Anybody else wanna discuss something appart from contesting?

Sorry, had to do it.... ;)

Blooded Sand wrote: > Sorry, had to do it.... > ;) 1) No, you didn't. :-) 2) What did you wish to discuss?

[ quoted text not captured ] I think Return to Innocence should be banned. Much too powerful, even with the burn option. Archie

[ quoted text not captured ] How about discussing this: we have a very small group of 'loyal' players in our playgroup. Six peeps, to be exact. We try to play two games every friday night. Not always de we manage to get everyone to come over (something to do with this 'real life' thing that keeps popping up every once and while). Our experience with V:tes is this: if everyone shows up, we have a 'problem', because playing with six never seems to work out okay. If one person doesn't show, we cheer. Five player V:tes works. If we're with 4 or less, we tend to skip V:tes and play other games, since playing with four or less never seems to work out okay. Do others experience the same thing? Got any suggestions on playing with a different number than 5 players to make those games feel better? I'm asking seriously. And I have a problem with Madness of the Bard. Can we ban that card please?

On Aug 27, 12:31 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, had to do it.... > ;) 10/10 :D >I think Return to Innocence should be banned. Much too powerful, even with the burn option. >Archie Yeah your right I lost 99.999% of my games because this card is overpowered (It don't mater that I don't seeing this card for real) :P

>>If we're >>with 4 or less, we tend to skip V:tes and play other games, since >>playing with four or less never seems to work out okay. What? Rapid Thought potential. Try the modified version hosted by KevinM. It was fun side tourney at Origins this year. >>Six peeps, to be exact. We try to play two games every friday night. So how often do vampires get contested?

On 27 aug, 13:39, Obtenebration <obtenebrat...@obtenebration.org> wrote: > >>If we're > >>with 4 or less, we tend to skip V:tes and play other games, since > >>playing with four or less never seems to work out okay. > > What? Rapid Thought potential. Try the modified version hosted by > KevinM. It was fun side tourney at Origins this year. Thanks for that advice. I'll look into it. > >>Six peeps, to be exact. We try to play two games every friday night. > > So how often do vampires get contested? Lol. Okay, I'll bite. Actually, once (I think over the past 6 years or so, we had a total of two) - not so long ago, because two of our players had a (very creative and original - which resulted in two intended but eventually not so unique decks) idea for a deck based on some cards that came out in the Ebony Kingdom set. Both wanted to use a certain vampire as main guy, and they ended up contesting. Back to something different now: we have one in our group that specifically states V:tes sucks if not played with 5. Shall we kick him out? Does he have a point? Anyone else thinks we're missing out on great, exciting and unusual versions of playing V:tes?

> How about discussing this: > > we have a very small group of 'loyal' players in our playgroup. Six > peeps, to be exact. We try to play two games every friday night. Not > always de we manage to get everyone to come over (something to do with > this 'real life' thing that keeps popping up every once and while). > > Our experience with V:tes is this: if everyone shows up, we have a > 'problem', because playing with six never seems to work out okay. If > one person doesn't show, we cheer. Five player V:tes works. If we're > with 4 or less, we tend to skip V:tes and play other games, since > playing with four or less never seems to work out okay. > > Do others experience the same thing? Got any suggestions on playing > with a different number than 5 players to make those games feel > better? > > I'm asking seriously. I often have similar problem. There is far more than 6 vtes players in my playgroup but lot of them are not reliable. Once I had a chance for 8 people (what would make huge problem for me, because I don't even have space for this much of people) but in the last moment half of them said that they couldn't come. There are no simple ways to solve problem of not enough or too much players. Personally I'm ready not to play when there would be more than 6 players or there are 6 of them but some are learning this game but its me so it don't solve anything.

[ quoted text not captured ] 4 player tables are fine too, it's just a sligthly different game. Instead of kicking someone out, I would try to increase the size of the group by recruting players! Magic or other sucky card games players are ideal preys.

[ quoted text not captured ] > players are ideal preys.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - I was joking about kicking the guy out. Although sometimes it seems like a valid solution (joking again). That's a nice different issue you're addressing there... Since there is not much going on in the gaming scene at where we live (no stores that sell TGC's, let alone provide space for playing), it's really hard to find new players. I found no less than three some time ago. Took the time to teach the game. We found a nice bar close to where I work that allowed play, and they started to get a hang of the game using the cards I provided (I always have spare-starters for occasions like this). Then they even started to buy cards for themselves. Everything looked good there, and all of a sudden they stopped showing up. Two I completely lost contact with, and the third stated it was too much trouble for him to attend our game-nights due to transportation problems. Even my proposal of picking him up and dropping him off went wide. It's really hard to attract new players for us, though we would really love to see more faces showing up at gamenights or tournaments. For those wondering - I live in the Netherlands, where we have a couple of gaming-groups. We all meet at tournaments, but there is little to no 'fresh blood' for a couple of years now, or so it seems. While I dare to state that many are doing their very best to try and attract new players. Anyone else experiencing the same?

[ quoted text not captured ] Excellent people to recruit are game shop worker and employees. They usually get discounts from the shop, know how to play games and are able to grasp the nuances quite quickly. Also, ban deflection.

[ quoted text not captured ] > Also, ban deflection.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - Yeah, I even tried to convince some toy-store owners to start selling TGC's, but no successes so far. Hard to get some coöperation here... What about the ever-game-breaking Owl Companion? Could use some definate nerf-stick clubbering as well... Nasty critter.

[ quoted text not captured ] Rapid thought - 3 player games. They are nasty brutish and short. And really fun. best - chris

On Aug 27, 10:01 am, Mark <markangel1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yeah, I even tried to convince some toy-store owners to start selling > TGC's, but no successes so far. Hard to get some coöperation here... > > What about the ever-game-breaking Owl Companion? Could use some > definate nerf-stick clubbering as well... Nasty critter.- Hide quoted text - > The art on Target Retainer shows you how to resolve any Owl Companion issues. ;) Later, ~Rehlow

> The art on Target Retainer shows you how to resolve any Owl Companion > issues. ;) > > Later, > ~Rehlow Lol. Yeah, I noticed that as well...

[ quoted text not captured ] > Also, ban deflection.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Ban delfection and I quit! (I hope that doesn't make them ban it!!) I participated in my fair share of recruiting for the game. I find that nearly everyone I get the time to show the game to likes it a lot. Then there are a lot social questions. If a player likes the game but doesn't get along very well with people in the playgroup - they'll stop showing up. That's just hit and miss. For example, in Ireland, I got a group of friends to all start together, that way we had games with a group that knew each other and once they got more into the game, they even travelled for tournaments. To get people into the game it is very important to have at least one person with a large collection that lends cards out, so people can build decks and look at cards. You should have decks for their beginnings. I do not recomend the standard learner decks - it can be very fustrating to a player to have a deck that cannot do much, even if no one else can do much! The game is much more fun when your deck does a lot and well, so start them off with a well-oiled machine (like standard bleed stealth malkavian group 1-2, weenie presence vote, weenie potence - just any monomaniac deck that doesnt have complicated cards (like veil)) In terms of finding the actual people, that's tougher. In geneva, we ran many event to introduce the game to people, we did this on saturday mornings at the games workshop shop and conventions for example. Otherwise, friends and friends of friends will make the best learners as you know they are already a good fit socially.

I also think that Ascendance needs to be looked at. This is a card that almost always guarantees one pool. Having like 60-70 in your deck makes it very hard to oust you. In almost all games we have played, nobody ever plays Wash or Sudden Reversal on this card so this is basically a guaranteed card to get played. Hardly any other card in the game has that effect. Just saying. Archie

> we have a very small group of 'loyal' players in our playgroup. Six > peeps, to be exact. We try to play two games every friday night. Not > always de we manage to get everyone to come over (something to do with > this 'real life' thing that keeps popping up every once and while). > > Our experience with V:tes is this: if everyone shows up, we have a > 'problem', because playing with six never seems to work out okay. If > one person doesn't show, we cheer. Five player V:tes works. If we're > with 4 or less, we tend to skip V:tes and play other games, since > playing with four or less never seems to work out okay. > > Do others experience the same thing? Got any suggestions on playing > with a different number than 5 players to make those games feel > better? I think 4 and 6 are fine numbers of players. I can't imagine thinking those games don't work. The early dynamics are just a little different than with 5. Maybe you just shouldn't bring so many preconceptions to the table. I even think a 7 player game is fine, but it's true that I've seen some people get impatient with more than half of the turns not directly affecting them.

In LA the magic numbers are 4 and 5. I believe a lot of groups are like that. If your group won't play 4, then your VTES will suffer. I know many players will not play a 6-player game. I did it recently, and it wasn't great. We played with a 2-hour time limit, and it wasn't enough time. I think game rosters and sign-up sheets are a good idea for VTES, although I think a lot of groups are too casual to implement them. If you have to have a certain number of people, then the first X people to confirm their interest get in the game. If you have 6 people in your group, rotate who sits out each week.

[ quoted text not captured ] What we find works best for 7 people is to randomly assign 4 people to a table, then the first ousted plays with the remainder at another 4 player table, and so on... Seems to work well...

Blooded Sand wrote: > Malone <kffos...@indiana.edu> wrote: >> I even think a 7 player game is fine, but it's true that I've seen >> some people get impatient with more than half of the turns not >> directly affecting them. > > What we find works best for 7 people is to randomly assign 4 people to > a table, then the first ousted plays with the remainder at another 4 > player table, and so on... Seems to work well... Have the best player in your group play at both tables. Matt Morgan Style. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

[ quoted text not captured ] As the best player tends to finish last, this means 3 people would have to wait for the first table to finish first. Which kinda defeats the purpose of the exercise

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:59:37 -0700 (PDT), Blooded Sand wrote: >> Have the best player in your group play at both tables. >As the best player tends to finish last, this means 3 people would >have to wait for the first table to finish first. Which kinda defeats >the purpose of the exercise No, you have misunderstood the proposal. Much like Bobby Fischer player Chess against 16 players at once, Matt Morgan has completed two tournament level VTES games at once on two tables at the same time. This is Kevin's proposal to fix the 7 player situation.

[ quoted text not captured ] would this not mean having to make allowances for time as one person has to sometimes tsake a turn while it is their turn on the other table?

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:31:13 -0700 (PDT), Blooded Sand wrote: >> >> Have the best player in your group play at both tables. >> >As the best player tends to finish last, this means 3 people would >> >have to wait for the first table to finish first. Which kinda defeats >> >the purpose of the exercise >> No, you have misunderstood the proposal. >> Much like Bobby Fischer player Chess against 16 players at once, Matt >> Morgan has completed two tournament level VTES games at once on two >> tables at the same time. >> This is Kevin's proposal to fix the 7 player situation. >would this not mean having to make allowances for time as one person >has to sometimes tsake a turn while it is their turn on the other >table? Depends on the player. I've played against people for whom it would not be a challenge to split their time effectively between two tables.