Rapid Thought Revised
Kevin M.
Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion.
Would anyone want to play such a format, if it were able to be rated?
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/
Peter D Bakija
> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt
> Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion.
>
> a. 3-player tables *only*, minimum 9 players
> b. 45 minutes per round
Both totally reasonable.
>Special rules
> a. LIBRARY = 40-90 cards
Why 40 card minimum? Like, sure, it might be handy in such a format,
but I can't see a real compelling reason to change the 60 card minimum
rule.
> b. CRYPT = 6 cards minimum
Same here. Why a 6 card minimum crypt? It makes sense in draft, but
why is it necessary here? Like, I can see changes that help make the
game shorter (i.e. removal of pool gain, for example), but allowing
your decks to be smaller doesn't strike me as something that helps
game go faster. It strikes me that the 40/6 card minimum doesn't
really help things go faster but opens up the window for unforeseen
abuse.
>c. BANNED CARDS
> Vampire: Una
> Minion: Blood Doll
> Consanguineous Boon
> Gran Madre di Dio, Italy
> Kindred Spirits
> Minion Tap
> Reckless Agitation
> Shared Nightmare
> Taunt the Caged Beast
> Tribute to the Master
> Vessel
> Villein
Pool gain removal: Check. Perfect sense to me. But if you are going to
kill Kindred Spirits and all those other pool gain cards, why not also
kill Govern, et al?
Reckless Agitation: Wha? It is a card that makes games go fast. Makes
sense to let it exist.
Taunt the Caged Beast: Just 'cause it is a 3 player game? Strikes me
as kind of unnecessary. You can't compel your opponents to actually
fight, even if you put them in combat.
Una: Fair enough.
How about: The Imbued?
>Would anyone want to play such a format, if it were able to be rated?
Oh, absolutely. I'm unconcerned with it being rated. But If there was
a tournament at, say Origins like this? I'd be all over it.
-Peter
Ira Fay
> On Apr 13, 7:48 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>
> >http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt
> > Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion.
>
> >Tournament Setup
> > a. 3-player tables *only*, minimum 9 players
Makes sense, but unfortunate if you have a non-multiple-of-3 number of
players. Is there a workaround?
> >Special rules
> > a. LIBRARY = 40-90 cards
>
> Why 40 card minimum? Like, sure, it might be handy in such a format,
> but I can't see a real compelling reason to change the 60 card minimum
> rule.
Since the time limit is shorter, players will get through less of
their decks. Smaller decks are also more consistent, and might go
faster. The original rules had a 70 card max size, perhaps to give
Brinksmanship a chance to work? Perhaps LSJ can comment on his
reasoning behind the original 40-70 card limit. I'd just leave it at
40-70, unless there's a reason to change it.
> > b. CRYPT = 6 cards minimum
I'd leave it at 12, as the original design was fine.
> >c. BANNED CARDS
> > Vampire: Una
Yes.
> > Minion: Blood Doll
> > Consanguineous Boon
> > Gran Madre di Dio, Italy
> > Kindred Spirits
> > Minion Tap
> > Reckless Agitation
> > Shared Nightmare
> > Taunt the Caged Beast
> > Tribute to the Master
> > Vessel
> > Villein
The non-master cards are weird. How did you pick those, Kevin?
Shared Nightmare is especially strange to me. I would keep this list
as short as possible for design elegance and logistical convenience.
These 5 seem sufficient: Blood Doll, Minion Tap, Tribute, Vessel,
Villein.
If you're going to ban Con Boon, perhaps Exclusion Principle as well?
Any action like Gran Madre, Con Boon, Kindred Spirits, etc. can be
blocked, voted down, etc. So I would let those be.
Combat is going to be king, so if someone is bold enough to bring a
Boon deck, I wish them luck. :)
> How about: The Imbued?
They are pretty squishy. I suspect they're OK to stay, but they do
slow down the game.
Ira
Peter D Bakija
> Since the time limit is shorter, players will get through less of
> their decks. Smaller decks are also more consistent, and might go
> faster. The original rules had a 70 card max size, perhaps to give
> Brinksmanship a chance to work? Perhaps LSJ can comment on his
> reasoning behind the original 40-70 card limit. I'd just leave it at
> 40-70, unless there's a reason to change it.
Oh, yeah, huh. The LSJ rules have a 40-70 deck. I'd rather just see
the deck sizes left the same, 'cause I'm not convinced there is a good
reason to change them.
> They are pretty squishy. I suspect they're OK to stay, but they do
> slow down the game.
Yeah, my comment on the Imbued was specifically 'cause they tend to be
pretty slow; if Una is out for onanism, I'd think the Imbued would be
as well.
-Peter
Morgan Vening
<you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt
>Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion.
>
>Would anyone want to play such a format, if it were able to be rated?
It looks like an interesting option. Just a couple of queries for
someone like me who doesn't play in a heavily competitive metagame.
The reason for the single Crypt (Una) restriction is fairly obvious.
I'm curious why the addition of the other Minion cards to the list?
The one that spring to mind so quickly is Taunt the Caged Beast (and
not Blissful Agony), but some of the others I'd like to know why. Is
it just because it affects 'all opponents' rather than 'half of the
opponents' in a 5 player game? Is there a power issue I'm not familiar
with?
Also, is it played as normal otherwise? So still 4 Crypt Draws, 7 card
hands, etc? How do starting Transfers work?
Morgan Vening
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt
>> Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion.
>>c. BANNED CARDS
>> Vampire: Una
>> Minion: Blood Doll
>> Consanguineous Boon
>> Gran Madre di Dio, Italy
>> Kindred Spirits
>> Minion Tap
>> Reckless Agitation
>> Shared Nightmare
>> Taunt the Caged Beast
>> Tribute to the Master
>> Vessel
>> Villein
>
> Pool gain removal: Check. Perfect sense to me. But if you are going
> to kill Kindred Spirits and all those other pool gain cards, why not
> also kill Govern, et al?
Peter, I can't believe you'd compare KS to any other card! :)
Kindred Spirits is unlike all other actions in that :
- you potentially gain pool at INFERIOR
- it can be directed backwards, which has been shown to be abusive
>> Would anyone want to play such a format, if it were able to be rated?
>
> Oh, absolutely. I'm unconcerned with it being rated.
I'm concerned with it being rated, since being rated legitimizes the format,
and if it isn't rated then some players will whine, bitch, moan, and
complain.
All other answers in my reply to Ira.
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt
>> Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion.
>>
>> Would anyone want to play such a format, if it were able to be rated?
>
> It looks like an interesting option. Just a couple of queries for
> someone like me who doesn't play in a heavily competitive metagame.
>
> The reason for the single Crypt (Una) restriction is fairly obvious.
> I'm curious why the addition of the other Minion cards to the list?
>
> The one that spring to mind so quickly is Taunt the Caged Beast
> (and not Blissful Agony), but some of the others I'd like to know why.
Blood Doll, Consanguineous Boon, Minion Tap, Tribute to the Master,
Vessel and Villein are for pool gain reasons, yes.
I considered putting Blissful Agony on the list, but you must have a
big fattie vampire and spend lots and lots of blood to (in theory) abuse
it, but by doing that *even once* you severely deplete your resources
for just *one* turn of gain. Much like other powerful cards that already
exist in the game which have similar power levels, I'm willing to leave it
in.
Given all the small PRE vamps, vote push, and Reckless Agitation's
ability to still do 5/1 damage (not KRC's 3/1 or ConAg's 2/1),
I thought it appropriate to get rid of it in the spirit of fairness and fun.
Kindred Spirits has already demonstrated itself in this environment
to be abusive and inappropriate.
> Is it just because it affects 'all opponents' rather than
> 'half of the opponents' in a 5 player game?
Gran Madre di Dio, Italy, Shared Nightmare and Taunt the Caged Beast
are due to this issue, yes. Other cards affect the game like this, but
these
three are *particularly* powerful in this environment.
> Also, is it played as normal otherwise? So still 4 Crypt Draws,
> 7 card hands, etc? How do starting Transfers work?
"All other V:EKN rules are in effect."
Kevin M.
> Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt
>>> Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion.
>>
>>> Tournament Setup
>>> a. 3-player tables *only*, minimum 9 players
>
> Makes sense, but unfortunate if you have a non-multiple-of-3
> number of players. Is there a workaround?
Well, no, I don't see one. Perhaps that alone makes it unworthy? :(
>>> Special rules
>>> a. LIBRARY = 40-90 cards
>>
>> Why 40 card minimum? Like, sure, it might be handy in such
>> a format, but I can't see a real compelling reason to change
>> the 60 card minimum rule.
>
> Since the time limit is shorter, players will get through less of
> their decks. Smaller decks are also more consistent, and might go
> faster. The original rules had a 70 card max size, perhaps to give
> Brinksmanship a chance to work? Perhaps LSJ can comment on
> his reasoning behind the original 40-70 card limit. I'd just leave it
> at 40-70, unless there's a reason to change it.
The reason to have the maximum at 90 is so that players can bring
their current decks to the format with a bare minimum of tweaking.
Enabling easy player participation in the format seems to be an
*excellent* reason to have it at 90.
>>> b. CRYPT = 6 cards minimum
>
> I'd leave it at 12, as the original design was fine.
Huh. You may be right. I might have mis-thought that.
>>> c. BANNED CARDS
>>> Vampire: Una
>
> Yes.
>
>>> Minion: Blood Doll
>>> Consanguineous Boon
>>> Gran Madre di Dio, Italy
>>> Kindred Spirits
>>> Minion Tap
>>> Reckless Agitation
>>> Shared Nightmare
>>> Taunt the Caged Beast
>>> Tribute to the Master
>>> Vessel
>>> Villein
>
> The non-master cards are weird. How did you pick those, Kevin?
> Shared Nightmare is especially strange to me. I would keep this list
> as short as possible for design elegance and logistical convenience.
> These 5 seem sufficient: Blood Doll, Minion Tap, Tribute, Vessel,
> Villein.
>
> If you're going to ban Con Boon, perhaps Exclusion Principle as well?
I don't see the abuse inherent in Exclusion Principle as I do in
Con Boon, but you may have a point in them being banned or kept
together in the format.
> Any action like Gran Madre, Con Boon, Kindred Spirits, etc.,
> can be blocked, voted down, etc. So I would let those be.
True, but given all the small PRE vamps, vote push, and Reckless
Agitation's ability to still do 5/1 damage (not KRC's 3/1 or
ConAg's 2/1), I thought it appropriate to get rid of it in the spirit
of fairness and fun.
Kindred Spirits has already demonstrated itself in this environment
to be abusive and inappropriate.
Gran Madre di Dio, Italy, Shared Nightmare and Taunt the Caged Beast
are due to the 'it affects all the opponents, not just half the table'
issue.
Other cards affect the game like this, but these three are *particularly*
powerful in this environment.
> Combat is going to be king, so if someone is bold enough to bring
> a Boon deck, I wish them luck. :)
>
>> How about: The Imbued?
>
> They are pretty squishy. I suspect they're OK to stay,
> but they do slow down the game.
It is possible that the Imbued could break the format.
I'd like to hear from Lasombra, Darby, and the other pro-Imbued players
to see what their opinions are.
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt
>> Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion.
>>c. BANNED CARDS
>> Vampire: Una
>> Minion: Blood Doll
>> Consanguineous Boon
>> Gran Madre di Dio, Italy
>> Kindred Spirits
>> Minion Tap
>> Reckless Agitation
>> Shared Nightmare
>> Taunt the Caged Beast
>> Tribute to the Master
>> Vessel
>> Villein
>
> Pool gain removal: Check. Perfect sense to me. But if you are going
> to kill Kindred Spirits and all those other pool gain cards, why not
> also kill Govern, et al?
Peter, I can't believe you'd compare KS to any other card! :)
Kindred Spirits is unlike all other actions in that :
- you potentially gain pool at INFERIOR
- it can be directed backwards, which has been shown to be abusive
>> Would anyone want to play such a format, if it were able to be rated?
>
> Oh, absolutely. I'm unconcerned with it being rated.
I'm concerned with it being rated, since being rated legitimizes the format,
and if it isn't rated then some players will whine, bitch, moan, and
complain.
All other answers in my reply to Ira.
Obtenebration
>>Agitation's ability to still do 5/1 damage (not KRC's 3/1 or
>>ConAg's 2/1),
Reckless gets you 1 VP, KRC gets you a game win.
Why ban all the pool gain? And why not get rid of Autarkis
Persecution, Ancient Influence, and Political Stranglehold that will
cause 45 minute games to time out?
Kevin M.
> KevinM wrote:
>> True, but given all the small PRE vamps, vote push,
>> and Reckless Agitation's ability to still do 5/1 damage
>> (not KRC's 3/1 or ConAg's 2/1),
>
> Reckless gets you 1 VP, KRC gets you a game win.
Yes, but it gets you the GW v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y,
(and by 'slowly' I mean fucking slow), whereas I see
RA totally overwhelming your prey.
> Why ban all the pool gain? And why not get rid of Autarkis
> Persecution, Ancient Influence, and Political Stranglehold that
> will cause 45 minute games to time out?
The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time out.
AI and PS, et.al., are one-shot cards which don't have the massive
impact of the other pool gain cards which are not limited.
I really didn't want to make a restricted list.
AP I had thought of, but since it gains everyone pool, I don't
consider it much of an issue. I figure it's not a very good card in
the first place and if something thinks it is good in this environment,
feel free to use it.
LSJ
>> Special rules
>> a. LIBRARY = 40-90 cards
>
> Why 40 card minimum? Like, sure, it might be handy in such a format,
> but I can't see a real compelling reason to change the 60 card minimum
> rule.
Actually, it's a case of not having a compelling reason to change the 40 card
minimum rule. At least, in the original Rapid Thought version.
The Lasombra
Re: Rapid Thought Revised - 3 player tournament rules
>>> How about: The Imbued?
>> They are pretty squishy. I suspect they're OK to stay,
>> but they do slow down the game.
>It is possible that the Imbued could break the format.
>I'd like to hear from Lasombra, Darby, and the other pro-Imbued players
>to see what their opinions are.
With 100% of the players at the table directly interacting with the
Imbued, I don't think they would be overpowered at all. They would
also have less time to build up, as there are no other players to
pressure on your predator and prey while you build.
I wouldn't mind playing it out once, but it would have to be a Flash
Grenade variant of the Imbued for sure.
Carpe noctem.
The Lasombra
Your best source of V:TES information.
Now also selling boxes and individual cards.
Peter D Bakija
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Peter, I can't believe you'd compare KS to any other card! :)
Well, ya know, I was figuring that if KS was getting whacked for the
pool gain aspect, then, say, Social Charm (which does the same thing,
but yeah, ok, at superior) and Govern ("strike: gain 3 pool") and
whatever would get whacked too. Which would be a big pain. But if the
main objection to the KS is that it can go backwards, ok, that makes
some sense.
> I'm concerned with it being rated, since being rated legitimizes the format,
> and if it isn't rated then some players will whine, bitch, moan, and
> complain.
Oh, sure. I wasn't saying that you *shouldn't* try and get it sanctioned
if you want. I was just pointing out that, me, personally, wouldn't care
one way or the other.
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
Peter D Bakija
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Actually, it's a case of not having a compelling reason to change the 40 card
> minimum rule. At least, in the original Rapid Thought version.
But then you still apparently had a compelling reason to change the "40
cards +10 per player" rule. Why not just leave the tournament deck sizes
the same across the tournaments? There is a good reason to not have a 40
card deck minimum (minimize the ability to make recursive or
preposterously consistent decks). I'm unclear why this doesn't hold for
a fast tournament.
Peter D Bakija
The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> With 100% of the players at the table directly interacting with the
> Imbued, I don't think they would be overpowered at all. They would
> also have less time to build up, as there are no other players to
> pressure on your predator and prey while you build.
My hypothetical objection to the Imbued was not that they would be
overpowered, but that they would be slow. Which even with the most
seasoned Imbued player, playing an Imbued deck takes more time than
usual, if for no other reason that you spend so much time fishing
through your deck, shuffling, fishing through your deck, shuffling,
fishing through your ash heap, moving cards around the table, and having
to answer questions like "So what is that 5th card under those other 3
cards on that guy over there?". Which isn't veiled negative criticism of
the Imbued, but a realistic concern that they would have a significant
impact on the ability to finish a game in 45 minutes. Just like Una.
Peter D Bakija
> Imbued, I don't think they would be overpowered at all. They would
> also have less time to build up, as there are no other players to
> pressure on your predator and prey while you build.
My hypothetical objection to the Imbued was not that they would be
LSJ
> In article <6%ZEl.23919$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Actually, it's a case of not having a compelling reason to change the 40 card
>> minimum rule. At least, in the original Rapid Thought version.
>
> But then you still apparently had a compelling reason to change the "40
> cards +10 per player" rule.
Well, someone felt that they did, perhaps. But that was the DCI, not me.
> Why not just leave the tournament deck sizes
> the same across the tournaments? There is a good reason to not have a 40
> card deck minimum (minimize the ability to make recursive or
> preposterously consistent decks). I'm unclear why this doesn't hold for
> a fast tournament.
... or for a "normal" game, then?
Frederick Scott
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-F64360.1...@feeder.motzarella.org...
> In article <6%ZEl.23919$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Actually, it's a case of not having a compelling reason to change the 40 card
>> minimum rule. At least, in the original Rapid Thought version.
>
> But then you still apparently had a compelling reason to change the "40
> cards +10 per player" rule. Why not just leave the tournament deck sizes
> the same across the tournaments? There is a good reason to not have a 40
> card deck minimum (minimize the ability to make recursive or
> preposterously consistent decks). I'm unclear why this doesn't hold for
> a fast tournament.
Just to play Devil's Advocate here, maybe because the three-player game
is different from the 4-5 player game? Allowing 90 cards in a three-player
game removes one of the drawbacks to a card-intensive combat deck (think
heavy use of stuff like Infernal Pursuit). Perhaps it's more reasonable
to think of allowing only 40 cards in such a game to better facilitate
decks relying on card combinations?
I'm not saying I believe any of this but it's worth thinking through.
Given the circumstances that the three-player games have a distinctly
different character to them (shorter; no allies, you can intercept all
of your opponents' undirected actions at all times; probably others I'm
not thinking of), "because it's traditional" is probably a poor basis
for setting the deck size limits.
Fred
Frederick Scott
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-31EA41.1...@feeder.motzarella.org...
> In article <88s8u4trmvc52hm3k...@4ax.com>,
> The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> With 100% of the players at the table directly interacting with the
>> Imbued, I don't think they would be overpowered at all. They would
>> also have less time to build up, as there are no other players to
>> pressure on your predator and prey while you build.
>
> My hypothetical objection to the Imbued was not that they would be
> overpowered, but that they would be slow. Which even with the most
> seasoned Imbued player, playing an Imbued deck takes more time than
> usual, if for no other reason that you spend so much time fishing
> through your deck, shuffling, fishing through your deck, shuffling,
> fishing through your ash heap, moving cards around the table, and having
> to answer questions like "So what is that 5th card under those other 3
> cards on that guy over there?". Which isn't veiled negative criticism of
> the Imbued, but a realistic concern that they would have a significant
> impact on the ability to finish a game in 45 minutes. Just like Una.
Eh? What exactly is the objection to Una?
Seems to me decks being slow in Rapid Thought would have the same self-
correction penalty they have in other tournaments. Sure, you might
screw everybody at the table's shot at a GW - but if your deck has no
ousting ability, you'll ultimately screw your own chances of winning
the tournament most of all - because _you're_ always in the game that
has your deck in it. The other players only have to suffer your deck
for that game. Over time, that matters.
Fred
Frederick Scott
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:UOWEl.16903$FR3....@newsfe04.iad...
> Obtenebration wrote:
>> KevinM wrote:
>>> True, but given all the small PRE vamps, vote push,
>>> and Reckless Agitation's ability to still do 5/1 damage
>>> (not KRC's 3/1 or ConAg's 2/1),
>>
>> Reckless gets you 1 VP, KRC gets you a game win.
>
> Yes, but it gets you the GW v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y,
> (and by 'slowly' I mean fucking slow), whereas I see
> RA totally overwhelming your prey.
>
>> Why ban all the pool gain? And why not get rid of Autarkis
>> Persecution, Ancient Influence, and Political Stranglehold that
>> will cause 45 minute games to time out?
>
> The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time out.
I don't understand this concept at all. Can you manage to ban _every_
kind of effect in the game that slows it down? That strikes me as kind
of a fool's errand.
Again, see my reply to Peter: building decks that time out ultimately
punishes the deck builder more than anyone else in the tournament.
Just as it does in regular tournaments.
Fred
Peter D Bakija
> Well, someone felt that they did, perhaps. But that was the DCI, not me.
Ok. I said "I see no compelling reason to change the 60-90 deck size."
You said "No, actually I saw no compelling reason to change the
actual rules of 40 card minimum." Ok. Then I said (not word for word,
but this was my point) "But you changed the 40+10 cards per player [in
your Rapid Thought rules], so you saw a compelling reason to change
that, but not a compelling reason to change the 40 card minimum." And
you replied, "That was the DCI."
I'm confused.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> I'm not saying I believe any of this but it's worth thinking through.
> Given the circumstances that the three-player games have a distinctly
> different character to them (shorter; no allies, you can intercept all
> of your opponents' undirected actions at all times; probably others I'm
> not thinking of), "because it's traditional" is probably a poor basis
> for setting the deck size limits.
Oh, sure. I'm not saying "because it is traditional" is my basis for
objecting for changes to deck sizes. I was just looking for the reason
as to why someone *would* change the deck sizes, and barring good
reasons to do so, it strikes me as reasonable to leave them alone. But
if there are good reasons for such a change, go for it. I just hadn't
seen any (especially in regards to the 6 card crypt).
-Peter
LSJ
Perhaps, yes, since it seems you think I changed the 40+10 cards per player [in
my Rapid Thought rules] when I did not. And the reason I did not is that I saw
no compelling reason to.
The bit to which I replied "That was the DCI" was the bit that claimed a change
to the "40+10" rules. Since there is no change to that in the Rapid Thought
rules, I was left to infer that you meant the only change that has been made to
that rule: namely, the DCI's change (from 40 to 60 minimum and, for 4p tables,
from 80 to 90 maximum).
Frederick Scott
> On Apr 14, 10:39 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > I'm not saying I believe any of this but it's worth thinking through.
> > Given the circumstances that the three-player games have a distinctly
> > different character to them (shorter; no allies, you can intercept all
> > of your opponents' undirected actions at all times; probably others I'm
> > not thinking of), "because it's traditional" is probably a poor basis
> > for setting the deck size limits.
>
> Oh, sure. I'm not saying "because it is traditional" is my basis for
> objecting for changes to deck sizes. I was just looking for the reason
> as to why someone *would* change the deck sizes, and barring good
> reasons to do so, it strikes me as reasonable to leave them alone.
Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by "because it's traditional". But
that reasoning you just gave is precisely what *I* mean by "because
it's traditional". That is, "We do it this way because this is the way
it's been done in the past." Bad idea. I'm saying that I think people
need to start from ground zero as opposed to requiring justification for
changing from what it was in a different kind of a game, which may not
be the least bit valid for this game.
I mean, if comes down to it, why not assume it should be 52 cards because
that's how many cards there are in a Poker deck? If you can find a reason
for having it change from 52 cards then OK. Otherwise, why not stick with
the 52 cards in a deck of Poker cards? Makes just as much sense to me...
Fred
Frederick Scott
> On Apr 14, 10:39 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > I'm not saying I believe any of this but it's worth thinking through.
> > Given the circumstances that the three-player games have a distinctly
> > different character to them (shorter; no allies, you can intercept all
> > of your opponents' undirected actions at all times; probably others I'm
> > not thinking of), "because it's traditional" is probably a poor basis
> > for setting the deck size limits.
>
> Oh, sure. I'm not saying "because it is traditional" is my basis for
> objecting for changes to deck sizes. I was just looking for the reason
> as to why someone *would* change the deck sizes, and barring good
> reasons to do so, it strikes me as reasonable to leave them alone.
Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by "because it's traditional". But
Peter D Bakija
> Perhaps, yes, since it seems you think I changed the 40+10 cards per player [in
> my Rapid Thought rules] when I did not. And the reason I did not is that I saw
> no compelling reason to.
Ah. So in the Rapid Thought rules you were using, there were 3 player
tables, and as such, players got to use decks that were minimum 40 and
maximum 70 (40+10 per player). Check. No longer confused. Moving on.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
wrote:> Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by "because it's
traditional". But
> that reasoning you just gave is precisely what *I* mean by "because
> it's traditional". That is, "We do it this way because this is the way
> it's been done in the past."
Well, no, it is "we do it that way because it is the already
established rules set."
There might be very compelling reasons to change the established rules
set, in which case, change the established rules set. But no one has
explained any of those yet.
> Bad idea. I'm saying that I think people
> need to start from ground zero as opposed to requiring justification for
> changing from what it was in a different kind of a game, which may not
> be the least bit valid for this game.
It might not be remotely valid in this game. But then articulate that
when proposing the rules. I look at "6 card crypt minimum" and think
"Why is that possibly necessary?" Maybe there is a very good reason.
But it wasn't articulated.
> I mean, if comes down to it, why not assume it should be 52 cards because
> that's how many cards there are in a Poker deck? If you can find a reason
> for having it change from 52 cards then OK. Otherwise, why not stick with
> the 52 cards in a deck of Poker cards? Makes just as much sense to me...
Using rules from poker in VTES is silly, as VTES doesn't use poker
rules. Using rules for tournament VTES in tournament VTES, on the
other hand, is not silly...
In the case of the 6 card crypt, that makes no sense at all to me. In
the case of the 40 card library minimum, there are good reasons to
make decks not that small, even in 3 player games (i.e. to minimize
the effect of recursive decks or degenerate combos). But maybe this is
something that Kevin wasn't worried about. In which case, say "Yeah,
I'm not worried about that", and my question is answered.
-Peter
Frederick Scott
> On Apr 14, 12:19 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com>
> wrote:
> > Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by "because it's traditional". But
> > that reasoning you just gave is precisely what *I* mean by "because
> > it's traditional". That is, "We do it this way because this is the way
> > it's been done in the past."
>
> Well, no, it is "we do it that way because it is the already
> established rules set."
I don't care about the distinction. The point is, if the original rules
were never thought through as to the differences between the standard
game and the new one, I wouldn't want to use them as the default.
> There might be very compelling reasons to change the established rules
> set, in which case, change the established rules set. But no one has
> explained any of those yet.
From this thread, I'd gathered no one has explained why the existing
rules are as they are yet, either. If that's factually wrong, then
I retract the suggestion.
....
> > I mean, if comes down to it, why not assume it should be 52 cards because
> > that's how many cards there are in a Poker deck? If you can find a reason
> > for having it change from 52 cards then OK. Otherwise, why not stick with
> > the 52 cards in a deck of Poker cards? Makes just as much sense to me...
>
> Using rules from poker in VTES is silly, as VTES doesn't use poker
> rules. Using rules for tournament VTES in tournament VTES, on the
> other hand, is not silly...
I would suggest it's less silly. But it's still wrong on some level to
just assume the deck size limitations meet the need of such a game.
Ergo, I disagree that you need to start with these as a baseline and
just assume they work well "unless proven otherwise". Has anyone yet
proved they work well to date?
Fred
Chl...@xs4all.nl
opinion of the majority of the people posting here.
But what about Cardano and Gerald Windham? With an Ankara Citadel they
can do the same trick as Una.
And talking about time consuming. All kinds of turbo decks are still
possible.
Maybe the cause of this all should be banned in Rapid Thought. Not
Una, but Freak Drive!
LSJ
> Only one crypt card should be banned: Una. At least that is the
> opinion of the majority of the people posting here.
5 of 9 (counting you among the 5). Not exactly statistically significant.
Chl...@xs4all.nl
With 5 out of every 9 votes one can become president.
But you are right, I should have said, "All the other persons who said
anything about Una agreed with banning her".
H
LSJ
That would be in contrast to the facts. (Practicing for a presidential campaign?)
Frederick Scott
<Chl...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:761a45c6-6f88-43a3...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Did you count my "vote"? Wherein, I questioned Kevin how he came to the
conclusion that Una needs to be banned?
I don't necessarily agree or disagree. I just never saw any justification
for it at all so I can't figure out why anyone would want to ban Una,
specifically, in Rapid Thought. I have to see what the reason is before
I can say I agree or disagree. In the meantime, take it that I see the
ban as unjustified.
Fred
Peter D Bakija
> I don't care about the distinction. The point is, if the original rules
> were never thought through as to the differences between the standard
> game and the new one, I wouldn't want to use them as the default.
Well, a 3 player, 45 minute competitive game of VTES is still a
competitive game of VTES. I don't know that the new format being
discussed is different enough from regular competitive VTES such that
it warrants changing those particular rules. I mean, yeah, maybe 40
card library/6 card crypt is more optimal for the format. But so might
10 card card library/4 card crypt. Why not start there?
> From this thread, I'd gathered no one has explained why the existing
> rules are as they are yet, either. If that's factually wrong, then
> I retract the suggestion.
I suspect the current rules (regular VEKN tournament rules) are what
they are 'cause they are a viable adaptation of the deck building
rules as presented in the rulebook--40 cards plus 10 per player
results in 60 card minimum decks (40+10 for each of 2 players, as you
can't play a game with less than 2 players) and 90 card maximum (40+10
for each of 5 players maximum). By removing the need to adjust cards
between games, time is saved. If the rules under discussion follw the
same logic, then decks should be exactly 70 cards (40+10 per each of 3
players) as all games will be (in theory) 3 players.
> I would suggest it's less silly. But it's still wrong on some level to
> just assume the deck size limitations meet the need of such a game.
> Ergo, I disagree that you need to start with these as a baseline and
> just assume they work well "unless proven otherwise". Has anyone yet
> proved they work well to date?
You have to have a baseline to start at. Which in this case, is the
rulebook of the game (40+10 per player). At no point in that rules set
(i.e. the basic rules of the game) are 40 card minimum decks/6 card
crypts something that the game endorses. There might be a very good
reason that Kevin suggested 40 card minimum/6 card crypts. I don't
know what that might be, however. Without having access to said
possible very good reason? I can't see a good reason to change the
rules that significantly.
-Peter
Kevin M.
> Only one crypt card should be banned: Una. At least that is the
> opinion of the majority of the people posting here.
>
> But what about Cardano and Gerald Windham?
> With an Ankara Citadel they can do the same trick as Una.
I would say that this is a spurious argument, since people don't play
these decks -- they play the Una deck.
If you feel that Cardano/GW+AC is a good deck, feel free to play
it and win with it.
Kevin M.
> Eh? What exactly is the objection to Una?
My objection to Una is: if you can play the deck quickly then you
will win the table almost 100% of the time, since the main weakness
of the Una deck (a limited amount of rush actions) has been removed.
I didn't think for one second about the fact that Una (or the Imbued)
would take too much time to play.
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time out.
>
> I don't understand this concept at all. Can you manage to ban _every_
> kind of effect in the game that slows it down? That strikes me as
> kind of a fool's errand.
Which is why I didn't try to do such a thing.
Kevin M.
I had thought of changing the crypt size so that the format would be
unique enough to a)get rated and b)make people who want to build
something different (i.e. 40 cards and a 6-card crypt) want to play
the format. I chose 6 since it is half of 12 and the time limit is about
half of normal.
Seems reasonable, aside from your objection for objections sake. ;)
LSJ
> On Apr 14, 1:24 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> I don't care about the distinction. The point is, if the original rules
>> were never thought through as to the differences between the standard
>> game and the new one, I wouldn't want to use them as the default.
>
> Well, a 3 player, 45 minute competitive game of VTES is still a
> competitive game of VTES. I don't know that the new format being
> discussed is different enough from regular competitive VTES such that
> it warrants changing those particular rules. I mean, yeah, maybe 40
> card library/6 card crypt is more optimal for the format. But so might
> 10 card card library/4 card crypt. Why not start there?
>
>> From this thread, I'd gathered no one has explained why the existing
>> rules are as they are yet, either. If that's factually wrong, then
>> I retract the suggestion.
>
> I suspect the current rules (regular VEKN tournament rules) are what
> they are 'cause they are a viable adaptation of the deck building
> rules as presented in the rulebook--40 cards plus 10 per player
> results in 60 card minimum decks (40+10 for each of 2 players, as you
> can't play a game with less than 2 players) and 90 card maximum (40+10
> for each of 5 players maximum).
Not quite. The rulebook rules result in 40 card minimum (that minimum is always
40 -- it is not tied to the number of players) and a 90 card maximum.
The 60 card minimum was used in the DCI rules, I'd guess, because it was used in
the DCI rules for Magic (whose basic rulebook also used to say "40 card minimum").
> By removing the need to adjust cards
> between games, time is saved. If the rules under discussion follw the
> same logic, then decks should be exactly 70 cards (40+10 per each of 3
> players) as all games will be (in theory) 3 players.
"The same logic" would either be 40-70 (the basic rules) or 60-70 (the
modified-minimum rules).
Frederick Scott
On Apr 14, 1:24 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > I don't care about the distinction. The point is, if the original rules
> > were never thought through as to the differences between the standard
> > game and the new one, I wouldn't want to use them as the default.
>
> Well, a 3 player, 45 minute competitive game of VTES is still a
> competitive game of VTES. I don't know that the new format being
> discussed is different enough from regular competitive VTES such that
> it warrants changing those particular rules. I mean, yeah, maybe 40
> card library/6 card crypt is more optimal for the format. But so might
> 10 card card library/4 card crypt. Why not start there?
I don't know, myself. I can't recall if I've played any RT tournaments
or not. When I've played 3-player (using standard 60-90 decks built for
standard constructed tournaments), I've had some fun games but I've noticed
distinct difference in which stuff is how powerful. I'm not sure if
competitiveness is the question, exactly, as much as not warping the
value of different kinds of cards in 3-player vs. other games. I
suspect, for instance, that a Tupdog deck could be over-the-top abusive.
But I don't think many people really make a habit of studying of 3-player
games, so it's not currently seen as a problem - whatever rules Kevin
chooses. It may actually _be_ a problem, but who really knows?
> > From this thread, I'd gathered no one has explained why the existing
> > rules are as they are yet, either. If that's factually wrong, then
> > I retract the suggestion.
>
> I suspect the current rules (regular VEKN tournament rules) are what
> they are 'cause they are a viable adaptation of the deck building
> rules as presented in the rulebook--40 cards plus 10 per player
> results in 60 card minimum decks (40+10 for each of 2 players, as you
> can't play a game with less than 2 players) and 90 card maximum (40+10
> for each of 5 players maximum). By removing the need to adjust cards
> between games, time is saved. If the rules under discussion follw the
> same logic, then decks should be exactly 70 cards (40+10 per each of 3
> players) as all games will be (in theory) 3 players.
I though the rulebook rules were minimum 40 cards to a maximum of 40 cards
plus 10 per player. Were we to use that in standard tournaments, the
deck sizes would be 40-90 in 5-player games and 40-80 in 4 player games.
Perhaps the 90 card maximum all-the-time rule is, as you say, to remove
the need to alter decks between games as you shift between the four and
five player tables. There was never a reason given for the increase in
the minimum to 60 that I ever heard. 60 cards was the minimum size of a
Magic deck (despite ITS rulebook saying that 40 cards was the minimum) so
I'd guess that's why they set it at 60. Rapid Thought being 40-70 is the
correct reflection of the current rulebook rules for a 3-player game. For
what it's worth.
> > I would suggest it's less silly. But it's still wrong on some level to
> > just assume the deck size limitations meet the need of such a game.
> > Ergo, I disagree that you need to start with these as a baseline and
> > just assume they work well "unless proven otherwise". Has anyone yet
> > proved they work well to date?
>
> You have to have a baseline to start at.
Why? You just make that statement flat out, like it was already proved.
Quite the opposite, I think it's a little bit dangerous. It assumes
that something's already been demonstrated to work well (or reasonably
well). If you're proposing a baseline because player have experience
with it and it isn't working too bad, then fine. If you have no real
experience with any set of rules then nothing should be a baseline.
I prefer to look at rules that way, because it reminds you to accept
the status quo only as far as the status quo has been shown to work
to date.
Fred
Frederick Scott
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:0q8Fl.42228$ua7....@newsfe17.iad...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>> The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time out.
>>
>> I don't understand this concept at all. Can you manage to ban _every_
>> kind of effect in the game that slows it down? That strikes me as
>> kind of a fool's errand.
>
> Which is why I didn't try to do such a thing.
Well...so noted. But the obvious question is, why ban _some_ kinds of
effects that do that and not _all_ of them? Do you believe are the
most egregious ones or..why choose the ones you did? I'm confused.
I'm seeing a 'slippery slope' effect here, big time!
Plus, I'm also not seeing why the original tournament drawback of using
non-ousting decks isn't good enough for Rapid Thought?
Fred
Juggernaut1981
If Exclusion Principle is hitting the list of "Pool Gain Votes that
slow the game" also consider Diversity and maybe Honor the Elders...
although HtE would probably just be a "faff" card in this format...
Diversity would probably be a nasty little pool gainer for a weenie
PRE voter. I would stick that in weenie PRE voters probably before
ConBoon...
So what we're talking about in principle is this:
45min, 3play, high-speed VTES.
Decks with lots of "static stuff" will probably win the format, making
any of those "untap after equipping" or "cheap equipment" options
fairly powerful. An Aus-Cel Gun-Wall will probably flog a table in
this format unceremoniously if combined with classic "combat ousters"
such as Tensions, Dragonbound, Fame.
Other deck formats that will excel will be PRE voters, Dem-Obf speed-
bleed and DOM powerbleed at mild stealth (probably DOM-Obt Las/Kiy)...
Unless you're going to put up an Osebo Wall of Fists or a Tor Wall of
Guns, this format is going to be full of S&B cheese and weenie
votes... I'd probably only build a deck specifically for this format
and tweak the bejeebuz out of it.
Library: 40-70
Crypt: 12+
Banned Card Suggestions:
[VEKN list] plus
[Kevin's List] plus
Exclusion Principle
Diversity
Honor the Elders
Freak Drive (leave in Forced March since 1 per minion per turn)
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> Frederick Scott wrote:
>>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>>> The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time out.
>>>
>>> I don't understand this concept at all. Can you manage to ban
>>> _every_ kind of effect in the game that slows it down? That
>>> strikes me as kind of a fool's errand.
>>
>> Which is why I didn't try to do such a thing.
>
> Well...so noted. But the obvious question is, why ban _some_ kinds
> of effects that do that and not _all_ of them?
HINT: Do you have a list of "all of them"? ;)
Peter D Bakija
> Not quite. The rulebook rules result in 40 card minimum (that minimum is always
> 40 -- it is not tied to the number of players) and a 90 card maximum.
Ah. I stand corrected. Ok then.
> "The same logic" would either be 40-70 (the basic rules) or 60-70 (the
> modified-minimum rules).
Fair.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> I don't know, myself. I can't recall if I've played any RT tournaments
> or not. When I've played 3-player (using standard 60-90 decks built for
> standard constructed tournaments), I've had some fun games but I've noticed
> distinct difference in which stuff is how powerful.
Oh, sure. 3 player works differently. So if you were specifically
going into a 3 player tournament, it would make sense to make a deck
that is specifically good 3 player (a super reactive wall deck, for
example, suddenly becomes worth playing; as 2VP wins the game).
> I though the rulebook rules were minimum 40 cards to a maximum of 40 cards
> plus 10 per player.
Yeah, I was on crack all this time. So having the decks be min 40, max
70 is just following the rulebook. Never mind on that point then :-)
> Why? You just make that statement flat out, like it was already proved.
What, that you need to start somewhere? That just strikes me as
obvious. You start with some baseline of X and adjust as needed.
Luckily, we are presented with a baseline (the rulebook or the
tournament rules. Pick one and go with it). I mean, you could just
pick random numbers and try them ("How about, uh, 600 card minimum
crypt and 13 card minimum library!"). Or start from a recognized
baseline and adjust accordingly.
> Quite the opposite, I think it's a little bit dangerous. It assumes
> that something's already been demonstrated to work well (or reasonably
> well). If you're proposing a baseline because player have experience
> with it and it isn't working too bad, then fine. If you have no real
> experience with any set of rules then nothing should be a baseline.
If there is no baseline, where do you start from? I'm not saying that
the baseline is something you need to be stapled to for anything other
than a starting point. But it is good to have somewhere to start from.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> I had thought of changing the crypt size so that the format would be
> unique enough to a)get rated and b)make people who want to build
> something different (i.e. 40 cards and a 6-card crypt) want to play
> the format. I chose 6 since it is half of 12 and the time limit is about
> half of normal.
>
> Seems reasonable, aside from your objection for objections sake. ;)
Fair enough. But I can't really see how a 6 card crypt is so exciting
as to make the deck building seem different. But ok :-)
-Peter
Kevin M.
> I suspect, for instance, that a Tupdog deck could be over-the-top
What possible Tupdog abuse do you suspect?
Kevin M.
I would suggest that you don't play enough non-constructed, e.g. Draft,
to see how non-12/90 decks can be great fun, and even introduce new
ideas and playstyles.
Frederick Scott
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:Lc9Fl.47124$_R4....@newsfe11.iad...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>> Frederick Scott wrote:
>>>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>>>> The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time out.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand this concept at all. Can you manage to ban
>>>> _every_ kind of effect in the game that slows it down? That
>>>> strikes me as kind of a fool's errand.
>>>
>>> Which is why I didn't try to do such a thing.
>>
>> Well...so noted. But the obvious question is, why ban _some_ kinds
>> of effects that do that and not _all_ of them?
>
> HINT: Do you have a list of "all of them"? ;)
How is this a hint? Kevin, I don't have the remotest idea what you're
getting at.
I know this can't be a reference to the fact that the list is
endless because that wouldn't address my question. So, WTF?!?
Fred
Kevin M.
> If Exclusion Principle is hitting the list of "Pool Gain Votes that
> slow the game" also consider Diversity and maybe Honor the Elders...
> although HtE would probably just be a "faff" card in this format...
> Diversity would probably be a nasty little pool gainer for a weenie
> PRE voter. I would stick that in weenie PRE voters probably before
> ConBoon...
I'm always in favor of more simplicity, so, based on what some have said
I'm leaning towards *removing* ConBoon from the list, and then *not*
including the other pool-gaining votes.
The reason is: Whereas the five pool-gaining masters can only be stopped
with a very few cards, ConBoon, et.al., can be stopped with intercept
and/or votes, and are defensive in nature, i.e. they don't directly
contribute
to you gaining VPs, and are therefore less of a concern. Also, I think that
the fact that here, *none* of the players will be in favor of you ConBoon'n
will contribute to them ganging-up on you in a way that will balance it.
RecklessAg can also be stopped in these ways, but it is an offensive swing,
and potentially so great (5 pool) as to warrant its removal.
GMdDI, SN, and TtCB affect 'all other methuselahs in the game' and are
very powerful and strong, and they seem to be valid removals.
KS we won't even discuss. ;)
> Freak Drive (leave in Forced March since 1 per minion per turn)
No need to ban FD since it doesn't directly contribute to gaining VPs.
Feel free to take lots and lots of actions.
Frederick Scott
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:9693f7f4-363f-451b...@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 14, 7:11 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > I don't know, myself. I can't recall if I've played any RT tournaments
> > or not. When I've played 3-player (using standard 60-90 decks built for
> > standard constructed tournaments), I've had some fun games but I've noticed
> > distinct difference in which stuff is how powerful.
>
> Oh, sure. 3 player works differently. So if you were specifically
> going into a 3 player tournament, it would make sense to make a deck
> that is specifically good 3 player (a super reactive wall deck, for
> example, suddenly becomes worth playing; as 2VP wins the game).
It would. But it would much better if you didn't have to do that.
OK, that's a pipe dream, I suppose. But the closer the two games are,
the better.
> > Why? You just make that statement flat out, like it was already proved.
>
> What, that you need to start somewhere? That just strikes me as
> obvious. You start with some baseline of X and adjust as needed.
Garfield didn't. How was that possible?
No, I don't think that's obvious. I do think it may be easier to
start with the familiar and look at how different changes to the
familiar would affect the end result. But I see no point whatsoever
in taking the attitude that the one is somehow better than the
other - except to the extent that you know what the results are
in advance. So again, if we have experience with something and we
like the experience, that would be reason to give it a leg up. If
not, screw it.
> > Quite the opposite, I think it's a little bit dangerous. It assumes
> > that something's already been demonstrated to work well (or reasonably
> > well). If you're proposing a baseline because player have experience
> > with it and it isn't working too bad, then fine. If you have no real
> > experience with any set of rules then nothing should be a baseline.
>
> If there is no baseline, where do you start from?
I don't know. Anywhere that seems reasonable, I guess.
Fred
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> Frederick Scott wrote:
>>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>>> Frederick Scott wrote:
>>>>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>>>>> The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time
>>>>>> out.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand this concept at all. Can you manage to ban
>>>>> _every_ kind of effect in the game that slows it down? That
>>>>> strikes me as kind of a fool's errand.
>>>>
>>>> Which is why I didn't try to do such a thing.
>>>
>>> Well...so noted. But the obvious question is, why ban _some_ kinds
>>> of effects that do that and not _all_ of them?
>>
>> HINT: Do you have a list of "all of them"? ;)
>
> How is this a hint? Kevin, I don't have the remotest idea what you're
> getting at.
>
> I know this can't be a reference to the fact that the list is
> endless because that wouldn't address my question. So, WTF?!?
I'm suggesting that you post the non-endless list, during which your
question will be answered.
Peter D Bakija
> I would suggest that you don't play enough non-constructed, e.g. Draft,
> to see how non-12/90 decks can be great fun, and even introduce new
> ideas and playstyles.
Oh, no, I play draft all the time--I'm a big fan (heck, a few of us
even mocked up a way to play a draft tournament on JOL. Man. Drafting
was sloooooow). But the weird deck/crypt sizes don't strike me as
anything other than a way to make the game work better (i.e. small
crypts and small decks in, say, draft are good when you have a small
pool of cards to work with, as you aren't then stuck padding out your
deck and crypt with unuseable jank, and you have a better chance of
drawing into the small number of good cards you managed to snag).
Like, I don't look at my 7 card crypt and 35 card library and say
"Woo! This 7 card crypt opens up unexpected advantages to my game!" or
anything.
If there was a specific game advantage, in some direction, to having 6
card crypts, then that makes sense. But if the hope is just "Ooh! 6
card crypts! That is different from 12 card crypts! Shiny!", I'm not
really seeing it :-)
-Peter
Frederick Scott
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:I2aFl.39152$qO1....@newsfe13.iad...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> I suspect, for instance, that a Tupdog deck could be over-the-top
>> abusive...It may actually _be_ a problem, but who really knows?
>
> What possible Tupdog abuse do you suspect?
Remember Dennis's Tupdog deck? (Maybe you weren't at that tournament,
I don't recall.) It had 12 Tupdogs, 4 !Tremere weenies and seemed to devour
anything in its path. Dennis stated it was much more vulnerable in 5-player
games than 4-player games and caused everyone on the table to automatically
gang up against it, it was combaty-vicious. From that experience, it's
easy to surmise that a 3-player game would make it a nice tasty snack.
It's posted here:
http://www.gamehourz.com/Dennis-Tupdogs-ftopict133879.html
Fred
Peter D Bakija
> It would. But it would much better if you didn't have to do that.
> OK, that's a pipe dream, I suppose. But the closer the two games are,
> the better.
Ok, so one one hand, you say "the closer the two games are, the
better" and then on the other, you are saying "don't use the one as a
basis for the other". I'm confused even more now :-)
> Garfield didn't. How was that possible?
He started with something. And when he made VTES, he started with
Magic (note the many similarities). So he did have a starting point.
> No, I don't think that's obvious. I do think it may be easier to
> start with the familiar and look at how different changes to the
> familiar would affect the end result. But I see no point whatsoever
> in taking the attitude that the one is somehow better than the
> other - except to the extent that you know what the results are
> in advance.
I'm not making a value judgement. I'm not claiming one is better than
anything. I'm saying "If you know something works, there is no need to
change it, unless you have a reason for it." Just looking at the 12
card vs 6 card crypts--you could start with the baseline of "The game
works with 12 card crypts. Even 3 player games." and leave it at that,
unless you have a specific reason not to (which is where I stand). Or
you you arbitrarily pick a number and see what happens. Is that what
you are advocating?
> I don't know. Anywhere that seems reasonable, I guess.
And the pre-existing rules don't seem reasonable as a place to start?
-Peter
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> I would suggest that you don't play enough non-constructed, e.g.
>> Draft, to see how non-12/90 decks can be great fun, and even
>> introduce new ideas and playstyles.
>
> Oh, no, I play draft all the time--I'm a big fan (heck, a few of us
> even mocked up a way to play a draft tournament on JOL. Man.
> Drafting was sloooooow). But the weird deck/crypt sizes don't
> strike me as anything other than a way to make the game work better
> (i.e. small crypts and small decks in, say, draft are good when you have
> a small pool of cards to work with, as you aren't then stuck padding out
> your deck and crypt with unuseable jank, and you have a better chance
> of drawing into the small number of good cards you managed to snag).
> Like, I don't look at my 7 card crypt and 35 card library and say
> "Woo! This 7 card crypt opens up unexpected advantages to my game!"
> or anything.
But it does give you an advantage, over 12/90 decks. If you play draft
as much as you say, I'm suprised to hear you say that.
> If there was a specific game advantage, in some direction, to having
> 6 card crypts, then that makes sense. But if the hope is just "Ooh!
> 6 card crypts! That is different from 12 card crypts! Shiny!", I'm not
> really seeing it :-)
I'm not sure what else I can say to get you to see it. Sorry.
Peter D Bakija
> I'm not sure what else I can say to get you to see it. Sorry.
Well, maybe you can. Who knows? Really--what are you seeing in 6 card
crypts that makes them different enough from 12 card crypts that makes
them an interesting difference? I'm not trying to be argumentative
here--maybe there is something I'm missing. I mean, yeah, 6 is
different than 12, in that they are different numbers. And there is a
small difference in the combinational math involving a crypt of 2 each
of 3 vampires as opposed to 4 each of 3 vampires (but not enough that
I'd worry about it so much). Something else?
-Peter
Frederick Scott
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>> Frederick Scott wrote:
>>>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>>>> Frederick Scott wrote:
>>>>>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time
>>>>>>> out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't understand this concept at all. Can you manage to ban
>>>>>> _every_ kind of effect in the game that slows it down? That
>>>>>> strikes me as kind of a fool's errand.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is why I didn't try to do such a thing.
>>>>
>>>> Well...so noted. But the obvious question is, why ban _some_ kinds
>>>> of effects that do that and not _all_ of them?
>>>
>>> HINT: Do you have a list of "all of them"? ;)
>>
>> How is this a hint? Kevin, I don't have the remotest idea what you're
>> getting at.
>>
>> I know this can't be a reference to the fact that the list is
>> endless because that wouldn't address my question. So, WTF?!?
>
> I'm suggesting that you post the non-endless list, during which your
> question will be answered.
I still have no idea where you're going with this. Especially since it's
obviously not my position that there _is_ a "non-endless list" - and thus
you wouldn't be seeing one authored by me.
I've got an idea. How about you just answer my question in English?
Beginner's review: my position is that since you clearly can't ban them all,
why does it make sense to ban any?
Fred
Kevin M.
>>> I suspect, for instance, that a Tupdog deck could be over-the-top
>>> abusive...It may actually _be_ a problem, but who really knows?
>>
>> What possible Tupdog abuse do you suspect?
>
> Remember Dennis's Tupdog deck? (Maybe you weren't at that
> tournament, I don't recall.) It had 12 Tupdogs, 4 !Tremere weenies
> and seemed to devour anything in its path. Dennis stated it was much
> more vulnerable in 5-player games than 4-player games and caused
> everyone on the table to automatically gang up against it, it was
> combaty-vicious. From that experience, it's easy to surmise that a
> 3-player game would make it a nice tasty snack.
>
> It's posted here:
> http://www.gamehourz.com/Dennis-Tupdogs-ftopict133879.html
It is possible that Tupdog would need to be banned in this environment,
and it was (and is) on my watch list, but I didn't feel that it would
necessarily be a game-changer.
Kevin M.
As to your "since you can't ban all of them, why ban any of them" quandry,
I suggest you go back and reread those posts if you didn't understand why
I banned any of them, since I have already answered, multiple times, why
the cards I chose to be banned were banned.
Unless it's that you are trying to get me to answer your "since you can't
ban
all of them, why ban any of them" quandry, which doesn't seem to be a
reasonable argument in the first place. Can you help me understand why
it is a reasonable part of the discussion?
Frederick Scott
> On Apr 14, 8:53 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> > It would. But it would much better if you didn't have to do that.
> > OK, that's a pipe dream, I suppose. But the closer the two games are,
> > the better.
>
> Ok, so one one hand, you say "the closer the two games are, the
> better" and then on the other, you are saying "don't use the one as a
> basis for the other". I'm confused even more now :-)
I think you're conflating the concept that the two games should play
as similarly as possible with the idea that the two games need to
have rules that are similar. But, since the number of players has such
profound effects on so much else, it's a canard to suggest that keeping
the deck limits, crypt limits, and all the other things exactly the
same would produce a game that plays the same for a different number
of players. When you backed it down to three players, you hit the
thing over the head with a sledge hammer. Now you likely have to
fix it in a number of ways to get the same game back.
> > Garfield didn't. How was that possible?
>
> He started with something. And when he made VTES, he started with
> Magic (note the many similarities). So he did have a starting point.
Oh, COME NOW Peter! I don't think that's actually a valid answer but
it doesn't matter. You KNOW what question is coming next: Where did
he start with Magic?
> > No, I don't think that's obvious. I do think it may be easier to
> > start with the familiar and look at how different changes to the
> > familiar would affect the end result. But I see no point whatsoever
> > in taking the attitude that the one is somehow better than the
> > other - except to the extent that you know what the results are
> > in advance.
>
> I'm not making a value judgement. I'm not claiming one is better than
> anything. I'm saying "If you know something works, there is no need to
> change it, unless you have a reason for it."
Sorry, that's a value judgement. It puts one way of doing things on
top, as the "king" and requires that some other potential choice come
along and knock it off. But why shouldn't it just as easily be the
other way around? If the "something" truly works, you should have no
problem justifying why we should _not_ change it.
> Just looking at the 12
> card vs 6 card crypts--you could start with the baseline of "The game
> works with 12 card crypts. Even 3 player games." and leave it at that,
> unless you have a specific reason not to (which is where I stand). Or
> you you arbitrarily pick a number and see what happens. Is that what
> you are advocating?
Yea. So my answer to the minimum crypt size would be 12. Because
people are already familiar with 12 and so it makes the problem of choosing
crypts about the same as the standard constructed game. I think the choice
of crypt size seems to be independent of the number of players unless
there's something in Kevin's rules, like starting pool or transfer rules
or something that would make a difference.
In this case, I suppose we'd come to the same conclusion and maybe roughly
for the same reasons, but applied in a different order. I still think
your way is kind of dangerous where something like library size is
concerned. It requires people to articulate an exact reason to "change"
the rules even though it may be difficult to do that. I'd rather go
through the process of thinking through why the two games are the same
to justify using the same rule.
> > I don't know. Anywhere that seems reasonable, I guess.
>
> And the pre-existing rules don't seem reasonable as a place to start?
Sorry. You're presupposing that we need "a place to start". It's a
self-justifying question, IMHO.
Fred
Frederick Scott
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:JMaFl.39798$qO1....@newsfe13.iad...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> I still have no idea where you're going with this. Especially since
>> it's obviously not my position that there _is_ a "non-endless list" -
>> and thus you wouldn't be seeing one authored by me.
>>
>> I've got an idea. How about you just answer my question in English?
>>
>> Beginner's review: my position is that since you clearly can't ban
>> them all, why does it make sense to ban any?
>
> As to your "since you can't ban all of them, why ban any of them" quandry,
> I suggest you go back and reread those posts if you didn't understand why
> I banned any of them, since I have already answered, multiple times, why
> the cards I chose to be banned were banned.
Perhaps I missed the post you're talking about. I did read the first one
I responded to, and it said:
"The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time out."
Obviously, this doesn't answer my objection - which is that it doesn't
help to ban ONLY SOME means of preventing games from timing out. So
why ban any? Clearly, banning these cards doesn't fix anything. So
why do it?
> Unless it's that you are trying to get me to answer your "since you can't ban
> all of them, why ban any of them" quandry, which doesn't seem to be a
> reasonable argument in the first place. Can you help me understand why
> it is a reasonable part of the discussion?
Why do you think that's not reasonable? It seems totally reasonable
to me. It's like, you're constructing half a dike while the water
can just as easily flood into the huge gap where the other half of the
dike should should be. I find it difficult to imagine you can't
understand what's wrong with this picture.
Plus, as I pointed out in at least a few other places including at
least one response to you: pool gain is in the regular game. Many
other effects that - when overused - cause games to time out exist
in the regular game. The time limit doesn't matter. If you use defense
too much and offense not enough in your deck, you can cause exactly the
same problem. In view of that, why the special need to ban anything
here?
One inference is that standard tournament games contain *OTHER*
incentives that are effective in preventing players from building non-
ousting, overly defensive decks. Why would these other incentives
not work just as well in Rapid Thought?
Fred
Kevin M.
I'm thinking more like, players who might not have bought as many cards
as you and I do, or who only buy a box of starters and nothing else, and
who might only have 2 or 3 of a vampire they really like. This way they
can get the percentages those of us with a lot of cards get, and although it
would perhaps have to be explained and/or publicized as an advantage,
I thought it was interesting.
That, and the fact that all players would be able to, in theory, make more
decks for this format than they would be able to make decks for the
standard format.
Peter D Bakija
> I think you're conflating the concept that the two games should play
> as similarly as possible with the idea that the two games need to
> have rules that are similar. But, since the number of players has such
> profound effects on so much else, it's a canard to suggest that keeping
> the deck limits, crypt limits, and all the other things exactly the
> same would produce a game that plays the same for a different number
> of players.
I don't think it is necessarily going to star the same if you use the
same rules. Which is why you start there and adjust as necessary. I
can't see how it makes sense to reinvent the wheel when you can just
tweak the wheel you already know works.
> Oh, COME NOW Peter! I don't think that's actually a valid answer but
> it doesn't matter. You KNOW what question is coming next: Where did
> he start with Magic?
IIRC, Cosmic Encounter. It was a starting point. You can't make
something without a starting point.
> Sorry, that's a value judgement. It puts one way of doing things on
> top, as the "king" and requires that some other potential choice come
> along and knock it off.
If you say so. I don't see starting from something that you know
works, and adjusting as warranted, as opposed to inventing an
arbitrary new starting point out of thin air as a value judgement of
the starting point. But ok.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> I'm thinking more like, players who might not have bought as many cards
> as you and I do, or who only buy a box of starters and nothing else, and
> who might only have 2 or 3 of a vampire they really like. This way they
> can get the percentages those of us with a lot of cards get, and although it
> would perhaps have to be explained and/or publicized as an advantage,
> I thought it was interesting.
Oh, ok. That seems reasonable. That was all I was looking for :-)
-Peter
Kevin M.
>>> I still have no idea where you're going with this. Especially since
>>> it's obviously not my position that there _is_ a "non-endless list"
>>> - and thus you wouldn't be seeing one authored by me.
>>>
>>> I've got an idea. How about you just answer my question in English?
>>>
>>> Beginner's review: my position is that since you clearly can't ban
>>> them all, why does it make sense to ban any?
>>
>> As to your "since you can't ban all of them, why ban any of them"
>> quandry, I suggest you go back and reread those posts if you didn't
>> understand why I banned any of them, since I have already answered,
>> multiple times, why the cards I chose to be banned were banned.
>
> Perhaps I missed the post you're talking about. I did read the first
> one I responded to, and it said:
> "The pool gain is banned so that the games hopefully don't time out."
>
> Obviously, this doesn't answer my objection - which is that it doesn't
> help to ban ONLY SOME means of preventing games from timing out.
> So why ban any? Clearly, banning these cards doesn't fix anything.
> So why do it?
I later discussed Master cards and the cards that cancel them vs. library
cards, and also one-shot cards vs. non-one-shot cards.
>> Unless it's that you are trying to get me to answer your "since you
>> can't ban all of them, why ban any of them" quandry, which doesn't
>> seem to be a reasonable argument in the first place. Can you help me
>> understand why it is a reasonable part of the discussion?
>
> Why do you think that's not reasonable? It seems totally reasonable
> to me. It's like, you're constructing half a dike while the water can
> just as easily flood into the huge gap where the other half of the dike
> should should be. I find it difficult to imagine you can't understand
> what's wrong with this picture.
Your assumtion is that all the pool-gain cards in the game are equal.
They are not, which is why I don't suggest banning all or none of them,
just the ones which occur to me (or I become convinced) that are the
problem ones.
I really would love it if this became a new rated format, in which case
LSJ and not me would become the rules-arbiter. But it seems to be
a good assumption that the format has a better chance of becoming
rated if it is presented in as complete, coherent, and reasonable a form
as I can make it.
> Plus, as I pointed out in at least a few other places including at
> least one response to you: pool gain is in the regular game. Many
> other effects that - when overused - cause games to time out exist
> in the regular game. The time limit doesn't matter. If you use
> defense too much and offense not enough in your deck, you can
> cause exactly the same problem. In view of that, why the special
> need to ban anything here?
My thought is that a format which has a greater general chance of
games finishing within the time limit than the standard format provides
just another reason to allow it to become rated.
> One inference is that standard tournament games contain *OTHER*
> incentives that are effective in preventing players from building non-
> ousting, overly defensive decks. Why would these other incentives
> not work just as well in Rapid Thought?
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Hopefully the fact that you always
have two enemies and zero allies will provide an incentive not to build
those non-ousting, overly defensive decks.
Frederick Scott
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> Obviously, this doesn't answer my objection - which is that it doesn't
>> help to ban ONLY SOME means of preventing games from timing out.
>> So why ban any? Clearly, banning these cards doesn't fix anything.
>> So why do it?
>>> Unless it's that you are trying to get me to answer your "since you
>>> can't ban all of them, why ban any of them" quandry, which doesn't
>>> seem to be a reasonable argument in the first place. Can you help me
>>> understand why it is a reasonable part of the discussion?
>>
>> Why do you think that's not reasonable? It seems totally reasonable
>> to me. It's like, you're constructing half a dike while the water can
>> just as easily flood into the huge gap where the other half of the dike
>> should should be. I find it difficult to imagine you can't understand
>> what's wrong with this picture.
>
> Your assumtion is that all the pool-gain cards in the game are equal.
> They are not, which is why I don't suggest banning all or none of them,
> just the ones which occur to me (or I become convinced) that are the
> problem ones.
Well, that's at least an answer - which gives me some insight into your
thinking (finally). I don't think it answers my objection for a couple
of good reasons:
1) Stopping timeouts is not a matter of identifying the most effective
cards that cause timeouts. There are so many ways of causing a timeout,
it doesn't matter that some pool gain cards are better and some are
worse. What about intercept? If I intercept everything my predator
(or his eventual replacement, if applicable does), chances are I can
cause a timeout.
2) Stopping timeouts is a matter incentizing players to not cause them.
The standard tournament does this perfectly well by penalizing all
players involved in a timeout, thus penalizing the player who causes
them the most. The amount of time you have to play a game doesn't
matter. Players who must finish their games in 45 minutes will build
decks that will avoid timing out in 45 minutes because they have an
incentive to. Not because they're banned from using pool gain.
...
> I really would love it if this became a new rated format, in which case
> LSJ and not me would become the rules-arbiter. But it seems to be
> a good assumption that the format has a better chance of becoming
> rated if it is presented in as complete, coherent, and reasonable a form
> as I can make it.
Sure. Makes sense to me.
...
> My thought is that a format which has a greater general chance of
> games finishing within the time limit than the standard format provides
> just another reason to allow it to become rated.
Absolutely! I'm with you there.
>> One inference is that standard tournament games contain *OTHER*
>> incentives that are effective in preventing players from building non-
>> ousting, overly defensive decks. Why would these other incentives
>> not work just as well in Rapid Thought?
>
> I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Hopefully the fact that you always
> have two enemies and zero allies will provide an incentive not to build
> those non-ousting, overly defensive decks.
Well, that wasn't what I was thinking of. What I was thinking of is
above: game win and victory point awards penalize players who are involved
in timeouts. The player who is involved in the most timeouts will be
penalized the most - which is the player who is most directly involved in
causing them. In short, you can't make the finals getting 1/2 victory
point every game. Or if you can, you sure can't *win* the finals doing
that.
If this isn't sufficient protection against timeouts for you, may I
suggest that you jigger with the victory point awards until it is
instead of trying to fix the problem by banning cards. I just don't
think the latter thing works. I don't think you can ban enough cards to
have an appreciable effect if someone wants to cause a game to timeout.
If players have incentives _not_ to allow a game to timeout, then I'd
posit that you won't need to ban any cards for that reason.
Fred
Frederick Scott
> > Oh, COME NOW Peter! I don't think that's actually a valid answer but
> > it doesn't matter. You KNOW what question is coming next: Where did
> > he start with Magic?
>
> IIRC, Cosmic Encounter. It was a starting point. You can't make
> something without a starting point.
I don't really think Cosmic Encounter qualifies as a "starting point"
for Magic any more than Magic qualifies as a "starting point" for
Jyhad. But even so, where did the Future Pastimes crew start when
inventing Cosmic Encounter?
Bleh. I know this is all useless by now. Let me just give Peter's answer
and beat everyone to the punch:
"You're very clever, young man - but it's TURTLES all the way down!"
:-P
librarian
> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt
> Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion.
>
> Would anyone want to play such a format, if it were able to be rated?
>
You know what? I think it would be better to play this with as few
deviations from regular tournament rules, except for 3 players/45 mins.
See what causes issues, and then tweak them from there.
I could see banning Una, but probably nothing else. Really. And then
let's play. It seems like lots of folks here are making predictions,
but without ever really playing a game. Let's bring the evidence, and
then make changes. Just like how things get changed in the standard game.
best -
chris
librarian
> I'm not saying that
> the baseline is something you need to be stapled to
Why did the chicken cross the road?
It was stapled to the face of the punk rocker...
best -
chris
librarian
Well, if we are reducing the library size by say 20 cards (40-70),
that's a reduction of between 33% - 22%. We should reduce the crypt
size by a similar amount, say by 3-4 cards.
So, I could see a crypt size of 8-9 cards minimum. That would allow for
higher levels of crypt optimization, which in turn might help lead to
more rapid games. Maybe. We should test it - on JOL!
best -
chris
librarian
As I read my post, I remember in another thread Kevin you had said that
Kindred spirits in your *experience* had led to broken RT games. That
seems to be enough evidence to put it on a watch list. Then put the
format in the wild worldwide, and let's see what the larger community
says about it - if it's a problem in other regions, then ban it from the
format. Same with most of the other cards on your list.
Getting rid of BD, MT, TTM, and the 2 V's seems like enough of a start
to make the format different enough, but not too much different.
bes t-
chris
Kevin M.
> "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>>> Oh, COME NOW Peter! I don't think that's actually a valid answer but
>>> it doesn't matter. You KNOW what question is coming next: Where did
>>> he start with Magic?
>>
>> IIRC, Cosmic Encounter. It was a starting point. You can't make
>> something without a starting point.
>
> I don't really think Cosmic Encounter qualifies as a "starting point"
> for Magic any more than Magic qualifies as a "starting point" for
> Jyhad. But even so, where did the Future Pastimes crew start when
> inventing Cosmic Encounter?
Now you're pulling a JwJb on us. Please stop.
And if you do a bit of searching, you'll find that Richard Garfield has
stated that Cosmic Encounter was the major influence on Magic.
Kevin M.
I'd suggest that you should instead test the format given (6+/40-90) and
not all the possible variants. The parallel development is unconstructive.
Frederick Scott
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>>>> Oh, COME NOW Peter! I don't think that's actually a valid answer but
>>>> it doesn't matter. You KNOW what question is coming next: Where did
>>>> he start with Magic?
>>>
>>> IIRC, Cosmic Encounter. It was a starting point. You can't make
>>> something without a starting point.
>>
>> I don't really think Cosmic Encounter qualifies as a "starting point"
>> for Magic any more than Magic qualifies as a "starting point" for
>> Jyhad. But even so, where did the Future Pastimes crew start when
>> inventing Cosmic Encounter?
>
> Now you're pulling a JwJb on us. Please stop.
Not really. I just don't think creative endeavors need "starting points",
per se. Saying that one game inspired or influenced another is not
the same thing as making it a "starting point" that Peter seems bent
on having. Let me suggest something (*GASP*) radical: that games come out
of THIN AIR! Somebody made it up by having...an...original...thought!
("OH MY GOD, SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!")
> And if you do a bit of searching, you'll find that Richard Garfield has
> stated that Cosmic Encounter was the major influence on Magic.
Of course. I never doubted it. But if you trace back games influencing
other games, eventually you get back to something that wasn't really influenced
by any other game in existence, I would assume. That was my point. You
can't keep insisting each game in succession has some other game as its
starting point because someone had to make up the first game.
I suppose most every creative effort had some inspiration of some sort
in the real world. But I think the whole "starting point" thing is silly.
Fred
librarian
> librarian wrote:
>> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>>> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure what else I can say to get you to see it. Sorry.
>>> Well, maybe you can. Who knows? Really--what are you seeing in
>>> 6 card crypts that makes them different enough from 12 card crypts
>>> that makes them an interesting difference? I'm not trying to be
>>> argumentative here--maybe there is something I'm missing. I mean,
>>> yeah, 6 is different than 12, in that they are different numbers.
>>> And there is a small difference in the combinational math involving
>>> a crypt of 2 each of 3 vampires as opposed to 4 each of 3 vampires
>>> (but not enough that I'd worry about it so much). Something else?
>> Well, if we are reducing the library size by say 20 cards (40-70),
>> that's a reduction of between 33% - 22%. We should reduce the
>> crypt size by a similar amount, say by 3-4 cards.
>>
>> So, I could see a crypt size of 8-9 cards minimum. That would allow
>> for higher levels of crypt optimization, which in turn might help
>> lead to more rapid games. Maybe. We should test it - on JOL!
>
> I'd suggest that you should instead test the format given (6+/40-90) and
> not all the possible variants. The parallel development is unconstructive.
>
I guess I'm at the same point as Peter - what was the rationale for 6
card crypt instead of 8-9 (or 12)? It seems arbitrary. I'm suggesting
numbers that seem to me less arbitrary, based on library size. I'm
developing nothing - I am trying to give you constructive criticism.
best -
chris
LSJ
> Well, if we are reducing the library size by say 20 cards (40-70),
> that's a reduction of between 33% - 22%. We should reduce the crypt
> size by a similar amount, say by 3-4 cards.
You aren't reducing the library size by 20 cards. You're leaving the library
size alone (i.e., using the sizes specified in the rules).
5p = 90 card max.
4p = 80 card max.
3p = 70 card max.
2p = 60 card max.
Those same rules specify a crypt size as well.
2p - Np = 12 card min.
librarian
Well, maybe.
But you are reducing it by 20 according to the standard constructed
tourney rules, right?
Are you arguing with me just to argue?
best -
chris
LSJ
No. I'm pointing out a failing in your argument.
Re: maximums:
The rules specify 90 card library for 5p and 80 card for 4p.
The VEKN rules allow only 4 and 5 player tables and do not permit changing decks
between rounds, so they have to choose either a 90 or 80 card maximum.
Choosing 80 would satisfy the rules for both, but the formula exists exactly to
make more cards available for more preys, and the VEKN rules favor 5p tables, so
the maximum was chosen to be 90.
Based on table size and the basic formula for the preferred table size.
Re: minimums:
The rules specify a minimum of 40 cards. The Rapid Thought rules do not change that.
The VEKN rules change the minimum to 60 in the library for whatever reason, but
without a corresponding increase in the minimum crypt size. For a good reason:
there is no correspondence there.
The crypt size is not tied to table size because table size doesn't affect the
level to which you mill your crypt. So its size doesn't change.
Peter D Bakija
> Bleh. I know this is all useless by now. Let me just give Peter's answer
> and beat everyone to the punch:
>
> "You're very clever, young man - but it's TURTLES all the way down!"
>
> :-P
I stand defeated :-)
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> So, I could see a crypt size of 8-9 cards minimum. That would allow for
> higher levels of crypt optimization, which in turn might help lead to
> more rapid games. Maybe. We should test it - on JOL!
Heh. Except how do you check to see if games are done in 45 minutes on
JOL?
:-)
-Peter
librarian
Only you would have known all that LSJ - why didn't you just say that in
the first place. Now it becomes clear. Ok, with that info, I would go
for no change in crypt size, leave it at 12. 6 still seems arbitrary to me.
best -
chris
librarian
I don't know, make it a 9-turn limit game?
best -
chris
librarian
Or how about this:
the upcoming JOL tournament is 5 months long. If 5 months = 120
minutes, then a Rapid Thought game would be 1.875 months, or 1 month 26
days 6 hours. How does 2 months sound?
best -
chris
Kevin M.
> librarian wrote:
>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt
>>> Please tell me what you think, I'd like to hear your opinion.
>>>
>>> Would anyone want to play such a format, if it were able
>>> to be rated?
>>
>> You know what? I think it would be better to play this with as few
>> deviations from regular tournament rules, except for 3 players/45
>> mins. See what causes issues, and then tweak them from there.
>>
>> I could see banning Una, but probably nothing else. Really.
>> And then let's play. It seems like lots of folks here are making
>> predictions, but without ever really playing a game. Let's bring the
>> evidence, and then make changes. Just like how things get changed
>> in the standard game.
That is a totally valid way to go, assuming we could get some of those
3-person playgroups (HELLO NAT AND DAVID!) to test out a non-
valid format instead of playing something else.
Wow, I didn't realize until RIGHT NOW that I was creating a format
for my own playgroup. bwahaa:)
> As I read my post, I remember in another thread Kevin you had said
> that Kindred spirits in your *experience* had led to broken RT games.
Josh Duffin won the only RT tournament ever with a backwards-bleeding
KS deck, yes. And he said he did it *easily*.
> That seems to be enough evidence to put it on a watch list. Then put
> the format in the wild worldwide, and let's see what the larger
> community says about it - if it's a problem in other regions, then
> ban it from the format. Same with most of the other cards on your
> list.
> Getting rid of BD, MT, TTM, and the 2 V's seems like enough of
> a start to make the format different enough, but not too much different.
As I said, that is a totally valid way to go ASSUMING that you disagree
with my choices, which you may.
Let's remove the 6 cards you mentioned above and assume they're on the
banned list. The rest, with my reasons for bannination, since this is how
we'd go about it anyway. Do you agree, or not?
ConBoon:
Based on what others have said, this, along with the other non-offensive
votes, can probably be allowed, given the 45 minute timeframe and the
long setup time needed to exploit pool-gaining votes.
Gran Madre di Dio:
I felt like its effect, which affects *all* other players, was against the
spirit of the game. I admit I am on the fence on this one, but I just
don't want to see it.
Reckless Agitation:
The offensive nature of RA, along with its 5 pool damage (or even 3/3)
and the existence of so many small PRE vamps make it too deadly.
If it is allowed in, it will be played in EVERY DECK that can possibly
call it, and I think it is broken in the format, e.g. without it, I can
imagine
playing a deck without anti-vote.
Shared Nightmare:
Action, Chimeristry, 3 blood.
"Choose three allies or younger players controlled by any other players
in the game. The chosen minions cannot block or cast votes
*for*the*rest*of*the*current*minion*phase*." Totally sick and wrong.
And again, I felt like its effect, which affects *all* other players, was
against the spirit of the game.
Taunt the Caged Beast:
Action, Animalism, no cost.
"Choose two ready vampires, one each controlled by the other two
players in the game. The chosen vampires enter combat, with no
detriment to you and no benefit to them." And yet again, I felt like its
effect was against the spirit of the game.
Kevin M.
Just as arbitrary as 12, sure.
I did reply to Peter with the answer to this question, which I'll repeat:
-~-~-~-
I'm thinking more like, players who might not have bought as many cards
as you and I do, or who only buy a box of starters and nothing else, and
who might only have 2 or 3 of a vampire they really like. This way they
can get the percentages those of us with a lot of cards get, and although it
would perhaps have to be explained and/or publicized as an advantage,
I thought it was interesting.
That, and the fact that all players would be able to, in theory, make more
decks for this format than they would be able to make decks for the
standard format.
-~-~-~-
In addition, I'm not suggesting that we reduce the library size, something
else which you seem to want, so your reduction in crypt size is even
more arbitrary than mine.
> I'm suggesting numbers that seem to me less arbitrary, based on library
> size. I'm developing nothing - I am trying to give you constructive
> criticism.
It sure sounded like you were going to go play JOL with a format that
you believe is better than the format given rather than trying the format
as-is. Not that I'm bitter that you'd be ignoring the work I put into this,
or anything. ;)
Peter D Bakija
> the upcoming JOL tournament is 5 months long. If 5 months = 120
> minutes, then a Rapid Thought game would be 1.875 months, or 1 month 26
> days 6 hours. How does 2 months sound?
Hmm. That seems pretty reasonable. Although the vagaries of JOL play
makes even that kind of time limit questionable. But if you got, like,
you, me, and Ira or Pallando or someone, it could totally work. I'm
in!
-Peter
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Re: maximums:
>>
>> The rules specify 90 card library for 5p and 80 card for 4p.
>> The VEKN rules allow only 4 and 5 player tables and do not permit
>> changing decks between rounds, so they have to choose either a 90 or
>> 80 card maximum.
>> Choosing 80 would satisfy the rules for both, but the formula exists
>> exactly to make more cards available for more preys, and the VEKN
>> rules favor 5p tables, so the maximum was chosen to be 90.
>>
>> Based on table size and the basic formula for the preferred table size.
>>
>> Re: minimums:
>>
>> The rules specify a minimum of 40 cards. The Rapid Thought rules do
>> not change that.
>>
>> The VEKN rules change the minimum to 60 in the library for whatever
>> reason, but without a corresponding increase in the minimum crypt
>> size. For a good reason: there is no correspondence there.
>>
>> The crypt size is not tied to table size because table size doesn't
>> affect the level to which you mill your crypt. So its size doesn't
>> change.
>
> Only you would have known all that LSJ - why didn't you just say that in
> the first place.
Um, no. I wasn't privy to any inside information on any of that. The DCI made
its rules without consulting me and without informing me of any discussion that
went on in deciding them.
All of the above comes only from reading the rules (40 min - 40+10N max for lib
and 12 min and no max for crypt) and the tournament rules (60 min - 90 max for
the lib and 12 min and no max for the crypt).
And I said so in the first place. Albeit without as much seemingly superfluous
detail.
librarian
Doesn't hurt that he doesn't suck as a player. (love those double
negatives, or is it a triple negative?)
>
>> That seems to be enough evidence to put it on a watch list. Then put
>> the format in the wild worldwide, and let's see what the larger
>> community says about it - if it's a problem in other regions, then
>> ban it from the format. Same with most of the other cards on your
>> list.
>> Getting rid of BD, MT, TTM, and the 2 V's seems like enough of
>> a start to make the format different enough, but not too much different.
>
> As I said, that is a totally valid way to go ASSUMING that you disagree
> with my choices, which you may.
>
> Let's remove the 6 cards you mentioned above and assume they're on the
> banned list. The rest, with my reasons for bannination, since this is how
> we'd go about it anyway. Do you agree, or not?
>
First off, I am usually in the camp that wants to avoid banning cards,
regardless of format, so take my response with that point of view in mind.
> ConBoon:
> Based on what others have said, this, along with the other non-offensive
> votes, can probably be allowed, given the 45 minute timeframe and the
> long setup time needed to exploit pool-gaining votes.
This one I would like to see in practice make games suck.
>
> Gran Madre di Dio:
> I felt like its effect, which affects *all* other players, was against the
> spirit of the game. I admit I am on the fence on this one, but I just
> don't want to see it.
>
Agree with this I think.
> Reckless Agitation:
> The offensive nature of RA, along with its 5 pool damage (or even 3/3)
> and the existence of so many small PRE vamps make it too deadly.
> If it is allowed in, it will be played in EVERY DECK that can possibly
> call it, and I think it is broken in the format, e.g. without it, I can
> imagine
> playing a deck without anti-vote.
The thing about RA is that it is no good when you get down to 2 players.
So you oust your first prey, but then they clog your hand. I'm not
sure it's so bad.
>
> Shared Nightmare:
> Action, Chimeristry, 3 blood.
> "Choose three allies or younger players controlled by any other players
> in the game. The chosen minions cannot block or cast votes
> *for*the*rest*of*the*current*minion*phase*." Totally sick and wrong.
> And again, I felt like its effect, which affects *all* other players, was
> against the spirit of the game.
>
But this card sounds good even in a 4-5 player game. Yet no one plays
it. I wouldn't ban this out of hand yet.
> Taunt the Caged Beast:
> Action, Animalism, no cost.
> "Choose two ready vampires, one each controlled by the other two
> players in the game. The chosen vampires enter combat, with no
> detriment to you and no benefit to them." And yet again, I felt like its
> effect was against the spirit of the game.
I see how you can see this. Of course, those two players have Pred/Prey
relationship also, so it may actually help one or the other of them. I
would like to see evidence that it causes a big problem. If someone
makes the RT TtCB deck and it tears things up, then yes, it's a problem.
But have to see it first.
best -
chris
Johann von Doom
> Reckless Agitation:
I can't understand why RA should be banned.
> The offensive nature of RA, along with its 5 pool damage (or even 3/3)
Every RA in the deck becomes a totally dead card as soon as someone
gets ousted, so packing your deck with them doesn't seem like a great
way to actually get any GWs.
> and the existence of so many small PRE vamps make it too deadly.
These small PRE vampires you're talking about, you know that they
can't actually be any smaller than 5-caps, right? And they need to be
independent to boot? I don't really see very many vamps who qualify
for those three criteria (5-cap, independent, PRE).
> If it is allowed in, it will be played in EVERY DECK that can possibly
> call it, and I think it is broken in the format, e.g. without it, I can
> imagine
> playing a deck without anti-vote.
I honestly can't think of a deck that I'd play in this format that
would use the card. Can you give a example sketch of a deck that would
abuse RA to the point that it needs to be banned?
John Eno
librarian
I went to try to find the message of Peter's you were replying to to
respond in thread, but I'll just do it here.
I never really thought about the purpose of this format. For me (and
you and many other long time players), it's just a new format, like a
highlander format, or anything else. And it's a format for 3 player
playgroups, or when 7 guys show up, or for a special type of tournament
for kicks for us jaded types. I hadn't thought too much about it being
a format for new players or players without too many cards.
I'm not sure in fact that it would appeal to new players - the regular
game has so much going on, it will take someone a long time to master
that, and why have them split their focus to play what is a pretty
different game (3 player VTES).
Being able to make more decks I get. Why not make it a full half game?
6-crypt, 45 card max, 1 hr long? And ban nothing until found abusive
(just spinning here).
>
>> I'm suggesting numbers that seem to me less arbitrary, based on library
>> size. I'm developing nothing - I am trying to give you constructive
>> criticism.
>
> It sure sounded like you were going to go play JOL with a format that
> you believe is better than the format given rather than trying the format
> as-is. Not that I'm bitter that you'd be ignoring the work I put into this,
> or anything. ;)
Well, I'll play it on JOL if I can get anyone to play, in any format.
All in the interest of helping *you* out, my eastern brother. And
again, as I answered in another post, I come from a position of banning
as few cards as possible. How about trying it with very few cards
banned on JOL (or in the Vegas playgroup, or Origins, or wherever), and
then banning them as results come in?
best -
chris
librarian
No, you made the original Rapid Thought rules from which the 40-70 and
12 minimum crypt came from.
best -
chris
librarian
> On Apr 15, 3:52 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> Reckless Agitation:
>
> I can't understand why RA should be banned.
>
>> The offensive nature of RA, along with its 5 pool damage (or even 3/3)
>
> Every RA in the deck becomes a totally dead card as soon as someone
> gets ousted, so packing your deck with them doesn't seem like a great
> way to actually get any GWs.
>
>> and the existence of so many small PRE vamps make it too deadly.
>
> These small PRE vampires you're talking about, you know that they
> can't actually be any smaller than 5-caps, right? And they need to be
> independent to boot? I don't really see very many vamps who qualify
> for those three criteria (5-cap, independent, PRE).
>
>>
Deck Name:
Created By:
Description:
Crypt: (7 cards, Min: 21, Max: 24, Avg: 5.57)
---------------------------------------------
1 Sir Marriot D`Urban aus obf ser PRE 5 Followers of Set
1 Sonja Blue dom pot CEL FOR PRE5 Ventrue
1 Renenet ser OBF PRE 5 Followers of Set
1 Aisha ani aus ser PRE 6 Followers of Set
1 Ankh-sen-Sutekh obf PRE SER 6 Followers of Set
1 Elihu dai for POT PRE 6 Baali
1 Maureen dom obf DAI PRE 6 Baali
Library: (1 cards)
------------------
Political Action (1 cards)
1 Reckless Agitation
This deck was last saved at 3:42:41 PM on 4/15/2009
best -
chris
Peter D Bakija
> I never really thought about the purpose of this format. For me (and
> you and many other long time players), it's just a new format, like a
> highlander format, or anything else. And it's a format for 3 player
> playgroups, or when 7 guys show up, or for a special type of tournament
> for kicks for us jaded types. I hadn't thought too much about it being
> a format for new players or players without too many cards.
Ah, see, I'm not necessarily seeing this as a format for new players,
but I *do* think there is an awful lot to recommend a 3R+F tournament
that you can play in 4 hours. I mean, yeah, a weird kind of tournament
(although I do play 3 player games of VTES all the time), but a 4 hour
event? Awesome.
-Peter
LSJ
> No, you made the original Rapid Thought rules from which the 40-70 and
> 12 minimum crypt came from.
I'm hardly the only one who would've known where those figures came from.
That's even more true after the explanations that had gone before, including the
ones earlier in this thread.
Peter D Bakija
> KS deck, yes. And he said he did it *easily*.
Ah, yeah, ok, that makes sense then. The KS isn't killed for the pool
gain; it is the ability to just bleed upstream. You think a crazy
weenie obf/All Night Moves deck would do the same thing? Yeah, ok,
probably not.
> ConBoon:
> Based on what others have said, this, along with the other non-offensive
> votes, can probably be allowed, given the 45 minute timeframe and the
> long setup time needed to exploit pool-gaining votes.
Yeah, I don't think this needs to go anywhere--it requires significant
set up. And if you leave this alone, no one questions the other
similar votes.
> Gran Madre di Dio:
> I felt like its effect, which affects *all* other players, was against the
> spirit of the game. I admit I am on the fence on this one, but I just
> don't want to see it.
Meh. Yeah, it effects the other two players, but is still a real crap
shoot, and doesn't actually do all that much. Unless they are playing
Tupdog...
> Reckless Agitation:
> The offensive nature of RA, along with its 5 pool damage (or even 3/3)
> and the existence of so many small PRE vamps make it too deadly.
> If it is allowed in, it will be played in EVERY DECK that can possibly
> call it, and I think it is broken in the format, e.g. without it, I can
> imagine playing a deck without anti-vote.
Meh. It is a dead card when one guy is dead, and you need to be
independent. Which means more setup or All Settites All The Time. And
they'd probably be more effective just S+Bing. I mean, yeah, the 5
damage bazooka is rough. But 5 damage bleed bazookas are easier to
pull off and more consistent. And even if you get bounced, who cares?
It is just like bleeding your predator with KS.
> Shared Nightmare:
> Action, Chimeristry, 3 blood.
> "Choose three allies or younger players controlled by any other players
> in the game. The chosen minions cannot block or cast votes
> *for*the*rest*of*the*current*minion*phase*." Totally sick and wrong.
> And again, I felt like its effect, which affects *all* other players, was
> against the spirit of the game.
Yeah, maybe. I'm not seeing it as all that grim, or even all that
effective. Especially as I'll go out on a limb and guess that weenie
decks are probably going to be the meat and drink of this format.
> Taunt the Caged Beast:
> Action, Animalism, no cost.
> "Choose two ready vampires, one each controlled by the other two
> players in the game. The chosen vampires enter combat, with no
> detriment to you and no benefit to them." And yet again, I felt like its
> effect was against the spirit of the game.
Well, yeah, but as noted earlier, it isn't going to do much to anyone.
You tap, might get blocked, and your opponents get in a fight. If they
don't feel like playing your reindeer games, they just each H1 (or
maneuver or dodge or S:CE or prevent or whatever). And if someone
wants to fight and torp the other guy, there *is* a benefit to them
(they gain 4 blood). This one strikes me as just not worrying about; I
really doubt that anyone is going to tear up the Rapid Thought scene
with Taunt the Caged Beast.
-Peter
Johann von Doom
> Crypt: (7 cards, Min: 21, Max: 24, Avg: 5.57)
> ---------------------------------------------
> 1 Sir Marriot D`Urban aus obf ser PRE 5 Followers of Set
> 1 Sonja Blue dom pot CEL FOR PRE5 Ventrue
> 1 Renenet ser OBF PRE 5 Followers of Set
> 1 Aisha ani aus ser PRE 6 Followers of Set
> 1 Ankh-sen-Sutekh obf PRE SER 6 Followers of Set
> 1 Elihu dai for POT PRE 6 Baali
> 1 Maureen dom obf DAI PRE 6 Baali
I didn't see any mention of the grouping rule being ignored for this
format...?
John Eno
Kevin M.
> Being able to make more decks I get. Why not make it a full
> half game? 6-crypt, 45 card max, 1 hr long? And ban nothing
> until found abusive (just spinning here).
See, I *did* try to model it after a half-game, as well as looking at
what Scott already did with it. I have thought about this a lot. :)
You have about half the time limit, although I like 45 minutes so you
can run a 3R+F in 3 hours. I could run THREE of these tournaments
at Origins each day!
You have a 6-card crypt, since most decks can be easily modified
from 12 to 6 crypt cards, and I wanted to make the format as unique
as possible, and this seemed possible. I realize that this is using a bit
of force upon the players, to make them embrace change, but I really
want to see this format become something new, not just a sub-format.
You have 90 cards and not 45 since most decks CANNOT be
easily modified from 90 to 45, so you keep it at 90 but have an
interesting, unusual lower-limit for those who want to create anew.
You ban some cards -- some of which I may be incorrect on, which
is why I presented it here -- since some of them NEED TO BE BANNED.
See my later message on why I believe those cards should be banned.
librarian
Nope, just giving you a list of all independent vamps capacity 5 or 6
that have PRE.
best -
chris