Contesting
XZealot
Forrestal, I go 4th, on my second turn I play him.
My predator on his next turn influences Ian Forrestal into play with
the caveat, "damn we're gonna contest" and "sorry man gotta do it"
and "deck is based on Ian".
I know we are both going to lose. I can't stop it. It is turn 3 and I
know my game is FUBAR.
XZealot
http://deckserver.net/jol3/13th Lucky Bullet
Peter D Bakija
But, but, that isn't random! And someone chose to make you both lose!
And the penalty is perfectly reasonable and you shouldn't have been
playing a deck that uses such a popular minion in the first place!
:-)
(Note smiley)
-Peter
henrik
> As proof that players don't play rationally, I am playing an Ian
> Forrestal, I go 4th, on my second turn I play him.
Great proof. Not sure that anyone ever doubted it though.
> My predator on his next turn influences Ian Forrestal into play with
> the caveat, "damn we're gonna contest" and "sorry man gotta do it"
> and "deck is based on Ian".
>
> I know we are both going to lose. I can't stop it. It is turn 3 and I
> know my game is FUBAR.
Consider that Ian could've bled you for more than those 8 pool + 1
each turn. You're in a great position, unless your deck is so
dependent on Ian that you can't do anything without him.
Obtenebration
>dependent on Ian that you can't do anything without him.
Someone who builds a deck around one vampire deserves to get contested
and lose.
Why don't we address the benefits that deck has in every other game it
plays that give it an advantage to win since it has no problems
getting a marginal crypt, once that is done let's reduce the penalty
for focusing on one vampire.
XZealot
Huh?
XZealot
wrote:
> >unless your deck is so
> >dependent on Ian that you can't do anything without him.
>
> Someone who builds a deck around one vampire deserves to get contested
> and lose.
How is getting your 8-cap contested as soon as you put him into play
"building a deck around one vampire"?
I am not seeing that anywhere in my post, nor in the game that I was
playing.
Please explain.
henrik
> > > I know we are both going to lose. I can't stop it. It is turn 3 and I
> > > know my game is FUBAR.
>
> > Consider that Ian could've bled you for more than those 8 pool + 1
> > each turn. You're in a great position, unless your deck is so
> > dependent on Ian that you can't do anything without him.
>
> Huh?
It means that if your predator was allowed to have Ian Forestal, you'd
lose more than 1 pool each turn (if your predator plays a decent deck,
xe should be able to do an average of 2+ pool damage to you each
turn).
You're in the winning position of the two mentioned players (assuming
your deck can handle not having your star vampire for a while,
otherwise it's obvious who to blame for your loss).
XZealot
> On Aug 10, 10:24 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I know we are both going to lose. I can't stop it. It is turn 3 and I
> > > > know my game is FUBAR.
>
> > > Consider that Ian could've bled you for more than those 8 pool + 1
> > > each turn. You're in a great position, unless your deck is so
> > > dependent on Ian that you can't do anything without him.
>
> > Huh?
>
> It means that if your predator was allowed to have Ian Forestal, you'd
> lose more than 1 pool each turn (if your predator plays a decent deck,
> xe should be able to do an average of 2+ pool damage to you each
> turn).
And if I had Ian Forrestal, I would have been able to handle it. But
since we were contesting, I wasn't.
What is your point?
> You're in the winning position of the two mentioned players (assuming
> your deck can handle not having your star vampire for a while,
> otherwise it's obvious who to blame for your loss).
Oh, my predator died in about 4 turns which was exactly what I told
him would happen. He died before me. I still didn't enjoy the game
very much, which is why I play VTES, you know, to have fun...
henrik
> On Aug 10, 3:35 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 10, 10:24 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > I know we are both going to lose. I can't stop it. It is turn 3 and I
> > > > > know my game is FUBAR.
>
> > > > Consider that Ian could've bled you for more than those 8 pool + 1
> > > > each turn. You're in a great position, unless your deck is so
> > > > dependent on Ian that you can't do anything without him.
>
> > > Huh?
>
> > It means that if your predator was allowed to have Ian Forestal, you'd
> > lose more than 1 pool each turn (if your predator plays a decent deck,
> > xe should be able to do an average of 2+ pool damage to you each
> > turn).
>
> And if I had Ian Forrestal, I would have been able to handle it. But
> since we were contesting, I wasn't.
>
> What is your point?
That paying 1 pool is better than paying 2+.
> > You're in the winning position of the two mentioned players (assuming
> > your deck can handle not having your star vampire for a while,
> > otherwise it's obvious who to blame for your loss).
>
> Oh, my predator died in about 4 turns which was exactly what I told
> him would happen. He died before me.
Then you got Ian back. Sounds like a manageable situation.
> I still didn't enjoy the game
> very much, which is why I play VTES, you know, to have fun...
Don't play with asshats that contests out of stupidness.
XZealot
> On Aug 10, 10:39 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 3:35 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 10, 10:24 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I know we are both going to lose. I can't stop it. It is turn 3 and I
> > > > > > know my game is FUBAR.
>
> > > > > Consider that Ian could've bled you for more than those 8 pool + 1
> > > > > each turn. You're in a great position, unless your deck is so
> > > > > dependent on Ian that you can't do anything without him.
>
> > > > Huh?
>
> > > It means that if your predator was allowed to have Ian Forestal, you'd
> > > lose more than 1 pool each turn (if your predator plays a decent deck,
> > > xe should be able to do an average of 2+ pool damage to you each
> > > turn).
>
> > And if I had Ian Forrestal, I would have been able to handle it. But
> > since we were contesting, I wasn't.
>
> > What is your point?
>
> That paying 1 pool is better than paying 2+.
....which is ironic, since I had just paid 8, you know.
> > > You're in the winning position of the two mentioned players (assuming
> > > your deck can handle not having your star vampire for a while,
> > > otherwise it's obvious who to blame for your loss).
>
> > Oh, my predator died in about 4 turns which was exactly what I told
> > him would happen. He died before me.
>
> Then you got Ian back. Sounds like a manageable situation.
Oh yeah, you know it was. There were only 2 1st Traditions sitting on
the table when I did.
> > I still didn't enjoy the game
> > very much, which is why I play VTES, you know, to have fun...
>
> Don't play with asshats that contests out of stupidness.
So, it's a demonstrable problem and you still want to chalk it up to
the "asshat" factor.
I think it is a rules problem....really.
henrik
> > > I still didn't enjoy the game
> > > very much, which is why I play VTES, you know, to have fun...
>
> > Don't play with asshats that contests out of stupidness.
>
> So, it's a demonstrable problem and you still want to chalk it up to
> the "asshat" factor.
Yeah. If the contest did nothing else than making you both lose it's
your predator's stupidness that got you there. I think the problem is
mostly that your deck couldn't handle being without Ian.
I'm not saying contesting didn't make your situation worse. It did,
and I think contesting is supposed to work exactly that way. If you
couldn't handle not having Ian for 4 turns, that's not at all a rules
problem. Really.
People contesting for no reason are the same people that stealthes
through a bounced bleed and ousts crosstable because the "need to
cycle cards". Or that burns their grand predator's Ian with Goratrix
Adv.
> I think it is a rules problem....really.
I think it's an attitude problem....really.
XZealot
> On Aug 10, 10:49 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I still didn't enjoy the game
> > > > very much, which is why I play VTES, you know, to have fun...
>
> > > Don't play with asshats that contests out of stupidness.
>
> > So, it's a demonstrable problem and you still want to chalk it up to
> > the "asshat" factor.
>
> Yeah. If the contest did nothing else than making you both lose it's
> your predator's stupidness that got you there. I think the problem is
> mostly that your deck couldn't handle being without Ian.
> I'm not saying contesting didn't make your situation worse. It did,
> and I think contesting is supposed to work exactly that way. If you
> couldn't handle not having Ian for 4 turns, that's not at all a rules
> problem. Really.
My deck couldn't deal with contesting AND someone laying down 1st
Traditions on the other side of the table with 5 cap princes.
One or the other, I might have been able to deal with, but with both
of them it was just "GAME OVER".
> People contesting for no reason are the same people that stealthes
> through a bounced bleed and ousts crosstable because the "need to
> cycle cards". Or that burns their grand predator's Ian with Goratrix
> Adv.
>
> > I think it is a rules problem....really.
>
> I think it's an attitude problem....really.
I think it is such a random event that almost never happens that
players just don't have any experience with the difference between
contesting library cards (i.e. the ivory bow) versus contesting
vampires, especially 8 cap vampires.
Everyone thinks its a brilliant play when you contest the ivory bow,
because the cost is really insignifigant.
Most players just don't have enough experience contesting vampires, so
they think it is just like contesting the ivory bow.
Which, of course, it is not.
It is such an incredibly random event that it takes someone with many
years of playing to have even experienced it enough to form an opinion
on it.
D.J.
> Yeah. If the contest did nothing else than making you both lose it's
> your predator's stupidness that got you there. I think the problem is
> mostly that your deck couldn't handle being without Ian.
I don't see Norm saying anywhere that *his* deck, being the one who
brought out Ian first, couldn't function without Ian.
What he said is that his predator, who decided *his* deck couldn't
function without Ian, contested after Norm brought him out but before
even doing anything with him. Yes, that's debatably an asshat move,
but if predator hadn't done that, he's 7 pool down the tubes for a few
turns and waiting a few more before he gets a real vampire up.
(Similar to how Ben Kalb's deck, in that other ludicrously long
thread, would have been just fine with a different vampire than Lutz,
but was already 10 pool into getting Lutz ready to be out, so when
Lutz then popped up cross table Ben was screwed whether or not he
contested and thus screwed the other guy too.)
Whether or not Norm needed Ian, specifically, once Ian was on the
table and then got contested, what Norm needed was the 8 pool
investment, plus the cost of contesting, plus the 2 turns, back. The
rules provide no way of doing that. Let's assume Norm's predator
picked the other option, and didn't contest - what he needed was some
way to get back the investment before he just plain lost, then. Which
doesn't exist, because contesting is too harsh.
> I'm not saying contesting didn't make your situation worse. It did,
> and I think contesting is supposed to work exactly that way. If you
> couldn't handle not having Ian for 4 turns, that's not at all a rules
> problem. Really.
OK, how's this: whatever your first, fairly large, vampire is, you're
1 pool shy of bringing it out. And it pops up cross-table. Not a
star for you, not a specific highly-popular vampire, just random
chance. You're 8 pool into a 9-cap or something. How is that not a
rules problem totally screwing your game over on pure randomness?
> People contesting for no reason are the same people that stealthes
> through a bounced bleed and ousts crosstable because the "need to
> cycle cards". Or that burns their grand predator's Ian with Goratrix
> Adv.
And people that choose not to contest the vampire they've started
putting pool onto just lose on their own, without taking someone with
them, but that's still a big pile of no-fun, and unnecessarily harsh.
- D.J.
henrik
> > People contesting for no reason are the same people that stealthes
> > through a bounced bleed and ousts crosstable because the "need to
> > cycle cards". Or that burns their grand predator's Ian with Goratrix
> > Adv.
>
> > > I think it is a rules problem....really.
>
> > I think it's an attitude problem....really.
>
> I think it is such a random event that almost never happens that
> players just don't have any experience with the difference between
> contesting library cards (i.e. the ivory bow) versus contesting
> vampires, especially 8 cap vampires.
>
> Everyone thinks its a brilliant play when you contest the ivory bow,
> because the cost is really insignifigant.
>
> Most players just don't have enough experience contesting vampires, so
> they think it is just like contesting the ivory bow.
>
> Which, of course, it is not.
>
> It is such an incredibly random event that it takes someone with many
> years of playing to have even experienced it enough to form an opinion
> on it.
Sounds like you agree with this not being a rule problem.
It could be somewhat fixed by changing the rules though, but in my
eyes people should adapt to the rules and learn from mistakes instead
(that goes out as much, or more, to your predator).
XZealot
> On Aug 10, 11:28 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > People contesting for no reason are the same people that stealthes
> > > through a bounced bleed and ousts crosstable because the "need to
> > > cycle cards". Or that burns their grand predator's Ian with Goratrix
> > > Adv.
>
> > > > I think it is a rules problem....really.
>
> > > I think it's an attitude problem....really.
>
> > I think it is such a random event that almost never happens that
> > players just don't have any experience with the difference between
> > contesting library cards (i.e. the ivory bow) versus contesting
> > vampires, especially 8 cap vampires.
>
> > Everyone thinks its a brilliant play when you contest the ivory bow,
> > because the cost is really insignifigant.
>
> > Most players just don't have enough experience contesting vampires, so
> > they think it is just like contesting the ivory bow.
>
> > Which, of course, it is not.
>
> > It is such an incredibly random event that it takes someone with many
> > years of playing to have even experienced it enough to form an opinion
> > on it.
>
> Sounds like you agree with this not being a rule problem.
I think the rules are so harsh that it is an event to be avoided. I
think we agree on that.
> It could be somewhat fixed by changing the rules though, but in my
> eyes people should adapt to the rules and learn from mistakes instead
> (that goes out as much, or more, to your predator).
I think that is is an event to be avoided, and it is an event that is
so random and rare that even so-called "experienced players" have no
real experience with it.
Perhaps if it happened with increased frequency then people would
understand how debilitating it is. How would you feel if the rule was
changed to "All capacities are unique, if two vampires of the same
capacity are brought into play then they contest"? I think that you
would come to grips with it quite quickly if you experienced it more.
Then you could strategically use contesting by playing skill cards on
your vampires.
henrik
> > Yeah. If the contest did nothing else than making you both lose it's
> > your predator's stupidness that got you there. I think the problem is
> > mostly that your deck couldn't handle being without Ian.
>
> I don't see Norm saying anywhere that *his* deck, being the one who
> brought out Ian first, couldn't function without Ian.
>
> What he said is that his predator, who decided *his* deck couldn't
> function without Ian, contested after Norm brought him out but before
> even doing anything with him. Yes, that's debatably an asshat move,
> but if predator hadn't done that, he's 7 pool down the tubes for a few
> turns and waiting a few more before he gets a real vampire up.
> (Similar to how Ben Kalb's deck, in that other ludicrously long
> thread, would have been just fine with a different vampire than Lutz,
> but was already 10 pool into getting Lutz ready to be out, so when
> Lutz then popped up cross table Ben was screwed whether or not he
> contested and thus screwed the other guy too.)
>
> Whether or not Norm needed Ian, specifically, once Ian was on the
> table and then got contested, what Norm needed was the 8 pool
> investment, plus the cost of contesting, plus the 2 turns, back. The
> rules provide no way of doing that. Let's assume Norm's predator
> picked the other option, and didn't contest - what he needed was some
> way to get back the investment before he just plain lost, then. Which
> doesn't exist, because contesting is too harsh.
There is the transfer back rule, you know. I heard it was created for
exactly those situations.
Yes, it's tough. No, it's not impossible unless your deck was designed
bad (as in "can't handle that specific situation").
> > I'm not saying contesting didn't make your situation worse. It did,
> > and I think contesting is supposed to work exactly that way. If you
> > couldn't handle not having Ian for 4 turns, that's not at all a rules
> > problem. Really.
>
> OK, how's this: whatever your first, fairly large, vampire is, you're
> 1 pool shy of bringing it out. And it pops up cross-table. Not a
> star for you, not a specific highly-popular vampire, just random
> chance. You're 8 pool into a 9-cap or something.
A week back, in a casual game, my grand predator put up Anson. My
predator played an Ansons deck as well. He changed vampire, got Volker
and Nik out, rushed Anson and sent him to torpor and then ate Anson.
Then he brought his own copy out and won the game.
> How is that not a
> rules problem totally screwing your game over on pure randomness?
The game is about getting over randomness. When you build your deck
you should consider the things you might encounter and design your
deck to be able to handle as many as possible of those. Sometimes you
will end up facing a deck that you can't handle. That's part of the
game, and you have to try solving it from the crapplace you're in. You
can build your deck so that it can handle a contest, and if you chose
not to then you will most likely lose when the situation comes up.
Just like you can build your deck so that it can handle an Animalism
weenie, and if you chose not to then you will most likely lose when
that one is your prey.
Change your deck and playing style instead of the rules.
> > People contesting for no reason are the same people that stealthes
> > through a bounced bleed and ousts crosstable because the "need to
> > cycle cards". Or that burns their grand predator's Ian with Goratrix
> > Adv.
>
> And people that choose not to contest the vampire they've started
> putting pool onto just lose on their own, without taking someone with
> them, but that's still a big pile of no-fun, and unnecessarily harsh.
And people who get their first vampire Brainwashed after 7 transfers
can lose as well. Let's ban Brainwash. Cairo Airport Caitiff decks
should be illegal as well.
Or they could just get a different vampire out and do the best of the
situation. And also consider that some tables are almost impossible to
win (due to the random seating ending up giving you the "wrong"
predator/prey/grand prey/grand predator.
If you have the wrong deck in the wrong situation it'll suck. What
situation is wrong depends on how what your deck was constructed to
handle.
But yeah, one could just blame the rules instead.
henrik
> > > It is such an incredibly random event that it takes someone with many
> > > years of playing to have even experienced it enough to form an opinion
> > > on it.
>
> > Sounds like you agree with this not being a rule problem.
>
> I think the rules are so harsh that it is an event to be avoided. I
> think we agree on that.
We don't. I still think the contest rules are fine.
> > It could be somewhat fixed by changing the rules though, but in my
> > eyes people should adapt to the rules and learn from mistakes instead
> > (that goes out as much, or more, to your predator).
>
> I think that is is an event to be avoided, and it is an event that is
> so random and rare that even so-called "experienced players" have no
> real experience with it.
I think everyone in my playgroup have got some experiences with
contesting. Good ones and bad ones. Even the ones who doesn't really
play as frequently as most of us. And it's not too hard to think for
1-2 minutes and see some possible outcomes of a contest. Knowing if
it'll be worth it though, that's as hard as knowing if your prey has
that Deflection in her hand.
> Perhaps if it happened with increased frequency then people would
> understand how debilitating it is. How would you feel if the rule was
> changed to "All capacities are unique, if two vampires of the same
> capacity are brought into play then they contest"? I think that you
> would come to grips with it quite quickly if you experienced it more.
> Then you could strategically use contesting by playing skill cards on
> your vampires.
Well, yeah. If I ended up contesting every game I'd probably think
that the rules were kinda crappy. But I don't, so that's irrelevant.
Contesting happens from time to time, sometimes it saves my ass and
sometimes it bites my ass. Just like Graverobbings, Renegade Garous or
Parity Shifts.
And I'm still not the one who wants to change stuff here so trying to
bring forth new rules and pin them on me is silly.
XZealot
> On Aug 11, 12:11 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > It is such an incredibly random event that it takes someone with many
> > > > years of playing to have even experienced it enough to form an opinion
> > > > on it.
>
> > > Sounds like you agree with this not being a rule problem.
>
> > I think the rules are so harsh that it is an event to be avoided. I
> > think we agree on that.
>
> We don't. I still think the contest rules are fine.
So you don't want to avoid contesting vampires?
> > > It could be somewhat fixed by changing the rules though, but in my
> > > eyes people should adapt to the rules and learn from mistakes instead
> > > (that goes out as much, or more, to your predator).
>
> > I think that is is an event to be avoided, and it is an event that is
> > so random and rare that even so-called "experienced players" have no
> > real experience with it.
>
> I think everyone in my playgroup have got some experiences with
> contesting. Good ones and bad ones. Even the ones who doesn't really
> play as frequently as most of us. And it's not too hard to think for
> 1-2 minutes and see some possible outcomes of a contest. Knowing if
> it'll be worth it though, that's as hard as knowing if your prey has
> that Deflection in her hand.
>
> > Perhaps if it happened with increased frequency then people would
> > understand how debilitating it is. How would you feel if the rule was
> > changed to "All capacities are unique, if two vampires of the same
> > capacity are brought into play then they contest"? I think that you
> > would come to grips with it quite quickly if you experienced it more.
> > Then you could strategically use contesting by playing skill cards on
> > your vampires.
>
> Well, yeah. If I ended up contesting every game I'd probably think
> that the rules were kinda crappy. But I don't, so that's irrelevant.
> Contesting happens from time to time, sometimes it saves my ass and
> sometimes it bites my ass. Just like Graverobbings, Renegade Garous or
> Parity Shifts.
Okay, we'll at least you can admit that if you had to deal with this
rule all the time then it would be "kinda crappy"
> And I'm still not the one who wants to change stuff here so trying to
> bring forth new rules and pin them on me is silly.
You need turn your paranoia dial back a little, because no one is
trying ot pin anything on you.
henrik
> On Aug 10, 5:24 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 11, 12:11 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > It is such an incredibly random event that it takes someone with many
> > > > > years of playing to have even experienced it enough to form an opinion
> > > > > on it.
>
> > > > Sounds like you agree with this not being a rule problem.
>
> > > I think the rules are so harsh that it is an event to be avoided. I
> > > think we agree on that.
>
> > We don't. I still think the contest rules are fine.
>
> So you don't want to avoid contesting vampires?
Well, yeah, in that sense. I thought you were talking about avoiding
contesting in the rule-changing way.
> > Well, yeah. If I ended up contesting every game I'd probably think
> > that the rules were kinda crappy. But I don't, so that's irrelevant.
> > Contesting happens from time to time, sometimes it saves my ass and
> > sometimes it bites my ass. Just like Graverobbings, Renegade Garous or
> > Parity Shifts.
>
> Okay, we'll at least you can admit that if you had to deal with this
> rule all the time then it would be "kinda crappy"
With your suggested rule, yes. I'd think a rule that made me lose the
game if my starting hand consisted of 7 master cards would be kinda
crappy as well.
> > And I'm still not the one who wants to change stuff here so trying to
> > bring forth new rules and pin them on me is silly.
>
> You need turn your paranoia dial back a little, because no one is
> trying ot pin anything on you.
Why did you use the example? Looked to me like it was some sort of
attempt to turn my love for harsh contesting rules against me.
LSJ
> It could be somewhat fixed by changing the rules though, but in my
> eyes people should adapt to the rules and learn from mistakes instead
> (that goes out as much, or more, to your predator).
Using unique minions in your crypt is not a mistake.
Juggernaut1981
There are two issues working in this:
- Decisions by players in game (taking the actions to Contest or not
talking about what they need to bring out...)
- Decisions by players out of game (Turbo-Baron Superstar, Anneke Sees
All, etc)
In Game Decisions:
This is the same situation as having your cross-table stealth-up a
flicked bleed for 5... thankyou very freakin much you jackass OR
Player 1: You sonuva... I'm screwed!
Player 2: I know, bleed for 6...
Out of Game Decisions:
I want to build an Anneke Sees All... do I bother about building the
crypt to handle contest? Nah, nobody's going to do that...
OR
Hmm... Anneke... people LIKE Anneke. Time to build in a Plan B
(sticks in handful of Eagle's Sights and maybe a Praxis Solomon)
The contestation rules don't need to change. Playgroups need to
realise how to use contesting Vampires as a tactical measure and how
to AVOID it if it's not a deliberate tactical measure. That means
different deckbuilding as well.
LSJ
> The contestation rules don't need to change. Playgroups need to
> realise how to use contesting Vampires as a tactical measure and how
> to AVOID it if it's not a deliberate tactical measure. That means
> different deckbuilding as well.
You can't avoid putting unique vampires in your crypt (not in any meaningful way).
henrik
Not being able to handle contesting is, though. Or maybe not a
mistake, but rather a calculated risk. Similar to not adding combat/
bleed/vote defense.
How you handle a contest should probably be called an experience to
learn from rather than a mistake as well.
But that doesn't really change my point.
LSJ
> On Aug 11, 1:22 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Using unique minions in your crypt is not a mistake.
>
> Not being able to handle contesting is, though. Or maybe not a
> mistake, but rather a calculated risk. Similar to not adding combat/
> bleed/vote defense.
No. Using unique vampires is not similar to omitting combat defense.
At all.
Then "handling contesting" is simply "making the best of an unreasonably bad
turn of events that are beyond your control", where "the best" is "pretty bad"
to "futile flailing"; we're not talking making lemonade here.
> How you handle a contest should probably be called an experience to
> learn from rather than a mistake as well.
Sure. Like how you handle a temporary change of control into Return to Innocence
or VP sniping with Dramatic Upheaval. Good learning experience. Suck it up.
Stiff upper lip and all that.
> But that doesn't really change my point.
I reckon that's true.
Juggernaut1981
That is my core point. You cannot generally avoid unique vampires in
your crypt (Tupdog & Hermanas excluded).
So if your deck will topple into a cosmic pile of crap if you can't
influence out Minion X... then maybe you need to work on your deck's
Plan B.
It is the same scenario for a deck as having a key vampire eaten/
torpored/Pentexed/Sense-Dep'd. How does your deck work when you
HAVEN'T got Minion X?? Does it die? Does it faff around attempting
to hunt-bloat until you can influence out Minion X? Does it do
something else?
This should be an extension of the thinking of "How does my Vote Deck
oust a Wall-Prey? How do I keep myself safe from a rush-pred? How do
I not die with this deck?" That's my position on contesting: build
your decks so it doesn't hurt as much.
LSJ
> So if your deck will topple into a cosmic pile of crap if you can't
> influence out Minion X... then maybe you need to work on your deck's
> Plan B.
Yeah.
But not the point.
The point is losing transfers and pool stuck idling on a still-uncontrolled
vampire when someone else brings out that vampire.
Now you've lost several turns (up to 3) of transfers, and all of that pool is
out of your reach until you can afford to lose even more turns of transfers
simply moving the pool back to where it was to begin with.
Juggernaut1981
around and diablerised... I again am many turns behind, lost a pile of
pool and now have many more turns before I'm on my feet again. In
this position, I've not only lost the minion but the pool and
transfers I have spent. That is in effect a far worse position than
having to redraw pool for a minion I don't want to contest.
In game, at least two people have to take actions and make decisions
to make a contest happen. If the players around you keep on saying
"its cause my deck won't work without XYZ" then maybe you should help
them put a Plan B in the deck and learn to work around the situation.
LSJ
> And if my Superstar gets rushed by Theo Bell while Rake is standing
> around and diablerised... I again am many turns behind, lost a pile of
> pool and now have many more turns before I'm on my feet again. In
> this position, I've not only lost the minion but the pool and
> transfers I have spent. That is in effect a far worse position than
> having to redraw pool for a minion I don't want to contest.
Yeah, but that you can do something about (or are at least much more responsible
for not being able to do anything about).
LSJ
> In game, at least two people have to take actions and make decisions
> to make a contest happen. If the players around you keep on saying
> "its cause my deck won't work without XYZ" then maybe you should help
> them put a Plan B in the deck and learn to work around the situation.
Yeah.
And not the point.
Even when you and your buddy agree not to contest, one of you is still randomly
hosed (loss of transfers and impounding of pool).
Wookie813
> situation is wrong depends on how what your deck was constructed to
> handle.
> But yeah, one could just blame the rules instead.
The contesting rule for crypt minions is indeed very harsh. The
penalty for falling victim to this very random event is the (at least
temporary) loss of a minion, the time invested in controlling that
minion (that could have been used to control a different one), the
investment of Pool for that minion, and continued loss of that minion
and additional Pool for the duration of the contest. There is a high
probability that the table will tilt drastically in favor of
methuselahs NOT involved in the contest, for no other reason than that
the contest exists.
Saying that one should "build their library or crypt to deal with" a
contest is not fair, IMO, because that means using your very limited
resources to defend against something that is very unlikely. Do you
play clan hosers in all your decks? You should, because you will
probably see vampires that belong to clans in every game. Not having a
clan hoser card for every clan in every deck is folly!
My apologies for the sarcasm, but I think the fact that the punishment
for contesting may not fit the crime has to be considered.
What if the contestation rules for unique crypt minions (NOT unique
library cards) were more along the lines of a Hostile Takeover? When a
minion is contested, the involved methuselahs bid for control of that
minion (starting with the methuselah who already controlled the
minion). The winning bid is paid in Pool to the yielder, who then
removes their in-play copy of the minion from the game, and burns any
cards or counters that may have been on that minion.
This accomplishes a few things:
-It resolves the contest immediately
-It provides some measure of compensation for the yielder
-It adds an additional element of strategy to contesting a crypt
minion
-It does not "undo" time and resources invested without compensation
It also uses a mechanic that is familiar to most players, and has been
around a long time.
Aaron Clark
guess it's touched a nerve.
Maybe instead of contesting, whenever you bring out a unique minion
from your uncontrolled region, if there is already a copy of that
minion, the other controller's copy gets sent back to the uncontrolled
region like a Banishment. I'm sure this was suggested before, as were
a multitude of ideas for dealing with the situation. Something like
this really plays along to the theme of VTES - a tug of war between
Methusalehs over the control of a vampire.
In my play group in LA, I have seen the contestation issue come up
four times in memory:
1. A complete newbie contested my Masika. I was playing a Masika star
vampire deck. He didn't realize what would happen once his Masika
came out. Nonetheless, he was in the same position as has been
discussed - if he hadn't contested Masika, he still would have lost
several turns and transfers.
Of course, after he gave up the contestation, I got an Assault Rifle
on Masika and my prey then used Serpentis to bring the other Masika
out of the ash heap to contest him. I had to play kill through
contestation as best I could. The game timed out, I think. I never
in my life imagined that I would have to contest Masika.
2. A predator contested his prey's Gabrin. Both were ousted without
gaining VPs.
3. My predator didn't bring out Anson because I already had him. It
hurt his game a lot, but he could still function. I won the game. He
couldn't or wouldn't contest because his predator was a stealth
bleeder.
4. Someone else contested my Anson cross table just cause I think he
was frustrated with the game and he didn't understand the contestation
rules. Once he realized he couldn't get blood back from a contested
vampire and I was going to pay the contest to the bitter end, he gave
up. I got 1 VP that game.
Hmm... Maybe this contestation thing isn't that rare after all. I
would guess it happens in 5% of games. Doing something a little more
dynamic than the current rules might be worth considering.
Octagon
only am I depriving them of a resource but I am getting in a faux
bleed for 1 in every turn. At the very least it may urge them to give
up contestation immediately as they have recouped some use out of the
card already (e.g. Minion Tapped previously) and allow both
Methuselahs to continue playing without being hamstrung.
It is interesting that these contestation discussions are centered
around crypt fatties as the problem. Contest a weenie and the
penalties are the same, however relinquishing control is not so
problematic nor is contesting other unique minion or master cards.
Contestation is a choice, not accounting for players bloody
mindedness. Rules are fine as is.
Juggernaut1981
+1 from me
Vincent
> As proof that players don't play rationally, I am playing an Ian
> Forrestal, I go 4th, on my second turn I play him.
>
> My predator on his next turn influences Ian Forrestal into play with
> the caveat, "damn we're gonna contest" and "sorry man gotta do it"
> and "deck is based on Ian".
>
> I know we are both going to lose. I can't stop it. It is turn 3 and I
> know my game is FUBAR.
Seems like your predator is playing badly. How is it different from a
grand-prey putting a Parity Shift on you because someone threatened
him with a rush if he didn't, or from an ally playing Scourge of the
Enoichans at the start of the game while you play a Hermana Minor
deck ? I even remember a silly predator rushing my 7-cap vampire on
turn 2 with a 6-cap vampire, Amaranth my vampire and has his own one
burned because of the blood hunt (because he didn"t realize his
predator has some votes in hand).
Does it need to be fixed?
Kevin M.
> As predator I will always consider contesting cards with my prey.
As your prey, I *love* it when you contest a vampire with me, since
you still have a predator and I don't. Woot! :)
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
henrik
> >> Using unique minions in your crypt is not a mistake.
>
> > Not being able to handle contesting is, though. Or maybe not a
> > mistake, but rather a calculated risk. Similar to not adding combat/
> > bleed/vote defense.
>
> No. Using unique vampires is not similar to omitting combat defense.
> At all.
But building a deck that can't handle contesting is similar to
building a deck that can't handle combat.
> Then "handling contesting" is simply "making the best of an unreasonably bad
> turn of events that are beyond your control", where "the best" is "pretty bad"
> to "futile flailing"; we're not talking making lemonade here.
I don't think the current rules are unreasonable. And the only thing
that's beyond control is whether you'll sit at a table where
contesting might happen. Just like it's beyond your control whether
you'll sit at a table where there's a combat deck.
And for the record, "the best" can very much mean "game win" when it
comes to making the best of a contest situation.
> > How you handle a contest should probably be called an experience to
> > learn from rather than a mistake as well.
>
> Sure. Like how you handle a temporary change of control into Return to Innocence
> or VP sniping with Dramatic Upheaval. Good learning experience. Suck it up.
> Stiff upper lip and all that.
Yes.
Regarding Dramatic Upheaval I agree that the game is more fun without
those cards, but that's more because they were being so commonly used
(and in a way forced the rest of the players to play them too). I
don't think the current contesting rules has that kind of problem.
Return to Innocence was somewhat before my time as a serious player so
I can't comment whether that change was good or bad, but combos that
are too strong isn't what we're dealing with here either (just like
we're not making lemonade).
LSJ
> On Aug 11, 3:09 pm, Octagon <aaron.con...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Contestation is a choice, not accounting for players bloody
Yeah. And, again (as repeated way too many times already), not the point.
Being in a situation where contestation is an issue for the vampire you've
already spent time and resources on (but who yet remains uncontrolled) is the point.
>> mindedness. Rules are fine as is.
> +1 from me
Neat.
LSJ
> I don't think the current rules are unreasonable.
And neither do I.
But that doesn't mean they can't be better.
> And the only thing
> that's beyond control is whether you'll sit at a table where
> contesting might happen. Just like it's beyond your control whether
> you'll sit at a table where there's a combat deck.
Yeah.
And, again, the latter is something you choose to address in your deck or not.
There isn't any meaningful choice to be made to use unique crypt cards or not.
> And for the record, "the best" can very much mean "game win" when it
> comes to making the best of a contest situation.
Yeah. The fates may align the planets that way. But in the common case
(reasonable case), it's just a choice of bad and worse.
> Regarding Dramatic Upheaval I agree that the game is more fun without
> those cards, but that's more because they were being so commonly used
> (and in a way forced the rest of the players to play them too).
They were "unfun" when used to snipe regardless of how often that occured.
If it happened in a game, it would be just as unfun for that game whether that
was the only time the card was ever played in the history of the game or the
card had been played six times in every game before.
henrik
> henrik wrote:
> > I don't think the current rules are unreasonable.
>
> And neither do I.
>
> But that doesn't mean they can't be better.
Of course not.
I could rephrase and say that I think the current rules are good
though, and in no need of changing.
> > And the only thing
> > that's beyond control is whether you'll sit at a table where
> > contesting might happen. Just like it's beyond your control whether
> > you'll sit at a table where there's a combat deck.
>
> Yeah.
>
> And, again, the latter is something you choose to address in your deck or not.
So is the sooner.
You can build your deck so that the loss of those 2-3 turns and 4-10
pool does minimal damage to your game.
Just like you can add combat defense so that those nasty combat cards/
weapons does minimal damage to your game.
> There isn't any meaningful choice to be made to use unique crypt cards or not.
I never said there was. Defending against contesting isn't about being
100% certain that you won't contest.
Just like combat defence (in most cases) isn't about being 100%
certain that won't get into combat.
Both are about being able to handle a situation that might or might
not come up during a game. Whether the situation does come up is out
of your control (in both cases).
> > And for the record, "the best" can very much mean "game win" when it
> > comes to making the best of a contest situation.
>
> Yeah. The fates may align the planets that way. But in the common case
> (reasonable case), it's just a choice of bad and worse.
I've found deck building and table talk to work better than astrology
when it comes to handling contests.
My experience is that it's a choice of bad or better, in the common
case.
> > Regarding Dramatic Upheaval I agree that the game is more fun without
> > those cards, but that's more because they were being so commonly used
> > (and in a way forced the rest of the players to play them too).
>
> They were "unfun" when used to snipe regardless of how often that occured.
I don't think they were really more "unfun" than bleed bounce, Parity
Shifts, Domain Challenges or other stuff.
As I said, the biggest problem I had was that they were so strong that
loads of decks used them. They made the game less diverse, and thus
more "unfun". During our tournaments there was at least 3 decks out of
10-12 that had those cards.
> If it happened in a game, it would be just as unfun for that game whether that
> was the only time the card was ever played in the history of the game or the
> card had been played six times in every game before.
I don't agree there.
I get tired of games when they're the same every time. If all decks I
faced would be Theo Bell rush decks, I'd think that was unfun. If I
faced one Theo Bell rush deck in every 5 games, I don't think it's
equally unfun.
Sure, vp sniping is stronger than Theo Bell rush but I hope you can
see my point.
Akantes
> You can build your deck so that the loss of those 2-3 turns and 4-10
> pool does minimal damage to your game.
> Just like you can add combat defense so that those nasty combat cards/
> weapons does minimal damage to your game.
>
> > There isn't any meaningful choice to be made to use unique crypt cards or not.
>
> I never said there was. Defending against contesting isn't about being
> 100% certain that you won't contest.
> Just like combat defence (in most cases) isn't about being 100%
> certain that won't get into combat.
> Both are about being able to handle a situation that might or might
> not come up during a game. Whether the situation does come up is out
> of your control (in both cases).
As it is, a deck investing 2-3 turns on influencing out a minion, and
having the 4-10 pool on it, the minion is of some importance to the
deck. It still cripples the game you are wanting to play.
Let's assume a hypothesis:
You build a deck, and carefully select the minions you want to play,
those that are rarely, if ever played, so you avoid contesting. You've
taken the precautions to avoid contesting, correct? Let's even assume,
that you play DOM/PRE-based crypt, so you can influence more minions
out faster. You go third in transfers, and decide to get the biggest
vampire in your crypt out, so you can Enchant/Govern to uncontrolled.
Let's assume it's the 8cap, so you won't get it in 2 turns. Now, for
some random hate coming from the planets being in the wrong alignment,
someone else brings out the exact same vampire as you were influencing
out. How could you prepare more against this?
I'll remind you, you don't have a star vampire, the 8cap just happened
to be the biggest/2nd biggest vampire in your crypt, and you decided
that it's good enough for me to get my game rolling. And then you
contest it, just out of sheer randomness. How could you have prepared
against it?
henrik
> > I never said there was. Defending against contesting isn't about being
> > 100% certain that you won't contest.
> > Just like combat defence (in most cases) isn't about being 100%
> > certain that won't get into combat.
> > Both are about being able to handle a situation that might or might
> > not come up during a game. Whether the situation does come up is out
> > of your control (in both cases).
>
> As it is, a deck investing 2-3 turns on influencing out a minion, and
> having the 4-10 pool on it, the minion is of some importance to the
> deck. It still cripples the game you are wanting to play.
First, building your deck so that a 10 cap takes 3 turns to influence
out isn't really great. Crypt acceleration and stuff should be used,
and that will lessen the impact of a contest situation.
Second, everything that every other player does will (at least
possibly) in some way cripple the game you are wanting to play.
> Let's assume a hypothesis:
>
> You build a deck, and carefully select the minions you want to play,
> those that are rarely, if ever played, so you avoid contesting. You've
> taken the precautions to avoid contesting, correct?
One of the precautions, yeah. There are more ways that just
considering the popularity of your minions.
> Let's even assume,
> that you play DOM/PRE-based crypt, so you can influence more minions
> out faster. You go third in transfers, and decide to get the biggest
> vampire in your crypt out, so you can Enchant/Govern to uncontrolled.
> Let's assume it's the 8cap, so you won't get it in 2 turns. Now, for
> some random hate coming from the planets being in the wrong alignment,
> someone else brings out the exact same vampire as you were influencing
> out. How could you prepare more against this?
I could have a 4 cap ready to transfer up (prepaing through crypt
construction). I could've played with Dreams of the Sphinx,
Information Highway etc to get your minion out earlier.
There are also a couple of different ways to handle the situations
regardless of how I've prepared for it.
> I'll remind you, you don't have a star vampire, the 8cap just happened
> to be the biggest/2nd biggest vampire in your crypt, and you decided
> that it's good enough for me to get my game rolling. And then you
> contest it, just out of sheer randomness. How could you have prepared
> against it?
By making sure that your deck could handle a situation where your
first vampire is removed from the game (via contest, combat, Brainwash
etc).
In the situation you describes, I made a judgement call. I'll go for
my 8 cap even though it'll take me 3 turns. I knew that those 3 turns
could be expensive, but I figured that if I'd get my 8 cap first I'd
be in a better situation that if I started with a 3 cap.
The random planetary hate you speak of could've just as easy gotten me
bled for 12 during those 2 turns I spent influencing my 8 cap. Or I
could've been Parity Shifted twice.
The planets could've made my grand predator's Theo Bell rush,
torporize and diablerize my 8 cap before my 4th turn.
Akantes
> On Aug 11, 1:32 pm, Akantes <akan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I never said there was. Defending against contesting isn't about being
> > > 100% certain that you won't contest.
> > > Just like combat defence (in most cases) isn't about being 100%
> > > certain that won't get into combat.
> > > Both are about being able to handle a situation that might or might
> > > not come up during a game. Whether the situation does come up is out
> > > of your control (in both cases).
>
> > As it is, a deck investing 2-3 turns on influencing out a minion, and
> > having the 4-10 pool on it, the minion is of some importance to the
> > deck. It still cripples the game you are wanting to play.
>
> First, building your deck so that a 10 cap takes 3 turns to influence
> out isn't really great. Crypt acceleration and stuff should be used,
> and that will lessen the impact of a contest situation.
> Second, everything that every other player does will (at least
> possibly) in some way cripple the game you are wanting to play.
>
And, you never draw your acceleration. Now it still takes 3 turns to
get an 10cap out, more if you go first.
> > Let's assume a hypothesis:
>
> > You build a deck, and carefully select the minions you want to play,
> > those that are rarely, if ever played, so you avoid contesting. You've
> > taken the precautions to avoid contesting, correct?
>
> One of the precautions, yeah. There are more ways that just
> considering the popularity of your minions.
Like what? This one is far the easiest and most secure way to avoid
contestation.
> > Let's even assume,
> > that you play DOM/PRE-based crypt, so you can influence more minions
> > out faster. You go third in transfers, and decide to get the biggest
> > vampire in your crypt out, so you can Enchant/Govern to uncontrolled.
> > Let's assume it's the 8cap, so you won't get it in 2 turns. Now, for
> > some random hate coming from the planets being in the wrong alignment,
> > someone else brings out the exact same vampire as you were influencing
> > out. How could you prepare more against this?
>
> I could have a 4 cap ready to transfer up (prepaing through crypt
> construction). I could've played with Dreams of the Sphinx,
> Information Highway etc to get your minion out earlier.
> There are also a couple of different ways to handle the situations
> regardless of how I've prepared for it.
>
Like I said, it's also likely that you never draw your acceleration,
and it still takes 3 turns to get the 8cap out. And you are in a bad
shape.
> > I'll remind you, you don't have a star vampire, the 8cap just happened
> > to be the biggest/2nd biggest vampire in your crypt, and you decided
> > that it's good enough for me to get my game rolling. And then you
> > contest it, just out of sheer randomness. How could you have prepared
> > against it?
>
> By making sure that your deck could handle a situation where your
> first vampire is removed from the game (via contest, combat, Brainwash
> etc).
> In the situation you describes, I made a judgement call. I'll go for
> my 8 cap even though it'll take me 3 turns. I knew that those 3 turns
> could be expensive, but I figured that if I'd get my 8 cap first I'd
> be in a better situation that if I started with a 3 cap.
> The random planetary hate you speak of could've just as easy gotten me
> bled for 12 during those 2 turns I spent influencing my 8 cap. Or I
> could've been Parity Shifted twice.
> The planets could've made my grand predator's Theo Bell rush,
> torporize and diablerize my 8 cap before my 4th turn.
And how can you make sure of that? Include 4 DI's and 4 SR's in every
deck you play, just in case you see Brainwash/SenseDep?
The thing is, contesting has nothing to do with what the deck you play
does, nor what the decks of other players do. It's just completely
random hate from the universe. If you get bled for 12 in 2 turns, then
your predator obviously has a deck that does what it's supposed to do.
It has nothing to do with the randomness of contestation. Same goes
for the Parity Shifts, the deck does what it's supposed to do. And the
same goes for rushdecks.
No deck in this game randomly removes/prevents you from gaining/using
a minion without cards. If there's a card involved, then the deck
obviously is supposed to do that at some degree, not dependant of how
minor the amount of cards involved is.
LSJ
> I could have a 4 cap ready to transfer up (prepaing through crypt
> construction).
So: don't play with more than three 5+ caps, else you might have no weenies in
your opening draw.
> I could've played with Dreams of the Sphinx,
> Information Highway etc to get your minion out earlier.
Heh. You know Dreams and Info Highway are unique (and each more popular than
even the most popular vampire), right?
_angst_
>
> A week back, in a casual game, my grand predator put up Anson. My
> predator played an Ansons deck as well. He changed vampire, got Volker
> and Nik out, rushed Anson and sent him to torpor and then ate Anson.
> Then he brought his own copy out and won the game.
>
Such lovely fun that was.
Getting my Anson torporized and eaten.
And getting myself humiliated.
Good times...
I think the main problem of this discussion is that many players don't
understand deckbuilding. You build your deck, play it, and then get
screwed. You then have 2 options when analysing why you lost.
1.) My deck isn't strong enough. I need to improve it and myself to be
able to handle the game better.
2.) I got screwed over by some rule and bad luck. It's that rules
fault I lost.
You should never blame the rules when you loose a game. Sure, you
should analyse them and comment if there's need for improvement. But
first you have to be 100% sure the rules need improvement and that
it's not a matter of you having to improve yourself.
It's not a random thing that bad players get screwed by the rules and
good players use them to their advantage.
Regarding contesting vampires I would say it's about 50/50 when it's
good for me to contest and when it's bad for me to contest. Current
rules are in my opinion very good since they add strategic depth and
presents you with problems that are very hard to solve, but still
quite solvable.
Regards
Alex
Swedish NC
Peter D Bakija
> First, building your deck so that a 10 cap takes 3 turns to influence
> out isn't really great.
And again, not really relevant. The game has 10 capacity vampires.
Even though crypt acceleration exists, they should be playable on
their own. At least in theory.
> Crypt acceleration and stuff should be used,
> and that will lessen the impact of a contest situation.
Sure. But you don't always have crypt acceleration in your hand. No
matter how well you build your deck (well, unless you got a deck made
of 84 Zillah's Valley and 6 other cards...).
> I could have a 4 cap ready to transfer up (prepaing through crypt
> construction). I could've played with Dreams of the Sphinx,
> Information Highway etc to get your minion out earlier.
And again, here you are saying "You need to make your decks less
varied in the name of the rule that is supposed to make decks more
varied".
-Peter
LSJ
> I think the main problem of this discussion is that many players don't
> understand deckbuilding. You build your deck, play it, and then get
> screwed. You then have 2 options when analysing why you lost.
>
> 1.) My deck isn't strong enough. I need to improve it and myself to be
> able to handle the game better.
> 2.) I got screwed over by some rule and bad luck. It's that rules
> fault I lost.
>
> You should never blame the rules when you loose a game. Sure, you
> should analyse them and comment if there's need for improvement. But
> first you have to be 100% sure the rules need improvement and that
> it's not a matter of you having to improve yourself.
Yeah.
But that's not anywhere near this discussion.
This discussion isn't about blame. Nor even about any particular game or player.
> It's not a random thing that bad players get screwed by the rules and
> good players use them to their advantage.
How do you use the loss of two or three turns of transfers and the impounding of
a quarter to a third of your pool to your advantage?
You can (and should, and most players do) make the best of a bad situation, but
you're not getting any advantage out of it -- you're still down those transfers
and out the pool until you can sac some more transfers to put it back where it
was to begin with.
> Regarding contesting vampires I would say it's about 50/50 when it's
> good for me to contest and when it's bad for me to contest. Current
> rules are in my opinion very good since they add strategic depth and
> presents you with problems that are very hard to solve, but still
> quite solvable.
So on the 50 in which it would be bad for you to contest and you've now lost
those turns and have had your pool impounded, what advantage do you create?
A rule that said each player rolls a d20 and starts with 10 pool plus whatever
xe rolled would add strategic depth and present some players with problems that
are hard to solve and still quite solvable.
_angst_
> _angst_ wrote:
> > I think the main problem of this discussion is that many players don't
> > understand deckbuilding. You build your deck, play it, and then get
> > screwed. You then have 2 options when analysing why you lost.
>
> > 1.) My deck isn't strong enough. I need to improve it and myself to be
> > able to handle the game better.
> > 2.) I got screwed over by some rule and bad luck. It's that rules
> > fault I lost.
>
> > You should never blame the rules when you loose a game. Sure, you
> > should analyse them and comment if there's need for improvement. But
> > first you have to be 100% sure the rules need improvement and that
> > it's not a matter of you having to improve yourself.
>
> Yeah.
>
> But that's not anywhere near this discussion.
>
> This discussion isn't about blame. Nor even about any particular game or player.
>
It seems to me that many people who call for changes in the rules do
it due to blaming the rules for their old shortcomings. But you're
right, the discussion in itself isn't about that. It's just something
to be considered when someone wants to change something.
> > It's not a random thing that bad players get screwed by the rules and
> > good players use them to their advantage.
>
> How do you use the loss of two or three turns of transfers and the impounding of
> a quarter to a third of your pool to your advantage?
>
> You can (and should, and most players do) make the best of a bad situation, but
> you're not getting any advantage out of it -- you're still down those transfers
> and out the pool until you can sac some more transfers to put it back where it
> was to begin with.
>
Being weak can often be an advantage. It will move focus away from you
and through diplomacy you can even make people help you more than they
probably should since you're in such a weak spot.
Also, if you'r contesting with your predator, those lost transfers and
1/pool a round can be a good deal if the contested vampire would be a
big source for damage to you.
> > Regarding contesting vampires I would say it's about 50/50 when it's
> > good for me to contest and when it's bad for me to contest. Current
> > rules are in my opinion very good since they add strategic depth and
> > presents you with problems that are very hard to solve, but still
> > quite solvable.
>
> So on the 50 in which it would be bad for you to contest and you've now lost
> those turns and have had your pool impounded, what advantage do you create?
>
As I said. As long as your deck can handle to survive and do things
wihout that vampire (for a while) being in the weak spot at the table
can be a diplomatic advantage. Also cards like parity shift and con
boon can be easier to pull through.
> A rule that said each player rolls a d20 and starts with 10 pool plus whatever
> xe rolled would add strategic depth and present some players with problems that
> are hard to solve and still quite solvable.
I don't see how this would be even close to the current rules
regarding contest.
Regards
Alex
LSJ
> It seems to me that many people who call for changes in the rules do
> it due to blaming the rules for their old shortcomings. But you're
> right, the discussion in itself isn't about that. It's just something
> to be considered when someone wants to change something.
It's something to be considered when processing calls for change, perhaps. But
it isn't useful when discussing a change.
>> You can (and should, and most players do) make the best of a bad situation, but
>> you're not getting any advantage out of it -- you're still down those transfers
>> and out the pool until you can sac some more transfers to put it back where it
>> was to begin with.
>
> Being weak can often be an advantage. It will move focus away from you
> and through diplomacy you can even make people help you more than they
> probably should since you're in such a weak spot.
Um. Perhaps. But irrelevant. Social engineering bandages are no substitute for a
proper rule.
You could use social engineering to fix R2I or steal-blood-burns-a-vampire.
> Also, if you'r contesting with your predator, those lost transfers and
> 1/pool a round can be a good deal if the contested vampire would be a
> big source for damage to you.
Yeah. If. Might.
There are cases where it can be to your advantage.
Those aren't the cases under discussion.
There are cases where it is simply a randomly-inflicted strict disadvantage, and
the disadvantage is out of proportion to what it should be (and could be).
Well, it matches your position that being disadvantaged is an advantage. I would
hope that it illustrates the flaw in that position, but YMMV.
suoli
> It seems to me that many people who call for changes in the rules do
> it due to blaming the rules for their old shortcomings. But you're
> right, the discussion in itself isn't about that. It's just something
> to be considered when someone wants to change something.
That goes both ways. I would seriously consider whether your position
is based on the contesting rules being good enough or on your guesses
about the motivation of those with an opposing view.
henrik
> > > As it is, a deck investing 2-3 turns on influencing out a minion, and
> > > having the 4-10 pool on it, the minion is of some importance to the
> > > deck. It still cripples the game you are wanting to play.
>
> > First, building your deck so that a 10 cap takes 3 turns to influence
> > out isn't really great. Crypt acceleration and stuff should be used,
> > and that will lessen the impact of a contest situation.
> > Second, everything that every other player does will (at least
> > possibly) in some way cripple the game you are wanting to play.
>
> And, you never draw your acceleration. Now it still takes 3 turns to
> get an 10cap out, more if you go first.
Just like you never draw combat defense and got sent to torpor before
your first action with said 10 cap?
Bad draws will always happen, and the only thing you can do is to
settle for a ratio you think will work. Sometimes it won't work and
all your Deflections will be in the last 15 cards of your library.
That's how the shuffling and stuff works.
> > > Let's assume a hypothesis:
>
> > > You build a deck, and carefully select the minions you want to play,
> > > those that are rarely, if ever played, so you avoid contesting. You've
> > > taken the precautions to avoid contesting, correct?
>
> > One of the precautions, yeah. There are more ways that just
> > considering the popularity of your minions.
>
> Like what? This one is far the easiest and most secure way to avoid
> contestation.
The only way to avoid contestation is to play with non unique minions.
There are a few ways to avoid getting an "instant game loss" due to
early contesting though. The easiest one would probably be to, as I've
mentioned before, make sure that your deck can handle it (assuming you
have the fattest bad luck with card drawing as well).
> > > Let's even assume,
> > > that you play DOM/PRE-based crypt, so you can influence more minions
> > > out faster. You go third in transfers, and decide to get the biggest
> > > vampire in your crypt out, so you can Enchant/Govern to uncontrolled.
> > > Let's assume it's the 8cap, so you won't get it in 2 turns. Now, for
> > > some random hate coming from the planets being in the wrong alignment,
> > > someone else brings out the exact same vampire as you were influencing
> > > out. How could you prepare more against this?
>
> > I could have a 4 cap ready to transfer up (prepaing through crypt
> > construction). I could've played with Dreams of the Sphinx,
> > Information Highway etc to get your minion out earlier.
> > There are also a couple of different ways to handle the situations
> > regardless of how I've prepared for it.
>
> Like I said, it's also likely that you never draw your acceleration,
> and it still takes 3 turns to get the 8cap out. And you are in a bad
> shape.
Yes. I'm aware that there are no 100% guarantees that your deck will
be able to handle everything, even if precautions are taken during
deck building. If that's a big problem though, I think the library/
drawing system should be changed rather than the contesting rules.
> > > I'll remind you, you don't have a star vampire, the 8cap just happened
> > > to be the biggest/2nd biggest vampire in your crypt, and you decided
> > > that it's good enough for me to get my game rolling. And then you
> > > contest it, just out of sheer randomness. How could you have prepared
> > > against it?
>
> > By making sure that your deck could handle a situation where your
> > first vampire is removed from the game (via contest, combat, Brainwash
> > etc).
> > In the situation you describes, I made a judgement call. I'll go for
> > my 8 cap even though it'll take me 3 turns. I knew that those 3 turns
> > could be expensive, but I figured that if I'd get my 8 cap first I'd
> > be in a better situation that if I started with a 3 cap.
> > The random planetary hate you speak of could've just as easy gotten me
> > bled for 12 during those 2 turns I spent influencing my 8 cap. Or I
> > could've been Parity Shifted twice.
> > The planets could've made my grand predator's Theo Bell rush,
> > torporize and diablerize my 8 cap before my 4th turn.
>
> And how can you make sure of that? Include 4 DI's and 4 SR's in every
> deck you play, just in case you see Brainwash/SenseDep?
That's my point. You can't ever be sure that you won't lose to a
certain thing. Luck will be involved in a game of V:tES.
> The thing is, contesting has nothing to do with what the deck you play
> does, nor what the decks of other players do. It's just completely
> random hate from the universe. If you get bled for 12 in 2 turns, then
> your predator obviously has a deck that does what it's supposed to do.
> It has nothing to do with the randomness of contestation. Same goes
> for the Parity Shifts, the deck does what it's supposed to do. And the
> same goes for rushdecks.
Yeah, contesting doesn't have much to do with the deck you play (other
than certain minions having a higher risk of getting contested). How
much you lose due to a contest is all about the deck you play though.
> No deck in this game randomly removes/prevents you from gaining/using
> a minion without cards. If there's a card involved, then the deck
> obviously is supposed to do that at some degree, not dependant of how
> minor the amount of cards involved is.
I don't really see the difference between a card removing my minion or
a rule in the rulebook doing it. The result is the same anyway, and I
don't think it's too harsh in either situation.
_angst_
> _angst_ wrote:
> > It seems to me that many people who call for changes in the rules do
> > it due to blaming the rules for their old shortcomings. But you're
> > right, the discussion in itself isn't about that. It's just something
> > to be considered when someone wants to change something.
>
> It's something to be considered when processing calls for change, perhaps. But
> it isn't useful when discussing a change.
>
I thought we were discussing a call for a change and not a change. I
don't see a reason to discuss a change since there is no reason to
change anything. But that's just my opinion (and Henriks I guess, and
about any person I've discussed this with IRL).
> >> You can (and should, and most players do) make the best of a bad situation, but
> >> you're not getting any advantage out of it -- you're still down those transfers
> >> and out the pool until you can sac some more transfers to put it back where it
> >> was to begin with.
>
> > Being weak can often be an advantage. It will move focus away from you
> > and through diplomacy you can even make people help you more than they
> > probably should since you're in such a weak spot.
>
> Um. Perhaps. But irrelevant. Social engineering bandages are no substitute for a
> proper rule.
>
> You could use social engineering to fix R2I or steal-blood-burns-a-vampire.
>
The social part of this game is probably one of it's most important
factors so I don't see why handling by social skill would be moot.
Especially since I'm still claiming there is no need to change this
rule since it mostly screws players because they're not good enough at
this game. And being good at social engineering is a big part of being
good at this game. It helps you handle alot of those situaions where
you're at a very big disadvantage.
> > Also, if you'r contesting with your predator, those lost transfers and
> > 1/pool a round can be a good deal if the contested vampire would be a
> > big source for damage to you.
>
> Yeah. If. Might.
>
> There are cases where it can be to your advantage.
> Those aren't the cases under discussion.
>
> There are cases where it is simply a randomly-inflicted strict disadvantage, and
> the disadvantage is out of proportion to what it should be (and could be).
>
IIRC you asked me to state a couple of situations where the loss of
contesting would give you another advantage. Perhaps I got it wrong :(
I don't see how it's randomly inflicted, ever. I don't think I've
randomly contested anything ever. I've contested as part of a strategy
several times though. The only random element I see is the seating
element where I'm seated with someone who plays the same crypt as I
do. And I don't see the difference between that and being seated with
a weenie combat or weenie bleed predator.
And even that is a random element that you have to be able to handle
to be good at this game. You have to have a deck that allows you to
play the odds and that allows you to play to your skills as a player.
> >> A rule that said each player rolls a d20 and starts with 10 pool plus whatever
> >> xe rolled would add strategic depth and present some players with problems that
> >> are hard to solve and still quite solvable.
>
> > I don't see how this would be even close to the current rules
> > regarding contest.
>
> Well, it matches your position that being disadvantaged is an advantage. I would
> hope that it illustrates the flaw in that position, but YMMV.
I sorry but I have no idea what YMMV means :(
I told you it can sometimes be an advantage. Sometimes it's a
disadvantage. And I don't think the current contest rules are random
(more than current seating rules) so I don't see the connection to
rolling a die.
Regards
Alex
henrik
> henrik wrote:
> > I could have a 4 cap ready to transfer up (prepaing through crypt
> > construction).
>
> So: don't play with more than three 5+ caps, else you might have no weenies in
> your opening draw.
That's a decent thumb rule if you're so afraid of a contest, yeah.
Crypt acceleration can make up for higher caps as well.
I'm not saying I always follow that rule though, but when I don't I'm
well aware that an early contest might make me lose. It's a calculated
risk. Just like I often play without vote defense in my decks and
sometimes that bites my ass.
> > I could've played with Dreams of the Sphinx,
> > Information Highway etc to get your minion out earlier.
>
> Heh. You know Dreams and Info Highway are unique (and each more popular than
> even the most popular vampire), right?
I do. There are also Zillah's Valley, Coroner's Contact, The Eternals
of Sirius and possibly more if one's afraid of contesting. That's why
I added the "etc".
LSJ
> Yeah, contesting doesn't have much to do with the deck you play (other
> than certain minions having a higher risk of getting contested). How
> much you lose due to a contest is all about the deck you play though.
OK. Try this:
At the start of each game, roll a d100. A roll of 1 means you lose 8 pool (start
with 22 pool instead of 30) and lose one of your uncontrolled minions (chosen at
random, to be nice -- rather than choosing whichever one you would most like to
bring out) and get no transfers on your first two turns. To balance this out,
you get the ability to spend two transfers to gain 1 pool, but you can only do
this 8 times in the game.
Now, what does you deck have to do with how much you lose when you roll a 1?
henrik
> On Aug 11, 8:02 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > First, building your deck so that a 10 cap takes 3 turns to influence
> > out isn't really great.
>
> And again, not really relevant. The game has 10 capacity vampires.
> Even though crypt acceleration exists, they should be playable on
> their own. At least in theory.
But they aren't. For a lot more reasons than contest rules.
> > Crypt acceleration and stuff should be used,
> > and that will lessen the impact of a contest situation.
>
> Sure. But you don't always have crypt acceleration in your hand. No
> matter how well you build your deck (well, unless you got a deck made
> of 84 Zillah's Valley and 6 other cards...).
Sometimes you won't draw that 8 cap you wanted to influence out
either. I don't see how that's relevant here though. Bad luck will
sometimes give you the "wrong" cards and that'll make you lose.
> > I could have a 4 cap ready to transfer up (prepaing through crypt
> > construction). I could've played with Dreams of the Sphinx,
> > Information Highway etc to get your minion out earlier.
>
> And again, here you are saying "You need to make your decks less
> varied in the name of the rule that is supposed to make decks more
> varied".
It's still "You need to make your decks less crappy in the name of the
LSJ
> On Aug 11, 2:26 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> henrik wrote:
>>> I could have a 4 cap ready to transfer up (prepaing through crypt
>>> construction).
>> So: don't play with more than three 5+ caps, else you might have no weenies in
>> your opening draw.
>
> That's a decent thumb rule if you're so afraid of a contest, yeah.
But no one is "so afraid of a contest".
> Crypt acceleration can make up for higher caps as well.
> I'm not saying I always follow that rule though, but when I don't I'm
> well aware that an early contest might make me lose. It's a calculated
> risk. Just like I often play without vote defense in my decks and
> sometimes that bites my ass.
Sure. And it could still be a calculated risk even if the penalty being risked
is appropriate rather than disproportionate.
henrik
Nothing.
But I'd sure as hell make decks that could survive even if I got a bad
roll.
LSJ
> I don't see how it's randomly inflicted, ever. I don't think I've
> randomly contested anything ever.
Again, we're not talking about beginning the contest.
We're talking about being at a table where the vampire you've spend 8 pool and 8
transfers on (and who is yet uncontrolled) is brought out into the ready region
of another player.
And that, as explained so many times already, is a random coincidence of fate.
suoli
You seem to be arguing that contesting doesn't result in an automatic
loss. Others seem to be arguing that contesting results in an
unreasonable disadvantage.
Every deck has a chance to survive contesting. Most decks are greatly
disadvantaged if they contest a vampire.
LSJ
Please post the deck that isn't at a real disadvantage when rolling a 1 when the
four other decks (created by equally-competent players) at the table roll
numbers other than 1.
Drace
stubborn predator or poor cross table player, contesting is fine.
As the prey, you should be able to table talk your predator, "We can
contest X or I can choose not to influence him out if you give me X
turns of relief."
As predator, you can use the same table talk for your prey, "I won't
go forward for X turns, if you choose not to contest."
As someone on this newsgroup here said, contesting IS a choice. You
cannot influence out both minions in the same turn if it's two
different players. Even IF you're hosed cross table, you're not
hopeless as you have cross table allies. No one wants to see their
grandprey getting walked over if they can help it.
Regarding illogical plays/asshat behaviors, well that comes down to
VTES's problem. Yes you can lose games due to unforeseen plays that
you don't agree with. But guess what? At a tournament, you just have
to deal. Unless you ban all players that hasn't attained X level of
skill, it will happen.
_angst_
Yes, but is it more random than getting seated with decks you can't
handle?
Anyways, if that's the thing we're discussing then I don't see why a
change to the contest rule would be relevant. An addition of some kind
of option in those cases is what we should discuss in that case. (I
saw the no transfer back suggestion and I'm sorry to say it was
horrible IMO).
I this is a problem that is considered more random than seating in
general (and I don't really think it is). Then why not just allow the
player to remove said copy of the vamp from the game and get all the
pool back?
Regards
Alex
LSJ
> On 11 Aug, 16:24, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> _angst_ wrote:
>>> I don't see how it's randomly inflicted, ever. I don't think I've
>>> randomly contested anything ever.
>> Again, we're not talking about beginning the contest.
>>
>> We're talking about being at a table where the vampire you've spend 8 pool and 8
>> transfers on (and who is yet uncontrolled) is brought out into the ready region
>> of another player.
>>
>> And that, as explained so many times already, is a random coincidence of fate.
>
> Yes, but is it more random than getting seated with decks you can't
> handle?
No, but moot.
The game is about playing other decks.
See also the d100 pre-game roll.
> Anyways, if that's the thing we're discussing then I don't see why a
> change to the contest rule would be relevant. An addition of some kind
> of option in those cases is what we should discuss in that case. (I
> saw the no transfer back suggestion and I'm sorry to say it was
> horrible IMO).
The transfer back rule was added to the game to handle the problem of contesting.
If that rule fails to accomplish its goal (of putting the penalty for losing the
lottery into proper proportion), then replacing that rule with one that does
seems natural.
And the current rule also has the effect of enabling additional forms of bloat
through the uncontrolled region.
So perhaps the replacement rule could be formulated to be more targeted to the
problem it is designed to address.
> I this is a problem that is considered more random than seating in
> general (and I don't really think it is). Then why not just allow the
> player to remove said copy of the vamp from the game and get all the
> pool back?
Um. Right.
Why not, indeed.
henrik
> henrik wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 2:26 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> henrik wrote:
> >>> I could have a 4 cap ready to transfer up (prepaing through crypt
> >>> construction).
> >> So: don't play with more than three 5+ caps, else you might have no weenies in
> >> your opening draw.
>
> > That's a decent thumb rule if you're so afraid of a contest, yeah.
>
> But no one is "so afraid of a contest".
Let's make the contest rules more harsh then.
> > Crypt acceleration can make up for higher caps as well.
> > I'm not saying I always follow that rule though, but when I don't I'm
> > well aware that an early contest might make me lose. It's a calculated
> > risk. Just like I often play without vote defense in my decks and
> > sometimes that bites my ass.
>
> Sure. And it could still be a calculated risk even if the penalty being risked
> is appropriate rather than disproportionate.
Sure. I think it's appropriate though.
LSJ
> On Aug 11, 4:21 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> henrik wrote:
>>> On Aug 11, 2:26 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>> henrik wrote:
>>>>> I could have a 4 cap ready to transfer up (prepaing through crypt
>>>>> construction).
>>>> So: don't play with more than three 5+ caps, else you might have no weenies in
>>>> your opening draw.
>>> That's a decent thumb rule if you're so afraid of a contest, yeah.
>> But no one is "so afraid of a contest".
>
> Let's make the contest rules more harsh then.
Illogical.
>>> Crypt acceleration can make up for higher caps as well.
>>> I'm not saying I always follow that rule though, but when I don't I'm
>>> well aware that an early contest might make me lose. It's a calculated
>>> risk. Just like I often play without vote defense in my decks and
>>> sometimes that bites my ass.
>> Sure. And it could still be a calculated risk even if the penalty being risked
>> is appropriate rather than disproportionate.
>
> Sure. I think it's appropriate though.
And yet it is much more severe than appropriate.
henrik
> You seem to be arguing that contesting doesn't result in an automatic
> loss. Others seem to be arguing that contesting results in an
> unreasonable disadvantage.
I'm more argumenting that contesting doesn't result in a more
unreasonable disadvantage than many other things you can be the victim
of (Pentex Subversion, diableri, Sense Dep., etc).
> Every deck has a chance to survive contesting. Most decks are greatly
> disadvantaged if they contest a vampire.
Most deck could be improved to reduce that advantage. Most people take
their chances and when the contest situation comes up they say "the
rules suck" instead of "I could've made a deck that could handle this,
but I didn't".
henrik
Crypt:
Low cap princes/justicars
library:
Parity Shifts
Then again, I never said that contesting doesn't give you a
disadvantage. Or that there was a deck that wouldn't be at a real
disadvantage through your mentioned rule.
But randomness will hit you in V:tES. What you can do is to lessen the
damage from the blows.
henrik
> henrik wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 4:21 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> henrik wrote:
> >>> On Aug 11, 2:26 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >>>> henrik wrote:
> >>>>> I could have a 4 cap ready to transfer up (prepaing through crypt
> >>>>> construction).
> >>>> So: don't play with more than three 5+ caps, else you might have no weenies in
> >>>> your opening draw.
> >>> That's a decent thumb rule if you're so afraid of a contest, yeah.
> >> But no one is "so afraid of a contest".
>
> > Let's make the contest rules more harsh then.
>
> Illogical.
Not if we assume that the rule exists to balance the more powerful
vampires and make playing with them a less obvious choice.
> >>> Crypt acceleration can make up for higher caps as well.
> >>> I'm not saying I always follow that rule though, but when I don't I'm
> >>> well aware that an early contest might make me lose. It's a calculated
> >>> risk. Just like I often play without vote defense in my decks and
> >>> sometimes that bites my ass.
> >> Sure. And it could still be a calculated risk even if the penalty being risked
> >> is appropriate rather than disproportionate.
>
> > Sure. I think it's appropriate though.
>
> And yet it is much more severe than appropriate.
You think so, I don't.
_angst_
> _angst_ wrote:
> > On 11 Aug, 16:24, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> _angst_ wrote:
> >>> I don't see how it's randomly inflicted, ever. I don't think I've
> >>> randomly contested anything ever.
> >> Again, we're not talking about beginning the contest.
>
> >> We're talking about being at a table where the vampire you've spend 8 pool and 8
> >> transfers on (and who is yet uncontrolled) is brought out into the ready region
> >> of another player.
>
> >> And that, as explained so many times already, is a random coincidence of fate.
>
> > Yes, but is it more random than getting seated with decks you can't
> > handle?
>
> No, but moot.
>
> The game is about playing other decks.
>
> See also the d100 pre-game roll.
>
Why is it moot? Explain.
Imo a deck that includes a vampire that can contest with you is just
another deck that's bad to be seated with.
> > Anyways, if that's the thing we're discussing then I don't see why a
> > change to the contest rule would be relevant. An addition of some kind
> > of option in those cases is what we should discuss in that case. (I
> > saw the no transfer back suggestion and I'm sorry to say it was
> > horrible IMO).
>
> The transfer back rule was added to the game to handle the problem of contesting.
>
> If that rule fails to accomplish its goal (of putting the penalty for losing the
> lottery into proper proportion), then replacing that rule with one that does
> seems natural.
>
> And the current rule also has the effect of enabling additional forms of bloat
> through the uncontrolled region.
>
> So perhaps the replacement rule could be formulated to be more targeted to the
> problem it is designed to address.
>
That was then, a long time ago... Considering how long that rule has
been in effect I would say that it would be pretty wrong to say that
it's its only current purpose. ATM I would say that it is a rule that
is a big part of the game and which most expansions have been
playtested to fit. I would state that any change to that rule is
currently uncalled for. Just as I don't think the contest rule should
be changed. A small addition to any of these rules might be ok though.
Something minor that can help with that small part of this discussion
that actually satisfies the requirement of being a random-ish event.
Even though I still fail to see why it's more random than getting any
other bad seating at a table.
> > I this is a problem that is considered more random than seating in
> > general (and I don't really think it is). Then why not just allow the
> > player to remove said copy of the vamp from the game and get all the
> > pool back?
>
> Um. Right.
> Why not, indeed.
I don't get if you're being sarcastic or sincere here so I can't
comment any further.
Regards
Alex
LSJ
> On Aug 11, 4:59 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> henrik wrote:
>>> Let's make the contest rules more harsh then.
>> Illogical.
>
> Not if we assume that the rule exists to balance the more powerful
> vampires and make playing with them a less obvious choice.
Sure.
But we make no such assumptions.
And that assumption is almost certainly wrong.
And even if it were right, it would have been rendered obsolete by now with the
current volume of crypt choices.
LSJ
> On 11 Aug, 16:58, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> _angst_ wrote:
>>> On 11 Aug, 16:24, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>> _angst_ wrote:
>>>>> I don't see how it's randomly inflicted, ever. I don't think I've
>>>>> randomly contested anything ever.
>>>> Again, we're not talking about beginning the contest.
>>>> We're talking about being at a table where the vampire you've spend 8 pool and 8
>>>> transfers on (and who is yet uncontrolled) is brought out into the ready region
>>>> of another player.
>>>> And that, as explained so many times already, is a random coincidence of fate.
>>> Yes, but is it more random than getting seated with decks you can't
>>> handle?
>> No, but moot.
>>
>> The game is about playing other decks.
>>
>> See also the d100 pre-game roll.
>>
>
> Why is it moot? Explain.
I did.
> Imo a deck that includes a vampire that can contest with you is just
> another deck that's bad to be seated with.
The game is about playing your deck against other decks.
>> The transfer back rule was added to the game to handle the problem of contesting.
>>
>> If that rule fails to accomplish its goal (of putting the penalty for losing the
>> lottery into proper proportion), then replacing that rule with one that does
>> seems natural.
>>
>> And the current rule also has the effect of enabling additional forms of bloat
>> through the uncontrolled region.
>>
>> So perhaps the replacement rule could be formulated to be more targeted to the
>> problem it is designed to address.
>>
>
> That was then, a long time ago... Considering how long that rule has
> been in effect I would say that it would be pretty wrong to say that
> it's its only current purpose.
Non-sequitur. A rule's aging does not change the purpose for which it was
formulated.
> ATM I would say that it is a rule that
> is a big part of the game and which most expansions have been
> playtested to fit.
True. But no reason not to find a more suitable rule and playtest it to make
sure it also fits.
> I would state that any change to that rule is
> currently uncalled for. Just as I don't think the contest rule should
> be changed. A small addition to any of these rules might be ok though.
A small addition is also uncalled for in equal or greater degree than a
correction to the current rule.
> Something minor that can help with that small part of this discussion
> that actually satisfies the requirement of being a random-ish event.
> Even though I still fail to see why it's more random than getting any
> other bad seating at a table.
It isn't, as I've already agreed.
>>> I this is a problem that is considered more random than seating in
>>> general (and I don't really think it is). Then why not just allow the
>>> player to remove said copy of the vamp from the game and get all the
>>> pool back?
>> Um. Right.
>> Why not, indeed.
>
> I don't get if you're being sarcastic or sincere here so I can't
> comment any further.
The rule you put forward as "why not" is exactly one of the suggestions that was
made. So I have no "why not" for it, naturally.
A: Why not X?
B: Mmm.
C: Nnnn.
B: Oooo.
C: Why not X?
...
D: Rrr.
C: Ssss.
D: Why not X?
C: Why not X, indeed.
suoli
> On Aug 11, 4:26 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You seem to be arguing that contesting doesn't result in an automatic
> > loss. Others seem to be arguing that contesting results in an
> > unreasonable disadvantage.
>
> I'm more argumenting that contesting doesn't result in a more
> unreasonable disadvantage than many other things you can be the victim
> of (Pentex Subversion, diableri, Sense Dep., etc).
Diablerie is a reasonable reward for torporing a vampire, succeeding
in the d-action and surviving blood hunt/losing a minion. You are
completely right about PS and SD, they are indeed unreasonable.
> > Every deck has a chance to survive contesting. Most decks are greatly
> > disadvantaged if they contest a vampire.
>
> Most deck could be improved to reduce that advantage.
No, not to any useful degree without completely changing the deck.
> Most people take
> their chances and when the contest situation comes up they say "the
> rules suck" instead of "I could've made a deck that could handle this,
> but I didn't".
Most people can make a deck that can handle contesting but would
rather play something other than weenies once in a while.
henrik
> >>> Let's make the contest rules more harsh then.
> >> Illogical.
>
> > Not if we assume that the rule exists to balance the more powerful
> > vampires and make playing with them a less obvious choice.
>
> Sure.
> But we make no such assumptions.
I do.
> And that assumption is almost certainly wrong.
Why not make all vampire non unique then? Perhaps with the exception
of the same player not being able to control duplicates.
> And even if it were right, it would have been rendered obsolete by now with the
> current volume of crypt choices.
Ok. I thought that reasons for rule creation never got rendered
obsolete. Like the transfer back rule.
LSJ
> On Aug 11, 5:13 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Let's make the contest rules more harsh then.
>>>> Illogical.
>>> Not if we assume that the rule exists to balance the more powerful
>>> vampires and make playing with them a less obvious choice.
>> Sure.
>> But we make no such assumptions.
>
> I do.
>
>> And that assumption is almost certainly wrong.
>
> Why not make all vampire non unique then? Perhaps with the exception
> of the same player not being able to control duplicates.
Most likely the obvious reason: so that a crypt would have a selection of
vampires rather than 12 copies of the "perfect" vampire for that deck.
>> And even if it were right, it would have been rendered obsolete by now with the
>> current volume of crypt choices.
>
> Ok. I thought that reasons for rule creation never got rendered
> obsolete. Like the transfer back rule.
Ah, missing the point, I see.
Contrast "exists to" and "was originally created to".
And, as explicitly addressed point-by-point above, moot.
_angst_
> _angst_ wrote:
> > On 11 Aug, 16:58, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> _angst_ wrote:
> >>> On 11 Aug, 16:24, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >>>> _angst_ wrote:
> >>>>> I don't see how it's randomly inflicted, ever. I don't think I've
> >>>>> randomly contested anything ever.
> >>>> Again, we're not talking about beginning the contest.
> >>>> We're talking about being at a table where the vampire you've spend 8 pool and 8
> >>>> transfers on (and who is yet uncontrolled) is brought out into the ready region
> >>>> of another player.
> >>>> And that, as explained so many times already, is a random coincidence of fate.
> >>> Yes, but is it more random than getting seated with decks you can't
> >>> handle?
> >> No, but moot.
>
> >> The game is about playing other decks.
>
> >> See also the d100 pre-game roll.
>
> > Why is it moot? Explain.
>
> I did.
>
Then either I missed it or I'm slow...
> > Imo a deck that includes a vampire that can contest with you is just
> > another deck that's bad to be seated with.
>
> The game is about playing your deck against other decks.
>
Agreed. So why do we distinguish the contest rule from any other
seating related randomness that doesn't allow you to play your game?
> >> The transfer back rule was added to the game to handle the problem of contesting.
>
> >> If that rule fails to accomplish its goal (of putting the penalty for losing the
> >> lottery into proper proportion), then replacing that rule with one that does
> >> seems natural.
>
> >> And the current rule also has the effect of enabling additional forms of bloat
> >> through the uncontrolled region.
>
> >> So perhaps the replacement rule could be formulated to be more targeted to the
> >> problem it is designed to address.
>
> > That was then, a long time ago... Considering how long that rule has
> > been in effect I would say that it would be pretty wrong to say that
> > it's its only current purpose.
>
> Non-sequitur. A rule's aging does not change the purpose for which it was
> formulated.
>
Yes, perhaps, but I would say the purpose of the rule can still
change. Perhaps it was to ease contesting back then. Now it might be
just a good idea that adds a good element to the game. I don't think
we have to connect that rule to contesting ATM even if it was
originally introduced to ease the effects of it.
> > ATM I would say that it is a rule that
> > is a big part of the game and which most expansions have been
> > playtested to fit.
>
> True. But no reason not to find a more suitable rule and playtest it to make
> sure it also fits.
>
Well. No. Not as long as it's properly playtested with representative
playtesters. Just introducing a change to an already functional rule
without proper testing would however being throwing away the lock of
that good ol' Pandoras box we opened in the last contest-discussion-
thread.
> > I would state that any change to that rule is
> > currently uncalled for. Just as I don't think the contest rule should
> > be changed. A small addition to any of these rules might be ok though.
>
> A small addition is also uncalled for in equal or greater degree than a
> correction to the current rule.
>
Well, main point is that I could agree to something minor that would
be about as cornercase as contesting vampires in the first place. A
big change to the rules, be it a tweak or not, isn't a good call IMO.
Like something as major as removing the transfer back rule. I would
fight teetch and claws to prevent such a major change to the game ;o)
> > Something minor that can help with that small part of this discussion
> > that actually satisfies the requirement of being a random-ish event.
> > Even though I still fail to see why it's more random than getting any
> > other bad seating at a table.
>
> It isn't, as I've already agreed.
>
Then why do we adress this instance of randomness. Why don't we try to
fix all random seating hosing?
> >>> I this is a problem that is considered more random than seating in
> >>> general (and I don't really think it is). Then why not just allow the
> >>> player to remove said copy of the vamp from the game and get all the
> >>> pool back?
> >> Um. Right.
> >> Why not, indeed.
>
> > I don't get if you're being sarcastic or sincere here so I can't
> > comment any further.
>
> The rule you put forward as "why not" is exactly one of the suggestions that was
> made. So I have no "why not" for it, naturally.
>
> A: Why not X?
> B: Mmm.
> C: Nnnn.
> B: Oooo.
> C: Why not X?
> ...
> D: Rrr.
> C: Ssss.
> D: Why not X?
> C: Why not X, indeed.
Well, atleast I got the already suggested part :o)
It seems like a minor tweak affecting those cornercase situations
where randomness kills your game (or atleast might kill your game). It
would however need playtesting first (ofcourse).
Regards
Alex
LSJ
> On 11 Aug, 17:21, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> _angst_ wrote:
>>> On 11 Aug, 16:58, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>> The game is about playing other decks.
>>>> See also the d100 pre-game roll.
>>> Why is it moot? Explain.
>> I did.
>
> Then either I missed it or I'm slow...
Explanation: the game is about playing your deck against other decks.
>>> Imo a deck that includes a vampire that can contest with you is just
>>> another deck that's bad to be seated with.
>> The game is about playing your deck against other decks.
>
> Agreed. So why do we distinguish the contest rule from any other
> seating related randomness that doesn't allow you to play your game?
Because the uniqueness lottery isn't a matter of deck building ability nor of
playing ability.
> Then why do we adress this instance of randomness. Why don't we try to
> fix all random seating hosing?
That's a fool's errand.
The game is about playing your deck against other players' decks. i.e., the game
is a TCG.
But putting the proper effect on losing the uniqueness lottery shouldn't be
abandoned just because the game is a TCG.
_angst_
But what makes you say the current effect isn't proper?
Regards
Alex
henrik
> > Why not make all vampire non unique then? Perhaps with the exception
> > of the same player not being able to control duplicates.
>
> Most likely the obvious reason: so that a crypt would have a selection of
> vampires rather than 12 copies of the "perfect" vampire for that deck.
If you wouldn't be allowed to control more than one copy of the same
minion a crypt like that would probably not be used more than it is
today.
> >> And even if it were right, it would have been rendered obsolete by now with the
> >> current volume of crypt choices.
>
> > Ok. I thought that reasons for rule creation never got rendered
> > obsolete. Like the transfer back rule.
>
> Ah, missing the point, I see.
>
> Contrast "exists to" and "was originally created to".
I have no real clue about why the contesting rules was created
originally. I do know that an effect they have today is providing
incentive to play something else than the currently strongest deck/
crypt. Might be that it doesn't have that effect on all players, but
some of us actually do think about contest risks when building decks
and/or selecting decks for bigger tournaments. And those of us that
takes contesting into consideration doesn't seem to think that the
rules are too harsh.
And I suppose that the transfer back rule was originally created to
ease the disadvantage of contesting, but today it exists to provide
pool gain via cards like Powerbase: Montreal, Scouting Mission etc.
Akantes
> On Aug 11, 2:15 pm, Akantes <akan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > As it is, a deck investing 2-3 turns on influencing out a minion, and
> > > > having the 4-10 pool on it, the minion is of some importance to the
> > > > deck. It still cripples the game you are wanting to play.
>
> > > First, building your deck so that a 10 cap takes 3 turns to influence
> > > and that will lessen the impact of a contest situation.
> > > possibly) in some way cripple the game you are wanting to play.
>
> > And, you never draw your acceleration. Now it still takes 3 turns to
> > get an 10cap out, more if you go first.
>
> Just like you never draw combat defense and got sent to torpor before
> your first action with said 10 cap?
> Bad draws will always happen, and the only thing you can do is to
> settle for a ratio you think will work. Sometimes it won't work and
> all your Deflections will be in the last 15 cards of your library.
> That's how the shuffling and stuff works.
Yes, it's true. But atleast you have the means, which can partially
counter/will counter those decks, and there are several choices for
that. But there's pretty much only 1 card that solves contesting, and
it needs a vampire out. Which pretty much just could be the vampire
you are currently contesting.
> > > > Let's assume a hypothesis:
>
> > > > You build a deck, and carefully select the minions you want to play,
> > > > those that are rarely, if ever played, so you avoid contesting. You've
> > > > taken the precautions to avoid contesting, correct?
>
> > > One of the precautions, yeah. There are more ways that just
> > > considering the popularity of your minions.
>
> > Like what? This one is far the easiest and most secure way to avoid
> > contestation.
>
> The only way to avoid contestation is to play with non unique minions.
> There are a few ways to avoid getting an "instant game loss" due to
> early contesting though. The easiest one would probably be to, as I've
> mentioned before, make sure that your deck can handle it (assuming you
> have the fattest bad luck with card drawing as well).
So everyone should be playing Tupdogs and Rock Cats? As that's pretty
much the only deck that doesn't have the risk of contesting anything
it has. With the possible exception of Charisma, if you play it on a
Tupdog. If you have another way to make a deck, that has it's crypt
containing non-unique minions, that actually could oust it's prey,
feel free to tell me one.
> > > > Let's even assume,
> > > > that you play DOM/PRE-based crypt, so you can influence more minions
> > > > out faster. You go third in transfers, and decide to get the biggest
> > > > vampire in your crypt out, so you can Enchant/Govern to uncontrolled.
> > > > Let's assume it's the 8cap, so you won't get it in 2 turns. Now, for
> > > > some random hate coming from the planets being in the wrong alignment,
> > > > someone else brings out the exact same vampire as you were influencing
> > > > out. How could you prepare more against this?
>
> > > I could have a 4 cap ready to transfer up (prepaing through crypt
> > > construction). I could've played with Dreams of the Sphinx,
> > > Information Highway etc to get your minion out earlier.
> > > There are also a couple of different ways to handle the situations
> > > regardless of how I've prepared for it.
>
> > Like I said, it's also likely that you never draw your acceleration,
> > and it still takes 3 turns to get the 8cap out. And you are in a bad
> > shape.
>
> Yes. I'm aware that there are no 100% guarantees that your deck will
> be able to handle everything, even if precautions are taken during
> deck building. If that's a big problem though, I think the library/
> drawing system should be changed rather than the contesting rules.
It's easier to change the rules concerning contesting, than rework
library/drawing which works greatly.
> > > > I'll remind you, you don't have a star vampire, the 8cap just happened
> > > > to be the biggest/2nd biggest vampire in your crypt, and you decided
> > > > that it's good enough for me to get my game rolling. And then you
> > > > contest it, just out of sheer randomness. How could you have prepared
> > > > against it?
>
> > > By making sure that your deck could handle a situation where your
> > > first vampire is removed from the game (via contest, combat, Brainwash
> > > etc).
> > > In the situation you describes, I made a judgement call. I'll go for
> > > my 8 cap even though it'll take me 3 turns. I knew that those 3 turns
> > > could be expensive, but I figured that if I'd get my 8 cap first I'd
> > > be in a better situation that if I started with a 3 cap.
> > > The random planetary hate you speak of could've just as easy gotten me
> > > bled for 12 during those 2 turns I spent influencing my 8 cap. Or I
> > > could've been Parity Shifted twice.
> > > The planets could've made my grand predator's Theo Bell rush,
> > > torporize and diablerize my 8 cap before my 4th turn.
>
> > And how can you make sure of that? Include 4 DI's and 4 SR's in every
> > deck you play, just in case you see Brainwash/SenseDep?
>
> That's my point. You can't ever be sure that you won't lose to a
> certain thing. Luck will be involved in a game of V:tES.
Of course luck is included in any game that has something determined
by randomness.
> > The thing is, contesting has nothing to do with what the deck you play
> > does, nor what the decks of other players do. It's just completely
> > random hate from the universe. If you get bled for 12 in 2 turns, then
> > your predator obviously has a deck that does what it's supposed to do.
> > It has nothing to do with the randomness of contestation. Same goes
> > for the Parity Shifts, the deck does what it's supposed to do. And the
> > same goes for rushdecks.
>
> Yeah, contesting doesn't have much to do with the deck you play (other
> than certain minions having a higher risk of getting contested). How
> much you lose due to a contest is all about the deck you play though.
>
> > No deck in this game randomly removes/prevents you from gaining/using
> > a minion without cards. If there's a card involved, then the deck
> > obviously is supposed to do that at some degree, not dependant of how
> > minor the amount of cards involved is.
>
> I don't really see the difference between a card removing my minion or
> a rule in the rulebook doing it. The result is the same anyway, and I
> don't think it's too harsh in either situation.
A card doing it says that the deck is supposed to do that. A rule in
rulebook says: If you have bad luck, you are most likely losing this
round.
Akantes
> > even the most popular vampire), right?
>
> I do. There are also Zillah's Valley, Coroner's Contact, The Eternals
> of Sirius and possibly more if one's afraid of contesting. That's why
> I added the "etc".
And those require a spesific clan, not including Zillah's. How are
those going to help, let's say Ventrue for example?
LSJ
> But what makes you say the current effect isn't proper?
Observation. That is what started this and the other threads about it.
LSJ
> On Aug 11, 5:28 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>>> Why not make all vampire non unique then? Perhaps with the exception
>>> of the same player not being able to control duplicates.
>> Most likely the obvious reason: so that a crypt would have a selection of
>> vampires rather than 12 copies of the "perfect" vampire for that deck.
>
> If you wouldn't be allowed to control more than one copy of the same
> minion a crypt like that would probably not be used more than it is
> today.
Yeah.
> And I suppose that the transfer back rule was originally created to
> ease the disadvantage of contesting, but today it exists to provide
> pool gain via cards like Powerbase: Montreal, Scouting Mission etc.
No. Today it provides such bloat ability, as has been covered. But that's not
what it exists to do[*].
[*] Citations to the contrary welcome.
Rehlow
>
> > And neither do I.
>
> > But that doesn't mean they can't be better.
>
> Of course not.
> I could rephrase and say that I think the current rules are good
> though, and in no need of changing.
>
> > > And the only thing
> > > that's beyond control is whether you'll sit at a table where
> > > contesting might happen. Just like it's beyond your control whether
> > > you'll sit at a table where there's a combat deck.
>
> > Yeah.
>
> > And, again, the latter is something you choose to address in your deck or not.
>
> So is the sooner.
> You can build your deck so that the loss of those 2-3 turns and 4-10
> pool does minimal damage to your game.
> Just like you can add combat defense so that those nasty combat cards/
> weapons does minimal damage to your game.
>
Please give me 2-3 examples of how you can build your deck to deal
with the loss of 2-3 turns of transfers and 6-10 pool (4-5 pool loss
from contestation sucks, but its not a "I lose button" yet imo) in a
single turn.
Please note that I will not take build a diverse crypt as answer. I've
built several Ventrue decks with only 1-2 Arika in them. Contesting
Arika in such a deck is as debilitating as a deck with 4 or more Arika
in the crypt.
> > There isn't any meaningful choice to be made to use unique crypt cards or not.
>
> I never said there was. Defending against contesting isn't about being
> 100% certain that you won't contest.
> Just like combat defence (in most cases) isn't about being 100%
> certain that won't get into combat.
> Both are about being able to handle a situation that might or might
> not come up during a game. Whether the situation does come up is out
> of your control (in both cases).
>
I can see a brutal combat coming. I can look around at what vampires
are in play and look at my hand and see if I can deal with the
situation. I cannot stop another player from making transfers.
> > > And for the record, "the best" can very much mean "game win" when it
> > > comes to making the best of a contest situation.
>
> > Yeah. The fates may align the planets that way. But in the common case
> > (reasonable case), it's just a choice of bad and worse.
>
> I've found deck building and table talk to work better than astrology
> when it comes to handling contests.
> My experience is that it's a choice of bad or better, in the common
> case.
>
I can except table talking your way through a bad situation with a
combat deck on the table. There is often little to no warning that
someone is going to contest with you at the end of any influence
phase. I have no opportunity to table talk them out of that terrible
idea they are about to act upon.
Later,
~Rehlow
Rehlow
> As predator I will always consider contesting cards with my prey. Not
> only am I depriving them of a resource but I am getting in a faux
> bleed for 1 in every turn. At the very least it may urge them to give
> up contestation immediately as they have recouped some use out of the
> card already (e.g. Minion Tapped previously) and allow both
> Methuselahs to continue playing without being hamstrung.
>
> It is interesting that these contestation discussions are centered
> around crypt fatties as the problem. Contest a weenie and the
> penalties are the same, however relinquishing control is not so
> problematic nor is contesting other unique minion or master cards.
>
This is an incorrect statement. Contesting a 4 cap is not the same as
contesting a 10 cap. In the former you have lost 1 turn of transfers
and at most 4 pool is in limbo. In the later you have most likely lost
3 turns of transfers and up to 10 pool is in limbo.
> Contestation is a choice, not accounting for players bloody
> mindedness. Rules are fine as is.
Only 1 player makes a choice. The 1 pool a turn is nothing when
contesting a fattie, it is the lost transfers and all that pool put in
limbo as soon as the contest starts.
Later,
~Rehlow
Daneel
I go 3rd, and on my third turn I play her.
My grandpredator influences out Beast, the Leatherface of Detroit, looks
around, and says, "This will hurt me in the long run, so I might as well
tac-nuke it - sorry mate, nothing personal".
He then rushes and torporizes Arika (any one my predator's weenies
diablerize her). I know I'm going to lose. I can't stop it. It's turn 3
and I know my game is fucked up beyond all recognition.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Johann von Doom
> A week back, in a casual game, my grand predator put up Anson. My
> predator played an Ansons deck as well. He changed vampire, got Volker
> and Nik out...
It's good to see that the current contestation rules are working, in
that they force people to play with vampires other than the ones we've
seen over and over again. Wait a minute...
John Eno
henrik
Zillah's Valley will help Ventrue. And, as mentioned earlier, Dreams
of the Sphinx, Information Highway and Powerbase: Montreal will help
as well (even if they also have a risk of being contested).
henrik
wrote:
> > A week back, in a casual game, my grand predator put up Anson. My
> > predator played an Ansons deck as well. He changed vampire, got Volker
> > and Nik out...
>
> It's good to see that the current contestation rules are working, in
> that they force people to play with vampires other than the ones we've
> seen over and over again. Wait a minute...
It doesn't force people to do anything. It gives people a reason not
to play the more popular vampires that we've seen over and over again.
Apparently though, it's more popular (at least on the newsgroup) to
blame the rules for game losses instead of asking themselves what they
could've done to not lose.
henrik
> > Just like you never draw combat defense and got sent to torpor before
> > your first action with said 10 cap?
> > Bad draws will always happen, and the only thing you can do is to
> > settle for a ratio you think will work. Sometimes it won't work and
> > all your Deflections will be in the last 15 cards of your library.
> > That's how the shuffling and stuff works.
>
> Yes, it's true. But atleast you have the means, which can partially
> counter/will counter those decks, and there are several choices for
> that. But there's pretty much only 1 card that solves contesting, and
> it needs a vampire out. Which pretty much just could be the vampire
> you are currently contesting.
The card can be played by a 1 cap though. Unless you're playing pure
Imbueds or 12 of the same vampires it's not impossible to get a
vampire out and play the card.
> > The only way to avoid contestation is to play with non unique minions.
> > There are a few ways to avoid getting an "instant game loss" due to
> > early contesting though. The easiest one would probably be to, as I've
> > mentioned before, make sure that your deck can handle it (assuming you
> > have the fattest bad luck with card drawing as well).
>
> So everyone should be playing Tupdogs and Rock Cats? As that's pretty
> much the only deck that doesn't have the risk of contesting anything
> it has. With the possible exception of Charisma, if you play it on a
> Tupdog. If you have another way to make a deck, that has it's crypt
> containing non-unique minions, that actually could oust it's prey,
> feel free to tell me one.
I've taken two game wins with an Aabbt Kindred deck, so that's
certainly a possibility.
But avioding contests isn't what I'm talking about, I'm sure I've said
that already.
I'm talking about lessening the negative effect contesting has on your
game. Just like combat/vote/bleed defence is about lessening the
negative effect combat/votes/bleeds have on your game. Deflection
doesn't stop your predator from bleeding, Majesty doesn't stop your
prey from rushing you.
> > Yes. I'm aware that there are no 100% guarantees that your deck will
> > be able to handle everything, even if precautions are taken during
> > deck building. If that's a big problem though, I think the library/
> > drawing system should be changed rather than the contesting rules.
>
> It's easier to change the rules concerning contesting, than rework
> library/drawing which works greatly.
It's easier to shape up, than changing the rules concerning contesting
which works greatly.
> > I don't really see the difference between a card removing my minion or
> > a rule in the rulebook doing it. The result is the same anyway, and I
> > don't think it's too harsh in either situation.
>
> A card doing it says that the deck is supposed to do that. A rule in
> rulebook says: If you have bad luck, you are most likely losing this
> round.
All rules in the rulebook says that, if you read it that way. Bad luck
can cause you to lose games. People who doesn't want a game where luck
is a factor shouldn't play V:tES, really.
Peter D Bakija
> But they aren't. For a lot more reasons than contest rules.
And yet the contestation rules are a big part of it. You change the
contestation rules so that contestation has a less severe penalty (but
still a penalty), and a handy side effect is making big vampires more
useful. Which seems to be a current blanket design goal.
> It's still "You need to make your decks less crappy in the name of the
> rule that is supposed to make decks more varied".
You answer is always "Use smaller vampires, don't rely on a single
minion, and use crypt acceleration". All of which are certainly ways
to preemptively attempt to avoid the problems of contestation. But
they are also ways in which all decks end up looking the same. So once
again, the rules for contestation, which people point to as "something
that makes people make more interesting decks" is doing the exact
opposite.
-Peter
wedge
put it in to play. Woot
Not that that will help the other player requiring the same wheel
minion.
Maybe we should banned the unique trait from the game so everyone can
play their game.
In Norms' example one of them was going to be screwed no matter what.
If Ian Forestal is in a deck that deck needs him. Right? Infernal
familiar is hardly an option. First Tradition and a contest, why would
you pay for a turn? Maybe for the untap, transfers or just to get
below Parity Shift.
VTES is not a easy game. There are alot of cards to know, Table
dynamic is hard to perceive. No one will win every game they play. You
may never get to act w/ your minions. You are not always going to have
fun playing it.
Altering the rules for contesting will not change this. It is not even
guaranteed to reduce it. In the example giving there is very little
that would compel me (in Norms position) to yield the contest no
matter what the rule change was. A cross table contest would have been
different, but less likely to occur. Perhaps Norm could have recovered
from a cross table contest with different rules in place, perhaps not.
Overcoming adversity is the joy in this game. There is no other. Those
who like it, like it because it is hard.
Matt
Rock, Paper, Scissors
Drain
I agree. Still, in the interest of reducing contestation harshness
without depriving us of the transfer back rules (whose flexibility I
see as too essential to give up), I'd suggest something along the
lines of being able to transfer back blood from contested minions at 1
transfer per point. You'd still have to keep up the contest for a
couple of turns in order to evacuate all the blood, but the end result
would be a lessened penalty. It would also allow Democritus and
Olugbenga to retain their usefulness.
Drain
suoli
Amen, brother. When I was young we used to play with cards made of
razorblades and drops of blood for counters. The first one to get
ousted/pass out from the blood loss got his liver carved out. Sure, it
wasn't always fun but it's either that or you're a whiner who can't
play.
LSJ
> Amen, brother. When I was young we used to play with cards made of
> razorblades and drops of blood for counters. The first one to get
> ousted/pass out from the blood loss got his liver carved out. Sure, it
> wasn't always fun but it's either that or you're a whiner who can't
> play.
+1 Me Too.
suoli
> I agree. Still, in the interest of reducing contestation harshness
> without depriving us of the transfer back rules (whose flexibility I
> see as too essential to give up), I'd suggest something along the
> lines of being able to transfer back blood from contested minions at 1
> transfer per point. You'd still have to keep up the contest for a
> couple of turns in order to evacuate all the blood, but the end result
> would be a lessened penalty. It would also allow Democritus and
> Olugbenga to retain their usefulness.
>
> Drain
Someone suggested the option to reveal an uncontrolled vampire, burn
it and move counters on it back to your pool when another copy of that
vampire is played.
Raziel
That and draw new crypt card. In influence phase that cost 0 transfers.
henrik
> > It's still "You need to make your decks less crappy in the name of the
> > rule that is supposed to make decks more varied".
>
> You answer is always "Use smaller vampires, don't rely on a single
> minion, and use crypt acceleration".
And yours is "change the rules".
> All of which are certainly ways
> to preemptively attempt to avoid the problems of contestation. But
> they are also ways in which all decks end up looking the same.
Not necessarily. There are different ways to do it (and one can still
chose not to do it, but that might be a bad choice).
However, I will confess that I don't want any and all decks to be able
to win any given tournament. People should be allowed to play any deck
they want, but changing the rules because some decks aren't
competative is stupid.
> So once
> again, the rules for contestation, which people point to as "something
> that makes people make more interesting decks" is doing the exact
> opposite.
Only if you consider bad decks interesting and good decks boring.
Frederick Scott
news:1c6fd272-c875-4ebd...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
It looks to me like people are talking past each other about the intent
or utility of contestation (apart from simply encouraging diversity by
forbidding the simultaneous use of, say, multiple Arika decks on the same
table). Sure, contestation can be seen purely as a drawback in the
metagame against star vampire decks. And it's absolutely true that other
useful rules also have unintended and undesirable side effects at times,
just like contestation. But there's clearly no metagame need to hose
star vampire decks given that their vulnerability to so many other game
effects (destroyed by combat, Pentex Subversion and other effects of that
sort, "minion-cannot-block/block-fails" forms of stealth, and probably a
number of other things I'm not thinking of right at this moment) really
does a fine job of keeping them from being overrepresented in the
metagame. Does anyone disagree with this? I mentioned in the other
discussion about Heir to the Blood reprints that I agreed Carlton Van
Wyck should get reprinted in part because the occasional contestation
of Carlton is a useful check on his general utility. But are there
people who actually believe that certain star vampires need the same
check? That would strike me as extreme.
If not, then the question simply boils down to: "Are the occasional
hosed-up games that contestation can lead to when two star vampire decks
collide common enough and bad enough to call for a change to the
contestation rules?" The main drawbacks to changing the rules are
the confusion caused by changing existing rules and possibly creating
significantly more complex rules in a game already seen as too complex
by many.
In my book, the bad games caused by contestation are too rare to reach
the threshold of tempting me to tinker with the rules. But I don't
blame people for disagreeing because I know the games where this has
an effect can be pretty rude.
Fred
Izaak
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht
news:h5qffu$nba$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
>> So if your deck will topple into a cosmic pile of crap if you can't
>> influence out Minion X... then maybe you need to work on your deck's
>> Plan B.
>
> Yeah.
>
> But not the point.
>
> The point is losing transfers and pool stuck idling on a
> still-uncontrolled vampire when someone else brings out that vampire.
>
> Now you've lost several turns (up to 3) of transfers, and all of that pool
> is out of your reach until you can afford to lose even more turns of
> transfers simply moving the pool back to where it was to begin with.
Then the "problem" is there is any, is not the actual contestation rules but
the fact that it takes three transfers to move pool from one uncontrolled
vampire to another.
"During the influence phase, a player may move 1 blood from an uncontrolled
vampire to a younger vampire of the same clan at the cost of 1 transfer".
Frederick Scott
news:3a02a5b4-8493-481c...@c1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 11, 9:43 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> > > It's still "You need to make your decks less crappy in the name of the
> > > rule that is supposed to make decks more varied".
> >
> > You answer is always "Use smaller vampires, don't rely on a single
> > minion, and use crypt acceleration".
>
> And yours is "change the rules".
Nit: I don't get the sense that Peter is proposing to change the rules in
order to make star vampire decks more playable. He's just saying that if
it has that effect, it wouldn't hurt anything. I get the sense Peter's
main bone of contention is that if you create a star vampire deck for
whatever reasons lead you to do that (and there are certainly good
strategic reasons to do so) and collide with another such star vampire
deck in any game, tournament or otherwise, the game can get really REALLY
unfun. At least, it will be for some of the players: certainly any player
who has to refrain from using a star vampire or two players who wind up
contesting one. But it can also suck for his/their allies, grandpredators
and/or grandprey who have to watch their predator get an easy victory point
and six pool or their prey go unmolested for critical periods of time. In
fact, I'm not terribly charmed by winning games because I got a lucky break
from someone else getting crippled in this way.
Fred