(Hypothetical Rules Tweak) Changing Contestation
Peter D Bakija
during the post game analysis of my pal Ben's crashing and burning with
what should be (and tends to be locally) a very solid IC member/Orlando
vote deck for the second tournament in a row, it turned out that in both
this qualifier and the Origins Qualifier, Ben got completely killed in
two (of 6 total) games by randomly getting his Lutz contested. I pointed
out that I can't remember the last time that I actually had a vampire
contested or was in a situation where it was actually problematic that a
vampire I had in my uncontrolled region was already in play under
someone else's control (as opposed to it just being mildly annoying),
and that losing games due to contestation is just incredibly random
punishment. Yeah, Lutz is really good and really popular, so he is more
likely to be contested than, like, Gabriel de Cambrai or something, but
still, having a big important vampire getting contested is both
incredibly random and usually completely game destroying from very early
in the game.
As vampire contestation (specifically big vampire contestation--when Old
Netdecker is contested, it is hardly a problem. When the IC member your
deck is relying on to go, or whatever, is contested, your game is
generally over before it even starts) is soooo incredibly random (how
many vampires are in the game now?), it seems like it might be prudent
to make it less completely devastating when it happens. What we came up
with was that maybe the game would work better for all involved if when
a vampire was contested, instead of both players losing control of that
vampire, you got to alternate control of him instead. Something like:
"If two (or more) copies of a unique minion are in play, both are
flipped over and considered out of play. During each player's untap
phase, they must pay a pool to flip over their copy of the minion into
play (and flip over their opponent's copy out of play) and may use the
vampire as normal until their opponent does the same on their untap
phase. They may choose to not pay a pool and burn their copy of the
minion immediately."
I'm sure it could be worded better, buy in any case, the end result
would be that you still burn a pool each turn like normal, but instead
of just not having a vampire, you get that guy on your turn and until
your opponent's turn. There certainly could be disparity in terms of how
long each player has the minion in play, i.e. if me and my prey are
contesting a guy, I only get the guy on my turn, and then get the guy
during their turn, and then all the way around the table till my turn
again, but I suspect that the advantage that was gained by being the
predator in that situation (i.e. I get my guy to attack my prey and he
doesn't have that guy to defend himself) would balance that out.
I don't think this would be necessary for unique non minion cards--you
don't generally lose the game on T4 when someone contests your Ivory Bow
or KRCG News Radio or anything, where you do often lose the game
starting on T4 when someone contests (or brings out the big important
guy you have 10 pool on in your uncontrolled region), but a rules tweak
like this would really help mitigate the incredibly crippling and
incredibly random loss that is dropped on you just 'cause of the
incredibly small chance of someone contesting your important guy.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff
Johann von Doom
> "If two (or more) copies of a unique minion are in play, both are
> flipped over and considered out of play. During each player's untap
> phase, they must pay a pool to flip over their copy of the minion into
> play (and flip over their opponent's copy out of play) and may use the
> vampire as normal until their opponent does the same on their untap
> phase. They may choose to not pay a pool and burn their copy of the
> minion immediately."
I like it a lot, and I hate contesting vampires a lot. One vote in
favor.
John Eno
Vincent Crisafulli
>> flipped over and considered out of play. During each player's untap
>> phase, they must pay a pool to flip over their copy of the minion into
>> play (and flip over their opponent's copy out of play) and may use the
>> vampire as normal until their opponent does the same on their untap
>> phase. They may choose to not pay a pool and burn their copy of the
>> minion immediately."
>
>I like it a lot, and I hate contesting vampires a lot. One vote in
>favor.
Sometimes, I intentionally contest minions to deal pool damage and/or take a
minion out of play. It's pretty rare strategy in constructed play, but in
draft it happens more often - especially for the launch event of a new set.
One time, I stopped bleeding my prey when he was down to two pool. I thought
the two anarch revolts on the table would take him out, but I had totally
forgotten that if you have anarchs, anarch revolt doesn't hurt you anymore.
I know contesting sucks, but rule & card-text changes can suck too. Maybe a
new card that lets you keep a contested minion in play would be a better
solution than changing the rulebook and confusing older (relatively) players
like myself.
Stephanie Iwanciow Haas
wrote:
I think I like something like Peter's idea better than creating
another corner-case card. If you put that card in your deck, you are
counting on having your vampire (or other card, depending on the
wording) contested, at which point play another deck.
In recent limited events, we removed vampire contestation, but allowed
them to contest titles, for just the reason Peter describes. For how
often it comes up, contestation of vampires could be completely
eliminated as far as I'm concerned. Sure it's not in keeping with the
theme, but look at aggravated damage, strike: combat ends, etc.
Contestation of vampires is a rule that doesn't seem very justified
for it's sheer randomness.
Brandon
Brandon
Peter D Bakija
wrote:
> Sometimes, I intentionally contest minions to deal pool damage and/or take a
> minion out of play.
Oh, sure--sometimes when it comes up, it is a good play. But again, it
is so completely, wildly random. And very often, when it does randomly
come up, it completely ends someone's game before it even started.
Which is really lame.
The rules tweak I suggest (which I'm not actually expecting to be
adopted or anything, but it would be nice :-) still allows you to
contest minions to deal pool damage and to take them out of play for
limited periods of time (i.e. on your turn, and until it is their
turn, their minion is out of play). But the game crippling "Oops. My
game is destroyed 'cause the guy across the table accidentally got out
my key minion before I did. And I haven't even taken an action yet."
goes away for the most part.
> Maybe a
> new card that lets you keep a contested minion in play would be a better
> solution than changing the rulebook and confusing older (relatively) players
> like myself.
Too corner case. There are soooooo many vampires in the game that
contestation generally is pretty rare. But can completely end your
game.
-Peter
Haze
> So as we were driving back from the New York Qualifier last night,
> during the post game analysis of my pal Ben's crashing and burning with
> what should be (and tends to be locally) a very solid IC member/Orlando
> vote deck for the second tournament in a row, it turned out that in both
> this qualifier and the Origins Qualifier, Ben got completely killed in
> two (of 6 total) games by randomly getting his Lutz contested. I pointed
> out that I can't remember the last time that I actually had a vampire
> contested or was in a situation where it was actually problematic that a
> vampire I had in my uncontrolled region was already in play under
> someone else's control (as opposed to it just being mildly annoying),
> and that losing games due to contestation is just incredibly random
> punishment. Yeah, Lutz is really good and really popular, so he is more
> likely to be contested than, like, Gabriel de Cambrai or something, but
> still, having a big important vampire getting contested is both
> incredibly random and usually completely game destroying from very early
> in the game.
I ended up contesting Lutz in our Imperator Storyline games. It was
crosstable, and neither of us wanted to give him up, despite being
'allies'. Players 1 and 3 were both vote decks, and neither of them
wanted Lutz's ability pointed in their particular direction. Then
amazingly, Praxis Solomon popped up from the Imperator Deck...
Juggernaut1981
>
> - Show quoted text -
But to be honest, there are only a few vampires that are ever likely
to end up in this situation... and Lutz is the biggest contender.
Are we just creating a rule to allow people to have their "Lutz Decks"
and eat it too???
Trying not to play Devil's Advocate here, but seriously what decks are
"Lutz Only" Decks?? If they are vote decks, why aren't they "Voting
people off the table" like normal vote decks do... rather than trying
some random tricky crap of "4,000 Anarch Revolts + If you vote this
off, my prey loses pool *snicker snicker snicker*"
And yes, you can tactically cross-table contest. Like taking out Theo
Bell from your soon-to-be-prey's ready minions... or something else
like that.
Also, how is that not going to jerk around cards like Fame? If Player
A is contesting with Player B, then we have the effect of Player B's
Fame for more turns than Player A's fame... even though both target
vampires are allegedly famous.
Sure it works for The Rack, The Coven, Vampires, Hunting Grounds,
etc... but Fame???
Jozxyqk
> [stuff about contesting vampires]
I would just like to say, I am incredibly amused that this rule is being
advocated by the namesake of the Bakija Gambit ;)
agzocgud
flippy-thing you burn an additional pool. The crypt card then flips
back during your discard phase.
If people just talked to each other cross-table, this wouldn´t be much
of a problem.
Kevin M.
[snip]
> [...]
> but a rules
> tweak like this would really help mitigate the incredibly crippling
> and incredibly random loss that is dropped on you just 'cause of the
> incredibly small chance of someone contesting your important guy.
Aren't you the guy that has advocated in the past about not changing
things that happen incredibly rarely? :)
In any case, how is this functionally different than your deck without
maneuvers getting pwned by IG combat, or your Imbued deck getting
schooled by a stealth-vote deck?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Ira Fay
> and that losing games due to contestation is just incredibly random
> punishment.
It's not random at all. One player brought out the vampire first, and
another player then chooses to bring out that same vamp and contest.
Don't contest the vamp if you don't want to suffer the consequences!
Alternately, if you've spent 10 transfers on a 11-cap vampire on turns
1-3, then someone else brings out that vamp, that's part of the risk
of playing a big cap vampire. First, don't put 10 transfer on - just
do 7 on, in case that happens (or Brainwash!). Second, you can likely
negotiate with that person, "If I don't bring out Lutz, what can you
offer me?"
Ira
Shockwave
> "Lutz Only" Decks?? If they are vote decks, why aren't they "Voting
> people off the table" like normal vote decks do... rather than trying
> some random tricky crap of "4,000 Anarch Revolts + If you vote this
> off, my prey loses pool *snicker snicker snicker*"
Because otherwise, they might as well be Tor/Bru? There's no harm in
trying for alternate methods, if those methods are effective. I still
like Deranging people back to Camarilla after they Go Anarch, for
example.
Johannes Walch
> "If two (or more) copies of a unique minion are in play, both are
> flipped over and considered out of play. During each player's untap
> phase, they must pay a pool to flip over their copy of the minion into
> play (and flip over their opponent's copy out of play) and may use the
> vampire as normal until their opponent does the same on their untap
> phase. They may choose to not pay a pool and burn their copy of the
> minion immediately."
That would help decks that mainly act with their big caps. What about a
big-cap wall deck? You still can´t do nothing. So we move from one sort
of random to another sort of random.
Johannes Walch
> Are we just creating a rule to allow people to have their "Lutz Decks"
> and eat it too???
>
> Trying not to play Devil's Advocate here, but seriously what decks are
> "Lutz Only" Decks?? If they are vote decks, why aren't they "Voting
> people off the table" like normal vote decks do... rather than trying
> some random tricky crap of "4,000 Anarch Revolts + If you vote this
> off, my prey loses pool *snicker snicker snicker*"
The problem is not really Lutz specific, you know. The problem is just
that investing 11 pool and 3-4 turns of transfers into *nothing* is
going to loose you the game. Lutz was just a good example since he is
one of the better recently printed vampires and therefore (more) prone
to contestation.
That being said I still think contesting is fine, you just should not
contest an 11 cap and try to work something out.
-
And the worst can be avoided just by asking the guy who seems to
influence out a 9+ cap whose clan is his vampire... I've never been
contesting or contested a high cap vampire accidentaly (though it may
happen on purpose in the late game). Contesting vampires in the early
game leads to defeat for both player.
Jozxyqk
I am one of those people who thinks that contestation of vampires is rare
enough that you just have to deal with those "sucks to be you" games; it
isn't much worse than having some other bad matchup.
And in a tournament, "there's always next round".
BUT...
If I were to design a change to the contestation rules, it would be to
allow you to resolve the contest by paying pool back-and-forth all at
once, during the first untap phase of one of the contesters.
That is:
Player A brings out Lutz.
Player B brings out Lutz. They become contested.
On Player A's turn, player A may choose to burn a pool, then player B
may choose to burn a pool, then A, then B, etc, until one of the players
is ousted or yields.
Something like that?
Johann von Doom
> Are we just creating a rule to allow people to have their "Lutz Decks"
> and eat it too???
I think a better question is, "How does vampire contestation make VTES
a better game than it would be without it?"
John Eno
Jozxyqk
> I think a better question is, "How does vampire contestation make VTES
> a better game than it would be without it?"
Is "it encourages variety in deckbuilding" a cop-out?
Blooded Sand
> Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think a better question is, "How does vampire contestation make VTES
> > a better game than it would be without it?"
>
> Is "it encourages variety in deckbuilding" a cop-out?
How about "It punishes people for net decking and playing the same
decks?"
See !Malk, Lutz, Arika, etc.....
Johann von Doom
> Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think a better question is, "How does vampire contestation make VTES
> > a better game than it would be without it?"
>
> Is "it encourages variety in deckbuilding" a cop-out?
Hmm. Maybe? I don't see how vampire contestation encourages variety,
as I very much doubt anyone is going to build a different deck because
they're afraid they're going to contest a vampire. On top of which, I
tend to think that deckbuilding variety usually comes from libraries
rather than crypts, since you can build many different decks with a
given crypt composition but the inverse isn't quite as true.
John Eno
Johann von Doom
> How about "It punishes people for net decking and playing the same
> decks?"
Why would anyone want to punish anyone else for doing that?
John Eno
Peter D Bakija
> Aren't you the guy that has advocated in the past about not changing
> things that happen incredibly rarely? :)
I dunno. Maybe?
> In any case, how is this functionally different than your deck without
> maneuvers getting pwned by IG combat, or your Imbued deck getting
> schooled by a stealth-vote deck?
'Cause it is a built in rule that is incredibly random and often
incredibly debilitating in the unlikely chance that it comes up.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> It's not random at all.
Of course it is random. It only happens in the incredibly unlikely
instance that someone is using the one of 1300 vampires that you are
sits at a table with you, gets that vampire in their opening crypt
draw at the same time you do, and then gets theirs out either when you
have yours out or before you do. That is pretty darn random.
> One player brought out the vampire first, and
> another player then chooses to bring out that same vamp and contest.
> Don't contest the vamp if you don't want to suffer the consequences!
And if you need the vampire to make your deck work? Or you have a
bunch of pool on them already? Ok, you don't bring out the vampire,
spend 4 or 5 turns getting the pool back, and another 3 or 4 turns
influencing out someone else. You are already suffering the
consequences even if you don't bring out the same vampire.
> Alternately, if you've spent 10 transfers on a 11-cap vampire on turns
> 1-3, then someone else brings out that vamp, that's part of the risk
> of playing a big cap vampire.
So the game has been steadily moving in the direction of encouraging
people to use big cap vampires, but this highly random hosing still
completely hoses you.
> First, don't put 10 transfer on - just
> do 7 on, in case that happens (or Brainwash!). Second, you can likely
> negotiate with that person, "If I don't bring out Lutz, what can you
> offer me?"
Often, what you get to offer them is "If I don't bring out Lutz, I can
get ousted for you, making someone else win."
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> to end up in this situation... and Lutz is the biggest contender.
Not necessarily. Lots of big vampires are popular to build decks
around. Lutz was just a convenient example.
> Are we just creating a rule to allow people to have their "Lutz Decks"
> and eat it too???
No, I'm suggesting that the current vampire contestation rules tend to
be very random and deblitating. And it might be good if they were
different to avoid that.
> Trying not to play Devil's Advocate here, but seriously what decks are
> "Lutz Only" Decks??
It isn't a matter of "Lutz only" decks. In the example I handed out,
Guy A went second. Got 10 pool on Vampire X. His prey, who went 3rd,
got Vampire X out. Guy A now has 10 pool on a vampire, no other pool
on other big vampires. So he can spend another 3 turns getting out
another huge vampire (and be ousted before he takes an action) or
spend 5 turns pulling the pool off Lutz, and then another 3 turns
getting out another dude. And again, get ousted before he takes an
action.
> If they are vote decks, why aren't they "Voting
> people off the table" like normal vote decks do... rather than trying
> some random tricky crap of "4,000 Anarch Revolts + If you vote this
> off, my prey loses pool *snicker snicker snicker*"
Uh, left field straw man much?
> Also, how is that not going to jerk around cards like Fame? If Player
> A is contesting with Player B, then we have the effect of Player B's
> Fame for more turns than Player A's fame... even though both target
> vampires are allegedly famous.
Eh, ya know, you work around it.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be consequences for contesting
vampires--it would still be a huge pain in the ass to have a vampire
contested. But at least you aren't completely shut down right out of
the gate with the rule I suggest.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> decks?"
Uh, that is a completely preposterous statement.
A) who the hell cares if people netdeck such that they need to be
punished?
B) There are currently 1300+ vampires in the game. Even if everyone in
the world did nothing but netdeck, contestation of key vampires would
*still* be incredibly random.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> I would just like to say, I am incredibly amused that this rule is being
> advocated by the namesake of the Bakija Gambit ;)
Heh. The rule I suggest wouldn't save you from that--I'd never suggest
changing the "you can't play unique cards you already control" rule.
'Cause how would that be fun?
:-)
-Peter
Johann von Doom
> If I were to design a change to the contestation rules, it would be to
> allow you to resolve the contest by paying pool back-and-forth all at
> once, during the first untap phase of one of the contesters.
>
> That is:
> Player A brings out Lutz.
> Player B brings out Lutz. They become contested.
> On Player A's turn, player A may choose to burn a pool, then player B
> may choose to burn a pool, then A, then B, etc, until one of the players
> is ousted or yields.
>
> Something like that?
That sounds like how it currently works in practice, except that your
version gets to the end result much more quickly.
John Eno
Curevei
wrote:
It's not remotely how it works in practice - getting to the end much
more quickly removes most of the effects of contesting minion cards.
This method is interesting to think about for how it would completely
change how contestation works.
The only reason to contest with this system is if you know you will
win or do so much damage to the other player that it sets you up for
VPs (or spite the other player massively if you aren't trying to get
VPs).
Under the current system, there are all kinds of temporary contests
possible when people are playing the same unique minions, most of
which are horrible for one or both players. But, having one of the
players get ousted will end the contest, which can completely change
the board position.
This system is far cleaner, but I don't know that it helps the
screwjob that is contesting any.
Rather than chime in elsewhere in the thread, on the subject of its
randomness. True, choosing to contest isn't random. Being in a
position to contest is incredibly random, even here where we see
contestations or discussions to avoid contestations often enough that
it's a meaningful problem.
Not long ago, my grandpredator decided not to contest my ... Fakir.
That still screwed me as my predator had no predator all game. I've
contested Samedi in the past several years. I contested Ezmerelda to
lock up a game.
Even with the vast number of crypt options and a wide open metagame,
similar lines of thinking do result, which is fine when they happen at
different times and not so much when they happen at the same time.
Forget Lutz, in our environment, I'd be worried about contesting
Lucian, The Perfect right now.
Johann von Doom
> It's not remotely how it works in practice - getting to the end much
> more quickly removes most of the effects of contesting minion cards.
I was talking about contesting vampires. I have no gripe with the
contestation rules as they stand regarding library cards.
John Eno
John Flournoy
> So as we were driving back from the New York Qualifier last night,
> during the post game analysis of my pal Ben's crashing and burning with
> what should be (and tends to be locally) a very solid IC member/Orlando
> vote deck for the second tournament in a row, it turned out that in both
> this qualifier and the Origins Qualifier, Ben got completely killed in
> two (of 6 total) games by randomly getting his Lutz contested. I pointed
> out that I can't remember the last time that I actually had a vampire
> contested or was in a situation where it was actually problematic that a
> vampire I had in my uncontrolled region was already in play under
> someone else's control (as opposed to it just being mildly annoying),
> likely to be contested than, like, Gabriel de Cambrai or something, but
> still, having a big important vampire getting contested is both
> incredibly random and usually completely game destroying from very early
> in the game.
>
> Netdecker is contested, it is hardly a problem. When the IC member your
> deck is relying on to go, or whatever, is contested, your game is
> generally over before it even starts) is soooo incredibly random (how
> many vampires are in the game now?), it seems like it might be prudent
> to make it less completely devastating when it happens.
And yet, this is a consequence of playing 'popular' crypts in
tournaments.
The same dilemma has been facing folks in the last several years when
they wanted to play Arika-centric decks (or even Law Firm in general)
- there's been a decidedly non-zero chance of seeing somebody else
playing the same general crypt in a tournament.
Same holds true for 1/2 big cap Lasombra vote decks - you won't always
run into them, but there's a reasonably small chance of it occuring.
(I've seen contestation issues for both of the above crypts in
tournaments this year, even.)
Lutz happens to be fairly popular at the moment. This isn't hard to
fathom by reading tournament reports and talking to other players
about what they see in their own tournaments. Heck, I think I have
seen at least one Lutz deck in _every_ tournament I have played in
this year save the smallest, and in several of those there were
multiple Lutz decks.
If you build a deck around huge vampires and focus on a very popular
vampire (or set of popular, large vampires), you run the risk of
contesting.
This is a metagame choice on your part - your friend could have
decided it was worth the trouble to include a Praxis: Solomon, or to
negotiate with people ahead of time. Or he could have thought "boy, I
might be contesting with folks, maybe I should play something else
instead."
Contesting a vampire is never "random". Your friend suffer from
"randomly getting his Lutz contested." As noted elsewhere in the
thread, the second person to bring out a vampire is deliberately
choosing to start the contestation.
Yeah, it sucks when it happens. But that is a calculated risk you take
when you elect to play with a vampire/crypt that is seen more often
than most in a tournament.
I don't see this as making it necessary to change the contestation
rules, any more than I see it necessary to change the rules just
because someone built a big rockstar deck and had their star vamp get
Sense Dep'ed, or rushed on turn 2 and burned, or Pentex'ed, or Spirit
Marionette-tricksed, or any of the other unfortunate things that
happen when you build a rockstar deck and your rockstar gets
immediately annihiliated.
> Peter D Bakija
-John Flournoy
Daneel
wrote:
> "If two (or more) copies of a unique minion are in play, both are
> flipped over and considered out of play. During each player's untap
> phase, they must pay a pool to flip over their copy of the minion into
> play (and flip over their opponent's copy out of play) and may use the
> vampire as normal until their opponent does the same on their untap
> phase. They may choose to not pay a pool and burn their copy of the
> minion immediately."
Cute idea. Nice to see a thought experiment on this. I think it is
unnecessary because on one hand contestation tends to be so rare; on
the other hand because V:tES is generally a game of rock-paper-scissors,
and you do get screwed by seating, etc. every once in a while. Plus,
unique cards carry a specific risk by being unique - they can be
constested. Having the contestation rule forces people to consider
variety.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Peter D Bakija
> And yet, this is a consequence of playing 'popular' crypts in
> tournaments.
Oh, sure. But I don't know that the risk for "playing a popular crypt"
should equal "occasionally, you just lose the game outright, 'cause of
incredibly random happenstance." I don't know that that improves the
game.
> The same dilemma has been facing folks in the last several years when
> they wanted to play Arika-centric decks (or even Law Firm in general)
> - there's been a decidedly non-zero chance of seeing somebody else
> playing the same general crypt in a tournament.
Of course. And yet, still, completely random. There is no inherent
cost of playing popular vampires. Just a slightly increased chance of
getting completely hosed by contestation.
> Lutz happens to be fairly popular at the moment. This isn't hard to
> fathom by reading tournament reports and talking to other players
> about what they see in their own tournaments. Heck, I think I have
> seen at least one Lutz deck in _every_ tournament I have played in
> this year save the smallest, and in several of those there were
> multiple Lutz decks.
Again, Lutz is not the issue. In the case I presented as an example
(as it was convenient and actually happened), Lutz wasn't particularly
key to the deck (the crypt of which consisted of 2 each of the all the
IC members and 2 Orlando or something). The issue was not "my deck
needs Lutz and I can't get him out". The issue was "I put 10 pool on
my first vampire, my prey got him out first 'cause he was 1 transfer
ahead of me, and now I'm out 10 transfers, have no vampires, and have
to spend another 3 turns getting out a different vampire and 5 more
turns after that trying to get the pool back (or bring him out anyway
to spite contest him). And by then I'll be ousted."
I realize that contestation exists to disincentive using the same
vampires all the time. But I don't know that the harsh random
punishment fits the "crime".
> Contesting a vampire is never "random". Your friend suffer from
> "randomly getting his Lutz contested." As noted elsewhere in the
> thread, the second person to bring out a vampire is deliberately
> choosing to start the contestation.
Nope. Completely random. See above.
> I don't see this as making it necessary to change the contestation
> rules, any more than I see it necessary to change the rules just
> because someone built a big rockstar deck and had their star vamp get
> Sense Dep'ed, or rushed on turn 2 and burned, or Pentex'ed, or Spirit
> Marionette-tricksed, or any of the other unfortunate things that
> happen when you build a rockstar deck and your rockstar gets
> immediately annihiliated.
I don't see that it is necessary either. I just think that it would
probably improve the game by reducing the incredibly harsh, random
punishment that comes from someone else accidentally having the same
big vampire as you.
-Peter
XZealot
for so long.
So perhaps a good alternate methode would be a closed auction between
the two contesting Methuselahs. Whoever bids the most gets control of
the minion and the loser has his or hers burned.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Peter D Bakija
> Cute idea. Nice to see a thought experiment on this. I think it is
> unnecessary because on one hand contestation tends to be so rare;
Oh, sure. Again, I don't think this is a necessary change or anything.
But I suspect it would make the game slightly less affected by
"sometimes you get completely and utterly hosed by pure random
chance", which strikes me as a good thing.
That, and in a conceptual sense, I kind of like the idea that
contested vampires would be "playing both sides" rather than just out
of play. But that is completely secondary to it making the random
punishment of contesting important vampires less harsh.
> on
> the other hand because V:tES is generally a game of rock-paper-scissors,
> and you do get screwed by seating, etc. every once in a while.
Absolutely--but I think going out of ones way to reduce that factor
when you can is a worthwhile goal.
> Plus,
> unique cards carry a specific risk by being unique - they can be
> constested. Having the contestation rule forces people to consider
> variety.
Sure. This still punishes you for having a unique minion contested.
You still pay a pool a turn, and still don't have that minion for
defense when it is generally important. Which is still something to
want to avoid. It just isn't "my game is automatically over 'cause of
a random happenstance".
-Peter
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> In any case, how is this functionally different than your deck
>> without maneuvers getting pwned by IG combat, or your Imbued
>> deck getting schooled by a stealth-vote deck?
>
> 'Cause it is a built in rule that is incredibly random and often
> incredibly debilitating in the unlikely chance that it comes up.
Rules aren't "random". And it only comes up when the next player
*chooses* to contest the vampire which just came up. So, that
player shouldn't choose to debilitate herself, right?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Peter D Bakija
> So perhaps a good alternate methode would be a closed auction between
> the two contesting Methuselahs. Whoever bids the most gets control of
> the minion and the loser has his or hers burned.
That is pretty much how Shadowfist deals with the same issue, and it
works fine there, as you pay for guys with constantly renewable
resources; it is usually a pretty serious kick in the teeth to lose a
unique character to a uniqueness auction, but generally way less bad
than, like, losing an 11 cap vampire would be to a uniqueness auction.
-Peter
Kevin M.
> Ira Fay <ira...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's not random at all.
>
> Of course it is random. It only happens in the incredibly unlikely
> instance that someone is using the one of 1300 vampires that you are
> sits at a table with you, gets that vampire in their opening crypt
> draw at the same time you do, and then gets theirs out either when you
> have yours out or before you do. That is pretty darn random.
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the next player *chose* to do
what she did? That isn't random, by definition. Rare, perhaps, but
not random at all.
Or perhaps you aren't ignoring it, as you say here...
> And if you need the vampire to make your deck work?
Sucks to be you. Deal with it.
> Or you have a bunch of pool on them already?
Sucks to be you. Deal with it.
> Ok, you don't bring out the vampire, spend 4 or 5 turns
> getting the pool back,
Sucks to be you. Deal with it.
> and another 3 or 4 turns influencing out someone else. You are
> already suffering the consequences even if you don't bring out
> the same vampire.
Sucks to be you. Deal with it.
>> Alternately, if you've spent 10 transfers on a 11-cap vampire
>> on turns 1-3,
I guess we're talking about someone going 2nd, who puts 2/4/4 on
their 11-cap? Seriously, why would you do such a thing ESPECIALLY
given that you went 2nd? You should go 2/4/1-3 on someone else/4
instead.
>> then someone else brings out that vamp, that's part of
>> the risk of playing a big cap vampire.
Or being a bad player and transferring badly.
> So the game has been steadily moving in the direction of encouraging
> people to use big cap vampires, but this highly random hosing still
> completely hoses you.
IT ISN'T RANDOM WHEN SOMEONE CHOOSES TO DO A THING.
Peter D Bakija
> Rules aren't "random". And it only comes up when the next player
> *chooses* to contest the vampire which just came up. So, that
> player shouldn't choose to debilitate herself, right?
What is random is being in the position to be contesting a vampire in
the first place. Which is completely and utterly random. It was much
less random when the rule was first invented--when there were only,
like, 110 total vampires, contestation was a significant issue to
worry about and much less of a "I happened to get hit by a meteor"
hosing. Now, with 1300+ vampires, it is incredibly unlikely to sit
down at a table with someone who has the same minion as you. And then
have them draw that minion. And then have them play that minion.
*That* is what is random. And as often, the consequences are so hugely
game destroying, it makes sense to me to at least attempt to minimize
the game destroying impact of such a random event.
And again, going back to the original example--player A puts 10 pool
on an 11 cap vampire. His prey brings out the same 11 cap vampire,
because he is one transfer ahead. Player A's game is pretty much over
at this point, even *without* actually contesting the vampire. He has
already spent 3 turns not getting out a vampire, and is going to spend
another 3 turns (given a big vampire deck) getting out his first
vampire (that is *6* turns and, say, 20 pool invested before a single
minion hits the table. What deck in what circumstance is still going
to be standing after this?). And then it is going to take 5 more turns
to recoup the 10 pool invested in the first vampire. And there is
still only 1 minion in play. This is a completely random "my game is
over" due to the contestation rules. Even without anyone choosing to
contest a minion.
-Peter
LSJ
> It's not only that you lose all the pool but the minion is out of play
> for so long.
>
> So perhaps a good alternate methode would be a closed auction between
> the two contesting Methuselahs. Whoever bids the most gets control of
> the minion and the loser has his or hers burned.
Still pretty harsh. Somebody loses X (the capacity of the vampire, not to
mention the transfers involved and the cost in pool, blood, and card play of any
cards or other effects on the the yielded vampire) and somebody else loses Y
(the winning bid amount).
Sometimes a lesser evil to standard contesting. But sometimes more.
If the rule is to be changed, better to dive headlong:
Off the top of my head:
Contesting crypt cards is handled via something akin to Banishment: when another
copy of a unique crypt card enters play, all copies are returned to the
uncontrolled region (all temporary control effects are broken).
(A good reason to keep blood on your star vampire).
Trivia for the smattering of effects that care about contested vampires:
The vampires are considered contested until one returns to play (ending the
contest, although the other copies are not actually yielded). The "cost to
contest" is zero (which may be increased by Democritus). Being made to yield a
contested card (via Democritus or Praxis Solomon) still results in that
contested card being sent to the ash heap, as normal. Olugbenga's special is
pretty useless except when Democritus is also around.
Contesting titles is as normal.
Contesting library cards is as normal.
Just an idea. If any idea is needed (and I don't say that any is).
Peter D Bakija
> Contesting crypt cards is handled via something akin to Banishment: when another
> copy of a unique crypt card enters play, all copies are returned to the
> uncontrolled region (all temporary control effects are broken).
Ooh! That is good too!
-Peter
John Flournoy
> On Jul 13, 1:20 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Again, Lutz is not the issue. In the case I presented as an example
> (as it was convenient and actually happened), Lutz wasn't particularly
> key to the deck (the crypt of which consisted of 2 each of the all the
> IC members and 2 Orlando or something). The issue was not "my deck
> needs Lutz and I can't get him out". The issue was "I put 10 pool on
> my first vampire, my prey got him out first 'cause he was 1 transfer
> ahead of me, and now I'm out 10 transfers, have no vampires, and have
> to spend another 3 turns getting out a different vampire and 5 more
> turns after that trying to get the pool back (or bring him out anyway
> to spite contest him). And by then I'll be ousted."
Right - but that isn't contestation, technically.
You can change the contestation rules to be less painful, but they'll
still be painful in some fashion - and your choice will still be
"either I contest the vampire, or I have to do the exact same '3 turns
getting out a different vampire and 5 more after that' etc that you
describe above.
> > Contesting a vampire is never "random". Your friend suffer from
> > "randomly getting his Lutz contested." As noted elsewhere in the
> > thread, the second person to bring out a vampire is deliberately
> > choosing to start the contestation.
>
> Nope. Completely random. See above.
I stand by my earlier statement. Contestation - and I mean actually
contesting the vampire, not what you describe (getting hosed because
you opt not to contest) is not random.
I'll agree that being in a situation where the choice comes up is
pretty random - but for a small group of decks, it's random-but-not-
uncommon, like for the decks I'd listed.
> I don't see that it is necessary either. I just think that it would
> probably improve the game by reducing the incredibly harsh, random
> punishment that comes from someone else accidentally having the same
> big vampire as you.
It'd certainly encourage more big-rockstar decks, which I'm fine with
finding ways to encourage.
> -Peter
-John Flournoy
Jozxyqk
> Contesting crypt cards is handled via something akin to Banishment: when another
> copy of a unique crypt card enters play, all copies are returned to the
> uncontrolled region (all temporary control effects are broken).
Would this hypothetical rule also "banish" Spell of Life mummies back to the
uncontrolled region? That's harsh (but maybe that card needs a hosin', especially
in draft).
Peter D Bakija
> Right - but that isn't contestation, technically.
That is just splitting hairs. It is the result of the contestation
rules doing what they do, and then being randomly hosed by them.
> You can change the contestation rules to be less painful, but they'll
> still be painful in some fashion
Sure. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be painful. The rule I
proposed still costs you a pool a turn and still leaves you without a
minion for significant portions of the game.
> I stand by my earlier statement. Contestation - and I mean actually
> contesting the vampire, not what you describe (getting hosed because
> you opt not to contest) is not random.
Being in a situation where contestation is an issue is completely and
totally random. Yes. Choosing to put a minion in play when another
copy of that minion is already in play is not random. But it also
isn't really relevant to my point. Even when you aren't actively
contesting a vampire, the contestation rules can randomly end your
game.
> It'd certainly encourage more big-rockstar decks, which I'm fine with
> finding ways to encourage.
Especially as the designers seem like they are trying really hard to
make big vampires better.
-Peter
wumpus
On Jul 13, 11:33 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > Ira Fay <ira...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> It's not random at all.
>
> > Of course it is random. It only happens in the incredibly unlikely
> > instance that someone is using the one of 1300 vampires that you are
> > sits at a table with you, gets that vampire in their opening crypt
> > draw at the same time you do, and then gets theirs out either when you
> > have yours out or before you do. That is pretty darn random.
>
> Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the next player *chose* to do
> what she did? That isn't random, by definition. Rare, perhaps, but
> not random at all.
Peter is correct - finding oneself in the position to contest a
vampire is indeed random. Placing significant pool onto the same
vampire that someone else at the same table is placing pool on is also
random. You are correct that placing the last pool onto a vampire
that someone else has already brought out is NOT random - it is a
choice. But Peter is righter, as you can, as he points out, be
completely hosed by the potential contestation before you even get to
make that choice. Giving him a hard time for using the words 'random'
and 'contest' is not responsive to the argument he is making.
<Snip a bunch of really snarky attacks on people who are hosed by a
very rare circumstance - I don't see why it is a good thing that
someone has to have a shitty game every 1 in N games just in the name
of, what, traditionalism? What is the good thing that the
contestation rules are providing that offsets the bad thing that Peter
is describing? Would deck diversity really change noticeably if we
got rid of vampire contestation (between players) altogether?>
> IT ISN'T RANDOM WHEN SOMEONE CHOOSES TO DO A THING.
Meaning that one cannot make a random choice? Or that all choices are
made on a non-random basis? If I have to pick a card and I roll a die
to choose which one to pick, my choice is random, right? (Though, of
course, my choice of how to choose is not random, though it is perhaps
arbitrary...)
You seem to be saying that people are not capable of randomness, which
makes me wonder about your definition of random. (I've heard theories
that nothing is random [e.g. the result of rolling the die depends on
initial state and Newtonian physics - it is completely predictable
give accurate enough measurements], and they make some sense, so I'm
interested, as I don't think most people use the word 'random' the way
you are using it.)
Alex
LSJ
> Peter is correct - finding oneself in the position to contest a
> vampire is indeed random.
Finding yourself seated in such a way that your deck is hosed is random, yes.
But it happens. Contesting is but one (very tiny) aspect of that.
wumpus
Following up on my own point(s):
> ...I don't see why it is a good thing that
> someone has to have a shitty game every 1 in N games just in the name
> of, what, traditionalism? What is the good thing that the
> contestation rules are providing that offsets the bad thing that Peter
> is describing? Would deck diversity really change noticeably if we
> got rid of vampire contestation (between players) altogether?>
How about making contestation of unique vampires work this way:
- Pay 1 pool in your untap to maintain the contest (or don't and
yield, burning as usual).
- The contested vampire can't interact with itself: Can't block or
react if the other copy is acting, can't enter combat with the other
copy, conduct your own sub-referendum if it wants to vote (usually
tied, but modifiers can change that).
Both players get to use their copy of the vampire, both get the
vampire for the same period of play, both are suffering the drag of
trying to contest their influence. The vampire takes on different
statistics while serving with each Methuselah (different blood totals,
different equipment, etc.).
Not quite as simple as Peter's plan, but does allow you to have the
vampire all the time.
Alex
Kevin M.
>
> Meaning that one cannot make a random choice?
Of course one can, when one does it in a random fashion.
RANDOM
- Picking a card.
- Rolling a die
- Uri Geller
NON-RANDOM
- choosing to contest
- the sun coming up in the East
- James Randi
> Or that all choices are made on a non-random basis?
When one makes a choice in a random fashion, it is random. When one
makes a choice in a non-random fashion -- like when one *chooses* to
put that last bead on that card and contest that vampire when one doesn't
have to do such a thing -- then it isn't random. Yes, I understand your
game will suffer. Yes, I understand you will probably lose. Yes, this
is part of the game, which you need to deal with once in a great while,
just like Archon Investigation.
> You seem to be saying that people are not capable of randomness,
> which makes me wonder about your definition of random.
I said no such thing. It is Peter's definition that is in doubt.
Chris Berger
I kinda like this. I think it's too complicated to actually be
implemented, but it seems kinda fun and more thematic - especially the
sub-referendum part... internal dialog and all that. =)
The sub-referendum would work with contesting titles as well, though
it would tend to remove the thematics of contesting a title, since it
would be almost exactly the same as having two different city titles,
though they cost a blood each turn.
You'd run into annoyances like what happens if the two vampires are
obliged to be in combat with each other, (though blocking itself or
directing (D) actions at itself should be denied, it could always
happen with like a Hidden Lurker or Ecstatic Agony). I suppose that
it could be similar to two vampires controlled by the same methuselah
entering combat - effects are prohibited from trying to make that
happen, and if it happens somehow, combat does not occur... ?
All in all, I like your solution the best, but I think it has the
least chance of actually happening (where LSJ's solution probably has
a 1% chance of actually happening, and yours and Peter's somewhere
less than that). You could perhaps run non-sanctioned events with
this rule, but most of the time it'd be pointless, unless you ran a
create-your-own storyline for like a single clan, or clan-and-anti-
clan, with the Broadhead-Contest Rule in place.
Johann von Doom
> What is the good thing that the
> contestation rules are providing that offsets the bad thing that Peter
> is describing?
This is the question I'd like to see answered, particularly as we're
all talking about a completely hypothetical rules change. Some folks
seem to be defending the contesting rules because, well, they're the
rules, but I haven't seen anyone offer any reason to keep them because
they make the game better. Anyone?
John Eno
wumpus
(I love how that sounds.)
> > What is the good thing that the
> > contestation rules are providing that offsets the bad thing that Peter
> > is describing?
>
> This is the question I'd like to see answered, particularly as we're
> all talking about a completely hypothetical rules change. Some folks
> seem to be defending the contesting rules because, well, they're the
> rules, but I haven't seen anyone offer any reason to keep them because
> they make the game better. Anyone?
To be fair, others have suggested a reason: to increase deck
diversity. In theory, the possibility of contestation wrecking your
game keeps you from making decks with 'popular' vampires, setting up a
negative feedback loop. In practice, there are so many vampires, and
so many reasons for popularity, that the mechanism is fairly
'random' (for some value of random, as noted elsewhere in this thread)
- it's hard to predict who to avoid, so most people don't try.
Alex
Kevin M.
> Some folks seem to be defending the contesting rules because, well,
> they're the rules, but I haven't seen anyone offer any reason to keep
> them because they make the game better. Anyone?
It isn't the job of what-is-in-place to defend itself against the
zeroes-of-the-future that keep appearing. It's the job of those zeroes
to show they they have merit *and*are*better* than what-is-in-place,
and therefore we should adopt them.
John Flournoy
> Being in a situation where contestation is an issue is completely and
> totally random. Yes. Choosing to put a minion in play when another
> copy of that minion is already in play is not random. But it also
> isn't really relevant to my point. Even when you aren't actively
> contesting a vampire, the contestation rules can randomly end your
> game.
Let me offer an entirely devils-advocate parallel..
It similarly sucks when you built your deck around (one or more)
scarce vampires, and you randomly sit at a table where someone else is
playing them and beats you to it. No, this "it costs you 3 pool to
play your game, maybe more" isn't as harsh as contestation (usually),
but it's another harsh penalty that is applied randomly because of how
you got seated - and it's another harsh penalty that is clearly
intended by the rules.
Do you think the Scarce penalty also needs to be changed? If not, is
that because it's usually not as bad as contesting a big vampire?
Second devils' advocate question:
Is contesting small vampires a problem too? Or is the problem only how
it screws you when you contest a big vampire? Does the potential fixes
that've been coming up in the thread reduce the penalty for contesting
a small vampire to a meaningless level?
-John Flournoy
> -Peter
Ira Fay
After thinking about this more, I think that making contesting vamps
slightly less harsh would be an improvement to the game. I'm not sure
it's a significant enough improvement to warrant the change, but maybe
the cost of making the change is sufficiently low.
I like LSJ's description above, but I would do away with the idea of
contesting vamps entirely. Simply say:
When another copy of a unique crypt card enters play, all copies burn
1 blood or life and are returned to the uncontrolled region (all
temporary control effects are broken).
It makes some cards weaker (Clio's Kiss), but that's not an issue
IMO. I think the only remaining tricky thing is whether or not you
can bring out a duplicate of your own vamp to deal with Pentex, Sense
Dep, Fame, torpor, etc. If it's allowed, it would encourage crypt
redundancy, which isn't necessarily a good thing. I think it's nice
to have crypt diversity. So we might also have to add the rule: if
you bring out another copy of a unique crypt card that you control,
the incoming copy is burned. Bakija Gambit still lives!
Ira
Peter D Bakija
> Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the next player *chose* to do
> what she did? That isn't random, by definition. Rare, perhaps, but
> not random at all.
The choosing isn't the random bit. The sitting next to someone who
just happened to have the same vampire in their deck and just happened
to draw that vampire and just happened to transfer him out. That is
completely random chance. I fail to see why you are so hung up on the
use of the word "random" here.
> Sucks to be you. Deal with it.
So you'd like *more* instances of the game sucking due to random
chance than less?
> I guess we're talking about someone going 2nd, who puts 2/4/4 on
> their 11-cap? Seriously, why would you do such a thing ESPECIALLY
> given that you went 2nd? You should go 2/4/1-3 on someone else/4
> instead.
'Cause you need that vampire? Or all your draws are 11s? This is
irrelevant.
> Or being a bad player and transferring badly.
It is only "transferring badly" if you randomly are sitting next to
someone who also is contesting out the exact same vampire. Randomly.
> IT ISN'T RANDOM WHEN SOMEONE CHOOSES TO DO A THING.
I'm not saying it is random when someone chooses to do a thing. I am
saying it is random to sit down next to someone who happens to have
the same vampire as you and happens to draw that vampire. That is
random. Very random, considering the size of the vampire pool. Whether
or not actual contestation is occurring has nothing to do with whether
or not the rules for contestation destroy your game in many cases.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> I said no such thing. It is Peter's definition that is in doubt.
Holy crap, Kevin. Have you lost your mind?
Sitting at a table where someone happens to have the same vampire as
you in their crypt, and happens to draw that vampire in their opening
crypt draw? That is completely random. If both of those players need
that vampire? Both of them will suffer, one way or the other. Whether
or not they are actively contesting the vampire is irrelevant. If one
gets Vampire X out first, when the other player has already invested
most of the pool they need to get out Vampire X? Either the second
player is completely hosed (as he has wasted many transfer and
invested pool not getting out a vampire) or they are both hosed (as
contestation occurs).
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> Do you think the Scarce penalty also needs to be changed? If not, is
> that because it's usually not as bad as contesting a big vampire?
No. It is "I lose 3 pool as random punishment, but still get to play
the game". Which is very different than "I lose an important vampire,
and maybe a whole bunch of pool, and might not get to play the game."
Very different.
> Is contesting small vampires a problem too? Or is the problem only how
> it screws you when you contest a big vampire? Does the potential fixes
> that've been coming up in the thread reduce the penalty for contesting
> a small vampire to a meaningless level?
As I mentioned, contesting small vampires is less of an issue, as it
tends not to destroy you. But I fail to see how paying a pool a turn
to use your small vampire sometimes is reducing the penalty to a
meaningless level.
-Peter
Juggernaut1981
> On Jul 12, 7:13 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But to be honest, there are only a few vampires that are ever likely
> > to end up in this situation... and Lutz is the biggest contender.
>
> Not necessarily. Lots of big vampires are popular to build decks
> around. Lutz was just a convenient example.
>
> > Are we just creating a rule to allow people to have their "Lutz Decks"
> > and eat it too???
>
> No, I'm suggesting that the current vampire contestation rules tend to
> be very random and deblitating. And it might be good if they were
> different to avoid that.
>
> > Trying not to play Devil's Advocate here, but seriously what decks are
> > "Lutz Only" Decks??
>
> It isn't a matter of "Lutz only" decks. In the example I handed out,
> Guy A went second. Got 10 pool on Vampire X. His prey, who went 3rd,
> got Vampire X out. Guy A now has 10 pool on a vampire, no other pool
> on other big vampires. So he can spend another 3 turns getting out
> another huge vampire (and be ousted before he takes an action) or
> spend 5 turns pulling the pool off Lutz, and then another 3 turns
> getting out another dude. And again, get ousted before he takes an
> action.
>
> > If they are vote decks, why aren't they "Voting
> > people off the table" like normal vote decks do... rather than trying
> > some random tricky crap of "4,000 Anarch Revolts + If you vote this
> > off, my prey loses pool *snicker snicker snicker*"
>
> Uh, left field straw man much?
>
> > Also, how is that not going to jerk around cards like Fame? If Player
> > A is contesting with Player B, then we have the effect of Player B's
> > Fame for more turns than Player A's fame... even though both target
> > vampires are allegedly famous.
>
> Eh, ya know, you work around it.
>
> -Peter
Peter,
What I'm trying to say is that reshaping the "Contesting Rule"
reshapes the game in a number of other ways you potentially aren't
thinking of.
Fame is one of the key ousting mechanics for Combat Decks. A number
of decks who can't protect themselves reliably from a Combat Deck may
consider including a Fame JUST to contest it. Both the offensive Fame
and the "counter" Fame are neutered by this change to the rule. And
what happens when the Fames keep bouncing in and out?
I think it actually becomes a whole lot less predictable. It punishes
other tactics in strange ways (my wall with the Ivory Bow & Bowl of
Convergence only exists in my turn so it is valid to untap them before
paying the contest? After the contest? Can you untap a vampire that is
not controlled because of contesting?)
Seriously, messing around with this rule is likely to force a whole
raft of secondary rule changes, changes to long standing rulings and
more. Sure it is suck-tastic if you contest your Superstar Cross-
table, but as people have pointed out... it is avoidable and those who
do contest vampires cross table deliberately are either a) trying to
screw you for later, b) jackassing around, c) have built a deck that
is so narrow that even they cannot see it working in another way.
Contesting and being burned are what has always been (and possibly
always should be) the glass jaw of the Superstar Decks.
Frederick Scott
> news:ea21f505-f707-42c6...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Not to get too involved in an issue I don't feel that strongly about,
there is a very good argument for status quo in a CCG that has been
out for many years and gone through many expansions: because all the
cards have been designed and playtested assuming the rule as is. I
would concede that this may not be as bad a problem with contestation
as a lot of other rules, but it's still not an insignificant factor,
IMHO. In fact, my (relatively modest) inclination to resist change in
this area is based more on that point than anything else.
Peter is correct that random vampire contestation factors can have a
really negative effect on a small percentage of games.
Fred
Peter D Bakija
> Fame is one of the key ousting mechanics for Combat Decks. A number
> of decks who can't protect themselves reliably from a Combat Deck may
> consider including a Fame JUST to contest it. Both the offensive Fame
> and the "counter" Fame are neutered by this change to the rule. And
> what happens when the Fames keep bouncing in and out?
You saw the part where I specifically said "This is only for minions
and not non-minion cards", right?
-Peter
John Flournoy
> On Jul 13, 5:38 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you think the Scarce penalty also needs to be changed? If not, is
> > that because it's usually not as bad as contesting a big vampire?
>
> No. It is "I lose 3 pool as random punishment, but still get to play
> the game". Which is very different than "I lose an important vampire,
> and maybe a whole bunch of pool, and might not get to play the game."
> Very different.
It is if you're paying the penalty once and only once; it potentially
could be worse. But my point was that it's a matter of scale and worth
considering. If you're going to reduce the penalty for contestation,
taking a minute to at least consider another 'i got randomly screwed
with my crypt' penalty in comparison doesn't hurt.
> > Is contesting small vampires a problem too? Or is the problem only how
> > it screws you when you contest a big vampire? Does the potential fixes
> > that've been coming up in the thread reduce the penalty for contesting
> > a small vampire to a meaningless level?
>
> As I mentioned, contesting small vampires is less of an issue, as it
> tends not to destroy you. But I fail to see how paying a pool a turn
> to use your small vampire sometimes is reducing the penalty to a
> meaningless level.
I wasn't suggesting it was meaningless; it was more a general
'whatever solutions are proposed should keep in mind that they don't
just affect the worst-case big-vampire scenario' comment. The specific
solution you cite might not be meaningless, but other suggestions
might be.
> -Peter
-John Flournoy
Daneel
> Off the top of my head:
>
> Contesting crypt cards is handled via something akin to Banishment: when
> another copy of a unique crypt card enters play, all copies are returned
> to the uncontrolled region (all temporary control effects are broken).
>
> (A good reason to keep blood on your star vampire).
Elegant idea! I really like it. Again, I don't think it's a necessary
change,
but if I would see a need for change, this would probably be the solution
I
would be gunning for... :)
I love how you can reclaim the pool on the contested vampire if you wish.
I also love that you can keep on bringing your copy into play - but then
agian, so can the other guy. I especially love how you can weaken or kill
the other player's copy and have the contested vampire for yourself.
--
Regards,
Daneel
James Coupe
I'm pretty sure that the contesting rules would continue to only affect
unique cards. The Spell mummies aren't unique, so no.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Blooded Sand
> It isn't the job of what-is-in-place to defend itself against the
> zeroes-of-the-future that keep appearing. It's the job of those zeroes
> to show they they have merit *and*are*better* than what-is-in-place,
> and therefore we should adopt them.
So even if What-is-in-place is "Lets beat people over te head with a
shovel every now and again at seemingly random moments, just cos we
can" we should keep it, because it is there already? Weak sauce.....
Or alternatively the standard conservative mind frame argument.
Blooded Sand
> Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
Yes, they are. Too lazy to go search, but try Aabt Kindred Spell of
Life Author:LSJ
but anyway
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0e9dbde272503272
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> It isn't the job of what-is-in-place to defend itself against the
>> zeroes-of-the-future that keep appearing. It's the job of those
>> zeroes to show they they have merit *and*are*better* than
>> what-is-in-place, and therefore we should adopt them.
>
> So even if
Seek help.
[snip conservative-bashing red-herring]
Kevin M.
>
> I'm not saying it is random when someone chooses to do a thing. I am
> saying it is random to sit down next to someone who happens to have
> the same vampire as you and happens to draw that vampire. That is
> random. Very random, considering the size of the vampire pool. Whether
> or not actual contestation is occurring has nothing to do with whether
> or not the rules for contestation destroy your game in many cases.
The rules for contestation DO NOT ruin your game when it is YOU
who CHOOSES to do the contestation.
How many times and how many ways can this be said?
Someone just brought up your star guy? Don't contest him if you don't
want your game utterly ruined. Play with the rest of the vampires in your
crypt, try to do something else with your deck, ask for the table's help,
pray to whatever gods you believe in... but don't contest that vampire!
Alternatively, contest that vampire and then complain loudly that the
rules screwed you over and you take no responsibility for your actions,
the rules made me do it, ma!
Seriously, man. Try playing non-star vampire decks and you won't
have this problem, like EVER. Or, play star-vampire decks (like I do
in pretty much every deck I make) and deal with the once-a-year
occurrence that is totally not worth this much discussion.
henrik
They make the game more diverse (thus more fun, imo) by making
dementation weenies played somewhat less, since there's a risk for
contesting.
And just replace "dementation weenies" with some other fotm deck
instead of telling me that dementation weenies aren't played at all in
your playgroup.
Jozxyqk
> Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
> >LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> Contesting crypt cards is handled via something akin to Banishment: when another
> >> copy of a unique crypt card enters play, all copies are returned to the
> >> uncontrolled region (all temporary control effects are broken).
> >
> >Would this hypothetical rule also "banish" Spell of Life mummies back to the
> >uncontrolled region? That's harsh (but maybe that card needs a hosin', especially
> >in draft).
> I'm pretty sure that the contesting rules would continue to only affect
> unique cards. The Spell mummies aren't unique, so no.
Oh yes they are. I've been totally destroyed by a Spell of Life predator in draft,
where he contested all of my ready vampires for free with one stealthy action.
They don't call it S.O.L. for nothing.
XZealot
> XZealot wrote:
> > It's not only that you lose all the pool but the minion is out of play
> > for so long.
>
> > So perhaps a good alternate methode would be a closed auction between
> > the two contesting Methuselahs. Whoever bids the most gets control of
> > the minion and the loser has his or hers burned.
>
> Still pretty harsh. Somebody loses X (the capacity of the vampire, not to
> mention the transfers involved and the cost in pool, blood, and card play of any
> cards or other effects on the the yielded vampire) and somebody else loses Y
> (the winning bid amount).
>
> Sometimes a lesser evil to standard contesting. But sometimes more.
I can't see how it could be more, but YMMV.
> If the rule is to be changed, better to dive headlong:
>
> Off the top of my head:
>
> Contesting crypt cards is handled via something akin to Banishment: when another
> copy of a unique crypt card enters play, all copies are returned to the
> uncontrolled region (all temporary control effects are broken).
>
> (A good reason to keep blood on your star vampire).
>
> Trivia for the smattering of effects that care about contested vampires:
> The vampires are considered contested until one returns to play (ending the
> contest, although the other copies are not actually yielded). The "cost to
> contest" is zero (which may be increased by Democritus). Being made to yield a
> contested card (via Democritus or Praxis Solomon) still results in that
> contested card being sent to the ash heap, as normal. Olugbenga's special is
> pretty useless except when Democritus is also around.
>
> Contesting titles is as normal.
> Contesting library cards is as normal.
>
> Just an idea. If any idea is needed (and I don't say that any is).
That certainly is a novel approach that incorporates the unique
mechanics of VTES (i.e. the uncontrolled region).
Another approach would be to play cards out of your hand that the
contested vampire could play until one player yields by not playing a
card. This would have an effect similar to "milling" with the result
being that players might end up jammed up on Master Cards or other
cards that the contested vampire couldn't play.
Peter D Bakija
> They make the game more diverse (thus more fun, imo) by making
> dementation weenies played somewhat less, since there's a risk for
> contesting.
And the rules tweak I presented wouldn't make this any less the case--
it would still suck to contest a minion. It just wouldn't
automatically end your game in certain cases.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> The rules for contestation DO NOT ruin your game when it is YOU
> who CHOOSES to do the contestation.
And again, if someone randomly has the exact same vampire you need to
get into play in their crypt? The contestation rules certainly can
ruin your game, even if no contestation ever happens. How many times
and how many ways can this be said?
> Someone just brought up your star guy? Don't contest him if you don't
> want your game utterly ruined.
And if you have already invested two turns and ~8 pool on him? You are
now out:
-The vampire you need.
-The 8 or so transfers you spent.
-The two or so turns you put into transferring out a minion that isn't
coming out.
-The 4 or so turns and 8 or so transfers you need to get the wasted
investement back.
This is if you *don't* contest him. If you do contest him, both you
and the other guy are even more screwed, as you are also hemmoraging a
pool a turn.
> Seriously, man. Try playing non-star vampire decks and you won't
> have this problem, like EVER.
Are you even paying attention to this discussion, here, Kevin?
> Or, play star-vampire decks (like I do
> in pretty much every deck I make) and deal with the once-a-year
> occurrence that is totally not worth this much discussion.
I made a suggestion as to how I thought the rules could be tweaked to
make what is an uncommon, but generally unpleasant and sometimes game
destroying rule, that is governed by pure randomness. If you were
concerned about the volume of discussion, you could have ignored it.
Or said "Huh. That is probably not needed." Or any other option that
wasn't ranting in all caps and arguing about what is or is not random,
when the point you are arguing about is completely irrelevant to the
point at hand.
Just sayin.
-Peter
XZealot
....or another approch would be to leave them both in play, but you
still have to pay on pool during your untap or yield. Other copies of
this vampire may not block or play reaction cards while this vampire
is acting. You would get your cake and eat it tool
Peter D Bakija
> It is if you're paying the penalty once and only once; it potentially
> could be worse.
I don't know that it could potentially be worse--the worst possible
Scarcity penalty you can pay is 6 (well, ok, if someone already has 3
other Abominations in play...). Which is not great, sure, but you
still get to use the vampire you brought out. Generally speaking, in
the incredibly random instance of having to pay scarcity costs, you
get kicked in the teeth for 3 and that is the end of it.
> But my point was that it's a matter of scale and worth
> considering. If you're going to reduce the penalty for contestation,
> taking a minute to at least consider another 'i got randomly screwed
> with my crypt' penalty in comparison doesn't hurt.
Oh, sure. It is a completely reasonable comparison. But in comparison,
I think scarcity is way less bad for you than contestation, in most
instances.
> I wasn't suggesting it was meaningless; it was more a general
> 'whatever solutions are proposed should keep in mind that they don't
> just affect the worst-case big-vampire scenario' comment. The specific
> solution you cite might not be meaningless, but other suggestions
> might be.
Reasonable.
-Peter
XZealot
> On Jul 13, 9:54 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It is if you're paying the penalty once and only once; it potentially
> > could be worse.
>
> I don't know that it could potentially be worse--the worst possible
> Scarcity penalty you can pay is 6 (well, ok, if someone already has 3
> other Abominations in play...). Which is not great, sure, but you
> still get to use the vampire you brought out. Generally speaking, in
> the incredibly random instance of having to pay scarcity costs, you
> get kicked in the teeth for 3 and that is the end of it.
Actually the worst Scarce penalty you can pay without contesting is
15.
> > But my point was that it's a matter of scale and worth
> > considering. If you're going to reduce the penalty for contestation,
> > taking a minute to at least consider another 'i got randomly screwed
> > with my crypt' penalty in comparison doesn't hurt.
>
> Oh, sure. It is a completely reasonable comparison. But in comparison,
> I think scarcity is way less bad for you than contestation, in most
> instances.
>
> > I wasn't suggesting it was meaningless; it was more a general
> > 'whatever solutions are proposed should keep in mind that they don't
> > just affect the worst-case big-vampire scenario' comment. The specific
> > solution you cite might not be meaningless, but other suggestions
> > might be.
Please check out my 3 suggestions and LSJ's one suggestion if you want
alternatives.
Peter D Bakija
> Actually the worst Scarce penalty you can pay without contesting is
> 15.
Oh, heh. You are completely correct. I totally spaced on there being
the two groups of everyone. So if someone has 3x Salubri, and you have
the other 3x Salubri, and you get out the last one after all of them
are already in play, then 15 it is!
-Peter
Johann von Doom
> Howdy von Doom,
>
> (I love how that sounds.)
Me too!
> To be fair, others have suggested a reason: to increase deck
> diversity.
The jury's still out on whether or not that's a cop-out. :)
But, yeah, okay, it's a reason, at least.
John Eno
XZealot
It would be funny because there would be a cumulative of 45 pool of
scarce penalties paid in the game once you did.
Now that's a nutpuncher!
Johann von Doom
> It isn't the job of what-is-in-place to defend itself against the
> zeroes-of-the-future that keep appearing. It's the job of those zeroes
> to show they they have merit *and*are*better* than what-is-in-place,
> and therefore we should adopt them.
The entire framework of the conversation is, "What if Rule X was
different?" Responding to that with, "Rule X is an official rule, so
just deal with it," and no other justification for the existence of
Rule X as it currently exists, well, completely misses the point of
the question.
John Eno
Johann von Doom
> Not to get too involved in an issue I don't feel that strongly about,
> there is a very good argument for status quo in a CCG that has been
> out for many years and gone through many expansions: because all the
> cards have been designed and playtested assuming the rule as is. I
> would concede that this may not be as bad a problem with contestation
> as a lot of other rules, but it's still not an insignificant factor,
> IMHO. In fact, my (relatively modest) inclination to resist change in
> this area is based more on that point than anything else.
That doesn't really answer what I'm asking, which is what the rules
add, rather than what the effects would be if they were changed or
removed.
Maybe it's more fruitful to pose the following thought experiment: If
you were designing VTES as a new game, why would you include the
vampire contestation rules as they currently stand? What would they
add to the game?
John Eno
Peter D Bakija
wrote:
> > To be fair, others have suggested a reason: to increase deck
> > diversity.
>
> The jury's still out on whether or not that's a cop-out. :)
>
> But, yeah, okay, it's a reason, at least.
As noted, I don't think my suggested rule (or LSJ's) discourage deck
diversity. Contestation (or whatever it is in the case of LSJ's "you
just become uncontrolled" idea) still blows. It still costs you pool.
And still punishes you for having the same guys as someone else. So it
is still worth trying to avoid duplicating vampires.
That being said, I don't think it is contestation that encourages deck
diversity. Even if you are playing the most obvious net-deck in the
world, the likelihood of sitting at a table with someone who has the
same vampires as you *and* them drawing them all and wanting to play
them all is so small as to not be worth worrying about (which isn't
justification for not wanting the rules changed, but is justification
for not thinking it makes people diversify their decks). Heck. At the
finals to the Origins Qualifier, Dave Litwin and I were playing
essentially the exact same deck (G1/2 Nosferatu Breed/Boon, of which,
by the way, I have one of the first ones of in the TWDA :-), and the
only vampire we had in common in our opening crypt draws was Agripina.
I mean, we could have both drawn the exact same guys, at which point
both of our games would have been over, but by pure chance, he got
Selma and Nik and I got Murat and Calebros, so we got to play the
game.
The game itself encourages diveristy. Yeah, contestation can kill you
if you accidentally have the exact same guys as someone else at the
table, but I think the risk of contestation is low enough in most
cases that the gain of playing an obvious netdeck (i.e. a proven, good
deck) vastly outweighs the chance of outright loss due to minion
overlap.
Which doesn't make the outright loss due to minion overlap any more
palatable when it happens. It's just that I don't think the current
contestation rules actually encourage deck diversity any more than a
tweaked contestation rule (such as the one LSJ or I proposed) would.
-Peter
henrik
Dementation weenies would be able to sweep a table while contesting 4
minions with your rules. So yes, it would make them more played/more
easily playable.
If contesting a minion ends your game, your deck kinda sucks. How
would that deck handle Pentex Subversion, Mind Rape, Baltimore Purge,
Banishment or Coma?
LSJ
And you guys aren't even getting into Clan Impersonation madness.
Johann von Doom
> dementation weenies played somewhat less, since there's a risk for
> contesting.
I'll take your word for it that people actually factor in vampire
contestation worries while designing decks, since it's never been an
issue for me and I've never heard anyone talking about it being an
issue for them.
Granted that, I'm not convinced that it's a good thing to try to
artificially force deck diversity by effectively disallowing people
from playing decks that they want to play. If people want a more
diverse playspace, they will create it by playing different kinds of
decks, regardless of what's popular. If they want to play what's
popular, I'm not sure why there should be a mechanical disincentive
against doing so, given that VTES is a build-your-own-deck game.
John Eno
Peter D Bakija
> Dementation weenies would be able to sweep a table while contesting 4
> minions with your rules. So yes, it would make them more played/more
> easily playable.
And yet they would still be losing 4 pool a turn more than they would
if they weren't randomly contesting 4 minions. Which is likely to make
them lose anyway.
Fear of contestation has, I suspect, zero impact on ones decision to
play Dementation weenies or not. Fear of rush combat and fear of a lot
of bounce? Sure. Might affect someone's choice to play Dementation
weenies. Fear of contestation? I suspect a total non issue. I
occasionally play weenie demenation. I have never once thought "Hmm.
This is a bad idea as I might contest."
> If contesting a minion ends your game, your deck kinda sucks. How
> would that deck handle Pentex Subversion, Mind Rape, Baltimore Purge,
> Banishment or Coma?
This is completely irrelevant. Again, if you are playing a deck of big
vampires, and your prey randomly pulls out the same vampire that you
have been transferring to since turn 1, even if you don't have yours
out, your game is likely over. As you are going to end up spending,
like, 6 turns and 20 pool before you get out a single minion. Even
without actively contesting things.
-Peter
witness1
wrote:
The contestation rules (among other things) provide a powerful check
against potentially overpowered cards (minion and not). When a card is
unique, there is a mechanism by which any other player at the table
could (in principle) remove that card from play, as well as increasing
the effective cost of that card through the contestation mechanism
itself.
In effect, were any unique card truly broken, it's effect on the
metagame would be naturally diminished by the simple fact that many
people would play it (either specifically to use it or specifically to
contest it). That doesn't mean the card isn't broken - Succubus Club
eventually got banned, for example. But even before the rules team
decided to actually ban the card, you had a defense mechanism you
could use: contestation. The game itself ends up surviving a
relatively long deliberation process before actually banning the card.
Many of the suggestions in this thread would provide similar checks,
though necessarily less strong, since the entire point of any of them
is to make contestation of large (and therefore presumably powerful)
vampires less painful.
I'd definitely include contestation in the rules were I creating the
game anew. Maybe not the exact ones we have, but something similar.
-witness1
John Flournoy
Or embraces.
Or even "you have to pay 3 extra just to begin a contestation because
he also put 'your' vampire in play already."
Kevin M.
IN NO WAY did I say "just deal with it". That is complete horseshit.
Peter D Bakija
> IN NO WAY did I say "just deal with it". That is complete horseshit.
"Or perhaps you aren't ignoring it, as you say here...
> And if you need the vampire to make your deck work?
Sucks to be you. Deal with it.
> Or you have a bunch of pool on them already?
Sucks to be you. Deal with it.
> Ok, you don't bring out the vampire, spend 4 or 5 turns
> getting the pool back,
Sucks to be you. Deal with it.
> and another 3 or 4 turns influencing out someone else. You are
> already suffering the consequences even if you don't bring out
> the same vampire.
Sucks to be you. Deal with it. "
Just sayin :-)
-Peter
D.J.
> On Jul 14, 5:11 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> > Seriously, man. Try playing non-star vampire decks and you won't
> > have this problem, like EVER.
>
> Are you even paying attention to this discussion, here, Kevin?
It's been pretty clear for a while now that Kevin's responding to
arguments nobody is actually making, and seems to be carrying on a
conversation with a strawman that nobody is actually espousing.
To be clear: Kevin, I haven't seen anyone arguing that it's the actual
contestation of a vampire that's problematic or random. As you say,
that's completely a choice, and I don't think anyone is trying to
claim it isn't. What's random is this:
You have 4 minions in your uncontrolled region. You start
transferring to the strategically-best one of them. You have no idea
what anyone else is playing, and they don't know what you're playing.
You're, say, 7 pool into a 10 cap. Or whatever. Some large
investment, good strategic sense, etc. And cross-table or something,
suddenly, that 10-cap another player brings up randomly turns out to
be the same vampire.
Now, you're screwed by the contestation mechanics even if you don't go
ahead contesting. You're out a lot of transfers, have a big pool
investment you don't have time to get back, and still have no vampire,
whether you choose to contest the vamp or not. Because of random
chance - not because it's your star vamp, not because it's crucial for
your deck to function, not because it's some incredibly common
vampire, not because you made an informed choice, but just because,
randomly, out of 1300 vampires, the same one showed up and got brought
out before you - you've been short-changed to an extent that, most
likely, your game isn't playable. Remember, we're talking first
minions here, and we're talking about having the choice between being
screwed alone, or also dragging down your crosstable buddy.
Do you disagree that that's random?
Do you disagree that that's devastating to a game?
Do you disagree that the outcome is due to the contestation mechanics
currently in place, even if the mechanics aren't actually used because
the vampire isn't contested?
Because those three points are the core of the discussion the rest of
this thread has been trying to have while you've been vociferously
saying that contesting is a choice.
- D.J.
Jozxyqk
> You have 4 minions in your uncontrolled region. You start
> transferring to the strategically-best one of them. You have no idea
> what anyone else is playing, and they don't know what you're playing.
> You're, say, 7 pool into a 10 cap. Or whatever. Some large
> investment, good strategic sense, etc. And cross-table or something,
> suddenly, that 10-cap another player brings up randomly turns out to
> be the same vampire.
So hey, here's a thought:
Currently it costs:
1 Transfer to move a blood from your pool to an uncontrolled minion.
2 Transfers to move a blood from an uncontrolled minion to your pool.
4 Transfers (and a pool) to draw a crypt card.
What if the rules added an option for moving blood from one uncontrolled
minion to another (without the jump through your pool) at a really good
rate?
Say, 1 Transfer to move 2 blood from one of your uncontrolled minions
to another.
Of course this has larger implications, like moving Art Museum blood
onto a Toreador Antitribu or whatever... but maybe something along
these lines would alleviate the sting of "random" fattie contestation.
Thoughts?
Rehlow
Sounds like a pretty good idea, but since it can be used with cards
like Art Museum to get blood onto an uncontrolled Toreador or to move
blood from a younger vampire that was Governed to onto an older one I
think the rate needs to be less generous. I think 1 Transfer to move a
blood from one uncontrolled minion to another one would work ok with
the current cards that put blood on an uncontrolled but then is it too
weak to help with fattie contestation?
Later,
~Rehlow
Rehlow
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> >> IT ISN'T RANDOM WHEN SOMEONE CHOOSES TO DO A THING.
>
> > I'm not saying it is random when someone chooses to do a thing. I am
> > saying it is random to sit down next to someone who happens to have
> > the same vampire as you and happens to draw that vampire. That is
> > random. Very random, considering the size of the vampire pool. Whether
> > or not actual contestation is occurring has nothing to do with whether
> > or not the rules for contestation destroy your game in many cases.
>
> The rules for contestation DO NOT ruin your game when it is YOU
> who CHOOSES to do the contestation.
>
But 50% (or maybe 100% if you never contest when you are second out of
the gate) of the time it is NOT YOU that CHOOSES to do the
contestation. I don't know if its because people are stupid, don't
think things through, are really pissed that you got their vamp first
or that contesting vampires happens so rarely that they just don't
know how to deal with it, but people do really stupid things when the
vamp they were working on gets brought into play first.
I was playing in a qualifier at GenCon when my prey and grand prey
contested Arika. This looked like a strategic move on the part of my
prey (his Arika deck was backed up with weenie dom vamps and I think
he was planning to plow through his now Arika-less prey). Then it gets
around to my predator's turn and the vamp he was working on is Arika
and puts her in play, in the middle of the ongoing contest. This was a
5 player table. This guy just let his predator completely off the hook
since he was sitting between two decks contesting Arika. Why would you
join into an already ongoing Arika contest? That is seriously WTF. I
was totally fine with this dumbass move as it let me go full steam
into my prey (remember, also contesting an Arika). I think this third
to the contest deck fell first (his predator had no minions left and
right of him for quiet some time) and then my prey died shortly
afterward. The remaining Arika contesting deck won the contest, but
didn't end up lasting too long. Then I got the final player. 3 way
contest of a vampire is super rare, but it also made for a super
stupid game.
I don't know if the vampire contest rule should be changed, but I'd
like to entertain the idea. I like the idea that some moron can't
completely ruin my game because they can't understand how contesting
almost always makes those 2 players lose. Its often a spite move as
lame as transferring out.
Later,
~Rehlow
Jozxyqk
> > What if the rules added an option for moving blood from one uncontrolled
> > minion to another (without the jump through your pool) at a really good
> > rate?
> > Say, 1 Transfer to move 2 blood from one of your uncontrolled minions
> > to another.
> >
> > Of course this has larger implications, like moving Art Museum blood
> > onto a Toreador Antitribu or whatever... but maybe something along
> > these lines would alleviate the sting of "random" fattie contestation.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> Sounds like a pretty good idea, but since it can be used with cards
> like Art Museum to get blood onto an uncontrolled Toreador or to move
> blood from a younger vampire that was Governed to onto an older one I
> think the rate needs to be less generous. I think 1 Transfer to move a
> blood from one uncontrolled minion to another one would work ok with
> the current cards that put blood on an uncontrolled but then is it too
> weak to help with fattie contestation?
Well, since the uncontrolled region "knows" clan and capacity, a revised
idea:
You may use 1 transfer to move 1 blood from any of your uncontrolled minions
to another of your uncontrolled minions.
You may use 1 transfer to move 2 blood from any vampire in your uncontrolled
region to another vampire in your uncontrolled region who is younger or of
the same clan.
How about that?
Is it getting too convoluted?
Aaron Clark
> On Jul 14, 10:51 am, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> The contestation rules (among other things) provide a powerful check
> against potentially overpowered cards (minion and not). When a card is
> unique, there is a mechanism by which any other player at the table
> could (in principle) remove that card from play, as well as increasing
> the effective cost of that card through the contestation mechanism
> itself.
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is true even for vampires. I recently played a game in which my
predator did not bring out Anson because I had brought out Anson
first. According to him, it killed his game. Anson is a very
powerful card, and his uniqueness creates a limit to his power.
I absolutely think that unique copies of vampires should not be in
play at the same time. LSJ's idea for "banishing" crypt cards if
another copy is brought into play seems reasonable. It fits with the
concept of the game: two Methusalehs vie for control of a vampire,
each using his own methods and resources. Why should the vampire be
entirely out of play during this? A vampire is an active agent.
Sometimes it will act for one Methusaleh, sometimes for another,
depending on which most recently has sufficiently influenced it.
The main balance question with this technique is that a vampire whose
abilities are useful during others' turns will be more valuable during
a contestation than those whose abilities are useful during a
Methusaleh's own turn. For instance, Anson's special ability might
not be used by anyone if control of him keeps going back and forth
during Methusalehs' influence phases. However, the abilities of Arika
or Leandro would still be relevant.
As for the contestation of other cards, I cannot rationalize why a
unique piece of equipment played on a minion could be contested,
period. There is only one Ivory Bow. Helena has it in her
possession. Black Cat equips it and then neither can use it, but
their respective Methusalehs struggle over its possession?? How can a
vampire take an action to equip an item in the possession of someone
else? I think the contestation rules for other unique cards, such as
locations makes sense, since two Methusalehs may be warring over the
same turf, leaving it useless for both of them.
However, it would probably add an unnecessary layer of complexity to
the game to create different contestation rules for different types of
cards.
Jozxyqk
Since this is supposed to be addressing the issue of being screwed by
"random contestation", why not make the correlation more direct:
*If a ready minion has the same name as one of your uncontrolled minions,*
you may take 1 transfer to move 2 blood from that uncontrolled minion to
one of your other uncontrolled minions.
That's simple enough, and easy to remember. Isn't it?
Chris Berger
>
> 3 way
> contest of a vampire is super rare, but it also made for a super
> stupid game.
>
pool to bring out a card that will allow you to pay pool every
turn... you're not depriving anyone else of resources at this point.
I can't see why anyone would do that unless they just don't know how
to play the game, or to use a poker term, have gone "on tilt." Funny
story though. =)
Much smarter, obviously, would be to wait until someone won the Arika
contestation, and *then* decide if it was a good idea to re-contest.
I also find that a lot of people continue to contest out of spite, or
out of "I just spent 9 pool on this vampire, so yielding loses me 9
pool", rather than weighing the situation at hand and determining
whether yielding puts them in a better position than contesting.
> I don't know if the vampire contest rule should be changed, but I'd
> like to entertain the idea. I like the idea that some moron can't
> completely ruin my game because they can't understand how contesting
> almost always makes those 2 players lose. Its often a spite move as
> lame as transferring out.
>
I dunno, I find there's very little I can do that is as effective as
contesting a card with my prey. Obviously, I don't want to contest a
big vampire that I need in order for my deck to work, but I will
almost always contest a 3-cap or a location with my prey if I can.
Depends on the deck of course, but I'm reminded of a JOL game where I
accidentally picked the wrong deck and ended up playing with a stupid
5-year old Gangrel wall deck that used Powerbases and Blood Puppy to
gain pool and didn't have much in the way of ousting power. I played
a PB:Chicago first turn and discarded a PB:Washington, DC, so it was
obvious what I was playing, and then my prey contested Chandler
Hungerford... I wanted to kiss him for virtually handing the game to
me at that point... =)
Jozxyqk
Of course I forgot the word "unique"!!
librarian
> On Jul 13, 2:33 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the next player *chose* to do
>> what she did? That isn't random, by definition. Rare, perhaps, but
>> not random at all.
>
> The choosing isn't the random bit. The sitting next to someone who
> just happened to have the same vampire in their deck and just happened
> to draw that vampire and just happened to transfer him out. That is
> completely random chance. I fail to see why you are so hung up on the
> use of the word "random" here.
>
>> Sucks to be you. Deal with it.
>
> So you'd like *more* instances of the game sucking due to random
> chance than less?
>
>> I guess we're talking about someone going 2nd, who puts 2/4/4 on
>> their 11-cap? Seriously, why would you do such a thing ESPECIALLY
>> given that you went 2nd? You should go 2/4/1-3 on someone else/4
>> instead.
>
> 'Cause you need that vampire? Or all your draws are 11s? This is
> irrelevant.
>
>> Or being a bad player and transferring badly.
>
> It is only "transferring badly" if you randomly are sitting next to
> someone who also is contesting out the exact same vampire. Randomly.
>
>> IT ISN'T RANDOM WHEN SOMEONE CHOOSES TO DO A THING.
>
> I'm not saying it is random when someone chooses to do a thing. I am
> saying it is random to sit down next to someone who happens to have
> the same vampire as you and happens to draw that vampire. That is
> random. Very random, considering the size of the vampire pool. Whether
> or not actual contestation is occurring has nothing to do with whether
> or not the rules for contestation destroy your game in many cases.
>
Sometimes you get screwed in seating not related to contesting. Should
we change the rules to prevent that too?
The other thing about this discussion that is sort of bothering me is
that you have said repeatedly that it happens *rarely*. If so, why
bother with a rules change?
best -
chris
Chris Berger
Okay, I admit there's some strawman-ness in this point, but assume
there was a rule in the rulebook that said, "at the beginning of a
game, roll percentile dice. On a roll of 00: you lose, remove your
cards from the table and try to find something else to do for the next
2 hours while other people play the game." That rule adds nothing to
the game, it simply adds a random, remote possibility that you lose
for no good reason. It would obviously be a bad rule.
Obviously, contestation isn't the same as that hypothetical "You're
Boned" rule. It's in the game for a reason and definitely adds
*something*. But the original point is that contesting is similar to
the You're Boned rule, in that what it adds to the game is not enough
to offset the possibility that you're randomly hosed and can't do
anything about it. You may not agree that that's true (and I think
there's certainly some question about whether it's bad enough to
suggest a rules change - I think the original post is more
hypothetical than anything... not necessarily "I think that this
should be changed," but more "What if this got changed - would that be
good? And if so, *should* it be changed?"), but there's definitely
something there to consider...