[Report] Gateway 2001 Los Angeles - 4 Events
Robert Goudie
Event #1 was won by Brad Ward with, uh, some deck.
Event #2 was won by Robert Goudie with a Mask 1k Stealth Bleed Deck
Event #3 was won by Jason Dawson with, I believe, a Tzimice deck of some sort
Event #4 was won by Steve Bucy with a Ventrue Bloat Bleed and Vote deck
(breaking his streak of about 12 months without a tourney victory or finals
appearance).
We had over 30 players for all four tournaments...many new players too!
-Robert Goudie
Ethan Burrow
<rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Event #3 was won by Jason Dawson with, I believe, a Tzimice deck of some sort
WTF??!?
Did I read correctly that a Tzimisce deck has finally won a
tournament?!?
If so, great job Jason!
-------------------------------
Ethan Burrow - Prince of Austin
saa...@yahoo.com
http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/
The Lasombra
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2001 09:42:32 GMT, "Robert Goudie"
> <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Event #3 was won by Jason Dawson with, I believe,
> >a Tzimice deck of some sort
>
> WTF??!?
>
> Did I read correctly that a Tzimisce deck has finally won a
> tournament?!?
Yes, indeed. It is the weekend of the Tzimisce.
Night Moves tournament Dragon Con 2001 won by a Tzimisce Bloodform
deck.
http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#dragoncon2k1-jeff
Rob Treasure has also won multiple Portsmouth events with the "I'll be
your dog" Tzimisce deck.
http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#rtpa2k
William Lee won a tournament with Tzimise.
http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#will-lee
It isn't as uncommon as you think.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
Dan Harting
>"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Event #3 was won by Jason Dawson with, I believe, a Tzimice deck of some sort.
>
> WTF??!?
>
> Did I read correctly that a Tzimisce deck has finally won a
> tournament?!?
>
> If so, great job Jason!
>
> Ethan Burrow - Prince of Austin
I hope he doesn't mind me revealing his trade secrets...
Jason's deck involved intercept combat using marauders/breath of the
dragon/Lambach's hands and rotschrek.
It was well-suited to face his four competitors, who all emphasized bleeding
in their games plans.
He was able to threaten his way into a good position and benefited from
the rest of the table persecuting each other, as his was the only deck
the table believed was not in danger of ousting it's prey.
Jason said something afterward about winning in LA not always being
about who has the stongest (technically) deck.
- Dan
Derek Ray
> WTF??!?
>
> Did I read correctly that a Tzimisce deck has finally won a
> tournament?!?
Hey now... Don't bash them TOO much! The Tzimisce had a total of 9VP
between Joe's deck and mine (5VP/4VP) in the Dragon's Breath tourney... and
if Joe and I hadn't sat NEXT TO EACH OTHER in the first round and contested
like maniacs, probably a few more =)
GymNat1
>Jason's deck involved intercept combat using marauders/breath of the
>dragon/Lambach's hands and rotschrek.
>It was well-suited to face his four competitors, who all emphasized bleeding
>in their games plans.
>He was able to threaten his way into a good position and benefited from
>the rest of the table persecuting each other, as his was the only deck
>the table believed was not in danger of ousting it's prey.
>Jason said something afterward about winning in LA not always being
>about who has the stongest (technically) deck.
>
>- Dan
hehehe, Jason only went through like 10 cards before he ousted his prey (me).
I was playing a malk anti, kindred spirits deck and hit my prey (the infamous
Alex Harmon) hard. the entire table helped out Alex by voting for his damnable
free states rant which he of course applied to my vampires making them hunt so
Jason could block them. Jason ended up bleeding me out with bleeds of 1. the
table dynamics were very strange this game.....Nat
Kevin M.
"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:132cdedd.01090...@posting.google.com...
And let's not forget Jay Kristoff winning Insubordination: Columbus:
http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#jaykic
Jason Bell
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote
> saa...@yahoo.com (Ethan Burrow) wrote
>
> > WTF??!?
> >
> > Did I read correctly that a Tzimisce deck has finally won a
> > tournament?!?
>
> Hey now... Don't bash them TOO much! The Tzimisce had a total of 9VP
> between Joe's deck and mine (5VP/4VP) in the Dragon's Breath tourney...
and
> if Joe and I hadn't sat NEXT TO EACH OTHER in the first round and
contested
> like maniacs, probably a few more =)
Hey, you can't count contesting that would have given you more
VP's without counting the contesting that would have cost you
VP's. In our second round Dragon's Breath match, I would
have scored 1 of the VP's you got if I hadn't been
dodging 2 vampires my grand-predator had influenced.
I also would have gotten that VP if I wasn't such a nice
guy to remind my prey not to block my Watenda+Obfuscate
with Justine. Twice! Either of which would have left him
tapped out and ousted.
And I don't think you would have taken out Matt's Ventrue
machine with that particular Tzimisce deck, contesting or not.
- Jason Bell
Derek Ray
@typhoon.southeast.rr.com:
(rest snipped; no idea why you chose to warn your prey that he was going to
tap for blocking you =)
> And I don't think you would have taken out Matt's Ventrue
> machine with that particular Tzimisce deck, contesting or not.
It would be an interesting matchup. I can get 8-9 votes on the table
rapidly with that deck if necessary, and the Camarilla don't get to vote
against either of my title-gainers. That would shut down his OWN vote
aspect completely, and I carry a LOT of bleed bounce; I had one Wake and
two Misdirections in hand when Joe contested Meshenka backwards, at which
point I was promptly bled for 9 from Matt's two minions. All of that would
have landed on Joe instead, and while he would've blocked it all, it still
would have been 6 more pool that I had to soak with (as well as two full 8-
caps to pool-gain from instead of one 5-cap; i'd have brought out Sascha
Vykos next instead of Devin Bisley).
My active voting would have been reasonably fine; my voters are older than
his, so Kindred Coercion wouldn't have been any use, and Telepathic Vote
Counting is just an added bonus to the plan. I don't try to block anything
except non-combat weenies with that deck, so his Kiss of Ra and damage
prevention would have sat there useless. The only thing in question would
be how much 2nd Tradition he's carrying; and I can even get past that with
Creepshow Casino and Changeling superior. =) (Had a mixed-blessing day;
drew Hungry Coyote early repeatedly, but never the Casino, although I
didn't see much of my own deck that first round due to lack of minions to
take actions.)
I was more worried about Joe's deck, frankly; I suspected it was going to
be heavy intercept/kill, and while I had plenty of Meld with the Land to
save my vampires' butts, I wasn't going to be getting any hostile votes to
the referendum, which would have clogged me up on damage-vote actions and
TVCs fairly quickly. So it was either take his combat monster Meshenka
first (I could've brought out Sascha just as easily) and see if he
contested, or try to make a 2-2 deal where I provided his offense. I
figured the 2-2 deal had a low chance of being accepted, and i'm allergic
to third-turn table split deals anyway.
Like I said, it would be an interesting matchup. =) I think overall,
though, I prefer my !Ventrue deck (same concept, except you get access to
Vincent Day, Demonstration, Kindred Manipulation, Quentin, and Kindred
Coercion, while only losing the transient stealth, "fear factor", and S:CE)
Steve Bucy
probably purely coincidence...
Robert Goudie wrote in message ...
>The briefest of brief descriptions before I go to bed:
>
>Event #1 was won by Brad Ward with, uh, some deck.
33 players in this one. This was Brad's moment of glory at Gateway. It was a
very nasty version of the Spirodonas deck (spinoff of the Arika deck) that
used Perfect clarity, Soul Gem, and fortitude for the
unblockable/unbouncable bleed. What was worse is the abusive Elder Library
and Succubus Club card cycle shit he tossed in. I was the "lucky" first
victim of this deck in the first round. I could see it was comming and could
only hope he didn't get all the cards. Unfortunately he had the cards and
even got help from the fool across from me (she gave him her army of rats
for a pool during the untap. Another great Succubus trick...). Cudos to Brad
for again showing why Succubus Club totally fucks up tornaments and should
have been banned years ago. I spent 3 hours of the 4 hour tournament playing
pickup games after my deck failed miserably in a Anarch crazy game so I
don't remember much more about this one. I do remember feeling like my bad
luck didn't seem to be changing one bit...
>Event #2 was won by Robert Goudie with a Mask 1k Stealth Bleed Deck
I believe this one had 31 players. Amazing. The master of Dominate bleed
managed to make it to the final, and win, without any real combat defense in
his deck. I don't know how Bob does it. Well actually I do, he just bled
like crazy with massive stealth. Jason Dawson came in second place with his
weenie auspex block almost everything deck. I say "block almost everything"
because Bob's deck was the only thing that could out stealth his
intercept... I showed my first signs of comming out of my endless slump with
my Protean/Grapple rush deck. I managed 3 VP's and had great fun torporing
Democritus, and many others, and Grave Robbing or diablerizing. I would have
made the final if was not for Robert Acevedo and his misreble Cailean deck.
He wouldn't make and deal and had the goods (2 Gaurdian Angels and set
range) to stop me cold. I still had great fun this tournament.
>Event #3 was won by Jason Dawson with, I believe, a Tzimice deck of some
sort
I had the job of judging this 32 player event. Four of the finalists where
Nat Hammond with Ventrue Anti-tribu, Jason Dawson with Tzimisce, Dan Harting
Toreador Anti-tribu, and Alex "the hack" Harmon with Settite Rant. Sadly
the other finalist escapes me. Nat pounded Alex early and got the attention
of everyone at the table. They where soon helping Alex. Jason's massive
untap and intercept rendered Dan's deck pretty much useless. Dan spent most
of the time spinning his wheels and being the dumping ground for other
players. Alex kept tempting Nat's vamps and diablerizing Dan's torpored
vamps so they would burned with blood hunts (sorry Dan...). Soon Nat could
not handle the abuse and began to fade. Alex tried to make a deal with Jason
but really had nothing to offer and Jason could see two easy VP's. He got
Nat and Alex and could shut down the remaining two with ease.
>Event #4 was won by Steve Bucy with a Ventrue Bloat Bleed and Vote deck
>(breaking his streak of about 12 months without a tourney victory or finals
>appearance).
Another 32 player event I believe. It was actually my Freaken Ventrue deck
that broke the streak. Some bloat (7 M tap, 5 5th tradition) but more vote
and bleed. Very old school, I first made it in 97. With the addition of
Dreams of the Spinx it cycles like crazy and worked great in this
tournament. The other finalist were Niki Stewart with Grangrel form of mist
Dominate bleed, Dennis Lien weenie seduction/bonding bleed, Daniel Walker
Leandro malk big stealth bleed, and a newbie with an Assimite deck. I went
first with Niki as my prey, with Dennis as her prey, the assimite as his
prey, and Daniel as the prey of the Assimite. Nike seemed to have big
problems early. She tried to play a Freak Drive with Caitlin who had no
fortitude. This showed a mojar crypt draw problem. She spent most of her
transfers paying 1 to hunt. Dennis got off to a roaring start hammering the
unsuspecting Assimite. By turn 3 I could tell the Assimite was going to make
an exit. Niki kept trying to get me to do something to Dennis. However with
Leandro at my back door and lots of actions of my own to take I decided the
Assimite should be sacrificed to Dennis without interference. I spent my
time stoping Daniels Leandro Govern bleed (was hoping to deflect to Niki but
he couldn't get by the 2nd) and gearing up for assault on Niki. With the
Assimite gone Daniel felt the weenie wrath of Dennis and went 100% defense.
It did no good as Daniel made a nasty exit after a deflection battle with
me. I knew my mixture of 2nd, Majesty and deflection would survive Dennis
for a time and had almost 15 pool with 7 on Gwendolyn. Dennis on my doorstep
I decided I needed to go after Niki. Niki had 12 pool and I had 2 KRC and 2
Govern's with a Freak Drive in my hand. The KRC's went through without
challenge but Niki waked to block the first bleed. I decided to Freak and
untap and wait for Dennis. The hardest decision of the game was if I should
transfer out Gwendolyn. After much debate I gambled and put her out. Niki
bleed Dennis to 6 pool and left one of her vamps untapped. Dennis then
lauched a 5 vamp assault. I managed to block two, deflect one to Niki who
sent it back for me to deflect back to her again, and took one bleed for 3
or 4. Niki then bled Dennis who waked and deflected or blocked. Sadly the
defection war with Niki had left my 2 prices empty and they had to hunt. I
minion tapped Gwendoyln for 6 and my princes made the hunts without a block.
I then did a KRC to take Niki to 3 and freaked Gwendolyn. No point in
bleeding just to be blocked. With my prices tapped and only Gwen for defense
Dennis slamed me to 3 pool. Gwen saved me with two blocks due to a Majesty.
I then tapped & burned my Dreams of the Spinx at the beginning of my turn to
cycle for a KRC. I drew another Dreams and played it for my master. I
immediately tapped it to bring my hand to 11 cards. I got the KRC. Then Gwen
called the KRC, which went unblocked, and later freaked. I did 3 to Niki to
oust her and 1 to dennis to take him to 5 pool. Gwen then bled and Dennis
played a wake for the successful block. The really big moment then came as
I attempted a Govern bleed with Sir Walter. Dennis looked at his hand then
said the beautiful words, "taking three". I then finished it with another
Govern bleed. My losing streak finally ended! It was a great game. It was
very scary to sit back and build while Dennis gained 2 VP. However it seemed
my best option and I was correct. That and trasfering out Gwendolyn, of all
vamps, proved to be the winning moves.
A great weekend of tournaments! Everyone better watch out. I'm once again
dangerous. :-P
Steve Bucy
--
"The only human commander to survive combat
with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me.
If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn
Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles
area.
Brad Ward
> The briefest of brief descriptions before I go to bed:
>
> Event #1 was won by Brad Ward with, uh, some deck.
My deck was a Spiridonas Soul Gem deck. Its so hard to remember back
to the first tourney of the weekend.
-Brad
Prince of NLV
Frederick Scott
>
> This is from my memory. All resemblance to real people, places, and facts is
> probably purely coincidence...
>
> Robert Goudie wrote in message ...
> >The briefest of brief descriptions before I go to bed:
> >
> >Event #1 was won by Brad Ward with, uh, some deck.
>
> 33 players in this one. This was Brad's moment of glory at Gateway. It was a
> very nasty version of the Spirodonas deck (spinoff of the Arika deck) that
> used Perfect clarity, Soul Gem, and fortitude for the unblockable/unbouncable
> bleed. What was worse is the abusive Elder Library and Succubus Club card cycle
> shit he tossed in.
> Cudos to Brad for again showing why Succubus Club totally fucks up tornaments
> and should have been banned years ago.
That's not the half of it. As you recall, I played in the same game and got
to see Elder Library being passed back and forth (between Brad and my prey),
thus allowing both players to cycle cards. But in a later game in a subsequent
tournament, Nat and someone else whose name I can't remember demonstrated the
same effect with Visit from the Capuchin - this one having two counters on it.
This drove Mike Nilson (did I get that name right?) half crazy. It looked like
he strongly controlled the game even with the two of them using Suc Club to work
every kind of imaginable trick. Fair enough, but they were taking forever to do
it. Even though I felt like the time they took was legitimate strategy discussion
time, it was still making it impossible to move the game along. Another problem
with the card.
It seems like I was in every game this weekend where someone discovered some new
stupidity Succubus Club enables. I finally stuck one in my Anarch Revolt deck -
which has little use for it - just to contest other peoples' Succubus Clubs.
I talked to other players who were already doing the same thing. This, IMO, is
a mark of a card that needs to be shot.
Fred
Robert Goudie
> Event #2 was won by Robert Goudie with a Mask 1k Stealth Bleed Deck
Deck Name: Whole Lotta Faces
Created by: Robert Goudie
Description: The deck was created rather quickly to take advantage of the
"multiple action modifiers of the same type" loophole found in Mask 1k. The
idea was to use Mask 1k to be able to play multiple Command of the Beast on the
same action. Also, Mask is easy enough to cycle if they decide not to block me
so I can cycle readily.
I think the concept is strong but the execution really isn't good at all. The
deck was never playtested and wasn't finished until a few minutes before the
event started. It is missing Master Cards and has too few Govern bleeds and a
number of other things I'd tweak. The deck also jams massively on stealth. In
the prelims I had Anarch decks at my tables and the 4 cap vampires and some
quick bleeds helped me oust my preys. In the finals, I was fortunate enough to
have the end-game come down to Jason Dawson and myself. Jason was playing a
heavy heavy auspex intercept deck. Jason's hearty block attempts at 4-6
intercept were just what my over-stealthed deck needed to cycle for the bleed
cards. It was fate.
Crypt: (12 cards) [Min: 17, Max: 28, Avg: 5.67]
2 Didi Meyers (aus cel DOM obf, Malkavian, 5)
2 Gilbert Duane (AUS DOM OBF, Malkavian, 7, Prince)
1 Greger Anderssen (AUS dom OBF pro, Malkavian, 7, Prince)
1 Ingrid Russo (DOM for, Ventrue Antitribu, 4)
1 Laurent de Valois (ani dom obf, Nosferatu, 4)
2 Mariel (aus DOM OBF tha, Malkavian, 7)
1 Reverend Blackwood (DOM obf THA, Tremere Antitribu, 6, Bishop)
1 Roland Bishop (aus dom obf, Malkavian, 4)
1 Zebulon (aus dom OBF pro, Malkavian, 5)
Library: (95 cards)
Master (5 cards)
5 Blood Doll
Action (14 cards)
10 Govern the Unaligned
4 Night Moves
ActionMod (64 cards)
8 Bonding
6 Cloak the Gathering
15 Command of the Beast
6 Conditioning
3 Elder Impersonation
2 Faceless Night
7 Lost in Crowds
12 Mask of a Thousand Faces
5 Spying Mission
Reaction (3 cards)
3 Redirection
Combo (9 cards)
9 Swallowed by the Night
Andrew S. Davidson
>It looked like he strongly controlled the game even with the
>two of them using Suc Club to work every kind of imaginable trick.
>Fair enough, but they were taking forever to do
>it. Even though I felt like the time they took was legitimate strategy discussion
>time, it was still making it impossible to move the game along. Another problem
>with the card.
Did the game run out of time?
Players don't need Succubus Club to eat up lots of time discussing
strategy deals. David Hammond had a stunned look after the final of
the recent UK championship - he said that most of the game had been
taken up by one long discussion. If this sort of things bothers you
then banning Succubus Club isn't the answer. What you need to do is
repeal the ban on Madness of the Bard!
Andrew
Sorrow
95 cards? Was this a sanctioned event?
Sorrow
---
"Happiness sucks" -me
Robert Goudie
archive.
-Robert
"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message
news:tpc590j...@corp.supernews.com...
Steve Bucy
<6B80D85345252841.9FC2CE2C...@lp.airnews.net>...
This makes little sense. If someone doesn't like discussion taking up time
then banning Succubus Club will certainly help reduce it. There is always
discussion, but the point Fred correctly made is that SC adds an endless
amount of EXTRA discussion. SC delays the game by adding endless discussions
about trades and extra deals that could not even be considered without it's
presence.
Fred doesn't want to stop normal discussion/deal making, he just doesn't
want all the added crap and delays SC brings to the game.
Steve Bucy
Frederick Scott wrote in message <3B958155...@netcom.com>...
This was exactly my thought. I have seen that stupid card mess up so many
tournaments now that I was thinking I have to put it in every deck just to
contest it. A very sorry state indeed...
Andrew S. Davidson
>This makes little sense. If someone doesn't like discussion taking up time
>then banning Succubus Club will certainly help reduce it. There is always
>discussion, but the point Fred correctly made is that SC adds an endless
>amount of EXTRA discussion. SC delays the game by adding endless discussions
>about trades and extra deals that could not even be considered without it's
>presence.
The real problem here is that the game has no rules for the use of
time by the players. If someone wants to spend 30 minutes or more
discussing a deal (as happened in the UK final) then they are free to
do so.
In the Clan War game, I had to face a similar issue. When I drew my
Reality Mirror, I should really have spent a lot of time going
carefully through each ashheap to consider my combat options. In
order not to tip off players when I drew the card, I should be doing
this every turn. In practise, I was just playing for fun and so short
cut through all this by asking my opponents questions about what they
might have that I could use.
When my girlfriend plays CCG, she's quite prepared to sit and think
for many minutes, figuring out her options in a complex situation.
She's not stalling - just thinking things through as in chess. It can
be maddening but what can one do about it - she's just playing the
game.
Vampire is not alone in not addressing this issue. All the CCG seem
to just give up when it comes to time management and it's a serious
flaw with all of them. Other games do this better:
* chess - has time clocks
* Brawl - you play your own position as fast as you can
* Diplomacy - there are timed periods for negotition (usually 15 mins)
* Civilisation - there are timed periods for trading (usually 5 mins?)
* Merchants of Amsterdam - uses Dutch auctions as the main mechanic
Andrew
Brad Ward
> Library: (95 cards)___________________________________________________________
> Master (5 cards)______________________________________________________________
> 5 Blood Doll_________________________________________________________________
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Action (14 cards)_____________________________________________________________
> 10 Govern the Unaligned_______________________________________________________
> 4 Night Moves________________________________________________________________
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> ActionMod (64 cards)__________________________________________________________
> 8 Bonding____________________________________________________________________
> 6 Cloak the Gathering________________________________________________________
> 15 Command of the Beast_______________________________________________________
> 6 Conditioning_______________________________________________________________
> 3 Elder Impersonation________________________________________________________
> 2 Faceless Night_____________________________________________________________
> 7 Lost in Crowds_____________________________________________________________
> 12 Mask of a Thousand Faces___________________________________________________
> 5 Spying Mission_____________________________________________________________
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Reaction (3 cards)____________________________________________________________
> 3 Redirection________________________________________________________________
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Combo (9 cards)_______________________________________________________________
> 9 Swallowed by the Night_____________________________________________________
.
Isn't 95 cards an illegal deck? Im gonna have to start counting your cards,
we all know that bigger is better. :)
Brad
Prince of NLV
Frederick Scott
>
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2001 01:30:10 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote:
>
> >It looked like he strongly controlled the game even with the
> >two of them using Suc Club to work every kind of imaginable trick.
> >Fair enough, but they were taking forever to do
> >it. Even though I felt like the time they took was legitimate strategy discussion
> >time, it was still making it impossible to move the game along. Another problem
> >with the card.
>
> Did the game run out of time?
No. Nilson ran out of patience and finally just agreed to let everyone run through
their cards and withdraw. I suspect he must not have been in position to make it to
the finals or he wouldn't have done that. None the less, it's not good to have a
card that fritters away so much time on play that's thoroughly boring for those not
involved. And I didn't really get the impression it was all that fun for those doing
the planning either.
> Players don't need Succubus Club to eat up lots of time discussing
> strategy deals. David Hammond had a stunned look after the final of
> the recent UK championship - he said that most of the game had been
> taken up by one long discussion. If this sort of things bothers you
> then banning Succubus Club isn't the answer. What you need to do is
> repeal the ban on Madness of the Bard!
I don't even want to know what might prompt you to type in a statement like
that. You give those who accuse you of mere trolling a lot more fodder by
doing so.
Anyway, while you're right that negotiation and strategy discussions can
eat up time in the absence of Succubus Club (and I notice that seems to go
on a lot more in the finals of a tournament), the Succubus Club clearly
aggravates the problem. Nat and his (temporary) "buddy" were trading each
other their hands just to look at what each other had without having to
openly discuss it. They were proposing tactics for one another that could only
be carried off with close cooperation AND the use of the Club. And they were
trading Visit from the Capuchin back and forth to cycle cards, stop, trade
hands again from time to time, discuss possible uses of cards, and so forth.
Nilson was complaining that each of Nat's untap phases was taking 10 minutes
or more, which was an exaggeration but not all that much of one.
Fred
Steve Bucy
(snip)
>I don't even want to know what might prompt you to type in a statement like
>that. You give those who accuse you of mere trolling a lot more fodder by
>doing so.
I really don't get were it came from either. I guess he jumped on the
opportunity to push his own agenda about discussions.
>Anyway, while you're right that negotiation and strategy discussions can
>eat up time in the absence of Succubus Club (and I notice that seems to go
>on a lot more in the finals of a tournament), the Succubus Club clearly
>aggravates the problem. Nat and his (temporary) "buddy" were trading each
>other their hands just to look at what each other had without having to
>openly discuss it. They were proposing tactics for one another that could
only
>be carried off with close cooperation AND the use of the Club. And they
were
>trading Visit from the Capuchin back and forth to cycle cards, stop, trade
>hands again from time to time, discuss possible uses of cards, and so
forth.
>Nilson was complaining that each of Nat's untap phases was taking 10
minutes
>or more, which was an exaggeration but not all that much of one.
>
>Fred
Back to real topic... Following is a list of the Succubus club abuses, and
problems it's created, I have witnessed first hand:
1) The huge power shift. This is the old "Let me have your 6 weenie vamps so
I can bleed out my unexpecting prey and then I will give them back and let
you have my vamps to bleed out your prey". I have seen similar deals like
this no less then 5 times in tournaments.
Problem: Totally throws the balance of the game at a moments notice.
Result: A lot of the table splitting type crap they are trying to make rules
to prevent.
2) The massive card cycle. This is the newest abuse I've seen. I witnessed
the Elder Library pass, and I have heard of several others like the game
Fred witnessed with the Capuchin pass.
Problem: Unlimited free card cycle. An incredible advantage and power in
V:TES. Even Wake was erratted to prevent free cycle.
Result: Huge advantage for the people able to choose the exact hand they
need.
3) The massive time waste. I have forever been tired of watching the time
tick away in tournaments while a Succubus player takes a 5 to 10 minute
untap phase trading, bribing, and threatening everyone else. This is not a
problem in a normal game, but in tournament gives the Succubus player a huge
advantage. Especially in the final.
Problem: A Succubus player that was top seed or gets the 1st VP has a
amazing ability to legally waste away the time.
Result: Another huge advantage for the Succubus player. He has extra control
over the clock.
If anyone has any other Succubus abuse problems please post them. However I
think the three listed above a more then enough to merit the banning of this
card in tournament play.
LSJ
> 2) The massive card cycle. This is the newest abuse I've seen. I witnessed
> the Elder Library pass, and I have heard of several others like the game
> Fred witnessed with the Capuchin pass.
>
> Problem: Unlimited free card cycle. An incredible advantage and power in
> V:TES. Even Wake was erratted to prevent free cycle.
Unlimited free card cycle?
It is limited - one of the players will stop when she gets the perfect
hand. No sense in burning through the cards in your library after that.
Wake was errata'ed because it had a very strong effect ("extra minion") without
an appropriate cost (costing only a card slot in the library). The errata
was made to provide a cost (reduced hand size until untap).
> Result: Huge advantage for the people able to choose the exact hand they
> need.
For one person - whose trading partner is then left at a disadvantage in
comparison (although at an advantage in comparison to the non-traders).
At the expense of burning through (many) cards in her library and having
to rely on finding a trading partner.
> 3) The massive time waste. I have forever been tired of watching the time
> tick away in tournaments while a Succubus player takes a 5 to 10 minute
> untap phase trading, bribing, and threatening everyone else. This is not a
> problem in a normal game, but in tournament gives the Succubus player a huge
> advantage. Especially in the final.
>
> Problem: A Succubus player that was top seed or gets the 1st VP has a
> amazing ability to legally waste away the time.
As does the non-Succubus player that is top seeded or gets the 1st VP.
> Result: Another huge advantage for the Succubus player. He has extra control
> over the clock.
You can offer deals with or without the SC.
> If anyone has any other Succubus abuse problems please post them. However I
> think the three listed above a more then enough to merit the banning of this
> card in tournament play.
A smattering of isolated (and "new") applications of the rules does not
warrant the banning of the card, IMO. The card was not "abused" at any
of the tournaments I've been to, and I've been to quite a few, including
the NAC. The card appeared on several tables at the Gen*Con tournaments
and produced no problems. I didn't see it at all at Dragon*Con. Not
exactly a poster child for overpoweredness for a 6+ year old card.
If these new avenues of "abuse" are actually abusive, then (now that they're
publicized), they'll be "abused" more often (that's the nature of competition).
If players can come up with adequate responses to counter the "abuse" as-is,
once they become aware of the abusive angles attainable, then great. If the
"abuse" rises top the level where it shows up on the V:EKN radar, then steps
will be taken to fix the problem, of course. Banning would be a last
resort.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
BernieTime
>A smattering of isolated (and "new") applications of the rules does not
>warrant the banning of the card, IMO. The card was not "abused" at any
>of the tournaments I've been to, and I've been to quite a few, including
>the NAC. The card appeared on several tables at the Gen*Con tournaments
>and produced no problems. I didn't see it at all at Dragon*Con. Not
>exactly a poster child for overpoweredness for a 6+ year old card.
I tend to disagree with your above statment Scott. There has been a
marked shift in play at tournaments over the last year in regards
to deal making & table splitting. Not even gonna tread on what is
or is not collusion.
Problem being is that Succubus Club (SC) is now being used as a
tool to destroy the predator/prey dynamic of our CCG.
While there are indeed other cards out there that have cross-
table impact, none of them carry the potential for abuse that
SC is capable of.
You of all people should know what happens when an ambiguous
card is left open for wide interpretation by wanna-be rules lawyers.
That you notate Succubus Club is a card 6+ years old is somewhat
insubstantial. Since the reclamation of V:TES by White Wolf, there
hasn't been an expansion which did not include reprints of older cards
with textual changes. Misdirection being a prime example.
>If these new avenues of "abuse" are actually abusive, then (now that they're
>publicized), they'll be "abused" more often (that's the nature of
>competition).
>If players can come up with adequate responses to counter the "abuse" as-is,
>once they become aware of the abusive angles attainable, then great. If the
>"abuse" rises top the level where it shows up on the V:EKN radar, then steps
>will be taken to fix the problem, of course. Banning would be a last
>resort.
I am gladdened to know that Banning a card is not taken lightly.
While nothing comes to mind on how to create a "fix" of the SC
issue, I can at least hope that next year's Camarilla release
may include a redefined version. Though that is a long way
off..
Regards,
Bernie Bresnahan
Prince of Lansing, MI
LSJ
>
> <Snip: Arguments re: Succubus Club>
>
> >A smattering of isolated (and "new") applications of the rules does not
> >warrant the banning of the card, IMO. The card was not "abused" at any
> >of the tournaments I've been to, and I've been to quite a few, including
> >the NAC. The card appeared on several tables at the Gen*Con tournaments
> >and produced no problems. I didn't see it at all at Dragon*Con. Not
> >exactly a poster child for overpoweredness for a 6+ year old card.
>
> I tend to disagree with your above statment Scott. There has been a
> marked shift in play at tournaments over the last year in regards
> to deal making & table splitting. Not even gonna tread on what is
> or is not collusion.
OK. That's true even in tournaments where SC is not involved.
> Problem being is that Succubus Club (SC) is now being used as a
> tool to destroy the predator/prey dynamic of our CCG.
> While there are indeed other cards out there that have cross-
> table impact, none of them carry the potential for abuse that
> SC is capable of.
KRC is very abusable in that way. Bum's Rush is very abusable in
that way.
> You of all people should know what happens when an ambiguous
> card is left open for wide interpretation by wanna-be rules lawyers.
SC is not ambiguous.
If you're referring to the collusion rules, then OK. If they're
the problem, then we should address them and not look for a
scapegoat.
> That you notate Succubus Club is a card 6+ years old is somewhat
> insubstantial. Since the reclamation of V:TES by White Wolf, there
> hasn't been an expansion which did not include reprints of older cards
> with textual changes. Misdirection being a prime example.
I don't follow the logic here, sorry.
--
Derek Ray
news:3B96CBAE...@white-wolf.com:
> BernieTime wrote:
>>
>> I tend to disagree with your above statment Scott. There has been a
>> marked shift in play at tournaments over the last year in regards
>> to deal making & table splitting. Not even gonna tread on what is or
>> is not collusion.
>
> OK. That's true even in tournaments where SC is not involved.
And was quite true at DragonCon (where I don't remember seeing an SC hit
the table). I made several deals over the course of the convention,
including a 3-2 split deal in the third round of the Dragon's Breath
tournament with my predator (i was to get the 3, except someone transferred
out). I don't recall a table I played at where "split" wasn't discussed
among players, and the one table I was at where no split happened, I took 4
VP.
>> Problem being is that Succubus Club (SC) is now being used as a
>> tool to destroy the predator/prey dynamic of our CCG.
>> While there are indeed other cards out there that have cross-
>> table impact, none of them carry the potential for abuse that
>> SC is capable of.
>
> KRC is very abusable in that way. Bum's Rush is very abusable in
> that way.
In the first round Friday, I did 11 points of vote damage backwards to my
predator with Con Ags/KRC because his stealth bleed was outpacing my bloat.
(I considered it only fair; he had just bled me for 11 himself). If THAT
doesn't knock the predator/prey dynamic on its ass, I don't know what does;
although I did manage to oust my prey while I was doing it.
I didn't need the Succubus Club in play at all. I can also fuck up the
predator/prey dynamic with Eagle's Sight intercept combat.
>> You of all people should know what happens when an ambiguous card is
>> left open for wide interpretation by wanna-be rules lawyers.
>
> SC is not ambiguous.
>
> If you're referring to the collusion rules, then OK. If they're
> the problem, then we should address them and not look for a
> scapegoat.
I cannot personally determine a way to collude with the Succubus Club that
doesn't involve being blatantly obvious, myself. Blatantly obvious
collusion carries its own penalty.
The time-taken aspect is more of an issue, in my eyes; people dicking
around excessively in their untap phases is a bad thing, especially doing
something goofy like swapping the Library back and forth to cycle one card
at a time. Legal? Yes. Good? No, largely because of the time it wastes
to do that sort of thing. The free-cycling thoughts that someone else
threw in there also apply; Wake DID get kicked because you could dump them
out of your hand like water.
While SC does require a partner to let you do this sort of thing, it's not
that difficult to find a 'friendly face' cross-table who's also got a bit
of hand jam; and odds are you'll only need to ping it back and forth 3
times, at most. (Or to find an easily fooled face; letting your prey
borrow something which will do pool damage to HIS prey doesn't strike me as
a paramount example of good play.) Again, I didn't encounter a single
table where people weren't teaming up cross-table (or attempting to) in
order to help their chances. Whether this is a good thing is a subject of
MANY people's opinions, and is best left in another thread. =)
Andrew S. Davidson
>I really don't get were it came from either.
Let me spell it out then. You want to ban a card. I would rather
address the same problem by unbanning a card. Yours is a negative,
repressive impulse. Mine is a liberating, empowering one. Is the
symmetry clear to you now?
Maybe you don't understand how Madness of the Bard counters Succubus
Club? I'd have thought that was obvious too but let's take nothing
for granted. Madness hampers use of the Succubus Club because it
makes deal-making speech more difficult and dangerous. Do you get it
now?
Andrew
LSJ
Given the problems with Madness of the Bard (defining "Rhyme", making
it equally difficult on both native and non-native speakers) that we've
already discussed, it should still be obvious that unbanning it is not
an option.
Tim Eijpe
>
> This makes little sense. If someone doesn't like discussion taking up time
> then banning Succubus Club will certainly help reduce it. There is always
> discussion, but the point Fred correctly made is that SC adds an endless
> amount of EXTRA discussion. SC delays the game by adding endless discussions
> about trades and extra deals that could not even be considered without it's
> presence.
>
> Fred doesn't want to stop normal discussion/deal making, he just doesn't
> want all the added crap and delays SC brings to the game.
>
I am a bit curious here. I myself have abused the crap out of the SC
on more than one occasion in all of it's ways. However it is not
needed to ban the card. Prepare for it. Add a couple of Arsons, it is
a common card you know.
Really a simple sollution.
Tim Eijpe
James Coupe
<tim....@mailandnews.com> writes
>I am a bit curious here. I myself have abused the crap out of the SC
>on more than one occasion in all of it's ways. However it is not
>needed to ban the card. Prepare for it. Add a couple of Arsons, it is
>a common card you know.
>Really a simple sollution.
If some form of errata *is* needed (which I'm far from convinced it is),
I'd rather keep the card in tact but limit its use, if you see what I
mean.
Something like:
"Methuselahs can give you pool, and you can give them pool. You
can trade cards from your hand or in play. These trades can only
happen during your untap phase and cannot result in any
Methuselah having less than his or her hand size. Any additional
terms can be established, but none are enfoced by the rules.
For each pool given, or each card traded, place a counter on
this card. When the number of counters on this card is greater
than the number of Methuselahs in the game, burn this card."
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F
They don't need to see you cry B457CA213D7E6
I can't promise I will heal you, but if you want to I will try 68C3695D623D5D
Steve Bucy
So I should have to have Arsons or Reversals in every deck just to stop SC.
Isn't that the sign of a really screwed up card? When everyone was whining
about RTI they should have just put Archon Investigation, Delflection,
Tele-Misdirection, or 20 Telepathic Counter in their decks right? Why didn't
didn't everyone accept that fix?
Saying I have to include a bunch (will need a bunch to be sure to get one in
time) of card that would normally not be needed in every deck just to stop a
particular card is a big sign of a problem.
Steve Bucy
LSJ wrote in message <3B968372...@white-wolf.com>...
>Steve Bucy wrote:
>> 2) The massive card cycle. This is the newest abuse I've seen. I
witnessed
>> the Elder Library pass, and I have heard of several others like the game
>> Fred witnessed with the Capuchin pass.
>>
>> Problem: Unlimited free card cycle. An incredible advantage and power in
>> V:TES. Even Wake was erratted to prevent free cycle.
>
>Unlimited free card cycle?
Ok, let me be more clear. Obviously it is not an "endless" cycle. At most
it's an 81 card cycle. I should have said it allows two players to cycle as
needed. It WILL give one of them a perfect hand and the other a chance for a
much better hand.
>It is limited - one of the players will stop when she gets the perfect
>hand. No sense in burning through the cards in your library after that.
That is not always true. Especially if someone is trying to withdrawl. Note
that Brad had numerous Obedience in his deck. This could allow him to cycle
everything but the Obedience (which would be saved for blocks) so he could
withdrawl. All he needs to do is cut a deal with someone else who has the
ability to withdrawl safely.
>Wake was errata'ed because it had a very strong effect ("extra minion")
without
>an appropriate cost (costing only a card slot in the library). The errata
>was made to provide a cost (reduced hand size until untap).
This is not what I heard or read on this NG. From what I read and heard Wake
was errata'ed because it allowed for a free cycle with no penalty. The fact
the card was "strong" may have been a side issue but was not the main factor
people kept pointing out. It was always the ability to cycle freely. Do you
deny that the ability to cycle cards so freely to get the hand you need
changes one of the basic tenants (random hand of cards from random library)
of V:TES. Isn't it a problem if one (or two) players can cycle to get the
hand they want for a given situation?
>> Result: Huge advantage for the people able to choose the exact hand they
>> need.
>
>For one person - whose trading partner is then left at a disadvantage in
>comparison (although at an advantage in comparison to the non-traders).
>At the expense of burning through (many) cards in her library and having
>to rely on finding a trading partner.
It's a huge advantage for everyone that gets to cycle cards. One will get
the exact hand they want, the other has a chance to greatly improve their
hand even if they don't get exactly what they want. I saw how Brad and Nat
did it. It was a huge advantage to both.
>> 3) The massive time waste. I have forever been tired of watching the time
>> tick away in tournaments while a Succubus player takes a 5 to 10 minute
>> untap phase trading, bribing, and threatening everyone else. This is not
a
>> problem in a normal game, but in tournament gives the Succubus player a
huge
>> advantage. Especially in the final.
>>
>> Problem: A Succubus player that was top seed or gets the 1st VP has a
>> amazing ability to legally waste away the time.
>
>As does the non-Succubus player that is top seeded or gets the 1st VP.
No he doesn't. He can play slow, however other players can call the judge
and point out the fact he is delaying. He can only play so slow before he
gets in trouble. A SC player can propose deal after deal, discuss them all,
take extra time choosing the card to trade, take time begging players B, C,
and D to let him have card X, etc... You can call the judge over to try and
hurry him along but he has the freedom to do all this crap in a timely
manner. He has a huge advantage when attempting to waste time away.
>> Result: Another huge advantage for the Succubus player. He has extra
control
>> over the clock.
>
>You can offer deals with or without the SC.
True, but you have way less to offer. There is only so many deals you can
discuss under normal circumstances. It's easy to call the judge over when
someone seems to be taking a long time to talk about a deal. However with SC
club the player can just jump to deal, after deal, after deal. It's not just
I will leave you alone for X or I can help you for Y. With SC it's, "anyone
need card X. What do you have for it? No I don't think so. How about you?
Don't want it. How about you? Ok. What about card Y. Do you want that
one..." another 1 or 2 minutes as he runs through each card. Then you get,
"I will give you a pool if I can have your (insert location card) for a
turn. No? Hmmmm. How about you...". Another 2 minutes. Then there is, "I
will give you my (insert location card) for a pool". He can continue for
quite some time. This doesn't even cover the time taken with Elder Library
cycle crap. It's all totally legal as long as he doesn't spend to long on
any one proposal.
>> If anyone has any other Succubus abuse problems please post them. However
I
>> think the three listed above a more then enough to merit the banning of
this
>> card in tournament play.
>
>A smattering of isolated (and "new") applications of the rules does not
>warrant the banning of the card, IMO. The card was not "abused" at any
>of the tournaments I've been to, and I've been to quite a few, including
>the NAC. The card appeared on several tables at the Gen*Con tournaments
>and produced no problems. I didn't see it at all at Dragon*Con. Not
>exactly a poster child for overpoweredness for a 6+ year old card.
Unfortunately I have to agree that it has not been widely abused yet. It
seems the L.A. players have been cornering the market on SC abuse. However I
have seen the worst. I have seen numerous Vampire swaps in the past and now
the time waste and card cycling issues.
>If these new avenues of "abuse" are actually abusive, then (now that
they're
>publicized), they'll be "abused" more often (that's the nature of
competition).
>If players can come up with adequate responses to counter the "abuse"
as-is,
>once they become aware of the abusive angles attainable, then great. If the
>"abuse" rises top the level where it shows up on the V:EKN radar, then
steps
>will be taken to fix the problem, of course. Banning would be a last
>resort.
It is my great hope people will pick up on these abuses and run with them.
Since the only real counters are Arson, Sudden Reversal, Disputed territory,
and contestation I doubt there will be an adequate response without everyone
planning specifically just for SC. If people need to make every deck
planning for it, there would seem to be a problem.
At any rate I hope players everyplace start to abuse it with the skill the
L.A. area players have. Once they do I'm sure more people will see a need
for errata or a ban.
LSJ
> >You can offer deals with or without the SC.
>
> True, but you have way less to offer. There is only so many deals you can
> discuss under normal circumstances. It's easy to call the judge over when
Relative infinity versus relative infinity (w.r.t. a 2hr time limit) is
not "way" less, to me. There are plenty of deals you can discuss under
normal circumstances to sufficiently delay the game.
> someone seems to be taking a long time to talk about a deal. However with SC
> club the player can just jump to deal, after deal, after deal. It's not just
> I will leave you alone for X or I can help you for Y. With SC it's, "anyone
> need card X. What do you have for it? No I don't think so. How about you?
> Don't want it. How about you? Ok. What about card Y. Do you want that
> one..." another 1 or 2 minutes as he runs through each card. Then you get,
> "I will give you a pool if I can have your (insert location card) for a
> turn. No? Hmmmm. How about you...". Another 2 minutes. Then there is, "I
> will give you my (insert location card) for a pool". He can continue for
> quite some time. This doesn't even cover the time taken with Elder Library
> cycle crap. It's all totally legal as long as he doesn't spend to long on
> any one proposal.
No. It's only legal if he's not attempting to stall. If he's stalling
(regardless of the method used), that's illegal. [VEKN 5.1]
Just say "I don't want to trade. Period." if he's offering "spurious"
trades. Same as with anyone (without an SC) offering deal after deal:
you just say "no deals - proceed with your turn". If you feel the
spurious offers are being made to stall, call a judge.
Frederick Scott
This is a classic mistake people make when suggesting how to balance a
collectible card game. It just doesn't work...that is, the fact you can pack
a card that will sweep the problem card off the table doesn't indicate lack
of balance. For one thing, if your deck plays for Succubus Club, you don't
card that much that someone might have Arsons. If you get your Suc Club arsoned,
you get it Arsoned. No big deal. You lose a zero cost card and go on. On the
other hand, you may play your Suc Club and the guy packing the Arsons may find
they were at the bottom of his library. Or he may draw his Arsons, clogging his
hand when your Suc Club is at the bottom of his deck. Or he may hold on to them
8 turns, finally use them on someone's The Barrens in disgust, only to have you
draw Suc Club and play it just afterward.
This kind of conjectural argumentation - the concept that a couple of Arsons in
your deck fixes a problematic location - just doesn't bear out in real life play.
To balance the such a card, you need a "punishment" card: "Burn any location and
make its owner burn 10 pool". That will make a real game out of playing Succubus
Club or not. Unfortunately, a hose card like that will catch all the non-problem
locations as well, so would be very bad. You could write a much more specific
hose card - "Burn Succubus Club and make its owner burn 10 pool" - but it's uses
would be so limited that it would not likely get used. Also, in practice I think
most CCG designers are of the opinion that running little side games around hosing
otherwise powerful cards does not make for a very good CCG experience. Much
better just to rewrite (errata) or eliminate the problem card.
Fred
Frederick Scott
>
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 12:20:49 -0700, Steve Bucy wrote:
>
> >I really don't get were it came from either.
>
> Let me spell it out then. You want to ban a card. I would rather
> address the same problem by unbanning a card. Yours is a negative,
> repressive impulse. Mine is a liberating, empowering one. Is the
> symmetry clear to you now?
The obvious problem is that the banned card was banned for a reason.
That reason still exists even though MotB may hose Succubus Club
very well.
Now that you mention it, this is another classic mistake people make:
"See, you shouldn't have banned card X because it was exactly the thing
preventing card Y from being abusive." Doesn't matter. You're looking
to put your metagame in a place where none of the cards are abusive.
Of course, MotB was not banned as abusive, but the point is still
essentially the same.
Fred
Brad Ward
> So I should have to have Arsons or Reversals in every deck just to stop SC.
> Isn't that the sign of a really screwed up card? When everyone was whining
> about RTI they should have just put Archon Investigation, Delflection,
> Tele-Misdirection, or 20 Telepathic Counter in their decks right? Why didn't
> didn't everyone accept that fix?
>
> Saying I have to include a bunch (will need a bunch to be sure to get one in
> time) of card that would normally not be needed in every deck just to stop a
> particular card is a big sign of a problem.
I agree. Already I have adapted all my tourney decks to include the
Succubus club, to just fight against it if anything else. I have also
heard from R. Goudie that he contested the Succubus Club for a while
in a tourney with another guy just so that each other woudln't get the
card.
The card definately needs the boot or complete makeover.
-Brad
James Coupe
<wa...@nevada.edu> writes
Re: Succubus Club
>The card definately needs the boot or complete makeover.
Assuming it does, what do you think of the proposition I made?
Steve Bucy
>In message <e5b93701.01090...@posting.google.com>, Brad Ward
><wa...@nevada.edu> writes
>
>Re: Succubus Club
>>The card definately needs the boot or complete makeover.
>
>Assuming it does, what do you think of the proposition I made?
Your proposition is pretty good. My idea would be to simply limit it to 1
trade or 1 movement of pool per turn.
Steve Bucy
--
"The only human commander to survive combat
with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me.
If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn
Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles
area.
Robert Goudie
> I have also
> heard from R. Goudie that he contested the Succubus Club for a while
> in a tourney with another guy just so that each other woudln't get the
> card.
In the Nat'l Champ. 2nd round I contested one copy and rampaged 2 copies.
In the Nat'l Champ. 3rd round, David Tatu had a Succubus Club. Right before my
prey died he, Donovan, gave all his remaining pool and minions to his prey,
David Tatu (my new prey) via the club.
In the first round of the Milwaukee qualifier, Dan Harting gave me all of his
minions, a Palla Grande, and a bunch of bleed cards to bleed my prey out.
-Robert
Tim Eijpe
hmmn, you are right that not every deck needs an arson, however there
are more strategies in dealing with the SC. A weenie Potence (or any
potence deck for that matter) can make great use for rampages, not
only against SC but there are other nasty locations out there. So
inclusion would not be solely against the SC. Moreover with Sudden
reversal available (No debate on whether or not to include it please)
which targets *any* master wouldn't be included against the SC only.
And besides any vote deck could include Disputed territory, right?
That means there are 3 main ways to deal with the SC aside from not
making a deal at all and contesting. These IMO are enough effective,
multi-use, ways of dealing with the card, to not ban it or even errata
it. Besides, the problem has been spotted, people will adapt, SC will
get destroyed, stolen, SR-ed more often . Hey, ToGP made SR be played
more, THAT didn't need an errata, so I really do not see any reason to
ban SC. At least you CAN make choices on how and whether you feel your
deck needs SC defenses. Or not.
Just my opinion,
Tim
James Coupe
<snip:
1) Potence Rampage/Arson
2) Disputed Territory
3) Sudden Reversal>
>That means there are 3 main ways to deal with the SC aside from not
>making a deal at all and contesting.
Consider the parallels with Return to Innocence:
1) Deflection/Redirection
2) Archon Investigation
3) Direct Intervention
and so on.
Again, I'm still unsure as to the need, or not, for any action against
Succubus Club, not having seen it heavily abused in the UK environment,
but citing four specific cards as making it balanced seems extremely
shaky ground.
Matt Latham
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
> Again, I'm still unsure as to the need, or not, for any action against
> Succubus Club, not having seen it heavily abused in the UK environment,
> but citing four specific cards as making it balanced seems extremely
> shaky ground.
>
I concur James.
However, lets look at this argument from the opposite end. Is the tournament
Jyhad scene significantly damaged by the banning of the Sucubus Club, or
said differently, is the tournament scene enhanced more than it is damaged
if SC is banned?
Matt
Steve Bucy
That's what I thought. I heard a about a bunch of Succcubus crap at Gen Con.
I just didn't have any proof. I guess these examples are not considered to
be a problem. Maybe I'm crazy to think someone swapping there vampires,
bleed cards, and Palla Grande or someone giving someone all their vamps and
remaining pool to change the game is a problem. Silly me...
Maybe it was not considered to be a problem simply because nobody complained
very loudly about it.
BernieTime
>>
>> <Snip: Arguments re: Succubus Club>
>> tool to destroy the predator/prey dynamic of our CCG.
>> While there are indeed other cards out there that have cross-
>> table impact, none of them carry the potential for abuse that
>> SC is capable of.
>
>KRC is very abusable in that way. Bum's Rush is very abusable in
>that way.
The difference being that Succubus Club is a persistent card, as once
it hits the table it stays in play. Sure it can be Rampaged, etc..
which is all dependent on whether certain cards have been
included by players at the table.
KRC and Bum's Rush have the potential to destroy the predator/prey
relationship at a table, but have a couple of obvious limitations:
1. KRC: Many vote decks practically fold if any persistent intercept
is held by their predator/prey. Also need vote lock on a table
to ensure consistency. Point is, that a vampire playing KRC has
to work a little harder to achieve the desired effect.
2. Bum's Rush: Can go anywhere and has a good chance to
destroy minion targeted (let's assume so). This is somewhat
balanced as you don't gain Victory Points by ousting someone
elses prey (usually). Also, There's enough combat defence
out there now that Rush actions can fizzle or backfire.
In fact, Succubus Club only enables these other Cross Table cards
to further break down the predator/prey relation.
SC w/ KRC: I'll give you "x" pool or "x" minion if you'll assist in
passing my votes.
SC w/ Bum's Rush: If you don't pay me "x" pool, I'll send your vampires
to Torpor/Burn.
These are just simple examples, I'm sure somebody that
wants could take these to the Nth degree..
<snip>
>> That you notate Succubus Club is a card 6+ years old is somewhat
>> insubstantial. Since the reclamation of V:TES by White Wolf, there
>> hasn't been an expansion which did not include reprints of older cards
>> with textual changes. Misdirection being a prime example.
>
>I don't follow the logic here, sorry.
The above was in response to your previous statement. Which alluded
that because the card has been around for 6+ years, why should it now be a
play issue if it hadn't seen much abuse previously.
I was trying to state that there were a number of cards which have been
around (in Jyhad or later) which have been reprinted with changes recently.
My stance is that the age of a card is moot, especially as V:TES sees
more new cards printed.
While Final Nights appears pretty well balanced, who's to say that
something from Bloodlines won't have impact on older cards?
Anyhow, that's pretty much the gist of it..
Bernie
BernieTime
>>> tool to destroy the predator/prey dynamic of our CCG.
>>> While there are indeed other cards out there that have cross-
>>> table impact, none of them carry the potential for abuse that
>>> SC is capable of.
>>
>> KRC is very abusable in that way. Bum's Rush is very abusable in
>> that way.
>
>In the first round Friday, I did 11 points of vote damage backwards to my
>predator with Con Ags/KRC because his stealth bleed was outpacing my bloat.
>(I considered it only fair; he had just bled me for 11 himself). If THAT
>doesn't knock the predator/prey dynamic on its ass, I don't know what does;
>although I did manage to oust my prey while I was doing it.
Not having seen the overall relationship of the table being played at,
it's hard to comment on this. I can only speculate a few things:
1. The Slealth/Bleeder wasn't receiving much pressure by it's predator
2. Your deck's defence against bleeds for large was either non-existent
or minimal. KRC's backward could be considered a defence measure.
3. If your predator had been packing even token intercept, chances
are your KRC's probably wouldn't fly much.
>I didn't need the Succubus Club in play at all. I can also fuck up the
>predator/prey dynamic with Eagle's Sight intercept combat.
Presumably you'd be Eagle Sighting your prey's actions, which only
goes to enforce Ousting your prey to enable the gain of a Victory
Point.
< Snip >
>The time-taken aspect is more of an issue, in my eyes; people dicking
>around excessively in their untap phases is a bad thing, especially doing
>something goofy like swapping the Library back and forth to cycle one card
>at a time. Legal? Yes. Good? No, largely because of the time it wastes
>to do that sort of thing. The free-cycling thoughts that someone else
>threw in there also apply; Wake DID get kicked because you could dump them
>out of your hand like water.
Fair Enough
>While SC does require a partner to let you do this sort of thing, it's not
>that difficult to find a 'friendly face' cross-table who's also got a bit
>of hand jam; and odds are you'll only need to ping it back and forth 3
>times, at most. (Or to find an easily fooled face; letting your prey
>borrow something which will do pool damage to HIS prey doesn't strike me as
>a paramount example of good play.) Again, I didn't encounter a single
>table where people weren't teaming up cross-table (or attempting to) in
>order to help their chances. Whether this is a good thing is a subject of
>MANY people's opinions, and is best left in another thread. =)
Most of the cross-table action I see nowadays is as a result of
table-splitting. We have yet to see any of the Michigan group
engaged in Table-Splitting, which I personally find distastefull.
Bernie
LSJ
> >> That you notate Succubus Club is a card 6+ years old is somewhat
> >> insubstantial. Since the reclamation of V:TES by White Wolf, there
> >> hasn't been an expansion which did not include reprints of older cards
> >> with textual changes. Misdirection being a prime example.
> >
> >I don't follow the logic here, sorry.
>
> The above was in response to your previous statement. Which alluded
> that because the card has been around for 6+ years, why should it now be a
> play issue if it hadn't seen much abuse previously.
>
> I was trying to state that there were a number of cards which have been
> around (in Jyhad or later) which have been reprinted with changes recently.
> My stance is that the age of a card is moot, especially as V:TES sees
> more new cards printed.
Um. OK.
Someone was complaining about the 6-year-old card being abused (in a way that
is it could have been used for the entirety of that 6-year period). My
response that the "abuse" has been possible for 6 years is not insubstantial
to that argument.
I'm still not sure where reprints and Misdirection fit into that argument.
> While Final Nights appears pretty well balanced, who's to say that
> something from Bloodlines won't have impact on older cards?
It may indeed. As I said elsewhere in the argument, if a "new" use is found
(as would be the case for combos with new cards or reprints with textual changes)
that someone feels is abusive with a given older card, then we should see if it
is actually abusive once it becomes common knowledge and widely available.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Andrew S. Davidson
>Also, in practice I think
>most CCG designers are of the opinion that
>running little side games around hosing
>otherwise powerful cards does not make for a
>very good CCG experience. Much
>better just to rewrite (errata) or eliminate the problem card.
You're making the usual mistake of treating Magic as the norm when it
is, in fact, aberrant - a consequence of it being first in the field
and then being run by haphazard committee. Most CCGs do not ban
cards. And they all seem to have a metagame clash between powerful
cards and their counters. It's unavoidable.
Arson is a good counter to include in any deck - it works against a
whole class of popular cards and doesn't have any special
pre-requisites. But there's an even better one - Sudden Reversal. If
you check the winning deck archive you'll see that there is an average
of one of these in every winning deck. And that there are zero
Succubus Clubs. On this evidence, the latter card is not a powerful
card, it's a coaster - worse even than Ascendance.
Andrew
James Coupe
Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> writes
>In the Nat'l Champ. 3rd round, David Tatu had a Succubus Club. Right before my
>prey died he, Donovan, gave all his remaining pool and minions to his prey,
>David Tatu (my new prey) via the club.
There is an argument to be made here, similar to Andrew's hand size one.
As you state, he has *given* all his minions to his prey. *Give* is the
verb ascribed to what you can do with pool. *Trade* is the verb given
to what you can do with cards.
Given the specifically different vocabulary, there is an argument to be
made that at least *something* has to be got in return. Indeed, an easy
fix might be to rule that the trades have to be one-for-one, or
something similar.
LSJ
> As you state, he has *given* all his minions to his prey. *Give* is the
> verb ascribed to what you can do with pool. *Trade* is the verb given
> to what you can do with cards.
>
> Given the specifically different vocabulary, there is an argument to be
> made that at least *something* has to be got in return. Indeed, an easy
> fix might be to rule that the trades have to be one-for-one, or
> something similar.
Ruling that "give" is distinct from "trade" would mean that the giving
of pool could occur at any time, since only "these trades" are restricted
to your untap phase (by current card text).
Redefining "trade cards" to be 1-for-1 would also preclude trading the Elder
Library (except in exchange for some other +1-hand-size-generating card),
and would make 2-for-2 trades more difficult (since the second pair would
then fall under the "not enforced by the rules" additional terms clause).
It seems that if a fix is needed, actually changing the card would be
preferable to trying to bend the current card text with a ruling as above.
Frederick Scott
(re: ways to cope with Succubus Club)
> hmmn, you are right that not every deck needs an arson, however there
> are more strategies in dealing with the SC. A weenie Potence (or any
> potence deck for that matter) can make great use for rampages, not
> only against SC but there are other nasty locations out there. So
> inclusion would not be solely against the SC. Moreover with Sudden
> reversal available (No debate on whether or not to include it please)
> which targets *any* master wouldn't be included against the SC only.
> And besides any vote deck could include Disputed territory, right?
> That means there are 3 main ways to deal with the SC aside from not
> making a deal at all and contesting. These IMO are enough effective,
> multi-use, ways of dealing with the card, to not ban it or even errata
> it.
I disagree. What you're listing are all the ways to deal with location
cards in general (and in Sudden Reversal's case, all Master Cards). Such
things are useful because they've been deliberately made to work against
a large category of cards, a "cure fer whatever ails 'ya". That's
reasonable enough when all the locations (or at least a number of the better
locations) are more or less equally disturbing. When one starts towering
head and shoulders above the others in utility, things have gotten out of
whack. We're no longer considering the merits of packing Arsons to deal
with hunting grounds, stealth or intercept locations, and various pool
gaining things. NOW we're considering the merits of Arson and Sudden
Reversal to deal mainly with Succubus Club, and the other stuff are just
secondary targets. That, IMO, is a bad thing.
Also, I'd like to crisscross themes a bit and just admit I don't like the
card and I don't like what it does to the game. People who enjoy negotiating
all over the place will disagree but the game at these big tournaments I've
gotten to recently has changed for the worse. Although Scott is correct
in pointing out Succubus Club alone is not to blame for victory point
splitting, it sure does facilitate it. At least half the games I was involved
in this weekend had some element of victory point splitting and all of them
were facilitated by someone's Succubus Club. I'm sure some games were VP
split without it, but from my experience apparently not many. My guess is that
all the players who are inclined to negotiate VP splits probably have at least
one copy of the card in their decks by now.
This was not the game I started with and learned to enjoy. People don't bother
with victory point splits in non-tournament games. Granted, this is in part
because of the effort to reach of a tournaments and that incentive will never
change. It would be nice to do everything in our power to get the tournament
game working as much like the informal game as possible, however.
Fred
Ian Lee
>is, in fact, aberrant - a consequence of it being first in the field
>and then being run by haphazard committee. Most CCGs do not ban
>cards.
Bannings and errata are focal points for criticism. Some companies try
everything possible to avoid them, including allowing the current play
environment to suck until hosers can be brought in with the next set.
I'm not sure any CCG is aberrant. V:TES's level of errata would strike dead
people who play other CCGs based on how much whining there is over miniscule
amounts of errata.
Magic doesn't suffer from excessive incompetence; it suffers from being an
incredibly complicated, combo heavy game.
While it varies tremendously, depending on the problem, there are times I
prefer cards being banned to being errataed. While not a reason for this, it
is much easier to unban a card than it is to errata it again or to remove
errata, assuming people keep abreast of all of this in the first place and get
used to the first errata.
Matt Latham
"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B991002...@netcom.com...
This is such an amazing post that I leave it in it's entirety. (Take that,
netcops!)
Fred, you are the kind of guy we need more of in our Jyhad community. Ever
consider moving to Detroit???
Matt
Denizen of the Sewers of Detroit
Frederick Scott
>
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 19:35:12 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote:
>
> >Also, in practice I think
> >most CCG designers are of the opinion that
> >running little side games around hosing
> >otherwise powerful cards does not make for a
> >very good CCG experience. Much
> >better just to rewrite (errata) or eliminate the problem card.
>
> You're making the usual mistake of treating Magic as the norm when it
> is, in fact, aberrant - a consequence of it being first in the field
> and then being run by haphazard committee. Most CCGs do not ban
> cards.
I guess I can't see whether that last statement is true or not. For
argument's sake, I'll accept it. On the other hand, I've heard of a
lot of games out there whose designers have no concept of play-balance
whatsoever, do insane things, and I'd never play them from the stories
I hear. (I won't name names since I'm going on hearsay and don't want
to start an irrelevant side-argument.) Let me just say, I very much
agree with the conclusion that the Magic designers finally came to.
"Aberrant", if you want to call it that, is irrelevant. The point is
that they're _correct_.
> And they all seem to have a metagame clash between powerful
> cards and their counters. It's unavoidable.
It's not unavoidable, depending of course, on what you mean by "powerful
cards". I mean, there's powerful and there's powerful. I suspect that
in the rush to print cards and get expansions out the door, and also
because the salary of the average game designer doesn't always attract
the most competent people (we have it good!), a lot of stupid cards
get printed which could have been caught in a good, solid playtest
process led by competent designers.
Yes, there's going to be certain more powerful cards no matter how hard
you try. Even some mistakes that are just a result of, "It-took-20,000-
players-two-years-to-find-something-our-70-playtesters-didn't-catch-
in-three-months". Then what you do is you errata or ban those mistakes.
You don't let them sit there and fester and cost the game popularity.
It's no big deal to do so. While I agree that it's not good to ban
cards left and right, I don't get your obsession with keeping every
single card in the game that ever got printed.
Mistakes get made. They get made in design, playtest, layout, and
printing. Why a card has to be played with because the mistake is
caught *after* it gets out the door as opposed to before, I don't
understand. Should we playing with the V:tES Asylum Hunting Ground
as printed and thus costing no pool? Why or why not - keeping your
answer consistent with your reasoning for not banning any cards, please?
Fred
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes
>Ruling that "give" is distinct from "trade" would mean that the giving
>of pool could occur at any time, since only "these trades" are restricted
>to your untap phase (by current card text).
True.
>Redefining "trade cards" to be 1-for-1 would also preclude trading the Elder
>Library (except in exchange for some other +1-hand-size-generating card),
Is this necessarily a bad thing?
>and would make 2-for-2 trades more difficult (since the second pair would
>then fall under the "not enforced by the rules" additional terms clause).
Potentially, yes. Again, I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing.
James Coupe
<cur...@aol.com> writes
>I'm not sure any CCG is aberrant. V:TES's level of errata would strike dead
>people who play other CCGs based on how much whining there is over miniscule
>amounts of errata.
The level of *errata* isn't that high.
LSJ
>
> In message <3B98FF83...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes
> >Ruling that "give" is distinct from "trade" would mean that the giving
> >of pool could occur at any time, since only "these trades" are restricted
> >to your untap phase (by current card text).
>
> True.
>
> >Redefining "trade cards" to be 1-for-1 would also preclude trading the Elder
> >Library (except in exchange for some other +1-hand-size-generating card),
>
> Is this necessarily a bad thing?
Yes, since it is a needless restriction.
> >and would make 2-for-2 trades more difficult (since the second pair would
> >then fall under the "not enforced by the rules" additional terms clause).
>
> Potentially, yes. Again, I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing.
OK. But the last paragraph of my post (snipped) still stands.
Ian Lee
It's going down with the reprints, but, still, what other CCGs of its age have
a similar or greater amount?
Magic may, but due to which formats are popular, most old errata can be
ignored.
Star Wars? Trek? Shadowfist? L5R?
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes
>> >Redefining "trade cards" to be 1-for-1 would also preclude trading the Elder
>> >Library (except in exchange for some other +1-hand-size-generating card),
>>
>> Is this necessarily a bad thing?
>
>Yes, since it is a needless restriction.
Devil's Advocate:
It is simply one way of dealing with the situation in a manner which
sticks as close to card text as possible, using rulings rather than
errata.
James Coupe
<cur...@aol.com> writes
>>The level of *errata* isn't that high.
>
>It's going down with the reprints, but, still, what other CCGs of its age have
>a similar or greater amount?
The emphasis is on the word *errata*.
Steve Bucy
(snip)
>Also, I'd like to crisscross themes a bit and just admit I don't like the
>card and I don't like what it does to the game. People who enjoy
negotiating
>all over the place will disagree but the game at these big tournaments I've
>gotten to recently has changed for the worse. Although Scott is correct
>in pointing out Succubus Club alone is not to blame for victory point
>splitting, it sure does facilitate it. At least half the games I was
involved
>in this weekend had some element of victory point splitting and all of them
>were facilitated by someone's Succubus Club. I'm sure some games were VP
>split without it, but from my experience apparently not many. My guess is
that
>all the players who are inclined to negotiate VP splits probably have at
least
>one copy of the card in their decks by now.
This is a excellent paragraph making the point perfectly. Very well said.
It's not that deals and discussion don't occur without SC, it's the fact
that SC allows, encourages, and creates all sorts of new deals and
discussion. It makes the 3/2 or 2/2 split 100% more possible and probable.
My very first bad experience with SC was in the final round of a tournament
4 or 5 years ago. I was in control of the game. Seeing this the player with
the SC proposed one of the first ever table split deals I encountered. It
involved the old vampire swap trick. The deal involved my prey giving my
predator all his vamps for a card (or something trivial) so my preditor
could bleed me out. I'm not sure if the deal went perfectly but I believe
the final ended in the 3/2 split. I have since seen many such deals spawned
as soon a SC hits the table. SC seems to get more popular and messes up more
games every tournament. Just look at the number of games it affected Robert
Goudie at Gen Con.
>This was not the game I started with and learned to enjoy. People don't
bother
>with victory point splits in non-tournament games. Granted, this is in
part
>because of the effort to reach of a tournaments and that incentive will
never
>change. It would be nice to do everything in our power to get the
tournament
>game working as much like the informal game as possible, however.
Ditto. If we are considering rules changes to discourage the table split why
leave a card which in it's present form encourages the split and makes it
much more easy to accomplish.
Steve Bucy
--
"The only human commander to survive combat
with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me.
If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn
Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles
area.
>Fred
LSJ
>
> In message <3B991937...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
> wolf.com> writes
> >> >Redefining "trade cards" to be 1-for-1 would also preclude trading the Elder
> >> >Library (except in exchange for some other +1-hand-size-generating card),
> >>
> >> Is this necessarily a bad thing?
> >
> >Yes, since it is a needless restriction.
>
> Devil's Advocate:
>
> It is simply one way of dealing with the situation in a manner which
> sticks as close to card text as possible, using rulings rather than
> errata.
Except that it (the distinction) breaks the "during untap" part, which
is probably worse than the current situation.
James Coupe
wolf.com> writes
>> It is simply one way of dealing with the situation in a manner which
>> sticks as close to card text as possible, using rulings rather than
>> errata.
>
>Except that it (the distinction) breaks the "during untap" part, which
>is probably worse than the current situation.
This depends on whether the problem is that of pool or permanents.
Given that I am still ambivalent about the need or nature of such
errata, I couldn't say where the "problem" lies.
Andrew S. Davidson
>Given the problems with Madness of the Bard (defining "Rhyme", making
>it equally difficult on both native and non-native speakers) that we've
>already discussed, it should still be obvious that unbanning it is not
>an option.
The need for it to be unbanned is clearer now. Notice how, in the UK
final, the one player who wasn't taking part in the lengthy
discussions was the non-native speaker. And notice how Rob Treasure
has won this major event three time in a row by means of Jedi mind
tricks. It seems obvious that Madness of the Bard would help level
the playing field by reducing the amount of talk and letting players
focus on playing their decks instead. If one player thinks this hurts
their position then they are free to take a directed action to destroy
the card. Banning the card instead is a typical Ventrue trick - using
control of the game's rules to screw the Malkavians. No wonder the
Ventrue keep winning tournaments.
Andrew
James Coupe
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes
>On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 06:51:13 -0400, LSJ wrote:
>
>>Given the problems with Madness of the Bard (defining "Rhyme", making
>>it equally difficult on both native and non-native speakers) that we've
>>already discussed, it should still be obvious that unbanning it is not
>>an option.
>
>The need for it to be unbanned is clearer now.
It might be nice if it was unbanned, sure. However, until someone can
provide:
1) A definition of rhyme
2) A way to prevent this impeding non-native players
it cannot be re-introduced. You have failed to do either of these when
Madness has been discussed in the past. No-one else has been able to
either.
Ben Peal
> Problem being is that Succubus Club (SC) is now being used as a
> tool to destroy the predator/prey dynamic of our CCG.
> While there are indeed other cards out there that have cross-
> table impact, none of them carry the potential for abuse that
> SC is capable of.
There are already pre-existing tools for destroying the predator/prey
dynamic - Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure. I think that
disruption of the predator/prey dynamic is and should remain a
legitimate part of the game. Alex Harmon's Free States Rant/Temptation
deck rocks the house.
That isn't to say that I don't think that there are good arguments
for the alteration/banning of Succubus Club - just not that one.
- Ben Peal, Prince of Boston
fu...@mindstorm.com