Food for thought

[Guest]

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

Here's a little update from our weekly games.

Player A influences out Arika.
His prey, Player B, influences Enkidu on the same turn.
Player A PTOs Enkidu.
Player B almost gets up and leaves the store right then.

Dorrinal Blackmantle
Chronicler of Clan Tremere

 

[Guest]

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

Dorrinal Blackmantle wrote:
> Here's a little update from our weekly games.
>
> Player A influences out Arika.
> His prey, Player B, influences Enkidu on the same turn.
> Player A PTOs Enkidu.
> Player B almost gets up and leaves the store right then.

This story would have been even funnier if they had been cross-table,
y'know.

> Dorrinal Blackmantle

-John Flournoy

 

[Guest]

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

John Flournoy wrote:
> Dorrinal Blackmantle wrote:
> > Here's a little update from our weekly games.
> >
> > Player A influences out Arika.
> > His prey, Player B, influences Enkidu on the same turn.
> > Player A PTOs Enkidu.
> > Player B almost gets up and leaves the store right then.
>
> This story would have been even funnier if they had been cross-table,
> y'know.

Heh. I guess that would have been funny, in a juvenile kicking-puppies
kinda way.

> -John Flournoy

Dorrinal Blackmantle
Chronicler of Clan Tremere

 

[Guest]

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

Dorrinal Blackmantle wrote:
> Here's a little update from our weekly games.
>
> Player A influences out Arika.
> His prey, Player B, influences Enkidu on the same turn.
> Player A PTOs Enkidu.
> Player B almost gets up and leaves the store right then.
>
> Dorrinal Blackmantle
> Chronicler of Clan Tremere

What a sore loser!

Where were his Direct Interventions and Confusion of the Eyes?

/sarcasm

 

[Guest]

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

jeffkuta@pacbell.net писал(а):

> However when a *POLITICAL ACTION* burns a vampire, that's just plain
> wrong.
>
It's ok to burn a Caitiff. But a leader of a clan...

 

[Guest]

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

Out of mild curiosity, does anyone acutally like PTO? As far as I can
tell every now and again, someone comes on the boards, laments the
existence of PTO and it's annoying, arguably overpowered effects, and
then a whole string of other people line up to sympathize. I know
people who play the card who don't like the card! So, where's the
problem? If everyone and their brother dislikes it so well, then the
course of action seems to be clear:

C-h-a-n-g-e t-h-e T-e-x-t

-or-

B-a-n t-h-e C-a-r-d

It doesn't seem that hard. It's not like trying to do brain surgery
with a pipe wrench while a rabid gorilla is trying to eat your face.
That would be hard. This really isn't. And it's not like this debate
has been going on for like, six months or whatever. It's been going on
since PTO was released, I'm sure...granted it wasn't as big of an issue
because there were fewer non-Cammies "back in the day." Just figure it
out, will someone? If for no other reason then that we can move on to
some other intractable argument that will never be resolved.

TTFn

 

[Guest]

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

Jozxyqk wrote:
> Ankur Gupta <agupta@cs.duke.edu> wrote:
>
> > For PTO, there are 3-4 defenses, each of which is less likely to be held
> > than any of the above:
>
> So, the solution to the "PTO problem" (which exists more in theory than
> in practice in my experience) should focus more on printing new cards
> with anti-vote effects and flexible secondary uses (like Confusion of
> the Eye), or new single cards that are just as powerful as PTO in different
> ways (if there were 10 different single-card ways to burn a vampire, would
> this be as big of a deal?), rather than banning/errata-ing yet another card.
>
> Do you agree?

Votes should not burn vampires. Period.

And no one wants a power-escalation. The Design Team has done a pretty
good job of keeping the clan/discipline arms race in check. Of course,
they didn't design PTO, which is why many people want to see it
banned--because it is *WAY* above the power curve standard to which the
game is currently being designed. We will *never* see cards like PTO or
Inner Circle members ever printed again. Why? Because they are WAY TOO
GOOD.

Jeff

 

[Guest]

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

"The Kaiser" <aleistre@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1126906109.518533.293160@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> C-h-a-n-g-e t-h-e T-e-x-t
>
> -or-
>
> B-a-n t-h-e C-a-r-d
>
> It doesn't seem that hard. It's not like trying to do brain surgery
> with a pipe wrench while a rabid gorilla is trying to eat your face.
> That would be hard. This really isn't.

Well, it's not that simple, either. I don't know if anyone really
_likes_ the card or thinks it's somehow good for the game or anything.
But I don't know that no one does, either. People who liked the card
either wouldn't post or would only bother to defend the card as far
as they felt they needed to in order to maintain the status quo -
meaning up until this moment, far enough to show that it's no worse than
a number of other cards. You're the first one to ever suggest that
a card needs to be positively _liked_ by some segment of the players
in order not to undergo forced surgery or execution.

Be that as it may, there's also a marginal problem with banning any
card - and especially a rare card. You have to tell eveyone it's
banned, which causes confusion. Just within the past week or two,
someone posted on this forum to figure out why people were talking
about banned cards that weren't on the list he was looking at (it
was old list). People get annoyed when they trade for or buy a card
that gets banned - and of course, a card like PTO is currently a
heavily in-demand card so that aggravates things. Because of this,
it's really a good idea to have a lot of consensus that the card is
a problem so that folks will at least know their sacrifice is for a
good cause.

> And it's not like this debate
> has been going on for like, six months or whatever. It's been going on
> since PTO was released, I'm sure...granted it wasn't as big of an issue
> because there were fewer non-Cammies "back in the day." Just figure it
> out, will someone? If for no other reason then that we can move on to
> some other intractable argument that will never be resolved.

I don't think it works like that. It doesn't make sense to ban cards just
because a segment of the population wants to revisit the issue from time
to time and you don't them to. Usenet is just the right place to have
debates - even these eternal debates. So unless the designers ultimately
decide to do it, you're just going to have to put it with it, I think.

Fred, pretty sure my face would put a rabid gorilla off his chow...

 

[Guest]

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

Jozxyqk wrote:
> jeffkuta@pacbell.net wrote:
>
> > Votes should not burn vampires. Period.
>
> I disagree with this statement.
> Do you think that Sacrifice should be banned too?

Sacrifice and Tradition upheld are possibly the only votes narrow
enough to escape banning. One requires an opponent to play the same
clan as yourself. The other requires an opponent to play Caitiff, which
are generally very low capacity vampires. Therefore, no one plays with
these cards. Note: Both of these burn a vampire votes were also made
before the current design team took over.

> > We will *never* see cards like PTO or Inner Circle members ever
> > printed again.
>
> How do you know this? Are you on the design team?

I am not, but I'm making an educated guess looking over the cards they
have developed since they took over with Sabbat War. The only other
possible egregious card around is Direct Intervention, but I won't
argue for banning that until I see how the play universe changes after
PTO is gone. Right now, clans that are seriously lacking in terms of
AUS or DOM need cards like Direct Intervention to be competitive, never
mind that the Ventrue and !Toreador of the world can use those in
addition to their normal disciplines.

Jeff

/also wants disciplineless bounce

 

[Bluedevil]

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

Ankur Gupta wrote:

> I don't think that introducing more effects of a level of PTO is good.
> However, printing cards which have defensive uses yet are versatile enough
> for use outside of that particular defense would be ok. Note, however,
> that the defense really needs to be sufficient. See say, loyalist for a
> card that doesn't quite fit the bill.

But at the same time, you have to preserve the general truth that
"offense beats defense". It's an important cornerstone of the game,
and trickling in uber-defense could destroy it.

--

David Cherryholmes

 

[Guest]

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

or if you swap enkidu for arika that would be the history of what dave
did to me in my first turn...

 

[Guest]

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

> Both arguments assume that Enkidu didn't have the proper defensive card
> in hand. If he didn't have a Grapple in hand in this case, it's the
> same as not having Confusion of the Eye in hand against the PTO.

Not as sequitor as you might think:

Enkidu practically necessitates having combat cards. A dodge, a maneuver,
a combat ends (though unlikely, but possibly attached to a Rapid Change),
a canine hordes, a fast hands, or drawing out the beast, OR a grapple
could handle tariq with his lame ass rowan ring.

For PTO, there are 3-4 defenses, each of which is less likely to be held
than any of the above:

1) DI
2) Delaying Tactics (so that he might die next turn instead)
3) Confusion in the Eye
4) Intercept (unlikely for enkidu in a non-permanent sense)

2 of those 4 don't solve the problem outright. The others require you to
pack your deck with defenses you wouldn't otherwise need to deal with
votes.

As I said, not as sequitor as you'd like it to be.

Ankur

 

[Guest]

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

Ankur Gupta <agupta@cs.duke.edu> wrote:

> For PTO, there are 3-4 defenses, each of which is less likely to be held
> than any of the above:

So, the solution to the "PTO problem" (which exists more in theory than
in practice in my experience) should focus more on printing new cards
with anti-vote effects and flexible secondary uses (like Confusion of
the Eye), or new single cards that are just as powerful as PTO in different
ways (if there were 10 different single-card ways to burn a vampire, would
this be as big of a deal?), rather than banning/errata-ing yet another card.

Do you agree?

 

[Guest]

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

jeffkuta@pacbell.net wrote:

> Votes should not burn vampires. Period.

I disagree with this statement.
Do you think that Sacrifice should be banned too?

> We will *never* see cards like PTO or Inner Circle members ever
> printed again.

How do you know this? Are you on the design team?

 

[Guest]

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

Jozxyqk wrote:

> So, the solution to the "PTO problem" (which exists more in theory than
> in practice in my experience) should focus more on printing new cards
> with anti-vote effects and flexible secondary uses (like Confusion of
> the Eye),

Maybe. But some cards are so over the top that obtuse fixes aren't really a
good option.

> or new single cards that are just as powerful as PTO in different
> ways (if there were 10 different single-card ways to burn a vampire, would
> this be as big of a deal?),

Worst. Idea. Ever.

>rather than banning/errata-ing yet another card.

I'm ok with banning/errata-ing yet another card.


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

"So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
easily spilled liquids to naked people."
-Brittni Meil

 

[Guest]

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

>> For PTO, there are 3-4 defenses, each of which is less likely to be
>> held than any of the above:
>
> So, the solution to the "PTO problem" (which exists more in theory than
> in practice in my experience) should focus more on printing new cards
> with anti-vote effects and flexible secondary uses (like Confusion of
> the Eye), or new single cards that are just as powerful as PTO in
> different ways (if there were 10 different single-card ways to burn a
> vampire, would this be as big of a deal?), rather than
> banning/errata-ing yet another card.

I don't think that introducing more effects of a level of PTO is good.
However, printing cards which have defensive uses yet are versatile enough
for use outside of that particular defense would be ok. Note, however,
that the defense really needs to be sufficient. See say, loyalist for a
card that doesn't quite fit the bill.

Ankur

 

[Bluedevil]

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

Ankur Gupta wrote:

> Fair enough. I think the assumption of my argument is that it would be
> playable but not game-breaking. I have confidence that such balance can be
> achieved.

It's probably doable. However, not having to even deal with the
problem is just one more argument in favor of simply banning it.

 

[Guest]

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

>> I don't think that introducing more effects of a level of PTO is good.
>> However, printing cards which have defensive uses yet are versatile
>> enough for use outside of that particular defense would be ok. Note,
>> however, that the defense really needs to be sufficient. See say,
>> loyalist for a card that doesn't quite fit the bill.
>
> But at the same time, you have to preserve the general truth that
> "offense beats defense". It's an important cornerstone of the game, and
> trickling in uber-defense could destroy it.

Fair enough. I think the assumption of my argument is that it would be
playable but not game-breaking. I have confidence that such balance can be
achieved.

Ankur

 

[Guest]

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

Ankur Gupta wrote:

> However, printing cards which have defensive uses yet are versatile enough
> for use outside of that particular defense would be ok. Note, however,
> that the defense really needs to be sufficient. See say, loyalist for a
> card that doesn't quite fit the bill.
>
> Ankur

Printing more defensive cards is the wrong way, IMHO. At least there
should be defensive cards for combat decks, for voting decks and for
all other archetypes. And these cards shouldn't require any
Disciplines, to be available for all, which is potentially abusive.
I mean, it's much better to fix the reason of the trouble than to
"defend" against it. If you had a rusty water pipe, which could flood
your home, would you look for a pump to "defend" against the flood?
Replacing the pipe would be much easier
And, honestly, I still don't have ANY sound arguments against
restricting PTO to vampires with capacity below 9. The card would even
cost roughly the same, since almost nobody plays 9+ non-Cammies anyway.

Yours,
Ector

 

[Guest]

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

Ankur Gupta wrote:

> However, printing cards which have defensive uses yet are versatile enough
> for use outside of that particular defense would be ok. Note, however,
> that the defense really needs to be sufficient. See say, loyalist for a
> card that doesn't quite fit the bill.
>
> Ankur

Printing more defensive cards is the wrong way, IMHO. At least there
should be defensive cards for combat decks, for voting decks and for
all other archetypes. And these cards shouldn't require any
Disciplines, to be available for all, which is potentially abusive.
I mean, it's much better to fix the reason of the trouble than to
"defend" against it. If you had a rusty water pipe, which could flood
your home, would you look for a pump to "defend" against the flood?
Replacing the pipe would be much easier
And, honestly, I still don't have ANY sound arguments against
restricting PTO to vampires with capacity below 9. The card would even
cost roughly the same, since almost nobody plays 9+ non-Cammies anyway.

Yours,
Ector

 

[Guest]

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

In message <i_GdndzuHY1Rq7beRVn-rQ@comcast.com>, Jozxyqk
<jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu> writes:
>new single cards that are just as powerful as PTO in different
>ways (if there were 10 different single-card ways to burn a vampire, would
>this be as big of a deal?), rather than banning/errata-ing yet another card.

Ignoring the specifics of PTO:

This means that every time a card turns up that turns out to be really
rather too good - either intentionally, accidentally, or via an
unforeseen interaction with an easily accessed combo card that turns up
later - you start printing more cards that do exactly the same.

Short-term result: "Wow, look at all these cool cards, I'll buy some!"

Long-term result: "Jeez, I have to buy heaps of a new expansion every
time one comes out, or I might as well not bother playing. I just can't
afford it right now. See you around, guys."


Continually upping the power stakes is generally not a good thing for
the long-term survivability of a game.

--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

 

[Guest]

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

>> Fair enough. I think the assumption of my argument is that it would be
>> playable but not game-breaking. I have confidence that such balance can
>> be achieved.
>
> It's probably doable. However, not having to even deal with the problem
> is just one more argument in favor of simply banning it.

Noted. I'm personally in favor of banning the card (or possibly serving
some meaningful errata), but I was mainly responding to the original
comment as to whether introducing defense would "balance" the potential
imbalance out. That such a solution has other
not-necessarily-easily-seen consequences is of course a trade-off, as
you've pointed out.

Ankur

 

[Guest]

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

> In message <Pine.GSO.4.62.0509162050070.16609@eenie.cs.duke.edu>, Ankur
> Gupta <agupta@cs.duke.edu> writes:
> <defensive options against PTO vs the need to preserve offence beats
> defence>
>> Fair enough. I think the assumption of my argument is that it would be
>> playable but not game-breaking. I have confidence that such balance can
>> be achieved.
>
> The difficult part is that if a defensive option is easily accessible
> and reliable enough to thwart PTO, it's quite possibly similarly
> accessible to thwart Parity Shift (which is a step down from PTO), or
> KRC (which is probably a step down again), or Praxis Seizures (which are
> a solid set-up card needed by many political decks) and so on.

I'd agree that on the surface such a defensive option would be as you
suggest. Just saying that it need not be on the surface. More to the
point, I personally would rather ban. I was only responding to the
question about whether defensive cards were a plausible solution, to which
I said, "Yeah, sure, theoretically speaking it could work."

Maybe it's not as feasible as I was originally willing to hand-wave away.

Ankur

 

[Guest]

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

In message <Pine.GSO.4.62.0509162050070.16609@eenie.cs.duke.edu>, Ankur
Gupta <agupta@cs.duke.edu> writes:
<defensive options against PTO vs the need to preserve offence beats
defence>
>Fair enough. I think the assumption of my argument is that it would be
>playable but not game-breaking. I have confidence that such balance can
>be achieved.

The difficult part is that if a defensive option is easily accessible
and reliable enough to thwart PTO, it's quite possibly similarly
accessible to thwart Parity Shift (which is a step down from PTO), or
KRC (which is probably a step down again), or Praxis Seizures (which are
a solid set-up card needed by many political decks) and so on.


Confusion of the Eye shows one way to try to work around those sorts of
difficulties, by limiting the available uses, or toning them down
significantly. But for a flexible defence to be a worthwhile include,
it needs something to do when the power cards don't show up - it's a
very risky business including a chunk of PTO defence if it can ONLY be
used against PTO.

So then the power needs to trickle down somehow, and somewhere along the
line an effect becomes usable against less powerful cards, and it all
starts to creep in at the edges.

--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

 

[Guest]

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

Ankur Gupta wrote:
>> Both arguments assume that Enkidu didn't have the proper defensive
>> card in hand. If he didn't have a Grapple in hand in this case, it's
>> the same as not having Confusion of the Eye in hand against the PTO.
>
>
> Not as sequitor as you might think:
>
> Enkidu practically necessitates having combat cards. A dodge, a
> maneuver, a combat ends (though unlikely, but possibly attached to a
> Rapid Change), a canine hordes, a fast hands, or drawing out the beast,
> OR a grapple could handle tariq with his lame ass rowan ring.
>
> For PTO, there are 3-4 defenses, each of which is less likely to be held
> than any of the above:
>
> 1) DI
> 2) Delaying Tactics (so that he might die next turn instead)
> 3) Confusion in the Eye
> 4) Intercept (unlikely for enkidu in a non-permanent sense)
>
intercept is not a defense against pto, because most of the time pto is
played by either arika or alexandra. with the anthelios/TGB tech making
blocks impossible and arika has sup OBF, and forgotten labyrinth/Lost in
crowds/elder impersonation is hard to block.

so you can block should never be an argument why a card is not to
strong. (same goes for DI)

btw the NAC was soley won by PTO (ok giants blood played a part too).

stefan