The day the combat decks died
Johannes Walch
won´t be any combat decks in the finals anymore.
The rules make deals practically useless. How can a combat deck go to
the final? Make deals.
The finals will now be (even more than now) a boring mix of hardcore s&b
and breed decks with some sprinkeled vote and intercept.
Whoever (was it the obscure Inner Circle?) did these rules doesn´t have
a very good idea of high level tournament play, in my opinion.
--
johannes walch
Johannes Walch
Some time ago the seat-changing votes have been eliminated. I predicted
a very similiar thing: the decrease of vote decks in finals. And exactly
that happened, look at the largest tournament this year (EC LCQ), the
finals consisted of : 2x S&B, 3x Breed.
Huruem
Johannes Walch a écrit :
I really don't see your point. Are you meaning that a rush deck can't
win without dealing? Could you develop the idea a little bit?
Blooded Sand
I strongly disagree. This makes deals for combt decks better, as they
tend to shine in the 3 player enviroment. so deal yourself into a
position where its a 3 player, and away you go. Plus the best kind of
deal combat makes is not, "You do this, and I'll do his", I believe
it's more the "Do this, or Hulk SMASH!!!"
Heh.
Johannes Walch
> I really don't see your point. Are you meaning that a rush deck can't
> win without dealing? Could you develop the idea a little bit?
The point is that you cannot deal with your prey or predator because you
have to break in the end. That decreases your chances of getting a deal
by 50% (on a 5 player table).
Bram Vink
Johannes Walch schreef:
Combat decks were alive?
You can still deal perfectly fine with your prey and predator, without
having to have to break deals. Just make sure you go into the heads up
when someone has GW. That's the usual way when dealing with
prey/predator anyway. - you are then allowed to keep the deal, as PTW
doesn't prevent conceding when you already have the GW.
Secondly: Combat decks were alive?
Johannes Walch
No they were not really alive. But putting new rules up that encourage
S&B and Breed (to swipe) doesn´t make them come alive.
That´s what I am saying: these rules fix nothing. The make it even worse
IMHO (see my other posts). We need a completely different solution and
we need time to think and discuss about it. This was a jump start imho.
---
johannes walch
James Coupe
<johanne...@vekn.de> writes:
>Bram Vink schrieb:
>> Secondly: Combat decks were alive?
>
>No they were not really alive. But putting new rules up that encourage
I think you're confusing several things here, and it's pretty unhelpful.
The changes to the rules seem to be to address certain forms of deal-
making that are considered unhelpful, distasteful, counter-productive,
or which make players have less regard for the card-playing element of
the game. Obviously, different people will have different views on the
effectiveness, or whether such things should be addressed, but this
certainly seems to be the intention.
These deals occur in a wide number of circumstances, and most certainly
do not require the involvement of combat decks. As I said in my report
for the UK Nationals a couple of weeks ago, I felt that the
strategically best option for the players on the table at the time was
for a stealth-bleed deck and a weenie vote deck to gang up on other
players. As it happens, they'd still be able to do something similar
because they were predator and prey, but I could see the two decks doing
it cross table.
I don't see that these rules are in any way intended to enliven combat
decks. I think you're also confusing "combat decks" with "mono rush
decks." There are a lot of ways of going about making rush decks
better, a number of which would involve giving combat decks better tools
- making Assamite contract/rush combat more viable, for example.
>That愀 what I am saying: these rules fix nothing.
But that doesn't seem to be true. They don't fix everything, but I am
unsure how they can fix *nothing*, when an active judge can intervene
and prevent a roll-over (and issue appropriate penalties, if necessary).
These are one of the scenarios the rules are intended to fix. How does
it *not* fix those scenarios, when a judge has the latitude to intervene
that they didn't have before?
>The make it even worse IMHO (see my other posts).
Your other points assume a number of questionable things. One is that
combat appears to be rush. Which it isn't. Intercept walls that can go
forward are capable of winning without massively intricate deals. Decks
with a bruise component are similarly capable. Madness Network OOT
decks have shown themselves able to win tournaments without significant
dealing. Bruise-and-vote turns up in tournaments and does pretty fine.
Peter Bakija has put forward a coherent strategy for a combat deck to
win without dealing - demolish prey, oust backwards, 3VP, no deal.
Why is a combat deck not capable of making short-term deals and doing
well with them? If it is capable, it can do that. If it isn't, why is
it the responsibility of the tournament rules to empower one strategy
out of a large number? This isn't all combat, surely? If intercept
decks were weak in tournaments, would it be the responsibility of the
tournament rules to address that, or the responsibility of the printed
cards to give those tools to deck designers?
>We need a completely different solution and we need time to think and
>discuss about it. This was a jump start imho.
You seem to be discussing a solution to a different question.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Jeroen Rombouts
"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> schreef in bericht
news:eks7oi$jqk$1...@news01.versatel.de...
I think you'r overreacting. :-)
The only reason why combat decks have problems in the Western Europe
tournement scene is that play is slow. The focus is too much on setting up
for the table split than really playing all-out V:TES. One of the reasons I
don't play a lot of tourneys anymore, BTW.
Hopefully, these rules will make combat players realise that the only way to
win, is to play pro-actively and fast. Instead of stabilising a table, they
need to destabilise the table.
And, even with the new rules, there are dealing options open for the rush
deck. promise your grandprey 2VP, oust your own prey, win the end game.It's
even better than gunning for the 3-2 split.
joha...@scram.de
you want you can reply to them in the appropriate context.
James Coupe schrieb:
> I don't see that these rules are in any way intended to enliven combat
> decks. I think you're also confusing "combat decks" with "mono rush
> decks." There are a lot of ways of going about making rush decks
> better, a number of which would involve giving combat decks better tools
> - making Assamite contract/rush combat more viable, for example.
I am aware of the fact that the were never intended to enliven combat
decks. But I think they cause harm to the strategical options of combat
decks. And I think that we should rather think about ways of helping
certain strategies at getting to finals instead of fixing obscure
problems with dealmaking (that only some people seem to have).
> But that doesn't seem to be true. They don't fix everything, but I am
> unsure how they can fix *nothing*, when an active judge can intervene
> and prevent a roll-over (and issue appropriate penalties, if necessary).
So you need a lot of judges at hand and more judge interaction with the
game. I have been voting for less judge interaction because I think
that it destracts from the fun. Look at the World Championship of
Soccer. The Championship was in parts decided by the judges, that
distracted from their fun.
I can of course understand that you, as a regular judge, want to
increase the interaction with judges in the game ;-) Ok, that was not
really serious ...
> Your other points assume a number of questionable things. One is that
> combat appears to be rush. Which it isn't. Intercept walls that can go
> forward are capable of winning without massively intricate deals. Decks
> with a bruise component are similarly capable. Madness Network OOT
> decks have shown themselves able to win tournaments without significant
> dealing. Bruise-and-vote turns up in tournaments and does pretty fine.
> Peter Bakija has put forward a coherent strategy for a combat deck to
> win without dealing - demolish prey, oust backwards, 3VP, no deal.
My fault. Should have written rush instead of combat.
> Why is a combat deck not capable of making short-term deals and doing
> well with them? If it is capable, it can do that. If it isn't, why is
> it the responsibility of the tournament rules to empower one strategy
> out of a large number? This isn't all combat, surely? If intercept
> decks were weak in tournaments, would it be the responsibility of the
> tournament rules to address that, or the responsibility of the printed
> cards to give those tools to deck designers?
Well, you are right that there should be other/different cards to help
rush (combat). But you are still assuming that I want the tournament
rules to help combat. That´s not the case I just want to keep the
rules as they are to prevent rush (combat) from being harmed by the
rules. Not a big difference, but still ...
--
johannes walch
joha...@scram.de
> "Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> schreef in bericht
> news:eks7oi$jqk$1...@news01.versatel.de...
> > Looking at the new tournament rules I can only see one thing: there won´t
> > be any combat decks in the finals anymore.
> >
> > The rules make deals practically useless. How can a combat deck go to the
> > final? Make deals.
> >
> > The finals will now be (even more than now) a boring mix of hardcore s&b
> > and breed decks with some sprinkeled vote and intercept.
> >
> > Whoever (was it the obscure Inner Circle?) did these rules doesn´t have a
> > very good idea of high level tournament play, in my opinion.
> >
> Hi Johannes, long time no see...
Yeah I noticed. Sad.
> I think you'r overreacting. :-)
>
> The only reason why combat decks have problems in the Western Europe
> tournement scene is that play is slow. The focus is too much on setting up
> for the table split than really playing all-out V:TES. One of the reasons I
> don't play a lot of tourneys anymore, BTW.
Perhaps I am overreacting. In fact I chose this very subject to attract
some people to my actual course of action: reaching a common consens
that the rule change was a jump start and needs a rethinking.
Unfortunately I had to take some desperate measures as we were
presented with facts w/o any real chance of discussion.
> Hopefully, these rules will make combat players realise that the only way to
> win, is to play pro-actively and fast. Instead of stabilising a table, they
> need to destabilise the table.
Correct. But I think they are rather stabilising the table. Deals
destabilize tables, because once they are made everything falls apart
quickly (usually).
> And, even with the new rules, there are dealing options open for the rush
> deck. promise your grandprey 2VP, oust your own prey, win the end game.It's
> even better than gunning for the 3-2 split.
Except for the fact that you won´t probably get it as easy as the 3-2.
Bram Vink
joha...@scram.de schreef:
Promise your prey 3, if you cant oust, pick up 2 in the endgame as he
concedes.
Promise your predator 2, if he cant oust, concede in the endgame.
Legal. Regular practice as it is. ;)
Cheers,
B
James Coupe
joha...@scram.de writes:
>I have snipped your off-topic related comments on my other posts. If
>you want you can reply to them in the appropriate context.
If you can make off-topic comments about seeing your other posts, I can
make my own comments about them in my post.
The point I was making was about the entirety of your position.
Snipping it down into bite-sized chunks would almost entirely miss the
point. The point is that your whole point of view on this issue is
going off in such a totally different direction that you really are
trying to find a solution to an entirely different problem.
>James Coupe schrieb:
>
>> I don't see that these rules are in any way intended to enliven combat
>> decks. I think you're also confusing "combat decks" with "mono rush
>> decks." There are a lot of ways of going about making rush decks
>> better, a number of which would involve giving combat decks better tools
>> - making Assamite contract/rush combat more viable, for example.
>
>I am aware of the fact that the were never intended to enliven combat
>decks.
Then why are you raising this issue as though it was the problem that
was intended to be fixed? It wasn't, it isn't, and your opinions on
combat are mis-guided.
>But I think they cause harm to the strategical options of combat
>decks. And I think that we should rather think about ways of helping
>certain strategies at getting to finals instead of fixing obscure
>problems with dealmaking (that only some people seem to have).
Why do you believe the problems are obscure? That you're not seeing
them? That's a very parochial view.
Do you believe that LSJ would be making substantial changes to the
tournament rules based on obscure problems that aren't replicated
worldwide?
Have you not seen the many threads on this sort of behaviour over
several years that indicate this sort of thing is going on and causing
disruptions in many different playgroups and tournament environments?
>> But that doesn't seem to be true. They don't fix everything, but I am
>> unsure how they can fix *nothing*, when an active judge can intervene
>> and prevent a roll-over (and issue appropriate penalties, if necessary).
>
>So you need a lot of judges at hand and more judge interaction with the
>game.
Not at all. This is simply untrue. I've run tournaments with 40 people
where I'd have had no trouble handling this.
1) You point out the problem to start with. If you point them out in
advance, many people will avoid them anyway. At tournaments
I've run, I've often given a brief warning of the sort of things
I find cause most trouble. One specific (non-deal) example is
political actions. I've very often found it hard to
satisfactorily untangle what went on when one player claims they
were in the middle of the referendum and another player claims
that they hadn't finished blocking. So one of the things I
often ask players to do, at the start of the tournament, is to
just be careful about making sure people know the difference
between table talk before the block and discussion of terms
after the block. The number of such problems I have to deal
with when I've pointed this out in advance at a tournament goes
down a LOT, leaving me mostly with card queries and legality
questions to deal with.
2) You ask people to call you over early. You don't have to officially
allow deals, or officially block anything. I just sometimes ask
players to call me over when such deals are being made so that I
have a better view of what the table state is, and whether
players are (IMO) playing to win. Quite often, you'll happen
upon them anyway.
>I have been voting for less judge interaction because I think
>that it destracts from the fun.
So you don't like the proposed remedy. That's fine.
It's good to know that you're quite happy to acknowledge that it does
fix some problems, even if you don't like the way it fixes them.
>Look at the World Championship of
>Soccer. The Championship was in parts decided by the judges, that
>distracted from their fun.
And very often in football, the referee will intervene to adjudicate
proper play, meaning that the team that was in the right will benefit.
(For example, awkward penalty calls, overruling an assistant
referee/linesman on an off-side call, or whatever.)
Here, a third player (or fourth, or fifth) who isn't part of the deal
may find their table much more fun if they're not excluded by a
distasteful deal that means that they have two predators come to
annihilate them.
Comparisons with soccer fall down when you fail to realise that the fun
for the other three teams in a "five-way soccer match" may well
increase.
>I can of course understand that you, as a regular judge, want to
>increase the interaction with judges in the game ;-) Ok, that was not
>really serious ...
It's also shit.
I have no particular wish to raise the level of judge interaction in the
game at all. I would *love* all tournaments to run themselves. I would
love being able to play in the Nationals instead of judging them. I
would love to have tried to qualify for an EC spot instead of judging
the English qualifier, whether I attended the EC in the end or not.
However, the proposal at hand fixes some of the more significant issues
that a number of groups are seeing worldwide. We don't have a better
proposal yet. So let's just go with this one for now, because - as
you've acknowledged - it will certainly fix some problems, even if you
don't like the way it goes about fixing some of them.
If, mid-season, someone has come up with a clever, subtle, and brilliant
rules change that fixes everything, allows judges to spend a tournament
making tea and eating biscuits, and brings about world peace, that's
just great. We don't have that rules change, however. So why not go
with something that stands a good chance of fixing a number of problems
now, and try to work towards something perfect to be added mid-season,
or for 2008, or to be added to the base rules (if appropriate), or
whatever?
>> Your other points assume a number of questionable things. One is that
>> combat appears to be rush. Which it isn't. Intercept walls that can go
>> forward are capable of winning without massively intricate deals. Decks
>> with a bruise component are similarly capable. Madness Network OOT
>> decks have shown themselves able to win tournaments without significant
>> dealing. Bruise-and-vote turns up in tournaments and does pretty fine.
>> Peter Bakija has put forward a coherent strategy for a combat deck to
>> win without dealing - demolish prey, oust backwards, 3VP, no deal.
>
>My fault. Should have written rush instead of combat.
So now you're only picking one strategy out of lots. Why should the
tournament rules be rewritten to benefit rush combat, when a number of
other combat strategies work well and a multiplicity of other non-combat
(other than possible defence) strategies are working fine with the rules
change, and a number of rush combat decks can try to as well?
>> Why is a combat deck not capable of making short-term deals and doing
>> well with them? If it is capable, it can do that. If it isn't, why is
>> it the responsibility of the tournament rules to empower one strategy
>> out of a large number? This isn't all combat, surely? If intercept
>> decks were weak in tournaments, would it be the responsibility of the
>> tournament rules to address that, or the responsibility of the printed
>> cards to give those tools to deck designers?
>
>Well, you are right that there should be other/different cards to help
>rush (combat). But you are still assuming that I want the tournament
>rules to help combat. That´s not the case I just want to keep the
>rules as they are to prevent rush (combat) from being harmed by the
>rules. Not a big difference, but still ...
You say potato...
Like other decks that make 2/1 then roll-over deals, combat decks may
have to change the deals they make. Players may well be more inclined
to play differently to obviate the need for such deals. Peter's
strategy of only demolishing your prey once, then taking out anyone
who'll hurt you is a potentially very strong one. Once you oust your
first prey, it has the great, great simplicity of only pitting you
against one Methuselah - your predator. Instead of the usual problem of
trying to balance one Methuselah against another, you demolish your
predator. Your prey can do what he likes, so long as you're confident
enough in your combat abilities that you'll win the show-down. (Of
course, if it turns out you can oust your prey too, you can do that and
get 4/1, but that's not necessary - it's a nice bonus.)
Why is rush combat disproportionately affected by this rules change,
when pretty much any other deck can also make the deal, and rush combat
doesn't have to make the deal anyway?
joha...@scram.de
> In message <1165089348.4...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
> joha...@scram.de writes:
> >I have snipped your off-topic related comments on my other posts. If
> >you want you can reply to them in the appropriate context.
>
> If you can make off-topic comments about seeing your other posts, I can
> make my own comments about them in my post.
>
> The point I was making was about the entirety of your position.
> Snipping it down into bite-sized chunks would almost entirely miss the
> point. The point is that your whole point of view on this issue is
> going off in such a totally different direction that you really are
> trying to find a solution to an entirely different problem.
I can´t really argue with you on the single points you make, because
my language level in english is not good enough to be on par with the
likes of you when it comes down to this kind of discussion. Your points
are thought out pretty well (as always) and it would take me simply too
much time to answer adequately.
Let me make a summarized statement of my opinion on the matter to
simplify further discussion:
- I don´t want to help any type of strategy by changing the rules, I
just wanted to point out that this change might be bad for some
strategies. That was a rather weak point, I admit, but as we were
presented with some facts I rushed to action (probably not a good
idea).
- I think the 0.5 for withdrawal is fine but I also think that the "you
have to break in 1-1" is unenforceable, does not fix anything and
encourages collusion (and collusion seems to be a problem too, at least
people are also complaining about it).
- And what bothers me most: this was hastily done (and a lot of people
seem to agree on this) without the opportunity for real discussion. I
think there is probably some need to fix things but there is really no
need to try to fix something with a hastily established alpha solution.
You propose that we should try and fix again afterwards, I think we
should think and discuss more about it and the change it.
--
johannes walch
d21...@yahoo.com.au
On Dec 3, 3:06 am, "Blooded Sand" <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 5:57 pm, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote:
>
> > Looking at the new tournament rules I can only see one thing: there
> > won´t be any combat decks in the finals anymore.
>
> > The rules make deals practically useless. How can a combat deck go to
> > the final? Make deals.
>
> > The finals will now be (even more than now) a boring mix of hardcore s&b
> > and breed decks with some sprinkeled vote and intercept.
>
> > Whoever (was it the obscure Inner Circle?) did these rules doesn´t have
> > a very good idea of high level tournament play, in my opinion.
>
> > --
> > johannes walchI strongly disagree. This makes deals for combt decks better, as they
> tend to shine in the 3 player enviroment. so deal yourself into a
> position where its a 3 player, and away you go. Plus the best kind of
> deal combat makes is not, "You do this, and I'll do his", I believe
> it's more the "Do this, or Hulk SMASH!!!"
> Heh.
A combat deck needs to shrink the table to 3 players, players I think
need to be aggressive and pro-active and de-stabalize a table from 5
players to 3. I've never been able to completely sweep a 5 player table
with a rush deck, but I have managed to take a 3 player table.
Petri Wessman
> The only reason why combat decks have problems in the Western Europe
> tournement scene is that play is slow. The focus is too much on setting up
> for the table split than really playing all-out V:TES. One of the reasons
> I don't play a lot of tourneys anymore, BTW.
True, and based on what I saw at the EC a large part of that slowness is
some people interrupting *every* *goddam* *action* with "do you really want
to do that, can we make a deal?" :}.
Less deals = less constant table talk that slows down the game.
That said, combat decks have always been and probably will always be a more
difficult way to win games, simply because you're usually attacking
secondary resources instead of primary (pool).
//Petri
Jeroen
Petri Wessman schreef:
> Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
>
> Less deals = less constant table talk that slows down the game.
>
> That said, combat decks have always been and probably will always be a more
> difficult way to win games, simply because you're usually attacking
> secondary resources instead of primary (pool).
>
While I don't have anything against table talk, I don't like the time
spent on it.
Maybe in the rules for July, LSJ should include a 5-way chess timer.
That means: in a 5 player game everyone gets 24 minutes, after an oust
the remaining time is divided among the rest of the players. That way
you can tell some-one to shut up until we're on his time.
J/K of course, but it might make a nice variant. If you can find 5-way
chess timers who take turns clockwise and are able to divide an ousted
player's time among the rest.
Orpheus
> tournement scene is that play is slow.
That is a preposterous statement, because :
- it is not the "only" reason by far (many others have been cited in this
thread alone)
- "slow" or "fast" is only in relativity to something else, so you could
have said "is slower in Western Europe than in my country" (I don't know
where it is), or "too slow for my tastes". Only then would that part of your
assesment be, err... correct. ;-)
- Western Europe is a pretty big place, and I'm pretty sure not everyone
plays the same way inside its borders. Hell, not even in western Paris do
all players enjoy the game the same way or at the same pace !!
All this to say that generalisation of the habits of a region, place, or
type of playgroup is never good (not to mention grounds for latent racism,
if bad come to worse).
> The focus is too much on setting up
> for the table split than really playing all-out V:TES. One of the reasons
I
> don't play a lot of tourneys anymore, BTW.
To some players, table split is a more important part of playing the current
VTES than "all-out" card pushing. Obviously those will have to change their
habits, or maybe they will play less tournies too. Mileages can vary.
> Hopefully, these rules will make combat players realise that the only way
to
> win, is to play pro-actively and fast. Instead of stabilising a table,
they
> need to destabilise the table.
Sure. I've been there, and done that. And you know what happens when a
rusher plays pro-actively and with some degree of efficiency on a table
filled with voters and bleeders ? Well, it is killed by a common consensus
of all the others, eventually even crosstable ("you were sooooo scary !!).
And it doesn't happen only to me, I would do the same if I saw a good combat
deck arriving on me and I didn't pack enough combat defense.
So sometimes the best a combattant can do is wait for its moment, and not
attack anyone too much until the time is right (or at least one player
died).
> And, even with the new rules, there are dealing options open for the rush
> deck. promise your grandprey 2VP, oust your own prey, win the end
game.It's
> even better than gunning for the 3-2 split.
Sure. Except that the rules now will force your grand-prey to break, and if
he was in any position to oust the other 2 players you'll probably have
trouble ousting HIM (well, with 12 more pool he might just contend with
pooling a little and waiting for Time Limit, depending on his combat defense
you have chances to be very much screwed...).
Not saying I totally share Johannes' view on this, but certainly rush decks
were handicaped before, and possibly that change in rules will hinder their
dealing capacity, and therefore their winning capacity, more than the other
decktypes.
--
Orpheus
Nearly made it to LSJ's Killfile !!
Orpheus
I think it should also include a computer per table, with voice-recognition
program. This would not only measure the speaking time of each player, but
also if he speaks loud enough for everyone to hear, but not loud enough to
be considered aggressive shouting. We could also measure the heartbeats of
each player, therefore including a physical sportsmanship in VTES, because
one shouldn't stress too much his mind and body while playing. Maybe the
computer could be on batteries run by the players who would sit on bikes
without wheels and keep on riding them while they're playing. Then the
computer would calculate a proportion of VPs and of physical prowesses based
on a cosinus of X factor, where X is the quantity of alcoholic beverages
present in the player's blood in milligrams, converted according to a
venusian algorythm well know of all space and time travellers.
Or maybe we could just... forgive me Ankur, can I borrow something from you
just a moment ? ...play the game ?! You know, the one we're supposed to
like...
--
Orpheus
-----------------------
I'm dead serious ! Well, mostly dead...
Ankur Gupta
> you just a moment ? ...play the game ?! You know, the one we're supposed
> to like...
No monopoly on the phrase, use it to your heart's content. :)
Ankur
Play. The. Game.
LSJ
> Maybe in the rules for July, LSJ should include a 5-way chess timer.
> That means: in a 5 player game everyone gets 24 minutes, after an oust
> the remaining time is divided among the rest of the players. That way
> you can tell some-one to shut up until we're on his time.
>
> J/K of course, but it might make a nice variant. If you can find 5-way
> chess timers who take turns clockwise and are able to divide an ousted
> player's time among the rest.
I have an N-way chess clock for N from 2 to 8. It wouldn't solve anything, of
course, since a player's turn is not solely his own.
Peter D Bakija
Johannes Walch wrote:
> Looking at the new tournament rules I can only see one thing: there
> won´t be any combat decks in the finals anymore.
Realizing I'm coming into this conversation late, but uh, wha? Are you
smoking crack?
> The rules make deals practically useless. How can a combat deck go to
> the final? Make deals.
Or, yah, know, it could go to the finals like everyone else--oust your
prey and get table wins. I get in the finals all the time with combat
decks. I don't make deals (or at least I don't make significant
deals--I'll make quid pro quo "rescue my guy and I'll vote for your
political action" deals or whatever, but I don't make table split deals
or anything of the sort).
> The finals will now be (even more than now) a boring mix of hardcore s&b
> and breed decks with some sprinkeled vote and intercept.
Based on what, exactly?
> Whoever (was it the obscure Inner Circle?) did these rules doesn´t have
> a very good idea of high level tournament play, in my opinion.
I can only assume you don't have a very good idea of combat deck play,
myself.
-Peter
Preston
It's humorous that, Johannes has not only predicted the death of
combat, but also anticipated the dirth of vote. Given that I have also
seen members of this board proclaiming the death of S&B, it would seem
that everything but weenies has been declared dead. The upside is that,
with all these decks now declared dead, it greatly simplifies my deck
construction tasks.
Sincerely,
Preston
Johannes Walch
Playing weenie decks has always been a solid choice, so your
construction task could have been simplified a few years ago.
I, for myself, prefer my contruction task to remain complicated. I enjoy
it this way.
Even more humorous, by the way, is that I was absolutely right with my
prediction for the future of certain vote decks. I still have the
opinion that there was a better fix for the table changing votes than
simply banning them (and for the Succubus Club as well).
--
johannes walch
Preston
> Preston schrieb:
> > It's humorous that, Johannes has not only predicted the death of
> > combat, but also anticipated the dirth of vote. Given that I have also
> > seen members of this board proclaiming the death of S&B, it would seem
> > that everything but weenies has been declared dead. The upside is that,
> > with all these decks now declared dead, it greatly simplifies my deck
> > construction tasks.
>
> Playing weenie decks has always been a solid choice, so your
> construction task could have been simplified a few years ago.
>
> I, for myself, prefer my contruction task to remain complicated. I enjoy
> it this way.
>
> Even more humorous, by the way, is that I was absolutely right with my
> prediction for the future of certain vote decks. I still have the
> opinion that there was a better fix for the table changing votes than
> simply banning them (and for the Succubus Club as well).
>
> --
> johannes walch
I'm sorry Johannes, but, as someone who has played more combat decks
than decks of any other type, I must say I can't remember a single time
I have made a deal to take a given player down in exchange for a
withdrawl. From my experience, these sorts of deals are much more
prevalent amongst the Kindred S&B/vote decks. So I would predict the
opposite in terms of combat viability.
But there's a larger issue here. And that's that the large tournaments
themselves seem to have an amazing level of homogenity. From my own
experience I can say that this is simply not because other decks don't
work, but because people seem compelled to play an established deck in
a large tournament. VTES has such a vast card pool and the multiplayer
dynamics are such that a huge number of deck archetypes will be
consistent winners. I believe the reason such homogenity is seen
amongst the large tournaments has more to do with psychology than with
the strength of such decks.
All that being said, it seems rather absurd for you to claim the "death
of combat decks" given that you are citing statistics that show there
weren't any there to begin with. If next year is a repeat of this year
are you going to pay yourself on the back for your predictive powers?
Incidentally, I'm pretty happy with my VTES game play despite the fact
that I play styles contrarian to established styles (i.e I rarely play
weenies/hunting grounds/blood dolls/ or S&B). There are such powerful
cards that work against the weenie dynamic available, that if weenie
and S&B really become the standard tournament fare, that would make the
standard Arika deflect/Ancilla Empowerment deck the new deck to beat.
Which would defeat your first prediction of the effects of banning
table switching votes.
Sincerely,
Preston
Jeroen Rombouts
"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> schreef in bericht
news:4572f2c0$0$6818$426a...@news.free.fr...
Jeroen Rombouts
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht
news:szCch.18337$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
I know, hence, the just kidding. :-)
Where do you get such a thing?
Johannes Walch
> I'm sorry Johannes, but, as someone who has played more combat decks
> than decks of any other type, I must say I can't remember a single time
> I have made a deal to take a given player down in exchange for a
> withdrawl. From my experience, these sorts of deals are much more
> prevalent amongst the Kindred S&B/vote decks. So I would predict the
> opposite in terms of combat viability.
I have had my share of combat deck experience, too, and I must say that
I was relying on deals a big deal to have success with them. But then
again they were dedicated mono-rush decks AND it may be tied to my
playing style.
> But there's a larger issue here. And that's that the large tournaments
> themselves seem to have an amazing level of homogenity. From my own
> experience I can say that this is simply not because other decks don't
> work, but because people seem compelled to play an established deck in
> a large tournament. VTES has such a vast card pool and the multiplayer
> dynamics are such that a huge number of deck archetypes will be
> consistent winners. I believe the reason such homogenity is seen
> amongst the large tournaments has more to do with psychology than with
> the strength of such decks.
That愀 a really interesting point you make but I disagree. I think that
(especially) weenie and also S&B decks are the most consistent of all
the deck-types out there AND they tend to carve up VPs that you need to
go in the final.
> All that being said, it seems rather absurd for you to claim the "death
> of combat decks" given that you are citing statistics that show there
> weren't any there to begin with. If next year is a repeat of this year
> are you going to pay yourself on the back for your predictive powers?
>
> Incidentally, I'm pretty happy with my VTES game play despite the fact
> that I play styles contrarian to established styles (i.e I rarely play
> weenies/hunting grounds/blood dolls/ or S&B). There are such powerful
> cards that work against the weenie dynamic available, that if weenie
> and S&B really become the standard tournament fare, that would make the
> standard Arika deflect/Ancilla Empowerment deck the new deck to beat.
> Which would defeat your first prediction of the effects of banning
> table switching votes.
Of course the "death of combat decks" is an absurd exageration I was
using to point out the fact that the rules change might affect the
meta-game more than it should. Combat decks will not die (too many
lovers out there).
What愀 exactly the meaning of "pay yourself back"? No irony here at the
moment I simply don愒 get it? So for now the answer is: probably ;-)
--
johannes walch
Pat
news:ekvf0r$t7i$1...@news01.versatel.de...
> Preston schrieb:
<snip>
>> All that being said, it seems rather absurd for you to claim the "death
>> of combat decks" given that you are citing statistics that show there
>> weren't any there to begin with. If next year is a repeat of this year
>> are you going to pay yourself on the back for your predictive powers?
>>
>> Incidentally, I'm pretty happy with my VTES game play despite the fact
>> that I play styles contrarian to established styles (i.e I rarely play
>> weenies/hunting grounds/blood dolls/ or S&B). There are such powerful
>> cards that work against the weenie dynamic available, that if weenie
>> and S&B really become the standard tournament fare, that would make the
>> standard Arika deflect/Ancilla Empowerment deck the new deck to beat.
>> Which would defeat your first prediction of the effects of banning
>> table switching votes.
>
> Of course the "death of combat decks" is an absurd exageration I was using
> to point out the fact that the rules change might affect the meta-game
> more than it should. Combat decks will not die (too many lovers out
> there).
>
> What´s exactly the meaning of "pay yourself back"? No irony here at the
> moment I simply don´t get it? So for now the answer is: probably ;-)
>
The original comment was a typo... Preston meant to schreib "pat yourself on
the back," which is English idiom for "congratulate yourself."
- Pat
Rob Grau
Johannes Walch wrote:
> Preston schrieb:
> > of combat decks" given that you are citing statistics that show there
> > weren't any there to begin with. If next year is a repeat of this year
> > are you going to pay yourself on the back for your predictive powers?
>
> moment I simply don´t get it? So for now the answer is: probably ;-)
It's likely a typo. I think he meant "pat yourself on the back". The
T and the Y keys are next to each other on my keyboard.
Rob Grau
rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu
Peter D Bakija
Johannes Walch wrote:
> I have had my share of combat deck experience, too, and I must say that
> I was relying on deals a big deal to have success with them. But then
> again they were dedicated mono-rush decks AND it may be tied to my
> playing style.
It is very likely that your view on this particular issue is directly
tied to your perception of how combat decks work. As someone who plays
an awful lot of combat decks in competition, and who has won both small
and large tournaments with them, I can tell you that it is highly
unlikely that the change to the withdraw rule, and the "all deals are
null and void in the 1 on 1 endgame" rule will have any impact at all
on the viability of combat decks.
-Peter
Johannes Walch
Ah, yes. On a german keyboard the Z and the Y key are exchanged compared
to a US keyboard ...
Well of course I will pat myself on the back. Nothing sweeter than whole
heartedly saying "I saw that coming" :-)))
--
johannes walch
Johannes Walch
We are both talking about combat decks in our respective hands. I tell
you that my style of playing with them will be severly hampered you tell
me it won´t have any effect on your game. So actually I think we both
have a valid point.
So the "goodness" of the rule change (regarding it´s effect on the
performance of combat decks) actually depends on the "average" playing
style with those decks. That will be tough to find out ....
--
johannes walch
Peter D Bakija
Johannes Walch wrote:
> We are both talking about combat decks in our respective hands. I tell
> you that my style of playing with them will be severly hampered you tell
> me it won´t have any effect on your game. So actually I think we both
> have a valid point.
Well, if the point was "combat decks are never going to make the finals
of a big tournament again, 'cause they can't rely on deal making
anymore", which your original point seemed to be (me full well
realizing that it was a hyperbolic one), then I don't actually think we
both have a valid point. Just me :-)
It seems very possible that your style of playing combat decks will be
severely hampered by the new tournament rules. But Johannes's
Experience does not equal The Universal Experience.
> So the "goodness" of the rule change (regarding it´s effect on the
> performance of combat decks) actually depends on the "average" playing
> style with those decks. That will be tough to find out ....
I'm really not seeing that it'll have that much of an impact at all.
But then, I do pretty well in tournament play historically (although
this last year was a pretty bleak one...) without relying on deals to
get places. If someone can do well in competetive play without relying
on deal making, I'm not seeing how these new tournament rules are going
to make much difference to their performance one way or the other,
combat decks or no.
-Peter
Jeroen Rombouts
"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> schreef in bericht
>> The only reason why combat decks have problems in the Western Europe
>> tournement scene is that play is slow.
>
> That is a preposterous statement, because :
>
> - it is not the "only" reason by far (many others have been cited in this
> thread alone)
> - "slow" or "fast" is only in relativity to something else, so you could
> have said "is slower in Western Europe than in my country" (I don't know
> where it is), or "too slow for my tastes". Only then would that part of
> your
> assesment be, err... correct. ;-)
> - Western Europe is a pretty big place, and I'm pretty sure not everyone
> plays the same way inside its borders. Hell, not even in western Paris do
> all players enjoy the game the same way or at the same pace !!
>
> All this to say that generalisation of the habits of a region, place, or
> type of playgroup is never good (not to mention grounds for latent racism,
> if bad come to worse).
1. I'm from Belgium. That's Western Europe. I've played in a lot of
countries. And it never used to be as bad as the last years. A couple of
years ago I was advocating more deals, now not so.
2. With 'to0 slow' I don't mean, don't ever talk. I was just thinking about
the number of time-outs the average tournament has. 2 hours should be enough
to finish a game. Yet, a lot of tables time out.
>
> > The focus is too much on setting up
>> for the table split than really playing all-out V:TES. One of the reasons
> I
>> don't play a lot of tourneys anymore, BTW.
>
> To some players, table split is a more important part of playing the
> current
> VTES than "all-out" card pushing. Obviously those will have to change
> their
> habits, or maybe they will play less tournies too. Mileages can vary.
I'm not advocating all-out card pushing. I'm advocating a mixed style. And
the trend is to give deals more importance than they should have.
>
>> Hopefully, these rules will make combat players realise that the only way
> to
>> win, is to play pro-actively and fast. Instead of stabilising a table,
> they
>> need to destabilise the table.
>
> Sure. I've been there, and done that. And you know what happens when a
> rusher plays pro-actively and with some degree of efficiency on a table
> filled with voters and bleeders ? Well, it is killed by a common consensus
> of all the others, eventually even crosstable ("you were sooooo scary !!).
> And it doesn't happen only to me, I would do the same if I saw a good
> combat
> deck arriving on me and I didn't pack enough combat defense.
That's just bad luck. And an easy GW for the original grandpredator of the
rush deck.
>
> So sometimes the best a combattant can do is wait for its moment, and not
> attack anyone too much until the time is right (or at least one player
> died).
That was my point. NO YOU CAN'T. If you start waiting, the only way to get a
GW is by dealing. The only situation you can wait, is if your predator or
prey has combat that trumps yours.
>
>> And, even with the new rules, there are dealing options open for the rush
>> deck. promise your grandprey 2VP, oust your own prey, win the end
> game.It's
>> even better than gunning for the 3-2 split.
>
> Sure. Except that the rules now will force your grand-prey to break,
That's not breaking a deal, it's actually honoring it. In the above example
no-one says anything about the 2-player game. Just 1 -2 split, play 1-1 for
the win.
>and if
> he was in any position to oust the other 2 players you'll probably have
> trouble ousting HIM
>(well, with 12 more pool he might just contend with
> pooling a little and waiting for Time Limit, depending on his combat
> defense
> you have chances to be very much screwed...).
That's the point of these changes, isn't it. Complicating table splits, if
only slightly. And reducing the certainty of table splits being honored is a
big plus for me.
>
> Not saying I totally share Johannes' view on this, but certainly rush
> decks
> were handicaped before, and possibly that change in rules will hinder
> their
> dealing capacity, and therefore their winning capacity, more than the
> other
> decktypes.
Rush decks were already more difficult to win with. That doesn't change.
They don't become harder to win with either.
LSJ
>> of course, since a player's turn is not solely his own.
>
> I know, hence, the just kidding. :-)
>
> Where do you get such a thing?
G8 Game Timer
obelisk
with dawgs of war and just hammering everyone at a table into the
ground... That or letting carmine giovanni drop a dead hand with claws
of the dead on Arika's grappled ass...
~m
The Name Forgotten
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> It seems very possible that your style of playing combat decks will be
> severely hampered by the new tournament rules. But Johannes's
> Experience does not equal The Universal Experience.
>
I agree with Peter on this one. I am also a combat deck lover, and it
has long been my favorite deck type. Altho I know Peter prefers his
smaller-cap rushers and I prefer my "Team Captain / All Star" decks, my
experience here has largely been the same. I don't do fantastically at
tournaments because I feel that combat decks usually have a
disadvantage, but also have never relied on these sorts of table deals
to ensure victory.
My personal opinion is that combat decks tend not to do so well for two
reasons (primarily).
1) They attack a secondary source (as was mentioned before)
2) They need too many cards on hand at the right time to work (as
opposed to S&B/vote decks).
>
> I'm really not seeing that it'll have that much of an impact at all.
> But then, I do pretty well in tournament play historically (although
> this last year was a pretty bleak one...) without relying on deals to
> get places. If someone can do well in competetive play without relying
> on deal making, I'm not seeing how these new tournament rules are going
> to make much difference to their performance one way or the other,
> combat decks or no.
>
I actually feel that the most deal-making usually happens with vote
decks, as it is the most common time for people to affect someone
across the table from them. Either because of damaging vote cards (like
KRC), beneficial votes, or simple vote support or resistence.
I usually find combat decks tend to do 1 of 2 things when it comes to
good deal-making.
1) They stay out of deals, play down their deck, wait for the right
moment to pounce on the table, then oust a whole bunch of people before
they realise what just happened.
2) They bully the other players into submission.
I've also seen the the trend depends on the kind of combat your deck
relies on - playing with more transients (Bum's Rush, Torn Signpost
etc.) tends to lend itself better to the first style, whereas playing
with more permanents (Weapons, Archons etc.) tends to lend better to
the second style.
Of course, I'm not trying to say this as a universal comment - this is
simply how I see things being played here in Cape Town. I imagine it is
very different in other play-groups. I have lurked on these forums for
a while and have noticed hugely different playing styles from place to
place. It's one of the reasons I enjoy playing people from other parts
of the world - there is always so much more to learn from other styles
of play.
Johannes Walch
> I've also seen the the trend depends on the kind of combat your deck
> relies on - playing with more transients (Bum's Rush, Torn Signpost
> etc.) tends to lend itself better to the first style, whereas playing
> with more permanents (Weapons, Archons etc.) tends to lend better to
> the second style.
What excactly is "first" and "second" style referring to? Deal, No-Deal?
Which one is "first"?
--
johannes walch
Peter D Bakija
The Name Forgotten wrote:
> My personal opinion is that combat decks tend not to do so well for two
> reasons (primarily).
> 1) They attack a secondary source (as was mentioned before)
> 2) They need too many cards on hand at the right time to work (as
> opposed to S&B/vote decks).
Combat decks are hard to win with. I think that is a given. But they
are much less hard to win with than many folks seem to think (i.e. many
voices in this thread seem to be under the impression that combat decks
are a dead end to begin with, which is clearly not the case--heck, look
at the first 6 or 7 decks at the top of the TWDA right now--they are
mostly pretty fighty). And winning with them does not require making
deals, as Johannes seemed to think. Mostly what it requires is killing
your first prey quickly and brutally, and then angling to be last man
standing at the table. Which isn't at all impossible given a favorable
table (i.e. you don't end up between a Gangrel and an All Fortitude
deck after killing your first prey).
> I actually feel that the most deal-making usually happens with vote
> decks, as it is the most common time for people to affect someone
> across the table from them. Either because of damaging vote cards (like
> KRC), beneficial votes, or simple vote support or resistence.
Heh. I think you are misunderstanding the kind of deals we are talking
about here :-)
There are standard quid-pro-quo deals (i.e. do X for me and then I'll
do Y for you), which isn't really what is at issue here. This is
primarily a discussion of "I'll not oust you, my prey, if you kill two
people and then roll over for me, so you get 2VPs and I get 3VPs..."
> I usually find combat decks tend to do 1 of 2 things when it comes to
> good deal-making.
> 1) They stay out of deals, play down their deck, wait for the right
> moment to pounce on the table, then oust a whole bunch of people before
> they realise what just happened.
That is generally how I like to play, although I rarely every oust a
whole bunch of people :-)
The best scenario for me, generally, is as mentioned above--kill your
first prey quickly and ruthlessly, and then work backwards or forwards
as necessary to remain alive as last man standing.
> 2) They bully the other players into submission.
This tends to not work so well, as it just makes people mad at you,
anmd you end up getting too much crosstable KRC damage or whatever. It
is too difficult to bully everyone at the table at the same time.
-Peter
James Coupe
Maybe, just maybe, it refers to the previous paragraph, which had
numbers right next to two different play-styles!
>I usually find combat decks tend to do 1 of 2 things when it comes to
>good deal-making.
>1) They stay out of deals, play down their deck, wait for the right
>moment to pounce on the table, then oust a whole bunch of people before
>they realise what just happened.
>2) They bully the other players into submission.
>
>I've also seen the the trend depends on the kind of combat your deck
>relies on - playing with more transients (Bum's Rush, Torn Signpost
>etc.) tends to lend itself better to the first style, whereas playing
>with more permanents (Weapons, Archons etc.) tends to lend better to
>the second style.
It's pretty easy to work out what's being said when you read the whole
thing!
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
XZealot
Johannes Walch wrote:
> Looking at the new tournament rules I can only see one thing: there
> won´t be any combat decks in the finals anymore.
I wouldn't restrict that to combat decks.
> The rules make deals practically useless. How can a combat deck go to
> the final? Make deals.
Currently, how do all decks make it to the finals? They make deals. I
haven't see a finals at the NAC populated with anything other than deal
makers, ever.
> The finals will now be (even more than now) a boring mix of hardcore s&b
> and breed decks with some sprinkeled vote and intercept.
When players focus on S&B and breed decks then those players who are
prepared for those archtypes will come out on top.
> Whoever (was it the obscure Inner Circle?) did these rules doesn´t have
> a very good idea of high level tournament play, in my opinion.
I am pretty sure that "the obscure Inner Circel" saw what was happening
at the high level of tournament play. It was so abstractly removed
from what is printed in the rulebook that it may as well have been
another game (i.e. Diplomacy).
I don't know this for a fact, but having been there and seen that NAC
thing. I would say that less long-term dealmaking is best for the
game. Without ball-gagging all the players, I think that this is a
good start.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Johannes Walch
> Maybe, just maybe, it refers to the previous paragraph, which had
> numbers right next to two different play-styles!
First, I asked him, not you. Second I wanted to make sure first and
second are indeed referring to 1) and 2).
>> I usually find combat decks tend to do 1 of 2 things when it comes to
>> good deal-making.
>> 1) They stay out of deals, play down their deck, wait for the right
>> moment to pounce on the table, then oust a whole bunch of people before
>> they realise what just happened.
>> 2) They bully the other players into submission.
>>
>> I've also seen the the trend depends on the kind of combat your deck
>> relies on - playing with more transients (Bum's Rush, Torn Signpost
>> etc.) tends to lend itself better to the first style, whereas playing
>> with more permanents (Weapons, Archons etc.) tends to lend better to
>> the second style.
>
> It's pretty easy to work out what's being said when you read the whole
> thing!
I have read the whole thing and I wanted to make a reply to it, but
first I wanted to make sure that I got it right. Replying in a lengthy
way and then finding out that the original poster had a different point
than I was thinking is pretty un-productive.
And your behaviour of patronizing people doesn´t help any discussion at
all. In fact it´s so enerving that I was about to quit the discussion,
only the possibility that this was your intention kept me from doing it.
--
johannes walch
James Coupe
<johanne...@vekn.de> writes:
>And your behaviour of patronizing people doesn´t help any discussion at
>all.
As opposed to being unable to work out that the play style described
first and labelled with a 1 is "first", and the play style described
second and labelled with a 2 is "second"?
That helps discussion loads.
James Coupe
XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes:
>Without ball-gagging all the players, I think that this is a
>good start.
Ooh, a mid-season solution with no downsides! They can still make deals
through mime and grunts, but it'll be limited by how well they can
breathe, and whether they choke on their own phlegm in the process.
Winner.
Johannes Walch
> I usually find combat decks tend to do 1 of 2 things when it comes to
> good deal-making.
> 1) They stay out of deals, play down their deck, wait for the right
> moment to pounce on the table, then oust a whole bunch of people before
> they realise what just happened.
> 2) They bully the other players into submission.
>
> I've also seen the the trend depends on the kind of combat your deck
> relies on - playing with more transients (Bum's Rush, Torn Signpost
> etc.) tends to lend itself better to the first style, whereas playing
> with more permanents (Weapons, Archons etc.) tends to lend better to
> the second style.
Why do you think that is the case? Of course an Assault Rifle on an
Archon IS scary (in a very obvious way) but so are 5 minions with just
POT and no permanent at all (at least to me). If a player knows
something about the game he will realize the threat anyway.
Strategy number 2 doesn´t work so well from my experience, because
tables seem to gang up on this kind of behaviour and/or players make
silly moves against you just because they feel bullied.
Strategy number 1 is good, when it´s possible to do it. If you have a
stealth bleed as predator and grand-predator (=eating bleeds from 2
meths) there must be a course of immediate action or you will be ousted
quickly. But crushing the predator w/o getting anything out of the
grand-pred isn´t any good because then you just face the next S&B (in
this example).
--
johannes walch
Johannes Walch
> In message <el395u$aqc$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch
> <johanne...@vekn.de> writes:
>> And your behaviour of patronizing people doesn´t help any discussion at
>> all.
>
> As opposed to being unable to work out that the play style described
> first and labelled with a 1 is "first", and the play style described
> second and labelled with a 2 is "second"?
>
> That helps discussion loads.
>
I was thinking if probably first/second could also be related to the
following statement he made earlier:
"Altho I know Peter prefers his
smaller-cap rushers and I prefer my "Team Captain / All Star" decks, my
experience here has largely been the same."
And knowing about this helps my discussion with him. You are not
required to take part in it if you feel my questions are too stupid.
--
johannes walch
atomweaver
$eVWh1T...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk:
> In message <1165287434....@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes:
>>Without ball-gagging all the players, I think that this is a
>>good start.
>
> Ooh, a mid-season solution with no downsides! They can still make deals
> through mime and grunts, but it'll be limited by how well they can
> breathe, and whether they choke on their own phlegm in the process.
>
> Winner.
>
NO fair!! Coupe has had _years_ of experience communicating past a ball-
gag, and the rest of us will have only a half-year to catch up...
;P
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
...the safety word is 'Ecclesiastical'
Peter D Bakija
On Dec 5, 5:48 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote:
> Strategy number 1 is good, when it´s possible to do it. If you have a
> stealth bleed as predator and grand-predator (=eating bleeds from 2
> meths) there must be a course of immediate action or you will be ousted
> quickly. But crushing the predator w/o getting anything out of the
> grand-pred isn´t any good because then you just face the next S&B (in
> this example).
Sure. Sometimes that happens. Sometimes, you end up sitting down into
an unwinnable situation. Just like if you are a S+B deck and you sit
between 2 Rush decks. You are just screwed from the get go. In
situations like that, you do the best you can, and accept that you are
probably going to get killed anyway.
This problem is not the sole province of the Rush deck.
-Peter
James Coupe
<atomw...@hotmail.com> writes:
>James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:AQ3
>$eVWh1T...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk:
>> through mime and grunts, but it'll be limited by how well they can
>> breathe, and whether they choke on their own phlegm in the process.
>>
>> Winner.
>
>NO fair!! Coupe has had _years_ of experience communicating past a ball-
>gag, and the rest of us will have only a half-year to catch up...
Judges get ceremonial gimp suits, obviously.
XZealot
Not to mention those players skilled with flatulence.....
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
>
James Coupe
XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes:
>atomweaver wrote:
>> NO fair!! Coupe has had _years_ of experience communicating past a ball-
>> gag, and the rest of us will have only a half-year to catch up...
>
>Not to mention those players skilled with flatulence.....
Ah, we'd probably have to ban bugles, in case players try to send
messages to each other across the room. Or, at least, require that the
bugles have mutes in them.
islando...@aol.com
> NO fair!! Coupe has had _years_ of experience communicating past a ball-
> gag, and the rest of us will have only a half-year to catch up...
I LOL'd.
> ...the safety word is 'Ecclesiastical'
Ball gags and a safe word? No, no, stop when he drops the
handkerchief.
But you should ask Oscar, since he posted that pic of those people
playing in the mud...
-- Brian
Blooded Sand
On Dec 7, 3:22 am, islandofyia...@aol.com wrote:
> atomweaver wrote:
> > NO fair!! Coupe has had _years_ of experience communicating past a ball-
> > gag, and the rest of us will have only a half-year to catch up...I LOL'd.
>
> > ...the safety word is 'Ecclesiastical'Ball gags and a safe word? No, no, stop when he drops the
> handkerchief.
Player 1: Mumble mumtter muble mmmph!
Player 2: Ummph? Mumble *nod* mumble bwmph...
Player 1: guh....
Yes well now. That's also not to mention all the drooling on cards that
will be happening.
LSJ
>> "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht
And apparently, you can get software to do it for 2 - 10 players on your iPod as
well: