Running out of cards
Chris Shorb
Andrew S. Davidson wrote:
>
> I now have a Sabbat booster (thanks to LSJ) and have just been reading
> the rules sheet therein. This contains a rule that, if you run out of
> cards, you withdraw from the game with no consequent loss of VP. This
> seems like a good rule to me - it should encourage a fast, hit-and-run
> style of deck which might speed the game up. And it seems "realistic"
> to me - having a deck just dry up and/or die when it runs out of cards
> seems rather lame.
>
> Anyway, I have a couple of questions about this:
>
> * is this the customary way of doing things now?
Rare.
>
> * is the withdrawal automatic or can it be prevented?
During your untap you declare your intent to withdraw. If by the
beginning of your next untap the following things have *not* happened,
then you withdraw successfully, gaining a victory point, keeping your
ante, and denying your predator 6 pool:
Lose pool
Lose blood off a vampire, for any reason
A vampire you control enters combat
Pretty darn unlikely. Best bet - Telepathic counter and Obedience.
In answer to your question about time limits. Some groups around here
play with a strict 2 hour time limit, since that is the time limit of a
tournament round. It will also alleviate some of the complaints you
received from your coterie.
Good luck!
Chris
>
> Andrew
--
chris
ultimate disc - V:TES - hockey
v:ekn prince of torrance, ca
Andrew S. Davidson
the rules sheet therein. This contains a rule that, if you run out of
cards, you withdraw from the game with no consequent loss of VP. This
seems like a good rule to me - it should encourage a fast, hit-and-run
style of deck which might speed the game up. And it seems "realistic"
to me - having a deck just dry up and/or die when it runs out of cards
seems rather lame.
Anyway, I have a couple of questions about this:
* is this the customary way of doing things now?
* is the withdrawal automatic or can it be prevented?
Andrew
James Coupe
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
>* is the withdrawal automatic or can it be prevented?
The Sabbat withdrawl (if played) happens *immediately*, as per the rules
on the sheet. No waiting, no nothing.
Normal withdrawl is entirely voluntary and as detailed in the Rules
book.
--
James Coupe
Andrew S. Davidson
>The Sabbat withdrawl (if played) happens *immediately*, as per the rules
>on the sheet. No waiting, no nothing.
Fine. But do people play with this as standard?
>Normal withdrawl is entirely voluntary and as detailed in the Rules
>book.
Withdrawal under the original rules seems so tough to do that it's not
really an option. I assume that's why Sabbat added the rule in
question.
Andrew
Peter D Bakija
>>Fine. But do people play with this as standard?>>
No. As soon as this withdrawl rule was printed in the Sabbat rules insert,
there was a swift "we hate this rule" reaction, and the Sabbat Withdrawl Rule
was officially deemed "optional".
The Sabbat Withdrawl rule is a *vast* change from the original rules--yes, it
is close to impossible to witdraw from the game using the original rules, but
you are not forced to exit the game just 'cause you run out of cards. Many,
many games come down to the last two players fighting for the last two victory
points with empty libraries. With the Sabbat Withdrawl rule, you effectively
lose the game because you run out of cards, which was not originally a concept
in the game (losing because you run out of cards), and was not an improvement.
>>Withdrawal under the original rules seems so tough to do that it's not
really an option. I assume that's why Sabbat added the rule in
question.>>
Probably, but it was a bad idea. The game doesn't gain anything by forcing
people to leave the game because they run out of cards, and the game doesn't
really lose anything by having the withdrawl rules difficult to do.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
http://www.geocities.com/bakija6
"I wanted out of the huge Jackson Pollock canvas that is the U.S.A.,
vast, murky, splotched, and slapped together by a drunk."
-Sarah Vowell
LSJ
>
> I now have a Sabbat booster (thanks to LSJ) and have just been reading
> the rules sheet therein. This contains a rule that, if you run out of
> cards, you withdraw from the game with no consequent loss of VP. This
> seems like a good rule to me - it should encourage a fast, hit-and-run
> style of deck which might speed the game up. And it seems "realistic"
> to me - having a deck just dry up and/or die when it runs out of cards
> seems rather lame.
>
> Anyway, I have a couple of questions about this:
>
> * is this the customary way of doing things now?
No.
That rule represented a change in the rules since "the old way of
withdrawing blew chunks," according to then net-rep John Wilkie in message
<WotCCST-1311...@w11-63.wizards.com>, 13 Nov 1996 (just before
he disappeared from the newsgroup).
For a brief analysis of the purpose of the withdrawal rules in their
current (original) form, on a level slightly higher than "blew chunks",
see http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=604788138
The Sabbat Withdrawal rule was never included in official DCI tournament
play, and it was eventually labelled "optional". As far as I know, no group
ever played with the rule for long.
The rule was ultimately abandoned when the Revised Rulebook was released,
so is not even considered "optional" any more - a fate shared by the
"variant" rules from appendix A of the printed V:TES booklet that comes
with every V:TES starter deck.
> * is the withdrawal automatic or can it be prevented?
Withdrawal as presented in the Sabbat rules sheet, if you wish to use such
a rule as a "house rule", is automatic (if you begin your turn with fewer
cards in hand than your hand size allows after you've exhausted your
library, you withdraw instantly and automatically, according to the Sabbat
rules sheet).
BTW, you mention "no consequent loss of VP". So I will note that the
official withdrawal rules (which match the original withdrawal rules)
also have no VP loss. Moreover, the withdrawn Methuselah gains a VP (the
one for herself).
The Sabbat withdrawal rules represent a loss of a VP from this standard
rule.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Andrew S. Davidson
>The Sabbat Withdrawl rule is a *vast* change from the original rules--yes, it
>is close to impossible to witdraw from the game using the original rules, but
>you are not forced to exit the game just 'cause you run out of cards. Many,
>many games come down to the last two players fighting for the last two victory
>points with empty libraries. With the Sabbat Withdrawl rule, you effectively
>lose the game because you run out of cards, which was not originally a concept
>in the game (losing because you run out of cards), and was not an improvement.
A happy medium might be to allow players to take the Sabbat withdrawal
option immediately they run out of cards. If they decline and stay in
the game, then they would only be able to withdraw subsequently using
the original rules, scoring a VP only if they do it the hard way.
This would give the players realistic options which would add to the
strategic choices available. Forcing players to stay in the game
without cards seems just as bad as forcing them to quit. Let the
players choose whether to fight to the last gasp or not.
Andrew
Chris Shorb
out of the game at any time. If you play the Sabbat forced withdrawal
rule, you do not get a VP, and your predator does (IIRC).
Chris
--
Andrew S. Davidson
>BTW, you mention "no consequent loss of VP". So I will note that the
>official withdrawal rules (which match the original withdrawal rules)
>also have no VP loss. Moreover, the withdrawn Methuselah gains a VP (the
>one for herself).
>
>The Sabbat withdrawal rules represent a loss of a VP from this standard
>rule.
I misspoke - I meant gain not loss. My thinking was that Sabbat
withdrawal is easy and so shouldn't score you anything. Original
withdrawal is tough and so merits a VP award.
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>For a brief analysis of the purpose of the withdrawal rules in their
>current (original) form, on a level slightly higher than "blew chunks",
>see http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=604788138
I take your point - that withdrawal is a way of ending a defensive
stalemate in a 2-player end-game. Your example seems rather narrow
though - it seems more likely that a player will just run out of cards
and then be a sitting duck for his predator. This makes cards a
finite resource and this seems counter to the general philosophy of
the game's mechanics.
It would perhaps be better if you never ran out cards. In Doomtown,
we routinely go through our deck many times, reshuffling our discards
as necessary, and this works well. Has this been considered in
Vampire? It would encourage the use of tight decks of the minimum
size but this seems no bad thing. It would make it less necessary to
collect many copies of the cards that you want to use and there'd be
less need to vary the size of deck to match the number of players.
Andrew
Noal McDonald
> Your example seems rather narrow though - it seems more likely
> that a player will just run out of cards and then be a sitting
> duck for his predator.
Which is why aiming for a withdrawal is not a good strategy (nor should
it be).
> This makes cards a finite resource and this seems counter to the
> general philosophy of the game's mechanics.
Cards being a finite resource and withdrawal being well nigh impossible
is very much in line with the philospohy of the game mechanics.
Remember, the card game is supposed to represent a struggle between
ancient vampires. One doesn't just take one's resources and vanish...one
either conquers or is conquered.
> It would perhaps be better if you never ran out cards.
Ack! No!
That would make my Seven Raptors Deck entirely pointless. (It's designed
to send as much of the library of other players to the ash heap as
possible.)
> In Doomtown, we routinely go through our deck many times,
> reshuffling our discards as necessary, and this works well.
What works for one card game does not neccessarily work for another.
Comparing card games is tantamount to building straw men. (Keep in mind
that Doomtown is based on Poker, which doesn't run out of cards.)
> It would make it less necessary to collect many copies of the cards
> that you want to use
This would make VTES less profitable than it is already. Clearly not a
good thing.
> and there'd be less need to vary the size of deck to match
> the number of players.
That's why the 40 + 10/player thing went away. It was bloody silly. The
60-90 cards per deck was a much better implementation. Besides which,
you should plan on about 4-5 players in a game. I've seen tables of 3 or
6 being semi-common and they really don't have that much of an effect on
the game as a whole. However, 7+ and 2 player games are unpleasant at
best.
Regards,
Noal
--
"I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from
what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species,
of pure sons of bitches."
--Faulkner, "The Mansion"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
tka...@my-deja.com
Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> a...@csi.com wrote:
> > It would perhaps be better if you never ran out cards.
>
> Ack! No!
>
> That would make my Seven Raptors Deck entirely pointless. (It's
designed
> to send as much of the library of other players to the ash heap as
> possible.)
>
view. Discard decks in whatever game I've encountered them are highest
on my hate list.
> This would make VTES less profitable than it is already. Clearly not a
> good thing.
>
That's unclear. Prospective players are deterred from starting new
CCGs if they feel they need suitcases of cards to compete.
>However, 7+ and 2 player games are unpleasant at
> best.
Is that the general view of the two player game? Is it as bad, for
example, as two player Shadowfist?
Tom
James Hamblin
tka...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <8lnddv$1nl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ack! No!
> >
> > That would make my Seven Raptors Deck entirely pointless. (It's
> > designed to send as much of the library of other players to the ash heap
> > as possible.)
>
> A strong argument in favor of recycling the discards from my point of
> view. Discard decks in whatever game I've encountered them are highest
> on my hate list.
Well, to be fair, just because you don't _like_ the strategy doesn't
mean it shouldn't exist. A lot of people don't like Stealth & Bleed...
Also, the discard strategy is sketchy at best. There are a few cards
(weird !Nosferatu cards IIRC) besides Raptor designed to help it be
better, but it's still pretty weak. But the cards would be wallpaper if
cards weren't a finite resource.
A note to Andrew: the final two-player game can still be won even if you
have no cards left. A deck which has a lot of cards which put permanent
resources in play, like master cards and equipment, can be very
successful even after it has run out of cards.
> Is that the general view of the two player game? Is it as bad, for
> example, as two player Shadowfist?
Granted, besides playing "Who Wants Some!?" at Origins, I haven't played
'Fist in eons, but I thought it was a fine two-player game. I mean, the
decks that are good in multiplayer aren't the same as good one-on-one
decks, but that makes sense. (It would be true for Jyhad, as well.)
James
--
James Hamblin
ham...@math.wisc.edu
"I am falling like a stone, like a storm,
being born again into the morning fog."
-- Kate Bush
tka...@my-deja.com
Andrew S. Davidson
>Cards being a finite resource and withdrawal being well nigh impossible
>is very much in line with the philospohy of the game mechanics.
>Remember, the card game is supposed to represent a struggle between
>ancient vampires. One doesn't just take one's resources and vanish...one
>either conquers or is conquered.
Methuselahs didn't grow old by engaging in a fight to the finish at
every opportunity. That's the sort of dumb thing that characters in
Highlander do. Having been blessed with immortal life, they just
can't wait to throw it away.
>That would make my Seven Raptors Deck entirely pointless. (It's designed
>to send as much of the library of other players to the ash heap as
>possible.)
When one door closes, another opens. When cards can be recycled then
a tactic of deliberately collapsing your deck becomes possible and
this can be quite entertaining. But the end-game of the Doomtown
final at Origins had more to do with card exhaustion of the Seven
Raptors type. I was using one of the nastier card-destruction cards,
Start Again, and at one point reduced the other chap's deck down to
nothing. He figured out a way of getting some cards back in his deck,
giving him a great draw hand. I figured out a way of countering that
but then ran out of untapped minions, alas. This would all translate
to Vampire quite nicely I feel. It would be a change, of course, but
you seem to have been quite ready to adopt other changes in pursuit of
perfection.
Andrew
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
> >For a brief analysis of the purpose of the withdrawal rules in their
> >current (original) form, on a level slightly higher than "blew
> >chunks", see http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=604788138
>
> I take your point - that withdrawal is a way of ending a defensive
> though - it seems more likely that a player will just run out of cards
> finite resource and this seems counter to the general philosophy of
> the game's mechanics.
The example is almost as narrow as the possibility of actually
withdrawing. :-)
That's kind of the point. Withdrawing isn't included in the rules
because the designer wanted some way for you to withdraw. It's
included because the designer had the foresight (from experience
with other games, no doubt) to include mechanisms that work to keep
the game from stalling (see also: The Edge). (All of this just my
opinion, of course. The Garfield hasn't, to my knowledge, actually
addressed the purpose of the withdrawal rule in a public forum.)
If you run out of cards, and haven't built up a sufficient set of
in-play resources (minions, locations, equipment, etc.), then you
*should* be a sitting duck.
This game is at its core a game of resource management - you have
to spend your resources (pool, notably, but also cards, minion
activities, etc.) as sparingly and as aggressively as possible -
finding the balance is the key, since most of the resources are
difficult to renew.
> It would perhaps be better if you never ran out cards. In Doomtown,
> we routinely go through our deck many times, reshuffling our discards
> as necessary, and this works well. Has this been considered in
> Vampire? It would encourage the use of tight decks of the minimum
> size but this seems no bad thing. It would make it less necessary to
> collect many copies of the cards that you want to use and there'd be
> less need to vary the size of deck to match the number of players.
That would be a bad thing, allowing a deck to tune its combos
such that the same multi-card combo could be used every action
(or every combat or whatever) without regard to resource (deck)
management, since the combo will simply appear again and again
from the recycle bin.
Even without the recycling aspect, the idea of small "tight" decks
(small being necessary to reduce the odds of bad draws of your
"tight" combos) was purposefully discouraged in the tournament
scene by the raising of the minimum deck size from the non-tourney
standard of 40 to 60.
The "vary library size" for number of players issue is a good one,
but has already been handled in the tournament scene with the
adoption of semi-standard game sizes (4-5 players only - never
any 3 or 6 player games) and the appropriate fixed maximum library
size of 90 (the standard 5-player maximum).
Reducing the need to "collect the cards you want" could also be
accomplished by using proxies (counterfeit cards). But that's moot;
a "collectible card game" includes the mechanic of "collect the
cards you want" intrinsically. Reducing that mechanic is
diametrically opposed to the "collectible card game" concept.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Tom Kassel
<BB0B7F440F4D3D61.633C0955...@lp.airnews.net>,
a...@csi.com wrote:
It would be a change, of course, but
> you seem to have been quite ready to adopt other changes in pursuit of
> perfection.
Quite ready ?!?! Which Wake errata thread have you been reading,
Andrew?
Tom
LSJ
> That's why the 40 + 10/player thing went away. It was bloody silly.
> The 60-90 cards per deck was a much better implementation.
The 40+10/player "thing" is still part of the rules. [1.2.1]
The 60-90 "thing" is just a tournament rule.
[1.2.1] still exists in its original form because the base rules
in general still support 2-player and 10-player games. Tournament
rules, with their "cannot change the composition of their decks
between rounds" rule, needed a fixed maximum, obviously.
Fortunately (and probably not coincidentally), tournament rules also
specify a narrow range of players per table, allowing the fixing
of maximum library size as well.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Oaflord
> > example, as two player Shadowfist?
>
> Granted, besides playing "Who Wants Some!?" at Origins, I haven't played
> 'Fist in eons, but I thought it was a fine two-player game. I mean, the
> decks that are good in multiplayer aren't the same as good one-on-one
> decks, but that makes sense. (It would be true for Jyhad, as well.)
For the longest time when my wife and I had no others opponents to play
against, we had to settle for 2 player games and the mechanics of the game
change dramatically. But, I do recommend an occasional duel, just to see
how your deck would fare with the illusion of the opposing deck being the
same as your prey and predator in a multiplayer game. Example, I stopped
playing Majesty for a while, because my wife will not play without IG(smart
girl). She was creaming me in to a pulp, so I adapted. It was like I was
back in school. VTES 101. Eventually, I learned her deck and found a way to
avoid the IG hurt. Being able to know all facets of the game is a good
thing, and like I said, the occasional duel can't hurt.
oAFLORD
aka
Thomas Kuster
V:EKN Prince of Caledon
"Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world, and all our woe."
John Milton Paradise Lost. Book i. Line 1.
Noal McDonald
> Example, I stopped playing Majesty for a while, because my wife
> will not play without IG
*nods* When Potence combat starts to get common, you learn the hard way
to back up your S:CE cards with at least as many maneuvers.
Noal
--
"I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from
what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species,
of pure sons of bitches."
--Faulkner, "The Mansion"
Johannes de Ruever
cards (seemed to be the best way for us, same as in Middleearth)
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20000723203041...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
> Andrew wrote:
> >>Fine. But do people play with this as standard?>>
>
> No. As soon as this withdrawl rule was printed in the Sabbat rules insert,
> there was a swift "we hate this rule" reaction, and the Sabbat Withdrawl
Rule
> was officially deemed "optional".
>
> The Sabbat Withdrawl rule is a *vast* change from the original rules--yes,
it
> is close to impossible to witdraw from the game using the original rules,
but
> you are not forced to exit the game just 'cause you run out of cards.
Many,
> many games come down to the last two players fighting for the last two
victory
> points with empty libraries. With the Sabbat Withdrawl rule, you
effectively
> lose the game because you run out of cards, which was not originally a
concept
> in the game (losing because you run out of cards), and was not an
improvement.
>
....salem....
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> That's kind of the point. Withdrawing isn't included in the rules
> because the designer wanted some way for you to withdraw. It's
> included because the designer had the foresight (from experience
> with other games, no doubt) to include mechanisms that work to keep
> the game from stalling (see also: The Edge). (All of this just my
> opinion, of course. The Garfield hasn't, to my knowledge, actually
> addressed the purpose of the withdrawal rule in a public forum.)
personally, from my own thoughts on the matter, i had come to the
conclusion that it was also perhaps included such that if, say, your
predator has been trashed, and you are also totally trashed (read: no
ready minions that can bleed, nor any way to get some....which has
happened before in my damn warghoul deck) then you have a way to get out
of the situation before your grand-predator walks through the both of
you. that sort of thing.
perhaps a better wording might be "if everyone spends all their
resources trashing evrything else, then there is still something to do".
otherwise it might be possible for everyone to just sit there forever,
with no way to remove pool from anyone else. (some people might get
bored and try suiciding, but that too becomes tricky once you run out of
crypt...)
> If you run out of cards, and haven't built up a sufficient set of
> in-play resources (minions, locations, equipment, etc.), then you
> *should* be a sitting duck.
quack.
> Reducing the need to "collect the cards you want" could also be
> accomplished by using proxies (counterfeit cards). But that's moot;
> a "collectible card game" includes the mechanic of "collect the
> cards you want" intrinsically. Reducing that mechanic is
> diametrically opposed to the "collectible card game" concept.
which is why when people ask if they can use proxies, i say "no". if you
can't build the deck, don't play it. if you can mostly build the deck,
play with it with close counterparts until you collect what you need.
for example, i have a "Thetmes" deck. i don't have as many IG as i would
like, so i have a few Psyches in until i get more IGs. i also don't have
as many Khabar: Honours as i would like, so i have some Undead Strengths
in until i collect some more K:Hs.
Proxies "blow chunks".
--
_*__salem
_*__http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stage/5848/
***__salem_...@my-dejanews.com
_*__and the rains came hammering down