Danish ECQ - And the winner is .....
r...@asb.dk
the qualification to EC2008. The final standing was:
1 Nikolaj Wendt 1 4 4 150
2 Martin Randers 2 8 1 168
3 Jens Thorup 3 9 0 180
4 Sven Strandbygaard 1 5 0 108
5 August Hansen 1 4 0 120
6 Stephan Garmark 1 3 132
7 Mikkel Petersen 0 2 108
8 Morten Toft 0 1 90
9 Kasper Skovgaard Kristensen 0 1 84
10 Mikkel DJ 0 1 78
11 Jesper Wøldiche 0 1 72
12 Harry Broe 0 0 60
13 Matias Grynderup 0 0 54
With 2-5 ending on a 2ed place, according to the new tournament
rules.
That also means, that:
Nikolaj Wendt
Martin Randers
Jens Thorup
Sven Strandbygaard
August Hansen
and
Jesper Bøje (as organizer and judge)
qualifies for the EC2008.
The winning deck, played by Nikolaj Wendt:
Deck Name: Princes, Parities, Potence and then some
Created By: Nikolaj Wendt
Description:
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 27, Max: 39, Avg: 8,33)
----------------------------------------------
2 Donal O`Connor CEL DOM POT 8 Brujah
1 Jaroslav Pascek for obf CEL POT PRE10 Brujah
1 Nikolaus Vermeulen ani for obf POT 7 Nosferatu
1 Casino Reeds cel dem ANI OBF POT9 Nosferatu
1 Murat ser OBF POT 7 Nosferatu
2 Spiridonas pot pre DOM THA 9 Tremere
2 Cock Robin aus for ANI OBF POT10 Nosferatu
1 Calebros obf pot ANI 5 Nosferatu
1 Constanza Vinti CEL DOM POT 8 Brujah
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (12 cards)
3 Minion Tap
3 Blood Doll
1 Giant`s Blood
2 Information Highway
1 Direct Intervention
2 Dreams of the Sphinx
Action (9 cards)
9 Fourth Tradition: The Accounting, The
Action Modifier (4 cards)
4 Conditioning
Political Action (7 cards)
7 Parity Shift
Reaction (17 cards)
4 Deflection
13 Second Tradition: Domain, The
Combat (40 cards)
4 Canine Horde
8 Immortal Grapple
7 Taste of Vitae
8 Torn Signpost
5 Thrown Gate
6 Disarm
2 Decapitate
Equipment (1 cards)
1 Heart of Nizchetus
See you all in a week
/Jesper
Atom Weaver
You Danes _gotta_ stop letting that guy win...
;-)
DZ
AW
The Lasombra
>There were 13 methuselahs gathered on the 30th of august to fight for
>the qualification to EC2008. The final standing was:
Congratulations to Nikolaj !
Unfortunately, this deck cannot be entered into the Tournament Winning
Deck archive because essential information was missing from the post.
Where was this played?
The event calendar is strangely reticient and indicates no city.
Are there no cities in Denmark?
http://www.white-wolf.com/events/eventdisplay.php?id=4824
ASB
Fuglesangs Allé 4, Room H214
N/A Denmark
8210
20351237
Why haven't the results been entered?
librarian
A surprisingly standard deck for Xzealot wannabe...
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
www.superfuncards.com *NEW Website!*
auct...@superfuncards.com
alex....@gmail.com
Congratulations Nikolaj and hope you guys had a blast! I'd love to
know more about the tournament, what decks people played and stuff
like that :)
> Where was this played?
Århus. Aarhus for you guys without the supreme letters.
> Are there no cities in Denmark?
Haha denmark having cities, that'd be the day :P
extrala
> There were 13 methuselahs gathered on the 30th of august to fight for
> the qualification to EC2008. The final standing was:
>
> 1 Nikolaj Wendt 1 4 4 150
> 2 Martin Randers 2 8 1 168
> 3 Jens Thorup 3 9 0 180
> 4 Sven Strandbygaard 1 5 0 108
> 5 August Hansen 1 4 0 120
What did the other four finalists play? Especially the guy with the 3
GW 9 VPs.
Regards, Ralf
==================
http://extrala.blogspot.com
niko...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:47:35 -0700 (PDT), r...@asb.dk wrote:
> >There were 13 methuselahs gathered on the 30th of august to fight for
> >the qualification to EC2008. The final standing was:
>
> Congratulations to Nikolaj !
>
> Unfortunately, this deck cannot be entered into the Tournament Winning
> Deck archive because essential information was missing from the post.
>
> Where was this played?
Århus (Aarhus)
>
> The event calendar is strangely reticient and indicates no city.
>
> Are there no cities in Denmark?
We are pretty down to earth around here. We choose to call it "tiny
gatherings of houses".
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/events/eventdisplay.php?id=4824
>
> ASB
> Fuglesangs Allé 4, Room H214
> N/A Denmark
> 8210
> 20351237
>
> Why haven't the results been entered?
I think this is for a German event (?), but I guess Jesper has to
enter it somehow.
niko...@hotmail.com
Hahaha, yeah, I know. I started out being my Mono Potence Princes deck
that I won with in France - which I guess is semi original? - but I
had to add counters to guns and some more ousting power.
> best -
>
> chris
>
> --
> Super Fun Cardswww.superfuncards.com*NEW Website!*
> aucti...@superfuncards.com- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
niko...@hotmail.com
> On Sep 11, 12:47 pm, r...@asb.dk wrote:> There were 13 methuselahs gathered on the 30th of august to fight for
> > the qualification to EC2008. The final standing was:
>
> > 1 Nikolaj Wendt 1 4 4 150
> > 2 Martin Randers 2 8 1 168
> > 3 Jens Thorup 3 9 0 180
> > 4 Sven Strandbygaard 1 5 0 108
> > 5 August Hansen 1 4 0 120
> > ...
>
> What did the other four finalists play? Especially the guy with the 3
> GW 9 VPs.
He played a crazy Garou deck that totally detroyed every table he sat
down at. He played with a lot of disc less combat cards to support
them, Aim: Vitals, weighted walking sticks, glancing blow dodges etc,
and none of the combat decks in the tournament could handle them (at
one point he dodged the first strike, then used a stick and Aim on his
additional strike for 5...). 90% of my combat coolness is played
prerange, and I have very few ranged strikes and no maneuvers, so the
damn doggies kept running away! :)
He pacified my deck totally in the two first rounds, and in the final
chose to sit as my pred. He didnt know that his predator was playing
an all out anti brujah bleed deck with Blood Brother Ambush. He had
his first two garous DI'd in the same turn (me as his prey, and his
predator played one too) and only managed to get one in. After that I
had two princes and second traditions enough and he never got another
one in play. I kept him alive against the anti brujah, which enabled
me to go forward full throttle, with very little pressure from him.
If his deck has just a little time to build up, its very very hard to
stop.
>
> Regards, Ralf
> ==================http://extrala.blogspot.com
niko...@hotmail.com
Ahh, didnt see the extra question.
Seating was me (potence princes) - malk anti bleed - tremere carna -
anti brujah bleed with Blood Brother Ambush and lots of potence -
Garous with lots of combat.
Kevin M.
> extrala <ralf.lamm...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> What did the other four finalists play? Especially the guy
>> with the 3 GW 9 VPs.
>
> He played a crazy Garou deck that totally detroyed every table he sat
> down at. He played with a lot of disc less combat cards to support
> them, Aim: Vitals, weighted walking sticks, glancing blow dodges etc,
> and none of the combat decks in the tournament could handle them (at
> one point he dodged the first strike, then used a stick and Aim on his
> additional strike for 5...). 90% of my combat coolness is played
> prerange, and I have very few ranged strikes and no maneuvers, so the
> damn doggies kept running away! :)
>
> He pacified my deck totally in the two first rounds, and in the final
> chose to sit as my pred. He didnt know that his predator was playing
> an all out anti brujah bleed deck with Blood Brother Ambush. He had
> his first two garous DI'd in the same turn (me as his prey, and his
> predator played one too) and only managed to get one in. After that I
> had two princes and second traditions enough and he never got another
> one in play. I kept him alive against the anti brujah, which enabled
> me to go forward full throttle, with very little pressure from him.
> If his deck has just a little time to build up, its very very hard to
> stop.
If this isn't enough to cause Direct Intervention to be placed AT THE VERY
TOP of the watch list for 2009 -- and hopefully banned in 2010 -- then
nothing ever will.
This guy gets 3GW/9VP with a well-made/metagamed deck, and loses... to a
stupid Direct Intervention. Wow, nice reward.
What Direct Intervention does is bad and wrong, as it stops people from
being able to play the game. (Yes, Sudden/Wash has a similar ability, but
you know damn well that the game is made to be played with library cards
being used by your minions, so please don't try to throw up straw men to
avoid the DI discussion.)
Thoughts Betrayed was changed because it used to say "You are unable to
play the game."
Protect Thine Own was banned because it says "You are unable to play the
game, in the most un-fun way the designers of this card game could think
of."
Direct Intervention is a silver bullet, and we all know it. Why is it
still part of this game??
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/
Robert Scythe
> Direct Intervention is a silver bullet, and we all know it. Why is it
> still part of this game??
Because it gives people an excuse to 'defend' against cards like
PTO... uhh, wait. Well, how else am I gonna stop a No Secrets
Goddamnit?!!
Obtenebration
> PTO... uhh, wait. Well, how else am I gonna stop a No Secrets
> Goddamnit?!!
My favorite card that goes in every single deck it can, Elder
Intervention.
But yes I agree totally with the rationale to ban Direct Intervention.
Any card that can be included in any deck since it requires a cost of
simply a pool and a MPA, can wreck another players game, and can be
played multiple times in a game. Not a fan of banning or errata, but
adding a “only one per game can be played” clause would be a welcome
change to a significant issue.
Frederick Scott
news:XFHyk.24$wr...@newsfe02.iad...
It isn't enough. If you don't want to fall victim to DI, don't base your
whole deck on the play of a couple cards.
Actually, though, if you step back and look, this is a story of how minion-
building decks utterly die to intercept unless they have a good source of
stealth. We already knew that. The two DIs are only a fairly small part
of it.
> This guy gets 3GW/9VP with a well-made/metagamed deck,
Well-made perhaps. But the metagame matchup was actually quite poor.
And he did NOT "lose to a stupid Direct Intervention". He lost to Second
Traditions.
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:6626250e-4e5b-4a65...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> But yes I agree totally with the rationale to ban Direct Intervention.
> Any card that can be included in any deck since it requires a cost of
> simply a pool and a MPA,
1) A pool and an MPA is not an insignificant cost, especially when weighed
against the costless minion card that has to be tossed in the discard pile
and can even be replayed if the methuselah involved has another in hand.
It only looks powerful because people only discuss spectacular plays.
2) No one ever mentions the unseen cost - the hand space it takes up from
draw to play. If no worthwhile card pops up that warrants it, you can
effectively play with a 6-card hand for several turns waiting.
3) It has the usual cancel-card disadvantage in a multiplayer game. Guy
playing it pays an MPA and pool; guy it's played on loses a chance to play
an (ideally) key minion card. Three other methuselahs are the real
winners.
4) The comparison of PTO to Direct Intervention as unfun buzz-kill cards is
such utter bullshit as to not warrant response. Give me a break people
can't have fun with DI in the game! This card's been around since The
Sabbat and I have never figured out why some people get so bugged by it.
I swear, it's just weird!
Fred
zora...@gmail.com
> "Obtenebration" <obtenebrat...@obtenebration.org> wrote in message
In my inexperienced opinion, I always thought thematically it'd be
cooler if every mehtuselah could only play one per game.
You know, sortof like that one really really bad thing that makes 'the
don' get out of his high chair to take care of, personally. Making it
a harder choice and giving it a higher cost (the risk of copies being
dead cards for the rest of the game) at the same time.
Btw, hi everyone, I'm back. It's been a while.
-Teeka
Blooded Sand
Popcorn where? Must has popcorn!!!!!11!!11!!!!one! ;)
Peter D Bakija
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> If this isn't enough to cause Direct Intervention to be placed AT THE VERY
> TOP of the watch list for 2009 -- and hopefully banned in 2010 -- then
> nothing ever will.
I got nothing good to add here, but it makes me happy to see Kevin
filled with fury at something. Go Kevin!
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff
Frederick Scott
news:6dc56ef5-cb41-49d1...@73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> In my inexperienced opinion, I always thought thematically it'd be
> cooler if every mehtuselah could only play one per game.
If you made that limit two per game, I don't think you'd effect any game
in which I've played for the last 10 years. If I'm wrong, it's only
because my memory sucks. At a limit of one, I think a few people
would have wanted to adjust their decks slightly. (I have maybe two
or three decks of my 30+ that could stand a one-card change.)
No big points to make here other than to demonstrate how big a tempest-
in-a-teapot this issue looks like from the perspective of some playgroups
in my area.
Fred
Peter D Bakija
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> If you made that limit two per game, I don't think you'd effect any game
> in which I've played for the last 10 years. If I'm wrong, it's only
> because my memory sucks. At a limit of one, I think a few people
> would have wanted to adjust their decks slightly. (I have maybe two
> or three decks of my 30+ that could stand a one-card change.)
>
> No big points to make here other than to demonstrate how big a tempest-
> in-a-teapot this issue looks like from the perspective of some playgroups
> in my area.
Locally, I agree with you--no one around here plays DI all that much.
Once and a while, one will show up, and the end result is rarely
anything other than "I DI your Govern!" "Ok, I play another one..."
But on a competitive level, where folks regularly play 3 or 4 DIs per
deck, all the time, it is a complete nightmare. I have had many games
arbitrarily demolished by someone cross table DIing whatever I was about
to oust my prey with just 'cause they had one in hand and couldn't bear
to see me oust a prey (as it would "unbalance the table" or some crap
like that). In ways that most other cards simply could not effect.
That, and the incredibly endless "DI Phase" ("Huh. That's not good.
Should I DI that? Let me discuss it with everyone else at the table for
5 minutes...") of every action in competition is just completely
unnecessary. I hate DI. I have always hated DI. I would love to see it
vaporize instantly.
Darby Keeney
> 1) A pool and an MPA is not an insignificant cost, especially when weighed
> against the costless minion card that has to be tossed in the discard pile
> and can even be replayed if the methuselah involved has another in hand.
> It only looks powerful because people only discuss spectacular plays.
At it's simplest level, for my 1 pool and 1 MPA:
I DI a Conditioning.....I lose 2 less pool than I would have.
I DI a Wake/bounce....I lose 0-7 less pool, my predator loses 0-7
more.
I DI a KRC/ConAgg/RecklessAgit. I lose 2-5 less pool and stuff my
predator's hand with unplayable action modifiers.
I DI a voter cap, leaving a minion nearly to completely empty and
costing someone (my prey?) 2 pool.
I DI a stealth, allowing a block, saving 1-8 pool and allowing me to
possibly kick the crap out of your minion.
I DI your crux minion card in action "x", preventing an oust which
gains you 6 pool, and allows me to kill you (and then your former
prey)
I DI your agg damage weapon, neutering your defenses, hopefully long
enough for me to kill you.
I DI your grapple, allowing my minion to escape combat and act in my
turn.
AND THE ADDITIONAL OPTION OF...any of the above, applied for some
other methesulah of my choosing, with no additional/incremental cost.
All of these things look like reasonable bargains to me.
Of course, it doesn't mean things always work as I have outlined them
above.....just that this card has the POTENTIAL to do all of them.
Seems like a lot of function, rolled into 1 card. Fred said people
discuss the spectacular DI plays.....which happens with relatively
high frequency because the card is disproportionately powerful and
flexible.
Kevin called it a "silver bullet." - which might be more a propos for
a Werewolf game, but I'll accept the terminology :)
It is cancellation, intercept, denial of other's deck function and
facilitation of my deck function, all available in the same card.
Isn't a card being highly flexible and measure of it's power (Govern =
speed + pool + offense = good card). IMO, just as in Kevin's, DI just
does too much all in one card slot and in a way that CAN deny a player
the ability to play the game (which I believe is generally
unhealthy).
> 2) No one ever mentions the unseen cost - the hand space it takes up from
> draw to play. If no worthwhile card pops up that warrants it, you can
> effectively play with a 6-card hand for several turns waiting.
The same "unseen cost" as any card you hold but cannot immediately
use. This "cost" has little to do with the relative power of the
card, which is the point of contention. But, as a comparison, then
let us also apply the same hidden cost to stealth if there are no
blocks, intercept if there's no stealth directed at you, delaying
tactics if there are no votes, S:CE if there are no combats and combat
cards if there are no combats.
If we were talking about a long chain of sequentially played cards, I
might be willing to concede some merit in tendency to self-handcuff
(e.g., Voter Cap is hard to play - you need a vote, maybe stealth,
maybe vote push and then the cap - likely running with quite a bit of
additional setup to make it happen - so I believe it should be
impactful when played).
But DI is an isolated card that you can pop out of your hand pretty
much at need - the price of such ease of play should be lower impact,
higher cost, and/or limited (once per game) usefulness. In fact, if
DI only cancelled ACTION cards, we wouldn't see nearly as much use,
nor as much discussion, as we do in the existing function.
I might also mention, if these travel in 2-4 instance-per-deck
numbers, you could simply toss the first 1-2 you find, until the game
starts to teeter and their use becomes more impactful - then the
hidden cost is "one DPA"
> 3) It has the usual cancel-card disadvantage in a multiplayer game. Guy
> playing it pays an MPA and pool; guy it's played on loses a chance to play
> an (ideally) key minion card. Three other methuselahs are the real
> winners.
No, I don't agree with that. If my DI stops someone from doing
something crucial at an important time and it significantly benefits
my table position (sometimes to the point of I get 1-2 more VPs, or
even simply stay alive for additional turns), I am the winner. At
that point, the other three methuselahs simply wish that their MPAs
were half as productive as mine was.
> 4) The comparison of PTO to Direct Intervention as unfun buzz-kill cards is
> such utter bullshit as to not warrant response. Give me a break people
> can't have fun with DI in the game! This card's been around since The
> Sabbat and I have never figured out why some people get so bugged by it.
> I swear, it's just weird!
The fact that the card has been around for a while is not relevant.
PTO, seat switching and Succubus Club had been in the game a long time
too. Maybe you were bugged by these, maybe not....but that didn't
change the fact that they were considered bad for the game by the
current rules team/designers.
Just as clarification, Kevin did not say DI makes the game un-fun (he
applied that to PTO, which is gone). He said DI was "bad, and
wrong." I agree with him.....when it comes to action/play denial,
Masters should stop Masters (Sudden/Wash), minions should stop minions
(block).
> Fred
Darby
Frederick Scott
news:6d91d495-99fa-4eda...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
And yet I don't observe that you play with that many D.I.s, Darby? Why
is that?
It may help to consider that it's the MPA that I think a lot of people
undervalue, not really the one pool whose value is well understood.
The 'wait factor' and the point that these scenarios you throw up
in reality turn out to be far less common than one would think from
such an argument as you just made above. CCG arguments often go back
and forth between people throwing conjecture at each other - which is
far easier to construct than it is to prove (or to disprove, to be
fair).
> Of course, it doesn't mean things always work as I have outlined them
> above.....just that this card has the POTENTIAL to do all of them.
> Seems like a lot of function, rolled into 1 card. Fred said people
> discuss the spectacular DI plays.....which happens with relatively
> high frequency because the card is disproportionately powerful and
> flexible.
See, that's where I disagree with you - and frequently others who hate
D.I. And it's also the thing that makes me insanely curious why there's
such disagreement about it. Those who hate D.I. seem to see games as
this series of dramatic plays with lots and lots of momentous turning
points, any of which would be reversed with D.I.s thus proving what a
terribly overpowered card it is. I just don't see this in games. I
see lots of play that goes back and forth and occasionally some plays
that are very important but I just don't see that many of them which
I'd find worthwhile to hold a D.I. and pay the pool and the MPA for. I
actually see very few. I value the master cards I know will help me
far more consistently more highly than I value D.I.s in most cases, so
I find it hard to appreciate your point of view.
> > 4) The comparison of PTO to Direct Intervention as unfun buzz-kill cards is
> > such utter bullshit as to not warrant response. Give me a break people
> > can't have fun with DI in the game! This card's been around since The
> > Sabbat and I have never figured out why some people get so bugged by it.
> > I swear, it's just weird!
>
> The fact that the card has been around for a while is not relevant.
It's relevent in the sense of showing how long this argument has gone on -
since D.I. was originally printed - and how long I've felt that way about
people who complain about D.I.
> PTO, seat switching and Succubus Club had been in the game a long time
> too. Maybe you were bugged by these, maybe not....but that didn't
> change the fact that they were considered bad for the game by the
> current rules team/designers.
The argument that PTO was a buzz-kill and thus not a good card to have in
the game because it lessens the fun of the game is one I've always been
sympathetic to, if not in outright agreement with. I never thought PTO
was unbalanced but I agree that power balance is not the only reason that
a card should be considered for banishment.
Succubus Club required tech development before its problems were uncovered.
No one - to my knowledge - is suggesting anyone has suddenly developed new
tech for D.I. requiring reconsideration of its status. These are just the
same ol', same ol' arguments getting dragged out again.
> Just as clarification, Kevin did not say DI makes the game un-fun (he
> applied that to PTO, which is gone).
He actually did. To deny this would be to suggest that he made his
statements about PTO and Thoughts Betrayed as some sort of meaningless
rhetorical fog. That is, there had to be SOME point about comparing D.I.
to PTO and Thoughts Betrayed with the inference that we should make an
association and deem D.I. bad. You can't have it both ways. So don't ask.
Fred
niko...@hotmail.com
Ahh, THIS is where the thread went. I dont get the whole thing about
changing the title. :)
First let me say that I agree with banning DI. Mostly because I am
usually at the receiving end of them in the whole "whoops, that ruined
your game" aspect. Soul gem decks getting set back a couple of turns
while looking for another Gem, freak drive decks stopped cold (for one
turn at least), etc. etc.
Then let me add that I have to agree with Fred (I think?) in that DI
will often play a very decisive factor in a game, but I cant remember
a lot of games where it has been the single determining factor to
losing/winning a game (in the way that PTO, Dramatic Upheaval,
succubus club did).
Same for this final. The fact that he had 2 garous DI'ed on the same
turn (was also my predators single DI in the deck) definitely slowed
him down so much that it enabled me to build a position from which I
could win. But lots of things could have changed later on in the game
(he didnt get any help from his allies for instance) that could have
meant that he would have won instead. Later on, it wasnt the lack of
Garous that killed him, but my potential second traditions, immortal
grapple, disarm, that kept him at one Garou.
And that seems pretty symptomatic for the way I see DI's being played.
As a card that strengthens your position or weakens others', but very
rarely something that determines a game in and by itself.
But, I do vote for a ban. Solely because the card is very "anti-me"
and the decks I play. :)
niko...@hotmail.com
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
Changed title back to reflect the current discussion. Dont know why it
changed automatically.
Petri Wessman
> But on a competitive level, where folks regularly play 3 or 4 DIs per
> deck, all the time, it is a complete nightmare. I have had many games
> arbitrarily demolished by someone cross table DIing whatever I was about
> to oust my prey with just 'cause they had one in hand and couldn't bear
> to see me oust a prey (as it would "unbalance the table" or some crap
> like that). In ways that most other cards simply could not effect.
>
> That, and the incredibly endless "DI Phase" ("Huh. That's not good.
> Should I DI that? Let me discuss it with everyone else at the table for
> 5 minutes...") of every action in competition is just completely
> unnecessary. I hate DI. I have always hated DI. I would love to see it
> vaporize instantly.
Amen. Preach it! :)
Exactly the same comments and sentiments here. I would love to see
that card go, or at least become severely limited (once per game, or
some such). In the current form it's a bad card for the game, for a
multitude of reasons.
//Petri
sg3kmb6...@gmail.com
> nikol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > extrala <ralf.lamm...@gmx.de> wrote:
> What Direct Intervention does is bad and wrong, as it stops people from
> being able to play the game. (Yes, Sudden/Wash has a similar ability, but
> you know damn well that the game is made to be played with library cards
> being used by your minions, so please don't try to throw up straw men to
> avoid the DI discussion.)
Sudden/Wash can very well stop people from playing the game imo. Just
pretend that the Garou-deck had been a Brujah Debate deck that got its
two first Debates cancelled, or an Alamut deck getting its two first
Alamuts cancelled, or a Watchtower: The Wolves Feed deck getting its
two first Wolves Feeds cancelled or a Bay and Howl deck... and so on.
I'm not trying to throw straw men on you and avoid the DI discussion,
because a discussion about it might be needed. But trying to avoid
getting Sudden/Wash comparisions into that discussion is a bad thing
as well.
And starting a discussion by stating that "the game is made to be
played" in a certain fashion feels kinda weird as well. Master heavy/
master dependant decks do exist, even if they're fewer than the
"normal" decks with minion cards being played by minions.
> Direct Intervention is a silver bullet, and we all know it. Why is it
> still part of this game??
I agree it could use some minor tuning, but I very much hope it won't
be banned in any close future.
Some once per game/player or similar could be a good change (even a
limit to once per player would've saved the Garous in this case
though, and that's a quite hefty limit imo).
Blooded Sand
Wrote a long and heated comment about it. Read it, deleted and decided
all I wanna say is ban it. Or once per game. Either or.
Peter D Bakija
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> See, that's where I disagree with you - and frequently others who hate
> D.I. And it's also the thing that makes me insanely curious why there's
> such disagreement about it. Those who hate D.I. seem to see games as
> this series of dramatic plays with lots and lots of momentous turning
> points, any of which would be reversed with D.I.s thus proving what a
> terribly overpowered card it is. I just don't see this in games. I
> see lots of play that goes back and forth and occasionally some plays
> that are very important but I just don't see that many of them which
> I'd find worthwhile to hold a D.I. and pay the pool and the MPA for. I
> actually see very few. I value the master cards I know will help me
> far more consistently more highly than I value D.I.s in most cases, so
> I find it hard to appreciate your point of view.
Well, there is always a lot of conjecture and stories to make points,
but when it comes down to simple "here is what the card does", here is
what I primarily object to about the card:
A) It allows for completely unrestricted meddling, ignoring the
predator/prey relationship. The guy cross table can DI my action
modifier to foil my action. Which when combined with the incredible
versatility of the card makes it way too powerful. If it were only
useable on your predator or prey? It would be much less egregious.
B) It has no limitations at all, when similar cards have significant
limitations. DI was designed by the same crack wacky design team that
made Protect Thine Own and Return to Innocence (well, presumably). In
another example of "Here is clearly what the current design team thinks
is balanced, and here is how this other old card is way over that
threshold" (see: PTO vs Auto da Fe), we have Direct Intervention, which
costs 1 pool and 1 MPA as an OOT Master, and cancels any minion card.
Then we have Vox Domini, which costs 1 pool and 1 MPA as an OOT Master,
and makes a poltical action fail. And is only playable once per game by
each player. So for the exact same cost (1 pool, 1 MPA, OOT), Vox Domini
has a similar effect but is *vastly* more restricted *and* only playable
once per game. Yes, there is a difference between "cancel a card" and
"make a vote fail" which is not insignificant (vote fails means action
is wasted, etc.). So it is arguably reasonable that the limited effect
(cancel only vote, not any card) is more powerful (vote fails, not card
cancelled). But then it *also* is saddled with only being playable once
per game. Which, for a card that is already very limited, is just a kick
in the teeth. The end result is, given the similarities between the
cards, why would anyone *ever* play Vox Domini instead of Direct
Intervention (this is not an invitation to dig up every possible corner
case where you would want a Vox Domini, but every single time I have
considered a Vox Domini in a deck? I put in DI instead)? The DI costs
exactly the same, has a similar (and often identical--if you DI the
vital vote push action card? The end result is identical to Vox Domini)
yet much more flexible effect. And can be used multiple times per game.
Vox Domini seems like it should be a strong card (it has a very strong
effect). But DI makes it virtually pointless. And Vox Domini is
apparently what the current (or currenter) design team feels is a
balanced effect for a 1 pool OOT Master that cancels something.
Indicating the Direct Intervention is over the curve of what the current
design team thinks is acceptable.
If Direct Intervention was, say, 1 pool OOT Master, cancel a minion card
played by your predator or prey, only playable once per game per
methuselah, it would still be a pain in the ass, but would at least be
*much* less "arbitrary king makery" and would fit into the current power
level scheme reasonably.
James Coupe
s.com>, niko...@hotmail.com writes:
>Changed title back to reflect the current discussion. Dont know why it
>changed automatically.
You responded to the original post. The reply takes the title of the
post you're replying to (unless you change it).
This is just one reason why - if you want to talk about the topic of a
replying post - you should reply to *that* post, with relevant quoted
material from that post. It makes it easier to follow.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
zora...@gmail.com
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
LOL. Waddup, Blooded Sand!
I hope you're just heating up the ol' corn popper cause I'm back, and
not because of those 2 cents I just put into the discussion, right?
Blooded Sand
Me? Heat popcorn for no reason??? Perish the thought old boy! Now
where did I put the butter and flamethrower, I mean, gas stove?
LOL, nah, just a friendly hiya buddy!
Darby Keeney
> And yet I don't observe that you play with that many D.I.s, Darby? Why
> is that?
If you looked through my recent tournament-finals decks, you would see
that a significant majority use DI, typical in multiples. I'll not
give you the exact percentages or number of instance per deck, as I
don't wish to spoil all my surprises. But rest assured that this card
finds its way into a lot of decks I build.
Leaving DI out of last month's [ANI] block/combat deck was a terrible
oversight on my part - which I will certainly remedy if I play the
deck again. You're fooling yourself if you think I don't stoop to
playing this cheeseball card.
Does that mean I need it in every deck to be successful....no. But it
is powerful and flexible enough that if I can slot the thing and
preserve deck function (in COMPETITIVE DECKS), I'll seriously consider
it.
> Those who hate D.I. seem to see games as
> this series of dramatic plays with lots and lots of momentous turning
> points.
I never said that. What I believe is, in fact, the complete
opposite. This highlights just how far way my thought processes are
from yours.
In the setting you seem to describe, DI loses it value. DI is best
suited in situations where there are relative FEW dramatic plays and
the prevention of 1-2 of them is consequently more important, then the
shift of power becomes long-lasting.
> ....I just don't see this in games.
Fortunately for me, it is not YOU that I am trying to influence
here.....it is the folks you could be ultimately responsible for the
banning of the card. I prefer it that you think that DI is a card
unworthy of inclusion in your decks. That's one less player I need to
worry about shutting down the action I need with I have a trumpy play
planned.
Now, having mounted the soapbox for a brief time, I'll step off and
return to my deckbuilding (including DI in liberal quantities).
Regards.
Darby
bluedevil
> This card's been around since The
> Sabbat and I have never figured out why some people get so bugged by it.
> I swear, it's just weird!
It may just be a function of your metagame. If only one player at the
table shoves one in his deck, you may not notice it much. If three or
more players sit down with three in their deck, I believe you would
see the effect. I certainly have.
--
David Cherryholmes
Kushiel
> 3) It has the usual cancel-card disadvantage in a multiplayer game. Guy
> playing it pays an MPA and pool; guy it's played on loses a chance to play
> an (ideally) key minion card. Three other methuselahs are the real
> winners.
According to this tournament report, that wasn't the case here. One of
the people who played DI won the tournament, not one of the other
three players.
John Eno
James Coupe
<pd...@lightlink.com> writes:
>That, and the incredibly endless "DI Phase" ("Huh. That's not good.
>Should I DI that? Let me discuss it with everyone else at the table for
>5 minutes...") of every action in competition is just completely
>unnecessary. I hate DI. I have always hated DI. I would love to see it
>vaporize instantly.
I'd caution at this point that the obvious fix of "one per game" or "one
per Methuselah per game" may exacerbate this window. Okay, once you've
played it, the game speeds up as you're not continually thinking "Oh
god, do I play it?" However, before you play it, this might well end up
with people thinking "Is this good enough? Am I getting enough
benefit?" and spending their time fretting about that as well.
So, you might or might not end up taking more time overall, but
individual situations where you might want to play it could be even more
lengthy and fraught.
Peter D Bakija
> I'd caution at this point that the obvious fix of "one per game" or "one
> per Methuselah per game" may exacerbate this window.
This is true. Although if it were only one per game or one per player
per game, the advantage to using multiples of them would be greatly
diminished, meaning fewer of them would be in decks, and so fewer
would be in hand most of the time.
That, and if the "only once per game" of some type were stuck on
*along* with the "only on your predator or prey" restriction I'd like
to see, there would be 2 fewer people who could play their one DI at
any given moment.
-Peter
sg3kmb6...@gmail.com
> On Sep 14, 1:41 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>
> This is true. Although if it were only one per game or one per player
> per game, the advantage to using multiples of them would be greatly
> diminished, meaning fewer of them would be in decks, and so fewer
> would be in hand most of the time.
And, most importantly imo, it would make the Anthelios tech useless
(in regards to DI, other cards would still be twisted of course).
chr...@comcen.com.au
> vaporize instantly.
>
Amen to that.
I refuse to play it out of principle.
Chris.
xcver
> once per game, or
That would be good and would severly limit the annoyance of an
Anthelion multiple MPA Deck to yank out a DI every turn.
rptre...@aol.com
> If this isn't enough to cause Direct Intervention to be placed AT THE VERY
> TOP of the watch list for 2009 -- and hopefully banned in 2010 -- then
> nothing ever will.
How disappointing to 'tune' back into the NG and see this still
going.. years on.
> This guy gets 3GW/9VP with a well-made/metagamed deck, and loses... to a
> stupid Direct Intervention. Wow, nice reward.
Or perhaps a well timed DI ....... perhaps? A DI that had been held
onto skillfully for a number of turns for that very reason? And played
at evidently *exactly* the right time. A real skill if you ask me.
> What Direct Intervention does is bad and wrong, as it stops people from
> being able to play the game. (Yes, Sudden/Wash has a similar ability, but
> you know damn well that the game is made to be played with library cards
> being used by your minions, so please don't try to throw up straw men to
> avoid the DI discussion.)
>
> Thoughts Betrayed was changed because it used to say "You are unable to
> play the game."
>
> Protect Thine Own was banned because it says "You are unable to play the
> game, in the most un-fun way the designers of this card game could think
> of."
>
> Direct Intervention is a silver bullet, and we all know it. Why is it
> still part of this game??
Simply put because it doesn't need to go. It's an integral part of the
game in my opinion and taking it away further reduces the dwindling
pool of cards that can influence things cross table and takes the game
further small percentages down the route of a non-multiplayer game. If
your deck can't handle even a few of these flying at it from cross
table (although you might assume/hope that play to win may step in at
some point here?) then surely it's pretty fragile in the first place?
Personally it often doesn't make the final cut in most of my decks as
I find myself sitting with it and second, third guessing myself when
or when not to use it as Peter alludes to. Better to have a relatively
certain card in a lot of cases than a DI with the text 'temporarily
reduce your handsize to 6'
I think it's fine with the new-ish play to win rules if implemented
correctly. Especially in finals where some of the controversy seems to
come from?
Atom Weaver
> On 13 Sep, 05:51, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>
> > Direct Intervention is a silver bullet, and we all know it. Why is it
> > still part of this game??
>
> Simply put because it doesn't need to go. It's an integral part of the
> game in my opinion and taking it away further reduces the dwindling
> pool of cards that can influence things cross table and takes the game
> further small percentages down the route of a non-multiplayer game. If
> your deck can't handle even a few of these flying at it from cross
> table (although you might assume/hope that play to win may step in at
> some point here?) then surely it's pretty fragile in the first place?
>
In this particular tournament, the 'hosed' deck in question had 3GW,
9VP and first seed going in to the finals... so the answer is clearly
No, its not "pretty fragile in the first place". You are right, in
that a deck should be able to overcome the occasional DI without a
problem, most can, but the impact of multiple DIs per turn is pretty
big. Big enough to cause a clearly excellent, well-played deck to
tank.
Maybe correction text that should be considered is "a methuselah may
only be the target of DI once during their turn." That'd keep a
single player from being the center of a shit-storm of DI's, as
happens when they become prevalent in the meta game (see Dave C's
collected works), and as happened in this specific case, here.
DaveZ
AW
rptre...@aol.com
That would be a much better fix if one was needed, yes. Obviously I
don't think it is though.
See what you are saying re: that game but conversely it took a DI from
prey and pred to stop the deck doing it's thing for a few turns. I
don't see this as an issue myself and as far as I remember (not sure
if the 'DI game' has changed in my absence?) a pretty rare occurance
aside from a few specific metagames?
Again, personally I see Sudden Reversal and stuff like Bleeding the
Vine as more of an issue (if you assume an issue, which I really
don't) in that master cards are *generally* a lot more powerful than
minion cards, no? I would say in the majority of games, a few well
placed Suddens from around the table ruin a given deck's strategy a
lot more regularly and with more alarming results like no pool gain,
than DI.
Anthony Coleman
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think that in most cases I'd rather do what I do well than devote
parts of my master section to stopping individual minion cards played
by other meths. Or at least use minion cards to react to and deal with
minion cards..
That stupid Synesios deck from Barcelona aside - I dont recall ever
using DI really, for the reasons above.
Ant
suolir...@gmail.com
> On 13 Sep, 05:51, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> > This guy gets 3GW/9VP with a well-made/metagamed deck, and loses... to a
> > stupid Direct Intervention. Wow, nice reward.
>
> Or perhaps a well timed DI ....... perhaps? A DI that had been held
> onto skillfully for a number of turns for that very reason? And played
> at evidently *exactly* the right time. A real skill if you ask me.
Eh, I don't mean to belittle anyone's skills but when a Garou deck
dominates a tournament every player in the final table will know about
it. It's pretty easy to figure out whether to DI the lynch pin or not
once you know what it is.
Another fun fact about DI: the decks least affected by it are the
decks with the least amount of diversity in card choices.
rptre...@aol.com
> On 15 syys, 15:04, rptreas...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > On 13 Sep, 05:51, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> > > This guy gets 3GW/9VP with a well-made/metagamed deck, and loses... to a
> > > stupid Direct Intervention. Wow, nice reward.
>
> > Or perhaps a well timed DI ....... perhaps? A DI that had been held
> > onto skillfully for a number of turns for that very reason? And played
> > at evidently *exactly* the right time. A real skill if you ask me.
>
> Eh, I don't mean to belittle anyone's skills but when a Garou deck
> dominates a tournament every player in the final table will know about
> it. It's pretty easy to figure out whether to DI the lynch pin or not
> once you know what it is.
Totally yes, I'm talking more about the 9/10 times I see/saw it played
to counter an immediate emergent threat rather than to scupper a known
one.
I think it's unfortunate in this example that both came from Pred and
Prey, if it were cross table then it would add a bit of weight to
Kevin and other's argument, were they decks using lots of DI though?
or just decks using 1 or 2 to defend a bit against the Rock Paper
Scissors nature of the game? I genuinely don't know, just interested.
Added to this I for one welcome anything at all that helps smooth that
horrible but unavoidable Rock Paper Scissors aspect of the game,
however small.
bluedevil
> That would be good and would severly limit the annoyance of an
> Anthelion multiple MPA Deck to yank out a DI every turn.
Yep. I don't think it's *required* to factor recursing the card into
the argument in order to make a successful one. However (to the
skeptics) if one can get a toehold admission that DI is in fact at
least weakly problematic, then the actual fact of recursing it ought
to be able to amplify that crack in the door up to a full admission of
brokenness. Like I said, I think guys with three on either side of
you are sufficient to demonstrate the case, but Anthelios + most
people having one or two creates a similar effect and, for the guy who
built the Anthelios deck, it's a sick lock.
--
David Cherryholmes
P.S. I took a Garou deck to DragonCon last month, so this whole thread
is extra fascinating to me.
coincoi...@hotmail.com
than Sudden reversal.
The basics to make a deck is "how to survive" because you can make a
wonderful killing deck, there are very few exceptions to the sentence -
> if you don't get pool, you lose (turbos, weenies).
Then, with sudden reversal, you don't play another mast card. With DI,
for very few exceptions you can play another card (your conditionning
becomes foreshadowing destruction, i.e).
I feel far more pressured by a player playing anthelios/parthenon and
X sudden reversals in his deck + bleeding the vine and cancelling me
my master phase every turn, preventing me from pooling in normal ways,
than by somebody eventually cancelling one action from me. If I see
one people playing DI recurrently, I just wait to get 2x of the action
in my hand... If it's once in a while, by luck, as in the final we're
talking about... that is life, but that does not happen very often
that both your prey and predator have 1 DI in their starting hand,
right?
coincoi...@hotmail.com
sorry for the mistake
dclo...@gmail.com
> Personally it often doesn't make the final cut in most of my decks as
> I find myself sitting with it and second, third guessing myself when
> or when not to use it as Peter alludes to. Better to have a relatively
> certain card in a lot of cases than a DI with the text 'temporarily
> reduce your handsize to 6'
This argument is pretty weak. You have to have something in your hand
- how is having a D.I., arguably the most flexible and powerful card
in the game, a burden to you? Comparing it to a hand size of six is
inaccurate; Dragonbound reduces your hand size to 6, as in you only
have 6 cards in your hand.
D.I., arguably the most powerful card in the game, is one of your 7
cards. It is in no way a dead card. The opportunity cost to play it
approaches zero.
-Dave Clooney
bluedevil
> > if you don't get pool, you lose (turbos, weenies).
I see where you are going here, but I am probably not the best
audience for your argument. I think I have pretty unorthodox views on
the value of pool gain. Unless you are set up to run *KABOOM* cap/
taps repeatedly, the couple of blood dolls you'll see in your top 20
cards is not going to have much impact on the bleedzooka behind you.
For the slow trickle of pool over the long game.... meh, I'd rather
just gain six and put my resources into that.
> Then, with sudden reversal, you don't play another mast card. With DI,
> for very few exceptions you can play another card (your conditionning
> becomes foreshadowing destruction, i.e).
Yeah, if you've got them, as you clearly do in your little thought
experiment there. I guess I can't persuade you with this, but IME it
works out to be quite a bit tougher. OTOH, I admittedly do not play
many highly focused, one trick pony decks. And while we are at it,
add "encouraging that" to the things I don't like about DI, but I
would not call that a balance argument.... just a "fun" argument which
is subjective.
--
David Cherryholmes
Frederick Scott
<sg3kmb6...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e8284ed4-7f68-4f8b...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 14, 9:19 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> > This is true. Although if it were only one per game or one per player
> > per game, the advantage to using multiples of them would be greatly
> > diminished, meaning fewer of them would be in decks, and so fewer
> > would be in hand most of the time.
Huh? What are the "advantages of using multiples of them", in your
opinion? Do you mean you think D.I. is good and two D.I.s are twice
as good? Or do you somehow see a greater-than-double advantage to
using two D.I.s (or more; I'm trying to figure out if you see some
kind of multiple-copy advantage in the card).
As far as I can see, there's no multi-copy synergy or advantage. If
anything, one would expect diminishing returns from multiple copies
but maybe there's an aspect to this I'm not seeing.
> And, most importantly imo, it would make the Anthelios tech useless
> (in regards to DI, other cards would still be twisted of course).
I don't there's really much Anthelios tech here. I'm REALLY not going
to buy the concept that D.I. is worth TWO master phase actions and a
pool! (But again, if you have some angle on the card I'm not seeing,
by all means trot it out.)
Fred
rptre...@aol.com
I'm not saying its accurate or inaccurate just that in MY experience
it can also be a burden as you agonise over when to play it and then
ultimately wish you had waited. Also having a card that sits in your
hand is often not good, see things like Life Boon for example here.
Personally I think one of the many strengths you can employ in the
game is a fludly moving deck, this aspect of DI doesn't help that.
No idea how you class it as the most powerful card in the game either.
Bizarre. Also cards that sit in your hand is often not good, see
things
I suppose I was trying to illustrate that it's one of those cards that
often lead to indecision and doubt as to how to play it, not a good
thing if you ask me. Then comparing that to a card that is part of a
focussed machine of a deck where that slot becomes a no-brainer card
instead.
I'd like to be able to see all the fuss but I don't... I've been on
the business end of several players packing a few DI and targetting me
in quite a few games and yes it's no fun but no less amusing than
having every master card stopped or FAR less fun than having your deck
trumped utterly by the Imbued :o)
LSJ
> Another fun fact about DI: the decks least affected by it are the
> decks with the least amount of diversity in card choices.
Does "fun fact" mean "fiction"?
Diversity is one of the counters to DI.
DI my Lost in Crowds? OK. I can't play another, but fortunately, my deck has
diversity in my choices, so I'll play this Spying Mission.
DI my Daring the Dawn? OK. Here's a Dawn Operation.
Or I guess you could be using "diversity" to mean "dependence on many things at
once" instead of the normal meaning. If so, then, yeah, contrived long
strict-ordering chains are more affected by DI than simple short
order-insensitve chains, sure.
Frederick Scott
"Darby Keeney" <darby....@gmail.com> wrote in message news:127ba68f-639d-4155...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 14, 1:50 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > And yet I don't observe that you play with that many D.I.s, Darby? Why
> > is that?
>
> If you looked through my recent tournament-finals decks, you would see
> that a significant majority use DI, typical in multiples. I'll not
> give you the exact percentages or number of instance per deck, as I
> don't wish to spoil all my surprises. But rest assured that this card
> finds its way into a lot of decks I build.
Well, OK. I'm just saying I don't see you play this card like it was as
broken as you talk about in the newsgroup. If it's all that broken due to
it's power I would expect to see you constantly playing it and leaning
on it as crutch. That's what *I* would do if I thought a card was as
broken as you make D.I. out to be.
> > Those who hate D.I. seem to see games as
> > this series of dramatic plays with lots and lots of momentous turning
> > points.
>
> I never said that. What I believe is, in fact, the complete
> opposite. This highlights just how far way my thought processes are
> from yours.
No. This highlights how little sense I'm making out of your statements
about it. What I described above is logical conclusion to the complaints
you make about D.I. If that's *NOT* what you meant to imply, then I
can't fathom why you would think D.I. is so powerful and flexible that it
requires banishment.
> In the setting you seem to describe, DI loses it value. DI is best
> suited in situations where there are relative FEW dramatic plays and
> the prevention of 1-2 of them is consequently more important, then the
> shift of power becomes long-lasting.
But that makes zero sense. If there are very few dramatic, important
plays, then you have a card that - on the whole - sits in your hand like
a doorstop taking up handspace for a long period of time. You can't put
many of them in your deck or they'll keep coming up when you don't want
them. And if they're only played a relative few times in the game, I
find it to be specious to argue that they have that much effect on the
game - like Kevin's incorrect suggestion that Direct Invterventions beat
that guy's Werewolf deck. Actually, it was the Second Traditions which
beat the Werewolf deck.
> ....I just don't see this in games.
>
> Fortunately for me, it is not YOU that I am trying to influence
> here.....it is the folks you could be ultimately responsible for the
> banning of the card. I prefer it that you think that DI is a card
> unworthy of inclusion in your decks.
You have little to worry about on that score.
Fred
Blooded Sand
> On 15 Sep, 17:47, dcloo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 15, 8:04 am, rptreas...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > Personally it often doesn't make the final cut in most of my decks as
> > > I find myself sitting with it and second, third guessing myself when
> > > or when not to use it as Peter alludes to. Better to have a relatively
> > > certain card in a lot of cases than a DI with the text 'temporarily
> > > reduce your handsize to 6'
>
> > This argument is pretty weak. You have to have something in your hand
> > - how is having a D.I., arguably the most flexible and powerful card
> > in the game, a burden to you? Comparing it to a hand size of six is
> > inaccurate; Dragonbound reduces your hand size to 6, as in you only
> > have 6 cards in your hand.
>
> > D.I., arguably the most powerful card in the game, is one of your 7
> > cards. It is in no way a dead card. The opportunity cost to play it
> > approaches zero.
>
> > -Dave Clooney
>
> I'm not saying its accurate or inaccurate just that in MY experience
> it can also be a burden as you agonise over when to play it and then
> ultimately wish you had waited.
it is not a matter of agonising. /it is merely a matter of every
single turn to decide which is the most problematic card to nuke. And
if you miss, well next turn try again.
> Also having a card that sits in your
> hand is often not good, see things like Life Boon for example here.
> Personally I think one of the many strengths you can employ in the
> game is a fluidly moving deck, this aspect of DI doesn't help that.
AAA. Loves having this card sitting in hand. And it is a deck
archetype that does kinda work.
> I'd like to be able to see all the fuss but I don't... I've been on
> the business end of several players packing a few DI and targetting me
> in quite a few games and yes it's no fun but no less amusing than
> having every master card stopped or
This next bit needs more salt and butter buddy!
Frederick Scott
news:58d86ac9-e86b-4b48...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Sure. It's a rather philosophical argument and I agree that a lot of
individual examples can and do occur where D.I. specifically helped the
guy who played it far more than anyone else. But I also see a lot of times
where someone else benefits as much or more, just as with Sudden Reversal.
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:d77b0726-d5e3-4045...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 15, 8:04 am, rptreas...@aol.com wrote:
> > On 13 Sep, 05:51, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> > > Direct Intervention is a silver bullet, and we all know it. Why is it
> > > still part of this game??
> >
> > Simply put because it doesn't need to go. It's an integral part of the
> > game in my opinion and taking it away further reduces the dwindling
> > pool of cards that can influence things cross table and takes the game
> > further small percentages down the route of a non-multiplayer game. If
> > your deck can't handle even a few of these flying at it from cross
> > table (although you might assume/hope that play to win may step in at
> > some point here?) then surely it's pretty fragile in the first place?
>
> In this particular tournament, the 'hosed' deck in question had 3GW,
> 9VP and first seed going in to the finals... so the answer is clearly
> No, its not "pretty fragile in the first place".
I disagree. If you can't get Werewolves on the board because someone is
playing Second Traditions, then don't tell me that deck didn't have a
serious Achilles' Heel. The fact that it hadn't run into its foil deck(s)
before is a fairly classic example of how capricious metagaming luck can
be in tournaments.
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:e8081f9f-74d1-461f...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> D.I., arguably the most powerful card in the game, is one of your 7
> cards. It is in no way a dead card. The opportunity cost to play it
> approaches zero.
I don't know. I see lots of stretches in games where I wouldn't find
a suitable situation to play one for several turns at a time. If so,
it certain _is_ a dead card during those periods and there certain is
an opportunity cost.
Fred
LSJ
I think he means: minion cards are played nearly all the time, so the
opportunity cost is near zero.
Contrast to your idea that the opportunity to play it usefully (i.e., so that it
is worth its cost in pool, MPAs, and inability to play other MOOT (and
advertising such)) is quite different than a zero cost.
bluedevil
> like Kevin's incorrect suggestion that Direct Invterventions beat
> that guy's Werewolf deck. Actually, it was the Second Traditions which
> beat the Werewolf deck.
The DI's beat it. Except for the DIs he would have gotten out two
Garou and smashed the vampires playing the 2nds into the dirt, after
which he would have brought out more Garou, and quite possible won.
Regardless of your assessment of DI in general, in that final it is
quite clearly the DIs which beat him.
--
David Cherryholmes
bluedevil
> I disagree. If you can't get Werewolves on the board because someone is
> playing Second Traditions, then don't tell me that deck didn't have a
> serious Achilles' Heel. The fact that it hadn't run into its foil deck(s)
> before is a fairly classic example of how capricious metagaming luck can
> be in tournaments.
Well, I just scraped into the finals with mine, not curbstomped my way
to first seed like this guy. But I would say the way you do it is by
getting garou during the day, and then the gangrel sit there in torpor
and Regenerate simply as Minion Tap fuel, and if somebody tries to eat
them you play Crimson Fury. The rest of the deck goes towards Garou
kicking ass. That kind of deck wouldn't care about 2nd trads.
--
David Cherryholmes
librarian
Wait, you mean like seat switchers? Oh right, they have been banned...
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
www.superfuncards.com *NEW Website!*
auct...@superfuncards.com
librarian
Further off topic -
It would be cool to see a seat switcher that couldn't be used to poach
someone's prey:
Switch seats with another player. Can't be played if any Methuselah has
less than 10 pool.
Or some such.
Frederick Scott
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:fbxzk.316$W06...@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
I'm confused, then. I don't think it makes a valid counter-argument to the
opportunity cost problem to say D.I. can be dumped at a loss at any moment.
(I mean, we already know you can almost always discard it so it's not like
it's stuck in your hand either way. A DPA is also a cost but there you go.)
So I think that still makes a significant opportunity cost, by my
understanding of the definition of the term "opportunity cost".
Fred
Frederick Scott
"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:66aa21af-4d89-453e...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 15, 1:24 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > like Kevin's incorrect suggestion that Direct Invterventions beat
> > that guy's Werewolf deck. Actually, it was the Second Traditions which
> > beat the Werewolf deck.
>
> The DI's beat it. Except for the DIs he would have gotten out two
> Garou and smashed the vampires playing the 2nds into the dirt, after
> which he would have brought out more Garou, and quite possible won.
In truth, both factors beat it - but it appears to me that the Second
Traditions were the mainstay. It's possibly true that without the
Direct Interventions, his opponents wouldn't have had time to setup any
princes which wouldn't have gotten beaten into torpor regularly. So
there may have been an aspect of a "spectacular play" contribution by
D.I.s which is what the anti-D.I. folk hate about the card. But I suspect
that's probably a vast oversimplication of that particular game. I also
think it misses the point. I think (for instance) Mike Curtois's weenie
auspex would have had that thing for lunch, for instance.
The point is, don't tell me it was just the spectacular play that killed
the Garou deck and - therefore - D.I. is overpowered. This game just
doesn't show that.
Fred
rptre...@aol.com
What's your point man? Why beat around the bush?
mat...@gmail.com
I think it is funny that you say you don't play the card and you
arguing to keep it.
Matt
Peter D Bakija
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> Huh? What are the "advantages of using multiples of them", in your
> opinion?
Getting to play them multiple times. I was pointing out that if you
could only play one per game, drawing a second or third after you played
the first would be drawing a dead card. So while currently, there is
plenty of advantage to playing 3 or 4 in your deck (as you draw them
early and often and get to play them 3 or 4 times), if you could only
play 1 per game (even one per player per game), putting 3 or 4 in your
deck would be counter productive.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff
sg3kmb6...@gmail.com
> <sg3kmb613sdf...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:e8284ed4-7f68-4f8b...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > And, most importantly imo, it would make the Anthelios tech useless
> > (in regards to DI, other cards would still be twisted of course).
>
> I don't there's really much Anthelios tech here. I'm REALLY not going
> to buy the concept that D.I. is worth TWO master phase actions and a
> pool! (But again, if you have some angle on the card I'm not seeing,
> by all means trot it out.)
I'm not sure where "here" is for you, but it show's up quite some in
Sweden at least.
And well.. If you're not going to buy it I guess there's no reason to
even try arguing.
Anson, Anthelios and a DI does (more or less) mean that at least one
of your cards will be cancelled each turn. And in the duel that's a
lot, and way too powerful imo.
Kushiel
> No idea how you class it as the most powerful card in the game either.
> Bizarre.
What other single card is there that can prevent the play of any
minion card (ie, the majority of cards in the game) with as few
restrictions as DI?
John Eno
bluedevil
> In truth, both factors beat it - but it appears to me that the Second
> Traditions were the mainstay. It's possibly true that without the
> Direct Interventions, his opponents wouldn't have had time to setup any
> princes which wouldn't have gotten beaten into torpor regularly. So
> there may have been an aspect of a "spectacular play" contribution by
> D.I.s which is what the anti-D.I. folk hate about the card. But I suspect
> that's probably a vast oversimplication of that particular game.
No, that's just how that particular game played out. He had Garous
before they had playable Seconds. The DI's stopped him until the 2nds
could be brought into play. In that particular game, had there not
been DIs, the 2nds would not have been that useful, since you need a
minion to play them and everything we've heard says that his combat
would take them apart.
> I also
> think it misses the point. I think (for instance) Mike Curtois's weenie
> auspex would have had that thing for lunch, for instance.
Maybe. Weenie Auspex stops lots of things cold. I don't know what
his deck list was like, but Protean does have access to some good
stealth, and Daring the Dawn sails right by it. But if he couldn't
get past a second trad, then he probably wouldn't have gotten past
weenie auspex. I'm not really sure what relevance that has to the
discussion at hand, though.
> The point is, don't tell me it was just the spectacular play that killed
> the Garou deck and - therefore - D.I. is overpowered. This game just
> doesn't show that.
No, the game just shows that a spectacular play of DIs on either side
of him killed him in that particular game. It's just one data point,
though, and I prefer not to build arguments on anecdotes.
Unfortunately, none of the logical arguments persuade you, so
anecdotes are all we're left with.
--
David Cherryholmes
Atom Weaver
> "Atom Weaver" <atomwea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Nickolaj wrote:
"***He pacified my deck totally in the two first rounds***, and in the
final
chose to sit as my pred. He didnt know that his predator was playing
an all out anti brujah bleed deck with Blood Brother Ambush. He had
his first two garous DI'd in the same turn (me as his prey, and his
predator played one too) and only managed to get one in. After that I
had two princes and second traditions enough and he never got another
one in play. "
So, in two previous rounds, the Garou deck _had_ seen Nickolaj's 13
Second Trads, and dealt with them handily. Nickolaj was schooled by
the Garou, even with his Second Trads, which is why the Garou player
chose the seating he did... It was the combination of the DIs from
predator and prey in a single round, not the presence of Second Trads,
that was key to the Garou deck's demise. Prior performance in two
preliminary rounds indicates that Second Trads were not a particular
problem for the deck.
DZ
AW
rptre...@aol.com
Obviously if you put your conditions on it like that, it goes toward
your side of the argument. I don't see the restrictions as trivial as
you do I guess, that and I don't think it's as 'broken' as people are
saying... all feels very much like the sky is falling type of hype to
me. As usual.
I could counter-argue with something like - Look at Sudden Reversal
and to a lesser extent Wash and Bleeding the Vine, what other card
allows you to stop the play of any master card in the game (ie. in a
lot of cases the most powerful cards in the game) with as few
restictions, but I won't.
This said, the other argument has a lot more weight I think. Mass play
of said card from several sources *is* going to be a problem for most
decks but for gods sake! shouldn't it be? Are we not talking about
table control or lack thereof to a lesser extent there?
Frederick Scott
news:2a5ae878-2ef8-4f59...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 15, 7:14 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> <sg3kmb613sdf...@gmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:e8284ed4-7f68-4f8b...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > > And, most importantly imo, it would make the Anthelios tech useless
> > > (in regards to DI, other cards would still be twisted of course).
> >
> > to buy the concept that D.I. is worth TWO master phase actions and a
> > pool! (But again, if you have some angle on the card I'm not seeing,
> > by all means trot it out.)
>
> I'm not sure where "here" is for you, but it show's up quite some in
> Sweden at least.
I meant "here" meaning "in this context". That is, Anthelios with its
extra MPA penalty doesn't strike as being very effective given that I
think paying one MPA and pool for D.I. is perfectly fair. I think the
MPA is the larger cost. So if people want to pay a DPA and dedicate one or
more card slots in order to have the ability to pay two MPAs and a pool
to cancel a single opponent's single minion card, then go to town.
>And well.. If you're not going to buy it I guess there's no reason to
>even try arguing.
Sure.
> Anson, Anthelios and a DI does (more or less) mean that at least one
> of your cards will be cancelled each turn.
One of _my_ cards? Assuming I'm one of your opponents that's not
necessarily true until we're the last two players in the game. You
might want to cancel another one of your opponents' cards.
> And in the duel that's a lot, and way too powerful imo.
I disagree. But, as you say, there's not much we can do to convince
one another. People in my area don't play with lots of them by and
large and I've never seen anything to make me feel that someone who
packed a lot of them would do much better than average.
(In fact, when I was attending the NAC I didn't notice that any players
at all going any heavier on D.I. than what I'm used to. But I wasn't a
qualifier so I'm not necessarily the best person to testify about that.)
Fred
bluedevil
> This said, the other argument has a lot more weight I think. Mass play
> of said card from several sources *is* going to be a problem for most
> decks but for gods sake! shouldn't it be? Are we not talking about
> table control or lack thereof to a lesser extent there?
Yeah, I've never felt much objection to having the occasional power
play sniped by a single DI. I know this is just me, and maybe it's
just visceral, but back when I was playing with people who mostly
played with 3 or 4 (and there was one guy who played with 8, I swear)
I got the distinct impression that the whole damn game was broken.
Nice to see you around again, btw. Recently resurfaced myself.
--
David Cherryholmes
rptre...@aol.com
You too man, you still go on iRC? Catch you on there if so.
8.... 8 in a deck is a lot! Yuk, that becomes a mini arms race then. I
can see why you might have been a little peed off with it :o)
Frederick Scott
On Sep 15, 2:49 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > In truth, both factors beat it - but it appears to me that the Second
> > Traditions were the mainstay. It's possibly true that without the
> > Direct Interventions, his opponents wouldn't have had time to setup any
> > princes which wouldn't have gotten beaten into torpor regularly. So
> > there may have been an aspect of a "spectacular play" contribution by
> > D.I.s which is what the anti-D.I. folk hate about the card. But I suspect
> > that's probably a vast oversimplication of that particular game.
>
> No, that's just how that particular game played out. He had Garous
> before they had playable Seconds. The DI's stopped him until the 2nds
> could be brought into play. In that particular game, had there not
> been DIs, the 2nds would not have been that useful,
Right. And if there hadn't been 2nds, the DIs wouldn't have been
useful. I'm totally missing your point.
For that matter, from the description of the game rendered, it isn't
THAT clear to me that the D.I.s were essential. They were just the
first line of defense. Could be someone could have intercepted the
Garous but we can't tell. (Maybe the guy who played the game could
tell but I don't think we could from what we have.) On the other
hand, it appears that the Seconds were certainly essential in keeping
subsequent Garous off the board - otherwise, the Garou player is just
slowed down a bit, not stopped in his tracks.
> > I also
> > think it misses the point. I think (for instance) Mike Curtois's weenie
> > auspex would have had that thing for lunch, for instance.
>
> Maybe. Weenie Auspex stops lots of things cold. I don't know what
> his deck list was like, but Protean does have access to some good
> stealth, and Daring the Dawn sails right by it.
Then Daring the Dawn would have sailed right by the Second Traditions.
> But if he couldn't
> get past a second trad, then he probably wouldn't have gotten past
> weenie auspex. I'm not really sure what relevance that has to the
> discussion at hand, though.
It shows that this is a metagame issue, pure and simple. Whether weenie
intercept or a couple supremely fortitous D.I.s combined with Prince
intercept, it's just what happened in one game. It is by no means an
indication of a power problem associated with D.I.s.
> > The point is, don't tell me it was just the spectacular play that killed
> > the Garou deck and - therefore - D.I. is overpowered. This game just
> > doesn't show that.
>
> No, the game just shows that a spectacular play of DIs on either side
> of him killed him in that particular game. It's just one data point,
> though, and I prefer not to build arguments on anecdotes.
That was also my point.
> Unfortunately, none of the logical arguments persuade you, so
> anecdotes are all we're left with.
If you _have_ logical arguments, then concentrate on those. I fail
to see the point of leaning on what we both agree is a weak line of
reasoning if you can't gain any traction with the one(s) you believe
is (are) strong. "We-have-logical-arguments-but-they-don't-work-so-we're-
trying-this" is a lame response.
Fred
sg3kmb6...@gmail.com
> > Anson, Anthelios and a DI does (more or less) mean that at least one
> > of your cards will be cancelled each turn.
>
> One of _my_ cards? Assuming I'm one of your opponents that's not
> necessarily true until we're the last two players in the game. You
> might want to cancel another one of your opponents' cards.
Sure, but I was just making a point. Theorethically it could be one of
your cards that gets cancelled. Every turn. It does cost 2 mpa, 1
master card and 1 pool which might seem a bit high, but considering
the effects I'd say it's worth it most times. It kinda means you'd
need 1 more of every minion card you want to play on your turn.
As you say though someone could be cancelling one of my predator's
cards each turn just to make me happy, but I'd say that assuming that
you are the one being targeted by the effect makes it easier to see
how good/bad it is.
> > And in the duel that's a lot, and way too powerful imo.
>
> I disagree. But, as you say, there's not much we can do to convince
> one another. People in my area don't play with lots of them by and
> large and I've never seen anything to make me feel that someone who
> packed a lot of them would do much better than average.
>
> (In fact, when I was attending the NAC I didn't notice that any players
> at all going any heavier on D.I. than what I'm used to. But I wasn't a
> qualifier so I'm not necessarily the best person to testify about that.)
I'd recommend a trip to France or Switzerland ;p
Then again, I don't see how that has anything to do with the
discussion tbh. I mean, if the card/combo being discussed is broken
and needs tuning isn't dependant on the numbers of players abusing it
but rather of what it does with the game (especially the late endgame
with 2-3 players left).
I don't recall Madness of the Bard being overused before it was banned
either, but I'm sure glad it's not allowed on tournaments...
Frederick Scott
> On Sep 15, 1:34 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > "Atom Weaver" <atomwea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:d77b0726-d5e3-4045...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > > 9VP and first seed going in to the finals... so the answer is clearly
> > > No, its not "pretty fragile in the first place".
> >
> > I disagree. If you can't get Werewolves on the board because someone is
> > playing Second Traditions, then don't tell me that deck didn't have a
> > serious Achilles' Heel. The fact that it hadn't run into its foil deck(s)
> > before is a fairly classic example of how capricious metagaming luck can
> > be in tournaments.
>
>
> Nickolaj wrote:
> "***He pacified my deck totally in the two first rounds***, and in the
> final chose to sit as my pred. He didnt know that his predator was playing
> an all out anti brujah bleed deck with Blood Brother Ambush. He had
> his first two garous DI'd in the same turn (me as his prey, and his
> predator played one too) and only managed to get one in. After that I
> had two princes and second traditions enough and he never got another
> one in play. "
>
> So, in two previous rounds, the Garou deck _had_ seen Nickolaj's 13
> Second Trads, and dealt with them handily. Nickolaj was schooled by
> the Garou, even with his Second Trads, which is why the Garou player
> chose the seating he did... It was the combination of the DIs from
> predator and prey in a single round, not the presence of Second Trads,
> that was key to the Garou deck's demise.
That's right it was the combination of both - not just the D.I.s. This
does not make it an overpowered card; just the right draw at the right
moment.
> Prior performance in two
> preliminary rounds indicates that Second Trads were not a particular
> problem for the deck.
Prior performance has nothing to do with the issue. As I pointed out
to David, other kinds of intercept decks wouldn't have required the
presence of a D.I. - they would have just shut that deck down pretty
much all the time they sat next to it. (For that matter, the Mike
Curtois weenie auspex thing deliberately contains a lot a Eagle's
Sights just to be able to control things like Garous he would likely
conclude need to never hit the table.) The point that it just happened
to be a deck which required help from an early D.I. to win the war makes
for a poor example of D.I.'s power. Other fortuitous early cards, like an
Info Highway or a Zillah's Valley might have changed the same equation.
Or even a Far Mastery or other ally killer or stealer (assuming he'd had
a minion to play one or a third party had gotten involved) could likewise
have changed that equation.
Assuming it's fair to characterize the metagame matchup as being about
one deck getting a Garou on the table which would often happen before
its neighbor got its intercept functioning and normally being able to
do so, then it's just a question of a fortunate toolbox card (or two
cards, in this case) popping up at the right time. That happens all the
time in this game. D.I.s are admittedly an extremely flexible toolbox
card in that sense, but as long as they're balanced overall it's a moot
point.
One of the problems I find with the argument against D.I. is that those
who complain about it never quite lodge a coherent complaint. They're
mad because it can be a critical factor in a lot of different varied
situations but don't want to see that this by itself doesn't make D.I.
an overpowered card. If it were, packing lots of them would always be
an easier path to victory. Yet year after year, many areas and many
players don't have a problem with it. That's why I think the problem
isn't really power. The problem is that some people just get very
irritated by the use of cancel cards to make a critical play. (Or a
critical counter-play to a critical play - which is the same thing.)
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:54b6be71-ca2b-4af4...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> I think it is funny that you say you don't play the card and you
> arguing to keep it.
That's not a funny thing. That's a demonstration that I really believe
it's not an overpowered card. As Robert Goudie likes to point out, it's
not up to people who think a card is balanced to prove that it's balanced.
It's up to people who think a card is broken to prove that it's broken.
Is that not one of the prime reason Dennis plays with his Una deck? He's
trying to prove Una is broken. He isn't bitching and moaning about it
all over Usenet.
Say I'm right or I'm wrong but give me this: I do believe my own bullshit,
at least.
Fred
rptre...@aol.com
> That's right it was the combination of both - not just the D.I.s. This
> does not make it an overpowered card; just the right draw at the right
> moment.
To add weight to this part of the argument that I believe to be true :
The winning deck, played by Nikolaj Wendt:
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (12 cards)
3 Minion Tap
3 Blood Doll
1 Giant`s Blood
2 Information Highway
1 Direct Intervention
2 Dreams of the Sphinx
1 DI, that's all. No idea how many were in the other deck.
Frederick Scott
news:ef04ff8d-1c5d-4728...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Players everywhere want to win, don't you think? So if really good
successful players in a large part of the world are ignoring some sort
of tech, that's a good indication that it isn't broken tech. It a thing
is truly broken, it should begin to take on a "universal" nature and you
should eventually start to see it everywhere. If you don't, that's an
indication you're looking at differences in popular styles of play from
one area to another.
I admit this line of reasoning is sometimes suspect. Clearly, it sometimes
takes time for broken tech to migrate from one area of the world to others.
I believe that was fair to say about Succubus Club. And, in theory, it
might be true of D.I. too. But this exact argument - complete with the
divergence between European and North American players - has been going on
for a VERY long time and I haven't seen anything that looks like a change
in tech over all these years.
> I don't recall Madness of the Bard being overused before it was banned
> either, but I'm sure glad it's not allowed on tournaments...
Sure - but irrelevant. Madness of the Bard was banned for completely
difference reasons than anyone is talking about banning Direct Intervention.
Fred
sg3kmb6...@gmail.com
> Players everywhere want to win, don't you think? So if really good
> successful players in a large part of the world are ignoring some sort
> of tech, that's a good indication that it isn't broken tech. It a thing
> is truly broken, it should begin to take on a "universal" nature and you
> should eventually start to see it everywhere. If you don't, that's an
> indication you're looking at differences in popular styles of play from
> one area to another.
I can't answer for most other players, but I'd reckon most play to
win. What I do know is that the good players I have around me more or
less always include at least 1 Direct Intervention in tournament decks
and usually tries to squeeze some Anthelios twist tech in as well.
That's speaking generally of course, it's not really doable in every
deck and some decks makes more use of DI than others.
Then again, if it was up to me I'd perhaps (not sure tbh) change DI to
once per player/game and think that was more than ok. The big issue I
see is really the Anthelios tech (and I'd say a spinning Pentex
Subversion is much worse than a DI) but that's a different discussion.
Atom Weaver
Actually, Nickolaj's results in the two prelims without DI vs. finals
with DI (and an assisting DI from another player) is afair argument
for why N-'s deck would do well to have 4-5 DI, instead of just one.
Look at the impact a lucky draw of it early had on his ability to deal
with a predator that otherwise schooled him in the prelims ...
*shrug* This gets me back to what I was saying; a limit of one DI
'victimization' per turn. The effect of a single DI per turn is
something any reasonable deck should be able to overcome (the Garou
deck could have limped along OK with one puppy instead of two). Two-
plus DI per turn is where the effect gets amplified to
unhealthiness...
AW
Atom Weaver
> One of the problems I find with the argument against D.I. is that those
> who complain about it never quite lodge a coherent complaint. They're
> mad because it can be a critical factor in a lot of different varied
> situations but don't want to see that this by itself doesn't make D.I.
> an overpowered card. If it were, packing lots of them would always be
> an easier path to victory. Yet year after year, many areas and many
> players don't have a problem with it. That's why I think the problem
> isn't really power. The problem is that some people just get very
> irritated by the use of cancel cards to make a critical play. (Or a
> critical counter-play to a critical play - which is the same thing.)
>
Meh. I've played in Dave C's DI-heavy meta game. It sucks, big time,
worse so if you didn't bring your own 'battery' of DI. Once you get
there, its like nuclear proliferation, there is no way back out, only
detente. And I'd agree that a solo "kill" of a critical card is
something that a player ought to be able to overcome through deck
construction. If your problem with arguments against DI is the above,
I'd suggest that my problem with _your_ perspective is that you seem
to only consider the cost of the card in isolation, and not within the
context of the environment where it is actually being criticized
(multiple players with multiple DIs)...
AW
Frederick Scott
On Sep 15, 5:54 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > One of the problems I find with the argument against D.I. is that those
> > who complain about it never quite lodge a coherent complaint. They're
> > mad because it can be a critical factor in a lot of different varied
> > situations but don't want to see that this by itself doesn't make D.I.
> > an overpowered card. If it were, packing lots of them would always be
> > an easier path to victory. Yet year after year, many areas and many
> > players don't have a problem with it. That's why I think the problem
> > isn't really power. The problem is that some people just get very
> > irritated by the use of cancel cards to make a critical play. (Or a
> > critical counter-play to a critical play - which is the same thing.)
>
> Meh. I've played in Dave C's DI-heavy meta game. It sucks, big time,
> worse so if you didn't bring your own 'battery' of DI.
If that's the situation, why don't you?!? Why are you _not_ playing
with DI-heavy decks where you live so you can clean up on the inherent
power of DIs??? Then, your DI-heavy decks at least wouldn't be at a
disadvange in DI-heavy areas, too. Wherever you play, DIheavy or not,
you'd be better off and that's good, right?
It's been observed by various people about combat-heavy games that you're
at a disadvantage without your own combat. But in non-combat-heavy
games, you're at a disadvantage if you _do_ have lots of combat (because
you might destroy your predator and/or prey but you don't have enough
destruction in your own deck to stop the whole table so you'll get bled
out, or whatever). I've never done a study but it sounds reasonable
enough on the surface. Anyway, I'm wondering if there might be some
element of this with D.I. If most people use their MPAs for their own
positive benefit, on the whole they might be more immune to DIs. If
they use lots of master slots for DIs, then they have to rely on mainly
minion cards for ousting power and defense, apart from what they spend
their DIs on. So maybe the explaination is that DIs are important in a
DI-heavy area but a drawback where most people don't bother?
It's a hack theory but it might explain somewhat why people have such
differing views in different parts of the world.
> If your problem with arguments against DI is the above,
> I'd suggest that my problem with _your_ perspective is that you seem
> to only consider the cost of the card in isolation, and not within the
> context of the environment where it is actually being criticized
> (multiple players with multiple DIs)...
If a card is truly broken, the environment shouldn't matter, I think.
It should be broken everywhere.
I might bend on that if the problem if a single card is balanced overall
but precluding lots of bushy lines of deck archetypes which would be fun
to play if you just got rid of that one card. Do you think that applies
in this context?
Fred
mat...@gmail.com
My problems w/ DI
1 I don't own enough of them (it is now out of print)
2 It is incredibly flexible/potential powerful (see Darby Keeneys'
post)
3 its power is directly related to the players understanding of the
game
i.e. table dynamics what each deck is likely capable of, how they
will interact, and the outcome.
Players ask to look at an ash heap to ascertain a decks potential
(ratio and likely cards to go with what is there)
New players are at a distinct disadvantage if the above points are
true. Even if they are able to get their hands on DI, its' usefulness
to them is reduced.
I would gladly have a 6 card hand if I could cancel one minion card a
round for a pool.
mat...@gmail.com
put to the question. any DI's?
Since that is not plausible there will arise the problem that someone
will not have the opportunity too play it or will get to much
information (action mods votes etc..) and claim that they didn't.
though this is not as big of a problem w/ actions if the proper
sequince is followed. whatever that is. I think play> declare>
replace> tap. Hell I can't even remember at what time in this sequence
DIs' window closes. I think after declare but before replace. Am I the
only one who can't remember?
Frederick Scott
news:ad8ce14e-20ef-4ca7...@c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> My problems w/ DI
>
> 1 I don't own enough of them (it is now out of print)
Most of the comments you made are fair enough except agreeing with
Darby's too-powerful/flexible argument, which has been beaten near
to death by now. But your parenthetical comment in #1 is wrong.
Direct Intervention is an uncommon in Third Edition - which is
supposed to be the "base set" now.
Even if that were not true, it would be easy enough to correct. Just
reprint the hell out of them in precons. Make it a staple. Let
everyone be as corrupt as they want.
(We will now pause to listen to David Cherryholmes scream. :-) )
Fred
mat...@gmail.com
> <matt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You mean in Brujah! starter? It is a good starter. I didn't know they
were going to keep printing it.
Shade
> It's been observed by various people about combat-heavy games that you're
> at a disadvantage without your own combat. But in non-combat-heavy
> games, you're at a disadvantage if you _do_ have lots of combat (because
> you might destroy your predator and/or prey but you don't have enough
> destruction in your own deck to stop the whole table so you'll get bled
> out, or whatever). I've never done a study but it sounds reasonable
> enough on the surface. Anyway, I'm wondering if there might be some
> element of this with D.I. If most people use their MPAs for their own
> positive benefit, on the whole they might be more immune to DIs. If
> they use lots of master slots for DIs, then they have to rely on mainly
> minion cards for ousting power and defense, apart from what they spend
> their DIs on. So maybe the explaination is that DIs are important in a
> DI-heavy area but a drawback where most people don't bother?
There is definitely an element of this here.
Every deck should be able to handle the occasional cancelling of a
card as that's just as if a player had whatever card would normally
counter it in hand. It's when everyone is packing a couple of DIs on
the table where you can have three and four played on you in a single
game that gets frustrating.
Playing in the EC a couple of years ago there was DI everywhere and
some games were pretty slow and a painful as a result. I think the
Great Beast was DI'd a couple of times in each game which was a little
annoying, by the third game I realised I had to wait until I had two
in hand before trying.
Contrast that with the Australian Championships last year and I think
there was one played on me in two days which is obviously a lot easier
to take. So fefinitely some similarities with being the only one not
on the table playing combat or vice versa.
I hate the card personally but I usually pop a couple in a blind
tournament deck on the basis that everyone else will have them so may
as well be prepared.
Simon
Kushiel
> Obviously if you put your conditions on it like that, it goes toward
> your side of the argument. I don't see the restrictions as trivial as
> you do I guess, that and I don't think it's as 'broken' as people are
> saying... all feels very much like the sky is falling type of hype to
> me. As usual.
I don't actually have much of anything invested in this argument. I'd
like to see DI restricted to once per game to get it in line with the
power level of other cards, but I don't think it ruins V:TES as it
currently stands. Mainly I was just explaining to you Mr. Clooney's
reasoning for why DI could be argued to be the most powerful card in
the game - as a single-card play, it's the answer to any single other
minion card in the game. Nothing else can even come close to that in
terms of versatility.
> I could counter-argue with something like - Look at Sudden Reversal
> and to a lesser extent Wash and Bleeding the Vine, what other card
> allows you to stop the play of any master card in the game (ie. in a
> lot of cases the most powerful cards in the game) with as few
> restictions, but I won't.
For me, the difference is that every minion card in the game has
multiple direct answers in the form of other minion cards, so even if
DI had never been printed, no play of a minion card would ever be a
guaranteed success. Conversely, many master cards have NO other direct
answer than Sudden/Wash, and without those, there could be guaranteed
plays of master cards. I like that unpredictability, and think it
strengthens the game.
John Eno
James Coupe
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>Players everywhere want to win, don't you think? So if really good
>successful players in a large part of the world are ignoring some sort
>of tech, that's a good indication that it isn't broken tech. It a thing
>is truly broken, it should begin to take on a "universal" nature and you
>should eventually start to see it everywhere. If you don't, that's an
>indication you're looking at differences in popular styles of play from
>one area to another.
Everywhere, no.
Each metagame is different. Direct Intervention hits some deck styles
hard, but others less so. For example, if a successful player plays a
master-heavy deck, other players playing Direct Intervention won't
affect it much. e.g. if the key tech in a given deck is Toreador Grand
Ball, Direct Intervention won't help. There are a variety of decks
where non-minion cards play a very strong enabling role, with minion
cards being the icing on the cake.
Additionally, even very good players will disagree about the merits of
particular cards.
If you're looking for a particular strategy to turn up everywhere before
looking at it as a potential problem, you'll never get it. Look through
the cards that have been errata-ed or banned over the years because they
were causing significant issues, and there are pretty much none of them
that have had problems appearing everywhere. Where problems have
occurred, however, they've been looked at and addressed if LSJ and the
Design Team (or whoever else) thinks it appropriate.
This isn't an argument in favour of altering DI, nor an argument against
it. But looking for universal appearance of a problem before you can
address it means that the game would have taken a very different path -
look at the 7/7 rulings, and see how many people shouted "These cards
aren't a problem." Rightly or wrongly, the cards weren't appearing
everywhere and being a problem everywhere.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
rptre...@aol.com
again and stopping certain critical plays?
If so (and I think I am reading the thread right there, aside from
maybe Kevin who started off the whole 'BAN DI !!!!111one' thing) then
the discussion focusses around Anthelios and the few decks that use
that or multiple uses from around the table to bugger up one player.
My take on the above (and the reason I am in favour of keeping DI as
is), is that Anthelios is a particular strategy that as others have
said, takes quite a few cards, often 2 master phases and 1 or 2 pool a
turn; no small cost. I realise this may shift the debate to Anthelios
but I'm not advocating that, just pointing out the synergy and trying
to clarify the 'problem'.
The issue of multiple plays from around the table as in Dave and
others examples is frustrating and annoying but surely that's a
metagame pattern to be played around or a table management issue? I
think, as I said, that if you are playing a deck that drums up so much
table hate that all of the other players are scuppering you with
multiple DI's, then you probably asked for it. I also think that in
many instances that or even watered down versions of it could and
should be called into question under correctly managed play to win
rules, especially in finals.
I very much like the argument that if it is so all encompassing and
powerful, why then don't we see it in high ranking players/tourney
winning decks more?
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes:
>Diversity is one of the counters to DI.
>
>DI my Lost in Crowds? OK. I can't play another, but fortunately, my
>deck has diversity in my choices, so I'll play this Spying Mission.
>
>DI my Daring the Dawn? OK. Here's a Dawn Operation.
>
>Or I guess you could be using "diversity" to mean "dependence on many
>things at once" instead of the normal meaning. If so, then, yeah,
>contrived long strict-ordering chains are more affected by DI than
>simple short order-insensitve chains, sure.
Although your point is well-made, it's not *just* about long-chain
combos / setup needing the right order.
In a toolboxy deck, you might (for example) hold a bleed modifier in
hand for a couple of turns, to play it at the right point. That point
comes, and you slap it down. It gets DI-ed.
As in your example, a diverse, relatively focused deck stands a fair
chance of having another bleed modifier to hand soon (maybe even
already), and quite possibly a different one - so your Foreshadowing
Destruction gets DI-ed but, no problem, here's a Threats.
In the toolboxy deck, I probably don't have that option coming along
reliably, and so it's harder to plan your turn knowing that your key
card might get DI-ed.
I'm not sure I'd want to classify all toolbox decks as being contrived
long strict-ordering chains. (Nor would I really want to classify
toolbox decks as being bad, or a poor choice to play.) I don't know if
there's a good way of enlarging the description to include toolboxes
appropriately in the simple short-chain vs contrived long-chain
situation.
James Coupe
s.com>, Atom Weaver <atomw...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>Maybe correction text that should be considered is "a methuselah may
>only be the target of DI once during their turn."
I'm not convinced either way about the merits of changing DI, but I like
this fix if one is needed.
Anthony Coleman
> On Sep 15, 1:16 pm, rptreas...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > No idea how you class it as the most powerful card in the game either.
> > Bizarre.
>
> What other single card is there that can prevent the play of any
> minion card (ie, the majority of cards in the game) with as few
> restrictions as DI?
>
> John Eno
Ignoring the fact that minion cards are generally not as strong as
masters and wash/sudden exist I think this highlighs something for me.
I do not consider stopping other people playing minion cards with a
catch all cancel effect to be as strong as advancing my own strategy -
and imo there are cards which have a MUCH bigger effect on your game
and your relative strength on the table than cancelling a minion card
played by one dude. You should be able to hopefully interact with
other decks and win the game using a strong deck build & better play
and for me a strong deck build rarely includes many if any DI and
decks with have them are WORSE than decks which dont which is all good
as far as im concerned.
What has a bigger swing in a game? a DI or a well played well timed
Temptation of Greater Power? I'd go with the latter personally... I do
rate the flexibility of cards but you cant get around the huge power
swing of certain cards, advancing your own ends to a high degree.
I know its flexible but that doesnt equate to its effect being strong
enough to think of it as the most powerfull card in the game let alone
choose it over other master options
Ant
niko...@hotmail.com
In the two initial rounds where I met him he was seated as my cross
table ally. In both of the cases, once he ended up sitting next to me
he had 3 Garous on the table already, rendering the 2nds useless.
> Fred- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
bluedevil
> 8.... 8 in a deck is a lot! Yuk, that becomes a mini arms race then. I
> can see why you might have been a little peed off with it :o)
It was a Kindred Spirits deck. That covers a lot of bases and frees
up Master slots for doing something silly, like playing with 8 DIs.
And by "silly" I mean badass.
--
David Cherryholmes
Atom Weaver
> "Atom Weaver" <atomwea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:7c56518f-d3be-4b71...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 15, 5:54 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>
> > > One of the problems I find with the argument against D.I. is that those
> > > who complain about it never quite lodge a coherent complaint. They're
> > > mad because it can be a critical factor in a lot of different varied
> > > situations but don't want to see that this by itself doesn't make D.I.
> > > an overpowered card. If it were, packing lots of them would always be
> > > an easier path to victory. Yet year after year, many areas and many
> > > players don't have a problem with it. That's why I think the problem
> > > isn't really power. The problem is that some people just get very
> > > irritated by the use of cancel cards to make a critical play. (Or a
> > > critical counter-play to a critical play - which is the same thing.)
>
> > Meh. I've played in Dave C's DI-heavy meta game. It sucks, big time,
> > worse so if you didn't bring your own 'battery' of DI.
>
> If that's the situation, why don't you?!?
Because quite simply, Fred, the version of VTES that has everyone
playing 3-5 DI per deck is not a game that is interesting or enjoyable
to play.
> Why are you _not_ playing
> with DI-heavy decks where you live so you can clean up on the inherent
> power of DIs???
Fred, I think you're arguing against someone else's problem with DI,
here, not mine (could be my poor explaining). I don't have a problem
with the power level of a one-off DI. Its when you have multiple
players using it to single out and shut down an opponent that it
becomes problematic... also with multiple players packing 3-5, you get
the added effect of the "ad nauseam negotiation phase", which once
fallen into warps the game into un-funness, which is usually only
escape-able with an out-of-game agreement between players.
> Then, your DI-heavy decks at least wouldn't be at a
> disadvantage in DI-heavy areas, too. Wherever you play, DI heavy or not,
> you'd be better off and that's good, right?
>
Sure, except for that whole "VTES has now ceased to be an enjoyable
past time, and I helped make it that way" thing. Seriously, give it a
try. Set up your local game, and proxy 5 DIs to each seated player's
deck, leverage them as much as you can, and see what happens to your
favorite game...
> It's been observed by various people about combat-heavy games that you're
> at a disadvantage without your own combat. But in non-combat-heavy
> games, you're at a disadvantage if you _do_ have lots of combat (because
> you might destroy your predator and/or prey but you don't have enough
> destruction in your own deck to stop the whole table so you'll get bled
> out, or whatever). I've never done a study but it sounds reasonable
> enough on the surface. Anyway, I'm wondering if there might be some
> element of this with D.I.
Yeah. That's the 'arms race' people keep mentioning... This point
is a good one, I don't know if anyone ever tried to "Master Phase"
their way out of a DI-intensive metagame. That might actually work.
Dave C? Anyone by you ever try it?
> If most people use their MPAs for their own
> positive benefit, on the whole they might be more immune to DIs. If
> they use lots of master slots for DIs, then they have to rely on mainly
> minion cards for ousting power and defense, apart from what they spend
> their DIs on. So maybe the explaination is that DIs are important in a
> DI-heavy area but a drawback where most people don't bother?
>
> It's a hack theory but it might explain somewhat why people have such
> differing views in different parts of the world.
>
> > If your problem with arguments against DI is the above,
> > I'd suggest that my problem with _your_ perspective is that you seem
> > to only consider the cost of the card in isolation, and not within the
> > context of the environment where it is actually being criticized
> > (multiple players with multiple DIs)...
>
> If a card is truly broken, the environment shouldn't matter, I think.
> It should be broken everywhere.
>
I never had any sort of problem with Succubus Club in years of playing
all up and down the East Coast of the US, and yet I still supported
the ban, based on what was going on in Europe at the time... *Shrug*
There are easily arrived-at circumstances where an abundance of DI's
shift the game into something "other than VTES". I won't call it
"broken", because I don't think that the power of the thing isn't the
real root problem... Like Succubus Club (but not as bad), multiple
DI's amplify the ability of two players to shut down a third's game
entirely, if that player's strategy relies at all upon minion cards
(most do). That's why I don't advocate a ban. Text like "a player
may be targeted once during that player's turn" would fix things just
fine IMO.
AW