot of cards for both games. > > I'd actually rate the new Cthulhu CCG as one of the coolest two-player games > > I've seen in a long time. > > Where have you seen it, Mike? We are all GAGGING for Cthulhu in > Portsmouth and have been put off with paltry excuses about it not coming > out till July. Last time I checked there was a public playtest to download from their website. And I mailed them and got to see some more cards too... :D > Dark Eden was > > marginally better, but it didn't get that support. > > Golly, never even HEARD of that one! It was to go with the Mutant Chronicles RPG. The card backs were a dark blue IIRC. > <wipes away a tear> Ah, Wyvern. Could there ever, EVER be a worse game > than Wyvern? But while i share your views about Bloodwars, quite a > surprising number of respected gamers DO rate it, along with Guardians. *the mind boggles* We also forgot to mention Illuminati, although again the boxed version is way better. Regards, Mike

In article <6W2yc.610$Pt....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > >"Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote in message >news:10chd9h...@corp.supernews.com... >> >> >and moving on strightaway to the next game at another table. Say, >> >> >come to think of it, a poorly built or thematic deck in >> >> >multiplayer Shadowfist would roughly result in the same effect as >> >> >in VTES. The only difference; you have to play it out to the >> >> >bitter end... >> >> >> >> Nope. There's always a chance, if you can seize your time -- the >> >> very factors that allow multiple players to gang up to take down, >> >> or more often, slow down, a leader also allow a weaker player to >> >> grab a win if the table exhausts itself. >> >> >> >Ahh, you miss the point (or ignore it entirely)... Andrew's >> >scenario was for a weak (fun, theme) deck seated at a table full >> >of powerhouse tourney style decks. If Shadowfist's enviroment >> >such that a comparatively weak deck can 'grab the win', it doesn't >> >seem like 'Fist is so much a strategic multiplayer, as it is a >> >random fortune multiplayer game. >> >> Multiplayer Shadowfist is much more skill-dominant than it is >> deck-construction-dominant. > >In VTES, skill in deckbuilding is needed in roughly equivalent portions to >skill in playing the game. Thus, bringing a bad deck to the table is much worse for you than it is in Fist. >> > Not my cup of >> >coffee... For VTES, the weak player can be ousted quickly, and go on to >> >play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until the >> >end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?) >> >> Games between well-matched good players > >Why do the 'Fisters (heh) keep re-inserting this (games of balanced players >and decks) in the part where we're trying (at Andrew's behest) to assess the >effect of each game on the single lamb with a mediocre deck (or skill) at a >table of 'lions'? At some point in the next few posts, I'm going to >consider this point conceded in the favor of VTES by lack of response... You miss the point (or ignore it entirely)... The games that take a long time seem to happen between well-matched good players. Throw a weak player into the game, and the game takes far less time, because he's going to make mistakes that upset the equilibrium. So the weak player isn't suffering through a four-hour game. (He's also not without a chance to win if he's lucky, or somebody underestimates him.) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 11 Jun 2004 09:05:00 -0700, Geoff wrote: >VTES was built from the ground up to be specefically multiplayer and >it shows. It is the ultimate chess/political card game. In that >regard it is the best at focusing and providing for mp interaction. Vampire was actually designed to dampen down multiplayer politics. hence the structure of a circle of duels rather than a true free-for-all. The ultimate political card game must be something Lunch Money in which the card play is not as important as the human factors. And I once played in a big Survivor CCG tournament. Now _that_ was political. I didn't make it past the first round... And I don't see where you're getting the chess aspect from as there is little positional play in VTES. If you want that sort of thing try Doomtown, where the players actually talk about "playing chess" as they manoeuver about the layout of saloons, mines and other properties. >Overall, I have to say I prefer shadowfist right now because it is fun >and fast YMMV. There was an amazing final game in a Shadowfist event at Origins last year. This had no time limit and took 9 hours! But that's something of a record ...

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:cs3fc01flnqt3d23p...@4ax.com... > Their selections were LotR, Magic, Game of Thrones, B5 and Vampire. > Read what they had to say about Vampire. "Two is okay; four is > ideal". They didn't even know that the tournament standard for > Vampire is five players. Clueless. > ...Or maybe they simply prefer four player games? DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:1v3gc0d0f9rgf70vq...@4ax.com... > On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Matt Green wrote: > > Game forums often have routine wars between the "fanboys" and the > "whiners" and I'm sometimes assigned to the latter camp. When taken > to task about this recently, I cited an amusing story by Robert > Sheckley which I was pleased to find is online now. It's worth > sharing and is only 5000 words or so: > > http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/sheckley3/sheckley31.html > ...Good story. You do realize, though, that if you see yourself as Cordle, then (in the context of this thread), Shadowfist is your 'Mavis'... Are you doing right by her? DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote in message news:10cjrlj...@corp.supernews.com... > In article <6W2yc.610$Pt....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, > David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > > >> >In VTES, skill in deckbuilding is needed in roughly equivalent portions to > >skill in playing the game. > > Thus, bringing a bad deck to the table is much worse for you than it > is in Fist. > It sure is, and thats a good thing... People learn quickly to bring good decks to competitive sessions, and the overall unbalancing impact of the weak player on the total competitive environment is lessened (although his local impact on each game varies). > >> > Not my cup of > >> >coffee... For VTES, the weak player can be ousted quickly, and go on to > >> >play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until the > >> >end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?) > >> > >> Games between well-matched good players > > > >Why do the 'Fisters (heh) keep re-inserting this (games of balanced players > >and decks) in the part where we're trying (at Andrew's behest) to assess the > >effect of each game on the single lamb with a mediocre deck (or skill) at a > >table of 'lions'? At some point in the next few posts, I'm going to > >consider this point conceded in the favor of VTES by lack of response... > > You miss the point (or ignore it entirely)... Obviously I did neither. No one expressed this particular view (below) until your post right here. > The games that take a long time seem to happen between well-matched > good players. Throw a weak player into the game, and the game takes > far less time, because he's going to make mistakes that upset the > equilibrium. So that solves the problem of long games, but the trade-off is it doesn't give the new player a feel for the 'real' competitive 'Fist environment. No wonder 'Fist doesn't grow so well. If a new player upsets the equilibrium so with his mistakes, they can walk away with a false view of 'Fist at least as often as a VTES prospect loses interest due to total game length. A new point, then: since in VTES the newbie doesn't tilt the table as badly as they do in 'Fist, he has a greater opportunity to learn the true subtlties of the game before being ousted. I still dispute Andrew's assertion that this ousted player must then sit on his thumbs until the whole of the current game is over... > So the weak player isn't suffering through a four-hour > game. (He's also not without a chance to win if he's lucky, or > somebody underestimates him.) > A strong indication of how the games differ based on preference: random fun 'Fist v. strategic fun VTES. Presumably, a veteran 'Fister would have to tolerate this unbalanced equilibrium on a regular basis, if 'Fist is to grow, since new players are a regular factor in a healthy, growing game. That cannot be a happy situation for the veteran (strategic minded) player... The 'luck' win for the new player in VTES is a comparatively rare thing. VTES players win simply by learning to build good decks and play the game well. Luck has little to do with it. New players lose often, but can have a lot of fun and learn quite a bit while so doing. If that's a problem for you potential multiplayer CCGers out there (yes, both of you) who are still bothering to read this atrocity of a thread, then I urge you: DO NOT play VTES, go pick up Shadowfist instead. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote in message news:10cjrlj...@corp.supernews.com... > In article <6W2yc.610$Pt....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, > David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > > >> >In VTES, skill in deckbuilding is needed in roughly equivalent portions to > >skill in playing the game. > > Thus, bringing a bad deck to the table is much worse for you than it > is in Fist. > It sure is, and thats a good thing... People learn quickly to bring good decks to competitive sessions, and the overall unbalancing impact of the weak player on the total competitive environment is lessened (although his local impact on each game varies). > >> > Not my cup of > >> >coffee... For VTES, the weak player can be ousted quickly, and go on to > >> >play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until the > >> >end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?) > >> > >> Games between well-matched good players > > > >Why do the 'Fisters (heh) keep re-inserting this (games of balanced players > >and decks) in the part where we're trying (at Andrew's behest) to assess the > >effect of each game on the single lamb with a mediocre deck (or skill) at a > >table of 'lions'? At some point in the next few posts, I'm going to > >consider this point conceded in the favor of VTES by lack of response... > > You miss the point (or ignore it entirely)... Obviously I did neither. No one expressed this particular view (below) until your post right here. > The games that take a long time seem to happen between well-matched > good players. Throw a weak player into the game, and the game takes > far less time, because he's going to make mistakes that upset the > equilibrium. So that solves the problem of long games, but the trade-off is it doesn't give the new player a feel for the 'real' competitive 'Fist environment. No wonder 'Fist doesn't grow so well. If a new player upsets the equilibrium so with his mistakes, they can walk away with a false view of 'Fist at least as often as a VTES prospect loses interest due to total game length. A new point, then: since in VTES the newbie doesn't tilt the table as badly as they do in 'Fist, he has a greater opportunity to learn the true subtlties of the game before being ousted. I still dispute Andrew's assertion that this ousted player must then sit on his thumbs until the whole of the current game is over... > So the weak player isn't suffering through a four-hour > game. (He's also not without a chance to win if he's lucky, or > somebody underestimates him.) > [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:48sjc0hfct9q595iq...@4ax.com... > On 11 Jun 2004 09:05:00 -0700, Geoff wrote: > > >VTES was built from the ground up to be specefically multiplayer and > >it shows. It is the ultimate chess/political card game. In that > >regard it is the best at focusing and providing for mp interaction. > > Vampire was actually designed to dampen down multiplayer politics. > hence the structure of a circle of duels rather than a true > free-for-all. Sure, execpt for, you know, VTES political cards, plus all the cross-table exceptions to this interaction. The lack of an immediate gain from arbitrary offense (eg. cross table or backwards bleed; it doesn't get you the VP for ousting that player) makes the application of offense on someone other than your prey a complex and intriguing aspect of VTES. The answers to a question like 'how much should I invest in cross table support (or cross table offense)?' is tough to clearly answer, and the ability to assess the table and come up with the right answer consistently is the mark of a truly gifted VTES player. Of the people I've played VTES with, the three I happen to recall with this particular talent in spades are Legbiter, Conor Key, and Josh Duffin. > The ultimate political card game must be something > Lunch Money in which the card play is not as important as the human > factors. And I once played in a big Survivor CCG tournament. Now > _that_ was political. I didn't make it past the first round... > > And I don't see where you're getting the chess aspect from as there is > little positional play in VTES. The first thing the chess analogy made me think of was the value of being able to sort out possible 'move scenarios' several iterations out. Its a good skill to have (in either game, I would think.), and plays into answering the question above. DaveZ

David Zopf wrote: > "Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote: >>David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: >>>>>play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until the >>>>>end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?) >>>>Games between well-matched good players >>>Why do the 'Fisters (heh) keep re-inserting this (games of balanced >>You miss the point (or ignore it entirely)... > > Obviously I did neither. No one expressed this particular view (below) > until your post right here. > >>The games that take a long time seem to happen between well-matched >>good players. Throw a weak player into the game, and the game takes >>far less time, because he's going to make mistakes that upset the >>equilibrium. Julian's point in "Games between well-matched players" seems to have been a response to your invocation of the 4-hour game in which a weak player could be stuck. Julian's point at the time seemed to me to be that if one presupposes a weak player at a table of lions, then the time that the player is "stuck" is not at the four hour level. Conversely, if one invokes a four hour game as a possibility for players to be "stuck" playing then one excludes the possibility of a weak player among the table of lions. At least, that's how I read Julian's initial response of "Games between well-matched players" in response to your juxtaposition of the weak player and a 4-hour game ideas. Now back to the mac vs. pc wars... -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

In message <48sjc0hfct9q595iq...@4ax.com>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> mumbled something about: >And I don't see where you're getting the chess aspect from as there is >little positional play in VTES. If you want that sort of thing try Actually, there's a great deal of tactical play in V:TES. But to find this, you need to actually build a deck with tactical options, instead of a one-trick pony (heavy stealth bleed) or a "get crushed and die" deck. As in chess, it is all situational. Some openings generate obvious sequences of moves for the first 20-25 moves. Others typically go "out of book" around move 4-5. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

In message <j7oyc.25241$jZ3....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, "David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> mumbled something about: >So that solves the problem of long games, but the trade-off is it doesn't >give the new player a feel for the 'real' competitive 'Fist environment. No >wonder 'Fist doesn't grow so well. If a new player upsets the equilibrium >so with his mistakes, they can walk away with a false view of 'Fist at least >as often as a VTES prospect loses interest due to total game length. A new >point, then: since in VTES the newbie doesn't tilt the table as badly as >they do in 'Fist, he has a greater opportunity to learn the true subtlties >of the game before being ousted. I still dispute Andrew's assertion that >this ousted player must then sit on his thumbs until the whole of the >current game is over... Yeah, this is ludicrous. I have NEVER seen someone sad about having to wait to play a new game; if there are enough players, he just waits until a couple others are also ousted: Presto, new game with the desired mixture of players who haven't played each other... ...or he goes for a smoke break (if he indulges), has a whiz, pauses to watch a couple other games, fetches a beer, and has a Social Moment(tm) with someone, something I understand can be pretty rare for players of certain other CCGs... as they are oft-depicted as arrogant and antisocial? =) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ expounded: [ quoted text not captured ] Well I certainly haven't read all or indeed much of this thread but this strikes me as worth commenting on. It's perfectly possible for a poor player (with a poor deck) to be kept in a long game with 4 very good players by the other players actively keeping him there. Without commenting on the abilities of players involved I have seen plenty of people kept in play by their prey and/or "allies" for considerable periods of time.

In article <Bepyc.5159$Di3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >David Zopf wrote: >> "Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote: >>>David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: >>>>>>play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until the >>>>>>end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?) >>>>>Games between well-matched good players >>>>Why do the 'Fisters (heh) keep re-inserting this (games of balanced >>>You miss the point (or ignore it entirely)... >> >> Obviously I did neither. No one expressed this particular view (below) >> until your post right here. >> >>>The games that take a long time seem to happen between well-matched >>>good players. Throw a weak player into the game, and the game takes >>>far less time, because he's going to make mistakes that upset the >>>equilibrium. > >Julian's point in "Games between well-matched players" seems to have been >a response to your invocation of the 4-hour game in which a weak player >could be stuck. Indeed. >Now back to the mac vs. pc wars... C64.

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<48sjc0hfct9q595iq...@4ax.com>... > On 11 Jun 2004 09:05:00 -0700, Geoff wrote: > > > Vampire was actually designed to dampen down multiplayer politics. No, the predator/prey relationship was specefically designed so as to ensure the game did not become a popularity contest/series of dogpiles. In general, the game was designed to be multiplayer only. Politics in specefic for example, deliberately allowed for a number of wild cross table effects and reaction/votes by all players. > And I don't see where you're getting the chess aspect from as there is > little positional play in VTES. I can only assume therefore that you are right, you don't see it. Long term planning and play is critical in VTES, more so than in shadowfist IME. G

On 12 Jun 2004 15:47:06 -0700, Geoff wrote: >In general, the game was designed to be multiplayer only. No. The rules indicate that Vampire can be played by two players and that seems the most common mode of play at my local store. And, even if you start with more than two players, the elimination mechanism will ensure that you're down to two at some point. If the game wasn't designed to work with two players, it wouldn't work at all. Of course, it's not so interesting with just two players but that's true of most games which can accommodate more than two players. It's a while since I played it and I forget the details but my memory is that the B5 CCG was more clearly a game that only made sense multiplayer. You want the players to be representing each of the major powers - the Humans, Centauri, Narns and Minbari - as there's a balance between these which doesn't make sense if one is missing. Andrew

In rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: : On 12 Jun 2004 15:47:06 -0700, Geoff wrote: :>In general, the game was designed to be multiplayer only. : No. The rules indicate that Vampire can be played by two players and : that seems the most common mode of play at my local store. And, even : if you start with more than two players, the elimination mechanism : will ensure that you're down to two at some point. If the game wasn't : designed to work with two players, it wouldn't work at all. : Of course, it's not so interesting with just two players but that's : true of most games which can accommodate more than two players. That Jyhad was designed as a multiplayer game and that at some point of each game, there will be two players in the game are two completely different matters. "Can" vs. "Designed". You can build card houses with Jyhad cards, but it wasn't designed to work best for building card houses. //T

"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<6feb88b3db33f4af35d...@mygate.mailgate.org>... > usual sense], Chez Geek/Goth [not really collectable in the usual > sense], Gotta chime in for Chez Geek/Goth here. Great game. Really well designed, too. :) -Jon

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<8hboc056e12cb37hl...@4ax.com>... > On 12 Jun 2004 15:47:06 -0700, Geoff wrote: > > >In general, the game was designed to be multiplayer only. > > No. The rules indicate that Vampire can be played by two players and > that seems the most common mode of play at my local store. Good grief, you see people play 2player vtes and you believe that is the norm? Far from it Andrew, vtes is not a very good game 2 player. Certainly it is 'legal' to play with just 2 players, but the fact is that the game was designed specefically for multiplayer play and it plays best that way. For further evidence, this is from an inteview with the creator himself; "Garfield: It was the first TCG as heavily oriented toward multiplayer play." > And, even > if you start with more than two players, the elimination mechanism > will ensure that you're down to two at some point. Naturally. > If the game wasn't > designed to work with two players, it wouldn't work at all. > That's spurious. Whether it was or wasn't, that wouldn't preclude working as a duel. And this is the difference; that the game was designed to be multiplayer, not for dueling. > It's a while since I played it and I forget the details but my memory > is that the B5 CCG was more clearly a game that only made sense > multiplayer. You want the players to be representing each of the > major powers - the Humans, Centauri, Narns and Minbari - as there's a > balance between these which doesn't make sense if one is missing. > A similar comparison can be drawn with VTES; you need a prey obviouslly, and preferably somebody who isn't your prey as your predator, and again preferably somebody crosstable who is neither. Thus the ideal number of players is a minimum of 4. G

dancingmummy wrote: > Gotta chime in for Chez Geek/Goth here. Great game. Really well designed, > too. :) Brilliant original design on that one. And the new Chez Goth is fraught with mad entertainment value. 'Cause, like, you can Faint Dramatically and get points of Coughing... Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home." -Elvis

>Good grief, you see people play 2player vtes and you believe that is >the norm? Far from it Andrew, vtes is not a very good game 2 player. >Certainly it is 'legal' to play with just 2 players, but the fact is >that the game was designed specefically for multiplayer play and it >plays best that way. Off topic, but I've had a player suggest that two-player play be encouraged to help draw different players in even if it meant coming up with special two-player rules. I think house rules of such may already exist. Anyway, this was probably the only way I'd remember to mention it.

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:Sx_xc.7529$X56....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com... : Condescending arrogant and elitist perhaps because Andrew so often assumes : that his opinion is of greater value than others... You know, if I could read peoples' minds, I'd be making a fortune on the poker circuit, not blathering on Usenet. : I post to a thread soliciting player opinions, give Shadowfist its full : props as a nice game, but express my personal preference for another game in : multiplayer, and Andrew turns it into this crossposted pissing match we see : before us. That is, he disagreed with you. The specific exchange that you objected to contained nothing that a reasonable person would construe as "pissing," or, as you say later, "holier than thou." Here it is again, in case you've forgotten what you're raging against: >> Vampire/Jyhad >> My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best >> Multiplayer TCG, Ever' title. > > Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. : Andrew's online attitude is a serious detriment to the promotion : of Shadowfist, which has few enough advocates as it is... Now you have me wondering what I'd rather have: the ability to read peoples' minds, or the ability to have my personal idiosyncratic opinion magically coincide with the invisible masses'. It's a tough call. Bob Rossney r...@well.com

"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:<dcd0b760e23c030a7f8...@mygate.mailgate.org>... > Finally, yesterday i bought the English language version of an Italian > card game about WW1 air fighting [Wings of War in English]. Hello! Thanks for your interest. The game is called "Wings of War" in Italian too (we have so a lousy market... ;-). If anybody is curious, you can download the rules, see some pictures, read new optional rules and so on here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/9203 Bye and thanks again! Andrea Angiolino

"Robert Rossney" <r...@well.com> wrote in message news:<gH8zc.30649$eu.7484@attbi_s02>... > "David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message > news:Sx_xc.7529$X56....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com... > > : Condescending arrogant and elitist perhaps because Andrew so often assumes > : that his opinion is of greater value than others... > > You know, if I could read peoples' minds, I'd be making a fortune on the > poker circuit, not blathering on Usenet. > I don't need to read minds, Andrew has a clear reputation for deliberate agitation. His posts make it quite clear that his opinion is, in his own eyes, of vastly greater value than any others. Even without that history, Andrew himself has admitted to his conscious choice in posting styles, here; http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2608904671d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=1v3gc0d0f9rgf70vqj18oc0g8ftmmdtpr1%404ax.com You have to go and read the (entertaining) story to grasp fully how Andrew sees his online self. > : I post to a thread soliciting player opinions, give Shadowfist its full > : props as a nice game, but express my personal preference for another game > in > : multiplayer, and Andrew turns it into this crossposted pissing match we > see > : before us. > > That is, he disagreed with you. ...Which, in itself, is fine. That he felt compelled to post a reply to create an 'opinion debate' (we can use that phrase instead of 'pissing match' if you prefer) is where he went astray. > > >> Vampire/Jyhad > >> My personal favorite. Suffice it to say, it deserves the 'Best > >> Multiplayer TCG, Ever' title. > > > > Sorry but this is not the best multiplayer TCG. > (This was about the opinion thread matters. Quoted without the supporting context, but fine.) > : Andrew's online attitude is a serious detriment to the promotion > : of Shadowfist, which has few enough advocates as it is... > (This was about Andrew's posting style, in general, and not about the 'opinion debate' at all. Quoted out of context.) > Now you have me wondering what I'd rather have: the ability to read > peoples' minds, or the ability to have my personal idiosyncratic opinion > magically coincide with the invisible masses'. It's a tough call. > I can tell you what you _don't_ need any more of; the ability to edit away all surrounding context to the point where quoted snippets of text are warped to support your angle. This little montage above is masterful work... Pat yourself on the back! DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Timlagor" <TimSl...@yaMhoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.1b3455369...@news.eclipse.co.uk... [ quoted text not captured ] That is becasue you're a wise person. This thread is mostly a waste of space, as most 'opinion debates' are... DaveZ Atom Weaver

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:Bepyc.5159$Di3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > David Zopf wrote: > > "Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote: > >>David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > >>>>>play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until the > >>>>>end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?) > >>>>Games between well-matched good players > >>>Why do the 'Fisters (heh) keep re-inserting this (games of balanced > >>You miss the point (or ignore it entirely)... > > > > Obviously I did neither. No one expressed this particular view (below) > > until your post right here. > > > >>The games that take a long time seem to happen between well-matched > >>good players. Throw a weak player into the game, and the game takes > >>far less time, because he's going to make mistakes that upset the > >>equilibrium. > > Julian's point in "Games between well-matched players" seems to have been > a response to your invocation of the 4-hour game in which a weak player > could be stuck. > > Julian's point at the time seemed to me to be that if one presupposes > a weak player at a table of lions, then the time that the player is > "stuck" is not at the four hour level. Conversely, if one invokes a > four hour game as a possibility for players to be "stuck" playing then > one excludes the possibility of a weak player among the table of > lions. > Julian's only explicit point at the time of my response was: "Games between well-matched good players can take a long time, especially if the players are conservative in style. It's a consequence of the way the game works, and the fact that players aren't eliminated. (From what I understand of Vampire, the total amount of blood at the table mostly decreases over time, which creates a game clock of sorts.) But they usually don't." Quoted in full. If Julian wanted to bring this back around to the 'lamb among lions' potion of this opinion debate, it is upon him to do so explicitly (which he did, after some 'urging' ;-) You've gotten too good at 'filling in the blanks' for poorly worded questions and responses, Scott... > At least, that's how I read Julian's initial response of "Games > between well-matched players" in response to your juxtaposition > of the weak player and a 4-hour game ideas. > I wouldn't assume that from the quoted text above, which is where the debate stood at the time I made my comment. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:A6jzc.25510$176....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > David Zopf wrote: > > > "Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote: > > >>David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > > >>>>>play another game. For Fist, the weak player is still stuck in until the > > >>>>>end (did Andrew mention a four-hour multiplayer Fist game...?) > > >>>>Games between well-matched good players > Julian's only explicit point at the time of my response was: > "Games between well-matched good players can take a long time, > especially if the players are conservative in style. It's a > consequence of the way the game works, and the fact that players > aren't eliminated. (From what I understand of Vampire, the total > amount of blood at the table mostly decreases over time, which creates > a game clock of sorts.) But they usually don't." > Quoted in full. If Julian wanted to bring this back around to the 'lamb > among lions' potion of this opinion debate, it is upon him to do so > explicitly (which he did, after some 'urging' ;-) You've gotten too good at > 'filling in the blanks' for poorly worded questions and responses, Scott... You wrote: The weak player is stuck until the end (did Andrew say 4 hours?). Implying that the weak player faces a four hour period of being stuck. The response Julian gave was to explain that games between well-matched players who play conservatively can take a long time, but most games don't. Implying, in context, that the weak player doesn't face a four hour period of being stuck. I wouldn't think that those inferences fell to my skill at filling in the blanks, but, apparently, YMMV. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:cakf9l$hj7$1...@hartwell.cse.sc.edu... > "David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:A6jzc.25510$176....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > David Zopf wrote: > > Julian's only explicit point at the time of my response was: > > > "Games between well-matched good players can take a long time, > > especially if the players are conservative in style. It's a > > consequence of the way the game works, and the fact that players > > aren't eliminated. (From what I understand of Vampire, the total > > amount of blood at the table mostly decreases over time, which creates > > a game clock of sorts.) But they usually don't." > > > Quoted in full. If Julian wanted to bring this back around to the 'lamb > > among lions' potion of this opinion debate, it is upon him to do so > > explicitly (which he did, after some 'urging' ;-) You've gotten too good at > > 'filling in the blanks' for poorly worded questions and responses, Scott... > > You wrote: The weak player is stuck until the end (did Andrew say 4 hours?). > > Implying that the weak player faces a four hour period of being stuck. > I did not mean this as an implicit typical time, but rather as an explicit maximum time. I didn't know how long the exact time would be (it is certainly variable), but there was the possiblity (from Andrew's comments) that the time could be as long as four hours. Implicit may be the (erroneous) assumption that I meant that _every_ 'Fist game with a new player amongst an experienced group results in a long, friutless game for the newbie. If that was what was taken away from my comments, it wasn't my intention to imply such. That's the problem with taking comments beyond their explicit content, and its why I wouldn't (won't) debate implicit points. There's enough problems with clearly understanding the explicit points, as it is... > The response Julian gave was to explain that games between well-matched > players who play conservatively can take a long time, but most games don't. > ...and doesn't address the 'lamb with lions' angle at all. > Implying, in context, that the weak player doesn't face a four hour period of > being stuck. > This is where you lose me. There was nothing in my experience, or the posts up to that time, which would give me _any_ indication that a new player could upset the power balance of 'Fist to the degree that games are fore-shortened so much. How can I (or anyone unversed in multiplayer 'Fist) make such an assumption until it is made explicit? I'm only responding to the observations of experienced multiplayer 'Fist players, here (along with my own (two player) shadowfist experience, and a fast read-through of the rules pretaining to multiplayer games). > I wouldn't think that those inferences fell to my skill at filling in the > blanks, but, apparently, YMMV. > Yep. I'm not ready to make any such assumption, and its not my place to do so. Understanding that, you can see, I hope, how Julian's response looked to me more like a redirection to a new topic, rather than a response to the topic at hand. That he meant to imply more than what he actually wrote is now clear. Regards, DaveZ Atom Weaver

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:OJkzc.1361$Pt....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > Implying, in context, that the weak player doesn't face a four hour period > of > > being stuck. > > > This is where you lose me. There was nothing in my experience, or the posts > up to that time, which would give me _any_ indication that a new player > could upset the power balance of 'Fist to the degree that games are > fore-shortened so much. How can I (or anyone unversed in multiplayer 'Fist) > make such an assumption until it is made explicit? I'm only responding to > the observations of experienced multiplayer 'Fist players, here (along with > my own (two player) shadowfist experience, and a fast read-through of the > rules pretaining to multiplayer games). This being, I pressume, exactly the reason that Julian made it explicit (that 4-hour games are unusual and only happen in games between well-matched players who also happen to all be playing conservatively) in the response to which you took issue -- as an explanation of the factors needed for a four-hour game. In order to counter the idea that that had been put forth in the post to which he was repsonding -- that the weak player could be stuck in a four hour game . [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <bb705c59.04061...@posting.google.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >(Joshua Kronengold) wrote: >> BTW, if one is interested in trying Fist without having to invest in >> cardstock and all that garbage, there's now a way to try it, for free, >> online (at least if, unlike me, you have a Windows box). >Would you care to explain how, for the benefit of those that came in >late to this bru-ha-ha? As mentioned, it's on ccgworkshop -- there's also a link off of shadowfist.com >Is there a tendency for 'Fist players to show up with a milk crate of >extra card stock to get new players started as there is in Jyhad? To a degree, yes -- a lot of players end up getting given cards when they start out. >How essential are rare cards to a winning deck in 'Fist? As Julian said...not. Fist rarity has usually the many-per-deck cards as common, the somewhat harder to use cards as uncommon, and the unique hitters (useful, but you only want so many in a given deck) and wierd cards (which you might want five of, but only in specific "trick" decks) as rares. The fixed starters, in addition to having a lot of useful commons, each have good hitters of one sort or another -- in fact, several contain top-level thugs for their factions (of special note are the Dragon and Hand decks, which contain some of the highest regarded hitters anywhere, but all the decks have at least one good hitter), so they're very useful to players starting out. -- Joshua Kronengold (mneme@(io.com, labcats.org)) |\ _,,,--,,_ ,) --^-- "Get your mind right and you can make a stick /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;' /\\ your wand and the sky your hat and a puddle |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\ /-\\\ your magic..." -- Granny Weatherwax '---''(_/--' (_/-'

In article <10cfuvb...@corp.supernews.com>, Julian Lighton <jl...@fragment.com> wrote: >In article <Y6mdnSVGkcX...@io.com>, >Joshua Kronengold <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote: >>In article <UnJxc.6834$ak3....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>, >>David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: >>>Sorry, but it is, too, Troll... (Nyah, nyah! thpffft! etc... Who peed in >>>_your_ Cheerios this morning..? >>Because someone disagrees with you does not mean they're a troll >Whether somebody who cross-posts to the Jyhad group just to stir its >residents up might well be considered one, however. True. >>>only becuse there are now so many cards... By contrast (and since you seem >>>to _want_ to get in a 'my opinion is worth more than yours' contest), the >>>cartoonish style of Shadowfist is cute, but approaches tedium quickly for >>>me. >>Fist does not have a single art style. >Well, yes and no. There's considerable variation, but a large >percentage of the art is of the same basic style. > >Of course, that style is more "realistic, or as realistic as you can >get with insane kung fu, cyborged demons, etc.", not "cartoonish". Ok, granted, though how realistic it is varies a lot (and there's a lot of variation beyond realism; the old Queen of the Ice Pagoda isn't all that stylistically similar to Final Brawl). And yeah, it's nowhere near cartoonish. >>>Again, the popularity of Shadowfist is so deplorable, I cannot really >>>comment other than from a read-through of the multiplayer rules. >BTW, "deplorable" is not the word I think you mean here. What David meant, you mean? I'm not responsible for his vocabulary and usage. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <i7oyc.25240$jZ3....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: >So that solves the problem of long games, but the trade-off is it doesn't >give the new player a feel for the 'real' competitive 'Fist environment. No >wonder 'Fist doesn't grow so well. Fist grows just fine. (it doesn't have a lot of money behind it for full-page advertising, but that's another question). More particularly...people who try Fist, especially from the VTES side, tend not to leave. Why would you think otherwise? >If a new player upsets the equilibrium >so with his mistakes, they can walk away with a false view of 'Fist at least >as often as a VTES prospect loses interest due to total game length. Upsetting the equilibrium of a game is a significant part of strategy, just like anything else. It's entirely possible that a new player will end up playing kingmaker if they run into a set of evenly matched opponents, but it's just as likely that they'll end up putting the game into a quick win-spiral for one player early on (ie, a quick learning experience), or that they'll be a non-factor (probably the most likely possiblity for a new player that's completely outclassed, if not by that much), or that the rest of the table will exhaust itself enough to give the new player a win -- it all depends. >point, then: since in VTES the newbie doesn't tilt the table as badly as >they do in 'Fist, he has a greater opportunity to learn the true subtlties >of the game before being ousted. It's more likely, IMO, that they'll just get outsted quickly, hand six blood to their predator, and go off to do something else (or alternatively, get all their vampires burned by their prey and sit there helpless for the rest of the game). >A strong indication of how the games differ based on preference: random fun >'Fist v. strategic fun VTES. Please do not presume to debate the play of a game you don't know. The Fist players involved in this discussion are all familiar with both games involved in this discussion, and therefore qualified to participate. You are not, and your statements make this more clear the more you write. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:cakmt1$p9d$1...@hartwell.cse.sc.edu... [ quoted text not captured ] I'm at my limit on free posting time, Scott. If this is important to you, email me, or give me a call, else we can go another few rounds tomorrow... Compare what Julian said 'Games between well-matched good players can take a long time, especially if the players are conservative in style.' with what you want to imply from it; 'ONLY Games between well-matched good players can take a long time, especially if the players are conservative in style.' The latter cannot be arrived at without prior knoweldge of multiplayer 'Fist, which I don't have. I'm left with the former, and took it at face value. In response to a section on the lamb with lions debate, it reads to me as a redirection, not as a reply. A further clarification from Julian made his intention with the comment clear. Sorry to bore the rest of you (Julian included) with this, an already resolved issue. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message news:X9qdnd4xgqO...@io.com... > In article <i7oyc.25240$jZ3....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, > David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > >So that solves the problem of long games, but the trade-off is it doesn't > >give the new player a feel for the 'real' competitive 'Fist environment. No > >wonder 'Fist doesn't grow so well. > > Fist grows just fine. (it doesn't have a lot of money behind it for full-page > advertising, but that's another question). > More particularly...people who try Fist, especially from the VTES side, tend > not to leave. > > Why would you think otherwise? > Personal experience, only (a poor metric, but mine may be better than some.) I travel a week out of every month with my job mostly in the US, but occasionally in Europe, and have a habit of stopping by local gaming stores in my free evening time. In the 75-100 gaming stores I've been in, I've seen boxes of 'Fist on shelves (most often, Year of the Dragon, sometimes Throne War) at about half of those stores. I've talked with most of those stores' owners,asking about all the games played in their store. 'Fist was never mentioned (I've found a few Spellfire groups, though), even when it is on the shelves. I have never observed people playing Shadowfist, other than at my own request for an occasional game. All that amounts only to personal experience, but if it was growing 'fine', I would think that such experience would be enough to net at least _one_ instance of the game being played, or at least actively sold. So there's my supporting eveidence. And since this thread is ultimately still a debate over opinion (which multiplayer CCG is 'best') anyways, I'm happy to support fruitless debate with shaky statistics. Now, I'd like to ask you to support your own generalization that; "More particularly...people who try Fist, especially from the VTES side, tend not to leave." My guess is, you're using the same poor metric as I (personal experience)... For the record, I've tried Fist from theVTES side, and haven't left. > >If a new player upsets the equilibrium > >so with his mistakes, they can walk away with a false view of 'Fist at least > >as often as a VTES prospect loses interest due to total game length. > > Upsetting the equilibrium of a game is a significant part of strategy, just > like anything else. > ...Sorry. By 'upsetting the equilibrium' I was re-stating more succinctly Julian's point that it is the new player's inexperience and mistakes that causes the short game to occur. You're talking here about a deliberate strategy of upsetting table balance, which I can appreciate as a game element for experienced players, but is something separate from the point being made. That a player might manipulate a game in such a manner would pre-suppose that they weren't a new, inexperienced, player... > It's entirely possible that (1) a new player will end up playing kingmaker if > they run into a set of evenly matched opponents, but it's just as likely that > (2) they'll end up putting the game into a quick win-spiral for one player early > on (ie, a quick learning experience), or that (3) they'll be a non-factor > (probably the most likely possiblity for a new player that's completely > outclassed, if not by that much), or that (4) the rest of the table will exhaust > itself enough to give the new player a win -- it all depends. > I put in some numbers above, to make life easier. So it seems you're experience differs from Julian's, then, if I understand him to be of the opinion that (2) is the more usual scenario? You seem to be saying here (correct me if I'm wrong) that any of these four scenarios is equally possible (or do you value one or more over the others?). Who has the right of it for Fist, then, you or Julian? > > >point, then: since in VTES the newbie doesn't tilt the table as badly as > >they do in 'Fist, he has a greater opportunity to learn the true subtlties > >of the game before being ousted. > > It's more likely, IMO, that they'll just get outsted quickly, hand six blood > to their predator, and go off to do something else (or alternatively, get all > their vampires burned by their prey and sit there helpless for the rest of the > game). > > >A strong indication of how the games differ based on preference: random fun > >'Fist v. strategic fun VTES. > > Please do not presume to debate the play of a game you don't know. > I presume nothing. This 'debate' as you very generously call it, is a consequence of Andrew's supplanting his opinion over my own (something he didn't choose to do for those who posted favorably about other games, I note). This, as with all 'opinion debates' are nothing more than glorified pissing matches that ultimately benefit no one. All content of this thread derived from his response to my initial post should be suspect by everyone, owing to its highly subjective nature. Its all garbage, merely of varying degrees of stink :-) So I draw conclusions from the comments of experienced 'Fist players, such as yourself (its all I have). A game wherein the new player, by their inexperience, so alters the nature of the game, is IMO a game of random fun, if one assumes that there will always be a relatively regular number of new players (an assumption that I hold as a necessary condition for healthy games in a state of growth). If you expect a randomizing element (the new player) to be consistently present, you can expect the system to continue to behave randomly. Note, also, that I don't dispute the possibility for this in VTES, but its liklihood is vastly reduced compared to the perceived level suggested by Julian. > The Fist players involved in this discussion are all familiar with both > games involved in this discussion, and therefore qualified to participate. > I know that to be true of only Andrew, specifically, from prior posts showing a good knoweldge of both VTES and Shadowfist. Hell, even here above, I'm assuming _you_ know what you're talking about when you speak of multiplayer 'Fist, despite the fact that what you say contradicts Julian's experience, whom I've known to post on 'Fist matters from other forums... Am I giving you too much credit? > You are not, and your statements make this more clear the more you write. > I think I made it quite clear _myself _when i said 'I don't know multiplayer Shadowfist from direct experience'. You needed more than that to draw such a sterling conclusion? Don't get all 'ad hominem' on me at this late a point in the game, you were doing well up until this. The conclusions I draw are from observations about Shadowfist made by people who, as you and I both say, know more than I about it. You can dispute the observations of your 'Fist peers, and thats a valid ground for disputing my conclusions as well, due to their derivative nature. If my conclusions are wrong due to a misrepresentation of Shadowfist, I'm not pleased by such a misrepresentation, but then, I'm not seeing it as a valid reson to withold comment on those observations, either. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:VNnzc.25535$rP6....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com... > > "Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message > news:X9qdnd4xgqO...@io.com... > > Please do not presume to debate the play of a game you don't know. > > > I presume nothing. This 'debate' as you very generously call it, is a > consequence of Andrew's supplanting his opinion over my own (something he > didn't choose to do for those who posted favorably about other games, I > note). This, as with all 'opinion debates' are nothing more than glorified > pissing matches that ultimately benefit no one. All content of this thread > derived from his response to my initial post should be suspect by everyone, > owing to its highly subjective nature. Its all garbage, merely of varying > degrees of stink :-) I don't know if it's at all useful for me to jump in at this point, not having followed the thread very carefully. But I used to play Fist pretty competitively, and still do play VTES pretty competitively. I find them both to be excellent multiplayer games, with quite a bit of strategy involved on each side. I don't know if one is actually a better multiplayer game design than the other or not, though I do think that Fist 4-player (which was my preference for multiplayer Fist back in the day) usually takes less time to play than VTES 5-player, while still being a satisfying experience. (eg the Fist tournament games didn't usually run into their time limit, which was I think around 75 minutes, whereas VTES tournament games pretty often run into the 2-hour time limit, perhaps especially in finals.) VTES has (mechanics-wise) better tiebreakers if games do time out (or at least did when I last played tournament Shadowfist), but a timed-out VTES game is still pretty unsatisfying (IMO). :-) (I don't play Shadowfist much anymore mainly because I don't have the free time to keep up with more than one CCG these days... and there weren't as many conveniently-located Shadowfist players in my area as there were VTES players. I do miss it though, it was an awfully fun game, and I bet it still is.) Josh ps hi joshua & julian! long time no see. :-)

In article <VNnzc.25535$rP6....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > >"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message >news:X9qdnd4xgqO...@io.com... >> >If a new player upsets the equilibrium so with his mistakes, they >> >can walk away with a false view of 'Fist at least as often as a >> >VTES prospect loses interest due to total game length. >> >> Upsetting the equilibrium of a game is a significant part of >> strategy, just like anything else. >> >...Sorry. By 'upsetting the equilibrium' I was re-stating more succinctly >Julian's point that it is the new player's inexperience and mistakes that >causes the short game to occur. No, the lack of such mistakes may cause the game to become static. The "short game" (which isn't necessarily that short) is far more the natural order of things. > You're talking here about a deliberate >strategy of upsetting table balance, which I can appreciate as a game >element for experienced players, but is something separate from the point >being made. That a player might manipulate a game in such a manner would >pre-suppose that they weren't a new, inexperienced, player... > >> It's entirely possible that (1) a new player will end up playing >> kingmaker if they run into a set of evenly matched opponents, but >> it's just as likely that (2) they'll end up putting the game into a >> quick win-spiral for one player early on (ie, a quick learning >> experience), or that (3) they'll be a non-factor (probably the most >> likely possiblity for a new player that's completely outclassed, if >> not by that much), or that (4) the rest of the table will exhaust >> itself enough to give the new player a win -- it all depends. >> >I put in some numbers above, to make life easier. So it seems you're >experience differs from Julian's, then, if I understand him to be of the >opinion that (2) is the more usual scenario? You do not understand me correctly. All I've really said is that (5) the game deadlocks, isn't likely with a weak player at the table. >> >point, then: since in VTES the newbie doesn't tilt the table as >> >badly as they do in 'Fist, he has a greater opportunity to learn >> >the true subtlties of the game before being ousted. >> >> It's more likely, IMO, that they'll just get outsted quickly, hand >> six blood to their predator, and go off to do something else (or >> alternatively, get all their vampires burned by their prey and sit >> there helpless for the rest of the game). >> >> >A strong indication of how the games differ based on preference: >> >random fun 'Fist v. strategic fun VTES. >> >> Please do not presume to debate the play of a game you don't know. [...] >So I draw conclusions from the comments of experienced 'Fist players, such >as yourself (its all I have). A game wherein the new player, by their >inexperience, so alters the nature of the game, is IMO a game of random fun, You assume that equilibrium is the natural state of the game, and it isn't. Most of the time, he game is dynamic, with players rising and falling, jockeying for position and trying to stop somebody else from winning without weakening their own position. >if one assumes that there will always be a relatively regular number of new >players (an assumption that I hold as a necessary condition for healthy >games in a state of growth). If you expect a randomizing element (the new >player) to be consistently present, you can expect the system to continue to >behave randomly. Yet the system doesn't behave randomly. Good players do better than new players. >> The Fist players involved in this discussion are all familiar with both >> games involved in this discussion, and therefore qualified to participate. >> >I know that to be true of only Andrew, specifically, from prior posts >showing a good knoweldge of both VTES and Shadowfist. Hell, even here >above, I'm assuming _you_ know what you're talking about when you speak of >multiplayer 'Fist, despite the fact that what you say contradicts Julian's >experience, whom I've known to post on 'Fist matters from other forums... >Am I giving you too much credit? He's the number five ranked player in the world. I hear he knows a little.

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:37:34 +1000, salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: >On 9 Jun 2004 15:21:37 -0700, fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) >scrawled: >> This assertion is ridiculous. I've been consistently amazed at the >> _lack_ of goths playing V:TES. I really have no idea why more goths >> aren't into the game. > >most goths, i guess, who actually know about the game, wouldn't play >it because they are woried their peers might think of them as geeks. Paradoxically, most goths are geeks, but are afraid to admit it. At least in my experience. >well, yes, i am wearing black. and black eyeliner. and pale >foundation. and doc martins. and i mope a lot. but don't call me a >goth". you know the types.) Do they really wear Docs there? Most places I go, it's all about the New Rocks. :) Uh, and yeah, Ben, if you're going to include me as "goth" you have to include Salem :) Xian

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:51:38 -0500, Xian <xi...@visi.com> scrawled: >On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:37:34 +1000, salem ><salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>On 9 Jun 2004 15:21:37 -0700, fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) >>scrawled: >>> This assertion is ridiculous. I've been consistently amazed at the >>> _lack_ of goths playing V:TES. I really have no idea why more goths >>> aren't into the game. >> >>most goths, i guess, who actually know about the game, wouldn't play >>it because they are woried their peers might think of them as geeks. > >Paradoxically, most goths are geeks, but are afraid to admit it. At >least in my experience. geeks, or teeny boppers playing dress ups. :) >>well, yes, i am wearing black. and black eyeliner. and pale >>foundation. and doc martins. and i mope a lot. but don't call me a >>goth". you know the types.) > >Do they really wear Docs there? Most places I go, it's all about the >New Rocks. :) urgh. new rocks. all the younger (erm, read: sub-25 age group) goth boys seem to love new rocks. girls tend to wear anything with a sole the height of a large multi-national company's head-office buidling. but there still tend to be docs around (and doc clones, too. like my "gripfast" brand 20-hole boots. still alive after nearly 10 years), they're just not the norm anymore, i guess. >Uh, and yeah, Ben, if you're going to include me as "goth" you have to >include Salem :) but...but...you're in a _band_. and where's that free cd you promised me? how am i supposed to get you played in aussie clubs if i don't have the music? :D salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email) "I like to play the field"-LSJ

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:22:13 GMT, David Zopf wrote: >Personal experience, only (a poor metric, but mine may be better than some.) >I travel a week out of every month with my job mostly in the US, but >occasionally in Europe, and have a habit of stopping by local gaming stores >in my free evening time. In the 75-100 gaming stores I've been in... Shadowfist is certainly thin on the ground. VTES has a larger, more organised player base but even that game is hard to get pick-up play for. The typical gaming store will have games of big selling kiddie games like Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh! and Duelmasters going on (not sure about Pokemon now). Whatever adult games you find depends upon whatever has caught on locally - L5R, LotR, Vs, Star Wars, whatever. They are all quite patchy in my own experience of game stores in the UK and USA - there are too many games for one store to be able to support them all well. Getting as many as five competent players together for a game of a CCG usually requires planning. My Shadowfist play takes place at a weekly club meeting and a couple of regular monthly tournaments. There's a similar scene for VTES in London. If your travels ever bring you here, drop me a line and I can hook you up. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:ucatc01pvgdvsce20...@4ax.com... > On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:22:13 GMT, David Zopf wrote: > > >Personal experience, only (a poor metric, but mine may be better than some.) > >I travel a week out of every month with my job mostly in the US, but > >occasionally in Europe, and have a habit of stopping by local gaming stores > >in my free evening time. In the 75-100 gaming stores I've been in... > > Shadowfist is certainly thin on the ground. VTES has a larger, more > organised player base but even that game is hard to get pick-up play > for. The typical gaming store will have games of big selling kiddie > games like Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh! and Duelmasters going on (not sure about > Pokemon now). Whatever adult games you find depends upon whatever has > caught on locally - L5R, LotR, Vs, Star Wars, whatever. They are all > quite patchy in my own experience of game stores in the UK and USA - > there are too many games for one store to be able to support them all > well. > A fair and accurate assessment. Pokemon TCG, as far as I've seen, has been supplanted by YuGiOh (and Duelmasters) as The Cartoon-Driven Kids TCG. I haven't seen much recent evidence of sales or active play, although the cards are still all around. I've seen evidence of L5R about as often as VTES (and not much of either, one store in eight... maybe?), most places are quite ambivalent on LotR. As you say, it needs a local champion to keep it together. At the very least, the demo monkey prince list for VTES gives one the outside chance of falling into a game, but I've found that the short-notice nature of my travel usually precludes getting a game organized in time, unless the local group is sufficiently big (say, 15 or more active players). > Getting as many as five competent players together for a game of a CCG > usually requires planning. My Shadowfist play takes place at a weekly > club meeting and a couple of regular monthly tournaments. There's a > similar scene for VTES in London. If your travels ever bring you > here, drop me a line and I can hook you up. > Thanks. For right now, my only UK customer is in Gateshead (_theres_ a road trip from London), but a week of sales calls is possible. If that happens, I'm definitely extending it over a weekend, and I've a coupon for a discounted stay at Legbiter Manor ;-) DaveZ Atom Weaver

"John P." <jtpa...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:1riyc.691794$Pk3.113483@pd7tw1no > > "legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message > news:6feb88b3db33f4af35d...@mygate.mailgate.org... > > > i even quite like Battletech. > > Battletech... we enjoyed that game for long > enough that I sunk considerable money into it. Sigh. ;-) so did we! And last time we were in germany, Michael Eichler gave us ALL his BAttletech cards so we have a TON!!!!! Not that we have actually played with them, though. > > Now that I think it, I find it interesting that one > of the things that unbalanced the CCG (Vehicles) > appears to be overly powerful in mechwarrior. > > As you appear to have played the original Fasa, > the card game, and mechwarrior, I'm curious to > know if you feel the mechs are underpowered in > mechwarrior or are they where they should have been > all along? i feel one can't compare the CCG with either of the minis games, because the CCG is much more a campaign game, and the manoueverings of the individual mechs is not its centre point. i actually thought the CCG was fairly balanced, but probably i have not played it enough, or not competitively enough, to have detected any imbalance. However, if there WAS a relative strengthening of vehicles i wouldn't necessarily find that innappropriate given the angle upon the mechwarrior universe that the CCG takes. However, it IS fair to compare the clix and FASA versions, and there are good features about both. Model quality is STELLAR in the clix version. But fast infantry were, originally at least, overpowered because of the takeover rule. i think it was Peter who told me a while back that there was errata to hoverbikes that countered this. The checking-off-boxes mechanic is a really good one, common not only to FASA Mechwarrior, but also to Star Fleet Battles, Crimson skies and Centurion [i actually rate Centurion as the best of these games, cos you get the most fantastic sense of MOTION from the Gravtanks] - and it is obviously missing in the Clix versions. Come to think of it, Centurion may be a GDW game. SFB is the only Star Trek game that i like, not that i've played it that much recently. > Also thought I would add that Illuminati:NWO is a > highly amusing card game if you invest the time to > understand the rules. Also helps if you played > the original illuminati game. An of course works best > with many players. (just to drag my post back on the > topic of multiplayer games). > > -JTP Yeah, you and Mike are quite right to bring that up. Superb game even if you just read it, all sorts of witty little digs at various groups and individuals. -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

In article <2j6h5nF...@uni-berlin.de>, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: >I do miss it though, it was an awfully fun game, and I bet it still is. You bet it is...even without a Duffin in an afro! :) You still based in Milwaulkee these days? >ps hi joshua & julian! long time no see. :-) No kidding! You should make Origins. Or Gencon. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <VNnzc.25535$rP6....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > >"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message >news:X9qdnd4xgqO...@io.com... >> In article <i7oyc.25240$jZ3....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, >> David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: >> >So that solves the problem of long games, but the trade-off is it doesn't >> >give the new player a feel for the 'real' competitive 'Fist environment. >No >> >wonder 'Fist doesn't grow so well. >> >> Fist grows just fine. (it doesn't have a lot of money behind it for >full-page >> advertising, but that's another question). >> More particularly...people who try Fist, especially from the VTES side, >tend >> not to leave. >> >> Why would you think otherwise? >> >on the shelves. I have never observed people playing Shadowfist, other than >at my own request for an occasional game. All that amounts only to personal >experience, but if it was growing 'fine', I would think that such experience >would be enough to net at least _one_ instance of the game being played, or >at least actively sold. More particularly, Fist popularity is currently stable -- it's growing enough to replace the inevitable dropouts, but not enough to be in the kind of growth spurt a game tends to be in when it's "new". This is actually fairly usual when a game is undercapitalized, IMEX. But from what I've seen, people who leave fist tend to do so -because- of its lack of popularity in some areas, not because they dislike the game. >...Sorry. By 'upsetting the equilibrium' I was re-stating more succinctly >Julian's point that it is the new player's inexperience and mistakes that >causes the short game to occur. As julian mentioned, this was an overgeneralization and misreading on your part -- the presence of a new player will tend to avoid one of the breakdown stages of Fist -- an arbitrarily long game often ending in deck exhaustion by at least one player, but will generally produce a "normal" game. >> It's entirely possible that (1) a new player will end up playing kingmaker >if >> they run into a set of evenly matched opponents, but it's just as likely >that >> (2) they'll end up putting the game into a quick win-spiral for one player >early >> on (ie, a quick learning experience), or that (3) they'll be a non-factor >> (probably the most likely possiblity for a new player that's completely >> outclassed, if not by that much), or that (4) the rest of the table will >exhaust >> itself enough to give the new player a win -- it all depends. >I put in some numbers above, to make life easier. So it seems you're >experience differs from Julian's, then, if I understand him to be of the >opinion that (2) is the more usual scenario? As said, Julian's statements were referring to cases 1-4 (plus case 6: new player gets lucky, and takes advantage of several other player's bad starts, and case 7: new player catches on fast, resulting in a normal game, but not an over-long game); the point is more that a new player is generally going to avoid case 5: game is played cautiously and well, and nobody can manage to get (or keep) a decisive advantage for a long while. >You seem to be saying here >(correct me if I'm wrong) that any of these four scenarios is equally >possible (or do you value one or more over the others?). All 6 are reasonably possible, varying with the skill of a the player, the quality of the deck (since new players are frequently loaned decks, and since experienced players occasionally build stinkers of a deck that only show their badness in play, these can vary seperately), but I wouldn't call them "equal". If one player doesn't outclass the others in some way, a win spirial is relatively unlikely (but still possible). >Who has the right of it for Fist, then, you or Julian? We are not in disagreement on this matter. >I presume nothing. This 'debate' as you very generously call it, is a >consequence of Andrew's supplanting his opinion over my own At this point, that's a side conversation, IMO. >So I draw conclusions from the comments of experienced 'Fist players, such >as yourself (its all I have). Nevertheless, characterizing Fist as random and Jyhad as strategic in comparison is somewhat insulting. I'd appreciate if if you'd refrain from that sort of thing. >> The Fist players involved in this discussion are all familiar with both >> games involved in this discussion, and therefore qualified to participate. >I know that to be true of only Andrew, specifically, from prior posts >showing a good knoweldge of both VTES and Shadowfist. Hell, even here >above, I'm assuming _you_ know what you're talking about when you speak of >multiplayer 'Fist, despite the fact that what you say contradicts Julian's >experience, whom I've known to post on 'Fist matters from other forums... >Am I giving you too much credit? My Fist qualifications are probably beyond reproach (um...5th ranked player in the world; winner @ '97 Gencon Nationals (Multi); 2nd place in dueling last year; etc). My Vampire experience is much smaller, partially becuase it's just an amazingly expensive game to play, IMEX -- the large card pool combined with the need to have large numbers of powerful commons made it (at least in the early days) much more expensive than Fist, which has smaller decks, a different rarity scheme, and a 5/deck max. But I've played my share, from stealth/bleed (or attempts at slealth/bleed/vote) to playing my bad, or other people's better combat decks. >a sterling conclusion? Don't get all 'ad hominem' on me at this late a >point in the game, you were doing well up until this. As said, I'm not about to unless I find myself facing misleading conclusions drawn from false textual analysis. FWIW, btw -- Fist is reasonably popular (ie, there are formal playgroups at stores or in open clubs, in addition to whatever informal playgroups there are or aren't) in NYC, Toronto, somewhere in Texas, Philly, and various parts of California. (and, I'm sure, varous places that didn't spring to mind). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote in message news:10cs7vl...@corp.supernews.com... > In article <VNnzc.25535$rP6....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, > David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > > > >"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message > >news:X9qdnd4xgqO...@io.com... > >> It's entirely possible that (1) a new player will end up playing > >> kingmaker if they run into a set of evenly matched opponents, but > >> it's just as likely that (2) they'll end up putting the game into a > >> quick win-spiral for one player early on (ie, a quick learning > >> experience), or that (3) they'll be a non-factor (probably the most > >> likely possiblity for a new player that's completely outclassed, if > >> not by that much), or that (4) the rest of the table will exhaust > >> itself enough to give the new player a win -- it all depends. > >> > >I put in some numbers above, to make life easier. So it seems you're > >experience differs from Julian's, then, if I understand him to be of the > >opinion that (2) is the more usual scenario? > > You do not understand me correctly. All I've really said is that (5) > the game deadlocks, isn't likely with a weak player at the table. > OK. (5) allows for any of (1) through (4) as a possible outcome. Do you then put a greater liklihood on any of the four other scenarios above, or are they all equally (roughly speaking) likely to occur? Are there any that have been missed? > >> >point, then: since in VTES the newbie doesn't tilt the table as > >> >badly as they do in 'Fist, he has a greater opportunity to learn > >> >the true subtlties of the game before being ousted. > >> > >> It's more likely, IMO, that they'll just get outsted quickly, hand > >> six blood to their predator, and go off to do something else (or > >> alternatively, get all their vampires burned by their prey and sit > >> there helpless for the rest of the game). > >> > >> >A strong indication of how the games differ based on preference: > >> >random fun 'Fist v. strategic fun VTES. > >> > >> Please do not presume to debate the play of a game you don't know. > [...] > >So I draw conclusions from the comments of experienced 'Fist players, such > >as yourself (its all I have). A game wherein the new player, by their > >inexperience, so alters the nature of the game, is IMO a game of random fun, > > You assume that equilibrium is the natural state of the game, and it > isn't. I assume nothing. A person wiser than me in Fisty matters wrote: "The games that take a long time seem to happen between well-matched good players. Throw a weak player into the game, and the game takes far less time, because he's going to make mistakes that ***upset the equilibrium***. So the weak player isn't suffering through a four-hour game. (He's also not without a chance to win if he's lucky, or somebody underestimates him.)" ***Emphasis mine, the words are your own. Is this your retraction of that comment, then? > Most of the time, he game is dynamic, with players rising and > falling, jockeying for position and trying to stop somebody else from > winning without weakening their own position. > Whether the equilibrium is static or dynamic is largely irrelevant to your observation that it is the weaker player who upsets it with their mistakes, and thus alters the game environment significantly from that of a game between veterans. I guess an alternate summation of the difference is, a new player in VTES can upset the balance somewhat, to the extent of giving up a VP and 6 pool, and possibly giving their prey an early advantage (significant, but not game-ending). A new player in Shadowfist can upset the equilibrium to the point of giving up the entire game, it would seem in a less-than-predictable fashion, given the wide range of scenarios proposed by Josh above (with the proper caveat that the experienced players are the ones more likely to capitalize on the new player's mistakes). > >if one assumes that there will always be a relatively regular number of new > >players (an assumption that I hold as a necessary condition for healthy > >games in a state of growth). If you expect a randomizing element (the new > >player) to be consistently present, you can expect the system to continue to > >behave randomly. > > Yet the system doesn't behave randomly. Good players do better than > new players. > Perhaps it would have been better to say that the system of veterans with a new player (or players) is significantly different than that of a system comprised of veterans alone? The point is, this statement and this circumstance seems to be less true for VTES than it is for 'Fist, owing to a lesser impact on the game from the mis-play of an inexperienced player. Bringing it 'round, we might conclude that a game of VTES, as the new player experiences it, is not as significantly altered by the new player's presence as a game of 'Fist. This has no real bearing on which game is 'better', 'more fun', 'best' or any other of the fruitlessly subjective values, but it does speak to the ability of the game to represent itself accurately to the new player (an ability one might presume is of value in keeping a new players' interest). >(Joshua K. is) the number five ranked player in the world. I hear he knows a little. > Izzat so? Well, then he's got m@dd Shadowfist street cred. Would you forgive me, then, if I listen to him on the subject of Fist moreso than you? ;-) DaveZ Atom Weaver

In article <C%Hzc.1683$Pt....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > >"Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote in message >news:10cs7vl...@corp.supernews.com... >> >> It's entirely possible that (1) a new player will end up playing >> >> kingmaker if they run into a set of evenly matched opponents, but >> >> it's just as likely that (2) they'll end up putting the game into a >> >> quick win-spiral for one player early on (ie, a quick learning >> >> experience), or that (3) they'll be a non-factor (probably the most >> >> likely possiblity for a new player that's completely outclassed, if >> >> not by that much), or that (4) the rest of the table will exhaust >> >> itself enough to give the new player a win -- it all depends. >> >> >> >I put in some numbers above, to make life easier. So it seems you're >> >experience differs from Julian's, then, if I understand him to be of the >> >opinion that (2) is the more usual scenario? >> >> You do not understand me correctly. All I've really said is that (5) >> the game deadlocks, isn't likely with a weak player at the table. >> >OK. (5) allows for any of (1) through (4) as a possible outcome. Do you >then put a greater liklihood on any of the four other scenarios above, or >are they all equally (roughly speaking) likely to occur? Impossible to say. > Are there any that have been missed? Sure. Start with: Somebody wins, and it's because he has enough juice to punch through the table's defense, and it has nothing at all to do with the weak player. >> >So I draw conclusions from the comments of experienced 'Fist >> >players, such as yourself (its all I have). A game wherein the >> >new player, by their inexperience, so alters the nature of the >> >game, is IMO a game of random fun, >> >> You assume that equilibrium is the natural state of the game, and it >> isn't. > >I assume nothing. A person wiser than me in Fisty matters wrote: > >"The games that take a long time seem to happen between well-matched >good players. Throw a weak player into the game, and the game takes >far less time, because he's going to make mistakes that ***upset the >equilibrium***. So the weak player isn't suffering through a four-hour >game. (He's also not without a chance to win if he's lucky, or >somebody underestimates him.)" > >***Emphasis mine, the words are your own. Is this your retraction of that >comment, then? Sigh. No. A game that drags out has invariably reached an equilibrium. This says nothing about whether a game that doesn't drag out is in a state of equilibrium. >> >if one assumes that there will always be a relatively regular >> >number of new players (an assumption that I hold as a necessary >> >condition for healthy games in a state of growth). If you expect >> >a randomizing element (the new player) to be consistently present, >> >you can expect the system to continue to behave randomly. >> >> Yet the system doesn't behave randomly. Good players do better than >> new players. >> >Perhaps it would have been better to say that the system of veterans with a >new player (or players) is significantly different than that of a system >comprised of veterans alone? Not really. >>(Joshua K. is) the number five ranked player in the world. I hear he knows >a little. >> >Izzat so? Well, then he's got m@dd Shadowfist street cred. Would you >forgive me, then, if I listen to him on the subject of Fist moreso than you? >;-) I never said where I was on that list...

In article <C%Hzc.1683$Pt....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: >OK. (5) allows for any of (1) through (4) as a possible outcome. Actually, it's an alternative to them. >> You assume that equilibrium is the natural state of the game, and it >> isn't. > >I assume nothing. A person wiser than me in Fisty matters wrote: > >"The games that take a long time seem to happen between well-matched >good players. Throw a weak player into the game, and the game takes >far less time, because he's going to make mistakes that ***upset the >equilibrium***. So the weak player isn't suffering through a four-hour >game. (He's also not without a chance to win if he's lucky, or >somebody underestimates him.)" In other words, an unnatural equibrium can arise between equally matched players with equally matched decks. This is much less likely with a weaker player at the table. "Upset the equibrium" isn't necessarily a problem -- it's pretty close to "keep things moving". >> Most of the time, he game is dynamic, with players rising and >> falling, jockeying for position and trying to stop somebody else from >> winning without weakening their own position. >Whether the equilibrium is static or dynamic is largely irrelevant to your >observation that it is the weaker player who upsets it with their mistakes, >and thus alters the game environment significantly from that of a game >between veterans. No. All players will tend to upset the equibrium of a game, since equilibrium isn't a natural state of Fist (it requires a lot of work to maintain, and it's often better strategy to improve your positon at the cost of pushing the game out of equilibirum...or to push the game out of equilibrium in hopes of being able to steal a march on the players who will be damaged by this. >I guess an alternate summation of the difference is, a new player in VTES >can upset the balance somewhat, to the extent of giving up a VP and 6 pool, >and possibly giving their prey an early advantage (significant, but not >game-ending). They can do other things, though. They can launch votes that end up hurting some players drastically more than others; can become another player's puppet and end up tilting the game in their direction without ever having a chance of actually winning; can burn vampires on all sides of them creating a power vacuum that other players exploit simply by virtue of position, can manage, with a few lucky bleeds, to eliminate a player who might otherwise have been a contender before being removed from the situation... You seem to be comparing the case of a player who accomplishes -nothing- in VTES to a player who accomplishes a great deal, but with no understanding in Shadowfist. The two are not comparable -- a Fist player whose deck is built so badly that they cannot do anything at all will have no effect on the game at all -- they will never play their first Feng Shui site, never generate more than the one point of power they started with, probably never be attacked, and the game will play pretty much as it would were they not even involved. (by contrast, a VTES player whose deck is built that badly will at least get to bring out some vampires, but past that point, is much more likely to stall). By contrast, a player whose deck works, but is not built with a full understanding of the game is more likely to produce a game of some type as we discussed earlier...and a VTES player of similiar level seems pretty likely to make one of the above errors (after all, isn't stealth/bleed the first deck almost -everyone- builds?)...or wierder ones, like playing an all malk, all the time "everyone gets screwed" deck. >less-than-predictable fashion, given the wide range of scenarios proposed by >Josh above (with the proper caveat that the experienced players are the ones >more likely to capitalize on the new player's mistakes). Fist games are, in fact, less predictable than Vampire games (though by the same token, players are less likely to get into a long-term stall, since the throughput ranges are very different, and Fist allows you discard your entire hand at a moderate cost). I do not consider this a flaw, and this should not be taken to mean that Shadowfist is "random fun." >Perhaps it would have been better to say that the system of veterans with a >new player (or players) is significantly different than that of a system >comprised of veterans alone? THere's a lot of variation. I've got a very high chance, in a game with fish (which is to say, with veterans who aren't half as good as I am -- there's a lot of variation in Shadowfist play skill) of either winning outright and quickly, or having the game get thrown to the second best player at the table (because people overestimated what kind of threat I was relative to the other players). This does make Shadowfist a political game (moreso than Vampire, which strives to, with some exceptions, make political choices fairly difficult to include in the game), but not necessarily a random one. >circumstance seems to be less true for >VTES than it is for 'Fist, owing to a lesser impact on the game from the >mis-play of an inexperienced player. VTES only has political elements if a player builds them into his or her deck and uses them. This is a point neither in Fist's nor VTES's favor -- it depends a lot on whether you're interested in playing politics (and, of course, from all reports, most top-class VTES decks do have political elements, making the point more moot). >Bringing it 'round, we might conclude that a game of VTES, as the new player >experiences it, is not as significantly altered by the new player's presence >as a game of 'Fist. Only sort of. In my experience, the new player is more likely to feel like part of the game in Fist -- assuming they get out the gate at all (likely), they'll end up kicking this around, and will probably get (mostly good) advice at various points in the game. >>(Joshua K. is) the number five ranked player in the world. I hear he knows >a little. >Izzat so? Well, then he's got m@dd Shadowfist street cred. Would you >forgive me, then, if I listen to him on the subject of Fist moreso than you? Julian Lighton is the number three ranked player in the world (and the official rules guy, and part of the design team). He might be said to know a little too. [ quoted text not captured ]

"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:3cfb36c243959856575...@mygate.mailgate.org... > The checking-off-boxes mechanic is a > really good one, common not only to FASA Mechwarrior, but also to Star > Fleet Battles, Crimson skies and Centurion [i actually rate Centurion as > the best of these games, cos you get the most fantastic sense of MOTION > from the Gravtanks] - and it is obviously missing in the Clix versions. > Come to think of it, Centurion may be a GDW game. No, it's definitely FASA. I have Interceptor, the starfighter skirmish game that matches Leviathan and Centurion. The free-floating motion mechanics are great, and the crossing-off boxes matched with damage templates plus circuit diagrams for critical hits is fantastic flavour, albeit a rather unmanageable level of complexity for large-scale games. > SFB is the only Star > Trek game that i like, not that i've played it that much recently. I didn't think that there weren any other ST fleet combat games out there? :) > > Also thought I would add that Illuminati:NWO is a > > highly amusing card game if you invest the time to > > understand the rules. Also helps if you played > > the original illuminati game. An of course works best > > with many players. (just to drag my post back on the > > topic of multiplayer games). > > > > -JTP > > Yeah, you and Mike are quite right to bring that up. Superb game even if > you just read it, all sorts of witty little digs at various groups and > individuals. Fnord! :) Regards, Mike

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:37:39 +0100, "Mike" <mi...@vekn.org.uk> wrote: >> The checking-off-boxes mechanic is a >> really good one, common not only to FASA Mechwarrior, but also to Star >> Fleet Battles, Crimson skies and Centurion [i actually rate Centurion as >> the best of these games, cos you get the most fantastic sense of MOTION >> from the Gravtanks] - and it is obviously missing in the Clix versions. >> Come to think of it, Centurion may be a GDW game. > >No, it's definitely FASA. I have Interceptor, the starfighter skirmish game >that matches Leviathan and Centurion. The free-floating motion mechanics are >great, and the crossing-off boxes matched with damage templates plus circuit >diagrams for critical hits is fantastic flavour, albeit a rather >unmanageable level of complexity for large-scale games. That's why it was built as part of Leviathan. And why Prefect was built to handle the grandiose planetary campaign. FASA went to decent lengths to make the game scalable. I believe there was an Infantry game (for smaller skirmishes) under consideration before FASA closed the line. >> SFB is the only Star >> Trek game that i like, not that i've played it that much recently. > >I didn't think that there weren any other ST fleet combat games out there? >:) Star Trek Tactical Combat Simulator, by FASA. Morgan Vening

<snip> > > > SFB is the only Star > > Trek game that i like, not that i've played it that much recently. > > I didn't think that there weren any other ST fleet combat games out there? Don't know enough about that to comment, and will hand that one over to Peter who is or was [i believe] a great SFB enthusiast. My point was simply that having been rude about the Star Trek/Star Wars CARD games i thought i had better acknowledge that the mini game is good. <another snip> -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

legbiter wrote: > Don't know enough about that to comment, and will hand that one over to > Peter who is or was [i believe] a great SFB enthusiast. My point was > simply that having been rude about the Star Trek/Star Wars CARD games i > thought i had better acknowledge that the mini game is good. SFB is still a fantastic game with a very solid tournament scene/environment. There currently aren't really any other ST based space combat games in production that I am aware of, but there are a handfull of RPGs that probably have some sort of ship combat rules out there. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home." -Elvis

Peter D Bakija wrote: > legbiter wrote: > > Don't know enough about that to comment, and will hand that one over to > > Peter who is or was [i believe] a great SFB enthusiast. My point was > > simply that having been rude about the Star Trek/Star Wars CARD games i > > thought i had better acknowledge that the mini game is good. > > SFB is still a fantastic game with a very solid tournament > scene/environment. > > There currently aren't really any other ST based space combat games in > production that I am aware of, but there are a handfull of RPGs that > probably have some sort of ship combat rules out there. There's also Babylon 5 Wars, which might have been designed by some of the same people who did SFB. - Ben Peal fu...@mindstorm.com

Ben Peal wrote: > There's also Babylon 5 Wars, which might have been designed by some > of the same people who did SFB. That was done by a bunch of ex SFB guys who struck off on their own. The B5 Wars game was pretty similar to SFB (turns seperated in little chunks; ships represented by a bunch of boxes representing each system; hex map; energy allocation of a sort) by kinda simplified. I never actually played, as it looked similar enough to SFB that I was always like "yeah, um, I'll just play SFB". But it had *really* cool minis. But it is dead now, as all the B5 games died a death a few years ago due to liscencing ending. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message news:yvqdnZCEEJ1...@io.com... > In article <C%Hzc.1683$Pt....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, > David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > >I guess an alternate summation of the difference is, a new player in VTES > >can upset the balance somewhat, to the extent of giving up a VP and 6 pool, > >and possibly giving their prey an early advantage (significant, but not > >game-ending). > > They can do other things, though. They can launch votes that end up hurting > some players drastically more than others; Not even a new player would see the sense in that, without a niche in-game instance where doing so could be of obvious advantage. Why do it if it doesn't win you the game (or at least a VP)? > can become another player's puppet > and end up tilting the game in their direction without ever having a chance > of actually winning; A risk in both games (or in fact, all multiplayer games), but I think less of an issue in VTES, where an opposing alliance made up of more experienced players could stand in opposition, made easier by a more limited interaction, rather than a more 'free for all' environment. > can burn vampires on all sides of them creating a power > vacuum that other players exploit simply by virtue of position, A wild fantasy. Combat decks are the most difficult VTES deck archetype to master. No new player will be 'burning vampires on all sides of them'. No sensible teacher would put a deck which could do such in the hands of a new player. Besides, it doesn't win you the game. > can manage, with a few lucky bleeds, to eliminate a player who might otherwise have been a > contender before being removed from the situation... > Being 'otherwise a contender' and being ousted by a 'few lucky bleeds' are mutually exclusive. > You seem to be comparing the case of a player who accomplishes -nothing- in > VTES to a player who accomplishes a great deal, but with no understanding in > Shadowfist. > Not at all... The VTES player can accomplish any number of lesser things, short of winning the game. The new player might oust his first prey, for example, before falling into a weaker position. The point of difference is, the individual himself is only worth one VP and 6 pool. THe limited interaction principle also restrict the extent to which manipulating a single new player gains the experienced puppeteer an advantage. The newbie could be manipulated a bit, but can just as likely fall off the table to a more effective player. You left me with the impression that the inexperienced Fist player is more readily manipulated to the extent that the puppeteer can use him to win the whole game. I don't see as significant a possibility for this in VTES, due to the lower level of 'free for all' interaction, and the fact that the 'win' is parsed proportionately among the players, in the form of VPs gained by ousting each (and being last man standing). > >Perhaps it would have been better to say that the system of veterans with a > >new player (or players) is significantly different than that of a system > >comprised of veterans alone? > > THere's a lot of variation. > > I've got a very high chance, in a game with fish (which is to say, with > veterans who aren't half as good as I am -- there's a lot of variation in > Shadowfist play skill) of either winning outright and quickly, or having the > game get thrown to the second best player at the table (because people > overestimated what kind of threat I was relative to the other players). This > does make Shadowfist a political game (moreso than Vampire, which strives to, > with some exceptions, make political choices fairly difficult to include in > the game), but not necessarily a random one. > This doesn't seem so different a final outcome than would be the case in VTES (note: you haven't really described too much variation here); one of the better players at the game will win. This is a generic mark of a Good Game. So now it seems we're starting to come back around to one of the two results where we would have eventually ended up; namely personal preference (the other choice being an all-out flame war, replete with ad hominem arguments, and virus attacks launched on each others' servers. Its good to know none of us are that petty.) People ought to play both games (and not just a few, but at least a dozen hands) to see which floats their boat... > >circumstance seems to be less true for > >VTES than it is for 'Fist, owing to a lesser impact on the game from the > >mis-play of an inexperienced player. > > VTES only has political elements if a player builds them into his or her deck > and uses them. Not true at all. Regardless of deck contents, one can use any action or even lack of action as a tool for negotiation in-game. You don't need to keep 'politicing' exclusively to the realm of political action cards... An example: A rush combat player may negotiate for freedom from bleeds from their predator in exchange for preservation of their minions, etc. So long as you keep to the object of the game (play to win), and realize that the rules do not enforce informal negotiations, you can politic away all you wish. > This is a point neither in Fist's nor VTES's favor -- it > depends a lot on whether you're interested in playing politics (and, of > course, from all reports, most top-class VTES decks do have political > elements, making the point more moot). > I disagree that most top-class VTES decks have political elements, if by that you mean that they utilize the in-game political action/referendum voting angle. Winning VTES players do tend to have at least one negotiating bone in their body. A relatively small percentage of winning decks have anything to do with political action cards directly, since it typically requires a commitment of the entire offensive angle of a deck to the tactic. > >Bringing it 'round, we might conclude that a game of VTES, as the new player > >experiences it, is not as significantly altered by the new player's presence > >as a game of 'Fist. > > Only sort of. In my experience, (Oh, ho ho!) > the new player is more likely to feel like > part of the game in Fist -- assuming they get out the gate at all (likely), > they'll end up kicking this around, and will probably get (mostly good) advice > at various points in the game. > One thing we haven't touched on at all in this is the supreme benefit for a game having advocates well-versed in the game and well-spoken in general. Your observations on your own experience (and mine too, I admit) are more than likely a function of your knowledge of the game, your ability to teach it well, and the contagious nature of enthusiasm for a good game. We shouldn't discount the impact of our own influence on such observations. Indeed, we each rely upon that influence to grow the local playing communities for our respective favorite games. In that sense, I coudl swap out your comments about Fist above, and cite them as my own for VTES... A past comment that I previously ignored was made about how the major difference between the two games was degree of capitalization. I couldn't disagree more. Even in its Long Dark, VTES players were present in large markets, and very organized, and that last in particular makes a vastly greater difference to a grassroots growth effort than any amount of money does. (At the very least, it made White Wolf aware that there was still a market for the game). Even moreso, there were some (mainly Ryuan Dancey) who sought to undermine the player base by casting negative aspersions on VTES, in favor of their own pet project. Fortunately, Ryan was roundly ignored by just about everyone in the VTES fan base, since his claims were revealed in time to be so much foolishness... I think that one of VTES's current problems with growing even further is that, frankly, Usenet remains the main online forum for discussion. This may sound heretical, as I know there are a lot of old school advocates of Usenet who play VTES. There are some few (mostly poor) ways to access it from Web based locations, but the general online visibility of the game isn't well established for younger folks who might not even be aware of what Usenet is (even if they have heard of Google Groups, they have no idea of its roots, and can be turned off to it by the clunky interface, and infrequent updates before they ever even find the active communities like this one). I've got some indication that this issue is being worked on, but it is a tough problem, since the solution would invovle the entire r.g.t-c.jyhad Usenet community commiting to moving to another forum (cohesion must be maintained). I don't see how that will happen, but I do see the need if VTES is to become even more visible as a game. > >>(Joshua K. is) the number five ranked player in the world. I hear he knows > >a little. > >Izzat so? Well, then he's got m@dd Shadowfist street cred. Would you > >forgive me, then, if I listen to him on the subject of Fist moreso than you? > > Julian Lighton is the number three ranked player in the world (and the > official rules guy, and part of the design team). And, hey, seeing as how there are 78 people with current SWS Memberships and at least one tournament point to their name, that puts you both in the Top 5%!!! WOW!!!! Regards DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote in message news:10cukt1...@corp.supernews.com... > In article <C%Hzc.1683$Pt....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, > David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > > > >"Julian Lighton" <jl...@fragment.com> wrote in message > >news:10cs7vl...@corp.supernews.com... > >> You assume that equilibrium is the natural state of the game, and it > >> isn't. > > > >I assume nothing. A person wiser than me in Fisty matters wrote: > > > >"The games that take a long time seem to happen between well-matched > >good players. Throw a weak player into the game, and the game takes > >far less time, because he's going to make mistakes that ***upset the > >equilibrium***. So the weak player isn't suffering through a four-hour > >game. (He's also not without a chance to win if he's lucky, or > >somebody underestimates him.)" > > > >***Emphasis mine, the words are your own. Is this your retraction of that > >comment, then? > > Sigh. > > No. A game that drags out has invariably reached an equilibrium. This > says nothing about whether a game that doesn't drag out is in a state > of equilibrium. > Then you need a firmer grasp on expressing your views. There is a significant difference between upsetting an equilibrium, and preventing one from ever being established. You can thank me later for this opportunity to clarify your meaning. > >> >if one assumes that there will always be a relatively regular > >> >number of new players (an assumption that I hold as a necessary > >> >condition for healthy games in a state of growth). If you expect > >> >a randomizing element (the new player) to be consistently present, > >> >you can expect the system to continue to behave randomly. > >> > >> Yet the system doesn't behave randomly. Good players do better than > >> new players. > >> > >Perhaps it would have been better to say that the system of veterans with a > >new player (or players) is significantly different than that of a system > >comprised of veterans alone? > > Not really. Then was there really much of a point to your comments in the first place? > > >>(Joshua K. is) the number five ranked player in the world. I hear he knows > >a little. > >> > >Izzat so? Well, then he's got m@dd Shadowfist street cred. Would you > >forgive me, then, if I listen to him on the subject of Fist moreso than you? > >;-) > > I never said where I was on that list... ...or how short the list is, for that matter. I'll take back any opinions I formed about Shadowfist street cred. No one could really substantiate much of anything from such a small population sample. http://www.shadowfist.com/documents/xls/SWS_Rankings_050604.html Cut out those on the list with zero tournament points (ie never participated in a formal tournament), and you have 335 players. Subract from that the ones who have expired SWS Memberships, and you're talking about 78 players tracked worldwide. Even I thought the situation for Shadowfist was better than this. No wonder you're so defensive about your favorite game... I'll stop with the jesting fun (no more 'Fister' or 'random fun' comments, I promise), as it seems you have a fair justification for being touchy about it. A 'by the way' to Andrew; you need to renew your SWS Membership... it expired in October, 2002. DaveZ Atom Weaver

In article <dxgEc.4779$ie5....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: >...or how short the list is, for that matter. I'll take back any opinions I >formed about Shadowfist street cred. No one could really substantiate much >of anything from such a small population sample. Kinda. The list is of those who have registered, not of those who have played in a tournament, so it's much smaller than the actual number of Fist players worldwide. >Cut out those on the list with zero tournament points (ie never participated >in a formal tournament), and you have 335 players. Subract from that the >ones who have expired SWS Memberships, Why is that relevant? Expired vs Paid just means whether someone gets free cards and things for their membership and rank. -- Joshua Kronengold (mneme@(io.com, labcats.org)) |\ _,,,--,,_ ,) --^-- "Get your mind right and you can make a stick /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;' /\\ your wand and the sky your hat and a puddle |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\ /-\\\ your magic..." -- Granny Weatherwax '---''(_/--' (_/-'

In article <QggEc.4776$495....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: >"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message >news:yvqdnZCEEJ1...@io.com... >> They can do other things, though. They can launch votes that end up hurting >> some players drastically more than others; >Not even a new player would see the sense in that, without a niche in-game >instance where doing so could be of obvious advantage. Why do it if it >doesn't win you the game (or at least a VP)? If all you have is a hammer... >> can burn vampires on all sides of them creating a power >> vacuum that other players exploit simply by virtue of position, >A wild fantasy. Combat decks are the most difficult VTES deck archetype to >master. No new player will be 'burning vampires on all sides of them'. No >sensible teacher would put a deck which could do such in the hands of a new >player. Besides, it doesn't win you the game. Well, no -- I think the chance of a new player being able to actually -win- a VTES game is fairly limited (especially with a bad deck). The obvious counter possibility is someone who shows up with an overly focussed deck (stealth-bleed without a way of getting out of combat being the most obvious) finding a table without their nemesis present. >> can manage, with a few lucky bleeds, to eliminate a player who might >> otherwise have been a >> contender before being removed from the situation... >Being 'otherwise a contender' and being ousted by a 'few lucky bleeds' are >mutually exclusive. It's a card game. You can always not draw your juice. >This doesn't seem so different a final outcome than would be the case in >VTES (note: you haven't really described too much variation here); one of >the better players at the game will win. It's not the only possiblity in Fist (the game is more dynamic than Jyhad -- closer to Magic in that respect, with cards leaving and returning to the table at a ferocious rate, so the possibility of table exaustion is much more likely). A newbie certainly can win, especially if ignored by the other players. But in general, a better player will win. >Game. So now it seems we're starting to come back around to one of the two >results where we would have eventually ended up; namely personal preference >(the other choice being an all-out flame war, replete with ad hominem >arguments, and virus attacks launched on each others' servers. Its good to >know none of us are that petty.) People ought to play both games (and not >just a few, but at least a dozen hands) to see which floats their boat... Of course. They're very different games with very different feels, but both are clearly enjoyable. >> VTES only has political elements if a player builds them into his or her >> deck and uses them. >Not true at all. Regardless of deck contents, one can use any action or >even lack of action as a tool for negotiation in-game. Kinda. If you only have actions that let you block your predator or attack your prey, the scope of poliitcal interaction is extremely limited. >You don't need to >keep 'politicing' exclusively to the realm of political action cards... I never implied that they were even the slightest bit related. In general, vote cards aren't very political unless a player can't develop vote dominance (which, of course, a deck that uses a lot of vote cards will try to do). >their predator in exchange for preservation of their minions, etc. So long >as you keep to the object of the game (play to win), and realize that the >rules do not enforce informal negotiations, you can politic away all you >wish. Of course. But even rush combat is a specific choice that allows you political options you'd not otherwise have available. You seem to be only partially understanding my meaning of "political game" -- a political game is one where you win because the other players let you win. The classic (and unplayable) political game would be "take a vote for who wins. If someone wins the vote, they win; otherwise, revote". Naturally, no game duplicates this exactly, but some games are by their nature far more political than others -- Lunch Money and Cosmic Encounter, frex, are far more dominated by the poltiical game than Scrabble, or even Settlers of Catan. And Shadowfist has a much closer tie to the political game than Jyhad (explicitly because it has full interaction, with any player being able to participate fully in any attack, without having to pack cards that let them do this). >I disagree that most top-class VTES decks have political elements, if by >that you mean that they utilize the in-game political action/referendum >voting angle. It's hard for someone not a regular VTES player to figure out why you drew that conclusion from my post, especially since Shadowfist does not have political actions and referendums. As above -- to have a deck capable of interacting in a less than limited form in VTES, you need to build in directed actions, votes, or other ways to influence things across the table in the hope of making sure the dominoes don't all fall down before you're ready to make your move, and my impression is that most VTES decks do try to include these elements. >One thing we haven't touched on at all in this is the supreme benefit for a >game having advocates well-versed in the game and well-spoken in general. Of course. > A past comment that I previously ignored was made about how the major >difference between the two games was degree of capitalization. I couldn't >disagree more. I think you've got some tunnel vision here -- VTES was, at one point, a huge enterprise, backed by WOTC, the second (and last) Deckmaster game, and intrinsically related to Vampire, one of the most popular and hobby-changing RPGs ever. Despite the comparisons one can make between VTES's Long Dark and Shadowfist's similar dry period and Golden Comeback, the numbers have never been even close to similar, in a fashion that has nothing to do with the relative merits of the games. >I think that one of VTES's current problems with growing even further is >that, frankly, Usenet remains the main online forum for discussion. In order to grow beyond a certain point, you need to grow past the point where there can be a single "main online forum" for discussion. Yes, there is a chicken/egg issue here. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message news:d7-dnRBs-I-...@io.com... > In article <dxgEc.4779$ie5....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>, > David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > >...or how short the list is, for that matter. I'll take back any opinions I > >formed about Shadowfist street cred. No one could really substantiate much > >of anything from such a small population sample. > > Kinda. > > The list is of those who have registered, not of those who have played in a > tournament, so it's much smaller than the actual number of Fist players > worldwide. > Generally true of any game with tracked standings. > >Cut out those on the list with zero tournament points (ie never participated > >in a formal tournament), and you have 335 players. Subract from that the > >ones who have expired SWS Memberships, > > Why is that relevant? > Expired vs Paid just means whether someone gets free cards and things for > their membership and rank. > Then why have an expiration date at all? Presumably to keep track of which list members are active participants and which aren't. If it doesn't serve that function, then it is, as you show above, a mostly useless thing to include in tournament ratings. So we're back to 335 players. Woo. DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:03:08 GMT, David Zopf wrote: >Then why have an expiration date at all? Presumably to keep track of which >list members are active participants and which aren't. That tracks the subscription to the SWS Magazine, Kiii-YAAAH! I was at Origins for the last few days and I spent most of my time in the CCG hall. The turnout for my three main CCGS - VTES, Shadowfist and Doomtown - seemed to be in the same range: ~20 people for the bigger events. This makes them quite similar to my mind: way behind the big drawers like L5R and Vs which can get 100+ for an event but way ahead of the no-hopers like Initial D and Firestorm which are lucky if they get anyone to show up at all. The new Spycraft CCG from AEG was well-received and sold out. I bought a starter and got familiar with the rules but haven't played it yet. It seems to be just a duelling game and has a mission-based format which reminds me of previous games like Shadowrun. I'm not sold on it yet but will be giving it a good tryout as the theme is reasonably interesting and the art is quite stylish. Andrew

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Joshua Kronengold wrote: > Well, no -- I think the chance of a new player being able to actually -win- a > VTES game is fairly limited (especially with a bad deck). I'd like to inject an anecdote here. When I acquire a new player in my playgroup, I like to keep an eye on how quickly he begins winning games, and how often. My impression is that they *can* actually win games with a highly constrained card inventory and, presumably, few playing skills. I wouldn't say this proves anything, but it the conclusion I drew from it is that random factors are still the most heavily weighted in determining the winner of a game of VTES. YMMV. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message news:oJCdnQ9j6LE...@io.com... > In article <QggEc.4776$495....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>, > David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > >"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message > >news:yvqdnZCEEJ1...@io.com... > >> They can do other things, though. They can launch votes that end up hurting > >> some players drastically more than others; > >Not even a new player would see the sense in that, without a niche in-game > >instance where doing so could be of obvious advantage. Why do it if it > >doesn't win you the game (or at least a VP)? > > If all you have is a hammer... > ...hammer your prey. > >> can burn vampires on all sides of them creating a power > >> vacuum that other players exploit simply by virtue of position, > >A wild fantasy. Combat decks are the most difficult VTES deck archetype to > >master. No new player will be 'burning vampires on all sides of them'. No > >sensible teacher would put a deck which could do such in the hands of a new > >player. Besides, it doesn't win you the game. > > Well, no -- I think the chance of a new player being able to actually -win- a > VTES game is fairly limited (especially with a bad deck). > Lets ignore the 'bad deck' parenthetical, because that makes your comment just another generalization about all TCGs. While taking a table win in your first half dozen games may be tough, winning a VP is relatively easy. Acheiving this short-term goal relatively quickly is a compelling draw for continued participation... Taking a VP quickly as a new player is a function of 1) general multi player game skill and 2) quality of education about VTES. > >This doesn't seem so different a final outcome than would be the case in > >VTES (note: you haven't really described too much variation here); one of > >the better players at the game will win. > > It's not the only possiblity in Fist (the game is more dynamic than Jyhad -- > closer to Magic in that respect, with cards leaving and returning to the table > at a ferocious rate, so the possibility of table exaustion is much more > likely). I'd dispute two things here, that 1)dynamism is a function of cards leaving and returning to the table (alone) and 2) that the rate of card play in any game can approach that of VTES. With the 'replace as you play' mechanic of card drawing, the cardboard can fly faster in VTES than in any other TCG (ok, maybe not BRAWL, but you get the point). Of course, rate of card play is mainly a function of deckbuilding choices. > A newbie certainly can win, especially if ignored by the other > players. > Again, this comment is true for VTES. > But in general, a better player will win. > > >Game. So now it seems we're starting to come back around to one of the two > >results where we would have eventually ended up; namely personal preference > >(the other choice being an all-out flame war, replete with ad hominem > >arguments, and virus attacks launched on each others' servers. Its good to > >know none of us are that petty.) People ought to play both games (and not > >just a few, but at least a dozen hands) to see which floats their boat... > > Of course. > They're very different games with very different feels, but both are clearly > enjoyable. > > >> VTES only has political elements if a player builds them into his or her > >> deck and uses them. > >Not true at all. Regardless of deck contents, one can use any action or > >even lack of action as a tool for negotiation in-game. > > Kinda. If you only have actions that let you block your predator or attack > your prey, the scope of poliitcal interaction is extremely limited. > Not really. Even simple bleed actions only against predator and blocks of prey actioncs can be cause for political interaction with grand-pred/grand-prey... > >You don't need to > >keep 'politicing' exclusively to the realm of political action cards... > > I never implied that they were even the slightest bit related. "VTES only has political elements if a player builds them into his or her deck and uses them." 'builds them into his or her deck' certainly implies that was what you were referring to. Other instances of political tactics are not in the deck, but in the player's strategy... From here on out, lets refer to The VTES cards which are Political Actions as such, and all other Politicking as 'Negotiations'. It'll save a bit of grief. > >their predator in exchange for preservation of their minions, etc. So long > >as you keep to the object of the game (play to win), and realize that the > >rules do not enforce informal negotiations, you can politic away all you > >wish. > > Of course. But even rush combat is a specific choice that allows you > political options you'd not otherwise have available. > See above. The most limited, basic bleed actions and blocking _can_ be made into a negotiative aspect. More often than not, it doesn't come into play, but the game allows for it, if the player wishes. > You seem to be only partially understanding my meaning of "political game" -- > a political game is one where you win because the other players let you win. > I understand fully. > The classic (and unplayable) political game would be "take a vote for who > wins. If someone wins the vote, they win; otherwise, revote". > > Naturally, no game duplicates this exactly, but some games are by their nature > far more political than others -- Lunch Money and Cosmic Encounter, frex, are > far more dominated by the poltiical game than Scrabble, or even Settlers of > Catan. And Shadowfist has a much closer tie to the political game than Jyhad > (explicitly because it has full interaction, with any player being able to > participate fully in any attack, without having to pack cards that let them do > this). > Right, and this gets back to personal preference as to how much of this one likes in one's games. I am told that the game Diplomacy approaches the classic example you give above most closely without falling into something completely unplayable. > >I disagree that most top-class VTES decks have political elements, if by > >that you mean that they utilize the in-game political action/referendum > >voting angle. > > It's hard for someone not a regular VTES player to figure out why you drew > that conclusion from my post, especially since Shadowfist does not have > political actions and referendums. You're absolutely right, and any non-VTES players reading have my apologies. As you may have gathered if you are still bothering to read, VTES has a play aspect of politics built into certain cards, called Political Actions. Thus, there is an actual in-game Political mechanic to VTES, along with the general negotiative aspect common to all multiplayer games. I thought that Josh was referring to the former, because of the comment about 'building them into his or her deck', which for a VTES player would mean including Political Action cards and their associated accoutrement for proper functioning. > As above -- to have a deck capable of > interacting in a less than limited form in VTES, you need to build in directed > actions, votes, or other ways to influence things across the table in the hope > of making sure the dominoes don't all fall down before you're ready to make > your move, and my impression is that most VTES decks do try to include these > elements. > Refuted to some degree above, but I understand and agree with the intent of the comment. A more accurate approach to the issue, IMO, would be to say that the truly excellent VTES player may potentially turn any action deemed critical enough to the game into a negotiative opportunity. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message news:oJCdnQ9j6LE...@io.com... > In article <QggEc.4776$495....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>, > David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: Sorry I posted prior to a complete response on the last go... > > A past comment that I previously ignored was made about how the major > >difference between the two games was degree of capitalization. I couldn't > >disagree more. > > I think you've got some tunnel vision here -- VTES was, at one point, a huge > enterprise, backed by WOTC, the second (and last) Deckmaster game, and > intrinsically related to Vampire, one of the most popular and hobby-changing > RPGs ever. I think you are seriously overstating the case. Remember, we're not talking about WotC as the world-eating hobby games corporation backed by Hasbro which we have today. In 1995, we're talking about WotC, the 10 to 20 -odd person operation which had lucked into an untested fad, and was on its growth curve but still not that huge. Jyhad was released in roughly the same time frame as Magic's Legends expansion. White Wolf remains a 40 some person operation to this day. The difference in capitalization is probably significant, but both are still on a very small scale... I'll reiterate that the vastly more important aspect is actually seeing people in the game store, playing the game regularly, and encouraging others to do the same. > Despite the comparisons one can make between VTES's Long Dark and > Shadowfist's similar dry period and Golden Comeback, the numbers have never > been even close to similar, in a fashion that has nothing to do with the > relative merits of the games. > If you're interested, we can talk about how that capitalization of Jyhad had a serious negative impact on its growth, due to its bogging down a fair number of distributors with an excess of product. Hitting a market with just the right amount of product is a tough call to make. In the case of Jyhad, far too much was printed, as it was expected to sell as well as Magic... > >I think that one of VTES's current problems with growing even further is > >that, frankly, Usenet remains the main online forum for discussion. > > In order to grow beyond a certain point, you need to grow past the point where > there can be a single "main online forum" for discussion. > For certain, there already is... VTES has the priveledge of many fantastic player/fan sites, some which are currently incredibly active (like www.pathofblood.com). My point is that, the best site for this should more than likely be hosted by White Wolf itself (or V:EKN, the VTES fan organization), and be easily accessed from their homepage. As it is now, the forums at White Wolf are hopelessly outshined by the majority of the freeware forum software out there. I can respect the fact that COnrad their webslave is overwhelmed with work, and I'm guessing that their new World of Darkness v 2.0 will include an updated forum setup when it is rolled out in August. Here's to hoping its in a form readily usable by the VTESsers. DaveZ Atom Weaver

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:7g64e01btqfe1nu45...@4ax.com... > I was at Origins for the last few days and I spent most of my time in > the CCG hall. The turnout for my three main CCGS - VTES, Shadowfist > and Doomtown - seemed to be in the same range: ~20 people for the > bigger events. This makes them quite similar to my mind: way behind > the big drawers like L5R and Vs which can get 100+ for an event but > way ahead of the no-hopers like Initial D and Firestorm which are > lucky if they get anyone to show up at all. Yes, about right. It might be worth mentioning that GenCon is the much bigger convention for VTES, though (as it is for a lot of games, I suppose). At GenCon Indy last year, the final Qualifier tournament (an open event) got 71 players, and the North American Championships (an invitation-only annual tournament) got 81. I believe there were right around 30 players in the Qualifier at Origins this year. There were also 12 people playing a draft tournament opposite the qualifier (either already qualified or just preferred draft to constructed). I don't know what the Shadowfist attendance levels are like nowadays at the various conventions, though... Josh elephant wields the rod

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > I believe there were right around 30 players in the Qualifier at Origins > this year. There were also 12 people playing a draft tournament > opposite the qualifier (either already qualified or just preferred draft > to constructed). AFAIK there were 31 in attendance for the qualifier. Raille

In article <6czEc.5791$0m4...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: >"Joshua Kronengold" <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message >news:oJCdnQ9j6LE...@io.com... >> Well, no -- I think the chance of a new player being able to >> actually -win- a VTES game is fairly limited (especially with a bad deck). >Lets ignore the 'bad deck' parenthetical, because that makes your comment >just another generalization about all TCGs. Kinda. I, personally, prefer CCGs which are less deck-centered and more play-centered (which incluedes Shadowfist, and to a lesser extent, VtES, at least in comparison to Magic); it is, in fact, entirely possible to win a game on play and politics with a bad deck, and given that new players often build bad decks while learning to build good ones, it's useful to talk about how bad a deck can be without becoming unplayable. >While taking a table win in your first half dozen games may be tough, >winning a VP is relatively easy. Sure (though it can be kinda random; with the right player/deck as your prey, it might be very easy; with the wrong one, it could be impossible). Shadowfist doesn't have partial wins -- it's winner takes all. Which has its plusses and minuses -- among other things, it means that winning the whole shebang is going to be easier (and, of course, there are plenty of "partial" gains you can get, they just don't count for much unless you win). >> It's not the only possiblity in Fist (the game is more dynamic than >> Jyhad -- closer to Magic in that respect, with cards leaving and >> returning to the table at a ferocious rate, so the possibility of table >> exaustion is much more likely). >I'd dispute two things here, that 1)dynamism is a function of cards leaving >and returning to the table (alone) and 2) that the rate of card play in any >game can approach that of VTES. Ok, I'll say it flat out: The rate of card play in Fist approaches that of VTES, and often surpasses it. Obviously, VTES at the top end can have over a dozen cards get played in a turn (especially in a combat-heavy deck), but at that rate, you're going to see deck-exhaustion very fast. And, of course, even a combat-heavy deck will only get to play all that many cards if it can actually get into a serious combat (wheras most non-combat-based decks are going to try to use cards like Majesty to try to stay out of it). Plus, the number of cards you can play (aside from, and to an extent, even including) is a function of your minions in play, which only gradually increases over time (even if you're playing a wenie deck, you'll have to slow down after the first four li'll guys pop out, though I suppose there may be decks that try to use a combination of action-based minions and catiffs for explosive growth). OTOH, In Fist, sure, you only replenish your hand at the beginning of your turn...but there are plenty of ways of playing cards out of your smoked pile (where dead and played stuff goes, as distinct from the toasted == out of the game pile where discarded cards go), events often cost nothing, hand size increasers are plentiful, and so are ways to bring cards back into your hand. (and there are also several cards that replenish your hand in mid turn) So yes, there are also plenty of Fist decks that play a dozen or more cards per turn at peak output, and more that simply make a dozen or more actions or spend a few turns playing only a few cards, and then drop 10+ in a single turn. Back to dynamism...chalk it down to experience. It takes a lot of work, in VTES, to change the map of the game -- burning vampires, as you mentioned, is hard (as is dropping them into torpor), and ousting other players can only be done once per player. A Fist game, by contrast, will tend to swing back and forth a lot more, for good or ill. >> Kinda. If you only have actions that let you block your predator or attack >> your prey, the scope of poliitcal interaction is extremely limited. >Not really. Even simple bleed actions only against predator and blocks of >prey actioncs can be cause for political interaction with >grand-pred/grand-prey... Can. But never the less, you have to have a reason not to just oust your prey if you can (and there are very few reasons to allow yourself to be outsted) >'builds them into his or her deck' certainly implies that was what you were >referring to. Other instances of political tactics are not in the deck, but >in the player's strategy... From here on out, lets refer to The VTES cards >which are Political Actions as such, and all other Politicking as >'Negotiations'. It'll save a bit of grief. Capitals vs lower case -- I'm not going to start avoiding talking about the "political game" just because VTES uses "political" cards; it's a basic part of game theory. >> Of course. But even rush combat is a specific choice that allows you >> political options you'd not otherwise have available. >See above. The most limited, basic bleed actions and blocking _can_ be made >into a negotiative aspect. More often than not, it doesn't come into play, >but the game allows for it, if the player wishes. Sure...but it's still stretching a point. >> Catan. And Shadowfist has a much closer tie to the political game than >> Jyhad (explicitly because it has full interaction, with any player being >> able to participate fully in any attack, without having to pack cards >> that let them do this). >Right, and this gets back to personal preference as to how much of this one >likes in one's games. I am told that the game Diplomacy approaches the >classic example you give above most closely without falling into something >completely unplayable. To a large extent, yes. It's basically a more complicated version of rock/paper/scissors with a political game layered on top. >> It's hard for someone not a regular VTES player to figure out why you drew >> that conclusion from my post, especially since Shadowfist does not have >> political actions and referendums. > >You're absolutely right, and any non-VTES players reading have my apologies. Which doesn't entirely include me, but that's ok. :) >Thus, there is an actual in-game Political mechanic to VTES, along with the >general negotiative aspect common to all multiplayer games. I thought that >Josh was referring to the former, because of the comment about 'building >them into his or her deck', which for a VTES player would mean including >Political Action cards and their associated accoutrement for proper >functioning. Right. Wheras I mostly meant Directed Actions, some of the wierd Intercept abilities, and the like, in addition to some Political actions which can have a more "political" effect on the game; I hope I've made myself more clear. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <eDzEc.5885$Nm4...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>, David Zopf <david...@snet.net> wrote: > I think you are seriously overstating the case. Remember, we're not >talking about WotC as the world-eating hobby games corporation backed by >Hasbro which we have today. You mean "the beast that ate TSR?" WotC was an 800 pound gorilla in the hobby game market -long- before it was sold to Hasbro. That the hobby game market is comparitively small is, perhaps, irrelevant. >20 -odd person operation which had lucked into an untested fad, and was on >its growth curve but still not that huge. Jyhad was released in roughly the >same time frame as Magic's Legends expansion. I -was- there. >significant, but both are still on a very small scale... I'll reiterate >that the vastly more important aspect is actually seeing people in the game >store, playing the game regularly, and encouraging others to do the same. Again -- this is a matter of installed base. Both Fist and Jyhad seem to do reasonably well given a base of 10 or so players in an area, but due to external factors, Jyhad at one point had such a base in significanlty more places. >If you're interested, we can talk about how that capitalization of Jyhad had >a serious negative impact on its growth, due to its bogging down a fair >number of distributors with an excess of product. True about Fist as well, but I'm not talking about quantitiy of product (Fist, FWIW, has mostly sold through -most- of the overproduction of the original base set and the first two expansions (in fact, the original Netherworld expansion now sells for a pretty penny)...but it took a while), but amount of avertising and other growth-related budget questions). The fact is, even WW is vastly bigger (including that whole 20-40 person thing) than most other RPG companies (even ones doing things more, to my mind, interesting). [ quoted text not captured ]