Simple tourny rules to replace restricted list

It looks to me like the following simple rules would render the need for the restricted list as outlined in the recent DC rules. To wit: 1) Play vote pushing as written in the Jyad rules - "other Meths may burn PA cards in exchange for votes" (paraphrased). (That addresses all the political cards on the list) 2) A vampire may not attempt the same action more than once per turn. (This addresses all the untap abuses) That leaves only 5th tradition - it's the only one that doesn't directly fit into #1 or #2. I contend that without untap abuse, 5th tradition is merely a good card, rather than an abusive one, but just in case : 3) 5th tradition is not usable on a prince or justicar. A question for Tom - You are the net.liason. You do a great job of communicating WotC news to us, the net reading public. However, liason is a two-way street. How successful are you at communicating the ideas proposed here to the design team/DC people? One cancellation of a previous ruling, one rules addendum, and one card errata, three lines in all, seem a lot more elegant than card limits. Alec -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://astrowww.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

Alec Habig <aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu> wrote: >A question for Tom - >You are the net.liason. You do a great job of communicating WotC news to us, >the net reading public. However, liason is a two-way street. How successful >are you at communicating the ideas proposed here to the design team/DC people? Apparently not as successful as I thought, given the 2-per-card limit on the restricted list. But I am, more or less, in charge of the rules team. >One cancellation of a previous ruling, one rules addendum, and one card errata >three lines in all, seem a lot more elegant than card limits. The DC is not in the business of altering the gameplay of the card games it has tournament rules for. Deck construction, yes, but the only modification to gameplay has been Ring of Ma'Ruf. Gameplay is left up to R&D. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : Alec Habig <aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu> wrote: : >A question for Tom - : >You are the net.liason. You do a great job of communicating WotC news to us, : >the net reading public. However, liason is a two-way street. How successful : >are you at communicating the ideas proposed here to the design team/DC people? : Apparently not as successful as I thought, given the 2-per-card limit : on the restricted list. But I am, more or less, in charge of the rules team. Its nice to see that you were against the "2 limit." The internet should be seen by the DC as a huge playtest group. And currently there are 2 basic opinions: use a 4 card limit, or use no limits but have some sort of house rules/errata to fix the restricted cards. This resource is not being effectively utilized by the DC, b/c despite all the playtesting done at WoTC, the internet community does much more. The tourney rules have failed to make anyone happy, and most likely will never be widely used. This is a shame, b/c its the tourneys that have made MtG the huge success that it is. And now this won't happen with VTES. : >One cancellation of a previous ruling, one rules addendum, and one card errata : >three lines in all, seem a lot more elegant than card limits. : The DC is not in the business of altering the gameplay of the card games : it has tournament rules for. Deck construction, yes, but the only modification : to gameplay has been Ring of Ma'Ruf. Gameplay is left up to R&D. You can't honestly believe this is true. If the tournament format becomes readily accepted by people then it basicly reflects the rules of the game. No one plays MtG with more then 4 or a card in their deck, b/c the tourney rules are the standard. The main reason for this is the fact that MtG is a broken game without limits. Jyhad, on the other hand, basicly isn't. This is the main reason why the tourney rules will never be accepted: 1st off they are bad, and 2nd Jyhad is not a broken game without them. Did the DC playtest decks under the rules they proposed? Not likely. Does the DC want variety in the decks that people play at tourneys? Obviously not. Right now every tournament will be a competition of who can put together the best stealth-bleed deck. Who can afford the best rares for their decks, who gets the right distribution of cards. What happens when it becomes obvious that the only way to win a tournament is to use S-B. Will they restrict the Dominate bleed boosters? Or will they restrict Malkavians? (Yes, your crypt can only have one Malkavian in it, b/c those damn Malks are just so much better at what you have to do to win one of our tourneys.) Or will Malk Dementia become restricted, b/c everyone is using it? I think the best solution for this is to have the internet players get together and make their own set of tourney rules. Have one or two of the most vocal supporters of given view points (aka limit vs no limit) talk over email, and come to some sort of compromise that players of both limit and non-limit Jyhad can play . Then post what they come up with to the net, and get some feedback. Make any needed changes, then re-posst, etc. It really should take that long. Then there would be a standard that can be spread. Who knows, the DC might get a clue and pay attention when they realize that no one is willing to use their rules. Actually, I'll volunteer to be the "center contact" or arbitrator if people are willing to do this. -- Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a ch...@fpah1.dseg.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.

Thomas R Wylie <aa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote: >>One cancellation of a previous ruling, one rules addendum, and one card >>errata three lines in all, seem a lot more elegant than card limits. > >The DC is not in the business of altering the gameplay of the card games it >has tournament rules for. Deck construction, yes, but the only modification >to gameplay has been Ring of Ma'Ruf. Gameplay is left up to R&D. Ok. Although I must admit that I can't see why the deck construction rules are any less sacred than the other rules of the game, really. -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://www.astro.indiana.edu/home/ahabig/ [ quoted text not captured ]