Re: Card banning (was Re: Food for thought)


"Frederick Scott" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:lDDXe.81131$DW1.16383@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "David Zopf" <davidxzopf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:zYBXe.222$i31.125@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "Frederick Scott" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:qaAXe.81118$DW1.70555@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> <pdb6@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:1127136429.516576.223410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Frederick Scott wrote:
>>>>> The bottom line is, playing IC members and Protect Thine Own is not a
>>>>> sure,
>>>>> easy formula for winning. Therefore, it is not unbalanced.
>>>>> Continually
>>>>> attempting to argue it _is_ unbalanced just throws fog on the whole
>>>>> dispute.
>>>>
>>>> Unbalanced = having an effect that is not warranted based on its cost.
>>>> The cost of the card (1 blood, being an IC member, getting the vote
>>>> passed) is not enough for the effect (burning Enkidu).
>>>
>>> 1) I disagree. Being an IC member is a pretty high cost, actually.
>>
>> Fred, thats silly. IC members are expensive to influence, but merely
>> having one isn't a large cost, considering all that one gets for one's
>> pool, and the ease of recuperation of that expense (Minion Tap). Its not
>> like you're playing a one-shot master card which costs 11 pool...
>
> Of course it's a large cost. I have designed a deck for Toredor
> Antitribu,
> to get out lots of them and take advantage of their numbers when bleeding
> with Palla Grande and voting with Foundation Exhibit and bloating with Art
> Scam. Now explain to me where Leadro fits in this picture?
>

I won't comment, except to point out that this is only relevent to jamming
an extra effect into a deck for which it is poorly prepared, and that such
an example is a poor one from which to consider the "real cost" of a card
(...and you couldn't even pick Alexandra? C'mon, throw me a bone here.)

> The pretension that there's no cost to using one - or really you need more
> copies than one to effectively use the card - specific vampire, and
> especially
> an 11-cap vampire - in a given deck is what's silly. Of course, you use
> Arika in a deck geared to use high cap Ventrues. The question is, do you
> start building decks ONLY to use Arika because you can then play PtO? Or
> rather, how good of a card does PtO have to be before you start reasoning
> that way as you design decks? I think it has to be better than it is, and
> I think that shows that being an IC member contributes substantially more
> to
> PtO's cost than Peter is giving it credit.
>

'K. I think the discussion below shows that this is not my interpretation
of whats wrong with PTO, and also that I don't think such an interpretation
of a card is a necessary criteria when considering if a card is
change-worthy.

>>> And
>>> another cost you're not taking into account is the point that it can't
>>> be used in many circumstances - against Camarilla vampires. That point
>>> is
>>> often not given its due, IMO. Even though Camarilla vampires may be a
>>> minority of the vampires, it makes the card something you can't depend
>>> upon which prevents a huge amount of abuse. Another classic example of
>>> this is Kiss of Ra, which would be a MONDO broken card but for the
>>> inability to use it against vampires with Fortitude (another class of
>>> vampire that's probably a sizable minority). There's a huge difference
>>> between a card you can always use (or nearly always) and one that fails
>>> horribly against some decks.
>>>
>>
>> Consider the following hypothetical card:
>> Steely Tenacity of the Eldest
>> Action modifier
>> 2 blood
>> Requires a Non-camarilla vampire with a capacity above 10.
>> Play after a combat between this vampire and a Camarilla vampire ends.
>> Only playable if both combatants are ready. The opposing vampire is
>> burned. Only one Steely Tenacity of the Eldest may be played by you each
>> turn.
>>
>> So you would have to use an 11 cap non-cam, get into combat against your
>> target, and survive (as opposed to having an 11 cap, getting a vote
>> successfully called, and pass it). So only one could be played each
>> turn... So Cam vampires are a minority 'victim class'... So the victim
>> has a wealth of possible defenses, if they choose to use them... So
>> what? The above card is overpowered, in much the same way as PTO, and
>> the mere fact that you need an 11 cap to use it doesn't make it any less
>> overpowered an effect.
>
> Actually, there's no point in continuing with this analogy. I think
> you've
> invented a card that would be quite comparable to PtO, indeed. And
> because
> of this I would think STotE is would be unlikely to be found to be
> unbalanced any more than PtO is unbalanced for all the same reasons.
> If you're suggesting it's "overpowered" - as distinct from "unbalanced",
> staking out a different definition - I might agree depending on what
> definition of "overpowered" you were proposing. Whether a card then being
> "overpowered" but not "unbalanced" was a reason to ban it is another
> question.
>

....I think I like my new phrase even more then: "change-worthy". Call it
that, then, so as to give it a significantly new name.

>> Its mere presence would alter deckbuilding tactics enough to make it Bad
>> for the Game(tm).
>
> Could be. I don't necessarily disagree with that. I just disagree that
> you could use it to make a killer, unbalanced deck.
>
>> We know that the mere presence of some cards discourages the use of
>> others (the classic AI limiting bleeds to 3), and that such an effect
>> will by its very nature not be seen in the composition of winning
>> decklists. If PTO gives potential non-cam players enough pause before
>> building a deck for a tournament, isn't that Bad Enough?
>
> It might be. I'm not sure it really has that effect but that's because
> I don't put personally put a lot of thought into whether I want to play
> with a card like Goratrix because someone might PtO Goratrix.
>
>>> and
>>> 2) That's not really the definition of a broken card, anyway. It's a
>>> pretty good sign of a broken card if its effect seems to be out of
>>> balance with the cost. But in the end, you have to ask yourself whether
>>> people can actually build overpowered decks with it. The answer, in
>>> this
>>> case - based on the evidence of real life play - seems to be no.
>>>
>> The answer is also No for nearly every other errata-ed/banned card to
>> date. I think only RTI was banned due to being 'broken' by the
>> definition you give above, and only Tomb of Ramses III and Mind Rape were
>> errata-ed on the same grounds.
>
> There might be some other changes/rewordings that I can't think of right
> off
> the top of my head but I agree, these are the main ones.
>
>> Similarly, cards of lesser power have been rerrata-ed to bring their
>> effect in line with their cost (Wake being the example which first comes
>> to mind). So this conclusion is obviously not the definitive factor of
>> arriving at a decision for action (or not) by the RT.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>> ...I really don't think that's the
>>> problem most people have with the card. I think most people, if they
>>> thought about it, would admit that no one's using the card to build
>>> killer decks. It's just that it's rude to totally lose Enkidu because
>>> an IC member could pass a single vote. In other words, they don't like
>>> how the card plays.
>>>
>> In considering whether a card's effect is overpowered, its wise to
>> consider other iterations of the same effect, given to other segments of
>> the game (which is what I tried to do with STotE, above; take the
>> argument to its iterative extreme)...
>
> It depends. The principle sounds good on the face of it. But I think a
> lot of times people draw too much from such analogies. Some seemingly
> minor difference between two cards makes more of a difference than folks
> give credit for.
>

"I'll be careful...." <waits to see who drops the response line>

>> If every high capacity VTES vampire had a similar 'burn a vampire' effect
>> afforded to them, would the game be at all worth playing? I don't think
>> it would be, so I don't think that _any_ segment of high-cap vampires in
>> the game should have access to such an effect... therefore I think PTO is
>> in need of a change.
>
> All right. I think that's a fair position. I'd just say you need to be
> careful about how you say it. When you talk about a card being
> "overpowered",
> you create debates out of thin air with people who are thinking in terms
> of
> comparisons with Return to Innocence and the original version of Tomb of
> Ramses III.

>From here on out, I'll be making excessive use of my new phavorite phrase,
Change-Worthy, and hopefully ingrain a phrase into the collective online
VTES mass-consciousness.

And I have to say; Wow, you're really agreeable today, Fred :-) Are you
feeling OK? Just kidding, its just that you _do_ seem to fall on the
opposite (and usually minority) side of debates here. I hope this reflects
well on my ability to state my case, and is not because of something funny
you ate in the past 24 hours :-)

DaveZ
Atom Weaver


.

Relevant Pages

  • Clan Assamite Newsletter, July 2008
    ... vampires for the deck. ... Put this card on this magaji and untap him or her. ... Burn this card if this magaji attempts to block a vampire ... Tap this location to reduce the cost of a card you play by 1 pool ...
    (rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad)
  • Re: Clan Assamite Newsletter, July 2008
    ... vampires for the deck. ... Put this card on this magaji and untap him or her. ... Burn this card if this magaji attempts to block a vampire ... Tap this location to reduce the cost of a card you play by 1 pool ...
    (rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad)
  • Re: LoN Spoilers, sorted & commented
    ... Weapons cost him 1 less pool or blood. ... Abdelsobek can untap a vampire or a mummy you control as ... Put this card on any minion. ...
    (rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad)
  • Daughters of Cacophony Playbill, December 2005
    ... Daughters of Cacophony Playbill, December 2005 ... Vampire of the Month: ... Deck of the Month: ... When Yseult plays a card that requires Melpominee, ...
    (rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad)
  • Re: HTTB Spoilers
    ... In combat, the controller of the opposing minion plays ... Reaction, aus/val, no cost ... Cancel a combat card played by the opposing minion as it is played (no ... A vampire can play only one Death Seeker each round. ...
    (rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad)