Let's Talk Rapid Thought!

Pagan wrote:

Yes we did GWs. And I don't only remember that just because I had 3GW 9VP, only to die to some loser's ANI cheese rush.

Not that I necessarily disagree with the point about GWs, but I find it hard to fathom how you can get 3GW/9VP in 3 rounds of Rapid Thought with a deck that could somehow not be called "cheese" by someone, and then end your sentence with "only to die to some loser's ANI cheese rush."

Really?

Robba wrote:

1) If we're eliminating pool gain, ELIMINATE pool gain entirely other than the oust. It was annoying watching a vote deck (which is more powerful in this format to begin with) power up with constant voter cap. I would argue that ANY pool gain would go to the blood back other than the oust, much like the ancient WOTC Gehenna version of the original Jyhad.

I think that is a completely reasonable view point (although I don't know if it is worth being annoyed as hell by this...)

Perhaps simply making a blanket rule in Rapid Thought of something like:

Any time you would gain pool for any reason other than by ousting your prey, that pool goes to the blood bank instead.

Which would do away with having to ban anything (other than, say, Una)--you could still use Blood Doll or Vessel if you really wanted to to push blood on your dudes; you could still use Voter Cap to fill up your guys; you could still use Parity Shift to damage someone (ya know, if you *really* wanted to for whatever reason).

2) In most three player tables, the preferred method is kill your pred and then win the head to head game. I think my first rule would go a long way towards stopping this, but perhaps a change in how VPs are handed out as well? Perhaps a negative VP award for the person backousting should they win the head to head? Maybe this is unnecessary, but I'd love to hear some thoughts.

I don't know that it is actually necessary--I mean, yeah, it is a pain to have to deal with 2 predators, but if everyone's plan is "back oust your predator, and then win the head to head", then everyone is in the same boat.

This being said, I have seen a lot of Rapid Thought games go 3-0 to a guy with a weenie [dom/pre/dem] bleed deck that just went forward a lot.

But then, both RT tournaments I ran were won by combat decks that won 2-1 by killing their predator and then winning the head to head.

bakija wrote:

Not that I necessarily disagree with the point about GWs, but I find it hard to fathom how you can get 3GW/9VP in 3 rounds of Rapid Thought with a deck that could somehow not be called "cheese" by someone, and then end your sentence with "only to die to some loser's ANI cheese rush."

Really?

Not to worry. Kevin was directing that at me - he and I have known each other (and enjoyed each others' company, as far as I know) for a while now. His tone doesn't always translate well to the intertubes, but I took it for the friendly mockery that I'm pretty sure it was meant to be.

On the other hand, if he was deliberately being rude, out the airlock he goes next time I see him.

Robba wrote:

1) If we're eliminating pool gain, ELIMINATE pool gain entirely other than the oust. It was annoying watching a vote deck (which is more powerful in this format to begin with) power up with constant voter cap.

I dunno, man. Said cheezy ANI rush that I played was actually a very even mix of rush and Raven Spies, and in one round I totally shut down one guy's attempt to abuse Voter Cap like you're saying here by simply blocking all his votes. I don't think stealth/vote is really viable in the RT format - too many moving parts - and it's easy enough to build a deck that prevents Voter Cap from having a chance to happen that I don't really see a need to ban it.

FWIW, the three decks that made the finals of that tournament didn't exactly have much in the way of bloat.

Robba wrote:

2) In most three player tables, the preferred method is kill your pred and then win the head to head game.

That's totally a player-based decision, though. I got to the finals without doing that even once, and I think that people will know going into the format that it's a possibility and plan for it. That does argue further that you need a specific deck for RT, though.

nc-italy wrote:

Just wondering:
as the original RT format is intended out of the standard cross-table
aspect of vtes, could make sense to consider a rapid format with tables
of 3 and 2 players ?

Please take this in the spirit of curiousity on my part, rather than rudeness, but why would you want to do that?

Awesome discussion guys. Glad to hear in the NAC thread that Kevin has added a RT tournament to the NAC.

Finally coming back to read the thread. Glad Emiliano and Kevin agreed to disagree.

Emiliano - 2 player tables in RT would really suck I think, having played. It would actually be a lot like playing regular VTES, but with only 3 players, and you get to play 20 pool worth of vampires and have out/burn the first 20 cards in your deck or something.

1) If we're eliminating pool gain, ELIMINATE pool gain entirely other than the oust. It was annoying watching a vote deck (which is more powerful in this format to begin with) power up with constant voter cap. I would argue that ANY pool gain would go to the blood back other than the oust, much like the ancient WOTC Gehenna version of the original Jyhad.

Cap-vote is strong in this format, agreed. Until it meets Mr. Tupdog/Weeniemalism/Pot-Cel/Celeriguns etc etc.

One thing I like about the pool gaining rule is that the banned card list shrinks, a lot. On the other hand, it now makes a lot more of people's regular decks useless - and you can't burn cards like Lilith's Blessing, Ashur, Liquidation because they aren't on the current banned list.

chris

bakija wrote:

So all things as they are, anyone can sit down, play a game with whatever deck they happen to have around, even with illegal cards. So there is no barrier to entry at all.

No. The sentence "All V:EKN rules are in effect, see below for exceptions." takes care of things like that.

Pagan wrote:

Yes we did GWs. And I don't only remember that just because I had 3GW 9VP, only to die to some loser's ANI cheese rush.

bakija wrote:

Not that I necessarily disagree with the point about GWs, but I find it hard to fathom how you can get 3GW/9VP in 3 rounds of Rapid Thought with a deck that could somehow not be called "cheese" by someone, and then end your sentence with "only to die to some loser's ANI cheese rush."

Where did Pagan say that his deck could somehow not be called 'cheese'? There is no connection between him calling someone else's deck 'cheese' and him sweeping all three rounds. Especially as Pagan was playing combat with zero bleed boost. You are manufacturing controversy.