Rules Team Rulings - 22-APR-2013

Squidalot wrote:

echiang wrote:

"I don't disagree with you Eric that it would be useful to have a page covering the banned cards with reasons."
Or do you deliberately cut pertinent text out to have random arguments with people?
As answered above: No, I do not deliberately cut out pertinent text.

1. Not disgreeing is not necessarily equivalent to agreeing.

2. Would be nice is different than should.

By Thor's ungainly hammer you're really are a complete and utter pain in the posterior Eric.

This really sums up why you're impossible to work with! You read every meaning you desire into every word rather than using any common sense or emotional acumen.

Considering that I've been able to work with (for example) Carl and Jeff, that seems to refute your assertion that I am "impossible to work with."

Didactically speaking, simply accusing someone of lacking "common sense" is often a convenient cover for xenophobia used by majority groups to oppress those who simply think differently. You also see it with words like "crazy," "heathen," "evil," towards those of different race, religion, culture, gender/sex, and sexual orientation. Instead of actually acknowledging their differences and point of view it's all too easy to dismiss them with a simple label.

Getting back on track, I see it as a "Catch 22" scenario. Considering that I've previously been accused of misquoting by VEKN officials, I could have easily been pilloried for assuming what you meant (instead of what you wrote).

As you lived in the UK you should also be able to interpret the American/British differences in phrases such as

"Quite nice" British English = "This should be done" in American English
It'd obviously be easier to pick that up if I was speaking to you....

Yes, I spent some time in the UK but that doesn't mean I am familiar with all British colloquialisms. And in fact "quite nice" is one that I was not familiar with before this.

Yes, if we were speaking face to face, context would probably reduce the level of miscommunication. But since the internet often doesn't transmit context and can exacerbate cultural differences, I don't see any reason to get upset or emotional (e.g. By Thor's ungainly hammer you're really are a complete and utter pain in the posterior).

And for the record Hugh, *I* playtested Lilith's Blessing and complained to LSJ about how overpowered it was every single round of HttB playtest.

Good - but still materially the card wasn't tested or wasn't effectively tested which to all useful purposes are the same thing

I have this great quote from an unnamed playtest groups file:
"Liliths Blessing: should be unique to allow contest."

and also this from another:
"Lilith’s blessing – unique would be best perhaps? "

I personally don't think it would have helped but it shows how poor the playtesting or designing (sorry Scott!) must have been for 3 groups to say change (including you) with no change during testing- hence VEKN playtest is as transparent within a limited group as feasible without designers getting all touchy feely with playtesters.

Which round(s) did those groups include those comments in their reports?

If you recall, Lilith's Blessing was non-unique in Round 1 but was actually changed to be unique in Round 2, so it does seem like LSJ might have listened to your two groups. Of course it was then changed back to non-unique in Round 3 when it underwent several other changes, so did you also mention the importance of uniqueness in your Round 3 reports?

In playtest Lilith's Blessing was even more overpowered since you simply chose a discipline (instead of grabbing a discipline card) and I spent a lot of my efforts trying to convince LSJ how problematic that was. Excerpts from my reports:

Round 1:

Lilith's Blessing [Master]

VERY OVERPOWERED

I'm mainly concerned about being able to grant any discipline to
your vampires. Makes it too easy to get rare Bloodlines disciplines
(Obeah, Temporis, etc.). Most Bloodlines disciplines are supposed
to be difficult to get (for balance purposes), and Lilith's Blessing
makes it too easy.

The quickest and easiest example of abuse is with the Hermana
Hambrientas. As non-unique Blood Brothers, they were intentionally
designed to have only inferior Sanguinus. But now, every turn I
bring out a 2-cap Menor. She burns 2 blood when entering play so
she's empty and a prime candidate for Lilith's Blessing, which
fills her up and gives her superior SAN. So now I have an easy
way to get non-unique 2-caps all with superior Sanguinus. Rampant
abuse with Shell Game (2 free stealth every action and more stealth
if I need it) and Walk of Caine (usable any time at superior).

Although a vampire needs to be empty to be Blessed, this can be
achieved easily with Heidelberg Castle (take all the blood off
during my predator's turn, and put it back after my untap phase).
Or with Vessels.

One partial solution is to limit the list of available disciplines
(instead of allowing *any*) to some of the more common, basic ones.
That's also fitting thematically (i.e. what Lilith taught Caine).

Round 3:

Lilith's Blessing [Master]

VERY OVERPOWERED

I've previously already mentioned the problem with hordes
of non-unique Hermana Blood Brothers running around with superior Sanguinus.
Other problems:

- Abombwe is easily accessible without being Laibon or already having
Protean.

- Weenie breed decks become far too strong. Both Bamba and The Becoming
create new minions who start with no blood and cannot act the first turn.
That means they are prime targets for Lilith's Blessing (since they are
empty), allowing you to easily create hordes of non-unique weenie 1-caps
who nonetheless have disciplines. 1-caps with Presence or Potence or
Melpominee (for epic level Choirs).

- The card also makes it far too easy to acquire Obeah and Temporis.
You can give every one of your minions inferior Obeah or Temporis. All
it takes is a Spontaneous Power or Agent of Power plus Sanguine Instruction
and you'll have the superior OBE or TEM to really start some abusive
combos.

It took awhile, but the final version did end up removing the "choose any discipline" (and replaced it with the skill fetching ability), so LSJ *did* eventually listen to me (and/or others) on this issue.

Also, for the record, I did object to the Round 3 change of using Lilith's Blessing in the master phase (previously it worked in the untap phase) and highlighted potential problems with Villein if you had multiple master phase actions:

Round 3:

The latest change makes Lilith's Blessing even more powerful. Even
though it does require the use of a master phase action, since it occurs
in the master phase, it is significantly easier to make sure your vampire
is empty. In addition to Vessel and Heidelberg, Blood Doll now works
as well. And if you have more than one master phase action, Minion Tap
and Villein are also quite effective.


So while I wish LSJ had gone further to reduce the power level of Lilith's Blessing, there were clear cases where he did listen to the playtesters (making it unique for Round 2, restricting it to discipline cards instead of naming any discipline).

Considering that Minion Tap + Lilith's Blessing isn't easily abusable, I still think that Villein (and specifically Villein's Trifle trait) is the real problem.

So while I wish LSJ had gone further to reduce the power level of Lilith's Blessing, there were clear cases where he did listen to the playtesters (making it unique for Round 2, restricting it to discipline cards instead of naming any discipline).

Considering that Minion Tap + Lilith's Blessing isn't easily abusable, I still think that Villein (and specifically Villein's Trifle trait) is the real problem.

So you understand the situation. Removing LB to effect Villien is much like removing Memories of Mortality to effect Imbued. The later of both is the problem, but too many people have invested(time/money) in them to be happy with them being removed. The earlier change to Villien was NEEDED to keep new and old returning players, likely there will be more changes to it sfter sets can be released. In the mean time LB is being removed, which you seem to think is a good thing as it is not properly balanced anyway.

So whats all the hubbub, bub?

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Not intended at all as a "slippery slope" argument. I wanted to actually wonder where you thought this transparency should extend. It seemed strange that you would applaud the EC minutes being public, but not also call for the IC minutes to be public. Why insist on RTR notes/thoughts being public and not for the IC minutes to be public? This is not a slippery slope argument in the slightest.

Yes, I would also be in favor of making all IC minutes public. (And also making all of the Design Team and Playtester forums public after a certain amount of time).

Were you expecting me to say "no" so that you could then attack me for hypocrisy? If so, sorry I didn't take the bait!

There is a very simple reason why I am insisting on one and not actively insisting on the other. Unfortunately, I have limited time, resources, and yes, even patience! That does mean that I can't do everything and have to "pick my battles" (it's a saying).

But if you (or anyone else) wants to lead the charge to ask that all the IC minutes be made public, I would be happy to support you!

This argument is far closer to: If your representatives are going to be required to publish some reasons, why shouldn't they therefore publish all of them?

I think a lot of it (most of it, in fact) could/should be published.

Unfortunately, you seem to be asking me to draw a line (or set an exact definition) which can not be easily done. It's like trying to define the exact boundaries of free speech, or what happens when two principles conflict, or the exact definition of pornography!

And where was this public discussion? Or was it for instance primarily limited to Carl P and Jeff Kuta? Where is the evidence of your efforts to increase transparency in your own area - Storyline Events - and for example, transcripts or excerpts of the proposed storylines, playtesting results, background thoughts on the development of storyline reward cards, etc? If you would not do these in your own role when you potentially had the power to do it, why do you now insist that Pascal do the same?

I will happily answer your question, but in a different thread.

If you would like transparency about your own role, I would like to register with you a complaint about the card Lilith's Blessing. It seems badly designed and prolongs the game by adding excessive amounts of resources into the game for a comparatively low opportunity cost. In addition, the design of the card also adds needless complexity by the addition of a new otherwise redundant keyword. To cap it off, and possibly the worst of the offences, is the fact that by design it eliminates hunt actions and reduces the number of potential minion interactions (which is a strength of the game).

As I've mentioned multiple times, but most recently in this very thread, Check Page 3, in response to AaronC, I had nothing to do with the design of Lilith's Blessing. (All I did was playtest it, along with all of the other HttB playtesters):

vekn.net/index.php/forum/6-rules-questions/47377-rules-team-rulings-22-apr-2013?limit=10&start=20

echiang wrote:

AaronC wrote:

Banning LB is fairly easy to justify because it is a storyline promo card that was not (supposedly) playtested.

Aaron, that is incorrect. For some reason there is this persistent rumor / belief / urban legend that Lilith's Blessing was never playtested. I've mentioned it before, and I'll mention it again (to correct misinformation):

1. Lilith's Blessing was before my time as Storyline Coordinator (so I had nothing to do with it).

2. Lilith's Blessing was playtested in all of the playtest rounds for Heirs to the Blood.

You are free to argue that the playtesting process was flawed, or the playtesters didn't do a good job, or LSJ dropped the ball. I take no position on the matter, but you have the right to your own opinion.

But Lilith's Blessing *was* playtested (or available to playtest) for three rounds.

So sorry Andrew, but you're complaining to the wrong person. Please forward your complaint to either LSJ or Ben Swainbank.

I would also bring you to task over the cards which were obvious Storyline cards which appeared in the playtesting I was part of. However, they are bound by NDA AND you are no longer involved in their design, so I unfortunately cannot raise my issues regarding those cards with you anymore.

Sure, I take full responsibility for those storyline cards. Yes, some of them had issues but that's why they call it "playtest." It's a shame I wasn't able to share the latest, improved versions before I left.

No, the demands for transparency are *not* recent, as seen with Johannes, Hugh, and Mike who asked for more transparency almost 10 years ago.

Demands made back with it was run by a company and LSJ was an employee? Did you then proceed to attack LSJs decision making processes or WWs production processes back then? If not then, why do it now?

Uh, plenty of people did attack LSJ's decisions and White Wolf's decisions (and at the time we didn't always know whose decisions they were). In particular, Gehenna/Events and Nights of Reckoning got lots of heat. And as mentioned in that old thread, there was plenty of criticism regarding the Dramatic Upheaval / Kindred Restructure ban.

My position on means and process, when it comes to the design and development of a product is: does the product work? Since the production of these products involves basically testing of intellectual property, then if the method produces functional cards then the method is sound. That does not mean the method needs to be transparent. You would not ask Wizards of the Coast how they design editions of D&D (and gosh knows I want to know what kind of drugs were being smoked before they designed 4E) and then berate the company when they didn't tell you. They would probably tell you something like I am "Judge our methods on the product they create".

Yes, you can ask them. No they probably won't provide everything you want, but they actually will provide a good deal of transparency through their various online articles (which is far more transparency IMHO than White Wolf / CCP or VEKN ever provided).

On the same score, since Lilith's Blessing is presumably a card you were involved in designing then it reflects badly that it is the one which was banned. I would therefore suggest your design methods are flawed. (Of course predicated on the fact you were responsible for designing Lilith's Blessing).

As mentioned multiple times: your predicate is WRONG. I was not responsible in any way for designing Lilith's Blessing. So no, it doesn't reflect badly on me. Sorry Andrew, but you'll have to find someone else to lynch.

If you have no fear of releasing the details of the Inner Circle, the please prove it. Put your money where your mouth is Eric. Tell us why the Inner Circle decided to remove you.

You are correct that I have no fear of releasing such details. However, I am also cognizant that many people would also jump at the chance to attack me for releasing such information. If you recall, during the discussion last year, there were several forumites who said they simply didn't want to know what was going on in the IC.

But to answer your question Andrew: Like in many situations, there are varying levels of complexity, which may also differ based on your particular perspective. At the most basic level: Johannes and the rest of the IC believed that my continued work with PCK was a conflict with my IC responsibilities.

To use DeathInABottle's analogy I'd rather stand in front of city hall as a protester requesting a meeting with the mayor, even if I could achieve what I wanted through heavy-handed tactics.

And that might work if anyone on the VEKN was an elected official instead of effectively an appointed member. See points about "VEKN is not a Democracy". The "mayor" in this case doesn't have to make an appointment with you.

....

This is NOT a Democracy Eric. It doesn't have to behave like one. Your continual requests for it to be a transparent democracy are wasted.

Andrew, you are right that since it's not a democracy, the mayor (or powers that be) don't *have* to listen to me or make an appointment with me.

But that's not to say that they necessarily won't or that the efforts are "wasted."

There are countless examples where private and public companies (also not democracies) acquiesce to calls for greater transparency or where the CEO agrees to meet with protesters. And there are PLENTY of cases where citizens in monarchies and dictatorships protest for greater transparency. A lot of the time they are ignored (or punished). But every now and then, they achieve some success. B-)

Wedge wrote:

So you understand the situation. Removing LB to effect Villien is much like removing Memories of Mortality to effect Imbued. The later of both is the problem, but too many people have invested(time/money) in them to be happy with them being removed. The earlier change to Villien was NEEDED to keep new and old returning players, likely there will be more changes to it sfter sets can be released. In the mean time LB is being removed, which you seem to think is a good thing as it is not properly balanced anyway.

I agree that Lilith's Blessing is overpowered, but there are lots of overpowered cards (and plenty of cards more overpowered than Lilith's Blessing) and that doesn't necessarily justify banning.

One of the major issues is that Lilith's Blessing is banned when other more problematic cards are not.

For me, one of the issues is an underlying sense of "fairness" or "justice" (which may sound silly for a card game). But to illustrate with an analogy, think of crimes with varying degrees of culpability:

1. A bank robbery where the first person murders a teller, and a second person was driving the getaway car

2. A war crimes scenario where you have foot soldiers who committed the crimes by following orders and then the generals who committed the crimes and actually decided on the orders.

Yes, I think the getaway driver or foot soldier is problematic and should be punished (Lilith's Blessing). But I think there are other culprits who are far more deserving to be punished like the shooter or general (Villein, Anthelios, Pentex). If all of them were punished (including Lilith's Blessing), that would be fairer.

The issue is when the getaway driver and foot soldiers get punished, but the actual shooter or general get let off (maybe they have political connections or cut a deal by offering valuable information). That creates a sense of injustice because of selective justice and the real culprits getting away with it.

So whats all the hubbub, bub?

1. Fairness and justice (as explained above).

2. Transparency

3. Process

It is the one front Eric. If you want transparency in one area, it seems strange to not demand it in the rest. I'm not trying to call you a hypocrite or planning to label you a hypocrite. It seems to be that there is an overt agenda, one which the IC seemed to think affected your role in the Storyline Coordinator role to the point where they removed you from the IC. You appear to be on a crusade to force the VEKN to change its conduct to suit you after you were forced to leave. That same Agenda lead to the PCK release of cards. That agenda is unwelcome to me as a player of this game.

I am not interested in leading the charge for greater transparency on the decision process because it seems so ridiculously obvious that requiring greater transparency in this matter is like wanting more transparency from air. The process is to talk to Pascal about your complaints with the game (electronically, in person if you are lucky enough to live in France or in the forums). You insisting on Pascal to explain his decision to you in detail just seems to be a resentment agenda because you are no longer in the IC.

There is a very easy definition for what you could make transparent: Any meeting minutes or playtest records which will not breach a non-disclosure clause in a contract made by the VEKN or will not prejudice the future sales of VTES products. What is simpler than that?

The longer this goes on Eric, the more it becomes obvious to me at least that you are not advocating for the betterment of the VEKN for its own sake. You seem to be going about an agenda to harass and attack the members of the Rules Team, the Design Team and the IC for whatever role they had in removing you from the Inner Circle. Otherwise why did the following happen:

- Within months of being removed from the IC and card design, you are involved in the release of a "rival" set of cards and belligerent action against the VEKN over IP.

- When the RTR comes out, you demand transparency publicly, vociferously and persistently even when numerous people have answered your complaints, explained the processes.

- You admit later (i.e. in your last post), that there was at least a perception that your PCK activities were in conflict with the IC. So that even when you were ostensibly working for the VEKN to better VTES and tournaments, you were working to your own agenda.


In the end, this paints a picture to me Eric, even if to nobody else, that you are working for your own goals and not for the VEKN, the players or for VTES.

I am not a fan of you using allegories, but here is one back at cha.
Too big to fail. Thought I agree that those cards need errata along with aushers tablets. My choices would be ...

Pentex the minion with it may take no action other than to remove it,otherwise the same.
Anthelios ends you master phase
Villien only playable on a vamp w/o a villien and at least 2 blood
Aushers one a turn and only minion cards
Liliths must find skill cards and replace bahari with red list

,but none of this has anything to do with this RTR, the changes are appropriate for the state of the game.

as for your points
1. Fairness and justice (as explained above).
Too big to fail
2. Transparency
dissection, debate, and time consuming
3. Process
I don't need for this RTR(bane), it seems obvious.