Balancing Ashur Tablets

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

So yes, you agree with me that Ashur Tablets allows you to redesign the ratio of cards in your deck while playing the deck. Darby, ICL and myself claim that this card is the equivalent of sideboarding during the game, something never otherwise done in VTES and rarely done even in MtG (AFAIK).

Not that rarely done in MtG. At one point there where some decks playing it, being one archetype the most played of the set:

gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&name=+[wish]+[wish]&set=+[%22Judgment%22]

You have 5 cards that do that, no one complained (AFAIK).

GreyB wrote:

Liquidation + AT is one gamebreaking combination, it's a prime example on how AT can be abused. Liquidation by itself is not overpowered, burning 7 cards for 3 pool is quite a sacrifice.

There's no denying however that AT enables a lot more powerful combinations and it DOES provide an in-game sidedeck, such is the design of the card. The only downside of the card is pulling it off before someone else does.

And again: which are the facts that back your assessment?

ATs have other downsides:
-You're stopping playing other master cards (so you're choosing ATs from other masters you could play)
-ATs decks have usually a lower proportion of useful cards for the beginning of the game, being this proportion corrected during the game (being slower at the beginning and having a better cardflow towards the end of the game)
-Different to MtG, the "silver bullets" are packed inside the deck, so if you draw them and they're no use, you're jamming your hand
-Depending on deckbuilding, playstyle and table situation you can arrive to be completely handjammend, with at least 5 masters and being able to do nothing

GreyB wrote:

Fragment of Ashur's Tablet, Master, Trifle
Card text:
Put this card in play. Remove all Fragment of Ashur's Tablets AND Ashur's Tablet in play from the game when you have 3 Fragments of Ashur's Tablets in play to gain 1 pool and you may select up to 5 cards in your ashheap and reshuffle them into your library.

Now that's dumb, it's even a better card than ATs...

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Tech to recycle cards has been sitting at:
1) RFG the card you play and it is some form of action.
2) 4 cards at most.
3) No secondary benefit to card recycling.

Why should that mean no new cards/designs allowed?

As always, no rational argument from your side, just subjective opinions.

ATs have other downsides:
-You're stopping playing other master cards (so you're choosing ATs from other masters you could play)
-ATs decks have usually a lower proportion of useful cards for the beginning of the game, being this proportion corrected during the game (being slower at the beginning and having a better cardflow towards the end of the game)
-Different to MtG, the "silver bullets" are packed inside the deck, so if you draw them and they're no use, you're jamming your hand
-Depending on deckbuilding, playstyle and table situation you can arrive to be completely handjammend, with at least 5 masters and being able to do nothing

That goes for every single card in the game... Masters can at least be solved by being able to play multiple masters per turn, which is not hard to achieve... Ever had 7 bum's rushes as a starting hand?

Any MtG reference is moot, it's another game with another flow and coincidently also a game that addressed massive card recursion back in the 90s if you like to keep on comparing.

Now that's dumb, it's even a better card than ATs...

Yes and no, you sacrifice 3 card slots to return 5 (4 is ok too) cards as opposed to 3 cards to return 13 cards. Easier to play, earn less pool and makes Liquidation + FoAT not that rewarding. Ideal for pro-active combat decks that burn a lot of cards and less ideal for MMPA decks. Both can exists side by side but now with the actual designed downside (as far as I can see). But I leave this up to designers, in any case, the downside of AT needs to return some way or the other.

And again: which are the facts that back your assessment?

Liquidation + AT can function outside of the natural gameflow, you can keep doing this while your vamps work on defense and ousting, which is quite possible without depending on any masters whatsoever. The combination has no effect on the gameflow whatsoever like Villein/Vessel/Minion tap/Blooddol have, those cards pull blood from your vampires to your pool, making the vamps more vulnerable. But poolgain is not the only thing this combination offers, you can recycle cards adjusted to the meta of the game as you go at the same time, so it's pool gain + specialising your deck to beat the meta at the same time. This takes no actions and thus can't be blocked, no disciplines (playable by any deck) and the only means to counter it is a shitload of suddens or some fringe card that hardly gets played.

If you see nothing wrong with that... well... Than I doubt any argument ever will convince you... But that's ok, I am not here to win any debate. I just hope designers of the next PDF set will read all arguments for and against and make this game more balanced and fun for all either way

KevinM wrote:

Jeff wrote:

No card that anyone bought from a pack for will ever be banned while the current administration is in charge.

Jeff wrote:

I have said many times that Pascal is one of the hardest working members of the Inner Circle. (And lately Gines, who I'm sure spends more time getting art together than designers spend mulling over cards.)

How would you know? Stop the unjustified accusations, please, or leave forever and never come back.

Jeff wrote:

If the decision were solely up to him, I think he'd make the right one. But there are other pressures that will block any decision to ban cards that people have bought out of packs. Those are things beyond Pascal's control.

What "other pressures"?? Stop the unjustified accusations, please, or leave forever and never come back.

I think that you've caused enough damage around here and your minor contributions are far outweighed by your constant scab-picking and trolling the good, hard-working volunteers or this community. I had thought that MAYBE you had put all of this filth behind you. It saddens me deeply to see that I was wrong.

What a shame that you are still mentally ill with lingering paranoia and lashing out at the ones that you believe hurt you with both subtle and unjustified accusations is still your prime motivating factor.

MODERATORS: I'm calling for a public forum and serious consideration to ban Jeff Kuta from this website unless a public apology is given from his for his continued unjustified accusations against the various parties involved. His presence HURTS this website and his unjustified accusations are borderline libelous.

When one finds cancer, one cuts out the cancer. Jeff Kuta is a cancer on this website and on the game that we all love and his continued actions prove that he cares for neither.

This post made me laugh outloud

KevinM wrote:

MODERATORS: I'm calling for a public forum and serious consideration to ban Jeff Kuta from this website unless a public apology is given from his for his continued unjustified accusations against the various parties involved. His presence HURTS this website and his unjustified accusations are borderline libelous.

When one finds cancer, one cuts out the cancer. Jeff Kuta is a cancer on this website and on the game that we all love and his continued actions prove that he cares for neither.

Kevin, we don't need to do that... and yes, I do realise I am about to defend the existence of Jeff Kuta on this forum.**

Jeff plays the vital role of being the example we can hold up, in general, of "How things should not be done". He is the straight-man to our funny-man. He is the clown-car to the lion taming. He is the tragedy face to the comedy face. Without a clear version of things we should not do, we'd be forced to compare people to Nazis and holocaust participants. We would be proving Godwin's law at a far greater pace without Jeff around.

We shouldn't ban Jeff Kuta. There are reasons we need him here.



**Based on past experience, this may mean that Jeff calls for his own banning himself, purely because I am for the opposite of that.

cordovader wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Tech to recycle cards has been sitting at:
1) RFG the card you play and it is some form of action.
2) 4 cards at most.
3) No secondary benefit to card recycling.

Why should that mean no new cards/designs allowed?

As always, no rational argument from your side, just subjective opinions.

That's because this isn't an argument but a statement of the situation. If you remove Ashur Tablets from the cards you consider, then all other cards that return cards from the ashheap to the library meet the above three criteria.

Don't accuse me of making a subjective opinion when I'm making an observation of the state of card design.

GreyB wrote:

I liked Jeff Kuta's idea, "Fragment of Ashur's Tablet" that could return the AT competition. Something along the line of:

Fragment of Ashur's Tablet, Master, Trifle
Card text:
Put this card in play. Remove all Fragment of Ashur's Tablets AND Ashur's Tablet in play from the game when you have 3 Fragments of Ashur's Tablets in play to gain 1 pool and you may select up to 5 cards in your ashheap and reshuffle them into your library.

The tech to recycle cards is not flawed, however 13 cards is over the top imho.

The general idea for Fragment of Ashur's Tablet was cordovader's, put out in a response to my thought experiment.

13 cards was chosen for Ashur Tablets because there are 13 major clans/antediluvians. Changing it would break some flavor of the game.

For your card above, I'd go with zero pool gain and 7 cards from ash heap into library--7 naturally because, just like Trochomancy which also uses 13, there were 7 original Camarilla clans before the Gangrel left. Yes, numerology does and should exist in VtM/VtES.

Juggernaut is right to call this proposal a silver bullet because it is targeted in reaction to a single strong card, but he also calls Villein a silver bullet, so I'm not sure what he's getting at there.

That's my only objection to it. I think the proposal is fairly balanced overall. And if there's a thread to include proposals, this is certainly the right spot.

GreyB wrote:

Erm... Perhaps you should actually read the quotes you quoted... Seems to me that Jeff said nothing disrespectful nor anything close to an accusation... As someone new to these forums I just have to step back and marvel at these petty squables that make no sense...

ps. would be nice if this turned into a constructive thread!!! *HINT HINT*

Yeah, well there is a *lot* of history here. KevinM and I have met a few times in real life and got along great--I went to his hometown of Las Vegas for business a few times, he drove me around town, I bought him dinner on my company's dime, saw his house, played VtES at a mutual friend's. Then I think (?) I said something he didn't like (I still have no idea what this may be, but possibly something related to politics) on facebook and he unfriended me. I only mention this because it is an act he took, for whatever reason. I guess it's easy come, easy go there.

And then the shit hit the fan a couple years back with the first incarnation of the Design Team. And it hit badly. Really badly. The posts are still on the forum. Go find the most read ones in history if you want to see it all. I'm not gonna rehash it again.

Anyway, KevinM now seems to jump all over threads where I say anything about the current Inner Circle and Design Team. Just like any group, people's contributions vary. If my time "on the inside" is any indication of how things go currently, then my observations are valid. I also base my statements on the output I have seen. I just gave my perspective, and he doesn't like it, so he calls me a cancer that should be excised. Whatever. Some people have an odd relationship with maintaining the status quo and shielding those in power from criticism.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

**Based on past experience, this may mean that Jeff calls for his own banning himself, purely because I am for the opposite of that.

Look in the mirror.

Jeff wrote:

Look in the mirror.

As someone who hasn't been at the core of whatever went on, I can say only one thing, in all objectivity.

Vampires don't reflect in mirrors.

I know, in VTES it's only Lasombras, but then aren't we all ?

Now back to the main topic...

cordovader wrote:

Now that's dumb, it's even a better card than ATs...

GreyB wrote:

Yes and no, you sacrifice 3 card slots to return 5 (4 is ok too) cards as opposed to 3 cards to return 13 cards. Easier to play, earn less pool and makes Liquidation + FoAT not that rewarding. Ideal for pro-active combat decks that burn a lot of cards and less ideal for MMPA decks. Both can exists side by side but now with the actual designed downside (as far as I can see). But I leave this up to designers, in any case, the downside of AT needs to return some way or the other.

Plus, FoAT doesn't give you the immediate 1 card back for use. It is all randomly shuffled into the library. 3 cards to get back 5 isn't really a great deal IMO, should be 7. YMMV, but there's obviously a continuum when you talk about numbers.

And again: which are the facts that back your assessment?

GreyB wrote:

Liquidation + AT can function outside of the natural gameflow, you can keep doing this while your vamps work on defense and ousting, which is quite possible without depending on any masters whatsoever.

It is debatable whether master phase actions are to be considered outside of or separate from the natural gameflow. I think there were some attempts back in the day to make 100% master card tournament winning decks when Anarch Revolt was still unaltered. Don't recall if any were every successful.