[LSJ] Villein
Juggernaut1981
I heard through our playgroup that you've made a ruling on Villein...
and the summary of it is:
You can target a villein on a minion who doesn't have the blood for
you to take "at least 2" but you are forced to take "everything"?
To be honest, why did that happen? It seems to not make sense with the
rest of the card (since it seems to be specifically about shutting
down Minion Tap and Cap'n'Tap decks). If you can just cycle it for
basically 0, by choosing an empty minion, what is the point of the
"You must take 2" text... few people cycled "minion tap for 0" on a
minion with blood worth taking... It just all seems to be at odds with
the purpose of Villein.
floppyzedolfin
> LSJ,
> I heard through our playgroup that you've made a ruling on Villein...
> and the summary of it is:
> You can target a villein on a minion who doesn't have the blood for
> you to take "at least 2" but you are forced to take "everything"?
I guess the answer is cardtext. There has been no ruling, merely an
explanation of the cardtext, when the card was first released.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f8f7427a2b09604d
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/c191cc333bcf0195
> To be honest, why did that happen?
Cardtext doesn't "happen". It is the way it is.
> It seems to not make sense with the
> rest of the card (since it seems to be specifically about shutting
> down Minion Tap and Cap'n'Tap decks).
I'm not sure the first intent of the card is to shut down such decks -
especially because, in most of the cases, Minion Taps can be replaced
by Villeins.
I guess it's just another card that gives you pool for blood.
> If you can just cycle it for
> basically 0, by choosing an empty minion, what is the point of the
> "You must take 2" text... few people cycled "minion tap for 0" on a
> minion with blood worth taking... It just all seems to be at odds with
> the purpose of Villein.
Well, can't cycle it for 0 if all your vampires are on 1 or 2 blood..
LSJ
> LSJ,
> I heard through our playgroup that you've made a ruling on Villein...
> and the summary of it is:
> You can target a villein on a minion who doesn't have the blood for
> you to take "at least 2" but you are forced to take "everything"?
Yes. Like being able to target a 1-blood vampire with Drain Essence.
> To be honest, why did that happen?
Consistency. Target the card.
> It seems to not make sense with the
> rest of the card (since it seems to be specifically about shutting
> down Minion Tap and Cap'n'Tap decks). If you can just cycle it for
> basically 0, by choosing an empty minion, what is the point of the
> "You must take 2" text... few people cycled "minion tap for 0" on a
> minion with blood worth taking... It just all seems to be at odds with
> the purpose of Villein.
Not at all.
Juggernaut1981
And I'm not trying to sound argumentative, but wouldn't the "Put this
on a vampire AND move 2 or more blood" clause exclude minions with
less than 2 blood as ineligible targets? Without the ability to MOVE
(not Steal) 2 blood you couldn't put the card in play... the "Put this
on a vampire" sentence can't be fully completed to its conditions.
Villein does say "move" and not "steal" so I also don't see how a
combat card which uses the keyword "steal" is relevant.
Villein
Type: Master
Master: trifle.
Put this card on a vampire you control and move 2 or more blood from
that vampire to your pool. Minion Tap cards cost an additional pool.
Villein costs an additional pool to play on this vampire.
LSJ
> Villein does say "move" and not "steal" so I also don't see how a
> combat card which uses the keyword "steal" is relevant.
Steal Blood. This effect moves blood counters ...
Sutekh.23
Is it to hamstring cap and tap decks?
Is it to wallpaper tap?
Is it to force older players to buy new cards?
A combination of the above?
Just curious
Sutekh_23
_angst_
If anything it makes cap and tap stronger. It does wallpaper minion
tap and force older players to buy new cards. That doesn't matter much
imo...
What matters is that it's basically the 1 card that make most high-cap
vampires playable. And that is very good times indeed.
Regards
Alex
Sutekh.23
>
> If anything it makes cap and tap stronger.
How so? it costs you more if you plan to cap and tap one minion, it
encourages diversity, sure.
It does wallpaper minion
> tap and force older players to buy new cards. That doesn't matter much
> imo...
Sure, except one of the greatest srengths of Vtes is to not to
wallpaper old cards, but this one seems to.
Forcing rotation of cards, smells like M:TG to me.
>
> What matters is that it's basically the 1 card that make most high-cap
> vampires playable. And that is very good times indeed.
>
> Regards
> Alex
High cap decks were already playable, (via, say, cap and tap) but that
is not my point. I'm asking what was the design intent behind the card
was.
Sutekh_23
John Whelan
> So if I may ask, what is the purpose of villein?
> Is it to hamstring cap and tap decks?
> Is it to wallpaper tap?
> Is it to force older players to buy new cards?
> A combination of the above?
I would guess that the intent was to create a sort of Vessel / Blood
Doll type balance, where one card is not clearly better than the
other, but both cards end up being less good than the older card was
before the newer card was printed. The result is that an arguably too-
popular card (perhaps slightly overpowered) gets taken down a notch,
and a greater variety of master cards thereby become competitive
options.
If that was the intent, however, I think there was a mis-calculation.
The new card is arguably more "above the power curve" than the older
card used to be. I have also predicted that, when demand is met,
Villein will end up wall-papering Minion Tap, rather than achieving a
Vessel / Blood Doll type balance. (Note that this is still merely a
prediction -- I have not yet been proven right).
I heard a story (and I am just repeating what I heard) that nobody
played Villein during play-testing, and someone suggested it would be
worth playing only if were a trifle. That suggestion got implemented.
Juggernaut1981
But realistically people's beef with the Cap'n'Tap is the Cap for 10
blood + 2 pool and not the Tap for 5+.
If it is to de-power the "Cap'n'Tap" strategy, then depowering the Cap
is more likely to get the results desired.
If it is to do something else... then what?
Aaron Clark
1 blood.
It seems that if you play a Villein on a vampire with 1 blood, you
will not be able to move the blood to your pool, since the text says
you can only move 2 or more.
Is that correct?
John Whelan
> But realistically people's beef with the Cap'n'Tap is the Cap for 10
> blood + 2 pool and not the Tap for 5+.
> If it is to de-power the "Cap'n'Tap" strategy, then depowering the Cap
> is more likely to get the results desired.
A look at the TWDA suggests that there are more Tap decks without Cap
than Tap Decks with Cap. Apparently, Tap is a quite popular card on
its own. It therefore seems plausible to me that the strategy was to
depower Tap.
If the Tap & Cap is a problem as a combo, then that combo may be fixed
by depowering either Tap or Cap.
If Cap on its own is above the power curve, then that is a whole other
subject. You don't expect a single card, or expansion, to fix all
problems at once, do you?
> If it is to do something else... then what?
I made a suggestion. It still seems logical to me.
Janne Hägglund
No, it works like Theft of Vitae or Drain Essence.
You have to attempt to move at least 2 blood. If the target has only 1 or 0
blood, you move what you can (1 or 0). Just like when striking with superior
Theft of Vitae in combat.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/f8f7427a2b09604d
HG
John Whelan
> It seems that if you play a Villein on a vampire with 1 blood, you
> will not be able to move the blood to your pool, since the text says
> you can only move 2 or more.
>
> Is that correct?
The precedent cited is "Steal Blood". What happens when you try to
steal 2 blood from a vampire with 1 blood?
Juggernaut1981
When you Steal 2 blood from a minion from a minion with 2 or less
blood, you take all the blood available.
The "precedent" is that Steal = move blood as a strike, therefore
Villein's "move 2 blood" will move blood up to a minimum total of 2
but potentially more than 2.
From John Flournoy:
A look at the TWDA suggests that there are more Tap decks without Cap
than Tap Decks with Cap. Apparently, Tap is a quite popular card on
its own. It therefore seems plausible to me that the strategy was to
depower Tap.
Yes,but did you also look at the number of taps in those decks? The
archetypes with a LARGE number of Minion Taps from experience are:
Vote Cap'n'Tap, AAA (or similar Big Minion, Tap, Golconda/Giant's
Blood, repeat), Archon-Abactor decks. There are a number of other
decks that will Minion Tap each large minion once maybe twice... few
of the combat deck archetypes use it (Unless you're going for a wacky
Tha deck).
So, Yes tap is a popular card on its own, but the requirements on
Villein are there to restrict multiple taps on the same minion. The
only reason to penalise multiple Villeins or repeat Minion Taps on
minions is in a situation where you can get significant blood back on
the minion (predominantly Abactor-Archon or Voter Cap).
The "trickle" bloat where hunting is the main driver of blood-gain are
almost entirely driven on Blood Dolls (and now potentially Vessels).
So Villein was never going to target them.
So John, to be honest, Cap looks like the card needing changes and
really Tap probably didn't need changes. Even something as simple as
"[pre]... up to a maximum of 2. [PRE] As above but a maximum of 6
blood." and remove the option to gain pool... OR [pre] get limited
blood, [PRE] No blood gain, gain a little pool.
Villen has been introduced to counteract Tap, fine. But I think that
allowing Villein to be used to remove "a minimum of 2 blood unless
they don't have 2+ blood when you take whatever is there"... is that
it doesn't really differentiate Villein from Tap other than penalising
Tap for a Trifle. By implication "move 2 or more" suggests that it
shouldn't be able to be used to move "less than 2" and that's what I'm
not finding so obvious about the decision that you can play Villein on
a vampire with less than 2 blood.
Legendre
Minion Tap. Accordingly, I hereby authorize all and sundry to use the
Legendre Villein Fix:
VILLEIN
Master: trifle
Put this card on a vampire you control and move 2 or more blood from
that vampire to your pool. Villein costs an additional pool to play
on this vampire. Minion Tap cards cost an additional pool for each
Villein on the minion with the greatest number of Villeins.
In other words, the effect doesn't stack unless the cards are actually
stacked. Try it out in play. I think you'll find, as my playgroup
did, that it works a lot better.
Legendre
ambiguous. (It almost always is, despite the relentless claims to the
contrary. But this is the difficulty of trying to walk a line between
a formal semantic architecture and a natural language architecture.)
The "and" in the first sentence of the card text really does suggest
that the ability to move two or more blood could be considered as a
requirement of playing the card. After all, the truth conditions for
(a^b) is that both "a" and "b" be true, which means in a modal sense
that both "a" and "b" must be possible (i.e., it is necessary that
"a" be possible, and it is necessary that "b" be possible).
But if you think of the sentence **temporally** rather than in terms
of its semantic truth conditions, the sentence has a sense of:
"Put this card on a vampire you control, and THEN move 2 or more blood
from that vampire...."
If you read the sentence this way, the choosing of the vampire is
disjoined from the moving, and the whole thing makes a lot more sense.
Peter D Bakija
> I heard a story (and I am just repeating what I heard) that nobody
> played Villein during play-testing, and someone suggested it would be
> worth playing only if were a trifle. That suggestion got implemented.
When did Villein (and KoT) get released?
-Peter
Legendre
November 2008, if I remember correctly.
Aaron Clark
I know what happens when you steal 2 blood from a vampire with one
blood. The question is what happens when you move 2 or more blood
from a vampire with one blood. "Move" is not a synonym of "steal", at
least not in my personal understanding of English.
LSJ has already ruled on this, of course, so it's not going to change
anytime soon. However, I think this is a bad ruling. "Steal 2" and
"move 2 or more" do not mean the same thing to most readers. To me as
a casual reader, the "2 or more" clause seemed to be a way to balance
Villein with Minion Tap, since Villein, being a trifle, is arguably
much better than Minion Tap. It is hard to understand why the
designer wrote "move 2 or more blood" when the functional effect is
"move any amount of blood."
LSJ
> I know what happens when you steal 2 blood from a vampire with one
> blood. The question is what happens when you move 2 or more blood
> from a vampire with one blood. "Move" is not a synonym of "steal", at
> least not in my personal understanding of English.
Right. No one is suggesting that they are synonyms. But stealing is an
instance of moving.
Rulebook: "Steal Blood. This effect moves blood counters..."
> It is hard to understand why the
> designer wrote "move 2 or more blood" when the functional effect is
> "move any amount of blood."
That isn't the functional effect. If the target has 2 blood, you may
not choose to move 0 blood, nor may not choose to move 1 blood.
Peter D Bakija
> November 2008, if I remember correctly.
Hmm. Well, ok then. Thanks!
-Peter
Juggernaut1981
> And as for the original question, I agree that the wording is a little
> ambiguous. (It almost always is, despite the relentless claims to the
> contrary. But this is the difficulty of trying to walk a line between
> a formal semantic architecture and a natural language architecture.)
>
> The "and" in the first sentence of the card text really does suggest
> that the ability to move two or more blood could be considered as a
> requirement of playing the card. After all, the truth conditions for
> (a^b) is that both "a" and "b" be true, which means in a modal sense
> that both "a" and "b" must be possible (i.e., it is necessary that
> "a" be possible, and it is necessary that "b" be possible).
Discreet temporal events are usually separated into sentences in
VTES. Take Rotschrek for example. (Put this card... inflicted or not.
Combat ends. This vampire is tapped and sent to torpor. This vampire
does not untap as normal. During this vampire's next untap phase, burn
this card.)
Temporal Sequence: Put the card on the vampire. End combat. Tap the
Vampire AND send it to torpor. Do not untap the vampire. Burn the
card in the vampire's next untap.
However, conjoined effects, which utilise "and" are neutralised if
either of their conditions is not met. I cannot specifically remember
the names of the cards but there are at least 2 or 3 strikes that were
phrased "Strike: hand strike AND [put the card somewhere/do some
secondary effect like untap]". If that sort of strike is dodged, the
entire effect of the strike is neutralised; damage AND secondary
effect. So going on that precedent, it would seem that joining two
effects with "and" in a card creates "one effect with two parts".
Unholy Penance (Do X AND Y)
Bonecraft (Do X. Do Y. Put the card and deal 1 damage are separated)
Catatonic Fear @[PRE] (Do X AND Y. i.e. if you S:D, Catatonic deals no
damage at close)
Coma @ [DEM] (Do X AND Y... avoid X and you avoid Y)
Conquer the Beast @[ani] (Do X AND Y)
Creeping Infection (Do X AND Y)
Agent of Power (Put this card on AND Choose a Discipline... I assume
you can't play it and not choose a discipline...)
Anima Gathering (Put this card on this minion AND choose another
minion)
Aye (This Laibon may burn 1 blood AND tap 3 Aye to...)
Big Game (If Red List... stuff... AND untaps at the end... stuff)
>
> But if you think of the sentence **temporally** rather than in terms
> of its semantic truth conditions, the sentence has a sense of:
>
> "Put this card on a vampire you control, and THEN move 2 or more blood
> from that vampire...."
>
> If you read the sentence this way, the choosing of the vampire is
> disjoined from the moving, and the whole thing makes a lot more sense.
Villen still says "Put this card on a vampire AND move 2 blood..." It
still implies (as is implied by the other cards above) that they are a
temporally joined action, they are not meant to be separated by the
card text. You need to move two blood AND be able to put the card on
the vampire.
Juggernaut1981
But the functional effect is closer to:
Move 2+ unless 2+ cannot be moved, and then you remove whatever is
there.
And that seems to grate against "Put this card on the vampire AND move
2 blood".
Haze
> On Feb 17, 2:49 am, Legendre <glav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And as for the original question, I agree that the wording is a little
> > ambiguous. (It almost always is, despite the relentless claims to the
> > contrary. But this is the difficulty of trying to walk a line between
> > a formal semantic architecture and a natural language architecture.)
>
> > The "and" in the first sentence of the card text really does suggest
> > that the ability to move two or more blood could be considered as a
> > requirement of playing the card. After all, the truth conditions for
> > (a^b) is that both "a" and "b" be true, which means in a modal sense
> > that both "a" and "b" must be possible (i.e., it is necessary that
> > "a" be possible, and it is necessary that "b" be possible).
>
> Discreet temporal events are usually separated into sentences in
> VTES. Take Rotschrek for example. (Put this card... inflicted or not.
> Combat ends. This vampire is tapped and sent to torpor. This vampire
> does not untap as normal. During this vampire's next untap phase, burn
> this card.)
> Temporal Sequence: Put the card on the vampire. End combat. Tap the
> Vampire AND send it to torpor. Do not untap the vampire. Burn the
> card in the vampire's next untap.
>
By this logic, if the target of Rotschrek is already tapped, it will
not be sent to torpor.
> However, conjoined effects, which utilise "and" are neutralised if
> either of their conditions is not met. I cannot specifically remember
> the names of the cards but there are at least 2 or 3 strikes that were
> phrased "Strike: hand strike AND [put the card somewhere/do some
> secondary effect like untap]". If that sort of strike is dodged, the
> entire effect of the strike is neutralised; damage AND secondary
> effect. So going on that precedent, it would seem that joining two
> effects with "and" in a card creates "one effect with two parts".
>
there is no precedent. a dodge strike "protects the dodging minion and
his possessions from the effects of the opposing strike." there is no
rule at all about neutralizing just the hand strike, and therefore the
secondary effect fizzles. if the secondary effect was affecting the
opposing minion, it is also dodged. if the secondary effect only
applies to the striking minion (like Far Fatuus) then it is not
affected by dodge.
> Unholy Penance (Do X AND Y)
> Bonecraft (Do X. Do Y. Put the card and deal 1 damage are separated)
> Catatonic Fear @[PRE] (Do X AND Y. i.e. if you S:D, Catatonic deals no
> damage at close)
> Coma @ [DEM] (Do X AND Y... avoid X and you avoid Y)
> Conquer the Beast @[ani] (Do X AND Y)
> Creeping Infection (Do X AND Y)
> Agent of Power (Put this card on AND Choose a Discipline... I assume
> you can't play it and not choose a discipline...)
> Anima Gathering (Put this card on this minion AND choose another
> minion)
> Aye (This Laibon may burn 1 blood AND tap 3 Aye to...)
> Big Game (If Red List... stuff... AND untaps at the end... stuff)
>
>
Aye has a cost to do something, so obviously you can't pay a partial
cost. Anima Gathering requires a target, so you can't play it without
a legal target.
Big Game provides two effects but neither one is cancelled just
because the other fails.
>
> > But if you think of the sentence **temporally** rather than in terms
> > of its semantic truth conditions, the sentence has a sense of:
>
> > "Put this card on a vampire you control, and THEN move 2 or more blood
> > from that vampire...."
>
> > If you read the sentence this way, the choosing of the vampire is
> > disjoined from the moving, and the whole thing makes a lot more sense.
>
> Villen still says "Put this card on a vampire AND move 2 blood..." It
> still implies (as is implied by the other cards above) that they are a
> temporally joined action, they are not meant to be separated by the
> card text. You need to move two blood AND be able to put the card on
> the vampire.
You may have to announce the target vampire and the amount of blood at
the same time when the card is played, but there is no requirement. It
doesn't say the target vampire has to have at least 2 blood. I put it
on Anarch Convert & announce I am moving 10 blood. Whoops, he doesn't
have 10. Then we do as much of the effect as possible. 1 blood is
moved to pool.
If a card requires another card in play as a target, you can't play it
without a legal target. the Theft of Vitae precedent is saying that
blood counters are not considered a "target", though sometimes the #
of them on a target is a requirement (like for Sleep of Reason or
Parity Shift). Did you know you can legally target an empty vampire
with Cryptic Mission?
LSJ
Actually, that's exactly the effect. And the function.
> And that seems to grate against "Put this card on the vampire AND move
> 2 blood".
But, actually, it doesn't grate against that at all. See moving two
blood by stealing two blood with Drain Essence.
Juggernaut1981
> On Feb 16, 4:43 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2:49 am, Legendre <glav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And as for the original question, I agree that the wording is a little
> > > ambiguous. (It almost always is, despite the relentless claims to the
> > > contrary. But this is the difficulty of trying to walk a line between
> > > a formal semantic architecture and a natural language architecture.)
>
> > > The "and" in the first sentence of the card text really does suggest
> > > that the ability to move two or more blood could be considered as a
> > > requirement of playing the card. After all, the truth conditions for
> > > (a^b) is that both "a" and "b" be true, which means in a modal sense
> > > that both "a" and "b" must be possible (i.e., it is necessary that
> > > "a" be possible, and it is necessary that "b" be possible).
>
>
> > However, conjoined effects, which utilise "and" are neutralised if
> > either of their conditions is not met. I cannot specifically remember
> > the names of the cards but there are at least 2 or 3 strikes that were
> > phrased "Strike: hand strike AND [put the card somewhere/do some
> > secondary effect like untap]". If that sort of strike is dodged, the
> > entire effect of the strike is neutralised; damage AND secondary
> > effect. So going on that precedent, it would seem that joining two
> > effects with "and" in a card creates "one effect with two parts".
>
> there is no precedent. a dodge strike "protects the dodging minion and
> his possessions from the effects of the opposing strike." there is no
> rule at all about neutralizing just the hand strike, and therefore the
> secondary effect fizzles.
Um, if you avoid the handstrike the secondary "and" stuff is also
neutralised. That's what I said. I am not talking about being
incapable to harm (e.g. Ambrosius) or preventing damage also prevents
the secondary effect.
> if the secondary effect was affecting the
> opposing minion, it is also dodged. if the secondary effect only
> applies to the striking minion (like Far Fatuus) then it is not
> affected by dodge.
What about...
> > Conquer the Beast @[ani] (Do X AND Y)
What about...
> > Creeping Infection (Do X AND Y)
What about...
> > Agent of Power (Put this card on AND Choose a Discipline... I assume
> > you can't play it and not choose a discipline...)
> > > But if you think of the sentence **temporally** rather than in terms
> > > of its semantic truth conditions, the sentence has a sense of:
>
> > > "Put this card on a vampire you control, and THEN move 2 or more blood
> > > from that vampire...."
>
> > > If you read the sentence this way, the choosing of the vampire is
> > > disjoined from the moving, and the whole thing makes a lot more sense.
>
> > Villen still says "Put this card on a vampire AND move 2 blood..." It
> > still implies (as is implied by the other cards above) that they are a
> > temporally joined action, they are not meant to be separated by the
> > card text. You need to move two blood AND be able to put the card on
> > the vampire.
>
Cryptic Mission: Burn 1 blood on target... at [THA] gain from the
blood bank. Of course you can burn blood that doesn't exist. And you
can THEFT blood that doesn't exist. That isn't neccessarily the same
as saying "move". (I know LSJ is citing that Stealing blood relies on
"move" but stealing blood has previously been ruled/edited/defined to
say that if there is less blood than the total of the "steal effect"
then you move whatever is available).
> You may have to announce the target vampire and the amount of blood at
> the same time when the card is played, but there is no requirement. It
> doesn't say the target vampire has to have at least 2 blood. I put it
> on Anarch Convert & announce I am moving 10 blood. Whoops, he doesn't
> have 10. Then we do as much of the effect as possible. 1 blood is
> moved to pool.
Minion Tap also couldn't be nominated for more blood than there was on
the vampire (AFAI recall). If the minion has 0 blood, you can't
"minion tap for 9".
For Villein the target is a vampire, AND you must move 2 blood from
it.
With Rotshreck...
> > Discreet temporal events are usually separated into sentences in
> > VTES. Take Rotschrek for example. (Put this card... inflicted or not.
> > Combat ends. This vampire is tapped and sent to torpor. This vampire
> > does not untap as normal. During this vampire's next untap phase, burn
> > this card.)
> > Temporal Sequence: Put the card on the vampire. End combat. Tap the
> > Vampire AND send it to torpor. Do not untap the vampire. Burn the
> > card in the vampire's next untap.
>
> By this logic, if the target of Rotschrek is already tapped, it will
> not be sent to torpor.
******
Rotschreck
Type: Master
Master: out-of-turn. Frenzy.
Put this card on a vampire when an opposing minion attempts to inflict
aggravated damage on him or her, whether the damage would be
successfully inflicted or not. Combat ends. This vampire is tapped and
sent to torpor. This vampire does not untap as normal. During this
vampire's next untap phase, burn this card.
******
There are plenty of precedents that a tap effect on a tapped minion is
eligible and results in the target being tapped. So "This vampire is
tapped and sent to torpor" is still two effects joined into a single
temporal event.
Ben Chia
with 2 or more blood, it would say "Put this card on a vampire with 2
or more blood and....etc etc" rather than the current wording.
However, I do disagree with moving any blood at all when played on a
minion with less than 2 blood as "move 2 or more blood" does not
include 1 blood.
Finally, going by the "and" logic, Hive Mind which states "san: Untap
this vampire and another ready Blood Brother of the same circle. etc
etc..." would not be able to be played if the acting vamp was the only
ready blood brother a methuselah controlled (although why he would
play that card if he doesn't untap anyone else is beyond me but just
talking abt the semantics here). The clause on Stutter-step also seems
to imply that the word "and" in card printings implied non-discreet
temporal events.
Stutter-Step
Type: Combat
cel: Strike: dodge.
CEL: Strike: hand strike and dodge. Only usable if both strike: hand
strike and strike: dodges could be chosen (individually). Only usable
at close range. Not usable as an additional strike, and this vampire
cannot use any additional strikes this round.
John Whelan
> On Feb 16, 5:53 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The precedent cited is "Steal Blood". What happens when you try to
> > steal 2 blood from a vampire with 1 blood?
>
> When you Steal 2 blood from a minion from a minion with 2 or less
> blood, you take all the blood available.
Yes. My apologies. The question was actually meant to be
rhetorical. I assumed (maybe too carelessly) that everyone in the
discussion already knew the answer.
> > A look at the TWDA suggests that there are more Tap decks without Cap
> > than Tap Decks with Cap. Apparently, Tap is a quite popular card on
> > its own. It therefore seems plausible to me that the strategy was to
> > depower Tap.
>
> Yes,but did you also look at the number of taps in those decks? The
> archetypes with a LARGE number of Minion Taps from experience are:
> Vote Cap'n'Tap, AAA (or similar Big Minion, Tap, Golconda/Giant's
> Blood, repeat), Archon-Abactor decks. There are a number of other
> decks that will Minion Tap each large minion once maybe twice... few
> of the combat deck archetypes use it (Unless you're going for a wacky
> Tha deck).
I'm not sure I see the point. I concede that the Tap and Cap combo is
powerful, I just questioned the assumption that you can particularly
blame Cap (by which I mean Voter Cap) as distinct from Tap (by which I
mean Minion Tap). You seem to concede the point by agreeing that Tap
is powerful in combination with a few other things besides Cap.
(Golconda, Giants Blood, Archon-Abactor, etc).
But yes, to answer your question. I did look at the number of Taps in
the decks without Cap. In a recent sampling of Minion Tap decks, I
found 27 Taps decks without Cap, and 17 Tap decks with Cap, before I
stopped looking at that aspect. The 27 no-Cap decks had 96 Taps, or
around 3.7 Taps per deck. The 17 Cap decks contained 77 Taps, or
around 4.5 Taps per deck.
So yes, there is a statistical difference, but it is not extremely
marked. There are plenty of no-Cap decks with 6 to 8 minion taps.
The fact that the card can be played alone in a deck is, to my mind,
merely further evidence of its power and versatility. And it remains
true that there are more Taps played outside of Cap decks than played
within it.
This is confirmed by looking at the TWDA as a whole. In the whole
Archive, I found 1,437 Minion Taps in 337 decks. By contrast, there
were only 928 Voter Caps in 182 decks. Clearly, Tap is more popular
than Cap, and, from the earlier sample, most Taps are played in decks
without Cap.
> So, Yes tap is a popular card on its own, but the requirements on
> Villein are there to restrict multiple taps on the same minion.
Yes. Villein hoses Minion Tap (and itself) in a particular way.
There may indeed be a particular hostility to Tap & Cap style abuse.
But I merely questioned that Cap, as opposed to Tap, should
necessarily be regarded as the bad guy of that particular combo.
> The "trickle" bloat where hunting is the main driver of blood-gain are
> almost entirely driven on Blood Dolls (and now potentially Vessels).
> So Villein was never going to target them.
Well, Vessel already targeted Blood Doll. Thanks to Vessel, both
Vessel and Blood Doll are less-good cards than Blood Doll used to be
before Vessel was printed.
> So John, to be honest, Cap looks like the card needing changes and
> really Tap probably didn't need changes.
Why??? Nothing you have said above supports that argument. Even if
Cap is above the power curve, and could use some hosing, you have not
shown that it needs it more than Tap.
> Villen has been introduced to counteract Tap, fine.
Right. Note that I agree that Villein has probably overshot its goal,
and created a worse monster than Minion Tap was.
> But I think that
> allowing Villein to be used to remove "a minimum of 2 blood unless
> they don't have 2+ blood when you take whatever is there"... is that
> it doesn't really differentiate Villein from Tap other than penalising
> Tap for a Trifle.
No. Multiple Villein usage penalizes itself (though I suspect not
enough to achieve a correct balance.
> By implication "move 2 or more" suggests that it
> shouldn't be able to be used to move "less than 2" and that's what I'm
> not finding so obvious about the decision that you can play Villein on
> a vampire with less than 2 blood.
LSJ has cited consistency of usage in favor of the current ruling.
Those who agree with me that the card is too good could cite power
considerations in favor of a more restrictive ruling. But really, I
think a restrictive ruling on this issue would hardly be enough to fix
the card. People who play the card are not doing it because they hope
to Slurp for 1 or 0.
Salem
On an unrelated note, how long does a VTES NDA last?
--
salem
Peter D Bakija
> On an unrelated note, how long does a VTES NDA last?
18 months, I think. Why do you ask?
-Peter
Blooded Sand
no earlier than May 19 2010 to tittle tattle about villein mate.
John Whelan
> no earlier than May 19 2010 to tittle tattle about villein mate.
Well then, I apologize for spreading rumors that cannot yet be refuted.
Juggernaut1981
... [snipped stuff]
> But yes, to answer your question. I did look at the number of Taps in
> the decks without Cap. In a recent sampling of Minion Tap decks, I
> found 27 Taps decks without Cap, and 17 Tap decks with Cap, before I
> stopped looking at that aspect. The 27 no-Cap decks had 96 Taps, or
> around 3.7 Taps per deck. The 17 Cap decks contained 77 Taps, or
> around 4.5 Taps per deck.
>
> So yes, there is a statistical difference, but it is not extremely
> marked. There are plenty of no-Cap decks with 6 to 8 minion taps.
> The fact that the card can be played alone in a deck is, to my mind,
> merely further evidence of its power and versatility. And it remains
> true that there are more Taps played outside of Cap decks than played
> within it.
>
> This is confirmed by looking at the TWDA as a whole. In the whole
> Archive, I found 1,437 Minion Taps in 337 decks. By contrast, there
> were only 928 Voter Caps in 182 decks. Clearly, Tap is more popular
> than Cap, and, from the earlier sample, most Taps are played in decks
> without Cap.
>
> Cap is above the power curve, and could use some hosing, you have not
> shown that it needs it more than Tap.
My point about Tap is where it is used. There seem to be a very
limited number of deck-archetypes that utilise Minion Tap as a key
mechanic. Other decks are utilising Tap to offset costs of minions
(which in effect makes Villein a "Trifle Tap" to those decks). Decks
where Tap was a "key mechanic". Merely looking at "places where it
turns up" is no more effective than measuring the number of people in
a suburb to try determine where there will be more litter. The two
MAY be connected but your statistics don't get to a motivating factor.
AAA: Bringem out or Giant's blood an empty big-cap, tap 'em, then
Golconda them. Also typically a giant wad of masters and bleed
cards. Effect: +2x capacity of vampire. Usually 16+ pool gained.
Villein is a temporary inconvenience... anyone with a Villein will get
Golconda later.
Turbo-Deck: Bring out [insert minion here], Tap them, Give them a soul
gem or similar. This is key in things such as Cybelotron and Turbo-
Great Beast type decks, but others as well. Villein doesn't really do
a lot to those decks as the Villeins vanish with the "burn, soul gem
replace" trick.
Cap'n'Tap: We've debated this one fairly extensively. Main Mechanic
is Tap in Master to basically empty. Vote (KRC usually, sometimes Pol
Struggle, Ancient Influence, etc), Awe, Voter Cap for +2 pool and a
refill on the acting vampire. Key trick in TGB type decks and plenty
of other power-voters. Villein is an inconvenience, particularly if
you haven't built in a way to burn the vamp (e.g. Golconda)
While Villein has clearly been introduced to limit Tap, the only decks
where it has an effect on anything else are those decks who would "Tap
a Big guy for 5" to drop their effective cost. Mid-High Prince Decks;
Big-Boy Superstar Decks... So if Villein is meant to truly debilitate
the classic "do something and tap for lots" decks, it misses the
mark. It's not overpowered, it just hit the symptoms not the disease,
IMHO.
> > But I think that
> > allowing Villein to be used to remove "a minimum of 2 blood unless
> > they don't have 2+ blood when you take whatever is there"... is that
> > it doesn't really differentiate Villein from Tap other than penalising
> > Tap for a Trifle.
>
> No. Multiple Villein usage penalizes itself (though I suspect not
> enough to achieve a correct balance.
Multiple villeins on the ONE vampire penalises itself. It doesn't
penalise decks that want to remove half the cost of a big-cap
vampire. So clearly it is intended to reduce the cost of big vampires
but to work against various forms of "Tap for lots, refill vamp, tap
for lots, refill vamp" which usually slow down games drastically.
> LSJ has cited consistency of usage in favor of the current ruling.
> Those who agree with me that the card is too good could cite power
> considerations in favor of a more restrictive ruling. But really, I
> think a restrictive ruling on this issue would hardly be enough to fix
> the card. People who play the card are not doing it because they hope
> to Slurp for 1 or 0.
If it's not intended for use to "slurp 1 or 0", then where is the harm
in stating that "put this card... AND move 2 blood" requires that the
Meth MUST move 2+ blood, rather than just "try to move 2+... oops I
can't"? I agree it's not intended for use to take off a little blood,
so I see no reason for it to be allowed to work in such a way. I am
not saying the card needs "fixing". It does a decent job at what it
does: makes it harder for "tap-refill-repeat" tricks. I just don't
agree that it should be playable for 1 or 2 blood, since its penalty
to others on the table is significant in some cases.
John Whelan
> On Feb 17, 8:17 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why??? Nothing you have said above supports that argument. Even if
> > Cap is above the power curve, and could use some hosing, you have not
> > shown that it needs it more than Tap.
>
> My point about Tap is where it is used.
We've covered that. It is used in all kinds of decks.
> There seem to be a very
> limited number of deck-archetypes that utilise Minion Tap as a key
> mechanic.
I have no idea what you mean by "as a key mechanic". But once that
phrase is removed, the statement is clearly false.
> Other decks are utilising Tap to offset costs of minions
> (which in effect makes Villein a "Trifle Tap" to those decks). Decks
> where Tap was a "key mechanic".
What is your definition of "key mechanic"? And how is it relevant to
your claim that hosing Tap & Cap should hose Cap rather than Tap?
> Merely looking at "places where it
> turns up" is no more effective than measuring the number of people in
> a suburb to try determine where there will be more litter.
Effective for what purpose? It is effective for my purpose: showing
that Tap is in fact the more popular member of the Tap & Cap combo,
and therefore presumably the more "overpowered" of the two.
Naturally, if we restricted our inquiries to the combo itself, their
numbers would end up equal.
> The two
> MAY be connected but your statistics don't get to a motivating factor.
What motivating factor? If we are talking about the design team's
motive possibly including that of hosing Tap and Cap, then obviously
that can be done by hosing either Tap or Cap. It makes sense to hose
the card that is actually more prevalent.
> AAA: Bringem out or Giant's blood an empty big-cap, tap 'em, then
> Golconda them. Also typically a giant wad of masters and bleed
> cards. Effect: +2x capacity of vampire. Usually 16+ pool gained.
> Villein is a temporary inconvenience... anyone with a Villein will get
> Golconda later.
> Turbo-Deck: Bring out [insert minion here], Tap them, Give them a soul
> gem or similar. This is key in things such as Cybelotron and Turbo-
> Great Beast type decks, but others as well. Villein doesn't really do
> a lot to those decks as the Villeins vanish with the "burn, soul gem
> replace" trick.
> Cap'n'Tap: We've debated this one fairly extensively. Main Mechanic
> is Tap in Master to basically empty. Vote (KRC usually, sometimes Pol
> Struggle, Ancient Influence, etc), Awe, Voter Cap for +2 pool and a
> refill on the acting vampire. Key trick in TGB type decks and plenty
> of other power-voters. Villein is an inconvenience, particularly if
> you haven't built in a way to burn the vamp (e.g. Golconda)
Fine. We have established that Villein does appear designed to
particularly hurt Tap & Cap, but does not necessarily hurt some other
deck archtypes. Indeed, it helps many or most of them due to the
added value of trifleness. This does not explain why you believe this
should have been done by hosing Cap, rather than Tap.
> While Villein has clearly been introduced to limit Tap, the only decks
> where it has an effect on anything else are those decks who would "Tap
> a Big guy for 5" to drop their effective cost.
Huh? If you only plan to tap the Big Guy once, to reduce his cost,
then Villein is MORE effective. Sure, if you put 6 slurp-cards in
your deck with the intent of slurping him early for 5, and for the
rest of the game for 0, then Villein will not suit your purpose.
> So if Villein is meant to truly debilitate
> the classic "do something and tap for lots" decks, it misses the
> mark.
Huh? I have of course heard of decks that "tap for lots" but your
reference to the classic "do something" deck has me totally lost. If
"do something" stands for "refill your vampire" then only serves to
remind us that there are multiple ways of doing this, so that hosing
"Voter Captivation" will not necessarily hose "Tap & Refill".
> It's not overpowered, it just hit the symptoms not the disease,
> IMHO.
Well I agree that it misses the mark. This is because I am assuming
the goal was NOT to wallpaper Minion Tap by means of a clearly better
card. Apart from that, I cannot follow you.
> Multiple villeins on the ONE vampire penalises itself.
Agreed.
> It doesn't
> penalise decks that want to remove half the cost of a big-cap
> vampire.
Agreed.
> So clearly it is intended to reduce the cost of big vampires
> but to work against various forms of "Tap for lots, refill vamp, tap
> for lots, refill vamp" which usually slow down games drastically.
I tend to agree. And to some extend it does do that. This still does
not explain why you think this should have been done by hosting Voter
Captivation, rather than by hosing Minion Tap.
Juggernaut1981
The point of Nerfing Tap is to limit its effectiveness in the
following deck strategies (and variations on them):
#1 Tap for most, call vote, voter cap refill, tap minion
This cycle instantly means there should be more Taps than Caps. You
want to play a Tap first, Cap second, Tap third. There will probably
be a ratio of something like 3 Taps for 2 Caps.
#2 VampX Eats the World
Tap VampX, eat minion with lots of blood, tap VampX back down, repeat.
#3 Archon Abactor Tap
Make (using the vote) or use an archon (Muaziz, Samat, etc). Tap for
everything, Abactor, Tap, Abactor, repeat.
I'd be guessing that the most prevalent of these is "Cap & Tap" and
most impacted. Villein will not impact most of the other "Tap
Dependent Bloat" strategies. Few people play with multi-theft, like a
Celerity-Tha concept, so it's unlikely to be seen as the driving force
behind those tricks. In a Zillah's-Tap-Golconda deck, Villein adds to
the speed of the trick and quickly vanishes leaving no impact.
So, you could have left Tap as it was printed, not created a "Minion
Tap" hoser and rewritten Voter Cap. I know it's a "after the horse
has bolted" concept, but it could have done the job in a more targeted
sense. Removing the "gain pool" element and the ability to completely
refill a vampire removes the general need to hose Tap, since Villein
or any card like it won't affect most of the deck strategies that use
Tap and burn their own minions (e.g. Eat The World, TurboX, AAA)
Voter Captivation MK2
Action Mod
1 blood
Only playable after a successful referendum.
[pre] This vampire gains X blood where X is the number of votes the
referendum passed by but no more than 3.
[PRE] As above, but X cannot be greater than 5.
John Whelan
> I'd be guessing that the most prevalent of these is "Cap & Tap" and
> most impacted.
I agree. Villein does seem to target Tap & Cap.
> So, you could have left Tap as it was printed, not created a "Minion
> Tap" hoser and rewritten Voter Cap.
You could have. But why "should have"? i still don't get it.
> I know it's a "after the horse
> has bolted" concept, but it could have done the job in a more targeted
> sense.
How more targeted? Sounds to me as though your analysis is that it IS
targeted pretty narrowly.
> Removing the "gain pool" element and the ability to completely
> refill a vampire removes the general need to hose Tap, since Villein
> or any card like it won't affect most of the deck strategies that use
> Tap and burn their own minions (e.g. Eat The World, TurboX, AAA)
Hosing voter cap won't affect them either. What's your point?
> Voter Captivation MK2
> Action Mod
> 1 blood
> Only playable after a successful referendum.
> [pre] This vampire gains X blood where X is the number of votes the
> referendum passed by but no more than 3.
> [PRE] As above, but X cannot be greater than 5.
Re-writing cards is an extreme measure, reserved for more-seriously
overpowered cards, not for cards like Blood Doll, Minion Tap and Voter
Cap. They are, admittedly, somewhat above the power curve. However,
to re-write them, at this late date, when they have been in play for
15 years, would be a little much.
A vessel style hoser weakens cards like blood doll, without causing
confusion or requiring that a zillion copies of Blood Doll in play get
reprinted. I think that was the idea here.
Judging by its prevalence in the TWDA, Minion Tap is more popular than
Voter Cap (judged by total number of copies) by a factor of 1.5. Thus
it was apparently in the best position to survive a little hosing,
though I think they overshot the mark.
Presence has the best vote modifiers, and IMHO should have the best
vote modifiers. Nerf voter cap and we head in a sad direction of
having all disciplines do the same thing.
Salem
So I can talk about Bloodlines now? and how Basilisk's Touch got
over-nerfed before being released? (but was indeed too powerful as first
proposed...).
:D
--
salem
Juggernaut1981
Yes, but if you want to nerf "Cap & Tap" you can nerf the Tap or the
Cap. LSJ (et al) chose Tap. I would have chosen Cap. Without the
plentiful refilling of blood on a vamp, Cap & Tap doesn't work, but
other strategies utilise Tap do.
John Whelan
> Yes, but if you want to nerf "Cap & Tap" you can nerf the Tap or the
> Cap.
Right. But that in itself says nothing about which one should be
nerfed.
> LSJ (et al) chose Tap.
Indeed.
> I would have chosen Cap.
Right, but you have given no reason for this choice that I can
understand.
> Without the
> plentiful refilling of blood on a vamp, Cap & Tap doesn't work, [...]
Sure. By definition, the "Tap & Cap" combo requires both Tap and
Cap. Otherwise it does not work. But again, that says nothing about
which of the 2 should be nerfed.
> but
> other strategies utilise Tap do.
Same goes for other strategies that utilize Cap.
There are probably fewer such Cap strategies. Tap has been the more
popular of the two cards. Tap appears without Cap more often than Cap
appears without Tap. To my mind, this supports the idea that, of
the two cards, Tap is the more worthy of nerfing.
Peter D Bakija
> Yes, but if you want to nerf "Cap & Tap" you can nerf the Tap or the
> Cap. LSJ (et al) chose Tap. I would have chosen Cap. Without the
> plentiful refilling of blood on a vamp, Cap & Tap doesn't work, but
> other strategies utilise Tap do.
You may remember (or, may not, really) that there was a really long
discussion a while back all about specifically neutering Voter Cap (I
think it was right before Lords of the Night came out. When was
that?). The most viable plan seemed to be "pre: If you win this vote,
the acting minion gains 2 blood/PRE: If you win this vote, you may
gain 2 pool." or some such version. And as Lords of the Night was
about to come out, it would have been a reasonably good time to
reprint them in starter decks (i.e. the Settite deck). But in the end,
the designers decided against this for whatever reason (the obvious
one being that reprinting cards with significant changes makes people
cranky). So when there was a good opportunity to and discussion about
downpowering Voter Cap, it didn't happen. So Voter Cap isn't going to
be directly nerfed.
So if you want to nerf Tap-N-Cap, you end up doing what they did--
nerfing Minion Tap and indirectly nerfing Voter Cap (uh, Final
Loosening?).
Villein is, in the end, pretty much replacing Minion Tap. There are
still a few places here and there where one would want to use Minion
Tap, but to be honest, not many. And most of those places will get
demolished when everyone has 16 Villeins, so they show up all the
time. But, well, sometimes that happens. At least now everyone has a
lot of Villeins.
-Peter
Juggernaut1981
If everyone minion taps once or twice on a main vampire (and includes
multiples for early draw, which presumably would also increase their
relative prevalence - this explains your 3:2 ratio of Tap:Cap in
TWDA), then nerfing Tap is not really neccessary and certainly not in
the way Villein has tried to do it. Both the "Cap & Tap" and usual
"Minion Cost Reduction" purposes of Tap utilise comparatively early
use of Tap soon after influencing a medium-to-large cap vampire (7+
capacity). Cap & Tap will always want Taps in hand before Caps (no
point playing Cap on a full vampire), therefore Taps will be more
prevalent than Caps. Prevalence does not indicate function or value
of the card within a deck. TGBs are a tactically important card, but
there may be 6 or less in a deck of up to 90 cards. Similarly for
other "key" enabling cards.
Popularity may also be a function of varied uses. Tap works in many
decks, Cap only works in voting strategy decks. This again helps to
explain why Cap is statistically less prevalent. The statistics you
repeatedly quote and the method you are using to justify those
statistics becomes less useful for determining the power-value of a
card with the greater number of potential uses. Using your method, I
could easily argue that Ivory Bow is significantly less powerful than
WWEF because I'm sure there are many many more copies of WWEF in TWDA
than there are Ivory Bows. Similarly for Ivory Bow vs Cloak the
Gathering or any other card which is always used in significant
multiples. Frequency of a card appearing in the TWDA is not a measure
of it's relative power OR relative function. There are OTHER factors
which determine the frequency of a card within decks.
The widespread use of non-currency transactions (Electronic Transfers,
Credit Cards, etc) does not mean that money is now valueless and
irrelevant, it just means we have new ways of using the concept of
money. It also doesn't mean that EFT are safer, more reliable or more
powerful than tangible currency; if anything it just means that our
banks want to maximise their profits by not having to employ people to
put currency into locations where it is easy for us to access it and
instead provide us with alternatives to currency which cost the bank
less in time, labour and offer.
Without the Cap, there is little reason to use Tap for any other
purpose than recouping the cost of large minions (which is ostensibly
the secondary purpose of Villein) and wouldn't appear to be something
generally thought of as a "delaying the game" issue, which I have
heard is another reason for limiting blood-to-pool tactics.
There are few strategies for Cap that don't either have a) significant
blood cost for the actions they perform (DoC Anarch Vote, Laibon-Vote-
Kill, etc) or b) utilise Tap. As I've said above, the frequency of
Taps may not be about their "required value" but be ensuring an early
draw of a Tap. 6 - 8 copies of a card in a deck is generally thought
to be good in ensuring you draw at least one fairly early game copy.
Since Caps are not needed so early, they are not required in such
large numbers and their value (in Cap & Tap tactics) ensures that they
will be retained until used.
John Whelan
> If everyone minion taps once or twice on a main vampire (...)
Everyone does not do that.
> then nerfing Tap is not really neccessary and certainly not in
> the way Villein has tried to do it.
You start with a false premise, then follow it by a non-sequitur.
Your arguments just are not coming together for me.
> Cap & Tap will always want Taps in hand before Caps (no
> point playing Cap on a full vampire), therefore Taps will be more
> prevalent than Caps.
I have no idea how this fits into your argument. But as a factual
claim, it is simply not true. Tap & Cap decks do NOT usually have
more Taps than Caps.
> Prevalence does not indicate function or value
> of the card within a deck.
Maybe not, but so what? All you are doing is questioning the reasons
I gave that it was reasonable to hose Tap before Cap. You have yet to
give a single coherent reason for your own position -- that Cap SHOULD
have been hosed instead of Tap.
> Popularity may also be a function of varied uses.
I have taken the liberty of assuming that, in the TWDA, popularity is
a reasonable measure of the power of the card, as compared to
competing choices, in terms of helping that player win.
> Using your method, I
> could easily argue that Ivory Bow is significantly less powerful than
> WWEF
Not as easily. You are comparing a unique to a non-unique. A better
test in this case would be the number of decks containing one or more
copies of the card. But Tap wins that test against Cap as well, and
by a wider margin.
> As I've said above, the frequency of
> Taps may not be about their "required value" but be ensuring an early
> draw of a Tap. 6 - 8 copies of a card in a deck is generally thought
> to be good in ensuring you draw at least one fairly early game copy.
You are making this too hard. If very large numbers of players are
putting multiples in the deck, instead of competing master slots, and
still winning tournaments, then there can be only one explanation:
ITS A VERY GOOD CARD! Yes, even in multiples. If a player puts 6
Minion Taps in a deck, that usually means 6 other Master Cards were
left out, because they were regarded as less competitive options.
Analysis of the precise reasons, or observing that the card may be
less valuable in the end-game, for this won't change the point.
Juggernaut1981
> putting multiples in the deck, instead of competing master slots, and
> still winning tournaments, then there can be only one explanation:
> ITS A VERY GOOD CARD! Yes, even in multiples. If a player puts 6
> Minion Taps in a deck, that usually means 6 other Master Cards were
> left out, because they were regarded as less competitive options.
> Analysis of the precise reasons, or observing that the card may be
> less valuable in the end-game, for this won't change the point.
John> Whatever, it would appear that blinkers are so firmly fixed to
your head that it is pointless to suggest flaws in your argument or
how those flaws confirm mine. There seems to be little reason to
continue. You win because I acquiesce and want to go find another
brick wall to beat my head against aimlessly.
John Whelan
> Whatever, it would appear that blinkers are so firmly fixed to
> your head that it is pointless to suggest flaws in your argument or
> how those flaws confirm mine.
But that's just the problem. Any flaws in any argument of mine that
nerfing Tap may have been a better option do NOT confirm your
position. They merely leave us were we started, with a Tap and Cap
combo to be nerfed, and nerfing either Tap or Cap appearing as equally
reasonable alternatives for doing so.
Daneel
<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 4:59ï¿œpm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, but if you want to nerf "Cap & Tap" you can nerf the Tap or the
>> Cap. ï¿œLSJ (et al) chose Tap. ï¿œI would have chosen Cap. ï¿œWithout the
Ok, I think that indirectly nerfing Tap (like, by introducing a card
that directly increases its cost) is quite similar meddling as
errating it. You don't have to change the card text for it, so the
added frustration of your cards not doing what they say they do is
not applicable, but the basic frustration - that you have a card
that is dramatically nerfed, and you need to purchase another card
to be able to do what you used to do - is the same.
With hindsight, nerfing Cap might've been better, because I'm sure
I'm not the only one who gets the goosebumps from cards that
directly and explicitly nerf other cards (Villein, Vessel, etc.).
--
Regards,
Daneel
John Whelan
> Ok, I think that indirectly nerfing Tap (like, by introducing a card
> that directly increases its cost) is quite similar meddling as
> errating it.
Similar in some ways (after all, both are "nerfing"); different in
others.
> You don't have to change the card text for it, so the
> added frustration of your cards not doing what they say they do is
> not applicable, [...]
That's why its a less-extreme measure.
> [...] but the basic frustration - that you have a card
> that is dramatically nerfed, and you need to purchase another card
> to be able to do what you used to do - is the same.
I agree that a card should not be DRAMATICALLY nerfed -- not to the
extent that occurred here. But I think that was a miscalculation. I
believe what was intended here was a vessel/blood doll style nerfing.
Vessel and Blood Doll remain perfectly competitive. You don't need to
purchase Vessel to do what Blood Doll used to do. There is no such
card that does what Blood Doll used to. Neither Vessel nor Blood Doll
are as good now as Blood Doll used to be. That fact that both cards
remain perfectly competitive in tournaments seems to indicate to me
that it was a successful experiment.
> With hindsight, nerfing Cap might've been better, [...]
With hindsight, they over-nerfed Tap. I'm not sure why you think that
accidentally over-nerfing Cap would have been preferable.
> because I'm sure
> I'm not the only one who gets the goosebumps from cards that
> directly and explicitly nerf other cards (Villein, Vessel, etc.).
Then why make an exception for Cap?
But I think that, goosebumps notwithstanding, the nerfing of blood
doll by vessel was a successful experiment.
I think the nerfing of Tap went too far. But since this is the second
such experiment, I will, for now, give the design team the benefit of
the doubt and assume this is the result of miscalculation.
Peter D Bakija
> Ok, I think that indirectly nerfing Tap (like, by introducing a card
> that directly increases its cost) is quite similar meddling as
> errating it.
Kind of? I mean, all the existing Minion Taps in play are still
theoretically playable and still do what they say they do. Which has a
lot to recommend it, from a game tweaking perspective.
> You don't have to change the card text for it, so the
> added frustration of your cards not doing what they say they do is
> not applicable, but the basic frustration - that you have a card
> that is dramatically nerfed, and you need to purchase another card
> to be able to do what you used to do - is the same.
Well, that is certainly true. Except that Minion Tap is just a common
that most people have many, many of. And it isn't like they spent 20
bucks on them. I mean, yeah, I agree (at this point) that Villein
mostly wallpapers Minion Tap, but not *that* big of a deal, given that
it is just a very common common. And still technically is playable.
> With hindsight, nerfing Cap might've been better, because I'm sure
> I'm not the only one who gets the goosebumps from cards that
> directly and explicitly nerf other cards (Villein, Vessel, etc.).
Sure, but Tap-n-Cap wasn't the only thing that arguably needed hosing
here. Minion Tap was super powered in may instances. It taking a hit
wasn't necessarily a bad thing, overall.
I think, however, that Villein *is* a bit too good, relative to the
Blood Doll/Vessel pairing--Vessel is arguably just worse than Blood
Doll, trifle aspect included, if you ignore the Blood Doll hosing. So
that is a totally reasonable pair of cards (as Vessel doesn't
wallpaper Blood Doll). Villein, on the other hand, is arguably just
plain better than Minion Tap. If it weren't a trifle, however, it
would be just plain worse than Minion Tap, and wouldn't get played.
But that it is a trifle makes it just too good, relative to Minion
Tap. I don't know what would have been a good compromise that got
Villein played, got it to hose Minion Tap some, but *not* just
wallpapered it.
This all being said, except for the "Aw. Now all my Minion Taps are
mostly useless..." aspect of Villein, is it actually that bad of a
thing that Villein is what it is and does what it does?
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> I think the nerfing of Tap went too far. But since this is the second
> such experiment, I will, for now, give the design team the benefit of
> the doubt and assume this is the result of miscalculation.
I think this statement is correct on all fronts. I think as a trifle,
Villein ends up being too good. I think if it were not a trifle, it
would be horrible (just worse than Minion Tap, except that it hoses
Minion Tap. Is the Minion Tap hosing potential enough to justify
playing it as not a trifle? If Vessel were not a trifle, it would also
be horrible). What would have been a good way to have designed Villein
such that it hosed Minion Tap some without wallpapering it, and yet
was still worth playing on its own?
-Peter
Chris Berger
1) Villein could cost a pool. Much like Vessel hoses Blood Doll and
is a trifle and costs a pool. Villein would still be good.
2) Reverse the restriction on Villein. Instead of 2 or more blood,
make it "up to X blood". I think as high as "up to 4" would be fine
and balanced.
3) Villein not a trifle. In this case, you're pretty much right, the
2 or more restriction is probably enough to keep it from being played,
because most people don't care that much about hosing Minion Tap, so I
would probably add something like "if you moved at least 2 blood with
this card, you gain an additional pool". Theoretically, you could
make it "Gain 1 pool, then put this card on a vampire you control and
move 2 or more blood from him to your pool", but I think that too
directly pisses on Ascendance.
XZealot
Cap did get nerfed.
Final Loosening
Type: Reaction
Requires: anarch Auspex/Dementation/Fortitude
Requires an anarch.
[aus] Play when the acting vampire would gain 1 or more blood. The
acting vampire and this reacting anarch each gain 1 blood instead.
[dem] Gain 4 votes.
[for] Only usable when an ally is acting. The action fails and the
ally takes 1 damage. Tap this reacting anarch.
Rarity: TR:R
Play it at aus, It completely hoses Cap.
XZealot
> On Feb 16, 3:14 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 10:34 pm, "Sutekh.23" <sutekh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So if I may ask, what is the purpose of villein?
> > > Is it to hamstring cap and tap decks?
> > > Is it to wallpaper tap?
> > > Is it to force older players to buy new cards?
> > > A combination of the above?
>
> > I would guess that the intent was to create a sort of Vessel / Blood
> > Doll type balance, where one card is not clearly better than the
> > other, but both cards end up being less good than the older card was
> > before the newer card was printed. The result is that an arguably too-
> > popular card (perhaps slightly overpowered) gets taken down a notch,
> > and a greater variety of master cards thereby become competitive
> > options.
>
> > If that was the intent, however, I think there was a mis-calculation.
> > The new card is arguably more "above the power curve" than the older
> > card used to be. I have also predicted that, when demand is met,
> > Villein will end up wall-papering Minion Tap, rather than achieving a
> > Vessel / Blood Doll type balance. (Note that this is still merely a
> > prediction -- I have not yet been proven right).
>
> > I heard a story (and I am just repeating what I heard) that nobody
> > played Villein during play-testing, and someone suggested it would be
> > worth playing only if were a trifle. That suggestion got implemented.
>
> But realistically people's beef with the Cap'n'Tap is the Cap for 10
> blood + 2 pool and not the Tap for 5+.
> If it is to de-power the "Cap'n'Tap" strategy, then depowering the Cap
> is more likely to get the results desired.
> If it is to do something else... then what?
John Whelan
> If it weren't a trifle, however, it would be just plain worse than Minion Tap,
> and wouldn't get played.
I'm not sure that's true. Let me give just one example -- which is
the very first deck that I found when searching for "Minion Tap" in
the TWDA. Take a look at this deck, and tell me why you would not
prefer Villein to Minion Tap in this deck, even if Villein were not a
trifle:
Wake with Evening's Freshness
Columbus, Ohio
November 15, 2009
18 players
2R + F
Cory Busch-Kendall's Tournament Winning Deck
Deck Name : Guns + CEL + THA
Author : Cory Busch-Kendall
Description :
Crypt (12 vampires) Capacity min: 4 max: 10 average: 8.16667
------------------------------------------------------------
4x Lucas Halton 10 AUS CEL DOM THA qui prince Tremere:3
3x Anastasz di Zagreb 8 AUS THA ani cel dom justicar Tremere:3
2x Erichtho 8 AUS DOM THA cel obf Tremere:3
1x Fleurdumal 8 AUS DEM PRE cel tha prince Toreador:3
1x Father Juan Carlos 6 PRE aus cel pot tha !Brujah:4
1x Lin Jun 4 aus cel pre tha Toreador:4
Library (90 cards)
------------------------------------------------------------
Action (15)
2x Ambush
1x Bum's Rush
5x Govern the Unaligned
3x Harass
1x Magic of the Smith
1x Nose of the Hound
2x Rutor's Hand
Combat (45)
5x Blur
5x Concealed Weapon
3x Flash
7x Psyche!
11x Pursuit
14x Theft of Vitae
Equipment (6)
5x .44 Magnum
1x Bowl of Convergence
Master (10)
4x Blood Doll
2x Celerity
1x Golconda: Inner Peace
1x Minion Tap
2x Thaumaturgy
Reaction (14)
4x On the Qui Vive
6x Redirection
4x Second Tradition: Domain
Peter D Bakija
> I'm not sure that's true. Let me give just one example -- which is
> the very first deck that I found when searching for "Minion Tap" in
> the TWDA. Take a look at this deck, and tell me why you would not
> prefer Villein to Minion Tap in this deck, even if Villein were not a
> trifle:
Well, yes, it is true that in a deck where you would use only 1x
Minion Tap, you might as well play 1x Villein, even if it were not a
trifle. But that is a pretty serious outlier (i.e. decks that contain
exactly a single Minion Tap).
Let me adjust my original statement. If Villein were not a trifle, it
would get played very rarely.
-Peter
Chris Berger
If Villein were not a trifle, you still have the corner case of, all
your vamps are at 1 or 2 blood and you don't want to empty them. It's
corner case, but unless you're *really* afraid of other people Minion
Tapping, you might as well play the one without the restriction.
Peter D Bakija
> If Villein were not a trifle, you still have the corner case of, all
> your vamps are at 1 or 2 blood and you don't want to empty them. It's
> corner case, but unless you're *really* afraid of other people Minion
> Tapping, you might as well play the one without the restriction.
Pretty much.
-Peter
LSJ
> On Feb 19, 8:59 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> > If it weren't a trifle, however, it would be just plain worse than Minion Tap,
> > and wouldn't get played.
>
> I'm not sure that's true. Let me give just one example -- which is
> the very first deck that I found when searching for "Minion Tap" in
> the TWDA. Take a look at this deck, and tell me why you would not
> prefer Villein to Minion Tap in this deck, even if Villein were not a
> trifle:
But in the current usage, "just plain worse" is being used with an
implicit "except in some cases".
Minion Tap is "just plain worse" than as-printed Villein (except in
some already-acknowledged cases).
Non-trifle Villein is "just plain worse" than Minion Tap (except in
some cases).
Daneel
<jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vessel and Blood Doll remain perfectly competitive. You don't need to
> purchase Vessel to do what Blood Doll used to do. There is no such
> card that does what Blood Doll used to. Neither Vessel nor Blood Doll
> are as good now as Blood Doll used to be. That fact that both cards
> remain perfectly competitive in tournaments seems to indicate to me
> that it was a successful experiment.
That's certainly a point of view.
>> With hindsight, nerfing Cap might've been better, [...]
>
> With hindsight, they over-nerfed Tap. I'm not sure why you think that
> accidentally over-nerfing Cap would have been preferable.
I'm not sure why you think that I think that.
I think, that with hindsight, nerfing Cap (with errata to card text, e.g.
the aforementioned 2 blood / 2 pool change) might've been better than
printing a Vessel-style specific hoser / replacer to Minion Tap. By
principle I don't like these card-specific hoser / replacer cards e.g.
Vessel, Villein.
I'm not saying Cap & Tap needed a nerf. But if it was deemed necessary,
direct errata to Cap - although a bad thing - would've been still
preferable to me.
>> because I'm sure
>> I'm not the only one who gets the goosebumps from cards that
>> directly and explicitly nerf other cards (Villein, Vessel, etc.).
>
> Then why make an exception for Cap?
What kind of exception? Which post are you replying to?
> But I think that, goosebumps notwithstanding, the nerfing of blood
> doll by vessel was a successful experiment.
That is certainly an opinion.
> I think the nerfing of Tap went too far. But since this is the second
> such experiment, I will, for now, give the design team the benefit of
> the doubt and assume this is the result of miscalculation.
Good for them that you do that.
--
Regards,
Daneel
John Whelan
LSJ wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:36 pm, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 8:59 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If it weren't a trifle, however, it would be just plain worse than Minion Tap,
> > > and wouldn't get played.
> >
> > I'm not sure that's true. Let me give just one example -- which is
> > the very first deck that I found when searching for "Minion Tap" in
> > the TWDA. Take a look at this deck, and tell me why you would not
> > prefer Villein to Minion Tap in this deck, even if Villein were not a
> > trifle:
>
> But in the current usage, "just plain worse" is being used with an
> implicit "except in some cases".
I understood the context to be that of competitive and justifiable use
in tournament play, and responded accordingly. Hence, I did not
respond with any example, but with one drawn from the TWDA. And I
could have come up with many many more such examples.
Construed too broadly, this "just plain worse except sometimes"
formulation becomes virtually meaningless. Zoo Hunting Ground is
"just plain worse" than Slum Hunting Ground. Except Sometimes. Like
those times when Gangrel in your crypt are not outnumbered by
Nosferatu.
> Minion Tap is "just plain worse" than as-printed Villein (except in
> some already-acknowledged cases).
> Non-trifle Villein is "just plain worse" than Minion Tap (except in
> some cases).
I was not comparing them. I was merely responding to the suggestion
(as I understood it) that non-Trifle Villein would not see justifiable
use in competitive tournament play.
But since you do compare them, let me point out some distinctions:
There appears to be little question that a non-Trifle Villein would
have made at least occasional appearances in the TWDA. It remains to
be seen if this will be true of Minion Tap, once demand for Villein is
met. (Sure, there will probably be deck designs in which Minion Tap
is a better choice than Villein, but will such designs remain
competitive?)
Minion Tap was marketed as a common; Villein as an uncommon. One
normally expects uncommon cards to see play less often.
Villein being usually better than Minion Tap (except sometimes) is the
result of power escalation, where the original card (Minion Tap) had
already been somewhat high on the power curve. This is not true of
Minion Tap being usually better than non-trifle Villein (except
sometimes); instead, both options become marginally more restricted
than they had been.
Daneel
<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 5:18ï¿œam, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:
>> Ok, I think that indirectly nerfing Tap (like, by introducing a card
>> ￜ that directly increases its cost) is quite similar meddling as
>> ￜ errating it.
>
> Kind of? I mean, all the existing Minion Taps in play are still
> theoretically playable and still do what they say they do. Which has a
> lot to recommend it, from a game tweaking perspective.
Yes they are playable; but there is another similar card out there that
can directly increase the cost of MT. So if other players play Villein,
then Minion Tap is essentially costing X pool where X is more or less
a random factor. (Not entirely, but let's assume now that it is.)
This change is far too specific to fall into the category of generic
shift in the balance of V:tES (e.g. how walls became more prevalent
when the GW was introduced without any specific card being altered).
>> You don't have to change the card text for it, so the
>> ￜ added frustration of your cards not doing what they say they do is
>> ￜ not applicable, but the basic frustration - that you have a card
>> ￜ that is dramatically nerfed, and you need to purchase another card
>> ￜ to be able to do what you used to do - is the same.
>
> Well, that is certainly true. Except that Minion Tap is just a common
> that most people have many, many of. And it isn't like they spent 20
> bucks on them. I mean, yeah, I agree (at this point) that Villein
> mostly wallpapers Minion Tap, but not *that* big of a deal, given that
> it is just a very common common. And still technically is playable.
I'm not sure I'd spend a lot on the cost / abundance argument. It's a
pretty theoreical question - is it better to nerf / change a card many
people have many copies of (and thus has a low market value), or a
card only a few people have, or people generally have few copies of?
I'm not arguing either way, I just don't think the distinction is
really worthwhile to make. (Although, I *might* be inclined to say
nerfing common cards is worse - if War Ghoul gets nerfed - there would
be no impact on the majority of players, because most of them only own
1 or 2 from the Third Edition Tzimisce starter; it would only really
affect hoarders with the 11+ copies; but changing a basic common
impacts mostly every single player.)
>> With hindsight, nerfing Cap might've been better, because I'm sure
>> ￜ I'm not the only one who gets the goosebumps from cards that
>> ￜ directly and explicitly nerf other cards (Villein, Vessel, etc.).
>
> Sure, but Tap-n-Cap wasn't the only thing that arguably needed hosing
> here. Minion Tap was super powered in may instances. It taking a hit
> wasn't necessarily a bad thing, overall.
I'm not sure I agree with this; I guess I never saw an issue with even
Tap & Cap, not to mention plain regular Tap & keep on living uses.
That said, if Tap & Cap needed hosing, then errating Cap might've been
the lesser of two evils. I'm not entirely convinced, but I cannot say
with certainty that wallpapering a common is better than nerfing (but
still keeping useful) an UC. (Although by now I'd say Cap is pretty
common thanks to its many reprints, it's still not as abundant as Tap.)
> I think, however, that Villein *is* a bit too good, relative to the
> Blood Doll/Vessel pairing--Vessel is arguably just worse than Blood
> Doll, trifle aspect included, if you ignore the Blood Doll hosing. So
> that is a totally reasonable pair of cards (as Vessel doesn't
> wallpaper Blood Doll). Villein, on the other hand, is arguably just
> plain better than Minion Tap. If it weren't a trifle, however, it
> would be just plain worse than Minion Tap, and wouldn't get played.
> But that it is a trifle makes it just too good, relative to Minion
> Tap. I don't know what would have been a good compromise that got
> Villein played, got it to hose Minion Tap some, but *not* just
> wallpapered it.
>
> This all being said, except for the "Aw. Now all my Minion Taps are
> mostly useless..." aspect of Villein, is it actually that bad of a
> thing that Villein is what it is and does what it does?
On one hand, Villein makes sure that you either play it, and then you
hose yourself if you want to repetitively tap the same guy, but you
are otherwise safe, or you play Tap, and you either have no change in
what it does, or you get randomly hosed regardless of whether you
want to repetitively tap the same guy or just Tap your incoming guys
for a little reduced cost. Hosing repetitive uses (in general) might
be considered good. On the other hand, however, I'm not happy about
the principle of its operation (I'm also not happy about Vessel, by
the way). I'm mostly convinced Tap wasn't broken; I'm fully
convinced Blood Doll wasn't. I'm also pretty sure Vessel and Villein,
even if they solved some issues (that I'm not convinced were there to
begin with by the way), created new issues that may outweigh their
benefits (if any).
On a tangential note, I'm the least unhappy with DI2 in theory. Because
I think DI was broken and because DI2 doesn't specifically refer to
DI (but also includes a whole set of cards) it is probably a good
card to having been printed. That said, in practice I'm a bit upset
that DI2 is so friggin' rare... Even the best of the recent rebalancing
cards evokes mixed feelings in me because of its availability.
---
Regards,
Daneel
John Whelan
Well, I agree that Villein, if not a trifle, would get played much
less often than Minion Tap. But I do not think that a fair assessment
of the success of a perfectly playable Uncommon would involve
comparing its prevalence of an arguably-overpowered staple Common.
I am also not sure I agree that non-trifle Villein’s usability would
be restricted to 1 copy per deck. That is merely a clear example
where its superiority is most obvious. I think 2 copies per deck is a
more reasonable limit, for the advantages of non-Trifle Villein
outweighing the relative advantages of Minion Tap, especially in mid-
Cap decks that contain a mix of Blood Dolls (Blood Dolls in play tend
to negate the disadvantage of being unable to Slurp for zero in the
end-game).
The TWDA contains 38 decks containing only a single Minion Tap. (I
don’t know how many contain recursion, but I checked enough of them to
guess that the vast majority do not). An additional 55 decks contain
2 copies of Minion Tap. (Total 148 copies in 93 decks).
Moreover, that may not fairly represent the possibilities for non-
trifle Villein. New cards result in decks being designed with its
advantages and disadvantages in mind, and if there is a reason to
avoid multiples, a player will obey this. It is not as though he does
not have countless other master cards competing for the resulting
empty slots. A player whose mid-cap deck contains 3 blood dolls and 3
minion taps is not forced to substitute in 3 non-trifle villeins. He
can instead do 4 blood dolls and 2 non-trifle villeins (or 3 blood
dolls, 3 non-trifle villeins and a grooming the protégé).. So the
actual viability of the card may be higher than counting the number of
1-2 Minion Cap decks in the TWDA would suggest
I cannot agree that only 1-2 copies per deck, for an Uncommon master
card, is a serious restriction on a card’s viability, by any normal or
reasonable standards.
Compare to some other non-clan/sect-specific Uncommon Master Cards
that were reprinted in KoT, in terms of number of decks featuring
these cards in the TWDA:
Vast Wealth: 18 decks (40 copies)
Major Boon: 42 decks
Metro Underground: 41 decks.
Powerbase: Chicago: 27 decks
The Rack: 51 decks.
Except in the case of Vast Wealth, the vast majority of such decks
feature only one copy each of the card in question.
Peter D Bakija
> I understood the context to be that of competitive and justifiable use
> in tournament play, and responded accordingly. Hence, I did not
> respond with any example, but with one drawn from the TWDA. And I
> could have come up with many many more such examples.
Ok. Given how I was the one who said "Villein, if it was not a trifle,
would be just plain worse than Minion Tap", here is what I mean:
If Villein in not a trifle, you end up with a card that is exactly the
same as Minion Tap, except that it has limits on its use (i.e. you
can't cycle it easily for zero), punishes you for using multiples of
them, and you can't recurse it, but on the upside, also hoses Minion
Tap. The downsides (you can't cycle for 0, you can't recycle it, and
you are punished for playing multiples) vastly outweigh the benefit
(might hose someone else playing Minion Tap). Such that if it is not
also a trifle, the *only* advantage to the Villein over the Minion Tap
is that it might hose someone.
In the example you came up with from the TWDA (a deck that had exactly
1 Minion Tap), you have a situation where if you replaced the single
Minion Tap with a single (non trifle) Villein, you probably aren't
much worse off, true. But even with only one of them, that you can't
play the Villein for 0 is enough of a disadvantage to make using the
Minion Tap still a better idea.
> I was not comparing them. I was merely responding to the suggestion
> (as I understood it) that non-Trifle Villein would not see justifiable
> use in competitive tournament play.
I don't think it would. As I think that a non trifle Villein would be,
in the vast majority of situations, just plain worse than Minion Tap.
Which is why, presumably, Villein was made a trifle. Except that as a
trifle, the balance tilts in the other direction--Villein is, in the
vast majority of the cases, just plain better than minion tap. And my
original point was "how could it have been made not just plain better
than Minion Tap while not being just plain worse".
-Peter
John Whelan
> If Villein in not a trifle, you end up with a card that is exactly the
> same as Minion Tap, except that it has limits on its use (i.e. you
> can't cycle it easily for zero), punishes you for using multiples of
> them, and you can't recurse it, but on the upside, also hoses Minion
> Tap. The downsides (you can't cycle for 0, you can't recycle it, and
> you are punished for playing multiples) vastly outweigh the benefit
> (might hose someone else playing Minion Tap).
The problem with this analysis is that it ignores the fact that the
"downsides" are entirely under the deck-designers control. He can
choose, with the greatest of ease, to eliminate them, and when he
does, he is left with a card that is "just plain better" than Minion
Tap, even without the Trifle benefit.
A player is not forced to play with Minion Tap at all. There only
about 15-20 master slots in many decks, there are 400-plus other
master cards to choose from, and many tournament-winning players do
indeed choose to play with those other cards instead, even when
playing mid-caps and up. If he can choose to play with "0" Minion
Taps, he can choose to play with "1" Minion Tap; and if he can choose
to play with "1" Minion Tap, he can choose to play with 1 copy of a
card that is even better than 1 Minion Tap.
The first downside you mention is COMPLETELY eliminated by playing 1
copy.
The second downside you mention is greatly mitigated. The need to
play Minion Tap for "1" or "0" is most likely to arise after you've
already tapped your minions as much as you want, and then an
additional copy comes up.
If that is not enough, you can further eliminate the disadvantages by
playing it in a deck that contains Blood Dolls. Now, either you will
draw the non-Trifle Villein early, in which case your minions will
have blood to pull off, or you will draw it late, in which case there
will likely be Blood Dolls already in play. You can play your Villein
on a minion with one blood, push a blood back with the blood doll, and
it is just as though you Minion Tapped for "0".
The TWDA contains 1400+ copies of Minion Tap in 1300+ decks. That's
more than 1 Minion Tap per deck, creating reasonable odds that you
will cause pool damage to an opponent. It is not an enormous benefit,
but it easily outweighs any risk, in a 1-copy deck, that you will end
up in a situation where you want to draw off less than 2 blood from a
minion, but do not have the option of playing it for zero on a minion
with no blood, or playing it on a minion with a blood doll, and have
no better master card you want to play that turn.
> Such that if it is not
> also a trifle, the *only* advantage to the Villein over the Minion Tap
> is that it might hose someone.
And, in an appropriate deck, that advantage makes it "just plain
better" than Minion Tap, since the disadvanages, in such cases, will
be even more insignificant than the advantages.
> In the example you came up with from the TWDA (a deck that had exactly
> 1 Minion Tap), you have a situation where if you replaced the single
> Minion Tap with a single (non trifle) Villein, you probably aren't
> much worse off, true. But even with only one of them, that you can't
> play the Villein for 0 is enough of a disadvantage to make using the
> Minion Tap still a better idea.
Considering that that example also contained 4 blood dolls, I cannot
bring myself to agree.
> > I was not comparing them. I was merely responding to the suggestion
> > (as I understood it) that non-Trifle Villein would not see justifiable
> > use in competitive tournament play.
>
> I don't think it would. As I think that a non trifle Villein would be,
> in the vast majority of situations, just plain worse than Minion Tap.
It is to be expected that Common cards are useful more often, and in
more decks, than Uncommons.
Peter D Bakija
> The problem with this analysis is that it ignores the fact that the
> "downsides" are entirely under the deck-designers control. He can
> choose, with the greatest of ease, to eliminate them, and when he
> does, he is left with a card that is "just plain better" than Minion
> Tap, even without the Trifle benefit.
Not so much. Minion Tap is "Take X blood from a minion to your pool."
Villein (were it not a trifle would be "Take X blood from a minion to
your pool. Where X is at least 2. And it costs you a pool to do the
same thing again to the same minion. And The card stays in play so you
can't recycle it even if you wanted to. Oh, and if someone else plays
a Minion Tap, they get hosed some."
The deck designer does not completely control when they want to cycle
a card for nothing, just to cycle it (which Villein can't do). They do
not completely control the situations where they might want to get a
card back out of their ash heap to their hand (as someone else often
plays Anthelios). They have absolutely zero control over whether or
not someone else plays Minion Tap.
Best case scenario for a Villein that isn't a trifle is that you have
a card that is, in a narrow band of situations, about the same as
Minion Tap. And in a large number of situations, something that is
hindering you more than Minion Tap would be, regardless of your design
intentions.
> The first downside you mention is COMPLETELY eliminated by playing 1
> copy.
Yes. At which point it isn't any better than Minion Tap. And still
more often worse than not.
> The second downside you mention is greatly mitigated. The need to
> play Minion Tap for "1" or "0" is most likely to arise after you've
> already tapped your minions as much as you want, and then an
> additional copy comes up.
And yet it still often comes up even if you have never removed blood
from your minions intentionally. Your single non trifle Villein comes
up late in the game when you have 1 blood on each of your minions, as
it is late in the game. You want all your minions to take actions
other than hunting this turn. You also want to move the Villein out of
your hand. That is a sub-optimal situation for Villein (trifle or no).
Not so much the Minion Tap.
The third downside (not being able to pull it out of your ash heap) is
always present, even if you have no intention of recycling cards on
your own. As people play Anthelios. A lot.
> And, in an appropriate deck, that advantage makes it "just plain
> better" than Minion Tap, since the disadvanages, in such cases, will
> be even more insignificant than the advantages.
The only situation where a non trifle Villein is better than a Minion
Tap (as opposed to "about as good 'cause the problems have been
mitigated through design") is when it is hosing other player's Minion
Taps. Which is something that is completely random and you have zero
control over. So you are gambling on "Will I get an advantage out of
this card" (small, random chance) over "will this card be more
hindersome than another similar card" (reasonable chance).
> It is to be expected that Common cards are useful more often, and in
> more decks, than Uncommons.
I have no idea what this statement is responding to.
-Peter
John Whelan
> The deck designer does not completely control when they want to cycle
> a card for nothing, just to cycle it (which Villein can't do). They do
> not completely control the situations where they might want to get a
> card back out of their ash heap to their hand (as someone else often
> plays Anthelios). They have absolutely zero control over whether or
> not someone else plays Minion Tap.
Seems to me that these final considerations, left over after all the
factors you control are controlled in non-trifle Villein's favor,
militate in favor of non-trifle Villein.
A player does not expect to play his one non-Trifle Villein (or Minion
Tap) for 1 pool or for zero pool just to cycle it. If these were his
intentions, he would take it out, and put a Blood Doll in instead. Of
course, he may end up wanting to do this regardless of his intentions,
but the risks of this hindering him significantly (in the proper deck)
are far smaller than you seem to think. We have all seen Minion Tap
players do this, but one factor that causes this to occur is multiple
Minion Taps to begin with. Another factor is that they do it because
they can; if they could not, how often would it effect them
negatively? "Oops, I can't Villein Saulot for zero cause he has 2
blood, I guess I'll just Villein this torpored guy for zero instead."
or "... I guess I'll just Villein this guy with 1 blood for 1 blood,
and then push a blood back on with the blood doll."
Someone else playing Anthelios? Even if that eventuality arises, why
assume I find myself wanting to fish for a Minion Tap? If playing
Minion Tap multiple times were so important to my deck strategy, this
would be a different deck than it obviously is. Perhaps I'd prefer to
fish for a burnt or discarded Blood Doll instead.
Compared to both of the above, the prospect of hosing an opponent's
Minion Tap is relatively high. The advantage goes to non-trifle
Villein, in my estimation.
> Best case scenario for a Villein that isn't a trifle is that you have
> a card that is, in a narrow band of situations, about the same as
> Minion Tap. And in a large number of situations, something that is
> hindering you more than Minion Tap would be, regardless of your design
> intentions.
Personally, I would swap your reference to a "narrow band of
situations" with your reference to "a large number of situations."
Sure, in theory, the situations where you COULD have Tapped a minion
with 2+ blood for 1 or zero, and are techinically being deprived of
this option by Villein, are very common. But I do not consider a
restriction meanginful unless it affects the things you actually want
to do. But the situations where you would have actually wanted to do
this (and where it actually matters - ie no minion with zero blood to
slurp) are very rare, especially in a deck that contains 1 non-Trifle
villein and 4 blood dolls.
> > The first downside you mention is COMPLETELY eliminated by playing 1
> > copy.
>
> Yes. At which point it isn't any better than Minion Tap. And still
> more often worse than not.
We are, at this point, left with a very remote chance of being
prevented from cycling one card, versus a less-remote chance of
causing pool damage to your opponents. Seems to me that Non-Trifle
Villein wins, after the deck designer adjusts for its disadvantages.
> > The second downside you mention is greatly mitigated. The need to
> > play Minion Tap for "1" or "0" is most likely to arise after you've
> > already tapped your minions as much as you want, and then an
> > additional copy comes up.
>
> And yet it still often comes up even if you have never removed blood
> from your minions intentionally. Your single non trifle Villein comes
> up late in the game when you have 1 blood on each of your minions, as
> it is late in the game. You want all your minions to take actions
> other than hunting this turn. You also want to move the Villein out of
> your hand. That is a sub-optimal situation for Villein (trifle or no).
And how often is that going to happen ??? It is late in the game.
Someone (a combat deck?) has been knocking blood off my minions
without my consent. Yet none of my minions are at zero blood or in
torpor. Everyone is at exactly one or two blood. I am not planning
to bring out a new minion. And I am not so desperate for pool that I
am willing to hunt at zero blood in exchange for one or two pool. I
do not have a master card in my hand, other than non-trifle Villein,
that I am willing to play this turn.
Folks have argued that the prospect of hosing someone's Minion Tap is
remote. But it is not THAT remote.
> The third downside (not being able to pull it out of your ash heap) is
> always present, even if you have no intention of recycling cards on
> your own. As people play Anthelios. A lot.
Alot of those people tend to play Minion Tap as well.
> > And, in an appropriate deck, that advantage makes it "just plain
> > better" than Minion Tap, since the disadvanages, in such cases, will
> > be even more insignificant than the advantages.
>
> The only situation where a non trifle Villein is better than a Minion
> Tap (as opposed to "about as good 'cause the problems have been
> mitigated through design") is when it is hosing other player's Minion
> Taps. Which is something that is completely random and you have zero
> control over.
None of the factors that DISFAVOR Villein, to the extent that they
cannot be readily eliminated, are under your control either. Once you
eliminate the factors under your control, you are left weighing the
factors NOT under your control. The advantages not under your control
outweigh the disadvantages not under your control.
> > It is to be expected that Common cards are useful more often, and in
> > more decks, than Uncommons.
>
> I have no idea what this statement is responding to.
You had said that MT was better than non-trifle Villein the vast
majority of the time. Depending on what you meant by this, I was more
or less agreeing. I would expect about 10 copies of Minion Tap to see
competitive play for every single non-trifle Villein that saw play.
And I don't consider this an unacceptable result for an Uncommon card.
Peter D Bakija
> A player does not expect to play his one non-Trifle Villein (or Minion
> Tap) for 1 pool or for zero pool just to cycle it.
This is true. But that you *can't* isn't an insignificant issue. As
you can't control when you draw the card, and if you draw it late (not
that unlikely, with only 1 of them), and you don't have blood to pull
off, and want to cycle it, you are holding it in your hand and saying
"Boy, I wish this was a Minion Tap instead".
Given a discussion where:
A) Villein is not a trifle.
and
B) You only have a single Villein in the deck.
I would *still* say that I'd rather use a Minion Tap. The advantage to
be gained from the single, non trifle Villein (you might hose some
Minion Taps a tiny little bit once or twice) seems to not outweigh the
disadvantages (you can't cycle for 0 and can't recycle it out of the
ash heap, however unlikely it is to occur).
Going back to my initial point (that non trifle Villein would be just
worse than Minion Tap in the vast majority of situations it could be
used in), there are probably ways that Villein could have been a
trifle and not be just better than Minion Tap--maybe keep it a trifle
and have it be "Put this on a vampire you control. Move up to 3 blood
from that vampire to your pool. Any Minion Tap played costs 1 extra
pool." That probably would have been fine and would not have
wallpapered Minion Tap as much as the current version.
> You had said that MT was better than non-trifle Villein the vast
> majority of the time. Depending on what you meant by this, I was more
> or less agreeing. I would expect about 10 copies of Minion Tap to see
> competitive play for every single non-trifle Villein that saw play.
> And I don't consider this an unacceptable result for an Uncommon card.
Oh, ok. I don't consider that unacceptable either. But I also don't
think that printing such a card would have been a good idea. It would
have been viewed as just another bad card. And would not have been an
effective Minion Tap hoser, if that was the intention. Detractors be
damned, Vessel is a good balance with Blood Doll and isn't viewed by
most folks as just another bad card. So it sees play and has an
interesting back and forth with Blood Doll. The current Villein
doesn't so much. A non trifle (but otherwise identical) Villein also
wouldn't so much. There are probably plenty of ways to have made a
balance point Villein, but it probably would have had to have been
pretty different.
-Peter
John Whelan
> Given a discussion where:
> A) Villein is not a trifle.
> and
> B) You only have a single Villein in the deck.
> I would *still* say that I'd rather use a Minion Tap. The advantage to
> be gained from the single, non trifle Villein (you might hose some
> Minion Taps a tiny little bit once or twice) seems to not outweigh the
> disadvantages (you can't cycle for 0 and can't recycle it out of the
> ash heap, however unlikely it is to occur).
We may just have to agree to disagree. We are comparing remote and
contingent advantages to remote and contingent disadvantages. It will
be hard for either of us to prove our case. But hosing minion taps
"once or twice" seems more impactful than a lost opportunity to cycle
a card ONCE, and the likelihood of the former seems to me greater than
the likelihood of the latter.
> But I also don't
> think that printing such a card would have been a good idea. It would
> have been viewed as just another bad card. And would not have been an
> effective Minion Tap hoser, if that was the intention.
I'll go with that. Its effect on deterring use of Minion Tap would
have been extremely minimal at best. And it would have been a BORING
card, far too similar to Minion Tap, except that one would only put
one or two in a deck, with other advantages and disadvantages that are
far too remote and speculative to provoke much in the way of
excitement.
But my point was, I think, that however Boring of Bad it may have been
in other respects, it was, for all that, in fact reasonably balanced
with an already-powerful card. Hence, when the "trifle" advantage was
thrown in, it pushed it way over the top.
> There are probably plenty of ways to have made a
> balance point Villein, but it probably would have had to have been
> pretty different.
Agreed
Peter D Bakija
> But my point was, I think, that however Boring of Bad it may have been
> in other respects, it was, for all that, in fact reasonably balanced
> with an already-powerful card.
Ah, ok. Yeah, see, as noted, I think without it being a trifle, and
all other things being the same, it would have been (arguably) not
worth playing most of the time, and consequently (arguably) a bad card
to print.
> Hence, when the "trifle" advantage was thrown in, it pushed it way over the top.
That turns out to have been the case, I agree. Although they
(arguably) needed to do something to the card to make it worth
printing (as something other than the identical card that wasn't a
trifle). I'm sure at the time, making it a trifle seemed a reasonable
thing to do. It turns out to have been a significant over adjustment.
But it did (arguably) need *something* added to it, if not being made
a trifle.
-Peter
Juggernaut1981
This is the kind of advice, from another thread, that convinces me
that it is probably not Tap that was ever the problem. The below
advice was given regarding a new crypt for what is essentially Ventrue
Law Firm 2.0. The typical problem with dealing with these decks is:
you can't bin the minions (Pre + For) and if the actions aren't
blocked, you can't vote them down (static votes + push).
Pullen
>Mirko Marinkovic
> Hi
> Swap:
> 4 Effective Management for 4 Minion Taps
> Rumors of Gehenna for Parity Shift
> 4 Second Tradition: Domain, The for 4 OtQV (You don't wanna block
> Brujah bleeding You)
Yes he does, he has fort and he should have a lot of minions, blocking
is not a problem. The rest of your switches have no reasoning to them
so I won't comment on them.
Asfor what i would do with this deck, IMO Armor of Vitality is
inferior to Skin of Steel, so i would switch that and the Soak out.
Also Staredown, 1Majesty 1 Rolling and 1 Effective for the 4 Voter
Caps, you should be able to weather a combat heavy table with that and
decent blood gain, so I would turn HG for Dominate Kine for 2 4ths. I
would also turn 1 of the vessels into another Minion Tap. And finally,
you allready have a lot of pool gain with Mary's spec and gov down, so
the 4 con boons could be more aggressive vote's, something like 1
Banishment 1 Reins of Power 1 Ancient Influence, and another KRC. Also
why Redirection over Deflection?
John Whelan
> This is the kind of advice, from another thread, that convinces me
> that it is probably not Tap that was ever the problem.
I'm not thinking of it in such terms. Minion Tap was a popular card.
It got played alot. Historically, it appears in the TWDA at a rate
averaging slightly over 1 copy per deck. Most of these copies appear
outside of Tap & Cap decks. Clearly alot of people who played it were
being rewarded for their choice. No single example of someones advice
can argue with such statistics.
There are 469 master cards to choose from, 119 of which are commons.
If one out of every 10-20 master cards played is a minion tap, it
generally means that other cards are getting pushed out and not
getting considered at all. Hosing overpowered cards helps promote
variety.
Similarly, the overpopularity of Voter Cap helps ensure that competing
choices (for instance, among available Presence cards) get overlooked.
As far as I am concerned, the design team can hose Tap, or Cap, or
both. Both are "the problem". It is not an either/or situation, and
I have no particular hostility to the tap & cap combo.
Peter D Bakija
is the kind of advice, from another thread, that convinces me
> that it is probably not Tap that was ever the problem.
I don't think that there is any question that Voter Cap is an absurdly
powerful card, Minion Tap or no. The problem is that you can't really
nerf Voter Cap effectively without errataing the card (something that
people seem to really want to avoid these days), as oblique Voter Cap
hosing isn't going to be really effective (has anyone really ever had
a Voter Cap get hosed by a Final Loosening? More than once? Ever?).
Villein is an effective Minion Tap hoser as it is completely
utilitarian (as opposed to, say, Final Loosening), benefits you
significantly even if it *isn't* hosing Minion Tap, and is good enough
to see a lot of play. That it virtually wallpapers Minion Tap is, I
suspect, an unfortunate accident.
That, and Minion Tap probably needed hosing in some way if Blood Doll
needed hosing in some way (which is certainly debateable in either
direction, but if one needed a tweak then they both did), regardless
of Voter Cap.
Was Minion Tap a *problem*? Probably not. It was probably, just like
Blood Doll, an overly effective, overly utilitarian card that the
designers felt needed a bit of shaking up, so that they (both BD and/
or MT) weren't automatic inclusions in every deck (which they pretty
much were). The Blood Doll/Villein experiment worked (arguably)
nicely. The Minion Tap/Villein mission, not as much. Likely by
accident.
-Peter
Chris Berger
> On Feb 21, 10:36 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> > This
> is the kind of advice, from another thread, that convinces me
>
> > that it is probably not Tap that was ever the problem.
>
> I don't think that there is any question that Voter Cap is an absurdly
> powerful card, Minion Tap or no. The problem is that you can't really
> nerf Voter Cap effectively without errataing the card (something that
> people seem to really want to avoid these days), as oblique Voter Cap
> hosing isn't going to be really effective (has anyone really ever had
> a Voter Cap get hosed by a Final Loosening? More than once? Ever?).
>
Yes. I think I've gotten spiked by Final Loosening twice, and by
Denial of Aphrodite's favor 2 or 3 times. I haven't had it happen
more than once in a single game, but just one Cap spiked can sometimes
be enough if you were really counting on it. Considering how
ridiculously powerful Voter Cap is, and the fact that FL can be cycled
for a blood gain fairly often, it seems worthwhile to put 2 or more of
them in any deck that can play the aus level of it. The problem being
that that doesn't really include that many decks. An easier to play
VC hoser might see play more often. Maybe even something like
"Reaction/Action Modifier - Play this card when a referendum passes.
You gain 1 pool and put this card into play. While this card is in
play, Voter Captivation costs an additional pool. Only 1 Voter Cap
Screwer can be played each action." It wouldn't see all that much
play, but would be useful in non-Presence voters (which exist, but are
pretty rare because Voter Cap is so damned good that playing votes
without it is painful), and might even see use in a deck that has no
other vote defense, in the right environment.
> Villein is an effective Minion Tap hoser as it is completely
> utilitarian (as opposed to, say, Final Loosening), benefits you
> significantly even if it *isn't* hosing Minion Tap, and is good enough
> to see a lot of play. That it virtually wallpapers Minion Tap is, I
> suspect, an unfortunate accident.
>
Villein is an effective Minion Tap hoser in that it makes Minion Tap
obsolete and fills the exact same niche at a lower cost. I.e. more of
a replacement than a hoser. The one thing that it really hoses is the
decks where you intend to Minion Tap the same minion over and over
again. In that capacity, Minion Tap is still better than Villein, but
less good than it once was. If that was the only intention, then I
guess mission accomplished. But it would have been nice if Villein
had actually been playtested as a trifle...
Kevin Walsh
> Villein is an effective Minion Tap hoser in that it makes Minion Tap
> obsolete and fills the exact same niche at a lower cost. I.e. more of
> a replacement than a hoser. The one thing that it really hoses is the
> decks where you intend to Minion Tap the same minion over and over
> again. In that capacity, Minion Tap is still better than Villein, but
> less good than it once was. If that was the only intention, then I
> guess mission accomplished. But it would have been nice if Villein
> had actually been playtested as a trifle...
I have a serious question here. What decks, if any, became overpowered
as a result of Villein being a Trifle? Because the main effect I've
seen is that decks that weren't very good, like midcap rush decks,
became more playable.
Kevin Walsh
John Whelan
> I have a serious question here. What decks, if any, became overpowered
> as a result of Villein being a Trifle?
None. Because Villein is a card that can be played, and probably will
be played, in almost any deck. It is the card itself that is
overpowered. It will be very popular. Historically, Minion Tap
appeared in the TWDA at a rate averaging slightly over one copy per
deck. Villein will appear more frequently. Because it will appear so
frequently, other cards will get played less frequently and deck
variety may suffer.
> Because the main effect I've
> seen is that decks that weren't very good, like midcap rush decks,
> became more playable.
Well, yes. I agree that Villein will not disproportionately help the
"wrong decks". And while it does not exactly hurt cheesy bloat
strategies, it probably helps them less than some other options.
Kevin M.
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>> Salem wrote:
>>> On an unrelated note, how long does a VTES NDA last?
>>
>> 18 months, I think. Why do you ask?
>
> So I can talk about Bloodlines now? and how Basilisk's Touch
> got over-nerfed before being released? (but was indeed
> too powerful as first proposed...).
You signed an NDA without having read it?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
Kevin M.
> At least now everyone has a lot of Villeins.
I don't think this is the case, nor does any evidence show this.
I also think that Minion Cap is not as dead as everyone seems
to think it is, at least not until CCP reprints HTTB starters or
re-reprints Villein, so playing an appropriate quantity of MT in
a deck that still prefers Minion Tap is completely fine right now.
Kevin M.
> But it would have been nice if Villein had actually
> been playtested as a trifle...
I must have missed it, but did someone somewhere discuss
the playtesting of Villein? If so, could someone provide a link?
John Flournoy
> On Feb 17, 10:04 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > no earlier than May 19 2010 to tittle tattle about villein mate.
>
> Well then, I apologize for spreading rumors that cannot yet be refuted.
The NDAs in the past have been 18 months, but that's 18 months from
the date of signing the NDA, not from the release date of the set. My
own NDA for that set expired last October.
Accordingly, I can refute the rumor you cited:
> I heard a story (and I am just repeating what I heard) that nobody
> played Villein during play-testing, and someone suggested it would be
> worth playing only if were a trifle. That suggestion got implemented.
Villein was actively tested by at least some playtesters, and at least
some of the feedback LSJ got specifically did not say "we won't play
this, maybe it should be a trifle" but rather "this card is very
playable as is" in earlier, non-trifle iterations.
I can't say whether or not other playtesters behaved in the fashion
your rumor suggests, but it certainly was not the case across the
board.
-John Flournoy
echia...@yahoo.com
print a Villein-hoser that shifts the favor a little more towards
Minion Tap.
How about something like:
Villein-Hoser
Master. Trifle.
Burn all Villeins in play. Each Methuselah burns 2 pool for each
Villein burned in this manner.
There! Now Minion Tap lovers have a card that can make sure they pay 0
for their Minion Tap. And which hoses the Villein players back. (And
it's no good to Villein players since they'll lose pool for playing it
in their decks).
Minion Tap still gets watered down since they need to dilute their
deck with Villein-Hosers. And people are a little more leery of
relying just on Villeins for pool gain.
Dragar
wrote:
Except that hoses them so effectively that no-one would every play
villeins.. a costless trifle dishing out 2 pool damage?
John Whelan
> I also think that Minion Cap is not as dead as everyone seems
> to think it is, at least not until CCP reprints HTTB starters or
> re-reprints Villein, so playing an appropriate quantity of MT in
> a deck that still prefers Minion Tap is completely fine right now.
I agree that demand for Villein probably remains high, and probably
won't be met for some time.
Still, we can see the writing on the wall. Minion Tap has not been
seen in the TWDA since mid-November. Since then, 39 decks have won
tournaments without containing a single Minion Tap; though 29 copies
of Villein have appeared in 6 decks.
Obviously, things will not get better for Minion Tap when HTTB becomes
legal early next month.
John Whelan
> Villein was actively tested by at least some playtesters, and at least
> some of the feedback LSJ got specifically did not say "we won't play
> this, maybe it should be a trifle" but rather "this card is very
> playable as is" in earlier, non-trifle iterations.
>
> I can't say whether or not other playtesters behaved in the fashion
> your rumor suggests, but it certainly was not the case across the
> board.
Thanks for the clarification.
Please understand that this was a vaguely-overheard conversation, from
many months ago, that I can only claim to remember the basic gist
of. That basic gist was that the card was originally playtested as
a non-trifle, and was judged by playtesters to be not good enough.
You have confirmed at least a key element of this -- that the card was
originally designed as a non-trifle. That at least some of the
feedback was negative, I suppose can now be inferred.
John Whelan
> Chris Berger wrote:
> > But it would have been nice if Villein had actually
> > been playtested as a trifle...
>
> I must have missed it, but did someone somewhere discuss
> the playtesting of Villein? If so, could someone provide a link?
John Fluorney just confirmed, in this thread, that Villein was play-
tested as a non-trifle. He did not confirm (and might not be in a
position to know) whether it was ever play-tested as a trifle.
Peter D Bakija
> I don't think this is the case, nor does any evidence show this.
That people have a lot of Villeins now? How is this not the case? I
used to have 4 Villeins. In one fell swoop, I got 12 more Villeins.
And I didn't even spend that much on new cards. I think that there are
now plenty of Villeins in circulation. Everyone in my group now has
10+ Villeins when, previously, everyone had 3 or 4. And we didn't even
try that hard.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> I must have missed it, but did someone somewhere discuss
> the playtesting of Villein? If so, could someone provide a link?
I can't imagine that anyone has done such a thing, as 18 months has
not yet passed since the release of the set.
-Peter
Chris Berger
I will confirm that neither John nor myself were in a position to
*know* that it was not playtested as a trifle. Because it may have
been playtested that way by some groups but not by others. I,
personally, was referring to the rumor quoted in other parts of this
thread that it was never playtested as a trifle, and my own personal
belief that that is true.
FWIW, I am positive that there were some who said that it was
underpowered and would never be played as a non-trifle. I am not in a
position to know if that was a majority opinion.
John Flournoy
There's also the assumption that "trifle or not" was the only change
to the card via playtesting, which also isn't accurate; it was also
playtested with "move one or more blood" and got changed/weakened to
"two or more" as a result of playtesting. So changes were made in both
directions (make it easier to play, make it harder to play), rather
than strictly stronger or weaker after feedback was given.
"Negative feedback" is frequently not just "we wouldn't play this
card, it's too useless" after all, but also "this card is way too good/
cheap/powerful/easy to play" etc. Cards get adjusted in lots of
different ways from the original versions.
-John Flournoy
Juggernaut1981
John,
As a thought, if the "move one" was changed to "move two" that seems
to suggest that the play-clarification by LSJ has undone the effects
of the changes from playtesting.
I am wondering, how are the playtesters chosen? Does the pool of
playtesters include players from each of the major VTES Regions? (e,g.
NthAmerica, SthAmerica, Europe, AU/NZ/SE Asia)? Even playing with
people from Newcastle NSW, I notice there are really obvious changes
in playstyle and loopholes/tricks/exploitations that are used at my
playgroup (and considered obvious) are not recognised by players from
other playgroups. Is there a "Playtester Registration"? I understand
there would be NDAs and similar...
Kevin M.
As stated by John, his NDA said 18 months "after the signing
of his NDA", not 18 months after the release of the set.
Kevin M.
I see that, but Chris wrote his post half a day before John
write his, so that wasn't the post that I had 'missed'.
But, thanks Chris, for your reply below.
Kevin M.
> "Kevin M." wrote:
>> I don't think this is the case, nor does any evidence show this.
>
> That people have a lot of Villeins now? How is this not the case?
You haven't seen everyone complaining about how they didn't
get any HTTB starters?
Kevin M.
> I am wondering, how are the playtesters chosen?
> Is there a "Playtester Registration"? I understand
> there would be NDAs and similar...
No one other than LSJ can answer this for you, and I'm
pretty sure it's one of those things that he is disinclined
to answer publicly.
If you want to be a playtester, email LSJ.
Juggernaut1981
KJM,
Thanks, I didn't know how "transparent" or "secretive" the process is/
was. (Beyond the 'protecting corporate secrets' kind of secrecy)
John Flournoy
> playtesters include players from each of the major VTES Regions? (e,g.
> NthAmerica, SthAmerica, Europe, AU/NZ/SE Asia)? Even playing with
> people from Newcastle NSW, I notice there are really obvious changes
> in playstyle and loopholes/tricks/exploitations that are used at my
> playgroup (and considered obvious) are not recognised by players from
> other playgroups. Is there a "Playtester Registration"? I understand
> there would be NDAs and similar...
I can't say if this is accurate any longer or not, but here's a
general synopsis I was given years and years ago as to why my set of
playtesters was invited into the process:
Doing things like posting frequently (and accurately) to rules
discussions on the newsgroup (and/or other commonly visited forums),
writing 'clan newsletters' and other similar articles for players to
access, decklists with strategy notions, etc are all things that LSJ
does notice, and makes it more likely that he will solicit your help
in playtesting when a need arises for more playtesters. (Even more so
if you're part of a playgroup that has multiple people that do this.)
Which makes sense, really. If you demonstrate over time a general
understanding of things like the rules, game balance, strategies, etc
as well as demonstrating that you actively participate in (and even
initiate) these sorts of discussions within the community, you're
proving that your opinion is worth listening to.
Which isn't to say that doing this is any sort of guarantee of
participation, and I'd imagine (purely a guess here) that contacting
LSJ and volunteering also helps. Polite inquiries certainly don't
hurt.
-John
John Flournoy
> John Fluorney just confirmed, in this thread, that Villein was play-
> tested as a non-trifle. He did not confirm (and might not be in a
> position to know) whether it was ever play-tested as a trifle.
You're correct - I'm not in a position to know that. Playtesters
generally don't know the totality of who all of the playtest groups
are or what they're testing or when, even after the fact. Although
they can often make educated guesses as to some of that info.
Or at least, I've never known the totality; I could be the one
exception being left in the dark. :)
-John Flournoy
Peter D Bakija
> As stated by John, his NDA said 18 months "after the signing
> of his NDA", not 18 months after the release of the set.
Well, there you go then.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> You haven't seen everyone complaining about how they didn't
> get any HTTB starters?
Sure. Which means all the ones that were printed were purchased by
someone. Which means all the Villeins that were in those starters are
out in the hands of players somewhere. All the HTTB starters aren't
hidden in a cave somewhere.
Right this second on e-bay, there are plenty of Villeins. Including
10+ for sale as buy-it-now for the relatively reasonable (compared to
the days of yore) price of $2.50 a pop.
Yes. Some people didn't get HTTB starters. But a lot of people did.
And that means a lot of Villeins have just flooded the play
environment. Does *everyone* have all the Villeins they want? Probably
not. But it isn't remotely unreasonable to state that there are a lot
more Villeins in circulation right now, and many people probably have
plenty of them.
-Peter
LSJ
> As a thought, if the "move one" was changed to "move two" that seems
> to suggest that the play-clarification by LSJ has undone the effects
> of the changes from playtesting.
Not really. The playtesters commenting on that issue seemed to have
had a grasp of the way moving blood works.
Juggernaut1981
LSJ,
The sarcasm is more endearing in RL I'm sure.
John Flournoy
I don't think he was being particularly sarcastic, actually - it was
discussed during playtesting as to how the wording of moving one or
more blood would function, with regards to 'move what you can' vs.
'must be able to move the minimum or can't do it.'
I took LSJ's comment as "the playtesters clearly understood how that
rules question would be answered while playtesting" rather than
sarcasm.
One of the things the playtesters are typically asked to do is to
comment on any rules questions that they find during playtesting by
providing their own answers/analysis with examples and citations etc.
Occasionally we've ended up producing examples of how a card would
function in an unintended way based on prior rulings and existing card
precedents, and thus wording/functions get changed to fix that.
-John Flournoy