Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Making VTES/Jyhad Limited More Appealing

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 5:19:09 PM

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

We're having a nice discussion about this right now on our local SF
list and I thought I'd just open it up for wider input.

There are quite a few people, myself included, who like playing in
limited/sealed/draft events. However, there are several problems or
drawbacks with the structure of VTES.

* VTES is very complicated. With an enormous variety of clans and
disciplines, it is difficult to make a focused, limited deck without
making a large number of cards available at an event. To some, this is
the whole point of limited. To others, this is a psychological barrier
to participation.

* VTES pre-cons are solid. Right now with 12 vampires and 77 library
cards, you have a good base to start building. In fact, since you are
only required to have 40 cards, it is often wise to strip cards from a
pre-con and supplement this with a few choice picks from the boosters.

Here are a couple suggestions that I have. I'm sure there are others
who would have better ideas.

1) Perhaps WW can cut the size of pre-con libraries down from 77 to
between 40 and 50 cards. They can still keep their focus, but this
would allow for any additional boosters to have a greater impact on
deck construction.

2) Allow players to add perhaps 5 cards to their deck. One possible
restriction on these cards is this: Added cards may not require a clan,
sect, title, or discipline, nor may they be unique. You could add a
further restriction that all five of these cards be different. This
allows for a lot of flexibility using popular Masters, Reactions and
Equipment. Perhaps this means everyone chooses 1x Blood Doll, 1x Minion
Tap, 1x Sudden Reversal, 1x Direct Intervention and 1x Wake, but that's
just fine by me.

Any more suggestions are welcome.

Jeff
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 12:15:49 AM

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

Jeff Kuta wrote:
> We're having a nice discussion about this right now on our local SF
> list and I thought I'd just open it up for wider input.
>
> There are quite a few people, myself included, who like playing in
> limited/sealed/draft events. However, there are several problems or
> drawbacks with the structure of VTES.
>
> * VTES is very complicated. With an enormous variety of clans and
> disciplines, it is difficult to make a focused, limited deck without
> making a large number of cards available at an event. To some, this
is
> the whole point of limited. To others, this is a psychological
barrier
> to participation.

ARRRGGGHHH...I wrote a long reply to this, and then google ate it.

Let's try again:

The entry cost to draft must be US$20 or lower, as entry cost is the
barrier to limited play. Bringing the cost to US$20 or lower
requires
that an enjoyable draft be possible with 6 packs or fewer.

The main problem with drafting from current sets is that either the
sets feature too few clans and disciplines, with little in the way
of "base set" cards, or that the sets feature too many clans and
disciplines, resulting in offenses that are too diffuse to allow for
a play environment of dynamic offenses - even with 9 or 10 packs -
which results in static games, which result in many tables going to
time.

Camarilla Edition is clearly the best set for draft, as it has only
6 clans, but there are still too many disciplines (10) and the set is
uninteresting for veteran players due to the high quantity of
reprints.
If a new set were to be made with draft in mind, keeping the clan
count
to 6 and cutting the discipline count to 8 would seem to be about
right.

An additional option would be to have two-way or three-way cards that
aren't Anarch-only (or perhaps have an Anarch-themed set?), to
increase
the quantity of useful cards available to each player. (Perhaps
having
two-way cards where one ability has a discipline requirement and
another
has a clan-requirement?) This might allow for more than 6 clans and
8 disciplines.

With only 6 packs, you're looking at 40-card libraries (maaaaybe 50),
so deck depletion seems like it'd be frequent. Perhaps such a set
would
need to have a higher than normal count of permanents.

I would not want such a set to have Blood Dolls. They're simply not
needed. If we want pool gain, we should stick to one-shot effects,
such as investments, votes, and action cards.

With regards to draft format, at the 2004 EC draft tournament, Frank
Moeller (sp?) used 8-player draft pods instead of the usual 4 or
5-player
pods. The theory is that the players get to see a wider range of
cards
and thereby are able to get more cards that are useful to them,
hopefully
resulting in more focussed decks that allow for dynamic play (and
requiring
fewer packs per player). Unfortunately, I don't have anywhere close
to
sufficient information to provide useful empirical data to support
this,
but I was surprised in a couple of cases at how focussed the decks
were.
At the very least, I want to try this format more.

Also, I've heard reports that the Upstate NY crew was looking to run
(or has already run) a draft involving only 4 packs per player. I
would
be very interested in any reports of this!


- Ben Peal
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 11:08:06 AM

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

One thing that you can do is provide everyone with a pool of standard
cards. You (the head judge/tourney organiser) need to provide each
person with the same ones, but this allows for the lack of the so
called standard cards that everyone reckons that they want.

This way, you could, say, draft with KMW 6 boosters. Everyone should
get

3x6 - 18 vamps
8x6 - 48 library

By providing everyone with an additional say 5 vampires (sort of all
rounders or quirky) and 20 library cards that are considerd staples (2
BDs, 1MT, 4 WWEFs, a few others) then people could draft knowing those
cards are available, and then you would keep the cost down, and the
interests of experienced (I don't want no more reprints) players.

Another alternative is one I did for limited which was give everyone
the same 50 vampires and 150 library cards and tell them to construct
from that. It is a VEKN sanctioned limited format (I checked with LSJ)
and is completely mad and lots of fun. It also keeps the cost down.

Just some ideas.

Andy
VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge
Related resources
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 6:06:06 PM

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

fudjo wrote:

>
> The entry cost to draft must be US$20 or lower, as entry cost is
the
> barrier to limited play. Bringing the cost to US$20 or lower
> requires
> that an enjoyable draft be possible with 6 packs or fewer.
>

I'm with you on the problem, but not the solution. You got to get
somewhere near 80 cards to chose from to have something playable, and
preferably more.

How about bringing back the V:tes starter or something a lot like it? 2
V:TES starters gets you more than enough cards. That's a fat, fat pack
to pass around and draft, but it could work for pure sealed or starter
+ draft 3-4 boosters. But the price per card has to go lower than the
just boosters format.

And if the new V:tes starters were designed for draft they might be
designed for a limited set of clans/disciplines and with a good ratio
of "core" effects (like combat, stealth, intercept, pool gain, untap,
bleed etc...).

-Ben Swainbank
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 8:22:25 PM

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

fudjo wrote:

> Also, I've heard reports that the Upstate NY crew was looking to run
> (or has already run) a draft involving only 4 packs per player. I
> would
> be very interested in any reports of this!


Planning has stalled out due to real world issues, but when we pull
something off, we'll let you know how it goes.

I was thinking about, like, using 4 packs of CE for draft--you get to pick
which 12 vampires you use, more or less, but you have to use the ones you
get. And to beef up the decks ('cause you only get, like, what, 32 cards
total?), I was considering letting folks add a few skill cards or something.
The wheels are still in motion...


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 8:23:02 PM

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

On 4 Apr 2005 13:19:09 -0700, <jeffkuta@pacbell.net> wrote:

> We're having a nice discussion about this right now on our local SF
> list and I thought I'd just open it up for wider input.

Well, I'm not that much into draft. But I had this idea I might just throw
in for discussion. It is basically combining the (booster) draft format
with a bit of the Create-a-clan. It goes like this:

After drafting, each player can design the vampire "Gen Eric". Eric is
either a 5-cap or a 6-cap, with (respectively) 5 or 6 points of
disciplines. Eric is clanless, but his sect can be selected freely. You
can put up to two (identical) copies of Eric into your deck. Erics only
contest if all their stats are the same (thus, a given player's own Erics
always contest). Eric has no inherent title, special ability or hindrance.

Eric can be a free template that has six rows for disciplines, a unique
picture (to represent the draft event, for example), and a capacity and
sect indicator. This would, of course, be an unofficial card, but could
serve as a "promo" of sorts for participating in the event.

(It would also be possible to use stickers, stamps or whatever to fill out
Eric's box in a more "pro" way, but the idea is there - I can even imagine
using a Card Design program on a laptop and printing the cards in color,
if possible.)

The point: you may give Eric the most common disciplines your deck has. Of
course, he can be a giveaway once influenced, but he could certainly:

- facilitate the deck flow (by giving you an option to tailor a vamp to
your library cards)
- as a result, allow you to draft sets with 10-12 disciplines
- be an incentive to participate, as the Erics of different draft events
could have different backgrounds and/or art (or course, either free or
fan-made art would be used).
- make drafting different sets be possible, though that might need more
copies of him. Drafting some Bloodlines Boosters might be feasible, as
Eric could be given some BL disciplines, for example.

I'm not sure this would be the same as the original draft feeling, but it
might be worth some consideration... Thoughts?

> 2) Allow players to add perhaps 5 cards to their deck. One possible
> restriction on these cards is this: Added cards may not require a clan,
> sect, title, or discipline, nor may they be unique. You could add a
> further restriction that all five of these cards be different. This
> allows for a lot of flexibility using popular Masters, Reactions and
> Equipment. Perhaps this means everyone chooses 1x Blood Doll, 1x Minion
> Tap, 1x Sudden Reversal, 1x Direct Intervention and 1x Wake, but that's
> just fine by me.
>
> Any more suggestions are welcome.

Nice idea. I wouldn't like WW cutting down the sizes of pre-cons, as those
primarily serve as entry points to the game (or a clan) for noobies.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 8:37:33 PM

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

Ben Swainbank wrote:
> I'm with you on the problem, but not the solution. You got to get
> somewhere near 80 cards to chose from to have something playable, and
> preferably more.

Using present boosters, that's true. The hope/challenge is to make
a new set that is richer for draft, requiring fewer boosters.
6 packs might be too few, but even 8 or 9 appears to be too
many in terms of price.

> How about bringing back the V:tes starter or something a lot like it?
2
> V:TES starters gets you more than enough cards. That's a fat, fat
pack
> to pass around and draft, but it could work for pure sealed or
starter
> + draft 3-4 boosters. But the price per card has to go lower than the
> just boosters format.
>
> And if the new V:tes starters were designed for draft they might be
> designed for a limited set of clans/disciplines and with a good ratio
> of "core" effects (like combat, stealth, intercept, pool gain, untap,
> bleed etc...).

The real question here is: Is White Wolf willing to give us more
cards for the money? Is it worth it for White Wolf to increase the
number of commons at a nominal price increase? Would we as players
be willing to pay, oh, let's say $3.69 for a pack with 1 rare, 3
uncommons, and 11 commons?

The format of the set (booster, fat booster, starter, whatever)
doesn't matter. What matters is getting the amount of cards in the
draft pool high enough at a cost that's affordable enough for
people to want to play in draft tournaments.


- Ben Peal
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 9:50:43 AM

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

fudjo wrote:
> Ben Swainbank wrote:
> > I'm with you on the problem, but not the solution. You got to get
> > somewhere near 80 cards to chose from to have something playable,
and
> > preferably more.
>
> Using present boosters, that's true. The hope/challenge is to make
> a new set that is richer for draft, requiring fewer boosters.
> 6 packs might be too few, but even 8 or 9 appears to be too
> many in terms of price.

In another thread which I can't find just now, I suggested radically
changing the way sets are designed. Instead of sticking with Sects as
the framework, shift toward disciplines. If Tremere and !Tremere were
in the same set, likewise Gangrel and !Gangrel, then you could
eliminate Thaumaturgy or Protean almost entirely (except perhaps for
that special rare/uncommon to keep people happy) from one base set.

I think it went something like this:
Camarilla + Indepdendent (minus Tremere and Gangrel)
Sabbat + Tremere/Gangrel

That way you'd have essentially two base sets full of standard
disciplines, plus some extras: Quietus, Serpentis, Necromancy and
Chimerstry only in "Set A" and Thaumaturgy, Protean, Obtenebration and
Vicissitude only in "Set B."

There would even be room to "split up" the base commons. For example:

DOMINATE:
Set A: Govern the Unaligned, Bonding, Redirection
Set B: Scouting Mission, Conditioning, Deflection
Obedience could be an Uncommon in both A and B.

PRESENCE:
Set A: Legal Manipulation, Staredown, Bewitching Oration
Set B: Social Charm, Majesty, Awe
Voter Captivation could be an Uncommon in both A and B.

CELERITY:
Set A: Flash, Acrobatics, Nimble Feet
Set B: Pursuit, Sideslip, Blur
Psyche! could be an Uncommon in both A and B.]

These are just examples and could be tweaked accordingly. Feel free to
use this idea or a variant WW.

> > How about bringing back the V:tes starter or something a lot like
it?
> 2
> > V:TES starters gets you more than enough cards. That's a fat, fat
> pack
> > to pass around and draft, but it could work for pure sealed or
> starter
> > + draft 3-4 boosters. But the price per card has to go lower than
the
> > just boosters format.
> >
> > And if the new V:tes starters were designed for draft they might be
> > designed for a limited set of clans/disciplines and with a good
ratio
> > of "core" effects (like combat, stealth, intercept, pool gain,
untap,
> > bleed etc...).
>
> The real question here is: Is White Wolf willing to give us more
> cards for the money? Is it worth it for White Wolf to increase the
> number of commons at a nominal price increase? Would we as players
> be willing to pay, oh, let's say $3.69 for a pack with 1 rare, 3
> uncommons, and 11 commons?
>
> The format of the set (booster, fat booster, starter, whatever)
> doesn't matter. What matters is getting the amount of cards in the
> draft pool high enough at a cost that's affordable enough for
> people to want to play in draft tournaments.

I think if the sets were designed with limited/draft being a high
priority, we'd have much different looking sets. I think I see your
point about commons being crucial to a strong draft, but I also think
that if the sets were tighter in terms of disciplines, then some of the
diversity problem would go away and you'd get much the same effect with
a better rare/uncommon/common ratio for the players.

Jeff
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 11:21:28 AM

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

"fudjo" <fudjo@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message
news:1112744253.904965.297880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ben Swainbank wrote:
>> I'm with you on the problem, but not the solution. You got to get
>> somewhere near 80 cards to chose from to have something playable, and
>> preferably more.
>
> Using present boosters, that's true. The hope/challenge is to make
> a new set that is richer for draft, requiring fewer boosters.
> 6 packs might be too few, but even 8 or 9 appears to be too
> many in terms of price.
>
>> How about bringing back the V:tes starter or something a lot like it?
> 2
>> V:TES starters gets you more than enough cards. That's a fat, fat
> pack
>> to pass around and draft, but it could work for pure sealed or
> starter
>> + draft 3-4 boosters. But the price per card has to go lower than the
>> just boosters format.
>>
>> And if the new V:tes starters were designed for draft they might be
>> designed for a limited set of clans/disciplines and with a good ratio
>> of "core" effects (like combat, stealth, intercept, pool gain, untap,
>> bleed etc...).
>
> The real question here is: Is White Wolf willing to give us more
> cards for the money? Is it worth it for White Wolf to increase the
> number of commons at a nominal price increase? Would we as players
> be willing to pay, oh, let's say $3.69 for a pack with 1 rare, 3
> uncommons, and 11 commons?
>
> The format of the set (booster, fat booster, starter, whatever)
> doesn't matter. What matters is getting the amount of cards in the
> draft pool high enough at a cost that's affordable enough for
> people to want to play in draft tournaments.

I think this is a bad idea. I don't want to pay $1 more for my one rare
when I go to purchase my boxes for each set. Getting enough of each of the
commons when buying a few boxes is never a problem. Getting enough of the
rares on the other hand is much more difficult.

So now you are going to make the price of a box $36 more expensive by
filling it full of cards that we would already get. It's just bad
marketing.


--
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 3:09:34 PM

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

fudjo wrote:
>
> The entry cost to draft must be US$20 or lower, as entry cost is
the
> barrier to limited play. Bringing the cost to US$20 or lower
> requires
> that an enjoyable draft be possible with 6 packs or fewer.
>

The problem is that the game requires so many cards to play. But some
minor rules changes could allow us to play with a smaller card pool.

Optional rules for limited play:

Minimum Crypt Size: 7
Miniumum Library Size: 40

Deck Recycling Rule:
A Methuselah has no library left may use a Discard Phase Action to
shuffle his entire Ash Heap into his Library and Crypt.

That would make a 6-7 pack draft using existing sets and pricing models
viable.

-Ben Swainbank
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 3:40:15 PM

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

Ben Swainbank wrote:
> fudjo wrote:
> >
> > The entry cost to draft must be US$20 or lower, as entry cost is
> the
> > barrier to limited play. Bringing the cost to US$20 or lower
> > requires
> > that an enjoyable draft be possible with 6 packs or fewer.
> >
>
> The problem is that the game requires so many cards to play. But some
> minor rules changes could allow us to play with a smaller card pool.
>
> Optional rules for limited play:
>
> Minimum Crypt Size: 7
> Miniumum Library Size: 40
>
> Deck Recycling Rule:
> A Methuselah has no library left may use a Discard Phase Action to
> shuffle his entire Ash Heap into his Library and Crypt.

I like this. Reshuffling a discard pile is a familiar mechanism in lots
of other games. It's intuitive.

It does squash any kind of deck depletion strategies but i could care
less. :) 

-Robert
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 4:06:58 PM

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

Ben Swainbank wrote:
> fudjo wrote:
> >
> > The entry cost to draft must be US$20 or lower, as entry cost is
> the
> > barrier to limited play. Bringing the cost to US$20 or lower
> > requires
> > that an enjoyable draft be possible with 6 packs or fewer.
> >
>
> The problem is that the game requires so many cards to play. But some
> minor rules changes could allow us to play with a smaller card pool.
>
> Optional rules for limited play:
>
> Minimum Crypt Size: 7
> Miniumum Library Size: 40
>
> Deck Recycling Rule:
> A Methuselah has no library left may use a Discard Phase Action to
> shuffle his entire Ash Heap into his Library and Crypt.
>
> That would make a 6-7 pack draft using existing sets and pricing
models
> viable.

I can see someone trying to stack their 40 card deck to have all sorts
of transients to take advantage of this recyling rule. Perhaps not a
bad thing how about:

Deck Recycling Rule:
A Methuselah who has no library left may use a Discard Phase Action to
remove all vampires in her Ash Heap from the game, then shuffle her Ash
Heap into her Library, remove the top 7 cards from the game, then draw
up to hand size.

Diminishing Returns.

Jeff
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 4:49:56 PM

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

Robert Goudie wrote:
> Ben Swainbank wrote:
> >
> > Optional rules for limited play:
> >

>
> I like this.

Good. Could be fun. Too bad you gave up the V:EKN chair. But maybe we
can get the "new guy" to consider it (or something similar).

>
> It does squash any kind of deck depletion strategies but i could care
> less. :) 
>

Those aren't so easy to pull off in limited anyhow. Although, a
well-timed Brinksmanship might still work...

-Ben Swainbank
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 5:13:34 PM

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

LSJ wrote:
> "Ben Swainbank" <bswainbank@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > Optional rules for limited play:
> >
> > Minimum Crypt Size: 7
>
> I normally hear "6" (half) or "8" (two uncontrolled region's worth)
when
> I hear about reducing the crypt size for limited events. Any
particular
> reason for choosing 7?

Just splitting the difference between those two.

>
> As long as you're going, you could go even further:
>
> minimum crypt size = 3 for every two booster packs (1.5 * NB, round
down).
> Or 12, whichever is lower :-)
>

1 vamp per pack seems like a better ratio. Less crypt filler. But I
would also prefer to keep it simple (and fixed).

> minimum library size = 6 per booster (6*NB). Or 60, whichever is
lower.

Its currently 40 for limited isn't it? For simplicity, I would prefer
to leave that alone.

> The recycling rule would reduce the power of permanents (allies,
> retainers, equipment, etc.), but that may be justified, since the
> limited format itself already shifts the balance toward permanents.
>

With a 40 card deck you'll see the permanents "early", which is
generally good, and then they'll be out of the way in the late game (if
they're still in play). Permanents will still be quite strong.

> To reward players for building larger decks (that is, using as much
> as is feasible rather than as little as is feasible -- encouraging
> and rewarding smarter drafting), you could make the recycling cost
> higher, too. Like a pool and/or a MPA, or a "cost" of 7 cards
> from the ash heap (at random). Or wait until the hand is
> exhausted before giving a "free" recycle.
>

With a small card pool, my assumption is that people will build 40 card
decks. And then they will run through them with great frequency. Rather
than punish deck depletion I would rather encourage faster,
more-dynamic play by taking away the sting of running out of deck.

-Ben Swainbank
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 5:17:02 PM

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

Ben Swainbank wrote:
> Robert Goudie wrote:
> > Ben Swainbank wrote:
> > >
> > > Optional rules for limited play:
> >
> > I like this.
>
> Good. Could be fun. Too bad you gave up the V:EKN chair. But maybe we
> can get the "new guy" to consider it (or something similar).

Scott's the guy for the tournament rules. He seems to like the recycle
idea too so you're one the right track.

-Robert
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 5:43:48 PM

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

"fudjo" <fudjo@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message
news:1112744253.904965.297880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> The real question here is: Is White Wolf willing to give us more
> cards for the money? Is it worth it for White Wolf to increase the
> number of commons at a nominal price increase? Would we as players
> be willing to pay, oh, let's say $3.69 for a pack with 1 rare, 3
> uncommons, and 11 commons?

A) No. This would make collecting for constructed discernably more
expensive and is NOT worth what would be gained.

B) What would be gained would be marginal. You've already noted that
throwing more cards at limited play tournaments doesn't do enough
to fix the problem unless you add *lots* of new cards. That's over
a 20% increase for a 36% increase in cards. Perhaps more value but
hardly on the order of what would be needed.

The issue with limited in VtES, IMHO, is the card mix involving
disciplines, clan requirements, combo-based cards and the like.
Attempts at fixing limited without addressing those issues in the mix
of cards used in the stock purchased for limited are likely doomed
to fail. I would really hate to be forced to buy a bunch more
common cards when collecting for constructed because of change like
this which would quite likely still be lame in terms of fixing
limited. (In fact, even if the change were effective, I'd still
resent having to pay for more commons in packs. We pay for too
many as it is.)

Fred
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 6:46:31 PM

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

fudjo wrote:
> Jeff Kuta wrote:
> > We're having a nice discussion about this right now on our local SF
> > list and I thought I'd just open it up for wider input.
> >
> > There are quite a few people, myself included, who like playing in
> > limited/sealed/draft events. However, there are several problems or
> > drawbacks with the structure of VTES.
> >
> > * VTES is very complicated. With an enormous variety of clans and
> > disciplines, it is difficult to make a focused, limited deck
without
> > making a large number of cards available at an event. To some, this
> is
> > the whole point of limited. To others, this is a psychological
> barrier
> > to participation.
>
> ARRRGGGHHH...I wrote a long reply to this, and then google ate it.
>
> Let's try again:
>
> The entry cost to draft must be US$20 or lower, as entry cost is
the
> barrier to limited play. Bringing the cost to US$20 or lower
> requires
> that an enjoyable draft be possible with 6 packs or fewer.
>
> The main problem with drafting from current sets is that either the
> sets feature too few clans and disciplines, with little in the way
> of "base set" cards, or that the sets feature too many clans and
> disciplines, resulting in offenses that are too diffuse to allow
for
> a play environment of dynamic offenses - even with 9 or 10 packs -
> which results in static games, which result in many tables going to
> time.

Your secondary problem with draft is that then you no longer have the
capacity to play whatever main clan you want to.

If you keep it to 6 clans and 8 disciplines, what do you include?

Toredor
Brujah
Nosferatu
Assamite
FoS

is 8 disciplines 5 clans. Not so bad, but WTF? Such a strange set to
only have 6 clans and 8 disciplines... wouldn't sell so well, you
think? Sure they can throw the token non 6 clan dude, and not of the 8
disciplines... what would that look like? What's the distribution of
this set? (BTW I like these five clans here, though... no dominate,
though perhaps too much obfuscate... which I guess is ok in limited
cause its GOOD when things happen, right?)

> An additional option would be to have two-way or three-way cards
that
> aren't Anarch-only (or perhaps have an Anarch-themed set?), to
> increase
> the quantity of useful cards available to each player. (Perhaps
> having
> two-way cards where one ability has a discipline requirement and
> another
> has a clan-requirement?) This might allow for more than 6 clans
and
> 8 disciplines.

And I've mentioned this one before myself. If you start throwing in 2
ways or 3 ways, you can start throwing in other disciplines/clans. Say
it was the above 5 clans I suggested, but you've also got like a few
Tzimisce, and their viccisitude cards could go something like including
tzimisce with one of the discipliens the other five clans have, and
most of their vis cards having another effect (like an aus, ani, or
heck even obf or qui secondary effect... see fan base set on
thelasombra.com for possible card ideas).

You can also do two ways or three ways for clans (like this card is
useable by a toreador or brujah, etc...).

> With only 6 packs, you're looking at 40-card libraries (maaaaybe
50),
> so deck depletion seems like it'd be frequent. Perhaps such a set
> would
> need to have a higher than normal count of permanents.

Perhaps it also needs more cards that A.) cycle (retrieve from ashheap)
B.) are playable by anyone (not just an outferior. A NULLferior).

You can also have NULLferiors on clan requiring cards. Masters playable
by anyone, but are better if you controlled a FoS when you played it,
or whatever...

> I would not want such a set to have Blood Dolls. They're simply
not
> needed. If we want pool gain, we should stick to one-shot effects,
> such as investments, votes, and action cards.

It can have alternative blood dolls. See another thread discussing
blood dolls brokenness, and possible replacements/substitutions.
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 6:56:13 PM

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

"Ben Swainbank" <bswainbank@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is that the game requires so many cards to play. But some
> minor rules changes could allow us to play with a smaller card pool.
>
> Optional rules for limited play:
>
> Minimum Crypt Size: 7
> Miniumum Library Size: 40
>
> Deck Recycling Rule:
> A Methuselah has no library left may use a Discard Phase Action to
> shuffle his entire Ash Heap into his Library and Crypt.
>
> That would make a 6-7 pack draft using existing sets and pricing models
> viable.


I normally hear "6" (half) or "8" (two uncontrolled region's worth) when
I hear about reducing the crypt size for limited events. Any particular
reason for choosing 7?

As long as you're going, you could go even further:

minimum crypt size = 3 for every two booster packs (1.5 * NB, round down).
Or 12, whichever is lower :-)

minimum library size = 6 per booster (6*NB). Or 60, whichever is lower.

The recycling rule would reduce the power of permanents (allies,
retainers, equipment, etc.), but that may be justified, since the
limited format itself already shifts the balance toward permanents.

To reward players for building larger decks (that is, using as much
as is feasible rather than as little as is feasible -- encouraging
and rewarding smarter drafting), you could make the recycling cost
higher, too. Like a pool and/or a MPA, or a "cost" of 7 cards
from the ash heap (at random). Or wait until the hand is
exhausted before giving a "free" recycle.

--
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
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 7:04:35 PM

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

Ben Swainbank wrote:
> fudjo wrote:
> >
> > The entry cost to draft must be US$20 or lower, as entry cost is
> the
> > barrier to limited play. Bringing the cost to US$20 or lower
> > requires
> > that an enjoyable draft be possible with 6 packs or fewer.
> >
>
> The problem is that the game requires so many cards to play. But some
> minor rules changes could allow us to play with a smaller card pool.
>
> Optional rules for limited play:
>
> Minimum Crypt Size: 7
> Miniumum Library Size: 40

This is another near genious suggestion, however, for my demo decks
I've been using, 8 and 40 seems to work ok. Matches with the demo decks
WW has sent princes I believe...

> Deck Recycling Rule:
> A Methuselah has no library left may use a Discard Phase Action to
> shuffle his entire Ash Heap into his Library and Crypt.

Or something like this, sure. Or just design the set with lots of cards
that let you get stuff back, and what not.

> That would make a 6-7 pack draft using existing sets and pricing
models
> viable.

oh, with existing sets? Close... but too crazy with disciplines and
clans all over the place and not enough key cards in all the sets (most
of the key cards are in Cam Ed. Not much key in black hand+,
really...).
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 8:12:02 PM

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

Ben Swainbank wrote:
> The problem is that the game requires so many cards to play. But some
> minor rules changes could allow us to play with a smaller card pool.
>
> Optional rules for limited play:
>
> Minimum Crypt Size: 7
> Miniumum Library Size: 40
>
> Deck Recycling Rule:
> A Methuselah has no library left may use a Discard Phase Action to
> shuffle his entire Ash Heap into his Library and Crypt.
>
> That would make a 6-7 pack draft using existing sets and pricing
models
> viable.

Curse you and your smartness. :) 

Maybe we should test this out locally...Josh?


- Ben Peal
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 11:19:47 PM

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

fudjo <fudjo@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote:

> Ben Swainbank wrote:
>> The problem is that the game requires so many cards to play. But some
>> minor rules changes could allow us to play with a smaller card pool.
>>
>> Optional rules for limited play:
>>
>> Minimum Crypt Size: 7
>> Miniumum Library Size: 40
>>
>> Deck Recycling Rule:
>> A Methuselah has no library left may use a Discard Phase Action to
>> shuffle his entire Ash Heap into his Library and Crypt.
>>
>> That would make a 6-7 pack draft using existing sets and pricing
> models
>> viable.

> Curse you and your smartness. :) 

> Maybe we should test this out locally...Josh?

Sounds good to me.
I'll figure out a time to schedule such an experiment...
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 3:42:53 AM

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

In message <1112824867.891750.313970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Screaming Vermillian <vermillian69@yahoo.com> writes:
>not too radical... anarch, gehenna and KMW aren't sect designed...
>Though they ain't base sets are they?

It's not that they need to be designed as base sets per se. Obviously,
base sets can be useful to draft from as they have lots of staple cards
available.

What you really need, though, is the ability to graft together a
strategy or four. Preferably multiple strategies, to prevent everyone
having the same 'perfect' deck so that they can draft different cards,
otherwise if there's only a good combat strategy in there, everyone aims
for the combat cards and nothing's left.

Sabbat War and Final Nights can, as a result, work okay-ish in a limited
environment, even though they're not technically base sets. (Though I
regard Sabbat War as being near as damnit.) They're not perfect and
there are some things missing, but you can attempt to put a coherent
deck together for various different clans. Then, when that fragments a
bit, you can put it together across the three clans you've headed for in
the draft, or whatever.

That's the other side of the coin. You don't want something which is
too fragmented. If you get that, it's impossible to draft a half-way
coherent crypt with a half-way coherent library. Everyone knows that
you don't get a "proper" deck in limited environments, of course, but
you don't want a random assortment of cards with a random assortment of
vampires to use. There needs to be at least something, so those five
Potence cards you drew might actually be usable together.

Additionally, there cam be issues when a set has lots of nods towards
former sets. For instance, drawing cards which refer to Gehenna events
is reasonable when you're playing in a Gehenna oriented draft. But it's
less reasonable in that Gehenna draft to be drawing cards like, say,
Black Hand Ritual, which are a nod back to the Black Hand set. (There
are two Black Hand vampires in the set.)


Outlandish sets are fine, so long as there's something useful to build a
deck with. It might well be a very different deck that gets built than
the normal stealth-bleed monsters, but if you can craft something fun
and playable out of it, I'm not sure that that's a problem.

--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 12:25:43 PM

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

James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1112824867.891750.313970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Screaming Vermillian <vermillian69@yahoo.com> writes:
> >not too radical... anarch, gehenna and KMW aren't sect designed...
> >Though they ain't base sets are they?
>
> It's not that they need to be designed as base sets per se.
Obviously,
> base sets can be useful to draft from as they have lots of staple
cards
> available.

Printing a set with lots of staples and calling it a base set. Printing
a set with lots of staple and calling it an expansion. Those are the
two choices. You could print a set with a FEW staples, but that might
not be as draftable. Now this is of course assuming you're doing
reprints. In that case, the base set choice looks alot like cam ed, the
expansion with lots of reprints looks like something we've never seen.
Legends for VTES?

> What you really need, though, is the ability to graft together a
> strategy or four. Preferably multiple strategies, to prevent
everyone
> having the same 'perfect' deck so that they can draft different
cards,
> otherwise if there's only a good combat strategy in there, everyone
aims
> for the combat cards and nothing's left.

Sure. But what are these strategies you're refering to? I mean, I can
take a guess, but what are you recommending for the expansion/base set?
Reprints or new cards? For reprints the key cards for the key
strategies goes a little like this:

Fame, Haven Uncovered
Lost in the Crowds, Computer Hack
Spirit's Touch, Smiling Jack (or vampiric disease) (not very good I
know)
KRC, Bewitching Oration (or voter cap)
Gun, Blur
WWEF, Telepathic Counter

and so on. Two to three cards should be around to be big game helpers
in limited for each strategy and key thing that vampires like to do. So
for new cards we'd need similar synergy, naturally, and they'd have to
be fairly accessible (discipline/clan) to most of the vampires in the
set.

> Sabbat War and Final Nights can, as a result, work okay-ish in a
limited
> environment, even though they're not technically base sets. (Though
I
> regard Sabbat War as being near as damnit.) They're not perfect and
> there are some things missing, but you can attempt to put a coherent
> deck together for various different clans. Then, when that fragments
a
> bit, you can put it together across the three clans you've headed for
in
> the draft, or whatever.

Yeah, but we all know how great limited decks with three clans and 6
disciplines are.

> Additionally, there cam be issues when a set has lots of nods towards
> former sets. For instance, drawing cards which refer to Gehenna
events
> is reasonable when you're playing in a Gehenna oriented draft. But
it's
> less reasonable in that Gehenna draft to be drawing cards like, say,
> Black Hand Ritual, which are a nod back to the Black Hand set.
(There
> are two Black Hand vampires in the set.)

Why would you include nods towards former sets within a set suitable to
draft/limited then? Not EVERY set has to be draftable. They can have
the occasional gehenna and KMW out there.

> Outlandish sets are fine, so long as there's something useful to
build a
> deck with. It might well be a very different deck that gets built
than
> the normal stealth-bleed monsters, but if you can craft something fun
> and playable out of it, I'm not sure that that's a problem.

It does cause a problem when one tries to draft cards from set A which
yeilds your traditional VTES strategies like SB, and then you also
include boosters from set B which has weird strategies like, oh,
depends on your prey tapping cards as your ousting mechanism...
(though, analysis has yet to be determined if these two 'strategies'
actually could fair against one another).

~SV
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 3:47:08 AM

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

In message <1112887543.461857.292250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Screaming Vermillian <vermillian69@yahoo.com> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>> It's not that they need to be designed as base sets per se.
>Obviously,
>> base sets can be useful to draft from as they have lots of staple
>cards
>> available.
>
>Printing a set with lots of staples and calling it a base set. Printing
>a set with lots of staple and calling it an expansion.

No, that's the point. You don't have to have staple cards, just
playable ones.

That it might make decks which aren't comparable with a constructed
tournament (with a very different dynamic) is entirely beside the point.
If people want a constructed environment, just play that.

>Sure. But what are these strategies you're refering to? I mean, I can
>take a guess, but what are you recommending for the expansion/base set?

Whatever strategies that set happens to include. A Final Nights style
set, say, doesn't have to include that many staple cards for, say,
stealth bleed or vote (probably one OR the other, for some Setites, and
a little Obfuscate for Assamite/Setite use). You could have a fairly
reasonable smattering of combat - aggressive for the Giovanni and
Assamites, moderately aggressive/unusual for the Ravnos, corner-
case/defence for the Setite. An interesting grave-yard manipulation
(potentially useful in limited!) strand for the Giovanni. Possibly
Corruption for the Setites. Interesting vampire interaction for the
Ravnos, or card theft, or whatever craziness you want to give
Chimerstry. Add a smattering of, say, intercept/interaction cards in
order to stop the strategies getting out of hand.

What are you missing? Potentially lots of bleed stuff, and lots of
votes stuff - the constructed players can get that from another set.
Some stealth is in there, and a lot of weird strategies. Since the set
isn't intending to be a base set, the boosters don't need to have (say)
Blood Doll. And if you aren't going for a heavy bleed/damage oriented
set, you could end up with a slower pool drain. Without the Blood Doll
(or whatever), you lose the swing when people draw it. You might decide
that you want some interesting, new combat defence in the set which is
distinct from Majesty for Presence. Do that with a few interesting
possibilities and you provide new things for constructed, and an
interesting-but-different limited environment.

Depending on what masters you put in, you could be missing a lot of
"standard" things. Blood gain, hand cycling, master cancellation,
whatever you decide. Constructed players don't need it, they can buy
the sets with it in. The limited players don't need it, precisely
because it's not available to ANYONE. No-one has the advantage, since
everyone's missing it - whatever it might be.


The thing is, do you get a playable deck for that limited environment at
the end of the day, that's still fun? This is NOT the same as do you
get a playable deck that is like constructed but with a bit less focus.

A limited environment does not have to mimic a constructed environment
in that fashion.


>Reprints or new cards? For reprints the key cards for the key
>strategies goes a little like this:
>
>Fame, Haven Uncovered
>Lost in the Crowds, Computer Hack
>Spirit's Touch, Smiling Jack (or vampiric disease) (not very good I
>know)
>KRC, Bewitching Oration (or voter cap)
>Gun, Blur
>WWEF, Telepathic Counter

Depends if you represent those strategies in that set. Remember: you
don't HAVE to print a base set. (Your monomania about base sets
notwithstanding.)

If the strategies that are in the set interact in an interesting
fashion, you just have a different environment to work in. And we do
that anyway. Storyline tournaments give (potentially) very different
environments to standard constructed. Speed of Thought different again
(though it's not that popular). The deck construction for any given
storyline can be only slightly different or radically different (for the
Infernal storyline, say).


Additionally, this way has the possibility of making a set which is
attractive to constructed players (because it has interesting cards for
particular strategies) rather than putting them off by reprinting lots
of cards they've already got, or which don't do anything inventive or
innovative.


>and so on. Two to three cards should be around to be big game helpers
>in limited for each strategy and key thing that vampires like to do.

What is the need to try and make limited the same as constructed, just
with fewer cards available?

Certainly, it's one option. But it's far from the only option.

>> Sabbat War and Final Nights can, as a result, work okay-ish in a
>limited
>> environment, even though they're not technically base sets. (Though
>I
>> regard Sabbat War as being near as damnit.) They're not perfect and
>> there are some things missing, but you can attempt to put a coherent
>> deck together for various different clans. Then, when that fragments
>a
>> bit, you can put it together across the three clans you've headed for
>in
>> the draft, or whatever.
>
>Yeah, but we all know how great limited decks with three clans and 6
>disciplines are.

When you have a set of 100+ cards and players only get (say) 60 or 70 to
make a deck from, that's what happens.

It may be that your issue is with the restrictions limited environments
inherently create.

Even with only a few clans, you get some cards from each turning up, and
you simply can't focus properly. And if the clans are distinct enough
in the first place (so as to make the set attractive for a wide range of
constructed players), that's just going to happen. I don't and can't
get everything I want, and that's just how limited works. You always
have to make compromises, because you start drafting the Toreador and
the odd Brujah, and then suddenly they stop coming. What do I take from
this pack? Argh, nothing sensible to take. Go on for a few packs and
you have to rethink strategies on the fly based on what turns up,
because you suddenly find yourself in packs with Dominate, Lucky Blow
and Blood Puppy.


>> Additionally, there cam be issues when a set has lots of nods towards
>> former sets. For instance, drawing cards which refer to Gehenna
>events
>> is reasonable when you're playing in a Gehenna oriented draft. But
>it's
>> less reasonable in that Gehenna draft to be drawing cards like, say,
>> Black Hand Ritual, which are a nod back to the Black Hand set.
>(There
>> are two Black Hand vampires in the set.)
>
>Why would you include nods towards former sets within a set suitable to
>draft/limited then?

Erm, I'm afraid you have gone off at a tangent at a rapid speed, for no
reason. I did not say that you would have to include these cards in a
set that appeals to limited players! I was discussing why these would
be problematic, but that not all expansions have such cards.


The point was raised that you need a base set to draft from. I was
discussing the factors that can make a set difficult to draft, whether
it's an expansion set or not. The idea that only base sets or sets
based around the core concepts of V:TES are draftable, and whether this
idea is valid or not, was what I was discussing.


>> Outlandish sets are fine, so long as there's something useful to
>build a
>> deck with. It might well be a very different deck that gets built
>than
>> the normal stealth-bleed monsters, but if you can craft something fun
>> and playable out of it, I'm not sure that that's a problem.
>
>It does cause a problem when one tries to draft cards from set A which
>yeilds your traditional VTES strategies like SB, and then you also
>include boosters from set B which has weird strategies like, oh

Sure, if you mix and match sets in a stupid fashion without regard to
what's in the sets, you get stupid results. I'm not sure that this is a
problem, however, and is certainly no different to what can happen now
anyway.

If people pick pointless, random combinations without regard to the
consequences, no amount of good design will combat that.

--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 2:14:22 PM

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

Ben Swainbank wrote:
>
> Deck Recycling Rule:
> A Methuselah has no library left may use a Discard Phase Action to
> shuffle his entire Ash Heap into his Library and Crypt.
>
> That would make a 6-7 pack draft using existing sets and pricing
models
> viable.
>
I would like something like "may use a discard action or an MPA to
shuffle one card back into his or her library". That way, it doesn't
100% avoid deck-depletion, and also there is some small penalty for
cycling through your cards like a madman, but at the same time, it
further reduces the penalty for playing with a small selection of
cards. Didn't draw the 4 Precognitions you needed for intercept?
Cycle the 2 you got back into your library.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 6:06:43 AM

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

I am not so interested in having special sets for draft, because i
think the most interesting thing is to have everytime a differnet
situation with draft.

But i think it would be good if the limited tournament rules would
allow to not only play boosters but also sets of cards made random by
the tournament organizer. So it would be possible to include starters
into a limited tournament. You would have to announce the used starters
before. That would have the advantage:

More basic cards (dependent on the starters)
Cheaper tournament

And, like Ben said, i still think, bigger drafting pots are better.
!