New V:EKN Tourney Rules go into effect Jan 1, 2002
The Lasombra
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknRulesNew.html
Look for the changes in section 3.1 and 3.8.1.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
--
Posted from rr-163-54-80.atl.mediaone.net [24.163.54.80]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
X_Zealot
"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f126bfc1aafe5b5949f...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> New V:EKN Tournament Rules go into effect January 1, 2002
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknRulesNew.html
>
>
> Look for the changes in section 3.1 and 3.8.1.
>
>
> Carpe noctem.
>
> Lasombra
>
> http://www.TheLasombra.com
>
I love it. Die, Die, Die!! You table splitting bastards.
Oh wait, that's me. :)
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
The Nosferatu Stuff
news:f126bfc1aafe5b5949f...@mygate.mailgate.org...
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknRulesNew.html
>
>
> Look for the changes in section 3.1 and 3.8.1.
Here it is for the lazy folks:
3.8.1. Game Win Scoring
A player receives a Game Win at the end of a game in which they have
received at least two (2) Victory Points and have more Victory Points than
any other player in the game. (No game win is awarded in the case of ties.)
Anyway...why did they have to go and call it "game wins"? I though we
were calling it 'table wins' Now I'll just be confused forever. Like
Jyhad/VTES. Don't go changing names/terms once they are created. Next
thing you know someone will want to rename the 11 cap Assamite from Your
Sugary to something stupid like Ur Shulgi.
--
Aaron
The Nosferatu Stuff
PeterM
>
> I love it. Die, Die, Die!! You table splitting bastards.
>
I concur. This will (hopefully) force ppl to play decks that can get
at least 2 VP's in a game, which means faster decks, less games cut
short due to time limits and less table-splitting bullshit...(though
luckily it's not common in Toronto)
Peter
Frederick Scott
Also, hopefully less bloat, less intercept, and more bleed (or offensive,
opponent-ousting stuff).
Fred
legbiter
> "The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f126bfc1aafe5b5949f...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> > New V:EKN Tournament Rules go into effect January 1, 2002
> >
> > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknRulesNew.html
> >
> >
> > Look for the changes in section 3.1 and 3.8.1.
>
> Here it is for the lazy folks:
>
> 3.8.1. Game Win Scoring
>
> A player receives a Game Win at the end of a game in which they have
> received at least two (2) Victory Points and have more Victory Points than
> any other player in the game. (No game win is awarded in the case of ties.)
EXCELLENT rule change IMO, will make the tourney game MUCH better for
everyone. Goodbye, Stupid Combat/Vote/General cross-table crappy play.
Huzzah!
>
>
>
> Anyway...why did they have to go and call it "game wins"? I though we
> were calling it 'table wins' Now I'll just be confused forever. Like
> Jyhad/VTES. Don't go changing names/terms once they are created. Next
> thing you know someone will want to rename the 11 cap Assamite from Your
> Sugary to something stupid like Ur Shulgi.
??? Do you mean You're Shaggable, or is there another 11-cap assamite
with two votes, +1 bleed and the ability to sniff out the Tajdid cards
Lurking in your deck? ;)
Talo...@hotmail.com
>>
>>
>> Look for the changes in section 3.1 and 3.8.1.
>
3.1 is a brutal rules change. I know its meant to address all the
deal brokering and whatnot, but it has an unfortunate result imo for
the game.
I *like* dealmaking. To me, thats what the game is about. Why
should we strive to kill every last person(meth) in the game? That
doesnt make a whole lot of sense, that every meth is bloodcrazed and
seeks the final death of *every* other meth in the world. Maybe I as
a meth in the world of darkness would tire of this jyhad after ousting
my prey and decide to sit back or even call for peace among the
survivors?
To me the current vp system allows for both styles of play, whereas
the new one does not.
It only rewards one style of play. Outright domination.
Now this makes it even harder for wall or combat decks to compete,and
encourages big bleed and vote decks over anything else. And thats a
downright shame.
T
Flux
<Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3bba448b.148558883@news...
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Look for the changes in section 3.1 and 3.8.1.
> >
>
> 3.1 is a brutal rules change. I know its meant to address all the
> deal brokering and whatnot, but it has an unfortunate result imo for
> the game.
>
> I *like* dealmaking. To me, thats what the game is about. Why
> should we strive to kill every last person(meth) in the game? That
> doesnt make a whole lot of sense, that every meth is bloodcrazed and
> seeks the final death of *every* other meth in the world. Maybe I as
> a meth in the world of darkness would tire of this jyhad after ousting
> my prey and decide to sit back or even call for peace among the
> survivors?
Deals are still legal, but now they'll have to be more short-termed, and you
can't throw the game to get 1 or 2 VPs.
> To me the current vp system allows for both styles of play, whereas
> the new one does not.
>
> It only rewards one style of play. Outright domination.
>
> Now this makes it even harder for wall or combat decks to compete,and
> encourages big bleed and vote decks over anything else. And thats a
> downright shame.
On the contrary, wall decks will benefit from a 2-1-1-1 or 3-1-1
distribution. If anything, the new system will benefit those who prefer to
take a few points and then lay back, while under the current system you'll
always want to make as many VPs as possible (unless you've qualified for the
finals already, of course). I can see how the new system might encourage
both 'wall decks' that sit tight and catch the last VPs on the table, and
'live fast, die young' decks, that die after quickly ousting their first
couple of preys. The only type of decks that come out penalized by this
change are 'total domination' sweeping decks, and that's not a bad change in
my book. :-)
Anyway, this has all been discussed here in the newsgroup a few months ago,
and I'm sure this change has been made considering all points of view
exposed at that time.
Flux
Frederick Scott
> I *like* dealmaking. To me, thats what the game is about. Why
> should we strive to kill every last person(meth) in the game? That
> doesnt make a whole lot of sense, that every meth is bloodcrazed and
> seeks the final death of *every* other meth in the world. Maybe I as
> a meth in the world of darkness would tire of this jyhad after ousting
> my prey and decide to sit back or even call for peace among the
> survivors?
>
> To me the current vp system allows for both styles of play, whereas
> the new one does not.
I don't think there's any such thing as "allowing for both styles of
play". To the extent that game-long deals are effective, it takes away
from the dynamics of playing for the win. And my perception is that
right now in tournament, too many players are screwing up the game by
playing to take one or two victory points before being ousted instead of
playing to win the game.
The importance of the Succubus Club demonstrates exactly what I'm talking
about: I've barely ever seen it in an informal game where people play
pretty much to win because how much dealing you can do with players you're
intending to beat in the end are limited. Only in a tournament environment,
where people are significantly rewarded for getting two victory points and
then handing three to another player does it become an important card.
The problem with playing for victory points instead of game wins is that
the goal of the game varies depending on how hard it is to make the finals.
If you have a five-man final in a 12-player tournament and two rounds,
players can easily skate in with 3 1/2 or 4 victory points, meaning you'd
never have to win a game. In a 50-player tournament and two rounds, you
may not be able to advance with less than 6. Different decks and different
tactics become important depending on the number of players in the tournament.
That, to me, is just wrong.
With the new rules, the goal is always the same no matter how many players
play. And it will be the same is in the finals and in informal games (deck
experimentation aside, of course).
> Now this makes it even harder for wall or combat decks to compete,
This bothers me not at all. Wall decks and combat decks are my #s 1 & 2
public enemies for how unfair they are to people sitting in certain
positions. It's one thing to have some defense. Decks that sit around
punishing their neighbors and opening the doors wide for their cross-table
allies to grab up their fill of victory points can go suck eggs for all I
care. At least big bleed decks make a point of grabbing victory points
for _themselves_!
Fred
Johan Lundstrom
>Here it is for the lazy folks:
>
>3.8.1. Game Win Scoring
>
> A player receives a Game Win at the end of a game in which they have
>received at least two (2) Victory Points and have more Victory Points than
>any other player in the game. (No game win is awarded in the case of ties.)
Excellent! Thank you!