Tournament rules for 2008
LSJ
Pat
news:4754AC77...@white-wolf.com...
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
Quoting:
"4.1 Added three cards to the banned list: Edge Explosion, Memories of
Mortality, and Protect Thine Own."
WOOT!
The last two are exceedingly welcome, though I'm a bit surprised at the EE
ban. Not the least bit sad, just surprised. :)
Pat, known Imbued hater
simcof
I like the fact that this game has very few banned cards, I hope it
stays that way for as long as possible. That, and that there are no
set restrictions for tournaments like other card games. It is why I
chose to pour the money i used to spend on l5r into this game instead.
ben
Dasein
This is the best VTES news in forever.
Multiple Xmas wishes all come true:
No more PTO!! (Especially good news for me, as 99% of my decks are
Sabbat, and the other 1% are Indy). OHH YEAHH.
No more Edge Explosion and Memories!! (bye-bye Imbued cheese)
But wait there's more... no prize splitting in finals, and no stupid
antics on finals tables over who can get 4th instead of 5th or
whatever. Wait oh my god... people are going to actually try to WIN
THE GAME on a finals table?? Amazing!!
Awesome decisions all around.
Santa has come!
Peter D Bakija
"Pat" <patrick.l...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
> Quoting:
> "4.1 Added three cards to the banned list: Edge Explosion, Memories of
> Mortality, and Protect Thine Own."
Thank you, LSJ.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"Find hungry samurai."
-The Old Man
simcof
will make playing those tables a lot of fun as the emphasis is purely
on getting the most VPs.
simcof
Patrick Chaos
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
Thanks a lot.
This will help vtes grow even more.
Fizeront
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
Thank you LSJ, all good changes to te torunament rules.
Maybe banning Edge Explosion is a bit too much, banning Memories of
Mortality is enough IMHO.
bluedevil
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
Obviously I'm pretty damned pleased with the announcement. My first
thoughts are on how much voting has now shifted. Laibon have the only
truly effective "burn a dude" vote, and the Indies have KRC on
steroids. Kind of interesting that the Sabbat are now on the bottom
rung of politics, but it at least jives with the backstory (I envision
the Sabbat as being highly prone to messing with each other,
internally, politically; when it comes to interacting with the outside
world, though, it often comes in the form of a beat-down).
Prize splitting I never liked in principle, but it never seemed to
actually come up, either. I'm surprised it rose to the threshold of
being addressed by the rules team, but I think the game is better for
it.
"Everybody comes in second" I'm still wrapping my brain around, but it
seems brilliant. This is probably up there with the tweak to Anarch
Revolt, maybe even better.
Heck, what's left?!? Hey Scott, ban DI!!!!! I guess Wash fiddles
with that knob sufficiently too, though; the most egregious uses of DI
were cross-table at some tipping point, and Wash can cross the cross-
table.
--
David Cherryholmes
J
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
Don't like the banned card-list growing, not needed IMO. The rest of
the rules are good. Except for the changes to the Australian
Qualification system, it still doesn't address the issue of placing
for overseas events And Oscar said I'd be happy in the last email i
got from him.... *sigh*
--> J
grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com
nood...@iprimus.com.au
Banning cards.
The lazy man's way of fixing cards.
J
> Banning cards.
>
> The lazy man's way of fixing cards.
for once Jason, I think we agree.
jaykr...@gmail.com
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
I spent a minute wondering why Edged Illusion needed baned.
Then I figured it out. Fun times!
Jay
Dasein
>
> The lazy man's way of fixing cards.
It was unlikely that PTO was ever going to be "fixed" in an
appropriate way. It was already a complicated cumbersome card with
numerous requirements that was still insanely overpowered. Adding
another set of errata to it was going to make everybody unhappy, both
users and victims.
Edge Explosion typefied the core two problems of the Imbued situation:
overpowered Powers, and endlessly multiplying convictions (this gave
them too much resiliency, and slowed the game down excessively). I
can't think of a "fix" that would have been simple and solved the
problem appropriately, apart from banning.
Memories of Mortality could have possibly done with just turning it
unique, I will admit, but errata is messy, and the fact that it can be
recycled with Anthelios (the only card on my hate list that is still
legal) / Parthenon meant that it might not have been a suitable fix.
I can understand War Ghoul and Hordes decks players might be unhappy,
since they usually packed a couple of memories and got some good use
out of it, but them's the breaks. I don't see them vanishing, they
will just have to make some minor adjustments. other ally decks
(Nephandus, Reanimated Corpse, garous) don't make significant use out
of memories, and have enough problems of their own anyway (with the
exception of Antonio / Nephandus, which is quite strong atm).
nood...@iprimus.com.au
> for once Jason, I think we agree.
The apocalypse is nigh!!
:)
J
> appropriate way. It was already a complicated cumbersome card with
> numerous requirements that was still insanely overpowered. Adding
> another set of errata to it was going to make everybody unhappy, both
> users and victims.
Protect Thine Own
1 pool
Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any justicar or Inner Circle
member at +1 stealth. Choose a non-Camarilla, non-titled vampire with
a capacity below 6. If the acting vampire is a member of the Inner
Circle, you may choose any non-Camarilla vampire instead. If this
referendum is successful, burn that vampire. This acting vampire
cannot gain blood during this referendum.
3 minor changes, but it could have done with the first 2.
Make the vote cost a pool, not a blood.
Make the vampire targeted need to be younger. Not a big change, but
it means you can't nuke other players vote decks. And many big vamps
have incidental titles.
Make it impossible to voter cap.
> Edge Explosion typefied the core two problems of the Imbued situation:
> overpowered Powers, and endlessly multiplying convictions (this gave
> them too much resiliency, and slowed the game down excessively). I
> can't think of a "fix" that would have been simple and solved the
> problem appropriately, apart from banning.
Edge Explosion
X Pool, where X is the number of other events in play.
Gehenna. Requires at least one other gehenna card in play. Each Imbued
can have (and use) one power card for which he or she doesn't meet the
requirements. An imbued that performs a successful action may gain 1
conviction from his or her ash heap. An Imbued can only gain 1
conviction this way each turn.
Another simple change, give it a cost. It will cost at least 1 pool,
maybe more. Edge Explosion is a strong card, but it is not broken.
> Memories of Mortality could have possibly done with just turning it
> unique, I will admit, but errata is messy, and the fact that it can be
> recycled with Anthelios (the only card on my hate list that is still
> legal) / Parthenon meant that it might not have been a suitable fix.
Memories of Mortality has had plenty of good arguments of how to
modify it.
I hate seeing cards banned, because it alienates players, especially
those who have struggled and tradded their arse off to get some. One
player in Newcastle has just finished getting 10 PTO's for a specific
deck, and now he is effectively left out of pocket because of that.
Just before Succubus Club went rare, I traded my arse off to get a
couple copies, trading good cards away for it. So I got dudded their
big time. Banning cards, especially Rare cards is not fair on the
players who have busted their guts to get them. I can only expect how
Rog is going to feel when I tell him, that Derange/PTO deck you've
built - can't play it anymore dude. There is a chance, slight as it
is, that he might just give up the game. And that would be a terrible
shame.
nood...@iprimus.com.au
> It was unlikely that PTO was ever going to be "fixed" in an
> appropriate way. It was already a complicated cumbersome card with
> numerous requirements that was still insanely overpowered. Adding
> another set of errata to it was going to make everybody unhappy, both
> users and victims.
What exactly was cumbersome or complicated about it? You call a vote,
you burn a non-cam vamp if successful. Not exactly brain surgery. And
what exactly has changed since the card's inception that made it
necessary to ban it now? Because it's been kosher for about 10 years
now.
PTO was fine. It's not as though the Camarilla were ripping it up on
the tourney scene. Sure it was a bummer to have your 10 pointer burned
across table without much recourse. I'd say it's more of a bummer [and
far more common] getting bled for 15 odd pool on the second turn of
the game, but WW have done and continue to do bugger all about that.
> Edge Explosion typefied the core two problems of the Imbued situation:
> overpowered Powers, and endlessly multiplying convictions (this gave
> them too much resiliency, and slowed the game down excessively). I
> can't think of a "fix" that would have been simple and solved the
> problem appropriately, apart from banning.
The Imbued do not slow the game down. Bad players slow the game down.
It takes all of two seconds to fish a burned conviction from your ash
pile after a succesful action. If recouping convictions was leading to
slowed down games, your Imbued players are bad. Sorry.
Of all the complaints against the Imbued I ever ever saw, none of the
were directed at Edge Explosion. This ban has come totally out of the
blue.
> Memories of Mortality could have possibly done with just turning it
> unique, I will admit, but errata is messy, and the fact that it can be
> recycled with Anthelios (the only card on my hate list that is still
> legal) / Parthenon meant that it might not have been a suitable fix.
We already play in a game where errata exist. The sky does not implode
and the screaming legions of hell do not issue forth every time
someone plays a Sabbat version of Mind Rape. It would not be asking
the impossible for people to note that MoM had become unique. It's not
that f*cking hard.
I'm fortunate enough to have been playing this game long enough to
have owned multiple copies of the cards WW have banned. But I really
feel sorry for the guys who paid premium prices on ebay for cards that
have now been rendered utterly useless.
This was lazy. Plain and simple. We can't think of a good solution for
the problems posed by these cards, so let's just nuke the site from
orbit.
Weak.
Daneel
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
Thanks Scott, this is the best piece of VtES-related news I heared
in a while! I absolutely love every letter of the rules changes! :)
I'm curious what will happen to the "time's almost up, let's oust
someone so we all go up in ranking..." type of discussions - nah,
just kidding. It really seems like the best possible solution. Now
everybody from 2nd seed on will be interested in playing the game
instead of just maintaining the status quo.
Brilliant move, Scott! No wonder you're the lead designer... ;P
Oh, and imagine some flowers and a big cake for the ban list. Maybe
two cakes. The only downside is that I'll need to throw away my
"Ban PTO" shirt... :)
--
Regards,
Daneel
Wookie813
> Banning cards.
>
> The lazy man's way of fixing cards.
I would expect we'll see "properly balanced" versions of these cards
in upcoming sets, much like Eldest Command Undeath is the "new"
standard of costing for the PTO effect. It avoids errata, which I
think is a good idea. No fix is going to be ideal, but the cards in
question created non-ideal situations, too. You may call it lazy, but
I consider it the most "user friendly", in that it creates the least
confusion.
Janne Hägglund
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:4754AC77...@white-wolf.com...
> > The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
> >
> > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
>
>
> Quoting:
> "4.1 Added three cards to the banned list: Edge Explosion,
Was that necessary? Apparently, it was. I thought the main problem with the
Imbued was...
> Memories of Mortality, and Protect Thine Own."
...
.....
.......
Words are not enough.
Time to play the final movement of Beethoven's ninth symphony:
o/` "Freude, schöner Götterfunken
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! o/`
Deine Zauber binden wieder
o/` Was die Mode streng geteilt;
Alle Menschen werden Brüder,
Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt." o/`
(Thank you, thank you, thank you, rules team!)
HG
--
hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience,
iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey
J
You mean Gehenna... oh, wait - that was a couple sets ago.
Maybe apocalypse is right.
;-)
Salem
> I'll miss those 500 reply long PTO threads :p jj
and you think this thread won't rapidly become one of those? :)
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)
Salem
> This was lazy. Plain and simple. We can't think of a good solution for
> the problems posed by these cards, so let's just nuke the site from
> orbit.
>
> Weak.
I'm holding out hope that they're just being banned in the short term to
stop them tearing up tournaments, while the cards wait for an
appropriate set for them to be reprinted in with updated card text.
After which, they get taken back off the banned list again.
Seems reasonable to me. Right?
I think there's even precedent. (Rowan ring?)
Salem
> The only downside is that I'll need to throw away my
> "Ban PTO" shirt... :)
you could just print a big tick mark on the back of it.
Tetragrammaton
Nice work - though i'm pretty uncertain if BANning those three cards
altogether
is a good solution - maybe a reword would have been better.
More than anything else, banning at the same time memories of mortality AND
edge
explosion just makes imbued to be trashed - even though the NoR set is
small, i'm not
so happy to see a 60 cards set just wasted with two bans.
But i'm pretty happy that the prize split issue in final has been fixed.
best regards
Emiliano, NC Italy
Emiliano Imeroni
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
Thanks Scott, great job as usual!
Emiliano
(wandering player)
XZealot
> LSJ wrote:
> > The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are
> > up:
> >http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
>
> Nice work - though i'm pretty uncertain if BANning those three cards
> altogether
> is a good solution - maybe a reword would have been better.
> More than anything else, banning at the same time memories of mortality AND
> edge
> explosion just makes imbued to be trashed - even though the NoR set is
> small, i'm not
> so happy to see a 60 cards set just wasted with two bans.
Do you really think that the Imbued set is so shallow that the removal
of this two cards eliminates them from competitive play?
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Emiliano Imeroni
I agree with Norman, I think the Imbued are far from unplayable even
without Edge Explosion and Memories!
On a separate issue, will the rating points be retroactively modified
to reflect the new rule on tied finalists?
Ciao,
Emiliano
Tetragrammaton
imho it's granted the edge explosion was one of the most important
card for them
regards
Emiliano
Ector
LSJ wrote:
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>
Finally! I was struggling for some of these things for months. And I'm
really happy to see the most annoying things fixed. "Happy" isn't the
right word, though. You've returned my faith in VTES. Thank you!
Yours,
Ector
J
> of this two cards eliminates them from competitive play?
I don't think the removal of two cards will eliminate them, but it
_will_ seriously affect them. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Well it depends. I feel that a lot of players out there believe that
Imbued should be on the lower end of the power scale. To them it is a
matter of extremes, 1, the Imbued are broken and too powerful so 2,
they should be weak because they aren't vampires.
I still don't agree with the banning of cards, and Edge Explosion
especially.
Petri Wessman
Christmas present. :)
Edge Explosion and PTO were, imho, totally overpowered and hard to
change without rewriting them completely; I think the ban was a good
solution.
Memories... I would have preferred a rewrite (unique, can only be
played on young vampires, whatever), but I guess this is ok too. Hits
non-Imbued ally decks a bit hard, but them's the breaks. It *is* an
overpowered card, any which way you look at it.
The new final round scoring: excellent. Seems like a good way to try
to get people to actually play instead of stall. We'll see how it
works in practice.
Overall, good job. I'm happy with this.
... now my hate list only consists of Anthelios and DI. :D
//Petri
Sorrow
>> overpowered Powers, and endlessly multiplying convictions (this gave
>> them too much resiliency, and slowed the game down excessively). I
>> can't think of a "fix" that would have been simple and solved the
>> problem appropriately, apart from banning.
> Edge Explosion
> X Pool, where X is the number of other events in play.
> Gehenna. Requires at least one other gehenna card in play. Each Imbued
> can have (and use) one power card for which he or she doesn't meet the
> requirements. An imbued that performs a successful action may gain 1
> conviction from his or her ash heap. An Imbued can only gain 1
> conviction this way each turn.
That would have been an acceptable fix.
Imagine if Vampires started out with 1 blood instead and gained only 1 per
turn. How much less useful would they be? A lot. Their ability to play
cards that cost a blood is significantly reduced as they are at the mercy of
the turns going by. This is essentially what the imbued have been reduced
to. 11 of 14 powers have a conviction cost. 9 powers cost 1 conviction to
use. 2 cost 2 conviction. 3 of those 11 are one use only. How would
people feel if vampires were similarly limited in their abilities to use
cards that cost blood? Even if that were the case, vampires at least have
ways of getting extra blood onto them. What other way is there to get a
conviction on an imbued? 1 per turn, that's it. Period. Ever.
Banning EE was a horrible "fix". As I said previously, the imbued are now
nigh unplayable.
Sorrow
Sorrow
> of this two cards eliminates them from competitive play?
MoM, no. EE, absolutely. See my previous posts.
Sorrow
Sorrow
> "4.1 Added three cards to the banned list: Edge Explosion, Memories of
> The last two are exceedingly welcome, though I'm a bit surprised at the EE
> ban. Not the least bit sad, just surprised. :)
There goes the competitiveness of the Imbued. I could care less about MoM
but EE?
Sorrow
Sorrow
> overpowered Powers, and endlessly multiplying convictions (this gave
> them too much resiliency, and slowed the game down excessively). I
> can't think of a "fix" that would have been simple and solved the
> problem appropriately, apart from banning.
I'd be very interested to see just how viable the Imbued remain after the
banning of EE. Gaining only 1 conviction per turn, especially when many of
of the powers cost conviction, some multiple, will be detrimental.
Additionally, w/o Jennie (who is a, really, THE prime target) it's going to
be even more difficult to get imbued out of the incompacitated region. And
with new anti-Imbued tech (e.g. Ambulance) the extra turns it would take
almost ensure burning.
I think banning MoM would have been enough. Now, the imbued are nigh
unplayable.
Sorrow
tobiasopdenbr...@notsocoldmail.com
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>
I think (right not, upon little reflection and no experience), that
these changes are good.
Tobias
James Coupe
s.com>, J <gra...@hotmail.com> writes:
>On Dec 4, 3:41 pm, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
>> Banning cards.
>>
>> The lazy man's way of fixing cards.
>
Please bear in mind that had LSJ issued errata to the cards, there would
be other people saying "Errata-ing cards. The lazy man's way to design
the game right." and "Do we need YET MORE errata?" and so on.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
James Coupe
<salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes:
>I'm holding out hope that they're just being banned in the short term
>to stop them tearing up tournaments, while the cards wait for an
>appropriate set for them to be reprinted in with updated card text.
>After which, they get taken back off the banned list again.
>
>Seems reasonable to me. Right?
>
>I think there's even precedent. (Rowan ring?)
Rowan Ring and the Jyhad Stake (the one that also said Paralyze) were
both banned and brought back when an appropriate card text change could
be found - the send to torpor strike for Rowan Ring, and the "This card
is just Wooden Stake" fix for Stake.
However, neither card was banned for being overly powerful (RtoI),
subverting the game (Succubus Club, seat switchers), or inappropriate
(Madness of the Bard). They were banned because they didn't work
anymore, and WotC didn't errata them.
There, so far, isn't precedent for a ban being reversed when the card
was banned for power and balance reasons.
James Coupe
s.com>, Fizeront <brigada...@gmail.com> writes:
>On 4 dic, 02:25, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>>
>> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
>
>Maybe banning Edge Explosion is a bit too much, banning Memories of
>Mortality is enough IMHO.
Edge Explosion shows a potential problem of being able to create a
pretty strong card and then have it turn up on every Imbued in a deck -
Champion being an obvious example - which allows the deck to do
something it wouldn't ordinarily be able to do. So power cards could
lead to relatively homogenized decks - none of them are identical, but
they often share a similar core.
One positive flipside of this is that it might allow LSJ to create more
Powers that are similarly good, but which are restricted to only the
Imbued with the relevant Virtue. i.e. since it can only be played by a
small number of Imbued in a group pair (assuming new Imbued are
printed), there's less worry about being able to create a deck where all
the Imbued can play it. This might let us see more varied Imbued decks,
if more varied Powers come out. Such decks might stop being regarded as
"Oh, it's an Imbued deck" and more "Oh, are you bringing your Martyrdom
deck tonight? I want to see how my Nosferatu Royalty stand up to it."
James Coupe
<nos...@none.com> writes:
>XZealot wrote:
>> Do you really think that the Imbued set is so shallow that the removal
>> of this two cards eliminates them from competitive play?
>>
>Yes - time will tell, sure, but having played a lot of imbued decks,
>imho it's granted the edge explosion was one of the most important
>card for them
It's certainly true that it would have been then. But go back to 7/7
and many big Ventrue decks relied on Return to Innocence and Soul Gem.
Yet the Ventrue are far from unplayable without Return to Innocence.
Certainly, Edge Explosion is a corner-stone of the Imbued now. It's a
good card. There's very little reason *not* to use it. So everyone
builds around it - and since it works globally (not just your vampires)
it doesn't matter if someone else plays it first, unless they're ousted.
That says little for the opportunities available to Imbued without it -
because those have been largely unexplored.
Petri Wessman
> Now, the imbued are nigh unplayable.
Oh, please.
Banning EE just drops the Imbued down from overpowered cheese to a
normal power level, they'll actually have to conserve their
Convictions now (instead of regenerating them at a crazy rate). In
other words, they'll maybe play a bit more like the original design
goal was, and maybe now the whole table won't have to instantly gang
up on the Imbued deck in order to have a chance.
EE was grossly overpowered. I'm glad to see it go. I'm also glad to
see Imbued brought down to the same power level as other decks.
//Petri
Sorrow
> Powers that are similarly good, but which are restricted to only the
> Imbued with the relevant Virtue. i.e. since it can only be played by a
> small number of Imbued in a group pair (assuming new Imbued are
> printed), there's less worry about being able to create a deck where all
> the Imbued can play it. This might let us see more varied Imbued decks,
> if more varied Powers come out. Such decks might stop being regarded as
> "Oh, it's an Imbued deck" and more "Oh, are you bringing your Martyrdom
> deck tonight? I want to see how my Nosferatu Royalty stand up to it."
I don't see this as a bad thing, either. But this would require more Imbued
be printed and at this point, it seems to me like that is so very incredibly
unlikely. Additionally, this could have been achieved by errata and
removing that part of EE's ability and keeping the part where imbued can
gain convictions. This is my biggest problem about the ban. And if more
imbued (by some miracle) are printed in the future, that would solve the
issue w/r/t using powers for virtues an imbued does not posess.
Sorrow
Tetragrammaton
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are
> up:
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
One important question about the "all the finalist but first place tie for
second place" rule:
Because it seems there's no "play to maximize outcome"
left (other than playing to get first) under the 2008 rulings for final
round,
that means that once a finalist can't reasonably play for first place,
he/she can
self-oust him/herself ?
Basically: during a 2008 final, if a player reasonably tells he can't play
for first place anymore,
why that player should go on playing the final round ?
thanks
Emiliano, NC Italy
Sorrow
> see Imbued brought down to the same power level as other decks.
Same power level? Hardly. How much experience have you with playing
Imbued? I have a lot. Without EE (giving convictions, not necessarily
allowing powers, although that too), Imbued are now hardly playable. Try it
yourself and see.
Sorrow
Tetragrammaton
> In message
> <7f1c74a0-bdd1-4025...@e23g2000prf.googlegroup s.com>,
> J <gra...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> On Dec 4, 3:41 pm, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
>>> Banning cards.
>>>
>>> The lazy man's way of fixing cards.
>>
>> for once Jason, I think we agree.
>
> Please bear in mind that had LSJ issued errata to the cards, there
> would be other people saying "Errata-ing cards. The lazy man's way
> to design the game right." and "Do we need YET MORE errata?" and so
> on.
But, afaik, that has been always the approach with unbalaced cards (errata
instead of BAN) - maybe it's the sudden change in dealing with the matter
(BAN instead of reword, this time) that upsets players (including me at the
moment)
Emiliano
Petri Wessman
> why that player should go on playing the final round ?
Because they don't want to look like sad gits? Because there's
*always* a chance? Because they actually like playing, and don't feel
that just quitting is the sportsmanlike thing to do?
I know, I know, that hasn't stopped people before. But it's a thought.
//Petri
Sorrow
> good card. There's very little reason *not* to use it.
Because it's the lifeblood of an imbued deck. See my previous analogy of
vampires gaining only 1 blood per turn to use to pay for the cards they
play. 11 of the 14 printed powers cost at least 1 conviction. Not to
mention their combat cards. So as an imbued player I can use either 1 power
per turn OR 1 combat card per turn, etc. People complain about how slow
imbued are now. How slow will they become when the player has to choose how
she is going to spend the 1 measly conviction they get per turn for each
imbued?
Sorrow
Tetragrammaton
> In message <Rz85j.15588$r62....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> Tetragrammaton <nos...@none.com> writes:
>> XZealot wrote:
>>> Do you really think that the Imbued set is so shallow that the
>>> removal of this two cards eliminates them from competitive play?
>>>
>> Yes - time will tell, sure, but having played a lot of imbued decks,
>> imho it's granted the edge explosion was one of the most important
>> card for them
>
> It's certainly true that it would have been then. But go back to 7/7
> and many big Ventrue decks relied on Return to Innocence and Soul Gem.
> Yet the Ventrue are far from unplayable without Return to Innocence.
>
Yes - but we're speaking of a 40 library cards set against a clan that could
rely
on a wide variety of cards.
Any Imbued deck is (was...) far more narrow-choiche with the cards
at disposal than any clan of vampires.
EE was actually one of the fundamental cards among that narrow choiche.
> That says little for the opportunities available to Imbued without it
> - because those have been largely unexplored.
Actually, you can't explore that much with a base set of 40 cards (+20
crypt).
IMHO, as rules and cards set stands now, it's pretty obvious that the imbued
deck are wasted and
will not be played anymore (in competitive games) in a couple of months or
so
(unless some new cards will be introduced for imbued, too)
best
E
Petri Wessman
> People complain about how slow imbued are now.
People complain about how *slow* the Imbued are? *boggle*
You must be playing VTES in some alternate bizarre version of reality.
I've heard a lot of complaints about the Imbued, but "slow" is not on
that list...
//Petri
Tetragrammaton
> On Dec 4, 12:00 pm, "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> wrote:
>> why that player should go on playing the final round ?
>
> Because they don't want to look like sad gits? Because there's
> *always* a chance? Because they actually like playing, and don't feel
> that just quitting is the sportsmanlike thing to do?
>
maximize
his/her position anymore ?
It's just the motivation behind the allowance rule of self - oust after all
("if you reasonably
play for zero or less, then you can play for zero or less as you want,
including
self oust").
> I know, I know, that hasn't stopped people before. But it's a thought.
I think that would not suffice for not seeing finals just given-up by
players
that can't resonably play for first place anymore.
E
J
> *always* a chance? Because they actually like playing, and don't feel
> that just quitting is the sportsmanlike thing to do?
>
> I know, I know, that hasn't stopped people before. But it's a thought.
In an situation like this, though it can also be due to not wanting to
sit around and wasting time. You are playing a vote deck, your
predator has vastly superior vote lock. His predator is unable to
affect him, your prey feeling threatened early blocked and bashed you,
but he has no rush. It's 1 hour into the game. Your predator is
keeping you in the game only so that he doesn't have to face your prey
who can block him, and is slowly eating the table. Sitting at the
table, unable to act against your prey for fear of being blocked and
beaten down, unable to call votes because your predator will shut down
any that look like getting you a VP or enable you to get more votes on
the table. You don't want to sit through the game until your predator
finally decides to kill you. It's wasting your time, and not giving
anyone else on the table a chance. So you choose to self oust. Saves
you up to an hour of boredom, and gives other players a shot at a win
because your prey now becomes your predators prey.
Just a thought.
J
>
> You must be playing VTES in some alternate bizarre version of reality.
> I've heard a lot of complaints about the Imbued, but "slow" is not on
> that list...
Well, Imbued are slow. They don't blitzkrieg their preys off the
table normally. It takes time, they build up and then grind their
prey off the table.
Orpheus
> >
> > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
>
>
> "4.1 Added three cards to the banned list: Edge Explosion, Memories of
> Mortality, and Protect Thine Own."
But LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL !!!
- On the 4th of december, 00:51, I posted "Alex Elk's" L Santaklaus Wishes,
among which ban PTO
- the same night, at 02:25, LSJ complied !!
Is that wishing power or what ?! ;-)
More seriously, great job !! Will I miss those PTO threads ? Well... NO !!!!
I'm a little surprised about Edge Explosion, would have expected Champion
more, but yes, once it hit the table there was no stopping the Imbued, so...
As for Memories, I'd have hoped for an errata, but if (or while) nothing
satisfying has been found, this is good. Allies were just too strong
recently...
Are Imbued competitively dead ? Nope ! The last ones I saw play (and win)
didn't even play Memories, and didn't need the Edge Explosion, they have
many other advantages. But at least they don't have those anymore now.
Everyone ties for second in the finals ? Well, a little frustrating for
those who know they can't win, so I'm not really a great fan, but I can
understand the logic behind it. Just a question : it's the rest of the
_surviving_ finalists, isn't it ? Because I see absolutely no interest at
all to give second rank to a "dead" finalist : it goes against what you want
to establish, I think...
Not authorizing prize splitting is good, this sisn't poker (and I hate that
in a poker game).
All in all : good job guys (I'm guessin LSJ isn't all-alone all-powerful, so
I use plural) !!! :-)
Now I can retire from the game happy (half kidding here, if my new job
allows I might get back on the scene)...
---------------------
Kolonel Vladimir Kuchmin, Rock 'n 'roll Manager.
ira...@gmail.com
> One important question about the "all the finalist but first place tie for second place" rule:
>
> Because it seems there's no "play to maximize outcome"
> left (other than playing to get first) under the 2008 rulings for final
> round, that means that once a finalist can't reasonably play for first place,
> he/she can self-oust him/herself ?
This is a good question. It seems like the new final game rules could
lead to wild kingmaking without any consequence for the kingmaker, nor
any incentive for the kingmaker to remain in the game.
LSJ, could you discuss whether or not you anticipate kingmaking in the
final to become more prevalent?
I guess the thinking is that even if it's not perfect, it's an
improvement over the current system.
Overall, I wholeheartedly support the rules changes. I think they
show great vision and listening skills on the part of the design
team. It's a pleasure to play a game where the designers listen so
closely to the players. Thank you!
Ira
Petri Wessman
> In an situation like this, though it can also be due to not wanting to
> sit around and wasting time. You are playing a vote deck, your
> predator has vastly superior vote lock. His predator is unable to
> affect him, your prey feeling threatened early blocked and bashed you,
> but he has no rush. It's 1 hour into the game. Your predator is
> keeping you in the game only so that he doesn't have to face your prey
> who can block him, and is slowly eating the table. Sitting at the
> table, unable to act against your prey for fear of being blocked and
> beaten down, unable to call votes because your predator will shut down
> any that look like getting you a VP or enable you to get more votes on
> the table. You don't want to sit through the game until your predator
> finally decides to kill you. It's wasting your time, and not giving
> anyone else on the table a chance. So you choose to self oust. Saves
> you up to an hour of boredom, and gives other players a shot at a win
> because your prey now becomes your predators prey.
>
> Just a thought.
Fair enough. Yeah, there are some situations where a self-oust would
be reasonable I guess. I was just protesting against the mentality
I've seen a bit too often, where someone says "I don't have any chance
of winning here" and quits, where the actual situation was that they
were in a weak position, but nowhere near an impossible one. I'd
prefer to see games where people did their best until they *really*
could not do any more. But I guess it's partially also a matter of
taste.
//Petri
AcheronNi...@gmail.com
in every single game] and Izhim too [he was burned too often too]
Petri Wessman
Well, sure, if you compare to a weenie horde bleeder or some such then
yes, Imbued are slow... but so is pretty much every other deck, too.
Compared to most "normal" (non-weenie / powerbleed) decks, I really
would not call the Imbued slow. They tool up *very* fast, and put out
a constant multiminion bleed-for-2 pressue forward.
By the time many decks are still setting up, Imbued tend to be in full
swing -- largely because of their ultra-fast toolup time.
J
> those who know they can't win, so I'm not really a great fan, but I can
> understand the logic behind it. Just a question : it's the rest of the
> _surviving_ finalists, isn't it ? Because I see absolutely no interest at
> all to give second rank to a "dead" finalist : it goes against what you want
> to establish, I think...
3.7.5. Final Round Scoring
The player with the highest total of Victory Points from the final
round only is the tournament winner. In the event of a tie, the
players' rankings at the end of the preliminary rounds will be the
deciding tiebreaker. The rest of the finalists tie for second, with no
additional criteria considered to attempt to break that tie.
No mention of surviving finalists. It explicitly states "The player
with the highest total VP is the winner", "The rest of the finalists
tie for 2nd".
reyda
> Amazing work ! seriously ! Nizzam will be happy [he was burned by PTO
> in every single game] and Izhim too [he was burned too often too]
confusion
of
the
eye
you
dummy
J
> of
> the
> eye
> you
> dummy
Yoruba Shrine seems to work well also... :P
Sorrow
Then I challenge you (and/or any other player who shares this view) to build
a viable Imbued deck (that actually uses imbued tech) that doesn't use EE
and has even a hope of winning a game. The powers, combat cards and
equipment that cost conviction are now significantly more difficult to use
and this is going to be a major problem.
Sorrow
Orpheus
Yes, that's what I understood, but I'm surprised because it can provoke
counteractive behaviours.
"Ok, I have no chance to win on this table, and I'm second anyway, so I
don't care if I die or not. I'll help my pal win, anyway, as I can lose the
way I want to...".
That is an extreme reaction but it can happen, and a less extreme one would
just be a lack of will to win, which is just the opposite effect of the one
we're looking for. Also, this makes all alliances useless, as there is
nothing to deal except "let's not make that player win".
If the "killed" players didn't tie for second position, it would be an
incentive to "at least" try to survive, while the ones who can win would
really try to, and could even make a deal like "you don't die and I win".
Or maybe the spirit of the finals is "no deal no matter what" ?
Tying for second in an improvement, I just believe that it would even be
better if it didn't concern dead players.
--
Valar morghulis,
Orpheus
J
> counteractive behaviours.
>
> "Ok, I have no chance to win on this table, and I'm second anyway, so I
> don't care if I die or not. I'll help my pal win, anyway, as I can lose the
> way I want to...".
>
> That is an extreme reaction but it can happen, and a less extreme one would
> just be a lack of will to win, which is just the opposite effect of the one
> we're looking for. Also, this makes all alliances useless, as there is
> nothing to deal except "let's not make that player win".
>
> If the "killed" players didn't tie for second position, it would be an
> incentive to "at least" try to survive, while the ones who can win would
> really try to, and could even make a deal like "you don't die and I win".
I agree to some extent, Human Nature being what it is, people are
generally bastards. I can see people actively stopping players trying
to get VP's. If player X looks like grabbing a VP, everyone will try
to stop him so that he can't win. Once someone has that first VP
however, the knives will come out IMO and everyone will clamber for
the remaining ones. Just that first one falling that will be the real
bugbear.
JH
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
Didn't have the energy to read all the posts and someone might have
already posted the same things, but here are my two eurocents.
1) Banning PTO: good, although I think it could've been fixed with
relatively small changes, like limiting the targets.
2) Banning Memories of Mortality: good, it could've been fixed but not
without cumbersome errata.
3) Banning Edge Explosion: too much. I seriously think this card
should've been downgraded rather than banned. Here's an example with
changes in square brackets.
Edge Explosion
Cardtype: Event
Gehenna. [Do not replace as long as this card is in play.]
Requires at least one other Gehenna card in play. Each imbued can have
(and use) one power card for which he or she doesn't meet the
requirements. An imbued who performs a successful action may gain 1
conviction from his or her ash heap. [A Methuselah may retrieve only]
1 conviction this way each turn.
4) Tieing non-winning finalists and equalling their extra rating
points: ok, although i liked the old system better.
5) Prohibiting price splitting: good.
J
But some tournaments are expensive, and offsetting the cost by
allowing players to split it could be good.
Oh, typo... my bad! :P
Alex Ek
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
Lots of praise in this thread. I'm not convinced though. Here's my two
cents.
________________________________________________________
* 3.7.5 All non-winning finalists tie for 2nd place.
I don't get this. Ofcourse ptw should be enforced in the finals but I
think the different standings was good fun. Something that made the
finals special and also trickier to play.
* 4.1 Added three cards to the banned list: Edge Explosion, Memories of
Mortality, and Protect Thine Own.
Edge Explosion - A strong card but an ok card. MoM was the real problem.
Memories of mortality - Why ban a card that you could balance with an
errata? Making it unique would have been quite fun. also Johannes Walch
introduced the idea of MoM costing 1+x where x is the number of MoM
already in play that I found out that I liked.
PTO - Well, I will miss it alittle. But still, it was quite overpowered.
* 161 Splitting prizes is prohibited.
I support this on principle. Play for rankings instead of play for
prizes. I sure would have sold myself for those two German NC 1st place
prizes though.
* Ratings Each tied-for-second finalist receives the same number of
Ratings Points: 30. (The winner still receives 90).
Well, this is obvious if you're going to change 3.7.5
________________________________________________________
That's all
Regards
Alex
Shockwave
on banned through this change. I'm sure we all own a few copies, and I
agree with the earlier assessment that for those people putting time
into obtaining them, this sucks a bit. Given time, I hope that LSJ has
time to rethink them into more manageable forms, so that we can see
them on the tables again, and perhaps they might make it off the card
'Red List'.
Secondly, I know I'm a rabid Anti-Imbued. So please bear in mind, I
know I'm biased. :)
Protect Thine Own - Vaguely deserved. It was very powerful under the
current wording, but might have been achieable with minimum errata.
Memories of Mortality - Fine in it's original intent, only became
broken due to the interaction of Imbued as 'Allies without a
Recruitment'. Considering the choice was reword Imbued in general or
the card, I'm fine with this change.
Edge Explosion - I've no idea where the posts that say this was 'out
of the blue' came from. This, to me, is THE card that makes them go
broken.
Just some extra tuppence chucked in, but good work LSJ. I just hope
this signals and attempt to bring them back one day, rather than an
outright permaban.
- Shockwave
Sorrow
> turn. How much less useful would they be? A lot. Their ability to play
> cards that cost a blood is significantly reduced as they are at the mercy
> of the turns going by.
Imagine if the following were true of vampires.
1) As above. Their blood costing cards cost counters instead and you gained
only 1 per turn.
2) It required a discipline based card to rescue a vampire in torpor.
Either that or you had to wait up to 3 turns to get it back. And don't
bother bringing up Jennie. Very often she's the first Imbued targetted and
burned. Additionally, cards like Chantry and Renewed Vigor have been around
for a while and noone has been bitching about them.
3) When diablierizing a vampire in torpor, the diabolist only had to suffer
damage (and didn't get any blood off the burnt vamp). Who in their right
mind would eat Arika or Leandro or Gilbert or Mata Hari or... if damage was
the only penalty.
How would people feel about these changes? I would imagine they would be
incredibly unwelcome. Yet people have no issue with these being the rule
for Imbued? I will grant you that a few cards could use fixing. But the
above are the over-arching rules in general governing the Imbued. With the
banning of EE, it makes 1 and 2 even more problematic.
Sorrow
Janne Hägglund
The last time I played my favorite Imbued deck ("Twist With Conviction"),
I tied for first place (3VPs out of 6). And I never managed to play my Edge
Explosion, since my twister-tech was not working as designed.
The key to my half-victory was *conserving* my convictions. Spending turns
just defending, bloating and building up, *then* assaulting my prey when my
minions were full of juicy conviction.
The Imbued are perfectly playable without Edge Explosion. Just as Ravnos are
playable without Week of Nightmares. Or Ventrue without Protect Thine Own.
Try it yourself and see. >:-)
HG
--
hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience,
iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey
Orpheus
> > appropriate way. It was already a complicated cumbersome card with
> > numerous requirements that was still insanely overpowered. Adding
> > another set of errata to it was going to make everybody unhappy, both
> > users and victims.
>
> Protect Thine Own
> 1 pool
> Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any justicar or Inner Circle
> member at +1 stealth. Choose a non-Camarilla, non-titled vampire with
> a capacity below 6. If the acting vampire is a member of the Inner
> Circle, you may choose any non-Camarilla vampire instead. If this
> referendum is successful, burn that vampire. This acting vampire
> cannot gain blood during this referendum.
It still would be shit.
> 3 minor changes, but it could have done with the first 2.
> Make the vote cost a pool, not a blood.
Great. Am I not ready to pay one pool to burn my prey's Monçada ? Sure I am
!!
> Make the vampire targeted need to be younger. Not a big change, but
> it means you can't nuke other players vote decks. And many big vamps
> have incidental titles.
So ? If you're Inner Circle you're 11-Cap. There are very few playable
11-Caps non-Camarilla out there, so ok, Enkidu would be safe, but Monçada
would still burn. Card would still be shit.
> Make it impossible to voter cap.
Sure, but not enough.
The trouble didn't really come from the cost and consequences of the card on
the playing minion, but simply from the effect on the affected player : lose
a potentially key vampire of your deck !!
I would have accepted other erratas, limiting the target more, but I'm
perfectly ok with the ban (while I believe that Memories should have been
errated).
Anyway, I'm glad this "if you don't play Cama expect to burn" shit is over
with.
But maybe now Noodleboy will start some "Unban PTO" threads ? That would be
fun. ;-)
--
Orpheus
---------
"It's been a hard day's night ! BRAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINS !!!"
The Zombeatles, "A Hard Day's Night of the Living Dead
(http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=jP6nYs9Il7c)
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are
>> up:
>> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
>
> second place" rule:
>
> Because it seems there's no "play to maximize outcome"
> left (other than playing to get first) under the 2008 rulings for final
> round,
> that means that once a finalist can't reasonably play for first place,
> he/she can
> self-oust him/herself ?
> for first place anymore,
> why that player should go on playing the final round ?
No. Just the opposite.
With no risk assessment to fall back on, any chance for first place, no matter
how slim, is better than self-ousting.
That is, 0.001% * win + 99.999% * 2nd > 100% * 2nd, so PTW means you go for the
0.001% shot.
Damnans
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
>
Excellent news, Scott!!!
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)
JH
You can always split the prices in private after the tournament is
over and no one can control it. It's just that now price splitting as
an incentive of not playing to win is explicitly banned.
Petri Wessman
> No. Just the opposite.
>
> With no risk assessment to fall back on, any chance for first place, no matter
> how slim, is better than self-ousting.
>
> That is, 0.001% * win + 99.999% * 2nd > 100% * 2nd, so PTW means you go for the
> 0.001% shot.
LSJ, you're my hero, I feel all warm and fuzzy now :)
Play the game, people. We might actually start to see that, now, in
finals. Would be cool.
//Petri
Janne Hägglund
You're on.
Unfortunately I have no idea when I'll have the spare time to make the deck,
but I'll post it as soon as it's complete.
(Most likely I'll make Twist With Conviction 2.0 - remove the Edge Explosion
and the Memories of Mortality, rework the crypt and the powers - ta-daa!)
tomat...@hotmail.com
-PTO: Not a verry frequent card anyways, this decision wont really
affect Vtes. In fact I dont even mind/care.
-Edge Explosion: Seems a bit radical. Limiting the imbued is necessary
but, due to the limited choice in imbued crypt cards baning EE just
kills the general concept. I guess that's what you went for....
-Memories: Come on... this just makes so many existing and balanced
allied decks unplayable. Poor choice as far as I am concerned.
Johannes Walch
> On a separate issue, will the rating points be retroactively modified
> to reflect the new rule on tied finalists?
Certainly not since the rules are in effect 01 Jan 2008. So points are
just calculated differently *from there on*. A point you have allready
acquired is still a point, though ;-)
--
Johannes Walch
Johannes Walch
>> Certainly, Edge Explosion is a corner-stone of the Imbued now. It's a
>> good card. There's very little reason *not* to use it.
>
> Because it's the lifeblood of an imbued deck. See my previous analogy of
> vampires gaining only 1 blood per turn to use to pay for the cards they
> play. 11 of the 14 printed powers cost at least 1 conviction. Not to
> mention their combat cards. So as an imbued player I can use either 1 power
> per turn OR 1 combat card per turn, etc. People complain about how slow
> imbued are now. How slow will they become when the player has to choose how
> she is going to spend the 1 measly conviction they get per turn for each
> imbued?
So when Edge Explosion is the last card of your Deck you can´t win the
game? This should have happened before in games. But as far as I can
tell Edge Explosion was a good bonus but not necessary for winning.
--
Johannes Walch
Johannes Walch
> rely
> on a wide variety of cards.
> Any Imbued deck is (was...) far more narrow-choiche with the cards
> at disposal than any clan of vampires.
> EE was actually one of the fundamental cards among that narrow choiche.
Still I am hoping that we will see now Imbued decks that are not solely
based on the very limited choice of cards used in the current most
winning archetype (something similiar to this
http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k7lcqfrenchchamp)
--
Johannes Walch
Petri Wessman
> -Edge Explosion: Seems a bit radical. Limiting the imbued is necessary
> but, due to the limited choice in imbued crypt cards baning EE just
> kills the general concept.
I very much doubt this. It just means that you'll actually have to
make choices based on the Virtues, instead of cherry-picking based on
the best extra abilities. It has (up to now) been all too easy for
Imbued to construct optimal crypts, pretty much ignoring the Virtues.
I believe this will actually bring some variety to Imbued decks.
> -Memories: Come on... this just makes so many existing and balanced
> allied decks unplayable. Poor choice as far as I am concerned.
If removing MoM changes an ally deck from "balanced" to "unplayable",
that's a good sign that MoM was grossly overpowered (and that the ally
deck in question maybe wasn't that hot to begin with).
//Petri
tbz_...@hotmail.com
PTO and MoM I don't have too many issues with, sure they could be
errata-ed and maybe they will be in future, but at present this is a
good fix. There are decks that can win without PTO and likewise MoM.
EE does seem harsh, the the card is powerful in its current form. Its
the equivalent of a discipline card that affects all your vamps, and
every successful action having a hunt (if we're using the
conviction=blood in card cost analogy) on top with no costly
disadvantage. The fact that its in every TWD that the imbued have
(almost witout exception) illustrates its either a necessity, or too
powerful, pick your side of the argument. (I love my mortals)
I think time will tell, but I don't think this has crippled the imbued
by any stretch of the imagination.
Orpheus
> > good card. There's very little reason *not* to use it.
>
> Because it's the lifeblood of an imbued deck. See my previous analogy of
> vampires gaining only 1 blood per turn to use to pay for the cards they
> play.
Except that your analogy is jsut wrong. Convictions affect the way powers
can be handled, sure, but they don't affect the lives of the minions. Also,
no vampire comes into play with a card they can play, nor do they get
another back every time they make a succesful action !!
This analogy is just totally unvalid, you are comparing partially two very
different systems. As you should well know, having played both.
11 of the 14 printed powers cost at least 1 conviction. Not to
> mention their combat cards. So as an imbued player I can use either 1
power
> per turn OR 1 combat card per turn, etc. People complain about how slow
> imbued are now. How slow will they become when the player has to choose
how
> she is going to spend the 1 measly conviction they get per turn for each
> imbued?
Cry me an Imbued river.
Merlin
wrote:
> "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4754AC77...@white-wolf.com...
>
> > The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>
> >http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
>
> "4.1 Added three cards to the banned list: Edge Explosion, Memories of
> Mortality, and Protect Thine Own."
>
>
> The last two are exceedingly welcome, though I'm a bit surprised at the EE
> ban. Not the least bit sad, just surprised. :)
>
> Pat, known Imbued hater
I realize we shouldn't post "yeah!" posts, but,
Hellz to the yes!!!
All excellent banned cards, imo. Imbued still have the Unmasking and
Champion and so walling up isn't changed, only their ability to bleed
at "stealth" for 2 every turn...and Memories has needed to go for a
long time.
Overdue changes, imo. Lovely to see them made.
-Merlin
Oko
> LSJ skrev:
>
> > The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>
> >http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
>
> Lots of praise in this thread. I'm not convinced though. Here's my two
> cents.
> ________________________________________________________
>
> * 3.7.5 All non-winning finalists tie for 2nd place.
>
> I don't get this. Ofcourse ptw should be enforced in the finals but I
> think the different standings was good fun. Something that made the
> finals special and also trickier to play.
>
2nd to 100th place is for losers. 101, you get a pony.
Johannes Walch
> LSJ skrev:
>> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>>
>> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
>
> Lots of praise in this thread. I'm not convinced though. Here's my two
> cents.
> ________________________________________________________
>
> * 3.7.5 All non-winning finalists tie for 2nd place.
>
> I don't get this. Ofcourse ptw should be enforced in the finals but I
> think the different standings was good fun. Something that made the
> finals special and also trickier to play.
I think the change really propogates to go for the win instead of
chickening for 2nd because of rating/prizes. I really like that. But as
pointed out elsewhere there is now the problem of random kingmaking in
case of a lost cause.
I think we should make this change optional and let tournament
organisators decide which one to use for a while.
> * 4.1 Added three cards to the banned list: Edge Explosion, Memories of
> Mortality, and Protect Thine Own.
>
> Edge Explosion - A strong card but an ok card. MoM was the real problem.
> Memories of mortality - Why ban a card that you could balance with an
> errata? Making it unique would have been quite fun. also Johannes Walch
> introduced the idea of MoM costing 1+x where x is the number of MoM
> already in play that I found out that I liked.
> PTO - Well, I will miss it alittle. But still, it was quite overpowered.
I agree, but since making an errata without having an up-to-date version
of the card in print is simply out of the question for me banning seems
to be the best solution, given that printing new versions could have
been only done in a wider timeframe. Note that there is always the
possibility of unbanning cards when new card text exists.
I am sure I can hear Olivier cry even from here :) hehehehe
> * 161 Splitting prizes is prohibited.
>
> I support this on principle. Play for rankings instead of play for
> prizes. I sure would have sold myself for those two German NC 1st place
> prizes though.
Hahaha :)
LSJ
> Alex Ek schrieb:
>> * 3.7.5 All non-winning finalists tie for 2nd place.
>>
>> I don't get this. Ofcourse ptw should be enforced in the finals but I
>> think the different standings was good fun. Something that made the
>> finals special and also trickier to play.
>
> I think the change really propogates to go for the win instead of
> chickening for 2nd because of rating/prizes. I really like that. But as
> pointed out elsewhere there is now the problem of random kingmaking in
> case of a lost cause.
No. As pointed out elsewhere, there is now none of that. Any player still in the
game has a chance at 1st vs. 2nd (and nothing else), so must try for 1st.
Peter D Bakija
<eda78fff-57fa-4669...@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
nood...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
> Banning cards.
>
> The lazy man's way of fixing cards.
Well, or the efficient way of fixing problems. Which can then be
followed by printing updated, more balanced versions of the cards in
question if deemed necessary.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"Find hungry samurai."
-The Old Man
Johannes Walch
Theoretically yes.
Practically hard to control by a judge.
Let´s assume the not-so-unrealistic situation where a player has no
ready minions but a Pentex Subversion in this hand and everybody is on
low pool (I have been in that situation in a final at least once). Where
does he put the Pentex? On his predator not allowing to oust him or on
his prey not allowing to oust the predator?
He can basically decide who will win and I don´t know what I have to
tell him to do when I were the judge. What would be your judgement in
the situation?
--
Johannes Walch
Peter D Bakija
"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'd be very interested to see just how viable the Imbued remain after the
> banning of EE. Gaining only 1 conviction per turn, especially when many of
> of the powers cost conviction, some multiple, will be detrimental.
I'm kind of not seeing how the Imbued are completely unplayable without
Edge Explosion. If gaining only one conviction a turn was so incredibly
detrimental to them, why design them that way? Why build them such that
they are *only* playable when Edge Explosion is in play?
Edge Explosion could very easily not ever show up in a given game and
once and a while could be cancelled/destroyed. Yet I suspect that the
Imbued still did reasonably well in such situations.
> I think banning MoM would have been enough. Now, the imbued are nigh
> unplayable.
I suspect that is a serious overstatement. They have certainly taken a
hit, yes. But it seems likely that they'll still be perfectly playable.
And if it turns out that they are totally drowning, it seems likely a
similar but less powerful patch card will be printed.
Peter D Bakija
<f272eef3-6e91-4e3f...@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
nood...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
> What exactly was cumbersome or complicated about it? You call a vote,
> you burn a non-cam vamp if successful. Not exactly brain surgery. And
> what exactly has changed since the card's inception that made it
> necessary to ban it now? Because it's been kosher for about 10 years
> now.
What changed from the cards inception was:
-When card printed: Like, 30 non Camarilla vampires.
-Now: Like 700 non Camarilla vampires.
LSJ
> LSJ schrieb:
>> Johannes Walch wrote:
>>> Alex Ek schrieb:
>>>> * 3.7.5 All non-winning finalists tie for 2nd place.
>>>>
>>>> I don't get this. Ofcourse ptw should be enforced in the finals but
>>>> I think the different standings was good fun. Something that made
>>>> the finals special and also trickier to play.
>>>
>>> I think the change really propogates to go for the win instead of
>>> chickening for 2nd because of rating/prizes. I really like that. But
>>> as pointed out elsewhere there is now the problem of random
>>> kingmaking in case of a lost cause.
>>
>> No. As pointed out elsewhere, there is now none of that. Any player
>> still in the game has a chance at 1st vs. 2nd (and nothing else), so
>> must try for 1st.
>>
>
> Theoretically yes.
> Practically hard to control by a judge.
If you say so.
In any event, "random kingmaking" is lessened, not increased.
> Let“s assume the not-so-unrealistic situation where a player has no
> ready minions but a Pentex Subversion in this hand and everybody is on
> low pool (I have been in that situation in a final at least once). Where
> does he put the Pentex? On his predator not allowing to oust him or on
> his prey not allowing to oust the predator?
Who cares? He's all but dead. This is not a falling-sky example.
> He can basically decide who will win and I don“t know what I have to
> tell him to do when I were the judge. What would be your judgement in
> the situation?
That it doesn't matter and the sky is not falling.
LSJ
> In article
> <f272eef3-6e91-4e3f...@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> nood...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
>
>> What exactly was cumbersome or complicated about it? You call a vote,
>> you burn a non-cam vamp if successful. Not exactly brain surgery. And
>> what exactly has changed since the card's inception that made it
>> necessary to ban it now? Because it's been kosher for about 10 years
>> now.
>
> What changed from the cards inception was:
>
> -When card printed: Like, 30 non Camarilla vampires.
>
> -Now: Like 700 non Camarilla vampires.
Meh. What changed to its power level was nothing. It is just as powerful as ever
(except for being banned now).
Emiliano Imeroni
Scott, as much as I appreciate and share the philosophy, I don't
completely
understand the logic.
In a normal round, I am allowed to self-oust when there is 0% expected
probability for me to get more VPs than I currently have, i.e. I can
"maximize my outcome" by losing in any way I see fit.
In the final round under the new rules, there will be a situation
where I
have 0% probability of ending first. Can I then not choose to be
second any way I want, including self-ousting? Not that I like this
option, but I don't see the difference in logic...
Thanks in advance for the clarification,
Emiliano
Rhavas
> > noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote:
>
> >> What exactly was cumbersome or complicated about it? You call a vote,
> >> you burn a non-cam vamp if successful. Not exactly brain surgery. And
> >> what exactly has changed since the card's inception that made it
> >> necessary to ban it now? Because it's been kosher for about 10 years
> >> now.
>
> > What changed from the cards inception was:
>
> > -When card printed: Like, 30 non Camarilla vampires.
>
> > -Now: Like 700 non Camarilla vampires.
>
> Meh. What changed to its power level was nothing. It is just as powerful as ever
>
> - Show quoted text -
The banning of cards is crap. Can I send these cards into WW in
exchange for alternate cards from the set they came from? Sure, I can
use them in friendly games, but not in anything sanctioned by WW. So,
they sold me a product, then changed their mind on it's usability.
Maybe in the future they will reprint similar cards that aren't
banned, wow, how convenient.
There were much better alternatives than making these cards useless
pieces of cardboard.
Cooper
> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>
> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
Hey Scott, what has made you decide to ban PTO?
Is there a development that i missed, that changed the situation so
drastically that it needed banning where it first didnt?
With certain other cards (tomb of ramesses?) you decided to write
errata for them, why didnt you for these cards?
Obviously i am no fan of these changes, but the questions are not to
give judgment or anything, i would just like to hear your reasoning
behind the change of course,
W
The Name Forgotten
wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2:51 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > Johannes Walch wrote:
> > > Alex Ek schrieb:
>
> > game has a chance at 1st vs. 2nd (and nothing else), so must try for 1st.
>
> Scott, as much as I appreciate and share the philosophy, I don't
> completely
> understand the logic.
>
> In a normal round, I am allowed to self-oust when there is 0% expected
> probability for me to get more VPs than I currently have, i.e. I can
> "maximize my outcome" by losing in any way I see fit.
>
> In the final round under the new rules, there will be a situation
> where I
> have 0% probability of ending first. Can I then not choose to be
> second any way I want, including self-ousting? Not that I like this
> option, but I don't see the difference in logic...
>
Such as, for example, being on low pool (1/2), having no minions out
(all burnt/taken over/whatever), and acting as a block buffer for your
voting predator, with a cross-table player who admits that there is 0
s/he can do to help you out of the situation.
I think there are some really, really minor situations where something
might come up like this, but I also think that it is impossible to
have any set of rules where (at least) a very small minority of
circumstances don't allow for some self-ousting, without really being
unnecessary.
I.E. Self-ousting should always be possible, but kept to a complete
minimum. It should be a rare occurence when someone is justified to
self-oust.
LSJ
0 * 1st + 100% * 2nd = 100% * 2nd, so that's fine.
It simply doesn't happen much in practice.
The Name Forgotten
> Alex Ek schrieb:
>
> > LSJ skrev:
> >> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2008 are up:
>
> >>http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules
>
> > Lots of praise in this thread. I'm not convinced though. Here's my two
> > cents.
> > ________________________________________________________
>
> > * 3.7.5 All non-winning finalists tie for 2nd place.
>
> > I don't get this. Ofcourse ptw should be enforced in the finals but I
> > think the different standings was good fun. Something that made the
> > finals special and also trickier to play.
>
> I think the change really propogates to go for the win instead of
> chickening for 2nd because of rating/prizes. I really like that. But as
> pointed out elsewhere there is now the problem of random kingmaking in
> case of a lost cause.
>
> I think we should make this change optional and let tournament
> organisators decide which one to use for a while.
The thing that disappoints me most about this, is the old 2nd Place
winner who worked his ass off to get a VP to tie with 1st Place, but
now is forced to share his title with everyone else on the table who
didn't perform at all - including at least 2 other players who have
been ousted.
I agree that tying for 2nd place should happen in the situation where
everyone is sitting on their hands and doing nothing, but there will
be many, many situations where people will feel hard-done by because
they worked to get a VP for nothing - and the difference between being
ousted and not ousted on the final table will mean nothing if you are
not first place.
At least, the ousted players should be put in 3rd place. It may become
a nightmare to make sure players don't oust themselves by playing
badly (not self-oust) to make a friend win, because they will still be
second place anyway, regardless if they are in the game or not. A pair
of friends could take turns doing this at tournaments if they wanted
to.