compress Change in the crypt contest rule

09 Dec 2019 08:52 #98182 by elotar
New players assume that if you have a viable deck than you are fine to play the game.

WRONG, Losers!

If somebody on the table comes with the same crypt (which is kind of given as there are very few possible decks available from the BC cards) than you are screwed.

It's World of Darkness, baby!

...or just one stupid rule.

PS: By the way BC has fallen into the trap, shown by me some time ago during discussion of fixed distribution model - nearly two years has passed, they have made nearly twenty different products, but still there are not enough cards available to provide acceptable number of options to new players.

:splat: NC Russia
:DEM::san::nec::cap4:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
09 Dec 2019 09:59 #98183 by jamesatzephyr

Malachy wrote: I think it is obvious that this rule was implemented to avoid powercreep and also compliment the role-playing side which was much more present at the game's dawn.


I'm not sure that it really helps with power creep, just with popularity. If a small number of vampires are popular for whatever reason, they're more likely to get contested. That might be because they're more powerful, but it doesn't have to be. There will always likely be some more popular vampires because there are hundreds of them - some will be good, some will suck a bit. Even if nothing changes - no creep at all - people will tend to coalesce around a few things, unless you've got super, super lucky in your design and created something that has an extremely broad power balance and are attractive enough in other ways to spread players across them. Which is hard because even if all the vampires are precisely and ideally balanced from a strategic sense, some people will like playstyles more, or the art more etc.

But also, it may be worth remembering that Richard Garfield was content that having one of your large vampires contested could still "hose" you, because you could vent your spleen at the other player for being dumb, and arbitrary swings of fate are fine.

Richard Garfield wrote: Skaff Ellis convinced me that it [unique cards] was too good a tool to discard, because how could a player assemble an always winning deck when she can't even rely on her vampires being hers when all the smoke clears?

[...]

[Talking about a somewhat earlier version of the rules]
The fact that two players lost the whole game if their powerful vampires were contested bothered many players, and I eventually became convinced that it was a problem. I don't mind arbitrary swings of fate in games, but not such large ones in long games. Tom Fontaine, or someone in his playtest group, came up with the idea of withdrawing influence from an uncontrolled vampire.

This was an excellent solution because two players are still hosed if their big vampires are contested, but at least one of those players can be righteously angry at the other for not withdrawing blood rather than plowing ahead and contesting the vampire.



This also plays into the way that the crypt works - you get 4 vampires from 12. My assumption has long been that this was intended to represent the struggles Methuselahs face - yes, they're immensely powerful ancient vampires, but they're still subject to other forces that may cause them to alter their plans. You don't get to control your exact choice of vampires (which would be a tenable reconstruction of V:TES). In terms of the library, we also know that the original release of Jyhad missed the issues caused by stacking ridiculous numbers of library cards (particularly Earth Meld/Majesty), which was later 'fixed' with the DCI floor rules on repeat actions. It it somewhat supposition, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to imagine that decks as designed in Jyhad playtest were somewhat varied, including in the crypt, and that the deck designs we see particularly with the advent of Dark Sovereigns (particularly Arika and Queen Anne) around duplicating up on a much smaller number of vampires who might ruin your game if you didn't draw any others wasn't a central consideration - the fact that that might happen might itself be a reason to play a deck with 8 or 9 different vampires in it, with a few duplicates for super important ones, but still copies of Rufina Soledad and Gideon Fontaine. I suspect that star vampires with 5+ copies of a single vampire in the deck weren't a key consideration either. Bear in mind that under Jyhad as printed, getting out a Prince, bleeding over and over, untapping with Freak Drive each time, and refilling with Fifth Tradition repeatedly (because no NRA) is mechanically possible - but much harder to build around if your (implicit) assumption is that you don't always get that Prince out.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Lönkka, Kraus, Malachy

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
09 Dec 2019 10:53 #98184 by Malachy

Tom Fontaine, or someone in his playtest group, came up with the idea of withdrawing influence from an uncontrolled vampire.


This is very much to my liking... although it only meets the problem half way, but still offers a chance to step out of the observer status. For example having the chance to contest the usual way, OR reveal your vamp you had been transfering to, burn her (maybe move the top card from your crypt in your uncontrolled region as well) and redistribute the pool amongst your uncontrolled vamps? What do you think?

NC of Hungary

///

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
09 Dec 2019 11:04 #98185 by Bloodartist

skimflux wrote:
But VtES is a competitive game, and in a tournament setting it should strive to be as fair and balanced as possible - the current contest rules introduce an element of luck that has a huge impact and therefore breaks this balance randomly.


Precisely. The fact that contesting is something that is not entirely under your own control (you cannot control what decks other people play nor the table you sit in) REALLY gets on my nerves. Its effectively randomness that can destroy your game. I would much prefer competitive games to be games of SKILL instead of random chance.

Have I told about a tournament where in one table, my predator and grand predator first contested information highway, and then they contested Stanislava. Needless to say I had basically no pressure and took the table, and that game win boosted me into the final. I feel that I may not have entirely deserved that. It was more or less random chance that I could win the entire table like that.

I don't disagree that contesting rule has kept certain powerful decks in check over the years, but there are great many negatives to the contest rule as well. Whenever you end up being contested its terribly un-fun for the player, and for a competitive player... your options are VERY limited especially if you are contesting a star vampire.

I do feel that something needs to be done to the contest rule. Lets not forget that beginners who are playing our new starter decks end up playing same decks and thus contesting often (probably). However, I don't have a better option to give at the moment. Also if something would happen to the contest rule, I feel that Black Chantry would have to get much more active with the bans, because there would be less reasons not to just play the best decks.

"If a man wanders into a tiger's domain, it may result in his being devoured.
And so it has."
-- Pisha, VtM:B

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
09 Dec 2019 11:37 #98186 by Kraus

Malachy wrote:

Tom Fontaine, or someone in his playtest group, came up with the idea of withdrawing influence from an uncontrolled vampire.


This is very much to my liking... although it only meets the problem half way, but still offers a chance to step out of the observer status. For example having the chance to contest the usual way, OR reveal your vamp you had been transfering to, burn her (maybe move the top card from your crypt in your uncontrolled region as well) and redistribute the pool amongst your uncontrolled vamps? What do you think?


Contesting and Vampire uniqueness is a super important thing for me in Vtes.

That said, i would not mind if yielding the contest would return any Blood on the Vampire to owner's pool. You lose transfers. That is already a death sentence in some games. This, i think, would be fine if contesting appears to be, remains to be or becomes a real deterrent in the game.

I do not think it it though. But i do feel for this solution.

(Also change buying a new vamp to cost ALL transfers instead of 4 to help with sucky first draws. Has to do with Contesting as well.)

"Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!"
-Nalia De-Arnise

Facebook @ VtES: Joensuu
www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines
The following user(s) said Thank You: jaakkon

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
09 Dec 2019 16:28 #98192 by beslin igor
yesterday I play online tournament(with current contest rule) and contest 3 vampires with me pradator,i try to leave contest,and draw new vampires,but because him have 1 vampire more him go with contest as part of strategi to oust me,we ruins each other and one player beat table with 5vp. we contest tremere/gargolye,so we pay contested vampires and cant use it.
If online players acept Wiliam rules and i get good feedback I will try if be posible to this rule be main in online play,that allow players to play his game,not ruins each other and waste time for nothing.
By the way I invite all people who have doubts about 3 unamed,arika enkidu to join in januar league and we try test it together!!!!
The following user(s) said Thank You: Charles_Bronson

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.149 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum