Non-official rules to play in pairs?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

I was guessing about how it could be done to organise a tournament
with pairs instead of individual players. Are there any non-official
rules published like the warzone rules?

Thanks in advance.

Vincent

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Vincent,

I´ll go through my txt files and post the ones we used for our last
BYO-Storyline, where we had "Ties of Blood" games (paired games,
storyline legal decks and so on)...

post them later....

cheers
Luciano "Baital" de Sampaio
VEKN Anarch Baron de Curitiba
VEKN Official Baali Clan Newsletter Editor

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Vincent Seaswerve wrote:
> I was guessing about how it could be done to organise a tournament
> with pairs instead of individual players. Are there any non-official
> rules published like the warzone rules?

This occasionally happens on deckbot where there are only two people
who want to play. If that's happens, we often play with three
modifications to the rules:

1) Transfers start at 2.
Player A has 2 transfers on turn 1, then 4 on all turns thereafter.
Player B has 3 transfers on turn 1, then 4 on all turns thereafter.

2) The Edge doesn't give you pool.
Sometimes in a 2 player game, one person can just grab the Edge and sit
on it because they only have one opponent. This can be an unfair
advantage. Of course, the flip side is that there is sometimes no
incentive for your opponent to act to steal the Edge from you if you
would otherwise be gaining pool. They might just sit back and cycle
into their ideal hand before acting.

3) Bounce cards count as a "reduce to zero" for bleeds.
Bounce cards are automatically dead in your hand in a 2 player game.
This rule is mainly used because deckbot decks are designed for a
mulitplayer environment and it takes a fair bit of time and effort to
cull them from your deck. If you were to run a tournament that was
intended for pairs, you should probably stress people fixing up their
decks ahead of time, or just have them pull out all the Deflections
from their decks before the games start.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

<jeffkuta@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:1109969445.510416.10520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Vincent Seaswerve wrote:
> > I was guessing about how it could be done to organise a tournament
> > with pairs instead of individual players. Are there any non-official
> > rules published like the warzone rules?
>
> This occasionally happens on deckbot where there are only two people
> who want to play. If that's happens, we often play with three
> modifications to the rules:
>
> 1) Transfers start at 2.
> Player A has 2 transfers on turn 1, then 4 on all turns thereafter.
> Player B has 3 transfers on turn 1, then 4 on all turns thereafter.

This seems like an odd change. Why not just the standard rules?

> 2) The Edge doesn't give you pool.
> Sometimes in a 2 player game, one person can just grab the Edge and sit
> on it because they only have one opponent. This can be an unfair
> advantage. Of course, the flip side is that there is sometimes no
> incentive for your opponent to act to steal the Edge from you if you
> would otherwise be gaining pool. They might just sit back and cycle
> into their ideal hand before acting.

You could try half a pool. (Fractions lost if control of the edge is lost).
I don't think that regular Edge rules are an unfair advantage, but
that's just me.

> 3) Bounce cards count as a "reduce to zero" for bleeds.

Probably should give the Edge to the acting player in that case, too.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"LSJ" <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:38s0elF5rj3q6U1@individual.net...
> <jeffkuta@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:1109969445.510416.10520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Vincent Seaswerve wrote:
>> > I was guessing about how it could be done to organise a tournament
>> > with pairs instead of individual players. Are there any non-official
>> > rules published like the warzone rules?
>>
>> This occasionally happens on deckbot where there are only two people
>> who want to play. If that's happens, we often play with three
>> modifications to the rules:
>>
>> 1) Transfers start at 2.
>> Player A has 2 transfers on turn 1, then 4 on all turns thereafter.
>> Player B has 3 transfers on turn 1, then 4 on all turns thereafter.
>
> This seems like an odd change. Why not just the standard rules?
>

My guess is, with two players, it equilibrates total transfers after two
turns a little better:

Standard rules
Turn 1
Player A: 1 transfer (1 net)
Player B: 2 transfer (2 net)
Turn 2
Player A: 3 transfer (4 net)
Player B: 4 transfer (6 net)

variant rules
Turn 1
Player A: 2 transfer (2 net)
Player B: 3 transfer (3 net)
Turn 2
Player A: 4 transfer (6 net)
Player B: 4 transfer (7 net)

Reducing the transfer advantage from 2 to 1, and accelerating influence a
little (the "table wind-up" is more of a time-delay than it is a table
balancing effect in two player games...) Its been an age since I looked at
my own two-player variant rules, but I think I did something similar...

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

 

[Wes]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Vincent Seaswerve" <alastor14@gmail.com> wrote

>I was guessing about how it could be done to organise a tournament
> with pairs instead of individual players. Are there any non-official
> rules published like the warzone rules?

Never really wrote them down, but *years* ago this is how we used to do it:

1) "Deflection"-type cards deflect to an imaginary 3rd Methuselah who always
takes the bleed. So bleeding Meth does get the Edge, but the targeted
opponent does not lose any pool. This worked very well, IMO.

2) The imaginary Methusealh 3rd Methuselah always votes 3 *against* in any
referendum called. Otherwise, vote decks have a huge advantage.

3) The Edge does not grant pool.

4) The Edge could be burned for various effects:
a) allow one of your vampires to rush one of your opponent's minions at 0
stealth.
b) allow a vampire in combat to prevent damage for one strike.
c) grant 3 votes (instead of 1)

Having the Edge was *essential* in these games. The overall effect was a
quick, bleedy, violent game, that was not altogether unpleasant. Five player
games were always preferred, obviously.

Not that this was long before Edge-manipulating cards such as Edge
Vitiation, Enticement, Sargon et al.

The goal was to try to make a game such that a deck designed for 4/5-player
games could be equally used in a 2-player game without the decks needing to
be changed at all. This is much harder than it sounds... though it should be
noted that every game does eventually become a 2-player game.

I don't think the above rules are all that great as is, except maybe #1, but
they might form the basis of a better system.

Good luck with this and let us know what you come up with.

Cheers,
WES

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

David Zopf wrote:
> "LSJ" <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
>><jeffkuta@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>1) Transfers start at 2.
>>>Player A has 2 transfers on turn 1, then 4 on all turns thereafter.
>>>Player B has 3 transfers on turn 1, then 4 on all turns thereafter.
>>
>>This seems like an odd change. Why not just the standard rules?
>
>
> My guess is, with two players, it equilibrates total transfers after two
> turns a little better:
> Standard rules
> Turn 1
> Player A: 1 transfer (1 net)
> Player B: 2 transfer (2 net)
> Turn 2
> Player A: 3 transfer (4 net)
> Player B: 4 transfer (6 net)
>
> variant rules
> Turn 1
> Player A: 2 transfer (2 net)
> Player B: 3 transfer (3 net)
> Turn 2
> Player A: 4 transfer (6 net)
> Player B: 4 transfer (7 net)
>
> Reducing the transfer advantage from 2 to 1, and accelerating influence a
> little (the "table wind-up" is more of a time-delay than it is a table
> balancing effect in two player games...) Its been an age since I looked at
> my own two-player variant rules, but I think I did something similar...

I thought that that perception may have been part of the impetus,
but it is a warped perception, IMO:

Not from two to one, but rather from constant 2-point variation to a fluctuation
between a 3- and a 1-point variation (with the favor going to A).

Transfer balance (A positive, B negative)

Under the standard system:

At the end of turn for ...

A: +1 (1 to 0)
B: -1 (1 to 2)
A: +2 (4 to 2)
B: -2 (4 to 6)
A: +2 (8 to 6)
B: -2 (8 to 10)

repeat +2,-2, forever.

Under the alternate system:

A: +2 (2 to 0)
B: -1 (2 to 3)
A: +3 (6 to 3)
B: -1 (6 to 7)
A: +3 (10 to 7)
B: -1 (10 to 11)

repeat +3,-1, forever.

If you just want to accelerate the cycle a little (although
you really don't need to speed up a 2-player game), then
ramp at 2s: A gets 2 on his first turn. B gets 4 on his first
turn. Constant 4 from then on.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Hem... I mean pairs, two people together, versus another eight, I mean
five pairs. Sorry if I misexplained myself (excuse my english)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Vincent Seaswerve wrote:
> Hem... I mean pairs, two people together, versus another eight, I mean
> five pairs. Sorry if I misexplained myself (excuse my english)

You mean "teams" (a term more likely to "click" with American speakers).

Check out these variants:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/B/BTime/Vampire/Formats/team2000.html
http://vekn.be/Teamplay.htm


--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

I thought what you requested was clear, as "pairs" to me implies a
"team" a two players, but anyway...

My own thoughts on a team tournament would be tables of either 6 or 4
(originally, I assumed tables of 4, but it might work better with
tables of 6 - I wouldn't go as far as tables of 10, because games would
take FOREVER), with team members seated as far apart as possible. Each
deck plays normally with these exceptions:

1) You may use 2 transfers during your influence phase to move a pool
from yourself to your partner (as many times as you like, so if you
have the Info Highway out and don't do any other transfers, you can
give your partner 3 pool).

2) When a team member is ousted, the other member of the team gains 6
pool (the predator of the ousted member also gains the normal 6 pool,
and a victory point).

3) If two team members are seated next to each other (due to prey being
ousted), they both have the same prey. (The team member on the left
bleeds his normal prey, the team member on the right bleeds his
partner's prey.) This does not apply when applying the effects of a
Reins of Power vote (Reins of Power selects a person's prey in the
usual manner, otherwise it would be very unfair for the prey). There
may be other cards which mess up this dynamic. Hopefully any such
cards would be caught and added to the rules before the tournament.

The table win goes to the team with the most combined VP's, and the
team would advance to the finals (or not) as a team.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Chris Berger wrote:
> My own thoughts on a team tournament would be tables of either 6 or 4
> (originally, I assumed tables of 4, but it might work better with
> tables of 6 - I wouldn't go as far as tables of 10, because games
would
> take FOREVER), with team members seated as far apart as possible.

I like tables of 6 best--three paired teams.

> Each deck plays normally with these exceptions:
>
> 1) You may use 2 transfers during your influence phase to move a pool
> from yourself to your partner (as many times as you like, so if you
> have the Info Highway out and don't do any other transfers, you can
> give your partner 3 pool).

I like this rule. Makes each player have to fend for themselves to some
degree, but you can help out your partner in a limited capacity.

> 2) When a team member is ousted, the other member of the team gains 6
> pool (the predator of the ousted member also gains the normal 6 pool,
> and a victory point).

Not so sure about this one. I don't think a losing situation needs to
be rewarded by giving the survivor a boost. If your teammate is the
first ousted, you should think of it as gaining two temporary
allies--the remaining full team who has zero VPs.

> 3) If two team members are seated next to each other (due to prey
being
> ousted), they both have the same prey. (The team member on the left
> bleeds his normal prey, the team member on the right bleeds his
> partner's prey.)

I don't like this dynamic either. If you managed to be seated next to
each other because you've already made two ousts, then take advantage
of that within the context of standard rules. One player can wall up
while the other can go full bore forward. You can still call votes that
affect your grand-prey, bounce bleeds into them, and rush them, along
with a host of other things--Pentex Subversion, Eagle's Sight, etc. You
just don't really want to bleed your prey a lot. Heck, you and your
teammate can now collaborate and pump a bleed for 5 at stealth which
can be Deflected. Just hope no one DIs the bounce.

> The table win goes to the team with the most combined VP's, and the
> team would advance to the finals (or not) as a team.

Yes.

Jeff