rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

deck limitation of size

9 messages from 9 participants · 30 January 1996 – 09 February 1996
original thread on Google Groups

L. Scott Johnson

Thomas.L...@scinfo.u-nancy.fr (Thomas Lajeunesse) writes: > Just a little note : > I noticed than almost everybody ignores the rule about the >limitation of the size of a deck : > at least 40 cards (OK for everyone) > no more than 40 + 10 * nb_of_players > this is quite always neglected... My group plays in strict adherence to the 40-(40+10M) rule. If one player fails to show, we generally remove ten cards from our decks (assuming we had built to the max limit). However, even WotC ignores their rule in favor of simplicity: The DCI has imposed a fixed range of 60-90 cards, regardless of number of players (which they limit to 4-5 at a table). -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

Jonathan G. Sushinsky

Thomas.L...@scinfo.u-nancy.fr (Thomas Lajeunesse) wrote: > Just a little note : > I noticed than almost everybody ignores the rule about the >limitation of the size of a deck : > at least 40 cards (OK for everyone) > no more than 40 + 10 * nb_of_players > this is quite always neglected... > >Any comments ? > I agree totally. I think that I am the only one who tries to limit my deck size when i play. In a couple of long games I have exhausted my deck with just myself and another methuselah left. I lost both times because I had the correct size library and his library was still going strong since it was larger to begin with. IT only has been problematic in long drawn out games though. Such is life... jon

Thomas Lajeunesse

Just a little note : I noticed than almost everybody ignores the rule about the limitation of the size of a deck : at least 40 cards (OK for everyone) no more than 40 + 10 * nb_of_players this is quite always neglected... Any comments ? Duncan IDAHO. alias Thomas LAJEUNESSE Thomas.L...@scinfo.u-nancy.fr

NCascone

In article <4ekqql$9...@arcturus.ciril.fr>, Thomas.L...@scinfo.u-nancy.fr (Thomas Lajeunesse) writes: >Just a little note : > I noticed than almost everybody ignores the rule about the >limitation of the size of a deck : > at least 40 cards (OK for everyone) > no more than 40 + 10 * nb_of_players > this is quite always neglected... > >Any comments ? > > I always play the maximum. Under NL, there's no reason not to; under CL there is some downward pressure, but not enough to make me make a smaller deck. Interesting question.

Stephen Beaulieu

In article <4enori$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: : In article <4ekqql$9...@arcturus.ciril.fr>, [ quoted text not captured ] I'd disagree. My group plays NL, and quite often I find that I have a more focused deck with 5 to 10 cards less than the minimum. In fact, I like to have 65-70 cards in a four player game. If the deck is well constructed, it usually will hold through till the end of a game. We also play strict deck limit rules. The only time we bend is if we are playing a gamw while waiting for our fifth player to show up. We don't tend to make people drop 5-10 cards for one game (or half game). Sometimes we drop the cards, other times not. stephen beaulieu

Kevin Lowe

Jonathan G. Sushinsky (jona...@cesar.umd.edu) wrote: : Thomas.L...@scinfo.u-nancy.fr (Thomas Lajeunesse) wrote: : > Just a little note : : > I noticed than almost everybody ignores the rule about the : >limitation of the size of a deck : : > at least 40 cards (OK for everyone) : > no more than 40 + 10 * nb_of_players : > this is quite always neglected... : > : >Any comments ? : > : I agree totally. I think that I am the only one who tries to limit my : deck size when i play. In a couple of long games I have exhausted my : deck with just myself and another methuselah left. I lost both times : because I had the correct size library and his library was still going : strong since it was larger to begin with. IT only has been problematic : in long drawn out games though. Such is life... : jon For exactly that reason (and after losing a game to an opponent with an illegal, huge library) I now insist my opponents play with legal decks. AFAIAC, it's not only a rule as important as, say, no repeat action modifiers, but it's just plain discourteous to try and introduce an obviously bloated deck into a game. Granted, in my limited experience it's usually the people with few clues about deck design that come up with these decks, and they usually aren't a threat all other things being equal, but I've lost one too many games to illegal decks to tolerate them. (Suggestion if you don't want to make waves: just call a bloated deck, and the corresponding advantage in a long game, a handicap to give the clueless a chance. I don't do this anymore - the resident clueless isn't so clueless I can afford to give him breaks any more, and a good thing too - but it might work for you). Yours (gimme my ante back, you cheatin' scum!), Kevin Lowe.

Mark Havener

In article <4enori$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, NCascone <ncas...@aol.com> wrote: >In article <4ekqql$9...@arcturus.ciril.fr>, >Thomas.L...@scinfo.u-nancy.fr (Thomas Lajeunesse) writes: > >>Just a little note : >> I noticed than almost everybody ignores the rule about the >>limitation of the size of a deck : >> at least 40 cards (OK for everyone) >> no more than 40 + 10 * nb_of_players >> this is quite always neglected... >> >>Any comments ? > >I always play the maximum. Under NL, there's no reason not to; under CL >there is some downward pressure, but not enough to make me make a smaller >deck. Interesting question. My group ignores the upper restriction, as it's not really seen as an advantage. I try to keep my decks at about 80-90 cards though, and it is usually legal. I don't mind if someone brings a 120-card deck, as they aren't going to be getting the cards they need any faster than I will be (when my Brujah are fighting, they're cycling cards faster than anyone else). Larger decks just tend to increase chance of hand-jams, IME. The closest I've ever gotten to running out of cards is down to the last 1 (80-card deck), and it only happened the one time. -Elfholme -- ****************************************************************************** This bit of wisdom has been brought to you by: Mark Havener Lord of elfh...@netcom.com Wood Elf King (and Jyhad player extraordinaire!) ******************************************************************************

Michael Gerdau

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <4ekqql$9...@arcturus.ciril.fr>, Thomas.L...@scinfo.u-nancy.fr (Thomas Lajeunesse) wrote: > Just a little note : > I noticed than almost everybody ignores the rule about the >limitation of the size of a deck : > at least 40 cards (OK for everyone) > no more than 40 + 10 * nb_of_players > this is quite always neglected... > >Any comments ? In our group we believe it is generally a disadvantage to have too big a library. So if there is a player who wants to play with a 100+ deck in a 2 or 3 player game: go ahead. He usually ends up discarding lots of cards just because he can't use them right now, consequently *not* having the needed cards at hand. BTW: in our group we usually won't use more than 1/2-2/3 of the library. By than there is just one Meth left :-) We strongly enforce the 12 Vamp minimum for the crypt though. Bye, Michael - -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael Gerdau email: michael...@elmshorn.netsurf.de | | 2b or not 2b that's ff (or ger...@ifm.uni-hamburg.de) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMRYlUmBDpp4JlTxhAQEgeQP/Ttrhn9BYzGAGfRR9e5NWJRan7IOPj0Y3 Dk6y54uAUkpp75zM460vU9ytK4BKszL0vlL1f+UqDe1hXPgFjxzE3e+LKisjDTuI FGp1wIlitQKPjXPCxi6Sir2U0yUkGK4BaoEydr2FUtAmw+d+t6qZZ8R85BcpvAAl Biias4NzIMA= =ZnXx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Chad Lubrecht

I don't like the upper deck limit rule because it is variable. If you normally play in 5 player games, and have a large (but legal for that size game) deck, and you decide to play a 3 player game, its a pain to have to strip down your deck. Of course the easy way to do this would be to just take cards out randomly (You wouldn't get to the cards in the bottom of the deck anyway) or if you have ways of searching your deck, pick random cards and put back anything you want to keep. Then again, all of this is irrelevant because I have enough problems trying to find 3 player games let alone anything larger. (2 player games are just missing something.) Chad Lubrecht lubr...@udel.edu