Experience
Andrew S. Davidson
game to improve the balance between elder and neonate vampires.
Whatever the merits of these ideas, the problem is that it involves
changing the mechanics of the game and that's unsatisfactory. I'm
surprised The Lasombra's minions haven't been sent to chastise him for
not following the party line.
This is not the first such idea. There's a set of official variant
rules to help elder vampires in the WotC Vampire rulebook but these
are little used. I myself have worked out some different mechanics
but it's not worth writing them down if no-one will use them. There's
too much inertia to overcome now - even the NRA amendment to the
mechanics hasn't made it into the rulebook yet.
The best way of shifting the balance of a CCG is by printing powerful
new cards. That's what WW are doing in this area, trying to hose
weenies with cards like Free States Rant and help elder vampires with
cards like Zillah's Valley.
The focus of my idea was to make more of the discipline mix that you
get with an elder vampire. This is hard to fully utilize as it stands
because you can't keep enough cards for each discipline in your hand
so that they are there when you need them. Maybe there should be more
cards which increase your hand size like the Elder Library? But I've
had another card idea which I worked out in the bath just now. Let's
see if I can write it down without too many words:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Experience
Type: Wild Minion (a new symbol - perhaps an asterisk)
Cost: none
Text: You may play a minion card from your ash heap as if it had been
played from your hand. The card chosen may not be deeper in the ash
heap than the capacity or life of the minion playing it and the card
stays in that position unless it is put into play.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Example: Gwendolyn is in combat with a Gangrel and it's not going
well. She would really like to use her superior Fortitude but,
because she's in a Brujah deck, she doesn't have a Fortitude card in
hand. Reaching back through her long memory, she goes back into the
ash heap to find the Skin Of Night that she remembers using in the
past. It's only 7 cards down and her capacity is 11 so she can play
it to avoid going to torpor from the Gangrel's aggravated damage. The
Skin of Night stays where is and, with the Experience card added to
the pile, is now 8 cards down.
The Experience card wouldn't be much use to a weenie deck. These
typically just use one discipline and their capacity is so low that
they might as well just use more copies of the cards they want instead
of this one. But a player using a high capacity vampire can get a lot
more out of it. That vampire has access to many more minion cards
and, the older it is, the more chance it has of finding that special
discipline card that it needs.
The card is self-limiting. If you play several of them then they will
fill up the top of the ash heap and so push the real minion cards
deeper into the ash heap. And if you have too many Experience cards
in your deck, you'll have trouble finding real minion cards to reuse.
It is designed to be a staple like Wake with Evening's Freshness - a
card that you'd expect to see in many decks. It would thus shift
change the metagame in favour of elder vampires without any change to
the game mechanics.
One might object to this being a new card type though. I can't see
this being a problem - players can react to the card that's being
replayed rather than this one. But, if an existing type is needed,
you could say that this card has the type of the card that it is
replaying, just as Reality Mirror is a combat card whose effect is to
replay another combat card.
Andrew
Sten During
>
>
> Title: Experience
> Type: Wild Minion (a new symbol - perhaps an asterisk)
> Cost: none
>
> Text: You may play a minion card from your ash heap as if it had been
> played from your hand. The card chosen may not be deeper in the ash
> heap than the capacity or life of the minion playing it and the card
> stays in that position unless it is put into play.
>
> Andrew
Might be a problem there. If I recall correctly I'm allowed to reorder my
ash-heap
any way I like at any time as long as my doing so doesn't prolong the
game
(tardiness-rule) too much.
Sten During
--
NetGuide Scandinavia AB http://www.netg.se/
Tankegangen 4 in...@netg.se
417 56 Goteborg Phone:+46 - (0)31 - 50 79 45
Sweden Fax: +46 - (0)31 - 50 79 39
LSJ
> This is not the first such idea. There's a set of official variant
> rules to help elder vampires in the WotC Vampire rulebook but these
> are little used. I myself have worked out some different mechanics
> but it's not worth writing them down if no-one will use them. There's
> too much inertia to overcome now - even the NRA amendment to the
> mechanics hasn't made it into the rulebook yet.
Neither has the banned list nor the time limit. Some rules are made
just for tournaments (time limits) and some just for constructed
tournaments (NRA).
The rules have changed when good changes were found (contesting cities,
aggravated damage, vote pushing, self-contesting, burn-upon-owner-ousting,
etc.) Well-reasoned and considered suggestions are always welcomed.
> The focus of my idea was to make more of the discipline mix that you
> get with an elder vampire. This is hard to fully utilize as it stands
> because you can't keep enough cards for each discipline in your hand
> so that they are there when you need them. Maybe there should be more
> cards which increase your hand size like the Elder Library? But I've
> had another card idea which I worked out in the bath just now. Let's
> see if I can write it down without too many words:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Title: Experience
> Type: Wild Minion (a new symbol - perhaps an asterisk)
> Cost: none
>
> Text: You may play a minion card from your ash heap as if it had been
> played from your hand. The card chosen may not be deeper in the ash
> heap than the capacity or life of the minion playing it and the card
> stays in that position unless it is put into play.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the ash heap has no order, so "deeper in the ash heap" has
no meaning. There is no "top" card of the ash heap. This is necessary to
allow the cards to be "played" easily without resorting to a chart of
how to stack burned cards in the library.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Andrew S. Davidson
>Unfortunately, the ash heap has no order, so "deeper in the ash heap" has
>no meaning. There is no "top" card of the ash heap. This is necessary to
>allow the cards to be "played" easily without resorting to a chart of
>how to stack burned cards in the library.
I'm not sure what you mean. If you're talking about the general
mechanics of card play, there's no necessity for this - the cards just
go into the ash heap as they are played. I don't see anything in the
Vampire rules to say that you can reorder your discards and so it is
as forbidden as reordering your library or crypt without a game
effect. Absent such rules and, as this is a Deckmaster game, I expect
it to work like its sire, Magic:
"217.4. Graveyard
217.4a A graveyard is a discard pile. Any card that's countered,
discarded, destroyed, or sacrificed is put on top of its owner's
graveyard. Each player's graveyard starts out empty.
217.4b Each graveyard is kept in a single face-up pile. A player can
examine the cards in any graveyard at any time but can't change their
order.
217.4c If an effect puts two or more cards into the same graveyard at
the same time, the owner of those cards may arrange them in any
order."
It's best if a CCG is like this because then you can have card effects
which are based upon the order of cards in the discard pile, as here.
Andrew
Pat Ricochet
> It is designed to be a staple like Wake with Evening's Freshness - a
> card that you'd expect to see in many decks.
Well, a staple like Wake With Evening's Freshness OR Forced Awakening.
Just like staples such as Blood Doll OR Minion Tap, something almost every
deck will need, not unlike land in Magic[0]. Not every deck, of course, but
with the advent of Jake Washington, not every deck needs vampires, either.
Surely if the numbers speak the truth, then Wake/Forced is as broken as
Blood Doll/Minion Tap, yes? Ergo, you are proposing (under your own
standards) a broken card?
[0] I don't actually play Magic, so I haven't the foggiest if you can make a
truly landless deck or not.
--
Pat Ricochet
Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta
LSJ
>
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 08:12:43 -0400, LSJ wrote:
>
> >Unfortunately, the ash heap has no order, so "deeper in the ash heap" has
> >no meaning. There is no "top" card of the ash heap. This is necessary to
> >allow the cards to be "played" easily without resorting to a chart of
> >how to stack burned cards in the library.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. If you're talking about the general
> mechanics of card play, there's no necessity for this - the cards just
> go into the ash heap as they are played. I don't see anything in the
But in practice, they don't - it facilitates play to leave the cards
"in effect" in view for the duration of the action/combat whatever.
For instance, during an equip action, is the equipment placed above
or below the stealth card used to help it succeed if the action is
ultimately blocked? In practice, above. By rules, below. And by
the rulings - it doesn't matter. The ash heap is unordered.
When a vampire with a Secure Haven and a Hawg is burned, in what order
are the cards placed in the library?
> Vampire rules to say that you can reorder your discards and so it is
> as forbidden as reordering your library or crypt without a game
> effect. Absent such rules and, as this is a Deckmaster game, I expect
> it to work like its sire, Magic:
No. The "graveyard" is not a common/inherent item of all deckmaster
games - the graveyard is not handled the same way as the ash heap.
> It's best if a CCG is like this because then you can have card effects
> which are based upon the order of cards in the discard pile, as here.
If you say so. The slight improvement there is not worth the additional
hassle in play, IMO.
Andrew S. Davidson
>For instance, during an equip action, is the equipment placed above
>or below the stealth card used to help it succeed if the action is
>ultimately blocked? In practice, above. By rules, below.
You are mistaken. The equipment card is played into the play area and
then burned when the action is resolved (6.2.3). The stealth card is
played straight into the ash pile (1.6.1.1). The equipment therefore
ends up on top of the stealth card in the ash pile. There is no clash
between theory and your practise.
>When a vampire with a Secure Haven and a Hawg is burned, in what order
>are the cards placed in the library?
That's up to the player who is placing them there - the player who
owns the cards.
>If you say so. The slight improvement there is not worth the additional
>hassle in play, IMO.
There is no hassle. Magic works fine with an ordered discard.
Doomtown likewise. This is not rocket science - you just put cards
there as they are discarded, played or burned. The rules already tell
you to do this - you just have to follow them.
A benefit of doing this is that you maintain a good audit trail - a
judge can see what cards were played in what order.
And, as far as I can see, you have no rule to back up your opinion.
It's a general principle of any card or board game that actions which
are not explicitly allowed are forbidden. This is not the RPG, you
know <grin>.
But I'm curious to know why you are so certain of this. It would only
matter if there were game effects which were affected by the order.
Are there any such already? If not, then we are entering new
territory and can proceed as we please.
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>[snip Experience card]
>> It is designed to be a staple like Wake with Evening's Freshness - a
>> card that you'd expect to see in many decks.
>
> Well, a staple like Wake With Evening's Freshness OR Forced Awakening.
>Just like staples such as Blood Doll OR Minion Tap, something almost every
>deck will need, not unlike land in Magic[0]. Not every deck, of course, but
>with the advent of Jake Washington, not every deck needs vampires, either.
>
> Surely if the numbers speak the truth, then Wake/Forced is as broken as
>Blood Doll/Minion Tap, yes? Ergo, you are proposing (under your own
>standards) a broken card?
I already saw this cheap shot coming and so have my response ready.
What makes Minion Tap broken is that it is greatly superior to many
other master cards which have the same general effect of providing
pool. This is not true of Wake and would not be true of Experience -
they are sui generis, not one of many.
What Wake and Experience would have in common is a multiplier effect
which lets you get more out of a single powerful vampire. That's
what's needed to make them more playable as compared with weenies.
Andrew
LSJ
>
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 10:20:49 -0400, LSJ wrote:
>
> >For instance, during an equip action, is the equipment placed above
> >or below the stealth card used to help it succeed if the action is
> >ultimately blocked? In practice, above. By rules, below.
>
> You are mistaken. The equipment card is played into the play area and
> then burned when the action is resolved (6.2.3). The stealth card is
> played straight into the ash pile (1.6.1.1). The equipment therefore
> ends up on top of the stealth card in the ash pile. There is no clash
> between theory and your practise.
Technically it is played to the ash heap to start the action, then if
the action succeeds, it is put into play. The only two options are "in
play" and "ash heap", and the equipment doesn't enter play until the
action succeeds (cf. attempting to equip with a Blood Tears while
another Blood Tears is in play).
If you prefer, use "Army of Rats" instead of equipment.
The card only enters play if the action succeeds.
> >When a vampire with a Secure Haven and a Hawg is burned, in what order
> >are the cards placed in the library?
>
> That's up to the player who is placing them there - the player who
> owns the cards.
Sure. I don't see that in the rules.
It seems equally likely that the controller would, and even more likely
that the acting Methuselah would.
Fortunately, it doesn't matter, so this sort of confusion doesn't arise.
> >If you say so. The slight improvement there is not worth the additional
> >hassle in play, IMO.
>
> There is no hassle. Magic works fine with an ordered discard.
> Doomtown likewise. This is not rocket science - you just put cards
> there as they are discarded, played or burned. The rules already tell
> you to do this - you just have to follow them.
Yeah, and "it's best if a CCG" maintains an order to the hand as well -
that way you can have an effect force a player to discard the
most-recently-drawn card or, even better, the least-recently-drawn card.
But again, the added hassle of trying to specify/maintain that order
is not worth the small gain.
> A benefit of doing this is that you maintain a good audit trail - a
> judge can see what cards were played in what order.
Not hardly - since the order of play has nothing to do with the order
of the ash heap. An ally played early in the game could easily be
on top of all the cards played after it.
> And, as far as I can see, you have no rule to back up your opinion.
> It's a general principle of any card or board game that actions which
> are not explicitly allowed are forbidden. This is not the RPG, you
> know <grin>.
The rulebook doesn't allow for an order to the ash heap, so it is
forbidden, right.
> But I'm curious to know why you are so certain of this. It would only
> matter if there were game effects which were affected by the order.
> Are there any such already? If not, then we are entering new
> territory and can proceed as we please.
The ash heap is unordered. [LSJ 27-MAR-2001] (a post to which you followed up)
As such, there are no game effects which care about the order.
You cannot have such effects when the ash heap is unordered, obviously.
The hand and uncontrolled region are unordered. [LSJ 29-JUN-2001]
And "we" are pleased to proceed in this fashion. No need complicating
the game and adding extra stuff for the players to keep track of needlessly.
Pat Ricochet
> other master cards which have the same general effect of providing
> pool.
is "greatly superior," it is at the same time "just sufficient."
Hamstringing Minion Tap doesn't make the other pool gain cards better -- it
makes the pool *removing* cards even better. Your only other option is to
not *spend* the pool, which reduced to playing weenies, a necessity I
thought this thread was trying to avoid.
Alternately, you may attempt to reduce all the pool-removing capability
(at the same time you reduce the capability of Minion Tap), but this
requires outright banning wholesale of many cards.
And, this has been tried: Sabbat was printed playable stand alone, with
No Minion Tap, but instead Tribute to the Master. No 5th or 2nd-like cards,
even more intercept cards, no KRC or ConAg votes, no Conditioning, Scouting
Mission instead of Govern the Unaligned, etc. !Malks had Dementation, not
Dominate, so the Power Sneak Bleeders weren't as strong. The !Ventrue have
no Princes and no Majesty, so there went the Power Voters.
Despite the "strong" cards and vampires in Sabbat, the set by itself
appears to be a game with less pool gain AND less pool removal. And sure
enough, Short-Term Investment was reprinted, though Minion Tap was not.
(Blood Doll was also reprinted, however).
However, since the most accepted tournament format allowed cards from
all previous sets, all of these changes were moot. Heavy pool loss still
has to be countered by heavy pool gain and/or rapid ousting of one's prey.
Sabbat, and likewise Sabbat War, *does* make an interesting sealed Draft
game, however, since there no KRCs or Conditionings, and few Blood Dolls.
You even see Short Term Investment played.
> What Wake and Experience would have in common is a multiplier effect
> which lets you get more out of a single powerful vampire. That's
> what's needed to make them more playable as compared with weenies.
Which is why Majesty and Freak Drive are so valuable. Surely, a clan
with both Presence and Fortitude would have the easiest go of playing with
large vampires.
(Second runner up to Cat's Guidance and Earth Meld. A clan with both
Animalism and Protean should be able to hold off any number of attackers, if
only they can oust their own prey in the mean time.)
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>And "we" are pleased to proceed in this fashion. No need complicating
>the game and adding extra stuff for the players to keep track of needlessly.
How odd.
1) I have no problem with putting cards in the ashheap in the order
I play them. It would be more awkward to do something else.
2) Once they're there, it's easiest to keep them that way. If I
need to examine an ashheap, looking at the cards in the order they're
in is much easier than shuffling.
I think you are using complication as a strawman.
I think that the rule could be of benefit, and that the proposed
card Experience would be a good use of this.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
LSJ
> 1) I have no problem with putting cards in the ashheap in the order
> I play them. It would be more awkward to do something else.
When you try to equip with a .44, you play the .44 to the ash heap
before asking for blockers? I think you're in a minority there.
> 2) Once they're there, it's easiest to keep them that way. If I
> need to examine an ashheap, looking at the cards in the order they're
> in is much easier than shuffling.
>
> I think you are using complication as a strawman.
Most players I've seen play in tournaments leave action cards on the table
until the action resolves. Likewise for "duration of action" cards like
Torn Signpost.
I do not think it is a strawman.
> I think that the rule could be of benefit, and that the proposed
> card Experience would be a good use of this.
The rule would complicate the natural tendency in the movement of
action cards, at the very least. Whether this complication is worth
the benefit (and of course there's a benefit) is open to debate,
but it doesn't seem worthwhile.
Sorrow
> the action succeeds, it is put into play. The only two options are "in
> play" and "ash heap", and the equipment doesn't enter play until the
> action succeeds (cf. attempting to equip with a Blood Tears while
> another Blood Tears is in play).
Woah, so you can have a Blood Tears on the acting vamp who is
attempting to equip another Blood Tears and, before the action is
successful, burn the already equipped Blood Tears for the blood
and then gain the new Blood Tears (if successful)?
Too cool...
Sorrow
---
If you're frightened of dying and... and you're holding on,
you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made
your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you
from the earth.
LSJ
>
> > Technically it is played to the ash heap to start the action, then if
> > the action succeeds, it is put into play. The only two options are "in
> > play" and "ash heap", and the equipment doesn't enter play until the
> > action succeeds (cf. attempting to equip with a Blood Tears while
> > another Blood Tears is in play).
>
> Woah, so you can have a Blood Tears on the acting vamp who is
> attempting to equip another Blood Tears and, before the action is
> successful, burn the already equipped Blood Tears for the blood
> and then gain the new Blood Tears (if successful)?
> Too cool...
No. You can't play the card that would contest with yourself.
(Much like you cannot attempt an action that you cannot pay for,
even if you plan to be able to pay for it when it resolves.)
But if someone else controls the Blood Tears, she could burn it
between the time you play yours to announce the equip action and
the time the equip action succeeds.
Frederick Scott
> Neither has the banned list nor the time limit. Some rules are made
> just for tournaments (time limits) and some just for constructed
> tournaments (NRA).
NRA should be in the rulebook for simplicity's sake. I can *NOT* believe
it affects sealed deck or even draft enough for anyone to care. It's the
only real game mechanics rule that changes in a tournament environment. And
people who don't play tournaments but play constructed in a playgroup ought
to familiar with the rule because I really think it's a rule that's needed
for fairness in constructed, notions about "playing nice with your friends"
aside.
Fred
Frederick Scott
>
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >And "we" are pleased to proceed in this fashion. No need complicating
> >the game and adding extra stuff for the players to keep track of needlessly.
>
> How odd.
>
> 1) I have no problem with putting cards in the ashheap in the order
> I play them. It would be more awkward to do something else.
>
> 2) Once they're there, it's easiest to keep them that way. If I
> need to examine an ashheap, looking at the cards in the order they're
> in is much easier than shuffling.
>
> I think you are using complication as a strawman.
>
> I think that the rule could be of benefit, and that the proposed
> card Experience would be a good use of this.
I don't know. This is a classic tradeoff in strategy games. When this issue
comes up, it's a simple matter of deciding how much fun can be gotten from the
additional complexity of requiring players to maintain order in their ash heaps.
And while it's not really that bad, I have to say I like not having to bother
with order when looking at my ash heap or anyone else's. Using depth to dig
for a card in ash heaps is an interesting concept but I notice Experience would
be a new type of card with unexplored interactions with the existing cards so I'm
not sure I'd recommend it just due to that point alone. Other uses of depth beg
certain types of issues (actions using depth: do action mods in the course of
attempting to play the actions count or not?) that are easy to gloss over when
proposing cards but have to be addressed at some point. All in all, it doesn't
seem worth opening this can of worms to me.
Fred
LSJ
>
> LSJ wrote:
> > Neither has the banned list nor the time limit. Some rules are made
> > just for tournaments (time limits) and some just for constructed
> > tournaments (NRA).
>
> NRA should be in the rulebook for simplicity's sake.
Adding NRA does not simplify the game. Quite the contrary.
James Coupe
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
>I already saw this cheap shot coming and so have my response ready.
>What makes Minion Tap broken is that it is greatly superior to many
>other master cards which have the same general effect of providing
>pool.
This may not be a case of Minion Tap being broken.
It could be way above by virtue of the others being too weak, rather
than the card itself being inherently broken.
Proof through blatant assertion is unlikely to help you progress an
argument.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
When all the world seemed to sleep, why, why did you go? EBD690ECD7A1F
Was it me? Was it you? B457CA213D7E6
Questions in a world of blue. 68C3695D623D5D
Frederick Scott
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> >
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > Neither has the banned list nor the time limit. Some rules are made
> > > just for tournaments (time limits) and some just for constructed
> > > tournaments (NRA).
> >
> > NRA should be in the rulebook for simplicity's sake.
>
> Adding NRA does not simplify the game. Quite the contrary.
Agreed. That wasn't the sense of my comment. What's simpler is that it's
simply a game rule, not something that kicks in in a tournament.
It's better people read this rule in their rulebook and play by it all the
time rather than have to be aware of it as a constructed tournament rule.
It should always be used for constructed, whether in a tournament or not,
and barely affects the other types of play.
You could eliminate lots of rules in the game and say you were making the
game "simpler" - then add them back in for tournaments. Why not do the same
for the one-per-action named Action Modifier and Reaction rule? That's surely
not needed for fairness in sealed deck. I have a pretty strong idea that the
only reason is that NRA was not in the original rules and this one was.
Fred
Peter D Bakija
>>Pat's Giovanni newsletter contained his ideas on how to change the
game to improve the balance between elder and neonate vampires.
Whatever the merits of these ideas, the problem is that it involves
changing the mechanics of the game and that's unsatisfactory.>>
They were interesting ides for variant rules, which are often fun to read.
>>I'm surprised The Lasombra's minions haven't been sent to chastise him for
not following the party line.>>
Nah. I'm here to chastise you for being a meddlesome troll who insists on
making trouble when you don't even *like* this game. Andrew, why do you post
here? Why do you read this stuff? You don't like this game. You find the basic
mechanics (players getting removed from the game) distasteful. You don't like
the errata. You don't like the art. You don't like the tournament rules. You
don't like the non tournament rules. You think all the cards are broken. Why
are you here?
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
http://www.geocities.com/bakija6
"The Ramones are more important than the Solar System."
-Sean Finnerty
LSJ
Ah. Probably true. But the one-per-action-per-minion rule was designed into
the game, unlike NRA which is a patch-fix for a problem encountered after
the game's released. The patch is only needed for constructed deck
tournaments, IMO - the fact that it wouldn't /bother/ a sealed tournament
much isn't a compelling reason to add it.
Someone playing rulebook/card text rules and then moving to the tournament
scene would have plenty to learn - the NRA rule is just one of those things.
It's too complicated/subtle to inflict on someone trying to learn the game, I
think.
Frederick Scott
>
> I wrote:
> > It's better people read this rule in their rulebook and play by it all the
> > time rather than have to be aware of it as a constructed tournament rule.
> > It should always be used for constructed, whether in a tournament or not,
> > and barely affects the other types of play.
> >
> > You could eliminate lots of rules in the game and say you were making the
> > game "simpler" - then add them back in for tournaments. Why not do the same
> > for the one-per-action named Action Modifier and Reaction rule? That's surely
> > not needed for fairness in sealed deck. I have a pretty strong idea that the
> > only reason is that NRA was not in the original rules and this one was.
>
> Ah. Probably true. But the one-per-action-per-minion rule was designed into
> the game, unlike NRA which is a patch-fix for a problem encountered after
> the game's released. The patch is only needed for constructed deck
> tournaments, IMO - the fact that it wouldn't /bother/ a sealed tournament
> much isn't a compelling reason to add it.
>
> Someone playing rulebook/card text rules and then moving to the tournament
> scene would have plenty to learn - the NRA rule is just one of those things.
That's true. But the compelling reason to add it (well, "compelling" always sounds
so dire...I'll settle for saying I think it's a damn good one) is that I'm tired
of having to explain to players who know the rulebook rules but never play
tournaments what "NRA" is and why our play group uses it as a house rule. Players
who play constructed deck in other environments should use the rule for the same
reason it's used in tournaments. Given that, I find the lack of need for it in
sealed deck an insufficient reason to keep it _out_ of the rulebook.
> It's too complicated/subtle to inflict on someone trying to learn the game, I
> think.
It's all too complicated and subtle to inflict on someone trying to learn the
game. (An incentive, perhaps, to look for ways of simplifying some of NRA's
nuances? I don't know; I haven't put any thought into it.) Jyhad is a complex
game and unfortunately, that's one of the necessary rules. I guess I look at
constructed play as the default, even for rank beginners. So if this is the issue,
I think it would be more appropriate to divide the rules into a "basic game",
without some of the more complex rules, and an "advanced game" which has all
the rules that seal up the holes experts will use to create unfair decks. I
guess it disturbs me that such holes are only considered necessary to seal in
tournaments.
Fred
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes
>Ah. Probably true. But the one-per-action-per-minion rule was designed into
>the game, unlike NRA which is a patch-fix for a problem encountered after
>the game's released. The patch is only needed for constructed deck
>tournaments, IMO - the fact that it wouldn't /bother/ a sealed tournament
>much isn't a compelling reason to add it.
Is it, however, "necessary" (for whatever value of necessary) for casual
constructed play?
Frederick Scott
>
> In message <3BBB7EE8...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes
> >Ah. Probably true. But the one-per-action-per-minion rule was designed into
> >the game, unlike NRA which is a patch-fix for a problem encountered after
> >the game's released. The patch is only needed for constructed deck
> >tournaments, IMO - the fact that it wouldn't /bother/ a sealed tournament
> >much isn't a compelling reason to add it.
>
> Is it, however, "necessary" (for whatever value of necessary) for casual
> constructed play?
Are you asking Scott or me? You replied to him but the thrust of your question
isn't clear. Obviously, you know about the decks NRA was created to limit.
If, OTOH, you're curious about Scott's thinking on the need for balance in
casual play, that's my question as well. (Asked much more succinctly than I
did.)
Fred
X_Zealot
> I think it would be more appropriate to divide the rules into a "basic
game",
> without some of the more complex rules, and an "advanced game" which has
all
> the rules that seal up the holes experts will use to create unfair decks.
I
> guess it disturbs me that such holes are only considered necessary to seal
in
> tournaments.
Fred,
If you want to inflict some pain on the players, then put contradicting
rules in the rulebook, like they did when VTES came out.
"Oo, oo, oo your vampire burns"
"No, it doesn't"
"yes, it does it sez so right here"
"that's the basic rules, we are playing by the advanced rules"
"...but I just learned how to play"
"No, you didn't. You learned the basic game."
Does anyone remember this nightmare?
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
W. Mark Woodhouse
wrote:
>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> I think that the rule could be of benefit, and that the proposed
>> card Experience would be a good use of this.
>
>I don't know. This is a classic tradeoff in strategy games. When this issue
>comes up, it's a simple matter of deciding how much fun can be gotten from the
>additional complexity of requiring players to maintain order in their ash heaps.
>And while it's not really that bad, I have to say I like not having to bother
>with order when looking at my ash heap or anyone else's. Using depth to dig
>for a card in ash heaps is an interesting concept but I notice Experience would
>be a new type of card with unexplored interactions with the existing cards so I'm
>not sure I'd recommend it just due to that point alone.
I concur with Fred and Scott that ordering the ash-heap is probably a
poor tradeoff for getting the Experience effect. However, I like the
effect. How can something similar be accomplished within the existing
rules? I think I can see something - can anyone pick it apart for me?
Experience
Master
1 pool
Take a minion card from the ash heap and place it on a minion you
control who is eligible to play that card. That minion may play the
card as if it were played from your hand. When it is used, remove it
from the game. Each time you play a card from your hand, place a
counter on the card. If the number of counters equals or exceeds the
capacity of the chosen minion, burn the card.
Aside from the general case, doesn't this SCREAM "Temporis action
card" at y'all?
Mark Woodhouse
Incorrigible amateur card-designer
Halcyan 2
>game "simpler" - then add them back in for tournaments. Why not do the same
>for the one-per-action named Action Modifier and Reaction rule? That's
>surely
>not needed for fairness in sealed deck. I have a pretty strong idea that the
>only reason is that NRA was not in the original rules and this one was.
Ack! Reminds of when they tried to "dumb down" Jyhad/VTES to make it more
player-friendly ("the basic game"). Got rid of stealth, intercept, aggravated
damage, and more. How's that for "simpler?"
Halcyan 2
Halcyan 2
>truly landless deck or not.
Actually you probably could (in Type I, if that's still around). Black Lotus
and the Moxes all come out for free and they can provide the mana to put out
cards (and other mana sources). I stopped keeping track of the game long ago,
but later on they began to print more and more cards whose costs could be payed
through other means (paying life, removing cards from your hand, etc.).
Halcyan 2
Frederick Scott
> I concur with Fred and Scott that ordering the ash-heap is probably a
> poor tradeoff for getting the Experience effect. However, I like the
> effect. How can something similar be accomplished within the existing
> rules? I think I can see something - can anyone pick it apart for me?
>
> Experience
> Master
> 1 pool
>
> Take a minion card from the ash heap and place it on a minion you
> control who is eligible to play that card. That minion may play the
> card as if it were played from your hand. When it is used, remove it
> from the game. Each time you play a card from your hand, place a
> counter on the card. If the number of counters equals or exceeds the
> capacity of the chosen minion, burn the card.
Heh. Don't get me started on the problems of defining the term,
"playing a card". }:-)
(For the uninitiated, LSJ, James Coupe, and maybe one or two others and
I had a long thread about how obvious - or not - the Jyhad definition of
what it means to "play a card" actually is.)
Fred
James Coupe
<fre...@netcom.com> writes
<Re: NRA>
>> Is it, however, "necessary" (for whatever value of necessary) for casual
>> constructed play?
>
>Are you asking Scott or me?
The ether in general, mostly. Scott's post - referencing only two
styles of tournament play and not casual play - seemed a good hook for
it, however.
James Coupe
<halc...@aol.com> writes
>>[0] I don't actually play Magic, so I haven't the foggiest if you can make a
>>truly landless deck or not.
>
>Actually you probably could (in Type I, if that's still around). Black Lotus
>and the Moxes all come out for free and they can provide the mana to put out
>cards (and other mana sources).
The restricted nature (I think) would make them difficult to build a
whole deck round. Though I do recall that Type I just recently (within
the last twelve months-ish) unbanned/unrestricted a number of cards
because of later advances in the card set countering the need, in their
opinion.
Though, just checking, the Lotus and the Moxes are all still on the
restricted list for Type I.
Andrew S. Davidson
>> You are mistaken. The equipment card is played into the play area and
>> then burned when the action is resolved (6.2.3). The stealth card is
>> played straight into the ash pile (1.6.1.1). The equipment therefore
>> ends up on top of the stealth card in the ash pile. There is no clash
>> between theory and your practise.
>
>Technically it is played to the ash heap to start the action, then if
>the action succeeds, it is put into play.
Where are you getting this from? Does anyone at all actually do this?
If not, I suggest that you amend the rules so that they reflect
reality.
>The only two options are "in play" and "ash heap"
In Shadowfist you play equipment directly onto a character but it does
not have its effects until it "resolves". Obviously players are
intuitively doing something of the sort here.
>> That's up to the player who is placing them there - the player who
>> owns the cards.
>
>Sure. I don't see that in the rules.
I agree, the rules aren't comprehensive. That's why one has to fall
back on the general rules of card play.
>The rulebook doesn't allow for an order to the ash heap,
>so it is forbidden, right.
The rulebook doesn't allow for an order to the library or crypt
either. When you draw a card, it could be any card, if you take that
line.
>The ash heap is unordered. [LSJ 27-MAR-2001] (a post to which you followed up)
>The hand and uncontrolled region are unordered. [LSJ 29-JUN-2001]
So far as I can see, you just made that stuff up. It seems your
concept is that the ash heap is literally a heap. If, as you say, it
has no defined top then clearly I can't discard to the top of the
pile. One practical consequence of this is to encourage me to bury my
discards in the ash heap as I make them. If folk want to know what
they were, let 'em figure it out.
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
> And, this has been tried: Sabbat was printed playable stand alone, with
>No Minion Tap, but instead Tribute to the Master. No 5th or 2nd-like cards,
>even more intercept cards, no KRC or ConAg votes, no Conditioning, Scouting
>Mission instead of Govern the Unaligned, etc. !Malks had Dementation, not
>Dominate, so the Power Sneak Bleeders weren't as strong. The !Ventrue have
>no Princes and no Majesty, so there went the Power Voters.
That's an interesting point. Was this by accident or design? Was
Sabbat intended to be an improved revision of the game, correcting
known faults of the Camarilla editions?
And have there been any Sabbat-only constructed events to see if the
redesign was successful?
Andrew
LSJ
>
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 12:32:50 -0400, LSJ wrote:
>
> >> You are mistaken. The equipment card is played into the play area and
> >> then burned when the action is resolved (6.2.3). The stealth card is
> >> played straight into the ash pile (1.6.1.1). The equipment therefore
> >> ends up on top of the stealth card in the ash pile. There is no clash
> >> between theory and your practise.
> >
> >Technically it is played to the ash heap to start the action, then if
> >the action succeeds, it is put into play.
>
> Where are you getting this from? Does anyone at all actually do this?
1.6.1.1.
Someone on this thread suggested that they do this. I don't think it's
common, no.
> If not, I suggest that you amend the rules so that they reflect
> reality.
This is the proper rule. Changing it produces problems with the interaction
with contesting rules.
> >The only two options are "in play" and "ash heap"
>
> In Shadowfist you play equipment directly onto a character but it does
> not have its effects until it "resolves". Obviously players are
> intuitively doing something of the sort here.
Right. So there's no need complicating the rules to spell this sort
of thing out.
> >> That's up to the player who is placing them there - the player who
> >> owns the cards.
> >
> >Sure. I don't see that in the rules.
>
> I agree, the rules aren't comprehensive. That's why one has to fall
> back on the general rules of card play.
You snipped the rest - the part that indicated where the rules are
comprehensive enough to suggest that your spurious ruling isn't correct.
> >The rulebook doesn't allow for an order to the ash heap,
> >so it is forbidden, right.
>
> The rulebook doesn't allow for an order to the library or crypt
> either. When you draw a card, it could be any card, if you take that
> line.
Yes, it does. [2.3]
For someone so gung ho to change the rules, you may want to ensure
you have a proper understanding of them first.
> >The ash heap is unordered. [LSJ 27-MAR-2001] (a post to which you followed up)
> >The hand and uncontrolled region are unordered. [LSJ 29-JUN-2001]
>
> So far as I can see, you just made that stuff up. It seems your
Yeah. Official rules are like that. Someone has to make them up.
> concept is that the ash heap is literally a heap. If, as you say, it
That's the official concept, yes.
> has no defined top then clearly I can't discard to the top of the
> pile. One practical consequence of this is to encourage me to bury my
> discards in the ash heap as I make them. If folk want to know what
> they were, let 'em figure it out.
Let them ask - sure. If you do this consistently at a tournament (attempting
to hide public information), I'd be prone to correct you, if I were a judge.
Andrew S. Davidson
>Experience
>Master
>1 pool
>
>Take a minion card from the ash heap and place it on a minion you
>control who is eligible to play that card. That minion may play the
>card as if it were played from your hand. When it is used, remove it
>from the game. Each time you play a card from your hand, place a
>counter on the card. If the number of counters equals or exceeds the
>capacity of the chosen minion, burn the card.
Placing a counter when you play a card from your hand doesn't seem
right. Perhaps you mean that a counter gets put on the Experience
master card when it is used.
It would be similar in strength to Elder Library. That may make it
playable but it's not enough to significantly shift the balance of
power between weenies and elders.
>Aside from the general case, doesn't this SCREAM "Temporis action
>card" at y'all?
There's already Whispers of the Dead but that doesn't seem strong
enough to be worth bothering with.
Andrew
The Nosferatu Stuff
> concept is that the ash heap is literally a heap. If, as you say, it
> has no defined top then clearly I can't discard to the top of the
> pile. One practical consequence of this is to encourage me to bury my
> discards in the ash heap as I make them. If folk want to know what
> they were, let 'em figure it out.
New home work assignment:
When playing against Andrew be sure to look carefully at his discard pile,
then to ensure that they are not in any order riffle shuffle them 7-10
times.(he likes to have other people bend his freak drives!)
--
Aaron
The Nosferatu Stuff
PS why don't you create some NEW mechanics instead of dreaming up "new"
stuff that you are just ripping off of other games?(in doom town we do this,
in magic we do this...)
James Coupe
>>card" at y'all?
>
>There's already Whispers of the Dead but that doesn't seem strong
>enough to be worth bothering with.
It depends on your play-style.
For many focused deck styles, I would say it's probably not worth it.
Why get a Bonding back when you could just play another one of the 8 in
your deck?
For many toolboxed deck styles, it can be extremely useful. Assume you
have 4 Delaying Tactics, 4 Deflection and 4 Spiritual Intervention in
your deck, along with 4 Whispers from the Dead. You can almost redesign
your deck in mid-play to cater for the opponents you face, redrawing the
useful cards.
James Coupe
>Sabbat intended to be an improved revision of the game, correcting
>known faults of the Camarilla editions?
Partly, yes. See the rules changes that were introduced in the Sabbat
rules booklet, for instance. The obvious one is the change in voting
styles (which was later further remedied). Others include the way in
which certain aspects of the game were changed relative to all non-
Camarilla, whereas previously Independent vampires had had a number of
the now-exclusive Camarilla privileges.
So some of the rules were tweaked/amended as necessary.
Partly, no. Large portions of the *set* seem to have been selected not
for revisions of the game (if that were the case, WotC would have pretty
much had to follow this up with various other changes regarding the
entire playable set e.g. a Type II style setting for V:TES - this did
not happen, of course) but, rather, for style and flavour.
If you compare and contrast, there is much in the set that is more
directly brutal and combat oriented e.g. Disarm, being the obvious
example. The Sabbat are, generally, politically weaker than the
Camarilla, but more internalised - reflected by their inability to call
certain votes, but automatic "Sabbat only" on things like Cardinal
Benediction - the Camarilla being powerful but open.
As a result, a number of cards were not reproduced on flavour grounds.
Also, by providing certain alternatives, it provided more incentive to
the old players to buy new cards. Catatonic Fear isn't better than
Majesty outright, but it's certainly a card that old players can look at
and think "Hmmm, I wouldn't mind a few of those."
KRC etc., however, were left in the game - something which WotC and the
DCI had the power to remove. And Sabbat was designed to interact with
previous sets e.g. the text on Cardinal Benediction again. And the
Sabbat vampires were still perfectly at liberty to play KRC etc., they
just didn't have them in their set. But then, neither did the Setites
in Ancient Hearts. Had they so wanted, KRC could have been one of the
targets of Camarilla Membership Has Its Privileges, as were several
cards from V:TES. It wasn't, hence it seems likely that the designers
wanted it to stay that way.
>And have there been any Sabbat-only constructed events to see if the
>redesign was successful?
This rather relies on the answers to your previous questions being that
Sabbat was an intentional redesign.
It was intended to be a perfectly playable base-set on its own merits -
which it is. It's actually a very good set, but politics is a little
underpowered in some ways - a reflection of the theme of the set -
though with a number of new, flexible aspects e.g. you can have lots and
lots of Cardinals, rather than 1 per clan, relative to the Justicars.
It was also intended to be an expansion of the game - which it is. It
interacts extremely well on a number of level with V:TES. Some of the
vampires are a shade more powerful than the original, due to the
interesting costing scheme they developed, but the Jyhad/V:TES base set
and the Sabbat base set interact extremely well with each other. *Now*,
they also interact extremely well with the FN/AH/DS due to the upgrading
of the Independent clans.
It's not a redesign - like releasing Vampire: 4th Edition, or something.
Derek Ray
>In message <AD90E167D4EB88BC.5AA39DF3...@lp.airnew
>s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
>>
>>There's already Whispers of the Dead but that doesn't seem strong
>>enough to be worth bothering with.
>
>For many toolboxed deck styles, it can be extremely useful. Assume you
>have 4 Delaying Tactics, 4 Deflection and 4 Spiritual Intervention in
>your deck, along with 4 Whispers from the Dead. You can almost redesign
>your deck in mid-play to cater for the opponents you face, redrawing the
>useful cards.
Or, to steal your above example; with 6 Bonding, 6 Conditioning, and 6
Whispers of the Dead, you have either extra stealth or tactical nuke,
depending on what you need at the time. Not to mention that it lets you
get rid of something from your hand... say, those stealth cards you've
been jamming up on? Or the third Blood Doll in your hand?
--
Derek
Derek Ray
wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 13:20:35 -0500, Pat Ricochet wrote:
>
>That's an interesting point. Was this by accident or design? Was
>Sabbat intended to be an improved revision of the game, correcting
>known faults of the Camarilla editions?
I believe it was intended to be a more combat-heavy revision of the
game, emphasizing the brutality of the Sabbat as opposed to the
machinations of the Camarilla.
>And have there been any Sabbat-only constructed events to see if the
>redesign was successful?
I participated in a couple Sabbat draft events back when boxes were
still around $50 each. The games were MUCH more combat-focused, and
much less stealth/bleed focused; there simply were fewer ways to whack
the hell out of your prey rapidly, except by beating his vampires to
death. They were generally quite fun.
This is true of draft in general, though; the tendency of players to
scoop up all bleed modifiers whether or not they can play them in their
deck usually means that you can't produce a strong bleeder. Except for
one particular draft event, where I managed to get something like 6
Kindred Spirits, 4 Eyes of Chaos, and a couple Presence bleed cards as
well. (the Word on My Deck went out rapidly after the first round, and
each successive prey just left all his vamps untapped every round until
I was ousted. =/ Silly, and frustrating.)
--
Derek
Aaron
> LSJ wrote:
> >
> > I wrote:
> > > It's better people read this rule in their rulebook and play by it all the
> > > time rather than have to be aware of it as a constructed tournament rule.
> > > It should always be used for constructed, whether in a tournament or not,
> > > and barely affects the other types of play.
Well, reading this got me thinkging..(way to go Fred)
Anyway, why does rule 6.2 exist?
6.2. Constructed Deck Size Limits
Standard Constructed decks must contain a minimum of sixty cards and a
maximum of ninety cards. The crypt must contain a minimum of twelve
cards.
Why do tournaments require you to play with 60-90 card decks? When
the regular rules are 40+10/per player. Seems a little unnecessary
also.
Aaron.
Robert Goudie
> Well, reading this got me thinkging..(way to go Fred)
>
> Anyway, why does rule 6.2 exist?
>
> 6.2. Constructed Deck Size Limits
>
> Standard Constructed decks must contain a minimum of sixty cards and a
> maximum of ninety cards. The crypt must contain a minimum of twelve
> cards.
>
> Why do tournaments require you to play with 60-90 card decks? When
> the regular rules are 40+10/per player. Seems a little unnecessary
> also.
Since you can shift between 4 and 5 player tables, if you used the rulebook's
rules you'd be able to create a deck that is legal in one round (90 cards in a
five player game) and then illegal in the next round (90 cards in a 5-player
table). So, I can see that it makes sense to have a fixed number. Now why that
fixed number is 60-90 cards instead of 40-90, I don't know.
Robert
Frederick Scott
I suppose it's just concern that a limit smaller than 60 cards allows players to
build a deck that draws too predictably. I expect it's pretty debatable whether
that's true or not but you have to remember: it was implemented by those whacky
DCI guys, the same folks who gave us Type 1 Magic.
Fred
Halcyan 2
>to
>build a deck that draws too predictably. I expect it's pretty debatable
>whether
>that's true or not but you have to remember: it was implemented by those
>whacky
>DCI guys, the same folks who gave us Type 1 Magic.
Hey, there was nothing wrong with Type 1! In fact, I think it was *vastly*
superior to Type 2 (and that Type 1.5 thing).
I'd rather spend a little money now to get the "good cards" (and know I can
continue using them) than be forced to buy boxes each time a new expansion
comes out (and all of my old boxes of cards become useless).
Halcyan 2
James Coupe
<halc...@aol.com> writes
>Hey, there was nothing wrong with Type 1! In fact, I think it was *vastly*
>superior to Type 2 (and that Type 1.5 thing).
>
>I'd rather spend a little money now to get the "good cards" (and know I can
>continue using them) than be forced to buy boxes each time a new expansion
>comes out (and all of my old boxes of cards become useless).
There is something wrong with a Type I style format, however, when you
know that you can buy the good cards now but that, in the future, no-one
will be able to buy cards as good as yours because they realise they
need game balance.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F
'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6
So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D
Frederick Scott
>
> >I suppose it's just concern that a limit smaller than 60 cards allows players
> >to build a deck that draws too predictably. I expect it's pretty debatable
> >whether that's true or not but you have to remember: it was implemented by those
> >whacky DCI guys, the same folks who gave us Type 1 Magic.
>
> Hey, there was nothing wrong with Type 1!
Nothing except the completely wrong concept of "restriction".
Pick one, you morons:
Bad card: bad in *all* situations ===> ergo ===> BAN
OK card: OK in *all* situations ===> ergo ===> leave alone
"Restrict" does not appear on any sane list. I've said this consistently since
1994, when I won my first Type I (then just "DCI") tournament. And I will take
the thought with me to my grave. "Magic, a great invention. Too bad the tournaments
were run by idiots."
Type 2 is OK for the specific purpose of allowing latecomers to compete until their
collections have enough variety to compete in another type of tournament. It's just
that they need another type of tournament: basically, Type 2 without date-of-printing
limits but with all the cards banned that need to banned.
Fred
The Nosferatu Stuff
news:_N1v7.1834$2p1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
That makes sense, if you played a 4 player you'd get 40-80 cards, then 5
player would be 40-90.
But why not standardize this? This seems like an unnecessary conflict
between the VEKN tournament rules and the regular VTES rules. There would
be multiple ways to do this, and really it doesn't matter to me which way.
Just as long as it was standard? Would 40 card ultra thin decks be too
strong for predicitability? You'd trade knowing what you would draw for...
1st you could only play 8 masters, let you totally jam to oblivian.
2nd Figuring that you will draw 18% of your deck on turn 1, would you really
want to go that small? Figure you play 1 master a turn, 2 actions+1
modifier(combat or reaction), you can only sustain that for 8 turns.
If you came to a tournament, playing via VTES rules and only had a 50 card
deck, you cannot play....if you didn't know the errata for fame someone
would just point that out to you and you'd put it on the correct vampire.
Hmm..possible fix?
VTES RULEBOOK:
1.2.1.....Each player must have at least 12 cards in her crypt and at least
** 50** cards in her library. Each player may add up to 10 additional cards
to her library per **OTHER** player in the game. Thus, in a six-player game,
each player may have a minimum of **50** and a maximum of 100 cards in her
library.
VEKN TOURNAMENT RULES:
6.2 Standard Constructed decks must contain a minimum of **FIFTY** cards
and a maximum of ninety cards. The crypt must contain a minimum of twelve
cards
Tiny adjustment, to make them the same? Maybe 50 card decks would be only
slightly more predictiable then 60, but not as bad as 40??
Gene Wirchenko
>"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
[snip]
>> has no defined top then clearly I can't discard to the top of the
>> pile. One practical consequence of this is to encourage me to bury my
>> discards in the ash heap as I make them. If folk want to know what
>> they were, let 'em figure it out.
>
>Let them ask - sure. If you do this consistently at a tournament (attempting
>to hide public information), I'd be prone to correct you, if I were a judge.
What rule would you use? i.e. If there isn't one, the
"correction" would be in error.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
The Lasombra
news:3bbc9646...@news.ocis.net...
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> >"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> has no defined top then clearly I can't discard to the top of the
> >> pile. One practical consequence of this is to encourage me to bury my
> >> discards in the ash heap as I make them. If folk want to know what
> >> they were, let 'em figure it out.
> >
> >Let them ask - sure. If you do this consistently at a tournament (attempting
> >to hide public information), I'd be prone to correct you, if I were a judge.
>
> What rule would you use? i.e. If there isn't one, the
> "correction" would be in error.
Section 5.1 of the V:EKN Tournament Rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknRules.html
Misrepresenting public information
To start with. Hiding the card you discard can be interpreted as
misrepresenting public information.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
--
Posted from rr-163-54-80.atl.mediaone.net [24.163.54.80]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
....salem christ....
> The best way of shifting the balance of a CCG is by printing powerful
> new cards. That's what WW are doing in this area, trying to hose
> weenies with cards like Free States Rant and help elder vampires with
> cards like Zillah's Valley.
"powerful" in the right circumstances, and with appropriate costing,
though, of course.
>
> The focus of my idea was to make more of the discipline mix that you
> get with an elder vampire. This is hard to fully utilize as it stands
> because you can't keep enough cards for each discipline in your hand
> so that they are there when you need them. Maybe there should be more
> cards which increase your hand size like the Elder Library? But I've
> had another card idea which I worked out in the bath just now. Let's
personally, to make more of the larger vampire's discipline mix, i'd like
to see more cards that depend on _other_ vampires having or not having a
certain discipline.
like Kiss My Ra and Speed of Thought, and more recently Meat Hook.
Large vampires are more likely too have "off" disciplines that aren't
used in the deck the vampires are in, but could become useful if other
people are playing the right cards.
Pleasepleaseplease make more cards like these Mr. White-Wolf people.
just my two pool,
salem.
spinney99
> The best way of shifting the balance of a CCG is by printing powerful
> new cards. That's what WW are doing in this area, trying to hose
> weenies with cards like Free States Rant and help elder vampires with
> cards like Zillah's Valley.
>
> get with an elder vampire. This is hard to fully utilize as it stands
> because you can't keep enough cards for each discipline in your hand
> so that they are there when you need them. Maybe there should be more
> cards which increase your hand size like the Elder Library? But I've
> had another card idea which I worked out in the bath just now. Let's
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Title: Experience
> Type: Wild Minion (a new symbol - perhaps an asterisk)
> Cost: none
>
> Text: You may play a minion card from your ash heap as if it had been
> played from your hand. The card chosen may not be deeper in the ash
> heap than the capacity or life of the minion playing it and the card
> stays in that position unless it is put into play.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
how bout this instead, to try and end-run all the arguments that
deflected andrew's original (imho) GOOD IDEA (tm)???
> The focus of my idea was to make more of the discipline mix that you
> get with an elder vampire.
COMBAT EXPERIENCE
cost: free
card type: combat
text: choose a combat card in your ash heap that requires a
discipline. this is the only card requiring that discipline that you
may use in this combat, and if you have already used a card requiring
that discipline this combat, you may not use the chosen card. you
may use this card as if it is in your hand until the end of the
current combat. remove this chosen card from play at end of combat.
do not replace Combat Experience until after combat.
>
> Examples:
Hasina Kesi can abuse the card by grabbing the previously used
signpost. (but can't pump it with further potence cards.)
Gideon can truly abuse a majesty. (but then it's removed from the
game...)
but how does that compare with the abuse possible for the cardanos and
anguses of the dark world? how bout if they use lots of deals with
the devil, too?
and best of all, it doesn't require the (imho) extraneous "ordering"
of the ash heap.
==
or something a lot more thought-out along those lines... (lol)
-sporemage37
"some get broken, some get mended.
some can't surrender, they're too well-defended.
some get lucky, some are blessed, and some pretend...
that it's only a dance." -joni mitchell
Andrew S. Davidson
>> has no defined top then clearly I can't discard to the top of the
>> pile. One practical consequence of this is to encourage me to bury my
>> discards in the ash heap as I make them. If folk want to know what
>> they were, let 'em figure it out.
>
>Let them ask - sure. If you do this consistently at a tournament (attempting
>to hide public information), I'd be prone to correct you, if I were a judge.
If the ash heap no longer has a top card then this cannot be public
information. The rules do not require you to show your discards to
the other players as they do the cards that you play (1.6.1.1 & 8).
Indeed, I'm not allowed to show players my discard as this is not
sanctioned by the rules (just as I'm not allowed to show cards in my
hand).
The only public information is what's in your discard pile at any
given time. Players are free to examine this and draw their own
conclusions (so long as they don't take notes) but I'm not obliged to
supply details about how and when the cards got there. For one thing,
I might not remember myself.
My current practise is to say, "I'm discarding a card". This is
normally the cue for the next player to start taking his turn (to save
time). I will now bury the card in the middle of my ash heap. Once
it's there, it's anyone's guess as to what my discard was. This is a
logical consequence of your ruling and doesn't seem like a problem to
me. I've not come across any players who are actually interested in
my discards but would be pleased to frustrate them if they do exist.
Andrew
Halcyan 2
>normally the cue for the next player to start taking his turn (to save
>time). I will now bury the card in the middle of my ash heap. Once
>it's there, it's anyone's guess as to what my discard was. This is a
>logical consequence of your ruling and doesn't seem like a problem to
>me. I've not come across any players who are actually interested in
>my discards but would be pleased to frustrate them if they do exist.
I find it to be a common courtesy (and also a time saver) to have people
announce their discard (or instead of grabbing an ash heap across the table,
simply ask what they discarded). Similarly, whenever people move cards from
their graveyard (Carlotta, Whispers, Sargon, Reinforcements, WMO, Summon Soul,
etc.) even if it weren't required to announce things, it would be common
courtesy to do so. [Question, which I'll post at the bottom]. If you want to
play any such "trickery" such as hiding cards in your ash heap, then the rest
of us will be forced to constantly memorize the cards in your library (and
constantly searching through it). All of which can waste valuable game time
(both in and outside a tournament setting). Think of how much easier it would
be if everyone was open with such "public information."
[Question from above]: Although I *know* the answer to Carlotta and Whispers,
let me re-ask: in the following cases, does the Methusaleh have to announce
which card is being chosen from the graveyard?
(A) Carlotta, Whispers From the Dead, and Sargon Fragment (which as actions
move a card from ash heap to hand).
(B) Pochtli and Summon Soul (which as actions move cards from ash heap to
library)
(C) Waste Management Operation (isn't actually an action, so do you have to
"announce" the card?)
(D) Reinforcements (effect of the political action is to shuffle some ash heap
cards to library).
Thanks!
Halcyan 2
legbiter
> Andrew wrote:
> >>Pat's Giovanni newsletter contained his ideas on how to change the
> game to improve the balance between elder and neonate vampires.
> Whatever the merits of these ideas, the problem is that it involves
> changing the mechanics of the game and that's unsatisfactory.>>
>
> They were interesting ides for variant rules, which are often fun to read.
Agreed, also a meditation upon the way in which weenie-deck predators
can spoil their prey's day in a rather unsatisfactorily-random way.
Interesting and useful, i thought.
>
> >>I'm surprised The Lasombra's minions haven't been sent to chastise him for
> not following the party line.>>
>
> Nah. I'm here to chastise you for being a meddlesome troll who insists on
> making trouble when you don't even *like* this game. Andrew, why do you post
> here? Why do you read this stuff? You don't like this game. You find the basic
> mechanics (players getting removed from the game) distasteful. You don't like
> the errata. You don't like the art. You don't like the tournament rules. You
> don't like the non tournament rules. You think all the cards are broken. Why
> are you here?
Hehehe ... many's the time i've thought and said the same thing, near
enough.
However, i think all posts should be treated on their merits, and i
find this particular one from Andrew to be quite interesting. i don't
think it is fair to criticise him for thinking about the general rules
of card games, for thinking about new card concepts, and for trying to
apply ideas from other card games to VTES. And i think the basic idea
of making big, especially non-camarilla vampires, more playable, is a
highly laudable one. However, like Scott i foresee TERRIBLE trouble if
we bring Order to the Ash-heap. So, i suggest the following
modification of the idea:
Experience
Unique [?] Master, cost 1 pool
Play this card on a Vampire you control with a capacity greater than
7. Burn this card if this vampire goes to torpor. [If this card was
not to be a unique master, i think you would have to add "a vampire
can have only one experience card"].
Burn three blood from this vampire during an action to move a card
from your ash-heap and place it on this vampire. For the rest of the
current action, this vampire may play this card as if it had been
played from your hand. Remove this card from the game at the end of
the current action.
<snip>
James Coupe
>>to hide public information), I'd be prone to correct you, if I were a judge.
>
>If the ash heap no longer has a top card then this cannot be public
>information.
You do not have to ask which card is top; you ask to be informed what
card you are discarding which is public information.
LSJ
>
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> >"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> has no defined top then clearly I can't discard to the top of the
> >> pile. One practical consequence of this is to encourage me to bury my
> >> discards in the ash heap as I make them. If folk want to know what
> >> they were, let 'em figure it out.
> >
> >Let them ask - sure. If you do this consistently at a tournament (attempting
> >to hide public information), I'd be prone to correct you, if I were a judge.
>
> What rule would you use? i.e. If there isn't one, the
> "correction" would be in error.
Unsportsmanlike conduct or possibly Cheating-Fraud (if you're doing it to
mislead other players into thinking that the visible card is the one you've
just discarded).
Similar to hiding/camoflaging your pool total .
If you're doing it to make people ask, then it also qualifies as stalling.
Halcyan 2
>Unique [?] Master, cost 1 pool
>Play this card on a Vampire you control with a capacity greater than
>7. Burn this card if this vampire goes to torpor. [If this card was
>not to be a unique master, i think you would have to add "a vampire
>can have only one experience card"].
>Burn three blood from this vampire during an action to move a card
>from your ash-heap and place it on this vampire. For the rest of the
>current action, this vampire may play this card as if it had been
>played from your hand. Remove this card from the game at the end of
>the current action.
>
Does this mean that you can use that card as many times as you want during the
combat/action?
I think it might be scary if Etrius (or something other large vampire with
Thaumaturgy) used this new card and a single copy of Weather Control in the
graveyard. You block with Sir Walter Nash? Hmmm...Etrius burns 3 blood to be
able to play Weather Control, which he uses 8 times to send Mr. Nash into
torpor. And I taste back 7 of the blood...
A little blood intensive but not very card-intensive in the very least! =)
Or how about retrieving those Psyches!? An 8-cap with a Saturday Night Special
can Bum's Rush Arika. Manuever and shoot with gun. S:CE, Dodge, prevention, or
press to continue? Who cares? You'll run out soon. When there's no press to
end, you Psyche!, shoot for one with the gun and let combat end again. Keep
Psyche!'ing to your heart's content!
Similarly, an unlimited number of manuevers or presses might be a bit much.
Hmmm...I play this Trap card 100 times, so each round there are 100 presses to
continue... And with Form of the Ghost, Gleam of Red Eyes, or even just a Flash
you have an unlimited number of manuevers *and* presses. And a single Skin of
Rock is better than Skin of Steel, Flesh of Marble, and all any other damage
prevention card...
Halcyan 2
Andrew S. Davidson
>and for trying to apply ideas from other card games to VTES.
You're the second person to say something like this. This card idea
was not inspired by any other card game. To template it, I went to
the Reality Mirror card text.
>Experience
>Unique [?] Master, cost 1 pool
>Play this card on a Vampire you control with a capacity greater than
>7. Burn this card if this vampire goes to torpor. [If this card was
>not to be a unique master, i think you would have to add "a vampire
>can have only one experience card"].
>Burn three blood from this vampire during an action to move a card
>from your ash-heap and place it on this vampire. For the rest of the
>current action, this vampire may play this card as if it had been
>played from your hand. Remove this card from the game at the end of
>the current action.
This is loaded down with so many costs and restrictions that I'm not
convinced that anyone would play it. And it would do little to tilt
the weenie/elder balance. What's needed is something like Wake which
is mostly cost-free.
Your idea of giving the card to the vampire for a while is close to
the variant idea which I've been toying with for some time. In other
WoD games, as in real life, it's easy to do something again once you
know how to do it. A vampire with the Celerity discipline can move
quickly by spending some blood and can keep this up as long as they
have blood to burn. In the CCG, you not only have to have the
Celerity discipline, you also have to have a celerity card too. It's
this that makes it hard for the elder vampires to utilize all their
disciplines - they don't have access to any more cards than a weenie
and the hand/deck limits are too small to support more than a couple
of disciplines.
Your Happy Families variant touches on this but constrains elder
vampires rather than empowering them. My thought was that, once a
vampire uses a discipline card, it clearly knows that particular power
and so should be able to keep using it. To reflect this, a discipline
card could be kept by a vampire after it has been played. It could
then be used again in a subsequent turn but would be tapped each time
it is used, to prevent overuse. To reflect the age and experience of
the elder vampires, a vampire would only be able to retain as many
discipline cards as its capacity. You'd have limits for each
discipline too - one retained card for inferior know-how, two retained
cards for superior.
For example, Aaron Duggan has capacity 2 but only has inferior
knowledge of Obtenebration. He can only master one standard move then
- Blanket of Night say. Lucita, however, has "cel DOM FOR OBT pot"
and a matching capacity of 8. When she's fully loaded, she'll be
spoilt for choice, having eight standard moves to use each turn.
Now this idea flows mainly from thinking about the differences between
the Vampire CCG and RPG but there are other CCGs which have mechanics
like this. For example, Doomtown has power and spell cards which are
played onto characters with appropriate disciplines. They can only
use each power once per turn and this is indicated by tapping it.
That game doesn't have the capacity concept though and so one weenie
spellcaster can be loaded up with lots of spells and that's rather
broken.
Anyway, my vision for Vampire is of a mighty Prince being kitted out
with a repertoire of discipline cards which he can use again and again
- his Modus Operandi, you might say. This ought to mesh fairly well
with the Happy Families concept which would help ensure that a
balanced mix of discipline cards was used.
The downside is that it might help weenies just as much - all they may
need is to learn one good trick. And it would further undermine the
cost effectiveness of equipment and retainers. Hmm...
Andrew
Flux
> Celerity discipline, you also have to have a celerity card too. It's
> this that makes it hard for the elder vampires to utilize all their
> disciplines - they don't have access to any more cards than a weenie
> and the hand/deck limits are too small to support more than a couple
> of disciplines.
That is an interesting observation, maybe what we should look for is ways to
increase your hand size/recycle cards according to your minion's capacity?
Elder Knowledge
Political Action, worth 1 vote, etc... [Or maybe do this as an action? I
wouldn't want to limit this to political decks, though you're likely to have
the support of all Elder decks, and so it should be an easy vote to pass]
Each Methuselah chooses one vampire he controls. If vote is successful each
Meth's hand size is changed by (vamp's capacity - 5), and no more Elder
Knowledge can be played in this game [so if the vote fails you can try
again].
I see one serious problem with this as it is, but I'll wait for comments
before proposing a solution. :-)
Ancient Precognition
+1 stealth Action(?)
1 blood
Only usable by a vampire with capacity above 6.
If this action is successful, put this card on the acting minion and untap
him at the end of your turn. If the vampire with this card is ready during
your untap phase, you can look at the top 2 cards in your library. Once each
turn, this vampire can burn 1 blood to increase your hand size by 1 until
the end of the turn.
Experience
Master
2 pool (?)
Chooses one vampire you control. Choose a number of cards in your Ash Heap
equal to (half?) that vampire's capacity and shuffle those cards back into
your library. Remove this card from the game afterwards.
Put all of those with together with The Barrens/DotS/etc and you can get an
Elder deck flowing much better.
<snip>
> The downside is that it might help weenies just as much - all they may
> need is to learn one good trick. And it would further undermine the
> cost effectiveness of equipment and retainers. Hmm...
Right, permanent effects are currently represented mainly by Equipment and
Retainers, while transient cards often have a better effect. Turning
transients into permanents would not only make equipments obsolete, it would
also easily break the game.
Flux
The Lasombra
> Elder Knowledge
> Political Action, worth 1 vote, etc... [Or maybe do this as an action? I
> wouldn't want to limit this to political decks, though you're likely to have
> the support of all Elder decks, and so it should be an easy vote to pass]
> Each Methuselah chooses one vampire he controls. If vote is successful each
> Meth's hand size is changed by (vamp's capacity - 5), and no more Elder
> Knowledge can be played in this game [so if the vote fails you can try
> again].
>
> I see one serious problem with this as it is, but I'll wait for comments
> before proposing a solution. :-)
As you haven't defined changed, I will choose to change my hand size
exponentially. 7^5 = 16807. Even 7^2 would work for me. I don't think
making someone lose hand size while others gain hand size is a workable
concept. See the limits on Jan Pieterzoon or Aggressive Tactics for example.
> Ancient Precognition
> +1 stealth Action(?)
> 1 blood
> Only usable by a vampire with capacity above 6.
> If this action is successful, put this card on the acting minion and untap
> him at the end of your turn. If the vampire with this card is ready during
> your untap phase, you can look at the top 2 cards in your library. Once each
> turn, this vampire can burn 1 blood to increase your hand size by 1 until
> the end of the turn.
Why use Christanius Lionel, The Mad Chronicler or Cassandra, Magus Prime
at all then?
Although I know of a potence based deck that used both, and the Elder Library
and Dreams of the Sphinx to regularly have a 12 card hand size.
Alternately, each of my Tzimisce take this action, untap at the end of the
turn,
and next turn I have +3-4 hand size and can look at the next two cards.
Why should I play with Visit from the Capuchin?
> Experience
> Master
> 2 pool (?)
> Chooses one vampire you control. Choose a number of cards in your Ash Heap
> equal to (half?) that vampire's capacity and shuffle those cards back into
> your library. Remove this card from the game afterwards.
Why should I pay 2 pool when I can play Reinforcements and get 3 back
as well as give three cards back to my cross table ally?
> Put all of those with together with The Barrens/DotS/etc and you can get an
> Elder deck flowing much better.
Maybe so. Playtest it and see.
Pat Ricochet
> with a repertoire of discipline cards which he can use again and again
> - his Modus Operandi, you might say. This ought to mesh fairly well
> with the Happy Families concept which would help ensure that a
> balanced mix of discipline cards was used.
This seems like an interesting tack for RE-designing the game, actually.
But, as pointed out elsewhere, transients are so much more powerful that
turning transients into permanents would break the game.
Add to that those "perfect combos" stacked on a vampire, and you can
have chilling results; you only need the combo cards in hand once. Illiana
can Restore, Force of Will, Day Operation, Conditioning, Move Slowly, Heal
Rapidly, all with Earth Control and Rapid Change if needed. If the opposing
prey didn't bring intercept, they're hosed. The "perfect rush" would suck,
too, killing a vamp every turn, period. About all that keeps Rush in check,
really, in hand-jam, not Fortitude.
> The downside is that it might help weenies just as much - all they may
> need is to learn one good trick. And it would further undermine the
> cost effectiveness of equipment and retainers. Hmm...
Another idea that I've had fits Andrew's initial suggestion: just print
more powerful cards. It'd be interesting to see cards whose effects are
based upon the *difference* in capacities between two vampires. An obvious
one being something like
Elder Power
1 blood
Only usable when the opposing minion is a younger vampire.
Strike: Strength + X damage, where X is the half the difference in
capacities between the two combatants, rounded down.
This is a somewhat "watered down" version of the V:TES variant rules
that Andrew mentioned (which gives +X strength and/or +X bleed to all
vampires, where X is half their capacity, rounded up, i.e. Arika hits for 7
and bleeds for 9, or something like that. It was pre-DS, obviously), but
doesn't have the 5-caps hitting back as hard. Course, this card only makes
combat stronger for bigger vamps, and that hardly fixes the game.
What is really needed are cards like Eternal Vigilance, Freak Drive,
Wake, etc, that Elder vampires can use to be more effective per minion. I'm
a big fan of "older," "younger," and if you can work it in "difference in
capacities."
An interesting errata to 2nd Tradition would be:
The Second Tradition: Domain
Requires a Prince or Justicar. Usable by a tapped Prince or Justicar.
Untap and attempt to block a vampire of the same age or younger, with +X
intercept, where X is the half the difference in capacities between the two
vampires, rounded down.
Note the boon to allies, which have the sense to go about their business
during the day, while the Elder Master sleeps. But the point being that you
don't go telling your Elders "Not in MY backyard!" so easily, either out of
your fear or their experience in Masquerading.
--
Pat Ricochet
Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta
Andrew S. Davidson
>That is an interesting observation, maybe what we should look for is ways to
>increase your hand size/recycle cards according to your minion's capacity?
Yes, that'd be good. A while ago, I suggested that your hand size
should be equal to the capacity of your oldest minion. That would be
a simple rule change but it's interesting to see your ideas for new
cards which do this.
>Elder Knowledge
>Each Methuselah chooses one vampire he controls. If vote is successful each
>Meth's hand size is changed by (vamp's capacity - 5), and no more Elder
>Knowledge can be played in this game
The problem with this is that a weenie deck might call an early vote
to constrict everyone's hand. The player who is still bringing out
Arika finds that they now have a hand size of 2. Oops!
>Experience
>Master
>2 pool (?)
>Chooses one vampire you control. Choose a number of cards in your Ash Heap
>equal to (half?) that vampire's capacity and shuffle those cards back into
>your library. Remove this card from the game afterwards.
That's quite nice but is a late game card which doesn't really help
you against the weenie speed which Pat was complaining about.
Andrew
LSJ
>
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2001 14:10:24 +0100, Flux wrote:
>
> >That is an interesting observation, maybe what we should look for is ways to
> >increase your hand size/recycle cards according to your minion's capacity?
>
> Yes, that'd be good. A while ago, I suggested that your hand size
> should be equal to the capacity of your oldest minion. That would be
> a simple rule change but it's interesting to see your ideas for new
> cards which do this.
That sounds like a fun idea, actually - everyone starts with no cards
in hand (no minions). Then, when you influence your first vampire
out, you draw his capacity in cards from your library.
Have to change the 'set-hand-size' card (Aura Reading) to say +2 instead
of 9 (and restrict the superior to one per combat), but otherwise the change
shouldn't cause any problems.
May also have to worry about "virtual" vampires (Illusions of Kindred),
but I don't think that that would cause too much trouble.
Recommend counting torporous vampires as well - to avoid thrashing your hand
when you bounce around torpor. Perhaps only check/set hand size during your own
untap to hold this in check as well.
Have you ever tested this variant?
How'd it go?
Halcyan 2
>in hand (no minions). Then, when you influence your first vampire
>out, you draw his capacity in cards from your library.
I also agree that it's an interesting rules variant but wouldn't it hurt elder
decks even more (which Andrew was just complaining about)?
Since you don't draw any cards until you influence out a vampire, that means
you can't readily use Information Highway, Tomb of Ramses, OR Zillah's Valley.
So no more first turn Anson or Gratiano and no more second turn IC member...
Halcyan 2
LSJ
>
> >That sounds like a fun idea, actually - everyone starts with no cards
> >in hand (no minions). Then, when you influence your first vampire
> >out, you draw his capacity in cards from your library.
>
> I also agree that it's an interesting rules variant but wouldn't it hurt elder
> decks even more (which Andrew was just complaining about)?
I don't think so. The weenies that pounded you so soundly before now have a
2 or 3-card hand (and no 1st turn Info Hwy or Effective Management). While
the elder decks have a full hand (and more) starting with the third or
fourth turn. The amount of damage a weenie deck can do with a 2-card hand
in 3 or 4 turns is greatly reduced, I think.
> Since you don't draw any cards until you influence out a vampire, that means
> you can't readily use Information Highway, Tomb of Ramses, OR Zillah's Valley.
> So no more first turn Anson or Gratiano and no more second turn IC member...
Yeah. So you still start slowly (like usual). But now you acquire a big
advantage for doing so - a 4+ card differential in your hand size.
Curevei
>vampire uses a discipline card, it clearly knows that particular power
>and so should be able to keep using it. To reflect this, a discipline
>card could be kept by a vampire after it has been played. It could
>then be used again in a subsequent turn but would be tapped each time
>it is used, to prevent overuse. To reflect the age and experience of
>the elder vampires, a vampire would only be able to retain as many
>discipline cards as its capacity. You'd have limits for each
>discipline too - one retained card for inferior know-how, two retained
>cards for superior.
>
Flashback. For those who don't follow Magic, it's one of Odyssey's mechanics.
You cast a spell, it goes to your graveyard (so far, same old, same old), with
Flashback, it can be cast out of your graveyard and is then removed from the
game. Get two uses out of one card.
I could see an attempt to adapt such a mechanic to V:TES. Several different
ways to go from putting "rememberance counters" on vampires limited by capacity
to ensure that it helps larger vamps more and that you can only do it so many
times to having such cards be weaker than similar cards to having them only
Flashback when used (icky, probably a rules mess) by a vamp of a certain
capacity.
Alternatively, could use a mechanic common in DBZ, that of a card hanging
around to be played another time. For example:
Combat
Celerity
C = 1
Inf: Maneuver or Press
Sup: Maneuver with an optitional Press
If played by a vampire with capacity above X, put this card on the vampire.
The vampire with this card may burn this card to use its effects as if it were
played from hand.
Course, better would be to come up with a nifty short cut term so that the text
at the end could be simplified or converted to reminder text.
Gene Wirchenko
>"Gene Wirchenko" <ge...@mail.ocis.net> wrote in message
>news:3bbc9646...@news.ocis.net...
>
>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> has no defined top then clearly I can't discard to the top of the
>> >> pile. One practical consequence of this is to encourage me to bury my
>> >> discards in the ash heap as I make them. If folk want to know what
>> >> they were, let 'em figure it out.
>> >
>> >Let them ask - sure. If you do this consistently at a tournament (attempting
>> >to hide public information), I'd be prone to correct you, if I were a judge.
>>
>> What rule would you use? i.e. If there isn't one, the
>> "correction" would be in error.
>
>Section 5.1 of the V:EKN Tournament Rules:
>http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknRules.html
>
>Misrepresenting public information
>
>
>To start with. Hiding the card you discard can be interpreted as
>misrepresenting public information.
How? If you're assuming that there is an order to the ashheap,
maybe, but LSJ says otherwise.
No, I'm not going to do such a thing, but how do you reply to
someone adding an arbitrary? You ask for chapter and verse in the
rules. If there isn't actually such a rule, you're out of luck.
Sincerely,
Gene wirchenko
James Coupe
<ge...@mail.ocis.net> writes
>>Misrepresenting public information
>>
>>
>>To start with. Hiding the card you discard can be interpreted as
>>misrepresenting public information.
>
> How?
What you do during your turn is done publicly. What you discard is
Peter D Bakija
>>However, i think all posts should be treated on their merits, and i
find this particular one from Andrew to be quite interesting.>>
Oh, I certainly wasn't criticising him for talking about variant rules. I was
criticising him for his penchant of showing up and saying inflamitory, snarky
things for no good reason, towards people who have done him no harm ("I'm
surprised The Lasombra's minions haven't been sent to chastise him for not
following the party line."). I found his discussion of the actual game in this
context to be rather interesting.
>>i don't think it is fair to criticise him for thinking about the general
rules
of card games, for thinking about new card concepts, and for trying to
apply ideas from other card games to VTES.>>
Oh, I agree--I think Andrew is an intelligent guy who often has very
interesting things to say. I'm on the Shadowfist listserve with him, and I find
his posts there to be some of the most interesting/intelligent ones ('cause, ya
know, he likes *that* game). However, in this forum, he seems to fancy himself
some sort of objective critic who is here to point out our contradictions and
foibles or something, and often he makes completely off base, if not downright
inflamitory, comments, just 'cause he likes to troll.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
http://www.geocities.com/bakija6
"The Ramones are more important than the Solar System."
-Sean Finnerty
Flux
The Lasombra <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ae4cfcaa2ad7d0fb8b...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:3bbd...@212.18.160.197...
> > Elder Knowledge
> > Political Action, worth 1 vote, etc... [Or maybe do this as an action? I
> > wouldn't want to limit this to political decks, though you're likely to
have
> > the support of all Elder decks, and so it should be an easy vote to
pass]
> > Each Methuselah chooses one vampire he controls. If vote is successful
each
> > Meth's hand size is changed by (vamp's capacity - 5), and no more Elder
> > Knowledge can be played in this game [so if the vote fails you can try
> > again].
> >
> > I see one serious problem with this as it is, but I'll wait for comments
> > before proposing a solution. :-)
>
> As you haven't defined changed, I will choose to change my hand size
> exponentially. 7^5 = 16807. Even 7^2 would work for me. I don't think
> making someone lose hand size while others gain hand size is a workable
> concept. See the limits on Jan Pieterzoon or Aggressive Tactics for
example.
Just 'increase hand size by...' then (a negative increase would be treated
as 0)
The worst problem I was thinking of was someone calling this has an early
vote and screwing everyone else. Limiting this to 'increase' would work, but
another solution would be to have it limited to titled vampires.
Another idea would be to have a 'timer' on it, limiting it's effect to a few
turns (2 maybe?).
> > Ancient Precognition
> > +1 stealth Action(?)
> > 1 blood
> > Only usable by a vampire with capacity above 6.
> > If this action is successful, put this card on the acting minion and
untap
> > him at the end of your turn. If the vampire with this card is ready
during
> > your untap phase, you can look at the top 2 cards in your library. Once
each
> > turn, this vampire can burn 1 blood to increase your hand size by 1
until
> > the end of the turn.
>
> Why use Christanius Lionel, The Mad Chronicler or Cassandra, Magus Prime
> at all then?
Why not use all? :-)
It would be nice to have a similar effect available to other vampires/clans.
> Although I know of a potence based deck that used both, and the Elder
Library
> and Dreams of the Sphinx to regularly have a 12 card hand size.
>
> Alternately, each of my Tzimisce take this action, untap at the end of the
> turn,
> and next turn I have +3-4 hand size and can look at the next two cards.
My first thought was to make it 'look at next card during untap and burn 1
blood to draw it', but I got mixed up on the wording and wrote this version
down instead. Probably my first idea would be more balanced...
Ancient Precognition
Action
1 blood
Only usable by a vampire with capacity above 6.
If this action is successful, put this card on the acting minion and untap
him at the end of your turn. If the vampire with this card is ready during
your untap phase, you can look at the top card in your library. This vampire
can burn 1 blood during your untap phase to increase your hand size by 1
until the end of your turn.
I think the 'untap at end of turn' effect would be important for any action
to benefit elder vampires because of the limited number of actions they have
to work with (compared with weenie decks).
> Why should I play with Visit from the Capuchin?
Because it's a Master instead of a (blockable) Action, and because you might
want to save your vampires some blood.
> > Experience
> > Master
> > 2 pool (?)
> > Choose one vampire you control. Choose a number of cards in your Ash
Heap
> > equal to (half?) that vampire's capacity and shuffle those cards back
into
> > your library. Remove this card from the game afterwards.
>
> Why should I pay 2 pool when I can play Reinforcements and get 3 back
> as well as give three cards back to my cross table ally?
2 pool might be more apropriate for a full capacity recycle, 1 pool for half
capacity.
Anyway, Reinforcements is a Political Action, hence vulnerable to intercept,
Delaying Tactics and opposing votes, while this is a Master card that can
only be countered by SD.
> > Put all of those with together with The Barrens/DotS/etc and you can get
an
> > Elder deck flowing much better.
>
>
> Maybe so. Playtest it and see.
I just might (try to) do that... :-)
Flux
Gene Wirchenko
>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> has no defined top then clearly I can't discard to the top of the
>> >> pile. One practical consequence of this is to encourage me to bury my
>> >> discards in the ash heap as I make them. If folk want to know what
>> >> they were, let 'em figure it out.
>> >
>> >Let them ask - sure. If you do this consistently at a tournament (attempting
>> >to hide public information), I'd be prone to correct you, if I were a judge.
>>
>> What rule would you use? i.e. If there isn't one, the
>> "correction" would be in error.
>
>Unsportsmanlike conduct or possibly Cheating-Fraud (if you're doing it to
>mislead other players into thinking that the visible card is the one you've
>just discarded).
>
>Similar to hiding/camoflaging your pool total .
>
>If you're doing it to make people ask, then it also qualifies as stalling.
Thank you.
I don't like situations where an abuse is being done is within
the letter of rules but not the intent.
Gene Wirchenko
>"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2001 14:10:24 +0100, Flux wrote:
>>
>> >That is an interesting observation, maybe what we should look for is ways to
>> >increase your hand size/recycle cards according to your minion's capacity?
>>
>> Yes, that'd be good. A while ago, I suggested that your hand size
>> should be equal to the capacity of your oldest minion. That would be
>> a simple rule change but it's interesting to see your ideas for new
>> cards which do this.
>
>That sounds like a fun idea, actually - everyone starts with no cards
>in hand (no minions). Then, when you influence your first vampire
>out, you draw his capacity in cards from your library.
If that isn't enough, borrow a house rule I made up for Talisman.
Some Talisman characters always have spells. To avoid them just
running through the spell deck, I came up only allowing a player to
play as many spell cards in a turn as he had at the beginning of the
turn. In VTES, how about:
A player may only play as many cards in a turn as his hand size
at the start of his turn.
Note this would not stop a player from playing cards drawn that
turn.
[snip]
Andrew S. Davidson
>>> What rule would you use? i.e. If there isn't one, the
>>> "correction" would be in error.
>>
>>Unsportsmanlike conduct or possibly Cheating-Fraud (if you're doing it to
>>mislead other players into thinking that the visible card is the one you've
>>just discarded).
>>
>>Similar to hiding/camoflaging your pool total .
>>
>>If you're doing it to make people ask, then it also qualifies as stalling.
>
> Thank you.
>
> I don't like situations where an abuse is being done is within
>the letter of rules but not the intent.
It's LSJ that's abusing the rules. If I bury my discard, I'm not
doing it to mislead or to waste time. I might even be saving time by
placing the card directly into its sort position. If folk want to
riffle through my ash pile to try to deduce it, they are the ones
wasting time - they have no need to know this.
What you can't cite is a rule that says I should show players my
discards - there isn't one. You have explicitly have to show the
card that you play (1.6.1.1). There is no such stipulation for the
cards that you discard and so the legal maxim "the exception proves
the rule for the unexcepted cases" applies.
Your discards are nobody's business but your own. That's the way that
folk usually play in my experience and it is not a problem. It's the
folk that do things like look at your ash heap that are unsporting
time-wasters, IMO.
Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>I don't think so. The weenies that pounded you so soundly before now have a
>2 or 3-card hand (and no 1st turn Info Hwy or Effective Management). While
>the elder decks have a full hand (and more) starting with the third or
>fourth turn. The amount of damage a weenie deck can do with a 2-card hand
>in 3 or 4 turns is greatly reduced, I think.
I'm not sure that it slows the weenie deck down that much. Pat's
benchmark weenie deck seemed to have nothing but 1-caps, Effective
Management and Computer Hacking. With a 1-card hand, the Effective
Managements are going to keep jamming up but including some 2/3 cap
vampires in the mix might ease the flow enough to make it work much
the same. These can be the focus of counter-strikes by the other deck
though and that may be enough to take the edge off the assault.
I'd expect most crypts to include a good proportion of mid-range
vampires so that you could bootstrap your hand quickly. But I've not
tried it.
Andrew
LSJ
>
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 20:04:51 GMT, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
> >>> What rule would you use? i.e. If there isn't one, the
> >>> "correction" would be in error.
> >>
> >>Unsportsmanlike conduct or possibly Cheating-Fraud (if you're doing it to
> >>mislead other players into thinking that the visible card is the one you've
> >>just discarded).
> >>
> >>Similar to hiding/camoflaging your pool total .
> >>
> >>If you're doing it to make people ask, then it also qualifies as stalling.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > I don't like situations where an abuse is being done is within
> >the letter of rules but not the intent.
>
> It's LSJ that's abusing the rules. If I bury my discard, I'm not
> doing it to mislead or to waste time.
You may care to re-read my statement to find out what I said.
> I might even be saving time by
> placing the card directly into its sort position.
Then announce it.
> If folk want to
> riffle through my ash pile to try to deduce it, they are the ones
> wasting time - they have no need to know this.
Yes, they do.
> What you can't cite is a rule that says I should show players my
> discards - there isn't one. You have explicitly have to show the
> card that you play (1.6.1.1). There is no such stipulation for the
> cards that you discard and so the legal maxim "the exception proves
> the rule for the unexcepted cases" applies.
... and you only draw to replace cards "played" [1.6.1.2]
( and the card dicarded during your discard phase [8]). It
seems clear that both of these rules [1.6.1.1] and [1.6.1.2]
are mis-using the term "play" for any card leaving your hand.
I'll clarify 1.6.1.1 and 1.6.1.2 for the next release of the rules.
> Your discards are nobody's business but your own.
Not true.
> That's the way that
> folk usually play in my experience and it is not a problem.
That's not the way that folk usually play in my experience.
Announcing your discards is not a problem.
> It's the
> folk that do things like look at your ash heap that are unsporting
> time-wasters, IMO.
While repeadedly looking thorugh someon's ash heap to waste time
would be stalling, doing so to discover a player's hidden discards
would not be (although the hidden discarder *is* wasting time
by forcing the other playes to look through her ash heap after
every discard).
Peter D Bakija
>>Your discards are nobody's business but your own.>>
Incorrect. Your ash heap is public information. You can announce the card you
discard when you discard it to save everyone time, or you can not worry about
it when people look in your ash heap.
>>That's the way that folk usually play in my experience and it is not a
problem.>>
In my experience, folks say "Hey--what did you just discard?", and someone
tells them, which is also not a problem.
>>It's the folk that do things like look at your ash heap that are unsporting
time-wasters, IMO.>>
Spending an inordinate amount of time sorting through someone's ash heap falls
under the rubric of "stalling". On the other hand, playing such that your ash
heap is public knowledge, and allowing people to know what you discarded is
playing the game by the rules.
Andrew S. Davidson
>You may care to re-read my statement to find out what I said.
I just did so and saw nothing more. What's your point?
>Then announce it.
No thanks. I'm not saying anything if players like you are going to
make bogus accusations of misrepresentation. I'll just take the 5th.
Amendment, that is, not Tradition <grin>.
>Yes, they do.
What need? It tells them nothing and verifies nothing. It just
wastes time and that's why most players don't do it.
>... and you only draw to replace cards "played" [1.6.1.2]
>( and the card dicarded during your discard phase [8]). It
>seems clear that both of these rules [1.6.1.1] and [1.6.1.2]
>are mis-using the term "play" for any card leaving your hand.
That's not a big hole because rule 8 explicitly says that you draw to
replace the card that you discarded. There is a problem with cards
like The Barrens though. But you'd better not just say that you
immediately replace cards that you discard (like the original Jyhad
rulebook did). You'll be in trouble with cards that make you discard
down to your hand size like Al's Army Apparatus. That would turn them
into a fast way of emptying your library.
>While repeadedly looking through someon's ash heap to waste time
>would be stalling, doing so to discover a player's hidden discards
>would not be (although the hidden discarder *is* wasting time
>by forcing the other playes to look through her ash heap after
>every discard).
Nonsense. The discarder isn't forcing the other players to do
anything. Consider this. The VEKN rules assert that a player has the
right to know how many cards are in your deck. Does this mean that
you have to announce the figure at every opportunity to save them the
time and trouble of figuring it out for themselves? It's absurd. If
they want to know then they can do it themselves. I'm not going to
keep a running count and be accused of providing misinformation if I
get it wrong. Now that's something that is specifically listed as
public information. The identity of discards is not.
An even better example is pool. Keeping track of pool totals is quite
important both for strategic reasons and to check that players are
paying costs correctly. In practise, this is not made easy. There is
no standardisation of the tokens or units used for this and players
usually maintain their own private bank rather than a communal bank as
the rules specify. And they resist suggestions that they should
follow the rules (I've tried). Players don't announce their pool
expenditures or totals - they just leave it to you to count their heap
of tokens across the table. Are they wasting time by "making you
ask"?
Now this is important because players do make errors. It appears to
be common for players to forget to take pool for the Edge (because
this is another game component that is laughably non-standard). I
myself sometimes make slips like putting blood costs into my pool
rather than my private bank and so wouldn't be surprised if others do
too. If I was playing in a really serious game, I might want to track
everyone's pool total on a notepad, as Magic players track life
totals. This would probably slow the game down quite a bit but the
VEKN rules allow me to do this, right?
So, if you want to regulate play further, start where it matters.
Discards aren't important. Pool is. Improve the rules in this area
and make everyone follow them before you hassle me about trivia.
Andrew
Halcyan 2
>make bogus accusations of misrepresentation. I'll just take the 5th.
>Amendment, that is, not Tradition <grin>.
(Could be wrong but...) I thought you lived in the U.K. Andrew?
Halcyan 2
LSJ
>
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 05:20:32 -0400, LSJ wrote:
>
> >You may care to re-read my statement to find out what I said.
>
> I just did so and saw nothing more. What's your point?
You took my two "if" points and said that they weren't true
and therefore I was breaking the rules. But you failed to acknowledge
the thrid (non-"if") point, which still holds and upon which I was
basing the ruling.
> >... and you only draw to replace cards "played" [1.6.1.2]
> >( and the card dicarded during your discard phase [8]). It
> >seems clear that both of these rules [1.6.1.1] and [1.6.1.2]
> >are mis-using the term "play" for any card leaving your hand.
>
> That's not a big hole because rule 8 explicitly says that you draw to
> replace the card that you discarded.
Very good. As I said above.
> There is a problem with cards
> like The Barrens though. But you'd better not just say that you
> immediately replace cards that you discard (like the original Jyhad
> rulebook did). You'll be in trouble with cards that make you discard
> down to your hand size like Al's Army Apparatus. That would turn them
> into a fast way of emptying your library.
Sure.
> >While repeadedly looking through someon's ash heap to waste time
> >would be stalling, doing so to discover a player's hidden discards
> >would not be (although the hidden discarder *is* wasting time
> >by forcing the other playes to look through her ash heap after
> >every discard).
>
> Nonsense. The discarder isn't forcing the other players to do
> anything.
Deliberately obscuring public information is unsportsmalike conduct,
as I've noted already.
Pat Ricochet
> What need? It tells them nothing and verifies nothing. It just
> wastes time and that's why most players don't do it.
From my experience, most players do, especially at tournaments. In
fact, I've known many players, myself included, to avoid discarding a card
into order to avoid announcing a deck's capability. A perfect example is
not discarding a Conditioning out of your hand when you're playing, say,
Assamites, even though one of your vamps has Dominate -- people don't expect
it, but the discard brings attention to the possibility.
Also, I've known people not to discard early on, just to keep people
guessing. Bringing out Normal and discarding Disguised Weapon is very
different than discarding Lost in Crowds.
Of course, an extremely subtle player might put in one copy of Dragon's
Breath Rounds, but no guns, just so they can ostentatiously discard it
during the game, just to scare the other players into avoiding combat. =)
GreySeer
news:B7E72668.7D31%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu...
Never understimate the intimidation factor of discarding cards. Quite often,
when you discard, ppl assume you are discarding because you have too many of
it in your hand. Discard the only conditioning in your hand when you've got
a hand full of combat, when they block, fearful of the other one you've
supposedly got in your hand, proceed to beat the bejezus out of them.
Lack of information is dangerous but disinformation is the real killer.
GreySeer
the card is not pratical. I agree with the nay-sayers only because maintaining a
strictly ordered ash heap would be a pain in the butt, esp in tournaments where
ppl would get anal about ash heap order. I suggest that you change the mechanic
of the card, maybe something like this.
Title: Experience
Type: Combat
Cost: 1 blood
Text: You may play a combat card from your ash heap as if it had been played
from your hand. When that card is burned, remove it from the game.
The cost makes it prohibitive for weenies. Or your could make it require a
minion of X capacity. Removing the card from the game and restricting it to
combat cards makes it less powerful.
Another suggestion:
Title: Experience
Type: Combat
Cost: 0
Text: Only playable by a minion that does not have experience counters equal to
or in excess of it's capacity. You may play a combat card from your ash heap as
if it had been played from your hand. When that card is burned, remove it from
the game. Place an experience counter on this vampire.
Same as above but a change in the mechanics of how it makes this card
prohibitive for weenies.
[snip]
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Title: Experience
> Type: Wild Minion (a new symbol - perhaps an asterisk)
> Cost: none
>
> Text: You may play a minion card from your ash heap as if it had been
> played from your hand. The card chosen may not be deeper in the ash
> heap than the capacity or life of the minion playing it and the card
> stays in that position unless it is put into play.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Example: Gwendolyn is in combat with a Gangrel and it's not going
> well. She would really like to use her superior Fortitude but,
> because she's in a Brujah deck, she doesn't have a Fortitude card in
> hand. Reaching back through her long memory, she goes back into the
> ash heap to find the Skin Of Night that she remembers using in the
> past. It's only 7 cards down and her capacity is 11 so she can play
> it to avoid going to torpor from the Gangrel's aggravated damage. The
> Skin of Night stays where is and, with the Experience card added to
> the pile, is now 8 cards down.
>
> The Experience card wouldn't be much use to a weenie deck. These
> typically just use one discipline and their capacity is so low that
> they might as well just use more copies of the cards they want instead
> of this one. But a player using a high capacity vampire can get a lot
> more out of it. That vampire has access to many more minion cards
> and, the older it is, the more chance it has of finding that special
> discipline card that it needs.
>
> The card is self-limiting. If you play several of them then they will
> fill up the top of the ash heap and so push the real minion cards
> deeper into the ash heap. And if you have too many Experience cards
> in your deck, you'll have trouble finding real minion cards to reuse.
>
> It is designed to be a staple like Wake with Evening's Freshness - a
> card that you'd expect to see in many decks. It would thus shift
> change the metagame in favour of elder vampires without any change to
> the game mechanics.
>
> One might object to this being a new card type though. I can't see
> this being a problem - players can react to the card that's being
> replayed rather than this one. But, if an existing type is needed,
> you could say that this card has the type of the card that it is
> replaying, just as Reality Mirror is a combat card whose effect is to
> replay another combat card.
>
> Andrew
Andrew S. Davidson
>Never understimate the intimidation factor of discarding cards. Quite often,
>when you discard, ppl assume you are discarding because you have too many of
>it in your hand. Discard the only conditioning in your hand when you've got
>a hand full of combat, when they block, fearful of the other one you've
>supposedly got in your hand, proceed to beat the bejezus out of them.
That's why the discards are not significant. If you see someone discard
a card, does it mean that he has more in hand or none? You don't know.
This was one of the arguments in favour of NCL - that it stopped players
being able to count cards and use the information against you.
Andrew
James Coupe
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
>That's why the discards are not significant. If you see someone discard
>a card, does it mean that he has more in hand or none? You don't know.
That doesn't meant it isn't significant, however.
No, you cannot be sure that they don't have more of them, or that they
do, or whatever, but you can start using it as a useful guide to play-
style.
What are you discarding? For instance, can I see that you apparently
have a glut on stealth at the moment? Or are you discarding Majesty
like the clappers?
Are you discarding at all? Is this indicative of a poor playing style,
an excellent hand or what? I may need to assimilate this to judge the
calibre of a player.
What aren't you discarding? Well, that interesting Presence deck over
there hasn't seen a single Majesty in, oh, 20 cards - including
discards. Would now be a good time for a rush? Or are you just saving
them up.
>This was one of the arguments in favour of NCL - that it stopped players
>being able to count cards and use the information against you.
An argument, perhaps. You can't just sit there and work out "Oh, he's
played 4 Skin of Steel." You can, however, sit and look at the cards
and try and get a better grip as to what's going on. The difference
that such help can make can be the different between a good player and a
great one. This, however, works for both cards played and cards
discarded; since it applies to both, it cannot easily be considered
supportive of your attitude towards discard moreso than played cards.
And that you can't count cards and think "All gone" doesn't mean that
the discards aren't potentially important information.
GreySeer
"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
news:E807A27E10AB13C8.3F741E22...@lp.airnews.net...
A single discard on it's own I would usually count as insignifigant but
played cards and discards as a whole are signifigant. At the least it gives
you insigt into the composition of the deck. Knowing things about the
playing style of the discarder combined with the discards themselves also
helps.
When playing I try to stick to my own game, my deck has a plan and I try to
stick to it. After a few rounds you generally have some idea of the
capabilities of a deck, not so much based on cards played or discarded, but
more on requirements that can be met. I tend to assume, especially before
going into combat, that I'll be faced with the worst-case scenario ( within
reason ). At the very least you've got to bring them down with you.