The "fairness" of massive Freak Drive decks
Johannes Walch
tournament made me think of the "fairness" of the concept in terms of
game time.
Those decks (for those of you who are unfamiliar with the concept) rely
on tooling up Una (pay one less for Fortitude) or a Tremere (Ankara
Citadel) very quickly (ideally in 1 round) by the use of something in
the range of 45 Freak Drives.
Usually they "explode" in their first acting turn, getting 30 (or more)
permanent cards on the vampire. Those turns might easily take 30 minutes
of game time which is almost completely used by the acting player since
the reacting possibilities (if any) of the other players are quickly
exhausted.
Is this really fair? In an ideal 5 player game every player should be
entitled to 24 minutes of game time during their turn. This might vary
with players getting ousted etc.. but one players using 30 minutes (and
not by playing slowly) in their 4th turn seems a little out of bounds
for me.
There is the argument that for example deal discussions can also last 30
minutes (at least summed up) at times. But there is a clear possibility
for a judge to intervene and speed things up. A judge can´t really end
the turn of the Una/Cardano/.. deck.
What are your thoughts?
P.S: I also think these decks are not good for the game balance since
they are the probably most extreme silver bullets in the game. But that
is an entirely different issue.
Peter D Bakija
> Is this really fair? In an ideal 5 player game every player should be
> entitled to 24 minutes of game time during their turn. This might vary
> with players getting ousted etc.. but one players using 30 minutes (and
> not by playing slowly) in their 4th turn seems a little out of bounds
> for me.
We had a lengthy discussion about this last (two?) year or so, and the
end result was:
As long as you are playing the game in a timely manner, there is
nothing unfair/illegal/unsporting about using a disproportinate amount
of time.
-Peter
Johannes Walch
Yes.
Still I wonder if it might be desirable to avoid this by changing card text.
ben...@gmail.com
> Usually they "explode" in their first acting turn, getting 30 (or more)
> permanent cards on the vampire. Those turns might easily take 30 minutes
> of game time which is almost completely used by the acting player since
> the reacting possibilities (if any) of the other players are quickly
> exhausted.
>
> Is this really fair? In an ideal 5 player game every player should be
> entitled to 24 minutes of game time during their turn. This might vary
> with players getting ousted etc.. but one players using 30 minutes (and
> not by playing slowly) in their 4th turn seems a little out of bounds
> for me.
Once such a deck has taken that time, its subsequent turns are
rather quick. Also, if the deck has "gone off", then it's likely that
at least one player has been ousted plus a lot of vampires in torpor,
so everyone else's subsequent turns should also be rather quick.
While I've only been in two games with an Una deck (one pick-up game
plus the finals of the 2007 NAC), I didn't feel in either game that
the Una deck was using up too much time.
> P.S: I also think these decks are not good for the game balance since
> they are the probably most extreme silver bullets in the game. But that
> is an entirely different issue.
It's an entirely different issue, but I think it's the most
important issue. I'm not at all concerned about the time taken by an
Una-style deck. I am, however, concerned about the game balance/game
interactivity involved in an Una-style deck, as well as with the Turbo-
style Soul Gem decks (Arika, Aurora, The Baron, etc). I don't think
it's good for the game to have decks that can get into a non-
interactive, iterative loop (though I do admire the creative genius
behind the decks on a deck design level).
At the same time, the use of these decks is somewhat self-regulated
by the fact that they typically do very poorly. There are very few
Turbo decks in the TWDA (maybe 5?), and only one Una deck. The Una
deck has had some success lately, having won a tournament in LA this
February plus making the finals of the 2007 NAC, but it certainly
hasn't shown anything resembling tournament dominance.
Got a decklist for one of the Tremere versions? I can't help but
think they're a train wreck when it comes to reliability. Una decks
have enough trouble with spinning out - having to get an Ankara
Citadel on top of that...yeesh...
- Ben Peal
Vragozakas
Changing card text? LSJ has recently banned 3 cards rather changing
their card text to make them fair-playable-balanced.
I believe card text manipulation isn't anymore the fate of v:tes.
Joscha
> Usually they "explode" in their first acting turn, getting 30 (or more)
> permanent cards on the vampire. Those turns might easily take 30 minutes
> of game time which is almost completely used by the acting player since
> the reacting possibilities (if any) of the other players are quickly
> exhausted.
>
> Is this really fair? In an ideal 5 player game every player should be
> entitled to 24 minutes of game time during their turn. This might vary
> with players getting ousted etc.. but one players using 30 minutes (and
> not by playing slowly) in their 4th turn seems a little out of bounds
> for me.
On the other hand those decks need very few time after they are built
up. They usually do one rush without the need to play cards (fast
combat) and/or a bleed without playing cards. In addition they don't
need Master phases, don't make influence and so on. So I think time is
more an issue regarding how boring it is watching on player at a table
play on, erm, with himself rather than with the table. But if the
library is gone everything reverts to normal. Of course it's somehow
ridiculous seeing such a deck tooling up for over 15 minutes just to
be eaten by an Archon Investigation or a Pentex Subversion.
ben...@gmail.com
> Of course it's somehow ridiculous seeing such a deck tooling
> up for over 15 minutes just to be eaten by an Archon
> Investigation or a Pentex Subversion.
Bring back PTO!!!!
- Ben Peal
Frederick Scott
news:8bc13b16-639b-44ae...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> At the same time, the use of these decks is somewhat self-regulated
> by the fact that they typically do very poorly. There are very few
> Turbo decks in the TWDA (maybe 5?), and only one Una deck. The Una
> deck has had some success lately, having won a tournament in LA this
> February plus making the finals of the 2007 NAC, but it certainly
> hasn't shown anything resembling tournament dominance.
I think you have to take into account how often the deck is played.
Unfortunately, one of the huge barriers against tournament Una decks
is likely to be lack of players who can put together 40+ (and in that
deck's case, I thought the number was 50+) Freak Drives.
It really should have won Powerbase: LA (the NAQ tournament in Los
Angeles) last year but I drew something like 6 of my 9 S:CE cards
in the top 15 or so cards and it caused Dennis to choose to negotiate
to place 3rd (and thus qualify) rather than try to win the thing which
he arguably could have still done. Dennis hadn't seen my deck in that
tournament before (it was the same Giovanni deck that kept sending
Le Dinh Tho in to deal with Robyn's hand in the NAC-LCQ tournament you
might recall) and even if he'd known what I was playing, I don't think
he would have counted on my drawing that many S:CE in that small a
clump of cards at the beginning of the game. The Una deck tends to go
off so quickly that it doesn't need to worry about the usual kinds of
problems other decks do - like how to get past S:CE without packing
things like Immortal Grapples. It just counts on people not drawing
more than two or three S:CEs in the space of time they have to shut down
Una, I think. Two or three would not be enough to stop Una's repeated
rushes. And, indeed, the ones I drew STILL weren't enough to keep me
from getting wiped out to a man, anyway. It's just that I cost Dennis so
many of his early rushes that I doomed his game in the process.
That Una deck has so many advantages that usually come through for it that
I suspect it rarely fails to make the finals. It's just that, like the
ProsBloom deck in Magic T2 many years ago, it has to be played by someone
pretty sharp and capable of thinking on his feet at all times (heh!
read, 'not me') it's worst enemy is the occasional spate of poor card
draws more than anything else. It it's played by the former and doesn't
fall victim to the latter, it tends to look unstoppable against
pretty much anything except Direct Interventions. (I was shocked to
see you play one against Ira, rather than saving it for Matt in
the championship but I wasn't watching long enough to understand your
reasons.)
Anyway, bottom line, I think it's pure luck and the small number of
players playing Una decks in tournaments which have prevented it from
having more wins.
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:17f67472-e5f0-4e8d...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
You'd have to draw a PTO or an AI before it bled you out.
As for Pentex Subversion, Una always has plenty of l'il buddies.
Go figure...
Fred
ben...@gmail.com
> I think you have to take into account how often the deck is played.
> Unfortunately, one of the huge barriers against tournament Una decks
> is likely to be lack of players who can put together 40+ (and in that
> deck's case, I thought the number was 50+) Freak Drives.
(45 in its TWDA entry) Collecting that many Freak Drives is
certainly non-trivial. Heck, getting 10 Siren's Lures for my
Daughters deck took me two years of trading. However, Una's been out
for 4 years, so I'm inclined to think that if the deck really was that
strong, more people would be putting the effort into building it and
the cost of Freak Drive would be crazy high, much like, say, Tupdog
decks were really popular for a while and the cost of Tupdogs is
really high.
So, while I agree that the difficulty of accumulating the required
number of Freak Drives is a limiting factor in the number of Una decks
out there, I think that the effectiveness of Una decks is a stronger
limiting factor. This isn't to speak ill of Dennis Lien or Matt Wedge
- Dennis has spent a lot of time refining the deck and has made some
great choices with it through his creativity and experience, and Matt
did an exceptional job of piloting the deck in the 2007 NAC.
> If it's played by the former [skilled player] and doesn't fall victim to
> the latter [spinout], it tends to look unstoppable against pretty much
> anything except Direct Interventions. (I was shocked to see you play
> one against Ira, rather than saving it for Matt in the championship but
> I wasn't watching long enough to understand your reasons.)
I felt that my biggest threat at the table was Kevin's Kindred
Spirits bleeder as my predator - I actually thought I was doomed going
into the finals. I also got the impression that Matt had spent a lot
of his deck by that point, and that there was a pretty good chance
that he'd spin out In addition, supposing I let Ira finish off Una
and oust Matt, even if I did end up surviving against Kevin I'd have
to face Ira with 2 VP and 12 extra pool while having no time to
recover from the damage from Kevin and build up to face him. So, I
played the DI to stop Ira's 2nd Trad so Matt could wreck Kevin for
me. Mind you, after I played it and while I was watching Matt go off
with the Una deck, I was thinking, "Did I just make the biggest
blunder in the history of V:TES?" :) However, it worked out pretty
much how I wanted it. Matt wrecked Kevin, did some extra damage
around the table (an acceptable amount of damage to myself), spun out
(whew!), and then got in Ira's way for the rest of the game.
> Anyway, bottom line, I think it's pure luck and the small number of
> players playing Una decks in tournaments which have prevented it from
> having more wins.
Time will tell, I suppose. Mad props to Dennis for the deck,
regardless! :)
- Ben Peal
Joscha
You say it :)
@ Fred: Even a simple Direct Intervention will stop it long enough to
get enough damage to be really stopped. I mean this much equipment
doesn't come for free. So often the deck hovers around say 9 pool.
There aren't that much lil friends for taking care of the Pentex
around. And even though Una or someone alike is good at blocking she
can't stop an all out attack. I've seen two freak-out decks at the
Qualifier. They sweeped twice making no VP five times. Nothing to be
afraid of, is it?
A problem of the deck is the change of game-dynamics as Ben and
Johannes already pointed out. Do or die. Just dying after doing
nothing is bad for the table. Going off like hell is bad too. But I
cannot think of a rules change for that problem and DON'T want anybody
to suggest one. I think that these decks will not be played that often
successful.
ben...@gmail.com
> Ben Peal wrote:
> > Bring back PTO!!!!
>
> You say it :)
Well, that's how I took care of Una the first time I faced her. :)
> @ Fred: Even a simple Direct Intervention will stop it long enough to
> get enough damage to be really stopped.
Welllll...you're hoping that at least one player has a DI in hand on
Turn 4. Assuming 2 DIs per deck, you're looking at seeing one in the
first 35-45 cards on average. Out of 4 opponents, there's a decent
chance, but you can't guarantee that every one has DIs in their deck
and you can't guarantee that they'll draw them. If they don't, life
is much, much easier for Una. If they do have a DI, yeah, one of
those Freak Drives is picked off and Una is delayed a turn and the
cross-table KRCs start flying.
- Ben Peal
Frederick Scott
news:030a915f-d4d2-4bea...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> @ Fred: Even a simple Direct Intervention will stop it long enough to
> get enough damage to be really stopped. I mean this much equipment
> doesn't come for free. So often the deck hovers around say 9 pool.
> There aren't that much lil friends for taking care of the Pentex
> around. And even though Una or someone alike is good at blocking she
> can't stop an all out attack.
In the normal sensibilities of the game, that would all be true.
But you have to understand, "Una Time" is compressed time. You only
have a few turns to draw that Pentex Subversion and stop all those
weenies from getting rid of it. You only have a few turns to draw
your Direct Interventions., You only have a few turns to draw your
rush cards or bleed cards or whatever it is you think constitutes an
"all out attack" against Una.
And, to some extent, what you say is still somewhat true - no one
claimed an Una deck was a free ride to victory; only that competantly
played, it was significantly more powerful than most archetypes.
There's a huge difference. But even the claim that Una can be stopped
with an all-out attack doesn't make me feel that good about it.
Multiplayer games are a lot more self-balancing than two player games,
it's true. But there's a price: play skill and deckbuilding start to
matter less in such situations and things like willingness to take one
for the "team" and how well people can trust each other and cooperate
start to matter more. I assert that's a bad thing.
> I've seen two freak-out decks at the
> Qualifier. They sweeped twice making no VP five times. Nothing to be
> afraid of, is it?
Sure. And I've seen the Una deck never fail to make the finals in 15-20+
player tournaments and get stopped only by freak occurances. Metagame,
metagame, metagame. I suppose Una does tend to look less frightening
in environments where everybody packs many multiples of Direct
Intervention because they think it's a god card.
Fred
Akantes
> player tournaments and get stopped only by freak occurances. Metagame,
> metagame, metagame. I suppose Una does tend to look less frightening
> in environments where everybody packs many multiples of Direct
> Intervention because they think it's a god card.
>
> Fred
But it is a good card :P Not a god card though :D
Johannes Walch
Why do you think so? LSJ has expressed that he doesn´t want to make
erratas without a card that reflects the current text. There was no
upcoming set that could bring an updated version of one of the banned
cards so his only choice was to ban them.
We might still see a return of errata´ed PTO in the new cam set.
mat...@gmail.com
say that I misplayed it by making the deal with Ira (out of game
consteration).I played skin of steel on Ira initial strike instead of
forcing out cards. The one caps should not have gotten bleed retainers
(i.e. be disposable). I did it because I was worried about A.I. but
owl would have given me what I needed to know. SIGH. Denis built Una
deck becuase he thinks she is broken. Sadly LA is the only place most
people will see her played (well?). The lastest version is the best
yet. It has less pool cost and more longevity. If we played more
tourniments I think you would see more Una wins.
Matt
Johannes Walch
>> P.S: I also think these decks are not good for the game balance since
>> they are the probably most extreme silver bullets in the game. But that
>> is an entirely different issue.
>
> It's an entirely different issue, but I think it's the most
> important issue. I'm not at all concerned about the time taken by an
> Una-style deck. I am, however, concerned about the game balance/game
> interactivity involved in an Una-style deck, as well as with the Turbo-
> style Soul Gem decks (Arika, Aurora, The Baron, etc). I don't think
> it's good for the game to have decks that can get into a non-
> interactive, iterative loop (though I do admire the creative genius
> behind the decks on a deck design level).
Agreed. I might add I stopped both of the decks from getting my VP (hail
Archon Investigation), but doing so made my grand-predator win the game
in both cases, and despite having played an extremely defensive deck
there was nothing I could do to stop it. If you have a forward deck and
you prey basically self-ousts (by tooling up ) you will eventually
became a steam-roll.
Kevin M.
Matt, will you post the current Una deck? Thanks! :)
XZealot
> What are your thoughts?
Life is not fair, and neither is VTES.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
The Lasombra
<you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>Matt, will you post the current Una deck? Thanks! :)
The version that won in March is here:
http://www.vtesinla.org/forum/display_message.asp?mid=6159
Date: 3/5/2008 7:14:42 PM
Subject: NAC Qualifier Winning Deck
Message:
Almost forgot I was supposed to do this...
Unariffic!!!
Crypt: 12
Una x 5
Frederick the Weak x 2
Angela Decker
Feo Ramos
Huang, Blood Cultist
March Halcyon
Royce
Library: 90
Action: 20
Ambush
Big Game
Blessing of Chaos
Bloodlust
Bum's Rush
Clan Impersonation
Covenant of Blood
Creation Rites
The Embrace
Enrage
Harass
Heart of the City
Mantle of the Bestial Majesty
Mind Numb
Rumble
Sense Death
Shadow of the Beast
The Summoning
Taunt the Caged Beast
War Party
Action Mods: 45
Freak Drive x 45
Ally: 1
Mylan Horseed
Combat: 6
Armor of Vitality x 2
Skin of Steel x 4
Equipment: 9
Aaron's Feeding Razor
Blood Tears of Kephran
Bomb
Camera Phone
Flak Jacket
Hawg
IR Goggles
Ivory Bow
The Sargon Fragment
Master: 1
Waste Management Operation
Political: 1
Templar
Retainers: 7
Ghoul Retainer
Jackie Therman
J.S. Simmons Esq.
Murder of Crows
Owl Companion
Tasha Morgan
Wolf Companion
Enjoy the Freakery!
mat...@gmail.com
one is vulnerable to frenzy, but who cares.
Its has more rush.
Matt
Frederick Scott
"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:9515ccd9-344d-4f27...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>> What are your thoughts?
>
> Life is not fair, and neither is VTES.
Um, cool. Bring back Return to Innocence.
Yes?
Jeff Kuta
Generic Freak Drive Hoser
Reaction
2 blood
Do not replace until your untap phase.
Cancel an action modifier as it is played.
Only one GFDH can be played in a turn.
James Coupe
s.com>, ben...@gmail.com writes:
> (45 in its TWDA entry) Collecting that many Freak Drives is
>certainly non-trivial. Heck, getting 10 Siren's Lures for my
>Daughters deck took me two years of trading. However, Una's been out
>for 4 years, so I'm inclined to think that if the deck really was that
>strong, more people would be putting the effort into building it and
>the cost of Freak Drive would be crazy high, much like, say, Tupdog
>decks were really popular for a while and the cost of Tupdogs is
>really high.
Well, there are two different issues that, for me, can cause a card or
strategy to be looked at critically by LSJ and his red pen.
1) Over-poweredness. Is this strategy more powerful than it should be?
2) Annoyingness. Is this strategy causing other problems for the game?
There was debate for some time as to whether Anarch Revolt was over-
powered, but it probably qualified - to my mind - as too annoying, with
its ability to tear down a whole game indiscriminately.
So, I might still be inclined to look at Una-type strategies under 2) if
they were causing significant issues for the game other than this.
However, I'm not sure if Turbo Freak Drive Una Happy Fun Time is
significantly more problematic than Turbo-Arika. Both have a player
take many, many actions. Turbo-Arika can take even less time to oust,
since it can bleed multiple times in the same turn. Turbo-Arika would
not be affected by changes such as "No more than one Freak Drive
playable by a minion each turn." And Turbo-Arika has been shown to win
with ruthless efficiency.
I'm not saying that Turbo-Arika needs action taking against it - though
someone else might care to make that argument. However, I'm not sure
that Freak Drive Una Happy Fun Time is more problematic.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Frederick Scott
"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3585a7af-4778-4191...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Generic Freak Drive Hoser
> Reaction
> 2 blood
> Do not replace until your untap phase.
> Cancel an action modifier as it is played.
> Only one GFDH can be played in a turn.
That would also be a kind of bleed hoser and anti-stealth reaction
card (thus, essentially an intercept card) usable cross-table. I
can't even begin to guess what effect it would have on the game,
especially if no requirements where lodged to limit its use. One
thing it would have in common with some of the other cards already
in existence proposed as anti-Una cards: you'd still have to draw
it early to use it.
Fred
XZealot
> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:9515ccd9-344d-4f27...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> What are your thoughts?
>
> > Life is not fair, and neither is VTES.
>
> Um, cool. Bring back Return to Innocence.
Do you think that is good for the game or fun for the players?
LSJ
> On Apr 22, 10:51 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:9515ccd9-344d-4f27...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>> What are your thoughts?
>>> Life is not fair, and neither is VTES.
>> Um, cool. Bring back Return to Innocence.
>
> Do you think that is good for the game or fun for the players?
I think that was Fred's point.
ben...@gmail.com
> Una certainly has some weaknesses those above and Obedience.
Yeah, getting through Ben Swainbank was going to take some work.
> I must say that I misplayed it by making the deal with Ira (out of game
> consteration).
You mean instead of just destroying Ira outright? I'm not sure if
Swainbank would have been a better predator for you.
> I played skin of steel on Ira initial strike instead of forcing out cards.
> The one caps should not have gotten bleed retainers (i.e. be
> disposable). I did it because I was worried about A.I. but
> owl would have given me what I needed to know.
Did the bleed retainer issue end up mattering that much?
> Denis built Una deck becuase he thinks she is broken. Sadly LA
> is the only place most people will see her played (well?). The
> lastest version is the best yet. It has less pool cost and more
> longevity. If we played more tourniments I think you would see
> more Una wins.
He's definitely put a ton of effort into refinement, and you and he
have a lot of experience using the deck. There's certainly a lot of
thought involved in playing it, particularly with respect to target
assessment. I suppose one question that could be asked is, if the
deck has taken that amount of development work and gameplay experience/
skill to become successful, how much different is that from any other
successful deck? There's certainly a big difference in the manner in
which it wins, and that manner is debateably "broken".
Play more tournaments. Get more Una wins. Now that the deck's in
the TWDA, perhaps many others will be inspired to try, as well.
- Ben
XZealot
Fred didn't have a point. Fred was positing a troll, strawman, non-
sequitur, etc..
ben...@gmail.com
> Well, there are two different issues that, for me, can cause a card or
> strategy to be looked at critically by LSJ and his red pen.
>
> 1) Over-poweredness. Is this strategy more powerful than it should be?
>
> 2) Annoyingness. Is this strategy causing other problems for the game?
>
>
> So, I might still be inclined to look at Una-type strategies under 2) if
> they were causing significant issues for the game other than this.
As for 1), Una decks haven't taken the tournament scene by storm.
That may be the result of the difficulty of getting 45 Freak Drives,
but I'm disinclined to believe that. However, I'm still open to the
possibility that they _could_ dominate the tournament environment - it
just has to be demonstrated. I'm of the opinion that 2) is the more
likely issue with the Una deck.
> However, I'm not sure if Turbo Freak Drive Una Happy Fun Time is
> significantly more problematic than Turbo-Arika. Both have a player
> take many, many actions. Turbo-Arika can take even less time to oust,
> since it can bleed multiple times in the same turn. Turbo-Arika would
> not be affected by changes such as "No more than one Freak Drive
> playable by a minion each turn." And Turbo-Arika has been shown to win
> with ruthless efficiency.
I don't recall Turbo Arika having been shown to win with ruthless
efficiency. It and Turbo Aurora have won, what, one tournament each?
And the decks have been known for, what, a decade? If anything,
they've been shown to be engines of ruthless unreliability. :)
At the same time, I don't think that the success rate of Turbo decks
and Una decks is really the issue. I think the issue is that these
decks violate the way the game was meant to be played. I'm not of the
opinion that we're meant to sit around and watch someone go through
their iterative loop, waiting to be informed if we've been ousted or
if the deck spun out so we can get back to playing.
It's somewhat interesting in that other ccgs have the three classic
archetypes - aggro, control, combo - but V:TES really only has aggro
and control. Una and Turbo decks are among the rare few examples of
combo decks in V:TES.
> I'm not saying that Turbo-Arika needs action taking against it - though
> someone else might care to make that argument. However, I'm not sure
> that Freak Drive Una Happy Fun Time is more problematic.
Well, the answer would be pretty straightforward: ban/rewrite Una
and Soul Gem. I suppose there's still the Ankara Citadel style of Una
deck, but my instincts tell me that it has stronger issues with
reliability than Una.
- Ben Peal
ben...@gmail.com
What are the changes between the new version and the NAC version?
The big one I noticed is Hawg instead of Helicopter - why that change?
- Ben Peal
James Coupe
s.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes:
>On Apr 23, 7:35 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> XZealot wrote:
>> > On Apr 22, 10:51 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> >> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:9515ccd9-344d-
>> >>>> What are your thoughts?
>> >>> Life is not fair, and neither is VTES.
>> >> Um, cool. Bring back Return to Innocence.
>>
>> > Do you think that is good for the game or fun for the players?
>>
>> I think that was Fred's point.
>
>Fred didn't have a point. Fred was positing a troll, strawman, non-
>sequitur, etc..
Fred's point seemed perfectly clear to me, and certainly wasn't a non-
sequitur. Apparently, LSJ thought the same.
The response "V:TES isn't fair" ignores the attempts made by the Design
Team to mitigate unfairness. Return to Innocence is a good example of
that. It was unfair, in a variety of ways, so attempts were made to
correct the problems, culminating in a ban.
Re: your comment of bringing it back being good for the game or players
- that's the point. Things which are sufficiently unfair aren't.
Responding to a query about massive Freak Drives with a response that
says life isn't fair is missing the point. The Design Team *try to*
make V:TES fair, when they can.
Fred's suggestion is, clearly, not a serious one to bring back Return to
Innocence, but neither is it trolling or a non-sequitur. It's quite
clearly a good example of how the attitude "V:TES isn't fair" is
entirely the wrong attitude, and clearly isn't the attitude that LSJ
holds.
Now, given this was clear to me and - apparently - LSJ, could you
explain your comments re: trolling, strawmen, and so on?
LSJ
> Well, the answer would be pretty straightforward: ban/rewrite Una
> and Soul Gem.
You misspelled Freak Drive. :-)
ben...@gmail.com
> Now, given this was clear to me and - apparently - LSJ, could you
> explain your comments re: trolling, strawmen, and so on?
Better yet, just let it go and get back to talking about Una. :)
- Ben Peal
ben...@gmail.com
Heheheh...though changing Freak Drive wouldn't nerf the Turbo Arika/
Aurora deck, as it uses Soul Gem for the "untap".
- Ben Peal
XZealot
> In message <7d84f8a2-311b-4b75-8447-70574b37a...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroup
>
>
>
> s.com>, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> writes:
> >On Apr 23, 7:35 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> XZealot wrote:
> >> > On Apr 22, 10:51 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> >> >> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:9515ccd9-344d-
> >> >>>> What are your thoughts?
> >> >>> Life is not fair, and neither is VTES.
> >> >> Um, cool. Bring back Return to Innocence.
>
> >> > Do you think that is good for the game or fun for the players?
>
> >> I think that was Fred's point.
>
> >Fred didn't have a point. Fred was positing a troll, strawman, non-
> >sequitur, etc..
>
> Fred's point seemed perfectly clear to me, and certainly wasn't a non-
> sequitur. Apparently, LSJ thought the same.
>
> The response "V:TES isn't fair" ignores the attempts made by the Design
> Team to mitigate unfairness. Return to Innocence is a good example of
> that. It was unfair, in a variety of ways, so attempts were made to
> correct the problems, culminating in a ban.
>
> Re: your comment of bringing it back being good for the game or players
> - that's the point. Things which are sufficiently unfair aren't.
> Responding to a query about massive Freak Drives with a response that
> says life isn't fair is missing the point. The Design Team *try to*
> make V:TES fair, when they can.
Yes, I agree.
> Fred's suggestion is, clearly, not a serious one to bring back Return to
> Innocence, but neither is it trolling or a non-sequitur. It's quite
> clearly a good example of how the attitude "V:TES isn't fair" is
> entirely the wrong attitude, and clearly isn't the attitude that LSJ
> holds.
"V:TES isn't fair" is completely true though. If it were true then
victory would always go to the best player with the best deck. Often
the best player brings a "gun" deck and the other players bring a
"knife" deck. Often the "gun" deck doesn't win as experience shows
that the other players will team up together to eliminate the greatest
threat. Therefore V:TES isn't fair. Although in general, fairness as
a concept disappears when more than two parties or more than two
entities are involved. There can be fairness between two parties, but
beyond that number fairness becomes justice.
> Now, given this was clear to me and - apparently - LSJ, could you
> explain your comments re: trolling, strawmen, and so on?
Sure, Fred wasn't trying to understand my point, pithy though it may
be. He was exaggerating the magnitude of the Una/Freakdrive problem
to make it seem to be a bigger problem than it is by equating it to a
looming specter of the past.
Una/Freakdrive is far less of a problem amongst players that I know
than weenie obfuscate, a very common tournament winner, which we can
all agree is far less of a problem than Return to Innocence.
LSJ
Um, but you spelled Soul Gem correctly.
ben...@gmail.com
> Ben Peal wrote:
>> LSJ wrote:
>>> Ben Peal wrote:
>>>> Well, the answer would be pretty straightforward: ban/rewrite Una
>>>> and Soul Gem.
>>>
>>> You misspelled Freak Drive. :-)
>>
>> Heheheh...though changing Freak Drive wouldn't nerf the Turbo Arika/
>> Aurora deck, as it uses Soul Gem for the "untap".
>
> Um, but you spelled Soul Gem correctly.
I understand why you're glaring at Freak Drive - it may represent an
impediment to future card design. However, given the quantity of Unas
printed and Freak Drives printed, plus the frequency of their
appearance in decks, I'd much prefer text changes/bannings to happen
to Una than Freak Drive.
- Ben Peal
Joscha
> And, to some extent, what you say is still somewhat true - no one
> claimed an Una deck was a free ride to victory; only that competantly
> played, it was significantly more powerful than most archetypes.
> There's a huge difference. But even the claim that Una can be stopped
> with an all-out attack doesn't make me feel that good about it.
> Multiplayer games are a lot more self-balancing than two player games,
> it's true. But there's a price: play skill and deckbuilding start to
> matter less in such situations and things like willingness to take one
> for the "team" and how well people can trust each other and cooperate
> start to matter more. I assert that's a bad thing.
I see your point and admit to your concerns. A multiplayer game should
not force one player to team up against another. And saying "but there
is Direct Intervention" is not a good argument, I know. On the other
hand there often to always will be one deck at each given table which
is the strongest or the most dangerous to all players. Maybe we just
found another one in addition to dreaded S&B or Speed-Shambling.
Against strong decks you often have to gang up if you don't have the
best answer against it in your deck.
At the GCQ Una was simply blocked twice with +1 intercept and beaten
up by Animalism and Howlers 2 strength. Hm, maybe time will tell if
here is a problem or not.
Joscha
> Well, the answer would be pretty straightforward: ban/rewrite Una
> and Soul Gem. I suppose there's still the Ankara Citadel style of Una
> deck, but my instincts tell me that it has stronger issues with
> reliability than Una.
Not really. You have to fetch the Ankara Citadel but for that you can
use Magic of the Smith and it doesn't have to be right on, but can
happen after some Freak Drives played already. On the plus-side you
even can play other cards for less. Martin played with Eye of Hazimel,
getting CHI, playing things like Nightmare Curse and Sens. Depr. and
using Will-o'-the-Wisp for ousting (no block and no reaction cards for
half blood with AC). Nasty. But it worked just once too.
ben...@gmail.com
> Ben Peal wrote:
> > Well, the answer would be pretty straightforward: ban/rewrite Una
> > and Soul Gem. I suppose there's still the Ankara Citadel style of Una
> > deck, but my instincts tell me that it has stronger issues with
> > reliability than Una.
>
> Not really. You have to fetch the Ankara Citadel but for that you can
> use Magic of the Smith and it doesn't have to be right on, but can
> happen after some Freak Drives played already.
You're already describing why it's more unreliable than Una. You
have to wait to get an Ankara Citadel before the deck really gets
going, and you're loading up on Magic of the Smith which you can't
multi-act with (aka hand jam issue).
- Ben Peal
mat...@gmail.com
> Matt Wedge wrote:
> > Yup, thats the one. Its combat is a little weaker but still good. This
> > one is vulnerable to frenzy, but who cares.
> > Its has more rush.
>
> What are the changes between the new version and the NAC version?
This is my best recollection of that version.
8 Una I have no idea what the crypt looked like.
1 march halcyon
1 basil
1 royce
1 huang
6 skin of steel
heart of the city
js simmons
tasha morgan
ghoul retainer
jackie therman
murder of crows
wolf companion
owl companion
ir goggles
blessing of chaos
hawg
helicopter too much pool hawg is better
ivory bow
blade of enoch
shadow of the beast
flak jacket
ablative skin
mantle of the beast
mind numb
sargon fragment
taunt the caged beast
sense death
bomb
big game
bum rush
war party
covenant of blood
templar
harass
ambush
creation rites
embrace
rumble
summoning
mylan horseed
blood tears of kefram
45-48 freak drives whatevers left
I wanted to make some changes to it but did not have the time
2 fredrick the weak for basil and royce
clan impersonation mantle of the beast
waste managment op helicopter
I was willing to take the chance being !brujah w/blade of enoch
Matt> The big one I noticed is Hawg instead of Helicopter - why that
change?
One more press makes it easier to burn vampires in combat and it is
free.
The waste managment does what helicopter did better.
Matt
LSJ
Not so much the impediment to future design angle as the "which is the problem?"
angle.
Having more in print doesn't alter that equation.
ben...@gmail.com
Sure, but there's also the impact of the solution. On an abstract
level, things are fixed, but the solution results in a larger number
of cards either banned (infuriating players who spent a lot of
resources to acquire them) or changed (with the resulting nuisance of
cards that don't do what's printed on them).
As for the impediment to future design angle, Freak Drive raises the
issue of "Cost of <discipline> reduced by 1" being ok for all
disciplines except Fortitude (are there other disciplines for which
that special is a problem?). At the same time, it didn't seem that
there was a problem with Freak Drive until Una showed up. Is Freak
Drive the problem or is Freak Drive for free the problem?
- Ben Peal
Xto 3:16
I saw this post, and i wanna say the next words:
In my country, i won the last 5 tournaments that i played. The
reason ? read the metagame.
A deck with this form can win one, maybe two times. But no more.
Why ?
1.- If the deck is real good, the copies of the original will born in
the place. Then, will born the contest too.
2.- The metagame is not always the same. In Chile, a player (Gonzalo
del Rio) played a Mata Hari deck with Ankara Citadel and more that 15
Freak Drive cards (can be more). Gonzalo won 2 tournaments with this
deck. But the metagame changed, and this deck cannot win again in
Chile with the forms of game that exist today.
3.- You don't play alone in a table. You have 4 more players that they
act with special care if exist a Monter-deck. If a monster deck win a
tournament, the next time at least 4 players will be prepared the deck
for this situation. If don't do them...the result will be the same.
V:TES is a game of 5 persons in a table. You will never play alone. Is
not Magic, Naruto or whatever, because is a multiplayer game. You
don't need to live with a lot of deals, but you never play alone. You
are a vampire. A raw world. A cruel world. You must be cold, cruel,
and use your empathy. To win V:TES is not only the deck: is you.
To win Una deck, you can win playing Pentex Subversion with a control
deck in Una, or send to torpor the little vampires and play Tension in
the Ranks and Dragonbound, or with a deck bleeder (this deck cannot
win in one turn)....a lot of options.
To break combo deck, please use multi rush deck (Turbo CEL with .44
Magnum, for example, a real good deck).
Thanks for all ;)
mat...@gmail.com
> > I must say that I misplayed it by making the deal with Ira (out of game
> > consteration).
>
> You mean instead of just destroying Ira outright? I'm not sure if
> Swainbank would have been a better predator for you.
I would have taken out swainbanks 7cap at that moument Lucian was not
up yet. For Ira I had two rushes.
I think would have forced you and Kevin to race to get two soft
targets. Then lucian comes up and slows you down.
I still have to rush down Ira's remaining minons. I can not take
bounced bleeds. From there it is to hard to predict.
> Did the bleed retainer issue end up mattering that much?
Yes, I was not willing to diablerize w/ a minon w/ 2 bleed.
> He's definitely put a ton of effort into refinement, and you and he
have a lot of experience using the deck.
I never played it before or since that day. Seeing Denis play it is
enough. I wish he didn't have to work that day.
I must say it was a great game anyway. Everyone at the table could
oust me from where they were sitting. Good times
Matt
LSJ
> At the same time, it didn't seem that
> there was a problem with Freak Drive until Una showed up.
Or perhaps Una revealed the problem to a wider audience.
> Is Freak
> Drive the problem or is Freak Drive for free the problem?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/7c1d98ac8cc9318e
mat...@gmail.com
For changes Ilike
[for] Only usable at the end of a successful action (after resolving
the action). Untap this vampire.
[FOR] As above, but usable even if the action is blocked (play after
combat, if any) only useable once a turn.
[FOR] As above, burn one blood to use even if the action is blocked
(play after combat, if any)
ben...@gmail.com
> Ben Peal wrote:
> > At the same time, it didn't seem that
> > there was a problem with Freak Drive until Una showed up.
>
> Or perhaps Una revealed the problem to a wider audience.
Ankara Citadel has existed for 12 years and Freak Drive wasn't an
issue then (apart from the old NRA issues).
> > Is Freak Drive the problem or is Freak Drive for free the problem?
>
Sure, but Freak Drive all by itself doesn't cause the problem. It's
only in combination with another card that the problem arises. A
change to either Freak Drive or Una fixes the problem. Suppose you
designed a vampire with a special of "Every time Bingo performs a
successful equip action, your prey loses a pool." Would the problem
be the vampire, or would it be Hag's Wrinkles/Guruhi Are The Land?
Given that such a vampire has not been printed, are Hag's Wrinkles and
Guruhi Are The Land a problem right now?
- Ben
Frederick Scott
news:7d84f8a2-311b-4b75...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
No, Scott is exactly right. The point wasn't so much to prove or disprove
hyper-Freak-Drive decks are unfair as much as to question your pat suggestion
that the existence of some inevitable unfairness in a game is a justification
for living with every form of unfairness. In short, life may not be fair but
sometimes you fix problems anyway. If you disagree with Johannes's point of
view, how about entertaining us with some more specific reasons why?
Fred
XZealot
> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message
I did, check the response to James Coupe by XZealot.
Chlorix64
German ECQ), I got to cope with a crosstable "Can't Take It With You",
which instantly killed me (23 pool damage).
I'm still wondering if this card wasn't specifically designed to finish
off the freakshow decks. :)
BTW. Johannes has a point. My playgroup doesn't want me to play this deck
anymore, because it's no fun to just sit there for over half an hour.
On the other hand, this is the most exciting VTES deck I've ever played.
(I really advise everybody to play it while you still can - it's a lot of
fun).
Oh well we could always start the "maximum four of the same card per deck"
discussion to solve it I suppose.
H
--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutgaming.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/
More information at http://www.talkaboutgaming.com/faq.html
mat...@gmail.com
Other decks that monopolize time like Una. Frist Tradition and Madness
Network/Reversal of Fortunes
Both need time to get running, but can be just as frustranting.
Matt
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> Ben Peal wrote:
>>> At the same time, it didn't seem that
>>> there was a problem with Freak Drive until Una showed up.
>> Or perhaps Una revealed the problem to a wider audience.
>
> Ankara Citadel has existed for 12 years and Freak Drive wasn't an
> issue then (apart from the old NRA issues).
Perhaps.
>>> Is Freak Drive the problem or is Freak Drive for free the problem?
>> http://tinyurl.com/45hxca
>
> Sure, but Freak Drive all by itself doesn't cause the problem.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't the problem.
> It's
> only in combination with another card that the problem arises. A
> change to either Freak Drive or Una fixes the problem.
You ID'ed (correctly) Soul Gem (rather than suggesting a "fix" to every vampire
that can turbo).
I'm not sure what the obstacle is that prevents drawing the same parallel for
Freak Drive. Is it the idea that is a cost issue that only Una can effectively
mitigate?
>
ben...@gmail.com
> Ben Peal wrote:
> >>> Is Freak Drive the problem or is Freak Drive for free the problem?
> >>http://tinyurl.com/45hxca
>
> > Sure, but Freak Drive all by itself doesn't cause the problem.
>
> Sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't the problem.
Either the absence of Freak Drive or the absence of Una (and Ankara
Citadel) makes the iterative looping issue go away. You can pick
whichever one you want - the net result is the same I'd pick Una
because it would affect the players less because fewer copies of cards
would be changed/banned.
> > It's only in combination with another card that the problem arises. A change to either Freak Drive or Una fixes the problem.
>
> You ID'ed (correctly) Soul Gem (rather than suggesting a "fix" to every vampire
> that can turbo).
Or a "fix" to actions that result in the increase of a vampire's
capacity (i.e. PS: Berlin, Epiphany, Camarilla Vitae Slave, Reliquary:
Akunanse Remains). Pick whichever you want to "fix" - the net result
is the same.
> I'm not sure what the obstacle is that prevents drawing the same parallel for
> Freak Drive. Is it the idea that is a cost issue that only Una can effectively
> mitigate?
I'm not denying that you could "fix" Freak Drive. I just don't see
Freak Drive as being the problem all by itself or Una being the
problem all by itself. If Freak Drive didn't exist, Una would be
fine. If Una didn't exist, Freak Drive would be fine. The "problem"
isn't Freak Drive or Una - it's the iterative looping that results
from the combination of the two. "Fix" one or the other and the
problem is gone. If I ran the circus (and if I viewed the Una deck or
Turbo decks as being problems - right now I don't think a change is
warranted), I'd pick Una and Soul Gem, since it would involve the
fewest number of physical copies of cards banned or changed.
- Ben Peal
mat...@gmail.com
and Freak Drive. I don't it would be as effective, but it is still
possible.
Matt
Daneel
>> Is this really fair? In an ideal 5 player game every player should be
>> entitled to 24 minutes of game time during their turn. This might vary
>> with players getting ousted etc.. but one players using 30 minutes (and
>> not by playing slowly) in their 4th turn seems a little out of bounds
>> for me.
>
> Once such a deck has taken that time, its subsequent turns are
> rather quick. Also, if the deck has "gone off", then it's likely that
> at least one player has been ousted plus a lot of vampires in torpor,
> so everyone else's subsequent turns should also be rather quick.
> While I've only been in two games with an Una deck (one pick-up game
> plus the finals of the 2007 NAC), I didn't feel in either game that
> the Una deck was using up too much time.
That, and in this respect a massive Freak Drive deck isn't any more
unfair than a weenie and/or imbued deck that can well take 10-minute
turns without even playing slow. As seen at the EC, it can easily
spend the last 10-15 minutes of a game if it wants to.
Nerfing multi-action would simply make weenies more strong in contrast.
So my suggestion - either Nerf weenies and then maybe consider
considering Freak Drive / Una / Soul Gem, or just leave things as is.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Kushiel
> On the other hand, this is the most exciting VTES deck I've ever played.
Why? (I haven't seen one played or played one myself.)
John Eno
mat...@gmail.com
Because you have a limited number of rushes so each one is important.
You can effect the whole table.
You have bleed. There is no tool up that you do not want. It is
fragile. All of which make it exiciting.
Matt
Frederick Scott
> ...Fred wasn't trying to understand my point, pithy though it may be.
Such as I understood it, it didn't seem to be much of a point. Or
perhaps more accurately, it seemed like a platitude one could trot out
in response to absolutely anything.
> He was exaggerating the magnitude of the Una/Freakdrive problem
> to make it seem to be a bigger problem than it is by equating it to a
> looming specter of the past.
I wasn't trying to exaggerate by those means, no. I was just demonstrating
how one could apply the same response ("VtES is unfair...") to respond to
any complaint, valid or otherwise.
> Una/Freakdrive is far less of a problem amongst players that I know
> than weenie obfuscate...
I disagree, but fair enough as an opinion.
Fred
Frederick Scott
news:c041db47-60c2-4753...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Freak Drive was the centerpiece of the "Freaky Majestic Bleed Deck" of
old, possibly the first ever absolutely broken deck in Jyhad if you don't
count 90-KRCs-and-vote-pushing-by-weenies. (Well, OK, I wasn't exactly
around at the time so apologies if I'm misrepresenting history. But I
think that's a fairly accurate description of things.) The problem was
solved with NRA but it's long been a suspicious card due to the endless
cycling in a game where playing cards represents a negligible cost and
the payoff - minion actions - are pretty valuable (the more capable the
minion, the more valuable). I can understand why the person who has to
design the cards is a lot more concerned about what Freak Drive does in
the game than how many of them are currently in print.
Fred, feeling the anxiousness of a man who's spent far too much money
acquiring Freak Drives...
Peter D Bakija
<cdd4c2b4-e1b9-446c...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
ben...@gmail.com wrote:
> Heheheh...though changing Freak Drive wouldn't nerf the Turbo Arika/
> Aurora deck, as it uses Soul Gem for the "untap".
True, but the Soul Gem trick is a bit harder to pull off than the "55
Freak Drive" trick (as you can theoretically block the Soul Gem, and you
can't realistically have as many Soul Gems to draw early like you can
Freak Drives). I suspect that if Freak Drive was "only one per minion
per turn" like it probably should be (see: Forced March as a
realistically designed untap card), the Una style deck would cease to
exist, and the Turbo Arika deck would still be a tad OTT, but then, what
deck with Arika isn't :-)
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
<c041db47-60c2-4753...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
ben...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is Freak Drive the problem or is Freak Drive for free the problem?
In reality, as I mentioned above, I suspect that Freak Drive multiple
times per turn is probably the problem. Compared to Forced March:
-Only one discipline (+ Freak)
-Costs a blood every time (- Freak)
-Can be used an infinite number of times a turn (+++++++++ Freak)
Forced March, only at once a turn per minion, is likely a much more
balanced card than Freak ever was and ever shall be.
I'm hardly calling for, like, errata on Freak Drive or anything. But in
a perfect world, it seems likely that Freak should only be once per turn
per minion.
The Name Forgotten
Una can easily be fixed by adding one word to the beginning of her
text - "Combat". Then the Una turbo deck would cease to exist, but Una
would still be playable.
Still, it is of my opinion that freak drive is the problem in it's
current state and will always have the potential for abuse. It should
follow Forced March's example - "A vampire can play only one Forced
March each turn."
That being said, I do feel for multi-rush decks (having built several
of them) that will suffer for this, but, hopefully, more cards like
Monster will be released to give them more multi-rush options. It
would also be great to have a rush card that untaps you if you rush
successfully or burn/torpor the opposing vampire.
Example:
Berserker Rage
Action
+ 1 Stealth Action
[for] (D) Enter combat with a ready minion controlled by another
Methuselah.
[FOR] If this action is successful, this vampire may burn one blood at
the end of the action to untap.
XZealot
> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message
I build multi-rush trick decks all the time and the well tuned Una
deck would last about 30 seconds in my metagame. Can it oust someone
in one turn? Does it make a spectacle of itself. Does everyone on
the table want to get rid of it for the following reasons?
1) Takes way too many actions.
2) Puts way too many permanents into play
3) Makes the other players wish for its immediate demise so they can
get on playing with their cards.
I know rush heavy metas are not prevalent, but if you can imagine,
when someone plays alot of trick decks (i.e. me), then players start
to play more and more rush to eliminate moving parts.
If this becomes more prevalent, then rush decks will become more
prevalent to control them.
It just sounds like new players saying, "Wah! Stealth Bleed is
broken", but almost 10% of every tournament worthy deck is dedicated
to being able to stop it. If players build 10% of their decks to
enter combat then I doubt this would be as much of a problem, but then
again your mileage may vary.
Jeff Kuta
> James Coupe wrote:
> > Well, there are two different issues that, for me, can cause a card or
> > strategy to be looked at critically by LSJ and his red pen.
>
> > 1) Over-poweredness. Is this strategy more powerful than it should be?
>
> > 2) Annoyingness. Is this strategy causing other problems for the game?
>
> > ...
>
> > So, I might still be inclined to look at Una-type strategies under 2) if
> > they were causing significant issues for the game other than this.
>
> As for 1), Una decks haven't taken the tournament scene by storm.
> That may be the result of the difficulty of getting 45 Freak Drives,
> but I'm disinclined to believe that. However, I'm still open to the
> possibility that they _could_ dominate the tournament environment - it
> just has to be demonstrated. I'm of the opinion that 2) is the more
> likely issue with the Una deck.
>
> > However, I'm not sure if Turbo Freak Drive Una Happy Fun Time is
> > significantly more problematic than Turbo-Arika. Both have a player
> > take many, many actions. Turbo-Arika can take even less time to oust,
> > since it can bleed multiple times in the same turn. Turbo-Arika would
> > not be affected by changes such as "No more than one Freak Drive
> > playable by a minion each turn." And Turbo-Arika has been shown to win
> > with ruthless efficiency.
>
> I don't recall Turbo Arika having been shown to win with ruthless
> efficiency. It and Turbo Aurora have won, what, one tournament each?
> And the decks have been known for, what, a decade? If anything,
> they've been shown to be engines of ruthless unreliability. :)
>
> At the same time, I don't think that the success rate of Turbo decks
> and Una decks is really the issue. I think the issue is that these
> decks violate the way the game was meant to be played. I'm not of the
> opinion that we're meant to sit around and watch someone go through
> their iterative loop, waiting to be informed if we've been ousted or
> if the deck spun out so we can get back to playing.
>
> It's somewhat interesting in that other ccgs have the three classic
> archetypes - aggro, control, combo - but V:TES really only has aggro
> and control. Una and Turbo decks are among the rare few examples of
> combo decks in V:TES.
>
> > I'm not saying that Turbo-Arika needs action taking against it - though
> > someone else might care to make that argument. However, I'm not sure
> > that Freak Drive Una Happy Fun Time is more problematic.
>
> Well, the answer would be pretty straightforward: ban/rewrite Una
> deck, but my instincts tell me that it has stronger issues with
> reliability than Una.
>
Clearly the solution is to impose 4CL on the game. ;)
Jeff
James Coupe
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>Freak Drive was the centerpiece of the "Freaky Majestic Bleed Deck" of
>old, possibly the first ever absolutely broken deck in Jyhad if you don't
>count 90-KRCs-and-vote-pushing-by-weenies. (Well, OK, I wasn't exactly
>around at the time so apologies if I'm misrepresenting history. But I
>think that's a fairly accurate description of things.)
There's also the Gangrel infinite loop.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Archibald Zimonyi
>
> - Visa citerad text -
In my opinion it is that people create too good Una decks. I know I
would be able to create and Una deck that sucked and then that would
also solve the problem. Go figure.
On a more serious note I would have to agree with the metagame
observation. Weenies stealth & bleed is still one of the more stable
and effective ways of getting many VPs and that in effect means GWs
and tournament wins. The only way to counter that is to include cards
to prevent it. So the metagame changes and everyone includes more
Deflection/Misdirection cards or more Archon Investigations or simply
play with block decks and then problem is solved. For a while the
stealth & bleeders disappear until someone chances the metagame again
and wins.
Archie
Frederick Scott
news:pdb6-8276DC.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com...
> In article
> <cdd4c2b4-e1b9-446c...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> ben...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Heheheh...though changing Freak Drive wouldn't nerf the Turbo Arika/
>> Aurora deck, as it uses Soul Gem for the "untap".
>
> True, but the Soul Gem trick is a bit harder to pull off than the "55
> Freak Drive" trick (as you can theoretically block the Soul Gem, and you
> can't realistically have as many Soul Gems to draw early like you can
> Freak Drives).
One really ingenious solution to that: maybe 2 or 3 Soul Gems and the
rest in Vast Wealths. It requires you not play any other equipment in
your deck (not sure you would anyway) but it allows you to fail to equip
and not worry that your hole game is hosed unless/until you can draw
another if you got blocked.
Josh Duffin came up with that one. Or at least, he was the first one I
saw use it in a deck.
Then all you have to do is come up with 55 ways to get burnt. :-)
Fred
Frederick Scott
> On Apr 23, 3:49 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> > than weenie obfuscate...
>>
>> I disagree, but fair enough as an opinion.
>
> I build multi-rush trick decks all the time and the well tuned Una
> deck would last about 30 seconds in my metagame. Can it oust someone
> in one turn? Does it make a spectacle of itself. Does everyone on
> the table want to get rid of it for the following reasons?
>
> 1) Takes way too many actions.
> 2) Puts way too many permanents into play
> 3) Makes the other players wish for its immediate demise so they can
> get on playing with their cards.
No - it's actually the effectiveness of the deck which is the problem
and not the one Johannes was complaining about. As others have noted,
once the deck has taken its half-hour turn and has all its permanents
and has taken most of its rushes and so forth, it can actually settle
down to playing fairly quick turns - either because it's position is
totally screwed or because everyone else's is.
I admit, I have no idea how well it does in a rush heavy metagame.
It gets in a lot of combats, obviously, and one of the big advantages
is that once it's opponents run out of combat cards, they get real
helpless against the multi-rush capabilities. If it's opponents don't
run out of combat cards very quickly, it might make things a lot more
interesting. I think it kind of depends what sort of combat the
opponents are running.
> It just sounds like new players saying, "Wah! Stealth Bleed is
> broken", but almost 10% of every tournament worthy deck is dedicated
> to being able to stop it. If players build 10% of their decks to
> enter combat then I doubt this would be as much of a problem, but then
> again your mileage may vary.
It would take a lot more than 10% of your deck to enter combat to make
much difference against Una, I think.
Fred
mat...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not if that 10% is Pentex Subversion, DI,and Obedience
Chlorix64
played.
>>
>Why? (I haven't seen one played or played one myself.)
>
>John Eno
>
It takes a few months to collect the 40+ Freak Drives (either via trading
or E-bay). So one will be busy designing the deck during such a period.
Normally one is considering just a few discipline cards and some clan
specific cards for a deck. In this case you consider all the retainers and
equipment available (probably you are going to play "Clan Impersonation").
When you have the deck complete you are going to test the "Equip turn" of
Una. This is something you can do alone, as opposed to the testing of a
regular deck which is difficult without other players. BTW it is to be
advised to test the "Equip turn"because it is more difficult than it
looks.
All the facts above lead to a greater affection for the Una deck than for
a regular deck. It's your baby, which enhances the excitement when playing
it.
Then the game.
You know that the entire table is going to be you enemy. Especially in a
tournament after the first round it buzzes around that you have an Una
deck, so all know they have to kill you (at least when they know what an
Una deck does).
The first turns you sit there awaiting what kind of damage the others are
going to inflict on you. Then you bring out Una. The moment she comes out
Una has a bulls eye painted on het head. So, will she survive the round
she is vulnerable?
When she survives the first round she is out, then the "Equip turn" will
start. Then one has to avoid a Hand Jam, decide which vampires to rush and
determine the order in which the cards have to be played.
After that you have to decide which actions you have to block and how you
are going to oust you prey(s) avoiding "Archon Investigation" and other
terrible cards.
All the time you are playing against the rest of the table, you have no
friends and nobody is going to believe your table talk. All the time a
card like "Can't Take it with You" can be played, which instantly kills
you.
All in all it is a blast to play it.
James Coupe
s.com>, mat...@gmail.com writes:
>On Apr 24, 8:18 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
>> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> > broken", but almost 10% of every tournament worthy deck is dedicated
>> > to being able to stop it. If players build 10% of their decks to
>> > enter combat then I doubt this would be as much of a problem, but then
>> > again your mileage may vary.
>>
>> It would take a lot more than 10% of your deck to enter combat to make
>> much difference against Una, I think.
>>
>> Fred- Hide quoted text -
>
But then that wouldn't be 10% of your deck to enter combat, since none
of those cards are about entering combat. So you're not contradicting
Fred's point, or supporting XZealot's, which was specifically about a
percentage of your deck being there to enter combat.
mat...@gmail.com
> In message <2e8aa1ba-9969-40de-9267-d4a1deca0...@k10g2000prm.googlegroup
>
> s.com>, matt...@gmail.com writes:
> >On Apr 24, 8:18 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> >> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> > It just sounds like new players saying, "Wah! Stealth Bleed is
> >> > broken", but almost 10% of every tournament worthy deck is dedicated
> >> > to being able to stop it. If players build 10% of their decks to
> >> > enter combat then I doubt this would be as much of a problem, but then
> >> > again your mileage may vary.
>
> >> It would take a lot more than 10% of your deck to enter combat to make
> >> much difference against Una, I think.
>
> >> Fred- Hide quoted text -
>
> >Not if that 10% is Pentex Subversion, DI,and Obedience
>
> But then that wouldn't be 10% of your deck to enter combat, since none
> of those cards are about entering combat. So you're not contradicting
> Fred's point, or supporting XZealot's, which was specifically about a
> percentage of your deck being there to enter combat.
Ooops! The worst combat for Una is Animalism. Canine Hordes, Carrion
Crows and frenzy
I doute that any other non-dedicated combat would trump her (3
manuevers, 2 presses, open hand, 3 enviormental;close;long;aggravated,
prevent 1) and two chump blockers before she is tooled up.
Peter D Bakija
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:
> One really ingenious solution to that: maybe 2 or 3 Soul Gems and the
> rest in Vast Wealths. It requires you not play any other equipment in
> your deck (not sure you would anyway) but it allows you to fail to equip
> and not worry that your hole game is hosed unless/until you can draw
> another if you got blocked.
Oh, sure, but then instead of having a big handful of Soul Trains, you
have a small handful of Soul Trains and a big handful of Vast Wealths.
Both of which are mostly dead cards after you get the first one in play,
which gum up the works some. Not a huge impediment, but at least
something.
> Then all you have to do is come up with 55 ways to get burnt. :-)
Hmm. It isn't like Arika has FOR or anything :-)
Kevin M.
> I'm hardly calling for, like, errata on Freak Drive or anything. But
> in a perfect world, it seems likely that Freak should only be once
> per turn per minion.
Which is it, then? It is entirely unclear by your contradictory statement
above what your position is, here.
Do you want Freak Drive to be changed, or not? What do *you* want?
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
Kevin M.
> I build multi-rush trick decks all the time and the well tuned
> Una deck would last about 30 seconds in my metagame.
> Can it oust someone in one turn?
No, it can oust 3-4 players on turn 4-5 at the very latest.
> Does it make a spectacle of itself. Does everyone on
> the table want to get rid of it for the following reasons?
> 1) Takes way too many actions.
> 2) Puts way too many permanents into play
> 3) Makes the other players wish for its immediate demise
> so they can get on playing with their cards.
Sure it does these things, but you are talking in-theory, here. I mean,
by your reasoning, these reasons should be enough for all players (or
perhaps just 100% of the players in your playgroup) to stop a deck of this
type, which I am sure that they (and we) don't, and won't, all the time.
> I know rush heavy metas are not prevalent, but if you can imagine,
> when someone plays alot of trick decks (i.e. me), then players start
> to play more and more rush to eliminate moving parts.
I totally agree with what you are saying, here.
> If this becomes more prevalent, then rush decks
> will become more prevalent to control them.
Again, I think this is in-theory talking. Combat decks have been playing
catch-up to the other (perceived or real) archetypes for the entire
history of the game. They have had exactly *one* set so far which
significantly elevated them above their counterparts, and it has been all
uphill for them ever since, when you compare their gains to the gains of
the other archetypes.
> It just sounds like new players saying, "Wah! Stealth Bleed is
> broken", but almost 10% of every tournament worthy deck is dedicated
> to being able to stop it. If players build 10% of their decks to
> enter combat then I doubt this would be as much of a problem, but then
> again your mileage may vary.
If *one* player in every two games was a dedicated combat deck, and the
other nine were Una, Bruise-Bleed, Bleed-Bounce, Intercept Wall, Weenie
Vote, Stealth Vote, and 3 SnB decks, then you doubt this would be as much
of a problem? ;)
James Coupe
<you...@imaspammer.org> writes:
>Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>> I'm hardly calling for, like, errata on Freak Drive or anything. But
>> in a perfect world, it seems likely that Freak should only be once
>> per turn per minion.
>
>Which is it, then? It is entirely unclear by your contradictory statement
>above what your position is, here.
>
>Do you want Freak Drive to be changed, or not? What do *you* want?
It seems reasonably clear that Peter thinks something approximately as
follows:
- Freak Drive is very powerful
- if we were writing Jyhad from scratch, we'd tone Freak Drive down
(perhaps as he suggests, perhaps another way) because it would
make the game more balanced and open up design opportunities
- the card doesn't reach Peter's personal threshold for issuing errata
at the moment. It's powerful but not so powerful that he wants
to issue errata.
There are a whole bunch of cards in this category. In a perfect world,
a few key Dominate cards would be slightly less powerful to open up a
more level playing field and have less of the "graft Dominate on" aspect
to decks, but they're not so disruptive that they need to be smacked
about.
This is an often discussed position - I'm happy leaving these cards as
they are now, but if I were writing Jyhad all those years ago with a
crystal ball then...
Peter D Bakija
Peter D Bakija
> above what your position is, here.
Dude. I'm just talking. I'm not declaring a manifesto.
> Do you want Freak Drive to be changed, or not? What do *you* want?
As James sums up:
A) I think Freak Drive is really, really powerful.
B) It seems likely that if it had been designed today, by the current
design team, it would only be useable once per turn per minion (see:
Forced March).
C) In a perfect world, Freak Drive would probably only be useable once
per turn per minion.
D) I don't necessarily think errata is necessary, but I'd be totally
ok with it happening.
-Peter
Frederick Scott
news:bf417fe3-6e69-42f8...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 24, 9:43 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> > Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm hardly calling for, like, errata on Freak Drive or anything. But
> > > in a perfect world, it seems likely that Freak should only be once
> > > per turn per minion.
> >
> > Which is it, then? It is entirely unclear by your contradictory statement
> > above what your position is, here.
> >
> > Do you want Freak Drive to be changed, or not? What do *you* want?
>
Outstanding, Peter! I think that's the best reply I've seen all year!
Me, too! ;-)
Peter D Bakija
> > (...Peter quotes Kevin's post and adds no additional text of his own...)
>
> Outstanding, Peter! I think that's the best reply I've seen all year!
>
> Me, too! ;-)
Blergh. It wasn't my fault! I hit something and it posted! I claim no
fault!
-Peter
sin...@hotmail.com
> This is an often discussed position - I'm happy leaving these cards as
> they are now, but if I were writing Jyhad all those years ago with a
> crystal ball then...
Oh I guess i hardly post anything much but I'll add my thoughts :)
It does seem that the more cards you add to a game the more likely
that older cards will become more powerful when used in combination.
MtG's route out of that was to phase out editions and in a way the
grouping system for vamps is similar. In my somewhat simplistic view
of it is:
1. Keep cards like Freak Drive the way and the game can only
eventually reach a natural roadblock in development. (this may, of
course be many years in the future)
2.Water cards like Freak Drive down and the game loses some character.
3.In addition to point 2, ban cards like Freak Drive and again the
game will lose some character and the banned cards will be replaced by
the next most powerful/annoying cards in the list.
I can see though that banning Memories of Mortality, for example,
broadens the horizon for more ally based stuff that would otherwise
not have seen the light of day and will aid the future development of
the game. IMO Freak Drive does not yet fall into that category and, to
get to the point, I personally wouldn't like to see FD banned or
changed as I think it allows some good and interesting decks to exist
especially using the higher cap vamps.
There.. that was more of a brain fart than anything else :)
J
Frederick Scott
news:d8710987-02e3-41bd...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> I can see though that banning Memories of Mortality, for example,
> broadens the horizon for more ally based stuff that would otherwise
> not have seen the light of day and will aid the future development of
> the game.
The problem with Memories of Mortality wasn't that it was too powerful.
The problem was that a class of allies got created which were significantly
more powerful than the sort that had been printed before Nights of
Reckoning. This was the design mistake. IMHO, It would have been perfectly
reasonable to alter MoM so that it merely didn't work with hunters but
work the same with other allies as it had for years without problem.
By the same token, if they create more ally based stuff without
distinguishing its usage between hunters and other allies, it will run
into the same issue: anything not too powerful for use with hunters will
be too weak to do anything for the others. The banning and printing of
cards used by and for allies needs to be understood in that light. Just
saying we needed to ban MoM so that we can print other cards misses the
point.
Fred
Rick_WLaf
> In article
> <c041db47-60c2-4753-9999-0cba04225...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> benp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Is Freak Drive the problem or is Freak Drive for free the problem?
>
> In reality, as I mentioned above, I suspect that Freak Drive multiple
> times per turn is probably the problem. Compared to Forced March:
>
> -Only one discipline (+ Freak)
> -Costs a blood every time (- Freak)
> -Can be used an infinite number of times a turn (+++++++++ Freak)
>
> Forced March, only at once a turn per minion, is likely a much more
> balanced card than Freak ever was and ever shall be.
>
> I'm hardly calling for, like, errata on Freak Drive or anything. But in
> a perfect world, it seems likely that Freak should only be once per turn
> per minion.
>
> Peter D Bakija
>
> "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
> -Gaff
Why not "simply" adjust Freak Drive to say it costs an additional
blood per use in the same turn by the same minion? ie first use (in a
turn by a minion) costs 1 blood, 2nd use by the same minion in the
same turn costs 2, etc, etc.
Short, Simple, and doesn't break Freak Drive for normal usage. Simply
makes it cost more and more.
Rick_WLaf
Another version would be cost = 1+X where X is the number of actions
taken by this minion this turn
sin...@hotmail.com
> The problem with Memories of Mortality wasn't that it was too powerful.
> The problem was that a class of allies got created which were significantly
> more powerful than the sort that had been printed before Nights of
> Reckoning. This was the design mistake. IMHO, It would have been perfectly
> reasonable to alter MoM so that it merely didn't work with hunters but
> work the same with other allies as it had for years without problem.
> By the same token, if they create more ally based stuff without
> distinguishing its usage between hunters and other allies, it will run
> into the same issue: anything not too powerful for use with hunters will
> be too weak to do anything for the others. The banning and printing of
> cards used by and for allies needs to be understood in that light. Just
> saying we needed to ban MoM so that we can print other cards misses the
> point.
Well, I knew making comments based on history wouldn't be too helpful
as I just wanted to illustrate the point I was making.. my bad :) and,
as I said, I don't think Freak drive falls into that category anyway.
While I'm deviating from the topic of Una/Freak I was just musing on
what happens when you ban/alter cards. I felt a small sense of loss
when MoM was banned mainly because, as you say, the Imbued were the
issue and not MoM. I would also feel a small sense of loss if Freak
Drive was changed/banned as it's a cornerstone for the way some decks
work but if it needs to be done then, hopefully, some new, interesting
types of deck will come out of it and maybe by future special
abilities or cards that would otherwise be broken if FD remains as it
is.
J
Frederick Scott
news:03ea6ff7-e80a-4b1c...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> While I'm deviating from the topic of Una/Freak I was just musing on
> what happens when you ban/alter cards. I felt a small sense of loss
> when MoM was banned mainly because, as you say, the Imbued were the
> issue and not MoM. I would also feel a small sense of loss if Freak
> Drive was changed/banned as it's a cornerstone for the way some decks
Yea, I know what you mean. I wish the assholes would stop building
much *better* decks with some of these cards I'm using to build my
mediocre-but-entertaining (for me) decks. :-)
Fred
James Coupe
Assuming errata were issued (or a Most Recent Printing done)[0], I quite
like this sort of cost - you can use it a lot, but it's up to you to
cope with it.
One slight downside with it, though, is that you can get into trouble
with book-keeping. It's not absolutely killer, but it can be annoying,
especially if you try to recycle the Freak Drives back into your library
or hand somehow.
[0] I'm mostly with Peter and Ben on this. I wouldn't write Freak Drive
as it is now, but I don't think I want to change it.
XZealot
I wouldn't mind if it worked like this
Freak Drive
Cost ZERO
Action Modifier
[for] Only usable after a successfule action,This minion burns 1 blood
for each Freak Drive on the Action Minion. Play this card on the
acting Minion. Untap the Action Minion. Burn this card during your
next untap phase.
[FOR] As above, but usable even if the action is blocked (play after
combat, if any).
So the blood costs would be
# of Freak Drives Blood Burned Total Blood Burned
1
0 0
2
1 1
3
2 3
4
3 6
5
4 10
This give the card a slight boost when used in small quantities, but
eliminates any Una/Ankara Citadel cheezieness and it maximizes the
number of Freak Drives played by ANY minion to 5 unless they have some
method of gaining blood during action.
coincoi...@hotmail.com
at the final of French ECQ, which included burning about 10 vampires
and cycling all my deck, has lasted 26 minuts
BUT I tried to make it as pleasant as possible, with comments, jokes,
whatever, which helped the 4 other players and the 15 watchers not
being too much bored.
So concerning being bored, I don't think this deck is worse than an
imbued taking convictions during 1 minute every turn or a Giovanni
cycling sudario refractions over and over. I certainly don't feel
ashamed burning one vampire every two minutes, and playing 3 cards/
minuts.
Concerning strength of the deck, it is clearly a very strong deck. DI
does not disturb it too much because there are 3 alternate ways to
burn it, Pentex subversion is breakable with weenies.
The thing is... during preliminar rounds, you can make GWs because you
always have some crap useless decks on the table that you do not care
with. You rush the dangerous people: voting, swarm,stealth/bleed that
can damage you, and you kill the other players who play gangrel bleed
for 1 or whatever, on the long term with swarm bleeding and 1rush/turn
with Templar.
But in a final, and especially if there are weenie decks on the table,
you just cannot handle them all. At the final table in Paris, there
was 3 weenies deck and the 4th deck was not playing votes... so
basically I could kill one weenie (ravnos embrace), slow down another
one (courier bleed), but finally the third one had too many minions
for me (Bima) and I died to it.
Obviously, I am already playing Aranthebes ^^ and I am planning to
enter 2x domain challenge into the deck for latest tests.
all best
Orian
librarian
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:32:58 -0700 (PDT), <ben...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Is this really fair? In an ideal 5 player game every player should be
>>> entitled to 24 minutes of game time during their turn. This might vary
>>> with players getting ousted etc.. but one players using 30 minutes (and
>>> not by playing slowly) in their 4th turn seems a little out of bounds
>>> for me.
>>
>> Once such a deck has taken that time, its subsequent turns are
>> rather quick. Also, if the deck has "gone off", then it's likely that
>> at least one player has been ousted plus a lot of vampires in torpor,
>> so everyone else's subsequent turns should also be rather quick.
>> While I've only been in two games with an Una deck (one pick-up game
>> plus the finals of the 2007 NAC), I didn't feel in either game that
>> the Una deck was using up too much time.
>
> That, and in this respect a massive Freak Drive deck isn't any more
> unfair than a weenie and/or imbued deck that can well take 10-minute
> turns without even playing slow. As seen at the EC, it can easily
> spend the last 10-15 minutes of a game if it wants to.
>
> Nerfing multi-action would simply make weenies more strong in contrast.
>
Best reason so far in this thread to not kill FD.
Una is fine as is.
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
www.superfuncards.com *NEW Website!*
auct...@superfuncards.com