(ORIGINS) Rapid Thought at Origins?
Peter D Bakija
I'm thinking about running a Rapid Thought tournament on Friday night
after the Nationals. It would be pretty casual (if speedy) and I'd want
to keep it reasonably small (9-12 people including me as I have prize
support for that many people :-). The problem is that it would be:
A) After a day of playing VTES all day already.
B) Wouldn't start till, like, 10:00pm (although, as it would likely be
over by midnight anyway, that isn't a big deal).
The quick rundown of the rules is 45 minute rounds, 3 player games, Una,
Blood Doll, Minion Tap, Tribute, Vessel, and Villein are all banned.
Decks have minimum crypt size of 6 and should be 40-90 cards big. 3R+F.
Are there people who would want to be in on that crack wacky plan? If
so, let me know here.
I'll have a signup list near registration for the Nationals, and will
limit it to 12 people (I'm playing, and Kevin is probably playing, so
that makes room for 10 more). And it will cost a buck (as I have a
tournament support pack full of promos and some boosters for the winnar!)
And just to be clear, the whole point of Rapid Thought is to play the
most degenerate, mean, single minded brutal decks you can come up with.
'Cause everyone else will be doing that. So expect 2 caps with DOM and
weenie POT rush and anything else that is brutal and mean. And if you
get killed fast, it isn't a big deal, as the next game starts in 20
minutes anyway.
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
Kevin M.
> So those of you who are going to Origins:
>
> I'm thinking about running a Rapid Thought tournament on Friday night
> after the Nationals. It would be pretty casual (if speedy) and I'd
> want to keep it reasonably small (9-12 people including me as I have
> prize support for that many people :-). The problem is that it would
> be:
>
> A) After a day of playing VTES all day already.
>
> B) Wouldn't start till, like, 10:00pm (although, as it would likely be
> over by midnight anyway, that isn't a big deal).
>
> The quick rundown of the rules is
GAAAAAAAA
http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt
Peter D Bakija
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> GAAAAAAAA
> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt
Is it somehow bad that I provided a 2 sentence synopsis rather than a
link that gives the same information, but with a lot more extraneous
verbiage?
Or were you just singing?
:-)
Johann von Doom
> Are there people who would want to be in on that crack wacky plan? If
> so, let me know here.
Pass that crack pipe, I'll take a hit.
John Eno
Kevin M.
> In article <aWs%l.30976$FI5....@newsfe12.iad>,
> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> GAAAAAAAA
>> http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt
>
> Is it somehow bad that I provided a 2 sentence synopsis rather than
> a link that gives the same information, but with a lot more extraneous
> verbiage?
We want that URL to proliferate, so that we don't have to keep
telling people over and over and over (like we do on JOL) what
the rules are, since they'll already know where to look.
Give a man a fish...
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
wrote:
> Pass that crack pipe, I'll take a hit.
Cool! I'll put you on the list. It is currently:
-Peter Bakija (me!)
-Kevin Mergen (is this correct? I'm just assuming)
-John Eno
So I'm gonna have room for 12. So 9 slots left.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> We want that URL to proliferate, so that we don't have to keep
> telling people over and over and over (like we do on JOL) what
> the rules are, since they'll already know where to look.
Ah. Fair!
http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt
-Peter
The Lasombra
>> We want that URL to proliferate, so that we don't have to keep
>> telling people over and over and over (like we do on JOL) what
>> the rules are, since they'll already know where to look.
>Ah. Fair!
>http://members.cox.net/kjm1971/RapidThoughtRevised.txt
Surely the proper link for educating travellers about Origins VTES
tournaments is:
Peter D Bakija
> Surely the proper link for educating travellers about Origins VTES
> tournaments is:
>
> http://columbusvtes.tripod.com/tournaments.htm
Oh, hey--look at that! Thanks for putting that on there. Could you (or
Jay?) include a note that you have to sign up for the Rapid Thought
tournament in advance with me? Space is limited.
Thanks!
-Peter
The Lasombra
> > Surely the proper link for educating travellers about Origins VTES
>> tournaments is:
http://columbusvtes.tripod.com/tournaments.htm
>Oh, hey--look at that! Thanks for putting that on there. Could you (or
>Jay?) include a note that you have to sign up for the Rapid Thought
>tournament in advance with me? Space is limited.
Seems to be done.
Peter D Bakija
Peter D Bakija
> -Peter Bakija (me!)
> -Kevin Mergen (is this correct? I'm just assuming)
> -John Eno
-Ben Kalb
7 spots left.
Kevin M.
Aside from the spamming tripod site which I'd never heard of before,
I'd like to say Thank You to whomever made that nicely colored site! :)
Stretch
where Ithaca goes Binghamton fallows.... to smash your faces
count one James Dirty Rodriguez in.
Peter D Bakija
> where Ithaca goes Binghamton fallows.... to smash your faces
> count one James Dirty Rodriguez in.
Will do! You are up to speed with the kooky rules, correct?
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
Currently at:
-Peter Bakija (me!)
-Kevin Mergen (is this correct? I'm just assuming)
-John Eno
-Dave Conroy
-Ben Kalb
-James Rodriguez
6 spots left.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
And again, just to be clear, so no one is surprised when it happens--
these games are quick and incredibly brutal. Do not be surprised if
you sit down in front of a weenie DOM deck that bleeds you for 7 per
action starting on turn 2. Or a Rush deck that kills every other
vampire on the table. 'Cause that is how this sort of thing goes.
Games that end in 10-15 minutes are in no way out of the realm of
possibility. Getting ousted in 5 minutes is in no way out of the realm
of possibility. Fast. Brutal. Mean decks. And yet, it is all very
hysterical.
-Peter
The Lasombra
> > tournaments is:
http://columbusvtes.tripod.com/tournaments.htm
> Aside from the spamming tripod site which I'd never heard of before,
> I'd like to say Thank You to whomever made that nicely colored site! :)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "spamming site".
The Columbus VTES scene has been celebrated that site for 3-4 years
now.
Kevin M.
>>> Surely the proper link for educating travellers about Origins VTES
>>> tournaments is:
>
> http://columbusvtes.tripod.com/tournaments.htm
>
>> Aside from the spamming tripod site which I'd never heard of before,
>> I'd like to say Thank You to whomever made that nicely colored site!
>> :)
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "spamming site".
I mean that tripod sites have always used pop ups/unders as their
primary means of self-sufficiency, and that I hate pop ups/unders.
Yes, even if my browser or add-on stops them, since I see it happen.
> The Columbus VTES scene has been celebrated that site for 3-4 years
> now.
>
> http://columbusvtes.tripod.com
I guess I don't get around enough. :)
Johann von Doom
> I'm thinking about running a Rapid Thought tournament on Friday night
> after the Nationals.
Just by the by, have you set this event up with the Origins people or
are you just running it under their radar? I'm not sure how big of
jerks they might be if you're doing it the latter way and they get
wind of it. Like, I'm not super-concerned about it, but it might be
something to keep in mind?
John Eno
Peter D Bakija
wrote:
> Just by the by, have you set this event up with the Origins people or
> are you just running it under their radar? I'm not sure how big of
> jerks they might be if you're doing it the latter way and they get
> wind of it. Like, I'm not super-concerned about it, but it might be
> something to keep in mind?
Hmm. Well, it is a completely impromptu event, and I'm not really
charging an entrance fee, and everyone needs to have an Origins badge
to get into the room, so how is it really different than us sitting
down to play some casual games?
I mean, it might be, but I'm usure of what would make the difference
such that Origins would care.
-Peter
Johann von Doom
Yeah, I honestly don't know. It was just a thought that occurred to
me.
John Eno
Peter D Bakija
wrote:
> Yeah, I honestly don't know. It was just a thought that occurred to
> me.
Yeah--totally reasonable to have it occur to you. I just can't imagine
that it is anything other than a slightly more organized casual game
(i.e. when I ran the Newsgroup Invitation all those years, no one ever
seemed to notice), and that they would care. If I was actually, like,
charging admission (well, other than a buck to cover the cost of the
promos), that could be something, but as it is, I can't see anyone
caring. But who knows?
-Peter
Obtenebration
I didn't bring the right deck for this but count me in for some
degenerate play.
Peter D Bakija
wrote:
> I didn't bring the right deck for this but count me in for some
> degenerate play.
I am totally counting you in. Except I have no idea who you are...
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
The current Rapid Thought player list:
-Peter Bakija (me!)
-Kevin Mergen (is this correct? I'm just assuming)
-John Eno
-Dave Conroy
-Ben Kalb
-James Rodriguez
-Obtenebration (anyone know who this is?)
That is 7 of 12 (except without the borg, ahem, implants...)
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
successful Rapid Thought tournament. I planed on 12 people, but when
crunch time came, enough people were interested that we bumped it up
to 15 (5 tables of 3), which worked fine. We started a little after
10:00pm, and all 3 preliminary rounds were all done by midnight,
although in the third round, 2 games embarrassingly timed out (I kinda
wanna invent a new rule where if you are in a game that times out, you
lose all VPs to that point or something :-). The 3 player final was
done in about 40 minutes. Everyone seemed to have a good time, and the
decks were preposterous.
The final (and tournament) was won by my home town boy Dave Conroy
with a Jaroslav/2nd Tradition/Bundi deck. The final round was:
-Dave Conroy (see above)
-John Eno (weenie Animalism rush)
-David Litwin (protean rush)
Conroy got out Jaroslav early, and quickly found Jaroslav torpored due
to an unfortunate lack of fortitude meeting an unfortunate aggravated
hand strike, and then immediately diablerized, leaving Conroy kind of
a smoking crater. After that, Dave L and Eno beat the crap out of each
other, while Conroy influenced out his B-Team of Richter and Volker.
Eventually, after Dave L and Eno have eviscerated each other, Conroy
kind of poked them and they fell over, giving Conroy the 3VP sweep.
Again, the tournament was hilarious, wildly fun, and super quick (3R+F
done in less than 3 hours). Everyone should try this out.
-Peter
Chris Berger
> Yaa! So at Origins on Friday night, I ran a hilarious and wildly
> successful Rapid Thought tournament. I planed on 12 people, but when
> crunch time came, enough people were interested that we bumped it up
> to 15 (5 tables of 3), which worked fine. We started a little after
> 10:00pm, and all 3 preliminary rounds were all done by midnight,
> although in the third round, 2 games embarrassingly timed out (I kinda
> wanna invent a new rule where if you are in a game that times out, you
> lose all VPs to that point or something :-).
Not quite as extreme, but it would totally make sense if no half VP's
were given for being alive at the end of a timed-out game in Rapid
Thought. You get full VP's only, and merely surviving means
nothing!
Peter D Bakija
> Not quite as extreme, but it would totally make sense if no half VP's
> were given for being alive at the end of a timed-out game in Rapid
> Thought. You get full VP's only, and merely surviving means
> nothing!
Ooh! Heh--my "punishment rule" was just comedy, but this is actually a
really good idea; no 1/2 VP for surviving to a time out. Nice!
-Peter
Johann von Doom
> although in the third round, 2 games embarrassingly timed out
I tried, I tried! I had Karl down to one pool and no ready minions
when we ran out of time. >:(
> Conroy got out Jaroslav early, and quickly found Jaroslav torpored due
> to an unfortunate lack of fortitude meeting an unfortunate aggravated
> hand strike, and then immediately diablerized, leaving Conroy kind of
> a smoking crater. After that, Dave L and Eno beat the crap out of each
> other, while Conroy influenced out his B-Team of Richter and Volker.
> Eventually, after Dave L and Eno have eviscerated each other, Conroy
> kind of poked them and they fell over, giving Conroy the 3VP sweep.
Actually, I was playing ANI/pro rush, and the Protean was critical in
several rounds (Flesh of Marble saved my guys' bacon frequently).
Also, in the final, I ousted David before Conroy got me.
This format was tons of fun. For the record, I don't think any of the
currently-banned poolgain masters would have made much difference in
any of the four games I played, but it was good times either way.
Thanks for running it, Peter.
John Eno
D.J.
wrote:
This sounds like a blast. Heck, it sounds like John likes it even
more than Draft!
So, Peter - planning on running any Rapid Thought as part of your
Ithaca qualifier weekend?
- D.J.
Peter D Bakija
<0f242a7c-4558-4cc8...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Johann von Doom <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I tried, I tried! I had Karl down to one pool and no ready minions
> when we ran out of time. >:(
Doh!
> Actually, I was playing ANI/pro rush, and the Protean was critical in
> several rounds (Flesh of Marble saved my guys' bacon frequently).
> Also, in the final, I ousted David before Conroy got me.
Oh, ok--I thought Conroy swept. So you got Litwin, and then Conroy got
you. Check! And I totally spaced on your protean, but yeah, the Flesh of
Marble was huge.
> This format was tons of fun. For the record, I don't think any of the
> currently-banned poolgain masters would have made much difference in
> any of the four games I played, but it was good times either way.
> Thanks for running it, Peter.
No problem! I love this format--again, I have no need for all of the
VTES tournaments I play to be this format, but the refreshingly quick
length (2-3 hours for the whole event) makes it so I can just organize
and run one at the drop of a hat, which is extra fun.
Yeah, I'm also still of the opinion that pool gain masters don't need to
be removed from the environment; I was in multiple games (and playing
with) where there were Voter Caps and Governs and Kindred Spirits which
added pool pretty quickly, and they didn't make a significant difference
in the length of the game (I was playing Voter Cap on pretty much every
vote I called, and the 10+ extra pool each game was mostly irrelevant to
the length of the game). These decks tend to be so focused that games
generally go where either:
A) Your deck works and you win!
or
B) Your deck doesn't, and someone else does!
Like, I was playing super degenerate 4 caps with PRE
KRC/Bewitching/VoterCap. In my first game, I was playing Kevin's Rock
Cat deck and RobbaYagga's Nocturn deck. My deck worked, Kevin's didn't,
and Robert's wasn't a deck that hurt mine too much. So I swept. Second
game, I was playing your deck and Greg's Dom/Aus deck. There was enough
reliable +1 intercept (as you have a couple birds, and Greg had Neighbor
John) that I think I only successfully called one vote the whole game
(and consequently, lost). Game 3 was me, Mark's Tremere IC deck and
Cameron's Caitiff Computer Hacking deck. I had to backoust Cameron (I
think I hit him with Anarchist Uprising, Neonate Breach, a 3 point KRC,
and the multiple 1 point KRCs before he died) and Mark drew into enough
dominate to kill me the turn where if he didn't kill me, I was certainly
killing him. In that game, pool gain masters probably would have helped
me and Mark live longer, but as the whole game took about 15 minutes, I
can't see that they would have made the game time out or anything.
And while I wasn't closely watching the two games that timed out (in the
same round), I don't think it was due to too much pool. It was due to
machination and general gridlock.
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
<e6d41077-aec3-46bc...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
"D.J." <dj...@comcast.net> wrote:
> So, Peter - planning on running any Rapid Thought as part of your
> Ithaca qualifier weekend?
Ooh! Maybe! I'm having a 2R+F game on Friday, and then the Qualifier on
Saturday, and was considering something for Sunday if people were around
and interested--this might be the perfect option!
Johann von Doom
> And while I wasn't closely watching the two games that timed out (in the
> same round), I don't think it was due to too much pool. It was due to
> machination and general gridlock.
In my game, at least, I think it was more due to people spending time
thinking than anything else. I had to keep looking at Rob and Karl and
repeating in a loud voice, "Rapid Thought, people! Rapid Thought!"
because they were playing their turns slowly (for a 45-minute game,
anyway).
John Eno
Ben Swainbank
> Yeah, I'm also still of the opinion that pool gain masters don't need to
> be removed from the environment; I was in multiple games (and playing
> with) where there were Voter Caps and Governs and Kindred Spirits which
> added pool pretty quickly, and they didn't make a significant difference
> in the length of the game (I was playing Voter Cap on pretty much every
> vote I called, and the 10+ extra pool each game was mostly irrelevant to
> the length of the game). These decks tend to be so focused that games
> generally go where either:
>
> A) Your deck works and you win!
>
> or
>
> B) Your deck doesn't, and someone else does!
>
Banning some pool gain cards and not others seems especially odd.
Instead of a complicated banned list, just make a rule against pool-
gain in general.
Something like:
"Pool gained from effects other than the edge and ousting goes to the
blood bank instead."
Keep it simple. Then the format doesn't require a special deck to
play.
Or just skip the pool gain issue. 3 players. 45 minutes. Go.
-Ben Swainbank
LSJ
> Keep it simple. Then the format doesn't require a special deck to
> play.
>
> Or just skip the pool gain issue. 3 players. 45 minutes. Go.
That's the format I'll be running at Dragon*Con this year. 60-70 card decks,
though, since it is 3p.
The Lasombra
Not 40-70?
Peter D Bakija
> Or just skip the pool gain issue. 3 players. 45 minutes. Go.
That is my preferred option, personally.
-Peter
LSJ
Oh yeah. Sure. 40 sounds fine. I was just commenting on the maximum, really.
Ira Fay
What if you have a non-multiple-of-3 number of players? At first I
thought you could play 3 prelim rounds, where players play only 2 out
of 3 rounds, but that never works out correctly because games are
exactly 3 players. (n+1)*2 and (n+2)*2 is never a multiple of three
if n is a multiple of three.
I don't like running tournaments where I have to turn players away. I
guess it's a short tournament, so it's not that bad, but I wonder if
there's a solution to this issue. Perhaps it would be possible to
play 2 or 4 player games if necessary?
Ira
LSJ
Nah. Same as MtG tounaments where they play in multiples of 8. Multiples of
three are easier to find, so pose less difficulty.
Kevin M.
> Ben Swainbank <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Or just skip the pool gain issue. 3 players. 45 minutes. Go.
That isn't a format that I'd be interested in playing. I've heard players
consistently say that 3-player games are not good. Now, with those
five cards banned, we have a format which is gaining popularity and
seems to be generally liked. I think this is due largely in part to the
need for tactics which differ from the standard game BECAUSE of
the banning of those five cards. Why try to make the format like the
standard format? What's the need? Where's the benefit? Is it one?
If you want to play 45-minute VTES with Una banned, be my guest.
> That is my preferred option, personally.
Then you shouldn't be for penalizing players who timeout, since
you're going to have far more timeouts without those masters
banned, right? Which I think LSJ said was the reason for banning
them in the format in the first place.
LSJ
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>> Ben Swainbank <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Or just skip the pool gain issue. 3 players. 45 minutes. Go.
>
> That isn't a format that I'd be interested in playing. I've heard players
> consistently say that 3-player games are not good. Now, with those
> five cards banned, we have a format which is gaining popularity and
> seems to be generally liked. I think this is due largely in part to the
> need for tactics which differ from the standard game BECAUSE of
> the banning of those five cards. Why try to make the format like the
> standard format? What's the need? Where's the benefit? Is it one?
45 min < 2 hour.
This inequality = benefit.
I've heard[*] players consistently say that 9hr VTES tournaments are too long.
* Unsubstantiated hearsay = win.
Peter D Bakija
> What if you have a non-multiple-of-3 number of players?
You are stuck. Which is why you have to arrange things ahead of time.
It is certainly a flaw. But not something you can't plan to make
work.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> That isn't a format that I'd be interested in playing. I've heard players
> consistently say that 3-player games are not good. Now, with those
> five cards banned, we have a format which is gaining popularity and
> seems to be generally liked. I think this is due largely in part to the
> need for tactics which differ from the standard game BECAUSE of
> the banning of those five cards. Why try to make the format like the
> standard format? What's the need? Where's the benefit? Is it one?
I don't know that it is gaining popularity due to those cards being
banned. If it is gaining popularity, it is likely 'cause we are
talking it up and making people play a lot :-)
That being said, again, I don't know that the banning of a few cards
makes that much of a difference to making the game attractive, and I
don't know that unbanning those cards is going to make the games any
slower.
> Then you shouldn't be for penalizing players who timeout, since
> you're going to have far more timeouts without those masters
> banned, right? Which I think LSJ said was the reason for banning
> them in the format in the first place.
I don't think that not having those masters makes the game faster;
there is still pool gain (KS, Voter Cap, countless janky masters), and
I don't think those slow down the game either.
For my money, the attractive aspects of this format are:
-A whole tournament is over in 2-3 hours.
-You can play the meanest, ugliest deck you can imagine, and it won't
result in "table hate", you won't "look like a threat", and no one is
going to gang up on you any more than they already were.
-Three player games have very little room for negotiation.
i.e. the main attraction, for me, specifically comes from the 3 player
structure and short games, not having to work around the imposed
limits on deck building.
There is certainly something to be said for forcing people to use
janky masters for pool gain (go King's Rising!), but I don't know that
that is worth compelling people to make special decks. But maybe it
is.
-Peter
Juggernaut1981
If you are playing it socially, you could potentially organise it as
"rolling 3s" where as soon as there are 2 players ousted, they start
another.
Or maybe something more extreme...(or crazy or insane or feel free to
dismiss it as bizarro in the extreme)...
Blitzkreig VTES...
Basically you get a bunch of people in a room and start playing Rapid
Thought Rules. Each person reports the VPs/GW they get at a table and
the tables just "rolling 3s"... so when there are 3 people out of a
game they immediately start a new table. Players with the highest VPs/
GWs come out on top. Total Blitzkreig time limit 3h30min... basically
once "time on" begins, people start playing rolling 3s... at "time
off" you total up the results...
Ways of determining the winner: Highest average VP per game, Highest
GWs in the time limit, Highest VPs in time limit...
Pros: Pushes people to play hard, fast and DIRTAY... no "downtime"
between rounds
Cons: Probably need a random way to determine the "extras" who might
sit out the first game.
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>>> Ben Swainbank <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Or just skip the pool gain issue. 3 players. 45 minutes. Go.
>>
>> That isn't a format that I'd be interested in playing. I've heard
>> players consistently say that 3-player games are not good. Now,
>> with those five cards banned, we have a format which is gaining
>> popularity and seems to be generally liked. I think this is due largely
>> in part to the need for tactics which differ from the standard game
>> BECAUSE of the banning of those five cards. Why try to make the
>> format like the standard format? What's the need? Where's the
>> benefit? Is it one?
>
> 45 min < 2 hour.
>
> This inequality = benefit.
The discussion within my post was about the five banned pool-gaining
masters, not the time limit, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
> I've heard[*] players consistently say that 9hr VTES tournaments are
> too long.
> * Unsubstantiated hearsay = win.
If you really have consistently heard that I'd be suprised. I'm sorry that
you don't believe what I said. :(
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>>>> Ben Swainbank <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Or just skip the pool gain issue. 3 players. 45 minutes. Go.
>>> That isn't a format that I'd be interested in playing. I've heard
>>> players consistently say that 3-player games are not good. Now,
>>> with those five cards banned, we have a format which is gaining
>>> popularity and seems to be generally liked. I think this is due largely
>>> in part to the need for tactics which differ from the standard game
>>> BECAUSE of the banning of those five cards. Why try to make the
>>> format like the standard format? What's the need? Where's the
>>> benefit? Is it one?
>> 45 min < 2 hour.
>>
>> This inequality = benefit.
>
> The discussion within my post was about the five banned pool-gaining
> masters, not the time limit, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Hmm. I was responding to the point you made in your discussion that had nothing
to do with the five banned pool-gaining masters. Namely: "I've heard players
consistently say that 3-player games are not good."
Q: Why try to make this format like the standard one?
A: It's not trying to be like the standard one. The standard one has a 2hr
per-round time limit (and a minimum of 4p at a table). RT has a 45m per-round
time limit. That's a benefit.
>> I've heard[*] players consistently say that 9hr VTES tournaments are
>> too long.
>> * Unsubstantiated hearsay = win.
>
> If you really have consistently heard that I'd be suprised. I'm sorry that
> you don't believe what I said. :(
You express disbelief in my words and sadness in my unexpressed (and
non-existent) disbelief of yours. How odd.
Anyway, players do consistently observe that the long time block needed for a
tournament is a disadvantage. I don't think that should be surprising.
Peter D Bakija
I missed this one first time around somehow. Yeah, Una could certainly
be a problem (likely 'cause either Una or Freak Drive are totally
baroken, but that is another thread all together...). And if Una needs
to be banned to make the format work, ban the hell out of her (but
still, make an Una deck and let's play on JOL!). Still, however, I'm
unconvinced that the Blood Dolls of the world need to be banned to
make the format work.
Again, what it comes down to is:
A) Pool gain masters should be banned as they make the game quicker
and force people to change things up (which are certainly both
benefits that I recognize).
or
B) Pool gain masters should not be banned as they compel people to
make specialized decks, and a lot of folks will say "Oh, I don't want
to play that as I don't have any decks made for it already and don't
want to mess with the decks I do have lying around."
I'm not fundamentally opposed to banning the cards in question by any
stretch of the imagination--I have run two of these tournaments in the
last month with the banned cards, and they were very successful and
everyone had a great time, so clearly, banning them isn't that big of
a problem. That being said, I think there is a lot to be said for not
compelling people to make different decks for these events, as people
tend to be cranky about that sort of thing. I mean, *I* like to make
specific decks for the format and trying to specifically game the
format, but that is me, and I don't expect that everyone is like that.
And if folks are waffley about the format, and then they also have to
make new decks?
There is also the possible idea of just having the blanket rule of "if
you draw a banned card that is in your deck for whatever reason, you
can immediately discard it and draw a new card", which has a lot going
for it. Until someone games the rule, and makes the deck which is the
perfect 7 card hand and then 33 Blood Dolls.
-Peter
LSJ
> There is also the possible idea of just having the blanket rule of "if
> you draw a banned card that is in your deck for whatever reason, you
> can immediately discard it and draw a new card", which has a lot going
> for it. Until someone games the rule, and makes the deck which is the
> perfect 7 card hand and then 33 Blood Dolls.
If the idea is that they're using "stock" decks, then you could easily assume
the deck is at least 60 cards. (And explicitly word the rule to the effect: that
the permission to burn-option a banned card only applies if your original
library is at least 60 cards).
You could further assume that no more than 20 of the cards in the library are on
the banned list (and word the rule to match).
So then you end up allowing a 40-card library with dross, such that the deck
remains legal without the dross.
But that only makes the "stock" decks mechanically playable. The decks would
likely still be crippled by their choice of banned-in-RT pool gain over
not-banned-in-RT pool gain.
Peter D Bakija
> If the idea is that they're using "stock" decks, then you could easily assume
> the deck is at least 60 cards. (And explicitly word the rule to the effect: that
> the permission to burn-option a banned card only applies if your original
> library is at least 60 cards).
>
> You could further assume that no more than 20 of the cards in the library are on
> the banned list (and word the rule to match).
>
> So then you end up allowing a 40-card library with dross, such that the deck
> remains legal without the dross.
>
> But that only makes the "stock" decks mechanically playable. The decks would
> likely still be crippled by their choice of banned-in-RT pool gain over
> not-banned-in-RT pool gain.
Yeah, that would probably work too.
So at DragonCon, you are running a Rapid Thought. As far as I can
tell, you are just running "45 minute games, 3 players, whatever decks
you want!", is this correct?
Interesting.
-Peter
LSJ
> So at DragonCon, you are running a Rapid Thought. As far as I can
> tell, you are just running "45 minute games, 3 players, whatever decks
> you want!", is this correct?
Correct. Rapid Thought Full Cardset. :-)
> Interesting.
Correct, I hope.
Peter D Bakija
> Correct. Rapid Thought Full Cardset. :-)
>
> > Interesting.
>
> Correct, I hope.
Awesome. It should be a good time. I think that last one (where Josh
won by backwards KS, IIRC) resulted from folks not really thinking
about the format (well, other than Josh :-). With all the discussion
about the format these days, I suspect that people who are playing
will have put more thought into what decks to play. And if experience
is to be believed, the finalists will be mostly combat decks. Or,
conversely, if Kevin is to be believed, Una will win :-)
-Peter
OldFan
> structure and short games, not having to work around the imposed
> limits on deck building.
>
> There is certainly something to be said for forcing people to use
> janky masters for pool gain (go King's Rising!), but I don't know that
> that is worth compelling people to make special decks. But maybe it
> is.
>
> -Peter
Just my $0.02, but I like the fact that the commonly used pool gain
masters are banned - because I feel it really knocks people out of
their comfort zone, and helps to emphasize the "Woah! This is totally
not my Grandpa's Vtes!"
Lets face it - with the exception of voter cap bloat machines (and
even those rely heavily on taps/villein), most people when making a
deck take into consideration the whole "pool defense/ how do I gain
pool?" strategy. So there is the inevitable "make space for 2-3
dolls, 1-2 vessels, maybe a hunting ground or other blood gain card to
make the dolls and vessels work better", etc.
By banning those cards, you force players out of their typical deck
building "kata" and into a brand new world where (for the most part)
"30 pool - that's it, no more, if you want more, GO OUST YOUR PREY! ".
And that's something that really appeals to me in this format. So I
have to agree with Kevin on this - taking my usual 4-5 player deck and
playing 3 player games with it are dull, but taking a deck that is
designed from the get go for a 3 player game with minimal pool gain,
is much more exhilarating.
And since this doesn't seem to get much mention - don't forget that
the minimum crypt size of 6 (instead of 12) definitely alters the
dynamic for the deck THERE as well - definitely not the same as taking
a 90/12 deck and playing with 2 other players, not at all!
Cheers,
Asif Chaudhry
Ben Swainbank
Why max the library at 70 cards?
Again, it seems to forcing a special deck were it's not, necessarily,
needed. I did hear reports of Rapid Thinkers running out of (90) cards
at Origins. And encouraging the careful use of limited resources
doesn't really seem in the spirit of the format.
I know player-count library restrictions are in the rules and all. But
that rule has always been universally ignored.
-Ben Swainbank
Kevin M.
I was trying to follow-up that comment with a discussion about the
banned cards. Sorry it wasn't clear. Your point is valid, I just didn't
see it fitting in there.
>>> I've heard[*] players consistently say that 9hr VTES tournaments
>>> are too long.
>>> * Unsubstantiated hearsay = win.
>>
>> If you really have consistently heard that I'd be suprised. I'm
>> sorry that you don't believe what I said. :(
>
> You express disbelief in my words and sadness in my unexpressed
> (and non-existent) disbelief of yours. How odd.
I did not express disbelief. I expressed suprise if you had consistently
heard that, since I don't consistently hear that, I rarely (but do) hear
that.
And my impression of your "unsubstantiated hearsay" comment was that
you weren't believing what I had said. If that was just a snarky comment
or some other form of humor not aimed at a disbelief of what I said, then
I apologize, but it wasn't that clear what you were trying to say/do with
the comment.
> Anyway, players do consistently observe that the long time block
> needed for a tournament is a disadvantage. I don't think that should
> be surprising.
As I said above, a valid point.
Johann von Doom
> Why max the library at 70 cards?
>
> Again, it seems to forcing a special deck were it's not, necessarily,
> needed. I did hear reports of Rapid Thinkers running out of (90) cards
> at Origins.
Yeah, I decked myself twice in four rounds, with a 90 card deck.
I totally advocate changing nothing in terms of the banned list and
library size, except for Una (and not because she's broken, but
because she'll lead to timeouts). I did like the 6-card crypt minimum,
though I'm not sure it's necessary.
John Eno
LSJ
> On Jun 30, 4:01 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Ben Swainbank wrote:
>>> Keep it simple. Then the format doesn't require a special deck to
>>> play.
>>> Or just skip the pool gain issue. 3 players. 45 minutes. Go.
>> That's the format I'll be running at Dragon*Con this year. 60-70 card decks,
>> though, since it is 3p.
>
> Why max the library at 70 cards?
Standard rules of the game. That is: don't make unnecessary changes.
> Again, it seems to forcing a special deck were it's not, necessarily,
> needed. I did hear reports of Rapid Thinkers running out of (90) cards
> at Origins. And encouraging the careful use of limited resources
> doesn't really seem in the spirit of the format.
Um. If there's a reason to deviate from the standard rules, I suppose the
maximum could be changed from 70. But I don't think there is.
> I know player-count library restrictions are in the rules and all. But
> that rule has always been universally ignored.
It's been ignored only when necessary (i.e. in VEKN tournament rules, and
therefore by playgroups that have decided to follow the VEKN rules, banned list
and all, in their informal play).
D.J.
> Ben Swainbank wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 4:01 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> Ben Swainbank wrote:
> > Again, it seems to forcing a special deck were it's not, necessarily,
> > needed. I did hear reports of Rapid Thinkers running out of (90) cards
> > at Origins. And encouraging the careful use of limited resources
> > doesn't really seem in the spirit of the format.
>
> Um. If there's a reason to deviate from the standard rules, I suppose the
> maximum could be changed from 70. But I don't think there is.
But Ben just listed one, arguably two: allowing easier (if possibly
ill-advised) cross-pollination of decks between "Vanilla" and Rapid
Thought formats (main), and encouraging a gung-ho all-out playstyle
rather than driving players to carefully weigh conservation of
resources (possible secondary).
> > I know player-count library restrictions are in the rules and all. But
> > that rule has always been universally ignored.
>
> It's been ignored only when necessary (i.e. in VEKN tournament rules, and
> therefore by playgroups that have decided to follow the VEKN rules, banned list
> and all, in their informal play).
So are you also advocating ignoring the VEKN banned list in Rapid
Thought? Granted, the seat-swap votes and Succubus Club may be less
damaging in a 3-player game (as there's no cross-table politics, etc),
but RtI is still obscene, etc.
- D.J.
Kevin M.
> I'm not fundamentally opposed to banning the cards
> in question by any stretch of the imagination
Well it TOTALLY sounded like you were, otherwise I wouldn't
have started any of this. :P
Peter D Bakija
> maximum could be changed from 70. But I don't think there is.
Sure, but as noted, there is a very good reason to deviate from the
standard rules--it makes it easier for people to pull a deck out of
their box and sit down to play. Which, as experience has shown me, is
something that will likely need to happen--the likelihood of having
exactly a multiple of 3 isn't that high, so you'll probably have to
dragoon someone (or two someones) into playing. If you have to
shanghai (is saying "shanghai" offensive?) someone into playing *and*
they need to tweak a deck down to 70 from 90, they are that much less
likely to be willing to be drafted.
Again, it isn't necessarily a good idea to use standard VTES decks in
Rapid Thought. But making it hard to do so is likely to turn people
away. Especially if you need them to make the numbers even out.
Like, I'm very pro Kevin's 6 card crypt idea, as it *is* a cool tweak
to the rules, and is also completely non intrusive (i.e. you don't
*need* to use a 6 card crypt, and even if you do want to use a 6 card
crypt from a standard deck, that is a really easy tweak to make in a
minute when you get drafted). I think a 70 card maximum is much less
good of an idea (as it is mandatory and a pain in the arse).
-Peter
LSJ
> On Jul 1, 3:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Um. If there's a reason to deviate from the standard rules, I suppose the
>> maximum could be changed from 70. But I don't think there is.
>
> But Ben just listed one, arguably two: allowing easier (if possibly
> ill-advised) cross-pollination of decks between "Vanilla" and Rapid
> Thought formats (main), and encouraging a gung-ho all-out playstyle
> rather than driving players to carefully weigh conservation of
> resources (possible secondary).
The first is easily handled by cutting 20 cards off the bottom of the deck.
And, seemingly, combat decks already have the advantage in 3p. Modifying the
rules to give them more of an advantage seems backwards.
>>> I know player-count library restrictions are in the rules and all. But
>>> that rule has always been universally ignored.
>> It's been ignored only when necessary (i.e. in VEKN tournament rules, and
>> therefore by playgroups that have decided to follow the VEKN rules, banned list
>> and all, in their informal play).
>
> So are you also advocating ignoring the VEKN banned list in Rapid
> Thought? Granted, the seat-swap votes and Succubus Club may be less
> damaging in a 3-player game (as there's no cross-table politics, etc),
> but RtI is still obscene, etc.
Nah. I rather imagine one could find a reason to use that list without expending
much effort, and indeed it seems you have listed such a reason.
LSJ
> On Jul 1, 3:52 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Um. If there's a reason to deviate from the standard rules, I suppose the
>> maximum could be changed from 70. But I don't think there is.
> I think a 70 card maximum is much less
> good of an idea (as it is mandatory and a pain in the arse).
Mandatory and trivial, actually.
Peter D Bakija
> Well it TOTALLY sounded like you were, otherwise I wouldn't
> have started any of this. :P
Too be clear--if banning the cards in question (5 pool gain masters
and Una) is something that we end up with as a standard, I'm *totally*
ok with that; I like that people end up using weird ass master cards
for pool gain, as it is extra funny ("Instability FTW!").
But in a design sense, I'm still in no way convinced that removal of
the pool gain masters (the jury is still out on Una...) is
*necessary*, and there are significant advantages to *not* banning
them (i.e. people don't need to have specialized decks just for this
format). I agree that to do well, you probably should have a
specialized deck, but given the need to have exactly 3X players to
make it work, which often means dragooning people into service, I
think that anything that makes drafting people into playing easier is
a good idea. If Una is banned, and nothing else, say, that is easy to
deal with--just don't play your Una deck. But banning all the pool
gain masters means that most (if not all) of a given player's already
built decks will need not insignificant modification to play in Rapid
Thought.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> Mandatory and trivial, actually.
I would challenge the idea that removing 20 cards from a well tuned
deck that you want to try out in Rapid Thought is "trivial". I would
also suggest that if someone is being hornswaggled into playing to be
the 12th (or whatever), and then they are told "oh yeah, you also need
to take 20 cards out of your deck..." that they would see it as
trivial either.
-Peter
Kevin M.
I think our on-the-spot Burn-option rule covered the banned-cards-
still-in-your-deck issue easier and suits the format better than keeping
them in would. I'll even add it to the webpage -- it was really good!
Kevin M.
> D.J. wrote:
>> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>> Um. If there's a reason to deviate from the standard rules, I
>>> suppose the maximum could be changed from 70. But I don't think
>>> there is.
>>
>> But Ben just listed one, arguably two: allowing easier (if possibly
>> ill-advised) cross-pollination of decks between "Vanilla" and Rapid
>> Thought formats (main), and encouraging a gung-ho all-out playstyle
>> rather than driving players to carefully weigh conservation of
>> resources (possible secondary).
>
> The first is easily handled by cutting 20 cards off the bottom
> of the deck.
You seem to be saying that random destruction of one's deck is
somehow better for the format than the inclusion of the VEKN
tournament rule of a 90-card maximum deck size, correct? If not,
please tell me what you are trying to say. If so, well, I just don't
know what to say if you're advocating for a rule that no one I know[1]
plays by anyway.
[1] Would you like a survey? Would you consider changing
the rulebook to remove this outdated rule? ;)
> And, seemingly, combat decks already have the advantage in 3p.
> Modifying the rules to give them more of an advantage seems
> backwards.
The RapidThought rules aren't doing that on purpose, it just turns out
that more-combaty decks are doing better in the format than less-
combaty decks happen to be. The community seems willing to accept
that in order to facilitate easier entry into the format for existing decks.
In the same way, you could say that VEKN tournaments currently give
DISadvantage to players that choose to play combat decks. Isn't that
where your point leads?
Kevin M.
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>>> Um. If there's a reason to deviate from the standard rules, I
>>> suppose the maximum could be changed from 70. But I don't think
>>> there is.
>
>> I think a 70 card maximum is much less
>> good of an idea (as it is mandatory and a pain in the arse).
>
> Mandatory and trivial, actually.
How in the heck is it trivial to be forced to keep a deck available
for playing but be forced to carry around the 20-30 extra cards
with you everywhere you go, just in case? Not to mention the extra
time and effort of tuning the deck 3-4 times instead of just one.
The removal of that outdated rule would only standardize the game,
and result in nothing but good 99% of the time. I say junk it.
Peter D Bakija
> I think our on-the-spot Burn-option rule covered the banned-cards-
> still-in-your-deck issue easier and suits the format better than keeping
> them in would. I'll even add it to the webpage -- it was really good!
I agree that that works good too, although as I mentioned before,
you'd have to invent a way (LSJ suggested a reasonable one) to keep
someone from intentionally abusing it.
-Peter
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> D.J. wrote:
>>> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>> Um. If there's a reason to deviate from the standard rules, I
>>>> suppose the maximum could be changed from 70. But I don't think
>>>> there is.
>>> But Ben just listed one, arguably two: allowing easier (if possibly
>>> ill-advised) cross-pollination of decks between "Vanilla" and Rapid
>>> Thought formats (main), and encouraging a gung-ho all-out playstyle
>>> rather than driving players to carefully weigh conservation of
>>> resources (possible secondary).
>> The first is easily handled by cutting 20 cards off the bottom
>> of the deck.
>
> You seem to be saying that random destruction of one's deck is
> somehow better for the format than the inclusion of the VEKN
> tournament rule of a 90-card maximum deck size, correct? If not,
> please tell me what you are trying to say.
Why, no, I haven't stopped beating my wife. Horrors.
I suggest that a player who wishes to quickly simulate how xer deck would fare
when the environment is changed from a 90-card max to a 70-card max could do
quite well, statistically, by just ignoring the 20 cards that xe wouldn't have
been legally able to draw in the first place. Clever, those statistics.
> If so, well, I just don't
> know what to say if you're advocating for a rule that no one I know[1]
> plays by anyway.
>
> [1] Would you like a survey? Would you consider changing
> the rulebook to remove this outdated rule? ;)
Ooh. Appeal to a popularity contest. Nice.
AFAIK, the "everyone" in your context plays for simulation of the VEKN
tournament environment. So, naturally, "everyone" uses the VEKN rule for library
size.
>> And, seemingly, combat decks already have the advantage in 3p.
>> Modifying the rules to give them more of an advantage seems
>> backwards.
>
> The RapidThought rules aren't doing that on purpose, it just turns out
> that more-combaty decks are doing better in the format than less-
> combaty decks happen to be.
Yes.
> The community seems willing to accept
> that in order to facilitate easier entry into the format for existing decks.
Um. OK.
> In the same way, you could say that VEKN tournaments currently give
> DISadvantage to players that choose to play combat decks. Isn't that
> where your point leads?
Um. No. That would be the par against which we are measuring.
If you like, you can reset par to 3p. In which case, RT gives no advantage nor
disadvantage to combat decks, leading, again, to the conclusion that no
adjustment to the library size is needed.
If the VEKN rules were for 3p (and therefore used a 60-70 card library rule),
then you could imagine a Reflective Thought format geared to 5p tables and
realize that, hey, combat decks are disadvantaged in this format (over the 3p
par) and then decide to use the standard rules for deck construction over the
3pVEKN rule. That seems sensible.
LSJ
> The removal of that outdated rule would only standardize the game,
> and result in nothing but good 99% of the time. I say junk it.
? It isn't outdated. It's current.
If we start a format geared to 9 player tables, should we restrict it to 90 card
libraries just because that's how the formula worked out for the only VEKN
format in use prior to that time?
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>>> D.J. wrote:
>>>> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>>> Um. If there's a reason to deviate from the standard rules, I
>>>>> suppose the maximum could be changed from 70. But I don't think
>>>>> there is.
>>>> But Ben just listed one, arguably two: allowing easier (if possibly
>>>> ill-advised) cross-pollination of decks between "Vanilla" and Rapid
>>>> Thought formats (main), and encouraging a gung-ho all-out playstyle
>>>> rather than driving players to carefully weigh conservation of
>>>> resources (possible secondary).
>>>
>>> The first is easily handled by cutting 20 cards off the bottom
>>> of the deck.
>>
>> You seem to be saying that random destruction of one's deck is
>> somehow better for the format than the inclusion of the VEKN
>> tournament rule of a 90-card maximum deck size, correct? If not,
>> please tell me what you are trying to say.
>
> Why, no, I haven't stopped beating my wife. Horrors.
Did something in my text cause your snarky reply? Unless you also
consider THAT sentence accusatory, I'd like you to educate me.
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> The removal of that outdated rule would only standardize the game,
>> and result in nothing but good 99% of the time. I say junk it.
>
> ? It isn't outdated. It's current.
Sigh. I really don't know how to say this without you shooting it down
somehow as non-useful, but I simply do not know of anyone or any
playgroup that continues to play by this rule, aside from a single playgroup
I used to know about 10 years ago. Now, that's just me, sure, but I'd
suspect that if we did a survey, if that was even useful to you at any
level,
then we'd find a massively wide majority of playgroups don't use it,
have never used it, don't teach it, and have no interest in it whatsoever.
That makes it outdated by a reasonable definition of "outdated", albeit
also current. So, I believe your proposed contradiction isn't correct.
> If we start a format geared to 9 player tables, should we restrict it
> to 90 card libraries just because that's how the formula worked out
> for the only VEKN format in use prior to that time?
As the VEKN deck-maximum formula was at-some-point changed from
the current rulebook formula, so I'm sure you'd change the 9-player table
formula to something other than the current rulebook formula.
Kevin M.
Why, though? We don't currently stop players in VEKN tournaments
from running as many burn-option cards as they like. Or, are you
saying that since that rule has a limiting factor (once per untap phase)
and ours does not, that we could experience more/some abuse?
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>> LSJ wrote:
>>>> D.J. wrote:
>>>>> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Um. If there's a reason to deviate from the standard rules, I
>>>>>> suppose the maximum could be changed from 70. But I don't think
>>>>>> there is.
>>>>> But Ben just listed one, arguably two: allowing easier (if possibly
>>>>> ill-advised) cross-pollination of decks between "Vanilla" and Rapid
>>>>> Thought formats (main), and encouraging a gung-ho all-out playstyle
>>>>> rather than driving players to carefully weigh conservation of
>>>>> resources (possible secondary).
>>>> The first is easily handled by cutting 20 cards off the bottom
>>>> of the deck.
>>> You seem to be saying that random destruction of one's deck is
>>> somehow better for the format than the inclusion of the VEKN
>>> tournament rule of a 90-card maximum deck size, correct? If not,
>>> please tell me what you are trying to say.
>> Why, no, I haven't stopped beating my wife. Horrors.
> [snip]
>
> Did something in my text cause your snarky reply? Unless you also
> consider THAT sentence accusatory, I'd like you to educate me.
The casting of "cut 20" as "random destruction".
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>> The removal of that outdated rule would only standardize the game,
>>> and result in nothing but good 99% of the time. I say junk it.
>> ? It isn't outdated. It's current.
>
> Sigh. I really don't know how to say this without you shooting it down
> somehow as non-useful, but I simply do not know of anyone or any
> playgroup that continues to play by this rule, aside from a single playgroup
OK. So now you know me.
And, as previously stated, matching the VEKN rules, which in turn strive to
match the *current* formula, doesn't make the current formula less current.
> I used to know about 10 years ago. Now, that's just me, sure, but I'd
> suspect that if we did a survey, if that was even useful to you at any
> level,
> then we'd find a massively wide majority of playgroups don't use it,
> have never used it, don't teach it, and have no interest in it whatsoever.
Really? I think most playgroups try to make 5p tables.
If a group has 30 people show up, do you think they'll run 10 tables of 3, 6
tables of 5, or 5 tables of 6?
> That makes it outdated by a reasonable definition of "outdated", albeit
> also current. So, I believe your proposed contradiction isn't correct.
No, that "reasonable" definition equating just overlooks the fact that the
current formula is underlying the VEKN rules.
>> If we start a format geared to 9 player tables, should we restrict it
>> to 90 card libraries just because that's how the formula worked out
>> for the only VEKN format in use prior to that time?
>
> As the VEKN deck-maximum formula was at-some-point changed from
> the current rulebook formula,
Um. No. It uses exactly the rulebook formula (well, except for the minimum,
which isn't the current topic).
> so I'm sure you'd change the 9-player table
> formula to something other than the current rulebook formula.
No. I'd leave it the same, as well. Change should have a reason. Not just change
for change's sake.
9p = 130 card maximum in the library, by the current formula.
LSJ
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>> I think our on-the-spot Burn-option rule covered the banned-cards-
>>> still-in-your-deck issue easier and suits the format better than
>>> keeping them in would. I'll even add it to the webpage -- it was
>>> really good!
>> I agree that that works good too, although as I mentioned before,
>> you'd have to invent a way (LSJ suggested a reasonable one) to keep
>> someone from intentionally abusing it.
>
> Why, though? We don't currently stop players in VEKN tournaments
> from running as many burn-option cards as they like. Or, are you
> saying that since that rule has a limiting factor (once per untap phase)
> and ours does not, that we could experience more/some abuse?
His rule wasn't the same as the rulebook burn option. It was immediate and
repeatable.
Even so, the whole point of the rule was to allow VEKN-standard decks to play in
the format. So assuming VEKN-standard decks isn't all that outlandish.
Peter D Bakija
> Why, though? We don't currently stop players in VEKN tournaments
> from running as many burn-option cards as they like. Or, are you
> saying that since that rule has a limiting factor (once per untap phase)
> and ours does not, that we could experience more/some abuse?
Yeah--assuming that the plan was "if you draw a banned card,
immediately discard and redraw" (as I think that was what we told
people on Friday) as opposed to "banned cards become burn option
cards" (which was not what we told people on Friday), it would be
really easy to come up with a perfect 7 card hand, some recursion
tech, and then make the rest of your deck Blood Dolls, and you get to
draw and discard your whole deck instantly.
If you wanted to make banned cards into burn option cards, that is
certainly a viable plan. But different than the one I though you were
suggesting.
-Peter
Kevin M.
If after shuffling you lose 20 cards, isn't that rightly called 'random'?
And perhaps the word 'destruction' has an intense connotation, but it
seems to me like the purposeful loss of part of your deck is destructive,
whereas you could instead just not have that rule and thereby incur no
loss of your deck.
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>>> The removal of that outdated rule would only standardize the game,
>>>> and result in nothing but good 99% of the time. I say junk it.
>>> ? It isn't outdated. It's current.
>>
>> Sigh. I really don't know how to say this without you shooting it
>> down somehow as non-useful, but I simply do not know of anyone or
>> any playgroup that continues to play by this rule, aside from a single
>> playgroup
>
> OK. So now you know me.
Really? You really make your playgroup go through all the hoops
and effort it takes to follow that rulebook-rule? Wow, OK. Thank
you for letting me know that I was exaggerating my claim.
>> I used to know about 10 years ago. Now, that's just me, sure, but
>> I'd suspect that if we did a survey, if that was even useful to you
>> at any level, then we'd find a massively wide majority of playgroups
>> don't use it, have never used it, don't teach it, and have no interest in
>> it whatsoever.
>
> Really? I think most playgroups try to make 5p tables.
>
> If a group has 30 people show up, do you think they'll run 10 tables
> of 3, 6 tables of 5, or 5 tables of 6?
ummm What? I don't know what this has to do with what we were
talking about.
>>> If we start a format geared to 9 player tables, should we restrict
>>> it to 90 card libraries just because that's how the formula worked
>>> out for the only VEKN format in use prior to that time?
>>
>> As the VEKN deck-maximum formula was at-some-point changed
>> from the current rulebook formula,
>
> Um. No. It uses exactly the rulebook formula (well, except for the
> minimum, which isn't the current topic).
How is a 90-card maximum deck size using exactly the rule where you
should be playing with a deck size of 80 at that table? VEKN 6.2 even
says the maximum is 90, which seems to contradict 40+10/player.
>> so I'm sure you'd change the 9-player table
>> formula to something other than the current rulebook formula.
>
> No. I'd leave it the same, as well. Change should have a reason.
> Not just change for change's sake.
>
> 9p = 130 card maximum in the library, by the current formula.
Then why is the VEKN rule 6.2 in existence? Why don't we make
players trim the bottom (or whatever) 10 cards when they sit at a
4-player table?
Kevin M.
Oh, it certainly is different than what I was suggesting, since I hadn't
thought of the abuse you guys brought up. But thanks for alerting me
to the fact that my idea is a bad one! Whew! ;)
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>> I used to know about 10 years ago. Now, that's just me, sure, but
>>> I'd suspect that if we did a survey, if that was even useful to you
>>> at any level, then we'd find a massively wide majority of playgroups
>>> don't use it, have never used it, don't teach it, and have no interest in
>>> it whatsoever.
>> Really? I think most playgroups try to make 5p tables.
>>
>> If a group has 30 people show up, do you think they'll run 10 tables
>> of 3, 6 tables of 5, or 5 tables of 6?
>
> ummm What? I don't know what this has to do with what we were
> talking about.
Do you think the groups you keep waving to are shooting for 3p, 5p, or 6p
tables? This has to do with the topic directly and rather obviously.
>>>> If we start a format geared to 9 player tables, should we restrict
>>>> it to 90 card libraries just because that's how the formula worked
>>>> out for the only VEKN format in use prior to that time?
>>> As the VEKN deck-maximum formula was at-some-point changed
>>> from the current rulebook formula,
>> Um. No. It uses exactly the rulebook formula (well, except for the
>> minimum, which isn't the current topic).
>
> How is a 90-card maximum deck size using exactly the rule where you
> should be playing with a deck size of 80 at that table? VEKN 6.2 even
> says the maximum is 90, which seems to contradict 40+10/player.
Hopefully you're playing Devil's Advocate here.
The (obvious) answer: so that decks don't have to be changed between rounds (and
then possibly changed back for the next round). That's just asking for trouble
in a tournament.
>>> so I'm sure you'd change the 9-player table
>>> formula to something other than the current rulebook formula.
>> No. I'd leave it the same, as well. Change should have a reason.
>> Not just change for change's sake.
>>
>> 9p = 130 card maximum in the library, by the current formula.
>
> Then why is the VEKN rule 6.2 in existence? Why don't we make
> players trim the bottom (or whatever) 10 cards when they sit at a
> 4-player table?
For the obvious reason.
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>>> I used to know about 10 years ago. Now, that's just me, sure, but
>>>> I'd suspect that if we did a survey, if that was even useful to you
>>>> at any level, then we'd find a massively wide majority of
>>>> playgroups don't use it, have never used it, don't teach it, and
>>>> have no interest in it whatsoever.
>>>
>>> Really? I think most playgroups try to make 5p tables.
>>>
>>> If a group has 30 people show up, do you think they'll run 10 tables
>>> of 3, 6 tables of 5, or 5 tables of 6?
>>
>> ummm What? I don't know what this has to do with what we were
>> talking about.
>
> Do you think the groups you keep waving to are shooting for 3p,
> 5p, or 6p tables? This has to do with the topic directly and rather
> obviously.
Oh, I see the confusion. I'm suggesting that the rulebook rule of
40+10/player isn't useful and why don't we just standardize it to the
VEKN rule of 60-90 and you're discussing 5p tables as optimal
which makes my argument moot since those would be 90-card decks
anyway.
Except where those groups DON'T get all 5-player tables, in which
case my suggestion again seems reasonble.
>>>>> If we start a format geared to 9 player tables, should we restrict
>>>>> it to 90 card libraries just because that's how the formula worked
>>>>> out for the only VEKN format in use prior to that time?
>>>>
>>>> As the VEKN deck-maximum formula was at-some-point changed
>>>> from the current rulebook formula,
>>>
>>> Um. No. It uses exactly the rulebook formula (well, except for the
>>> minimum, which isn't the current topic).
>>
>> How is a 90-card maximum deck size using exactly the rule where you
>> should be playing with a deck size of 80 at that table? VEKN 6.2
>> even says the maximum is 90, which seems to contradict 40+10/player.
>
> Hopefully you're playing Devil's Advocate here.
>
> The (obvious) answer: so that decks don't have to be changed between
> rounds (and then possibly changed back for the next round). That's
> just asking for trouble in a tournament.
Agreed. But why isn't the extra effort, etc., within a non-tournament
setting equally-considered "trouble"? Maybe not exactly equal but
certainly extra effort, etc., so why not just standardize the rulebook
with the single rule of 60-90 cards in your library rather than 40+10/p?
It just seems easier and more reasonable a rule to me.
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>> LSJ wrote:
>>>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>>>> I used to know about 10 years ago. Now, that's just me, sure, but
>>>>> I'd suspect that if we did a survey, if that was even useful to you
>>>>> at any level, then we'd find a massively wide majority of
>>>>> playgroups don't use it, have never used it, don't teach it, and
>>>>> have no interest in it whatsoever.
>>>> Really? I think most playgroups try to make 5p tables.
>>>>
>>>> If a group has 30 people show up, do you think they'll run 10 tables
>>>> of 3, 6 tables of 5, or 5 tables of 6?
>>> ummm What? I don't know what this has to do with what we were
>>> talking about.
>> Do you think the groups you keep waving to are shooting for 3p,
>> 5p, or 6p tables? This has to do with the topic directly and rather
>> obviously.
>
> Oh, I see the confusion. I'm suggesting that the rulebook rule of
> 40+10/player isn't useful and why don't we just standardize it to the
> VEKN rule of 60-90 and you're discussing 5p tables as optimal
> which makes my argument moot since those would be 90-card decks
> anyway.
No. I'm not discussing 5p as optimal.
I'm asking what you think the groups you keep waving to are shooting for. 3p,
5p, or 6p.
If it's 5p, then calling those groups' usage of 90 card maximum non-standard is
not quite in line.
> Except where those groups DON'T get all 5-player tables, in which
> case my suggestion again seems reasonble.
Uh. What suggestion? To use 90 card maximums for 2p games and 10p games?
>>>>>> If we start a format geared to 9 player tables, should we restrict
>>>>>> it to 90 card libraries just because that's how the formula worked
>>>>>> out for the only VEKN format in use prior to that time?
>>>>> As the VEKN deck-maximum formula was at-some-point changed
>>>>> from the current rulebook formula,
>>>> Um. No. It uses exactly the rulebook formula (well, except for the
>>>> minimum, which isn't the current topic).
>>> How is a 90-card maximum deck size using exactly the rule where you
>>> should be playing with a deck size of 80 at that table? VEKN 6.2
>>> even says the maximum is 90, which seems to contradict 40+10/player.
>> Hopefully you're playing Devil's Advocate here.
>>
>> The (obvious) answer: so that decks don't have to be changed between
>> rounds (and then possibly changed back for the next round). That's
>> just asking for trouble in a tournament.
>
> Agreed. But why isn't the extra effort, etc., within a non-tournament
> setting equally-considered "trouble"?
Eh?
Non-tournament setting frequently see players changing decks between "rounds".
> Maybe not exactly equal but
> certainly extra effort, etc., so why not just standardize the rulebook
> with the single rule of 60-90 cards in your library rather than 40+10/p?
> It just seems easier and more reasonable a rule to me.
Because more players = longer games = more cards needed.
See the 9p table example given earlier.
This is not unique to VTES.
Other games also vary resources available based on number of players.
Peter D Bakija
> Oh, it certainly is different than what I was suggesting, since I hadn't
> thought of the abuse you guys brought up. But thanks for alerting me
> to the fact that my idea is a bad one! Whew! ;)
Heh--if the rule was just "banned cards are burn option" (and work
just like regular burn option cards), then I suspect all is cool. You
could go with the just "auto ditch and redraw", but that would result
in people abusing it, presumably at some point, unless a bunch of
extra verbiage is put into the rules.
Either probably works.
-Peter
Kevin M.
The fact that those groups, which I believe are shooting for 5p tables,
end up with 90-card deck sizes is still due to the 40+10/p rule, which
I am suggesting isn't as useful as the more simple "60-90" since those
playgroups which shoot for 5p tables do not always get 5p tables and
hence are forced into extra effort, etc., due to the 10+10/p rule.
>> Except where those groups DON'T get all 5-player tables, in which
>> case my suggestion again seems reasonble.
>
> Uh. What suggestion? To use 90 card maximums for 2p games and
> 10p games?
I'd suggest that 2p VTES is so miserable as to not warrant playing and
that I've never heard of a 10p game ever having been played. So, from
my point-of-view, I don't see what point you're trying to establish using
those numbers.
>>>>>>> If we start a format geared to 9 player tables, should we
>>>>>>> restrict it to 90 card libraries just because that's how the
>>>>>>> formula worked out for the only VEKN format in use prior to
>>>>>>> that time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As the VEKN deck-maximum formula was at-some-point changed
>>>>>> from the current rulebook formula,
>>>>>
>>>>> Um. No. It uses exactly the rulebook formula (well, except for the
>>>>> minimum, which isn't the current topic).
>>>>
>>>> How is a 90-card maximum deck size using exactly the rule where you
>>>> should be playing with a deck size of 80 at that table? VEKN 6.2
>>>> even says the maximum is 90, which seems to contradict
>>>> 40+10/player.
>>>
>>> Hopefully you're playing Devil's Advocate here.
>>>
>>> The (obvious) answer: so that decks don't have to be changed between
>>> rounds (and then possibly changed back for the next round). That's
>>> just asking for trouble in a tournament.
>>
>> Agreed. But why isn't the extra effort, etc., within a
>> non-tournament setting equally-considered "trouble"?
>
> Eh?
> Non-tournament setting frequently see players changing decks between
> "rounds".
Since I don't play by 40+10/p but rather 60-90, I don't need to change
a deck by 10 cards (for a 4-player table) between rounds. Which is my
entire point.
>> Maybe not exactly equal but certainly extra effort, etc., so why not
>> just standardize the rulebook with the single rule of 60-90 cards in
>> your library rather than 40+10/p? It just seems easier and more
>> reasonable a rule to me.
>
> Because more players = longer games = more cards needed.
"60-90 deck size" accomplishes that.
> See the 9p table example given earlier.
>
> This is not unique to VTES.
> Other games also vary resources available based on number of players.
If *I* had said that, wouldn't you be hassling me about something? ;)
James Coupe
>I mean, *I* like to make specific decks for the format and trying to
>specifically game the format, but that is me, and I don't expect that
>everyone is like that. And if folks are waffley about the format, and
>then they also have to make new decks?
Well, if you're all about getting people to try something new, you may
want to have a spare deck or six on hand.
As I see it, if people actually take to the Rapid Thought format
seriously[0], you're almost certainly going to find people tweaking
decks for it. Leaving aside all the possible bans you might or might
not make:
- you might change your bleed bounce a lot, because most of it will be
dead when you hit 2 players and My Enemy's Enemy probably becomes a
lot better
- Conservative Agitations pretty much all disappear from the game
(though they are found reasonably often in the TWDA)
- a variety of cards that generate table hate act faster and have fewer
people to go after you. e.g. there are two fewer players to try to
burn your Smiling Jack, and it goes up in value every third turn, not
every fifth...
- ... and for situations like this, your ratio of defensive cards to
other cards might change. (Since this cross-table guy isn't going to
blow up Jack, you need two fewer Wakes before you get to play your
next master card, say.)
- as a wall, Millicent Smith might be a much more interesting card
because it doesn't have that annoying period where it goes to my
grand-predator or grand-prey
- a combat deck may need much less bleed, because once one player is
ousted (which it can help with!), it just needs to demolish the other
player and can then bleed out happily and win fairly speedily.
- my Turbo deck only has to go off enough to beat two players. Perhaps
I can drop my total number of cards, and make hand jam less serious by
dropping from 80 cards to, say, 60.
Those sorts of considerations suggest to me that in a world where Rapid
Thought is a serious game format, players will already have to adapt
some of their decks reasonably significantly in order to have a good
chance of winning.
As a result, I don't think a different banned list is necessarily that
serious of an imposition on such players, *except* for when trying to
ensnare players to Rapid Thought in the first place. The burn option
suggestion seems to cover that reasonably well.
One thing I would be careful about, though, is how this format is
presented to new players. On the one hand, the 45 minute x 4 makes it
very attractive for conventions where you might demo it to other
players. On the other hand, the fact that the format is being presented
as (to paraphrase) play your nastiest possible deck and pound your
opponents into the dust may not make it the best introduction for new
players.
[0] e.g. using the 3 hour limit to make it pleasant to run at gaming
conventions.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Peter D Bakija
> Well, if you're all about getting people to try something new, you may
> want to have a spare deck or six on hand.
It is more the point that often (well, in both of the instances I ran
this event, so through extrapolation, often enough) you will need to
con someone into playing, as you need a 12th (or 9th or 15th) player.
So you find someone who wasn't real keen on playing in the first place
and beat them into playing with you. Yeah, I could hand them a deck,
but people generally like using their own decks.
> As I see it, if people actually take to the Rapid Thought format
> seriously[0], you're almost certainly going to find people tweaking
> decks for it. Leaving aside all the possible bans you might or might
> not make:
Yes. I suspect that *most* people who are voluntarily playing in an
event of this nature will make decks accordingly. But some of them
will not, as they just decided to play at the last second. And some
will not, as they have been dragooned into playing by virtue of us
needing exactly 1 more guy, and they couldn't get away fast enough.
> One thing I would be careful about, though, is how this format is
> presented to new players.
I honestly don't really see it as a format to appeal to new players--
that you need to play really fast in and of itself puts new players at
a disadvantage. That, and as you might be ousted in 5 minutes, also
not a great lure to new people.
> On the other hand, the fact that the format is being presented
> as (to paraphrase) play your nastiest possible deck and pound your
> opponents into the dust may not make it the best introduction for new
> players.
I never suggested that it would be.
-Peter
LSJ
> I honestly don't really see it as a format to appeal to new players--
> that you need to play really fast in and of itself puts new players at
> a disadvantage. That, and as you might be ousted in 5 minutes, also
> not a great lure to new people.
A new player will generally be more interested in a 3hr format than a 9hr one.
Being ousted in 5 minutes in a 2hr game < being ousted in 5 minutes in a 45
minute game.
Peter D Bakija
> A new player will generally be more interested in a 3hr format than a 9hr one.
Maybe.
> Being ousted in 5 minutes in a 2hr game < being ousted in 5 minutes in a 45
> minute game.
That is completely true (and one of the selling points I use for the
format in general). But the nature of the decks and play the tend to
be seen? Not necessarily that fantastic for new players. But maybe it
is?
-Peter
Xian
> I'd suggest that 2p VTES is so miserable as to not warrant playing and
> that I've never heard of a 10p game ever having been played.
Back in the dark days between Sabbat & Sabbat War, Duffin and I played
a really terrible 10-player game in MSP. Well, it may have been 9.
With a couple of the players that were listed in the recent Imperator
report, actually. :)
But that was the way those guys liked to play back then. Shortly
thereafter, I tried to teach them the error of their ways with a Slave
Auction/Parity Shift/Con Ag deck. Good times.
Xian
John Flournoy
> > 10p games?
>
> I'd suggest that 2p VTES is so miserable as to not warrant playing and
> that I've never heard of a 10p game ever having been played. So, from
> my point-of-view, I don't see what point you're trying to establish using
> those numbers.
For the first several years of my playing VTES, I was playing with a
group that routinely played 7-10 player games at a single table.
(Which took for_ever_ to finish, even with towering 120+ card decks.)
> Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
-John Flournoy
Some Other Mike
> done in less than 3 hours). Everyone should try this out.
Agreed on all counts; the slapstick factor was strong with this
format, and that was highly fun.
Count me in for the DragonCon event.
librarian
You could have a 60-90 card deck size, and a recursion rule for larger
tables (say 7+).
Does anyone have experience with a casual playgroup that enforces the 80
card limit for 4-player games?
best -
chris
LSJ
> Does anyone have experience with a casual playgroup that enforces the 80
> card limit for 4-player games?
Does anyone have experience with a casual group that favors 4p games and doesn't
use the VEKN rules (e.g., that doesn't treat their casual games as tournament
practice)?
Then, of those groups, do any not enforce the deck construction rule?
(My guess for the latter: no, there are no such groups and all none of them use
the standard rules on deck construction; or yes, there are such groups, and most
of them use the standard deck construction rule for library size, and fewer of
them use the grouping rule for deck construction).
Peter D Bakija
> Does anyone have experience with a casual group that favors 4p games and doesn't
> use the VEKN rules (e.g., that doesn't treat their casual games as tournament
> practice)?
>
> Then, of those groups, do any not enforce the deck construction rule?
I have a casual group that regularly plays 4 player games as well as
non Rapid Thought 3 player games, and aren't specifically treating our
games at tournament practice (i.e. we play 3 player games all the
time). I suspect that we play more 3-4 player games than 5 player
games (as we rarely have exactly 5, but often have 3-7). When we are
playing 3 and 4 player games, we do not enforce the maximum deck size
rule. When we play the occasional 6 player game, we also do not make
our decks 100 cards big.
-Peter
librarian
So, are you yourself arguing that the rulebook rules should change to
the VEKN rules?
best -
chris
LSJ
?
What? No. The above does not suggest anything like that.
I think the rulebook should not restrict games to or give preferential treatment
for five players.