Ang grupo na iyong pinagpapaskilan ay isang grupo ng Usenet. Ang mga mensaheng naipaskil sa grupong ito ay gagawing nakikita ang iyong email address sa sinuman sa Internet.
I was wondering, while people talk about the possibility of changing the Contest Rule, why we don't have an equivalent to the Mulligan Rule in other TCGs ?
I believe every player has spent at least one very bad game with either his Crypt or his Library gone very bad...
So what do you think about something like that :
1. Once per game you can reshuffle your Library or our Crypt when drawing your opening Hand and Crypt.
2. Maybe that should cost something : 1 or 2 pool, or a reduced Hand for the remainder of the game.
> I was wondering, while people talk about the possibility of changing > the Contest Rule, why we don't have an equivalent to the Mulligan Rule > in other TCGs ?
> I believe every player has spent at least one very bad game with > either his Crypt or his Library gone very bad...
> So what do you think about something like that :
> 1. Once per game you can reshuffle your Library or our Crypt when > drawing your opening Hand and Crypt.
> 2. Maybe that should cost something : 1 or 2 pool, or a reduced Hand > for the remainder of the game.
> 3. Something else ?
> Nicolas, French Prince of Oye Plage.
I think V:tes players are far less sensible to bad opening hands than in other games because they replace every card they discard. Also, for the crypt, in good logical, you should have at least a vampire you can play in your opening crypt, and you can also call the next one, so unless your crypt is badly built, I don't see the need to go fish another crypt.
v:tes is a long term game. In good logics, your opening cards have not that much importance.
On 6 Nov, 10:13, orianice <coincoinmas...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 nov, 08:10, Nico <nicopada...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think V:tes players are far less sensible to bad opening hands than > in other games because they replace every card they discard. > Also, for the crypt, in good logical, you should have at least a > vampire you can play in your opening crypt, and you can also call the > next one, so unless your crypt is badly built, I don't see the need to > go fish another crypt.
> v:tes is a long term game. In good logics, your opening cards have not > that much importance.
I agree with this. You just have to build a deck that is less sensible to bad draws - itīs part of the charm.
On Nov 6, 3:10 pm, Nico <nicopada...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I was wondering, while people talk about the possibility of changing > the Contest Rule, why we don't have an equivalent to the Mulligan Rule > in other TCGs ?
There have been many a threads discussing the pros and cons of a Mulligan rule, as well as quite a few suggested versions of the rule. A quick search on the group's list page nets you at least 10 pages of results. Feel free to read through all of that.
The search function is still quite good even with the new restricted search rules on Google Groups. You should try it sometime. :-p
> I was wondering, while people talk about the possibility of changing > the Contest Rule, why we don't have an equivalent to the Mulligan Rule > in other TCGs ?
> I believe every player has spent at least one very bad game with > either his Crypt or his Library gone very bad...
> So what do you think about something like that :
> 1. Once per game you can reshuffle your Library or our Crypt when > drawing your opening Hand and Crypt.
> 2. Maybe that should cost something : 1 or 2 pool, or a reduced Hand > for the remainder of the game.
> 3. Something else ?
how about once per turn, at the end of your turn, you can throw out a card and draw a new one.
also maybe once per turn, you can draw a new vampire from your crypt. i think you're right though, this should maybe have a cost. I'd say, 1 pool, and you can't make any transfers that turn.
what do people think? too harsh? or would it make the game too easy?
-- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
On Nov 6, 2:10 am, Nico <nicopada...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I was wondering, while people talk about the possibility of changing > the Contest Rule, why we don't have an equivalent to the Mulligan Rule > in other TCGs ?
This actually just came up and was a lengthy discussion not too long ago (someone with more patience for group search-fu wanna provide a link?). It is certainly a reasonable idea on many levels, but two of the problems observed would be:
A) If it is a crypt mulligan rule in hopes of aleviating contestation, you don't generally know you are going to contest something until it is too late, after which a mulligan rule doesn't help.
B) If it is a crypt mulligan rule in hopes of making wacky crypt draws not an issue, then it makes wacky crypt draws not an issue, and one of the biggest balancing factors of single vampire decks is thrown out the window.
I mean, I don't know if having a crypt (for example) mulligan would really impact crypt design that much--if you *really* need Vampire X for whatever reason, even with a crypt mulligan, you still are going to want at least 4 of them in there (5 being pretty much industry standard for a superstar deck currently). Maybe if there was a crypt mulligan rule of:
-On your first turn, during your untap phase, you can reshuffle your crypt and draw 3 new minions for your uncontrolled region.
This would certainly help average out crazy crypt draws, with a cost (you only get 3 uncontrolled guys instead of 4), but it isn't likely to help with contestation much, and makes Brainwash kind of useless (well, this isn't a *bad* thing, really...), but I don't know how much it would actually help things in the long run such that it would be worth instituting.
Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Nov 6, 2:10 am, Nico <nicopada...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> I was wondering, while people talk about the possibility of changing >> the Contest Rule, why we don't have an equivalent to the Mulligan Rule >> in other TCGs ?
> This actually just came up and was a lengthy discussion not too long > ago (someone with more patience for group search-fu wanna provide a > link?).
One oft-overlooked point is that VTES already, intrinsically, has a fix to the problem for which other games use a mulligan rule. Namely, VTES separates the deck into two pieces: crypt and library.
Quoting from the above-linked thread:
VTES offers an alternative to the mulligan system by having two decks. So your initial hand is guaranteed to be 7 library cards and 4 crypt cards (by separating the decks, you avoid the possibility of starting with no crypt cards in your opening 11-card hand. Secondarily, you also avoid the possibility of starting with no library cards in the opening 11 cards).
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 06:14:02 -0800 (PST), Peter D Bakija
<p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Nov 6, 4:21 am, Ashur <ashur.ashur...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I agree with this. You just have to build a deck that is less sensible >> to bad draws - itīs part of the charm.
> I'm not one to play grammar cop, generally speaking, but I'm pretty > sure the work you guys mean here is "sensitive" rather than > "senisible".
Am I the only one who finds this paragraph rather funny?
On Nov 6, 3:20 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:
> > I'm not one to play grammar cop, generally speaking, but I'm pretty > > sure the work you guys mean here is "sensitive" rather than > > "senisible".
> Am I the only one who finds this paragraph rather funny?
I'm sure there are any number of ways that it could be funny--I might have spelled something wrong, or accidentally wrote "work" instead of "word" (as I was typing fast right before I had to actually do some work...) or used horrible grammar, or in an utter lack of sensitivity pointed out that sensitive is the wrong word. But really, as both Ashur and Oriance used "sensible" in what is likely a misunderstanding of English, I figured I'd point it out in a non confrontational way.
> On Nov 6, 3:20 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:
> > > I'm not one to play grammar cop, generally speaking, but I'm pretty > > > sure the work you guys mean here is "sensitive" rather than > > > "senisible".
> > Am I the only one who finds this paragraph rather funny?
> I'm sure there are any number of ways that it could be funny--I might > have spelled something wrong, or accidentally wrote "work" instead of > "word" (as I was typing fast right before I had to actually do some > work...) or used horrible grammar, or in an utter lack of sensitivity > pointed out that sensitive is the wrong word. But really, as both > Ashur and Oriance used "sensible" in what is likely a misunderstanding > of English, I figured I'd point it out in a non confrontational way.
> > As always! :)
> I do what I can!
> -Peter
I'm really deceived by your lack of sensibility, Peter.
On Nov 6, 9:14 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 4:21 am, Ashur <ashur.ashur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree with this. You just have to build a deck that is less sensible > > to bad draws - itīs part of the charm.
> I'm not one to play grammar cop, generally speaking, but I'm pretty > sure the work you guys mean here is "sensitive" rather than > "senisible".
Hmm... building a deck to be less sensible to bad draws is an interesting idea. That way, when a bad draw tries to hit you and looks at your deck, it won't be able to make enough sense of it to figure out how to screw with your game and go hit someone else instead. A cunning plan indeed.
On Nov 6, 9:03 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> A) If it is a crypt mulligan rule in hopes of aleviating contestation, > you don't generally know you are going to contest something until it > is too late, after which a mulligan rule doesn't help.
Unless you also start playing with face up crypts. At which point contestation would be strategic and only accidental when multiple players aren't paying attention. So there wouldn't need to be a mulligan rule at all to aleviate it.
|
