Two-player Limited
Curevei
for a CCG. For various reasons, two-player V:TES is unenthralling.
A robust limited environment provides a lot of benefits for a CCG -
options for players, better returns for stores, whatever. Personally,
I've lost interest in limited V:TES, which isn't terribly important
except it helped me realize something.
I've never considered two-player, limited play before. Yet, prima
facie, it seems awesome as a way to greatly expand two-player play
while giving limited players another option.
The many problems with trying to adapt constructed decks or
constructed rules to make two-player constructed interesting are swept
away in one fell swoop (sweep).
Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt
Sounds great! I started a discussion a while ago trying to look at the
2 player format.
Do you feel that playing the game as it is, just with only two players
instead of 4-5, would work out? It seemed clear to most people in the
discussion, that there are some design issues that make two player
games not as interesting as 4+ player games.
I still believe that looking at a specific two player format is needed
before going into official ournaments, but maybe I am wrong.
Maybe the easiest way to get this rolling is to just create a 2 player
sanctioned tournament format. And let the players define the limits by
what they are playing.
Maybe it isnt such a bad thing if combat becomes totally dominant in
this format. Maybe its ok, if intercept decks rule that type of game.
Maybe its fine if sleezy bleed decks destroy everyone else.
The more I think of it, the more I realise that in other 2 player CCG
when you go to tournaments a lot of it is already decided before you
even start playing. "Ahh, you play the mage deck with Eternal Flame
and MumboJumbo, and I play the black deck of Doom with puny skeletons.
Then I guess I only have a 20/80 chance of winning".
I cant think of a two player game that doesnt have that. Maybe it was
unrealistic to think we could create a 2 player format for VTES
without that aspect in it. Maybe we should just go ahead and see what
happens.
Maybe its fine if the 2 player version is completely different from
the 5 player version, and if so, then just starting up a tournament
format could be the way ahead.
I will try to setup a 2 player tournament using a tournament system
from one of those 2 player games and see what happens. Probably from
"that other game".
Let people bring the deck they want, with the cards they want, and see
what happens.
Would anyone else be interested in trying the same with their local
playgroup?
Brum
I see 2 player format more as an oportunity to help in recruiting
players then as a stable tournament option.
New rules would have to be created, for sure.
Personaly I had one year in a foreign country, without knowing the
language and without known people, were I would only play VtES with my
girlfriend at the time.
You have to think completely diferent in such an environment and it
reflects in deck building. It's a diferent game altogether.
I didn't have my old Magic cards at the time and therefore we played
VtES.
Now, if one is to play with VtES cards in a duel format (keep in mind
that I didn't write "play VtES"), one needs to have appropriate rules,
that incorporate key features like Bleed, Stealth, Intercept,
Referendums, Combat, etc, but still make viable.
It shouldn't be too diferent from VtES, but it needs to change enough
to be interesting to both new and old players. However it should lack
the feel of interest of playing in a table with 4 or 5 players, to
atract people to the great game that is VtES.
Again, I think it would be very could to recruit new players and to
explain some concepts. Also for those times when you have 6 or 7
players in friendly sessions.
Cheers,
Tiago
Dragos
Having preliminary rounds for two players and later on (from the
qualified ones) make one or two tables of 5 players (using the same
decks of course).
That way, you'd have to prepare your deck for both situations if you
want to win all the way (thus avoiding the massive aus-weenie-
brainwash deck swarms).
Just a thought...
Dan
j-train
If you do then you will just trying to hedge in on established dueling
games already. There are already plenty of games that duel for example
Magic. Don't try to be something you are not.
In a 2 player setting some decks are just overwhelming. I build a S/B
and get you out by turn 5. Not a good way to teach new players. Even
in Magic noone likes to be beaten by that ultimate 3 turn combo.
Now as for training people ,yes, I will agree that teaching them in
smaller groups would be better then they can work up to multi-player
when they get the timing down.
I have used my demo decks in the past to try to teach people. Each
deck focuses on one thing like politics,bleed,fighting,intercept and
that I found works rather well for new people.
James D Burns
Prince of Scranton
brandonsantacruz
If you are talking about opening a few boosters and playing a two-
player game, that could be interesting. There are issues of drafting
vs sealed limited that could be discussed. I could go for either
limited or constructed two player using some slightly different rules
such as:
-You may only gain pool from the edge once. You must burn the edge to
gain pool in this way, or you simply don't gain after the first pool.
This would be to help counter decks that just sit on the edge and
defend all day(majorly boring).
-The edge may be burned for +1 bleed or a vote
-Cards that would allow you to re-direct a bleed can be used in a
limited environment for +1 bleed or +1 vote when acting
Weeniehozen:
In 2-player limited, vampires with a capacity of two or less can not
bleed for more than 1. Any bleed in excess of 1 is reduced to one. In
2-player constructed, vampires with a capacity of 2 or less are burned
instead of going to torpor.
Bottom line for 2-player limited and constructed is pushing for faster
games. If each player opens 2-4 boosters, they could each make a deck
and play it a couple times. Once they get tired of that, they could
make a different deck using the same cards or (temporarily) trade the
cards and take turns using their different boosters.
Brandon
YT
learn. The layout of cards has changes. Cardtext changes. The rules
are sometimes convoluted. I think that newer players should play two
player because it helps playspeed. The sequence of a turn, when to
play cards, reading cards and learning about cards is made easier,
better and faster through two player practice. Timeouts, because of
slow play, are obnoxious. Two player helps with this.
Vtes is still a game. I love playing two player. The win outcome is
less relevant to me, my goal in two player is to play the game. I am
not a snob about playing Vtes. The notion that only playing 4-5
person games is the only way to play Vtes is a fallacy. Sometimes two
people are all that can play at a given time.
When playing two player we use two rules:
1. Pool is not gained for the Edge. (An optional rule here is to
announce not taking that pool, and losing a pool when this step is
forgotten.)
2. Bounce cards send the bleed off into space (The edge is still
gained)
Marc
Dai
existing cards, but with completely different rules.
Of course, what makes VtES great is the multiplayer CCG experience.
You want to find ways to expose players to that. A duel version of
VtES might help sell product but it's not doing anything for the game.
librarian
Selling product keeps the game being produced, helps pay LSJ's salary,
keeps storylines being created and supported, web site updated (hah!),
etc etc.
I remember 1996-1999, it was fun, but dark.
best -
chris
librarian
Here's something to start with that can be torn up and remade into
something that works.
***********
Draft version of VTES for 2 players.
Draft pods are of 4 or more players, recommended to not exceed 8
players. All sets are legal.
Match rounds are 45 minutes long, each round features best 2 of 3 games.
1. Edge. Burn edge for 1 pool. Burn edge for 1 vote in a referendum.
2. All cards read as written.
3. Banned list: Madness of the Bard, Return to Innocence.
4. Ante. Prior to first player's first untap phase (but after they have
shuffled, drawn 7 cards, and placed 4 crypt cards in their uncontrolled
region), they turn face up the top card of their library.
All other rules remain the same.
***********
Comments?
best -
chris
Juggernaut1981
The "duelling" nature of MtG and it's parallels is something I
personally have ACTIVELY avoided. Competitive play can very quickly
feel like little more than Russian Roulette. I mean seriously, who
wants to play against Midcap TGB Vote or Ravnos Swarm or any of the
Weenie Bleed'n'Smash combos?
Even in a drafting situation (say Starter + X boosters) you have the
problem of power variance between the Starters. Plus, I can guarantee
I won't want to draft a KoT Toreador Starter... I have plenty of guns
already in my collection. (Ditto for the KMW "Have 19 Bang Nakhs"
starter).
Players like myself, who grew to loathe competitive MtG will not be
interested in playing this and it will limit the people who are
willing to do this with new players.
I still think the regular camping at the FLGS with some "Few Moving
Parts, Generally Effective" decks are best.
General Bleed with mild combat (Tor Bleed, Guruhi Bleed, etc)
Vote'n'Bleed (Tor, Bru... any of the voters really)
Simple Combat (No tricky cards. Cel Guns, Ven Hit Squad, Nos/!Nos
Seeking Missiles of Fist)
librarian
Have you ever drafted VTES before? Generally, you don't draft starters
- I agree with you, that is jank. However, drafting boosters, whether
1,2,8, or 15 (ok, 15 would be sort of tedious) can be fun, especially
with the now sanctioned recursion rules. It's not for everyone (like
maybe you), but a lot of people do enjoy it.
I think Curevei's stance was that indeed, 2-player limited format would
not float most VTES player's boats. But that's not what this thread was
created to discuss I don't think. Ah, I re-read his post. He thinks
that it would "greatly expand two-player play while giving limited
players another option." Judging by your post, you are not a "limited
player".
It seems like your reply here is misplaced. Do you have anything
constructive to say about a two-player limited format, assuming that
maybe *some* folks are interested in it? If not, then that's ok, but
for my sake if no one else's, can you post in another thread about it?
If you can put your head in a space where maybe 2-player limited was
something worth looking at, maybe you could respond constructively to my
proposed rules-set?
best -
chris
brandonsantacruz
I don't see a reason for ante or a different banned list than
tournament play. Being able to burn the edge for a pool at any time
would be a problem ripe for weenie bleed decks to exploit in order to
extend the game. If burning the edge for pool was restricted to the
untap phase, even the discard phase, that would be less abusive.
Needing four people to draft seems to defeat the purpose of a two
person variant. What would be the best way to run it if you only have
two players?
Brandon
librarian
Ok. However, cards like Succubus club and seat switchers become pretty
useless in two person. And ante is fun in limited, so why not make
those cards still available. And Memories of Mortality and Edge
Explosion are only going to be super strong if you are drafting Nights
of Reckoning, in which case both parties have equal access to those
cards (maybe EE is still too strong, esp in draft, I could see adding it
to the banned list).
Being able to burn the edge for a pool at any time
> would be a problem ripe for weenie bleed decks to exploit in order to
> extend the game. If burning the edge for pool was restricted to the
> untap phase, even the discard phase, that would be less abusive.
Ok, untap phase only, just like when you could get a pool from it now.
But now you have to burn the edge instead of sit on it.
> Needing four people to draft seems to defeat the purpose of a two
> person variant. What would be the best way to run it if you only have
> two players?
>
Well, it's kind of lame to draft with only 2 players. So maybe you have
sealed booster, which is also sort of weak, but not as weak as sealed
starter and X boosters.
I think Ian's idea is to create a format that would appeal to stores
that sell magic, and also to appeal to magic players perhaps looking for
another game, a more mature game.
That said, it wouldn't appeal too much to those playgroups that have
only 2 players show up on game night, unless they are up for sealed or
something.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
best -
chris
librarian
> brandonsantacruz wrote:
>>
>> I don't see a reason for ante or a different banned list than
>> tournament play.
>
>
> Ok. However, cards like Succubus club and seat switchers become pretty
> useless in two person. And ante is fun in limited, so why not make
> those cards still available.
To expand on this: one reason ante is banned is because it sucks to come
to a tournament with your pimped out deck, and lose an expensive card
out of it, like Heart or Enkil Cog or something. That's sort of
mitigated by playing in limited. Another reason ante doesn't work in
tournament play is that it will force you to change your deck between
rounds. In limited VTES play, you can change your decks (I think).
And Memories of Mortality and Edge
> Explosion are only going to be super strong if you are drafting Nights
> of Reckoning, in which case both parties have equal access to those
> cards
This is of course an error - MoM is not available in NoR, only in
Ancient Hearts and Cam Edition.
best -
chris
Azel
apparently people spiraled off into 2-player unlimited constructed,
which doesn't seem to be the question here.
however, i am having trouble visualizing what you mean by "two-player,
limited play" without immediately thinking of draft.
are you thinking of "limited" in terms of limitations on 1 box set?
or limitations on a block of sets?
and, assuming you don't mean draft because it already exists, you are
referring to constructed, correct?
well, it would really depend on how "limited" is defined.
if it's just per-set, then some sets are likely to collapse on
themselves due to lack of card diversity (looking at 60 card sets). if
it is blocks of sets, how is block defined?; from base set to base
set, or selections of similarly themed sets? and due to the sales
comment, wouldn't current WW theme rotation for sets really cause
problems?
example:
constructed decks solely out of, let's say, Sword of Caine?
or constructed sets solely from 3rd Ed up to, but excluding, Keepers
of Tradition? (3rd through TR)
or constructed sets thematically, such as LoB + EK or 3rd + SoC?
what exactly are you postulating for us to theorize?
Azel
<snippypoo>
>
> what exactly are you postulating for us to theorize?
further, what sort of style are we working with? are we looking at MtG
Type 1.5 (huge banned list, including banned sets) instead of Type 1
(everything playable except banned list) or Type 2 (block set
rotation, everything older is banned), etc?
instead of running through huge ban lists, could it be easier to work
limited from on up and have it be "new set + staple non-disc cards and
masters"? like, say wakes, Dolls, Taps, and Hacks are cool, but other
than that work with the set.
maybe i'm just slow, but i need more clarity.
Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt
Personally I will try it with constructed 2 player, all sets available.
Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt
I believe that our current, regular tournament format has been shaped
by how the players play the game. List of cards that are banned, deck
types that work and those that dont, etc.
The same would be the case with a 2 player tournament format.
Let us start it at its simplest, and let it evolve from there.
XZealot
> From a marketing standpoint, having a viable two-player option is huge
> for a CCG. For various reasons, two-player V:TES is unenthralling.
Why don't you play 2 players with one deck?
Curevei
>
> > From a marketing standpoint, having a viable two-player option is huge
> > for a CCG. For various reasons, two-player V:TES is unenthralling.
>
> > A robust limited environment provides a lot of benefits for a CCG -
> > options for players, better returns for stores, whatever. Personally,
> > I've lost interest in limited V:TES, which isn't terribly important
> > except it helped me realize something.
>
> > I've never considered two-player, limited play before. Yet, prima
> > facie, it seems awesome as a way to greatly expand two-player play
> > while giving limited players another option.
>
> > The many problems with trying to adapt constructed decks or
> > constructed rules to make two-player constructed interesting are swept
> > away in one fell swoop (sweep).
>
> apparently people spiraled off into 2-player unlimited constructed,
> which doesn't seem to be the question here.
>
> however, i am having trouble visualizing what you mean by "two-player,
> limited play" without immediately thinking of draft.
Sealed and draft. I have no idea why people started talking about two-
player constructed play which would be something talked about often in
the past. But, whatever.
People have done sealed/draft events. They work. The difference here
is playing two-player games.
I hear of people playing two-player, constructed games, but I've never
found it to be a desired option with people I've played with. I've
never built decks for two-player play. By going with limited play,
you remove the problem of having decks ready for multiple formats
since you must build your decks right before you play.
The easiest starting experiment is to just take some precons and play
two-player games. That may or may not be interesting. The more
interesting experiment is likely to do a draft and play the draft out
like you would for any of the two-player CCGs out there.
Sure, it's not V:TES as V:TES is played because it's not multiplayer.
Rather than try to come up with variant rules to make two-player
constructed play more palatable to players used to multiplayer, I
envision that this is an incredibly easy way to play two-player V:TES,
just a way limited to, um, limited.
Wilsoros
Both players bring two decks, flip a coin to determine who is player A
and who is player B.
Player A flips a coin, rolls a die, etc to randomly select 1 deck,
referred to as A1.
The other deck is set aside for player B, referred to as Ba2.
Player B flips a coin, rolls a die, etc to randomly select 1 deck,
referred to as B1,
The other deck is set aside for player A, referred to as Ab2.
Then you seat a four deck game.
Player A plays two decks: A1, and AB2,
Player B plays two decks: B1, and BA1,
A1 bleeds B1,
B1 bleeds AB2,
Ab2 bleeds Ba1,
Ba1 bleeds A1.
randomly determine who goes first.
Play occurs normally, although players should be careful about
considering themselves as playing 2 decks. As soon as a deck is
ousted, play changes, no player bleeds herself, so if A is bleeding
his initially cross table ally, then B plays the deck that turn. If B
is acting A is blocking etc.
You win if your randomly selected deck wins, not your faux cross table
deck. If only faux decks are left in the game, no player wins.
The format could definitely use some polish, but I think it captures
the spirit of the game.
Wilsoros
Scenario:
A is ousted, so A is now playing Ab1 and Ba1 part time. As soon as
the oust happens, 4 cards are randomly selected from each hand of Ab1
and Ba1, these are the common hand of each player when they play that
deck. The new part time player draws 3 cards from the lib, these
cards are playable by that deck only when that player plays that
deck. Afterwards, each player redraws to their private hand only,
until each player has a private hand for each deck.
I will try to write these rules up more clearly if people are
interested.
Wilsoros
Finally if the table reaches a 2 player state with a 'real' deck left
in the game, the player who was part timing the faux deck shuffles
their hand back into the library.
Now you have a normal 2 player variant. Each player must continue to
try to win, as per normal tournament rules, which will undoubtedly be
a little uncomfortable, but think of it as helping the computer player
win...
It also wasn't clear above how a few scenarios work:
A1 is ousted, so the table is
B1 => Ab2 => Ba1
On B1's turn, when she bleeds, votes, etc, Ab1 and Ba1 are played by
A, yeah a little tricky but player A should act in the best interest
of each of the decks he is playing.
On Ab2's turn, player A plays the turn, if he bleeds, votes etc,
Player B plays his deck and deck Ba1, in the best interest of each
deck.
On Ba1's turn, player A now plays this deck, player B plays his deck
and Ab2's deck.
The above is why I suggest separate hands.