More on Card Limits

Well , as if this one hasn't been beat to death already. I don't understand the need for card limits. I really don't get it. Are there actually players out there whould build a deck with 20 Fortitudes, 20 Fames, and 20 Day Operations ? Is it that great to build a pathetic deck like this, requiring only a third grade education level, and about $120 just so one can say "Ha, Ha, I win." Are there people out there so afraid of a challenge that they canot restrict themselves to gaming in a mature and rational way ? I would consider it much more effective simply to refuse absolutely to play with any person of this sort of player than to impose and polute Jyhad with global card limits. I personally don't want to play Jyhad: The Gathering. Another good tactic against unbalanced decks, especially against people with who pump $1000's into their deck is to opt for ante - if I had 40 rares in my deck, and someone asked me to play for ante, I'd probablly run for the hills. I've seen many other posts of people who do not want Jyhad to become anymore like Magic than it already is, and who do not want it to become a game for the wealthy(like magic). As long as there are no card limits, and commons stay relatively cheap, there will be no need for "Required" cards in a deck, and the game, IMO will be much better off.

Intimate apperal <abr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes; >I don't understand the need for card limits. I really don't get it. Are >there actually players out there would build a deck with 20 Fortitudes, >20 Fames, and 20 Day Operations ? Yes, there are. You can avoid them, as you suggest. The problem with out-of-balance cards is that each one is a benefit to the holder. There's no fine line between reason and munchkinism, and the competition to win, with cards like Fame about, tends to drag us all towards Munchkinism. I object to card limits because (a) they don't fix out-of-balance problems. People just build decks with the limit of each usable spoiler. (b) Jyhad is designed for no card limits. Many cards, and most deck designs, become useless/unplayable with limits. Very few of the banned constructions are problems. Card limits create serious balance problems of their own by knocking out whole strategies, like rush combat, dodging weenies, non-prince vote decks, etc. If WotC doesn't fix the cards, we'll just have to play with gentleman's agreements. I hope they do, but I'm beginning to doubt it. >Another good tactic against >unbalanced decks, especially against people with who pump $1000's into >their deck is to opt for ante Ante is fun, but won't do you any good against a deck with 25 Majesties and 25 + bleed cards (all common). Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Intimate apperal (abr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote: : Well , as if this one hasn't been beat to death already. : I don't understand the need for card limits. I really don't get it. Are : there actually players out there whould build a deck with 20 Fortitudes, : 20 Fames, and 20 Day Operations ? Is it that great to build a pathetic : deck like this, requiring only a third grade education level, and about : $120 just so one can say "Ha, Ha, I win." Are there people out there so : afraid of a challenge that they canot restrict themselves to gaming in a : mature and rational way ? Yes. : I would consider it much more effective simply : to refuse absolutely to play with any person of this sort of player than : to impose and polute Jyhad with global card limits. I personally don't : want to play Jyhad: The Gathering. The point is, around here we like to get as many people into a game as possable, often people that we don't see everyday, or will ever see again. Even if we don't play with them again, it's another night lost to a hose-head conscept. Card limits help to make sure everyone is playing a friendly game. Not the 20 Lost in Crowds, 20 Conditionings, 20 Faceless night decks that kill someone every three turns. However, I personally don't care what you do for fun in your group. The big idea about card limits is tournaments. If you limit cards, then the money players will lose out, and i don't want money players to win every Jyhad tourney like they win every Magic tourney. I too am not interseted in playing Jyhad : the Gathering. But to make the concept clear, before tourney leagle in magic, know what kept winning tourneys? 20 mountains, 40 lightning bolts. If that isn't a third grade concept, what isn't. : Another good tactic against : unbalanced decks, especially against people with who pump $1000's into : their deck is to opt for ante - if I had 40 rares in my deck, and someone : asked me to play for ante, I'd probablly run for the hills. Playing for ante in Jyhad isn't as scary as magic. With the deck you mentioned, the worst that could happen is that you'll lose a day op. Bet you'll have killed at least three prey before you die. Even if they all suck, it's hard to agrue with 3/1. : I've seen : many other posts of people who do not want Jyhad to become anymore like : Magic than it already is, and who do not want it to become a game for the : wealthy(like magic). Which is what your suggesting. It isn't hard to get four of each of the "good" cards in Jyhad, ie assendence, short term, WwEF. To get 20 requires buying a box. It's not as if the rares in Jyhad are nessacey to make a good tourney deck (unlike Moxen). I just hope they don't cut cards like WwEF or else we'll have a simaler mox scare. -- Quinn the Eskimo

CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: : Intimate apperal <abr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes; : >I don't understand the need for card limits. I really don't get it. Are : >there actually players out there would build a deck with 20 Fortitudes, : >20 Fames, and 20 Day Operations ? : Yes, there are. You can avoid them, as you suggest. : The problem with out-of-balance cards is that each one is a benefit to the : holder. There's no fine line between reason and munchkinism, and the : competition to win, with cards like Fame about, tends to drag us all : towards Munchkinism. Amen : I object to card limits because : (a) they don't fix out-of-balance problems. People just build decks with : the limit of each usable spoiler. Yet, they aren't as bad, and easier to deal with, and at least more fun. : (b) Jyhad is designed for no card limits. Many cards, and most deck : designs, become useless/unplayable with limits. Very few of the banned : constructions are problems. Name six. I've said it before, and i'll say it again WHY DON'T YOU USE SOME IMAGINATION?????? Aw, you can't have your 10 undead strenght for your combat deck. Why not use 4 undead strenght, 4 torn signpost, and 2 lucky blow. Almost the same, and certinly more varied. I haven't seen a consecpt that wasn't hose-headed that can't be played, and played well with a limit of four. : Card limits create serious balance problems of their own by knocking out : whole strategies, like rush combat, Only four bum's rush, four haven uncovered? too bad. Think a little! Do a lot of actions that will get blocked (such as bringing out the renage garou) and get your oponent to block. Act intemadating and sure of yourself. Your openent will get so scared that he won't even block your bleeds, and when he does, heh heh heh. dodging weenies, 4 dodge, 4 majesty, 4 alisum, 4 earth meld, 4 behind you. Yeah, i'm getting to to varied disaplines, but its not that hard. give 'em 44's and flack jackets. just go to long range, steath 'em out. THINK. non-prince vote decks, etc. There are 10 (count 'em) 10 praxis seriours, plus 7 justicar votes. I can't think of a time when I'd want 68 of ANYTHING in my deck. Even so, there are a biffora of vote cards that are common, and i don't see where you have a problem. : If WotC doesn't fix the cards, we'll just have to play with gentleman's : agreements. I hope they do, but I'm beginning to doubt it. : >Another good tactic against : >unbalanced decks, especially against people with who pump $1000's into : >their deck is to opt for ante : Ante is fun, but won't do you any good against a deck with 25 Majesties : and 25 + bleed cards (all common). : Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) Again, Amen -- Quinn the Eskimo

Joshua E. Rowr <jr...@orion.it.luc.edu> wrote: >CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: >: (b) Jyhad is designed for no card limits. Many cards, and most deck >: designs, become useless/unplayable with limits. Very few of the banned >: constructions are problems. > >Name six. I've said it before, and i'll say it again WHY DON'T YOU USE >SOME IMAGINATION?????? Aw, you can't have your 10 undead strenght for >your combat deck. Why not use 4 undead strenght, 4 torn signpost, and 2 >lucky blow. Almost the same, and certinly more varied. I haven't seen a >consecpt that wasn't hose-headed that can't be played, and played well >with a limit of four. Hold on. Waitaminute. The basic fact is this : There are more different +stealth and +bleed cards than there are +intercept and bleed counter cards. Thus, the stealthy bleed guy puts in 4 each of all the +stealth and +bleed cards, and even a deck tailor made to stop him doesn't work. It's that simple. I think that the players with truely silly decks will simply a) get bored; b) get pelted with rotten vegetables till they cut it out. 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.

jr...@orion.it.luc.edu (Joshua E. Rowr) writes: >Card limits help to make sure everyone is playing a >friendly game. Not the 20 Lost in Crowds, 20 Conditionings, 20 Faceless >night decks that kill someone every three turns. That particular deck isn't much of a problem; rush combat or bleed bounce (both normal tactics) will handle it easily. Most obscene decks are based on untap tactics. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Alec Habig (aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu) wrote: : Joshua E. Rowr <jr...@orion.it.luc.edu> wrote: : >CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: : >: (b) Jyhad is designed for no card limits. Many cards, and most deck : >: designs, become useless/unplayable with limits. Very few of the banned : >: constructions are problems. : > : >Name six. I've said it before, and i'll say it again WHY DON'T YOU USE : >SOME IMAGINATION?????? Aw, you can't have your 10 undead strenght for : >your combat deck. Why not use 4 undead strenght, 4 torn signpost, and 2 : >lucky blow. Almost the same, and certinly more varied. I haven't seen a : >consecpt that wasn't hose-headed that can't be played, and played well : >with a limit of four. : Hold on. Waitaminute. : The basic fact is this : : There are more different +stealth and +bleed cards than there are +intercept : and bleed counter cards. Yes, but there are more PERMAMENT intercepts. Using my four card limit Nof deck, i had Chester DuBois with a sport bike, 2 raven spies and Mr. Wintrop. +4 intercept. +patega and 2 Murders of Crows (+supior potence) it was very scary. every time he uses one of thoose stealth cards, he burns it. He has to use at least 4 stealth cards to my 0 intercept cards. (I'll take the four points i'll get from night moves). Anyone can, with one sport bike, make him spend at least a lost in crowds, or two of any other stealth card. plus my deck had 4 WwEF, 4 Rat's Warnings (Spawning Pool!), and 4 Cat's Guidence, so I can hold out a good long time. UNLESS he has about 20 lost in crowds and 10 of all the other stealth cards. That'll work every time. : Thus, the stealthy bleed guy puts in 4 each of all the +stealth and +bleed : cards, and even a deck tailor made to stop him doesn't work. : It's that simple. : I think that the players with truely silly decks will simply a) get bored; : b) get pelted with rotten vegetables till they cut it out. I know, but they will still turn up at tournaments with them. -- Quinn the Eskimo

jr...@orion.it.luc.edu (Joshua E. Rowr) writes: >: I object to card limits because >: (a) they don't fix out-of-balance problems. People just build decks with >: the limit of each usable spoiler. >Yet, they aren't as bad, and easier to deal with, and at least more fun. Decks get very stereotyped. Also, combat is quite limited. >: (b) Jyhad is designed for no card limits. Many cards, and most deck >: designs, become useless/unplayable with limits. Very few of the banned >: constructions are problems. >Name six. I've said it before, and i'll say it again WHY DON'T YOU USE >SOME IMAGINATION?????? Aw, you can't have your 10 undead strenght for >your combat deck. Why not use 4 undead strenght, 4 torn signpost, and 2 >lucky blow. Almost the same, and certinly more varied. I haven't seen a >consecpt that wasn't hose-headed that can't be played, and played well >with a limit of four. Decks: Manuevering Brujah, first-round combat tremere, Fortitude combat, Malk-resistant Ventrue, weenie run away, politics without princes, ANY rush deck. Cards: Undead strength, Movement of the Mind, Bewitching Oration, Read Intentions, Indomitability, Dodge. Mostly combat, you'll note, because combat burns many more cards that bleed or vote. >dodging weenies, >4 dodge, 4 majesty, 4 alisum, 4 earth meld, 4 behind you. Yeah, i'm >getting to to varied disaplines, but its not that hard. give 'em 44's and >flack jackets. just go to long range, steath 'em out. THINK. Equipment gets intercepted. Mixed disciplines like this for weenies creates insoluble availability problems (Hm, Igo's in combat, and I've got Behind You and Read Intentions). >non-prince vote decks, etc. >There are 10 (count 'em) 10 praxis seriours, plus 7 justicar votes. I can't >think of a time when I'd want 68 of ANYTHING in my deck. Even so, there >are a biffora of vote cards that are common, and i don't see where you >have a problem. 10 Praxis Seizures - sounds like you'll have princes to me! : Card limits create serious balance problems of their own by knocking out : whole strategies, >like rush combat, >Only four bum's rush, four haven uncovered? too bad. Think a little! Do a >lot of actions that will get blocked (such as bringing out the renage >garou) and get your oponent to block. Act intemadating and sure of >yourself. Your openent will get so scared that he won't even block >your bleeds, and when he does, heh heh heh. Your Malk players haven't learned their power yet. If you spend 5 pool on a Garou as the prey of a Malk, your future lifespan gets short indeed. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <3k5gi9$9...@apollo.it.luc.edu> jr...@orion.it.luc.edu (Joshua E. Rowr) writes: > >Yes, but there are more PERMAMENT intercepts. Using my four card limit >Nof deck, [...] The magic word: Permanent. The whole point of my long devoted article is to illustrate this structural difference between Jyhad and Magic: that Library cards in Jyhad are not rated on a per card basis. Deck limits kill some skills. If I can't use 10 Undead Strengths, (1) the Torn Signposts are in there anyway, and more than 4 of them. Now, instead of 10 Undead Strenghts and 5 Torn Signposts, I only get to use 4 of each. (2) Lucky Blow is non-disciplined. Forcing skillful vampires to use non-disciplined cards shifts the whole balance of the game to de-emphasise some skills. Also, your point on Bum's Rush strategy using `attractive' actions in another post is invalid, because the main function of Bum's Rush is to counter S&B. I can't think of too many actions that a Bum's Rush deck can do that will stop S&B, other than Bum's Rush (and attack Uncovered Haven) itself. The most common thing that happens at groups with card limits is that they have to `gentlemenly' avoid playing S&B, because they are `unstoppable'. If you play a 4-card limit combat deck against a well-designed one that does not have card limits, you'll soon notice the difference. The one without card limits is much more effective. The decks don't even have to play against each other; you play one, and then you play the other, and you'll `feel' the difference. -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: : jr...@orion.it.luc.edu (Joshua E. Rowr) writes: : >: I object to card limits because : >: (a) they don't fix out-of-balance problems. People just build decks : >: the limit of each usable spoiler. : >Yet, they aren't as bad, and easier to deal with, and at least more fun. : Decks get very stereotyped. Also, combat is quite limited. : >: (b) Jyhad is designed for no card limits. Many cards, and most deck : >: designs, become useless/unplayable with limits. Very few of the banned : >: constructions are problems. : >Name six. I've said it before, and i'll say it again WHY DON'T YOU USE <SNIP> : Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) Point taken. I still think your underating and overating various decks. However, we are not talking about what you do in your basement. We are talking about tournament rules. I would like Jyhad to be the kind of game where the guy who only bought 2 starters and 5 boosters can, with a little trading, win a tournament, unlike Magic, where you have to sink your life savings into moxes. Jyhad is a game that you have to think while your playing. Unlike Magic, you can't just give any old idiot your deck, and they will win. I would like to see more decks (at least in tournies) that are more then "how many bum's rush can i get a hold of?" or WwEF, or Condisioning, or Lost in Crowds, or Undead Stregth, or whatever. That's boring. It's also hard to put together with two starters and five boosters. Let's take tourney's away from the money people. -- Quinn the Eskimo

In article <3k4u12$s...@apollo.it.luc.edu>, jr...@orion.it.luc.edu (Joshua E. Rowr) says: Quinn for the most part I agree with you. But.... > I too am not interseted in playing Jyhad : >the Gathering. But to make the concept clear, before tourney leagle in >magic, know what kept winning tourneys? 20 mountains, 40 lightning >bolts. Not! Card limits and restrictions were around long before the deck minimum was increased from 40 to 60. And further more 20 mountains and 40 lightning bolts is easily stomped by 10 CoP:Red's and 50 of what ever you care crush your narrow minded opponent with. (Now adding to Quinn's argument...) A major reason Magic has card limits is because of the cumulative nature of some cards when played in multiples. Do Plague Rats ring a bell. One of the most vicious decks you can build or face is 19 P rats, 8 Pestilences and 13 Swamps. Jyhad does not suffer from this 'cumulative effect' weakness. The dynamics of Jyhad are much more tightly focused on how the cards you put in your deck interact with the other cards in your deck. These dynanics are not greatly affected by one card being more powerful than another. Yes cards like Fame can be annoying and even scary and yes in old times I virtually gave up when my predator Fame'd one of his minions. But when I started looking at ways to deal with Fame I found that nearly every idea I had improved my deck in general not just when faced with a Fame. The point being I was getting hurt by the _power cards_ (NOT! my phase or opinion) not because they were unbalancing but because in general my decks sucked. Now when my opponent plays Fame I really could care less. It is not impossible to deal with Fame'd vampires. When someone blocks me with a WwEF, so what! If I don't get you now I _will_ get you later. Ya' know "You can run but you can't hide". Jyhad does not need and would definitely not be improved by card limits. Half of the fun of the game is figuring how deal with your predator with the resources you have available in your library. If you can't do that then face the facts "YOU GOT BEAT" plain and simple. Either your deck or your play (or both) are not up to snuff when compared with your opponent. Final thoughts on _power cards_ and so called abused cards/combos. To quote EA Sports. "If it's in the game. _IT'S_ in the game" (Purposfully taken out of context) Learn to deal with it!!

In article <3kabpq$1...@stargate.promus.com>, Chris Carter <cca...@promus.com> wrote: >Not! Card limits and restrictions were around long before the deck >minimum was increased from 40 to 60. And further more 20 mountains and >40 lightning bolts is easily stomped by 10 CoP:Red's and 50 of what ever >you care crush your narrow minded opponent with. What is your source for this info? As far as I am aware, the DC tournament rules set the 60 min, 4 card max for most people, and those came out all at once. Restricted and banned cards have changed, but the 60/4 limits came out at the same time as far as I know... | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

In article <3k4u12$s...@apollo.it.luc.edu>, Joshua E. Rowr <jr...@orion.it.luc.edu> wrote: >Intimate apperal (abr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote: >The point is, around here we like to get as many people into a game as >possable, often people that we don't see everyday, or will ever see >again. Even if we don't play with them again, it's another night lost to >a hose-head conscept. Card limits help to make sure everyone is playing a >friendly game. Not the 20 Lost in Crowds, 20 Conditionings, 20 Faceless >night decks that kill someone every three turns. However, I personally >don't care what you do for fun in your group. The big idea about card >limits is tournaments. If you limit cards, then the money players will >lose out, and i don't want money players to win every Jyhad tourney like >they win every Magic tourney. I too am not interseted in playing Jyhad : >the Gathering. But to make the concept clear, before tourney leagle in >magic, know what kept winning tourneys? 20 mountains, 40 lightning >bolts. If that isn't a third grade concept, what isn't. Well, two things. First, 35 moxes, 15 wheels of fortune, 10 lightning is better... [50 rares though], 20 lotus, 20 Black vice, 20 ancestral recalls is even better.... Second, decks have advanced to the point where the 20 mountain, 40 lightning bolts isn't even competitive against a tourney legal, top deck. I think Jyhad is an even better candidate for better decks being able to take on degenerate decks because of the cycleing of cards. Now, I have to say, I'm a very good Magic player, but I'm relativly new to Jyhad. Take what I say for what its worth... >: Another good tactic against >: unbalanced decks, especially against people with who pump $1000's into >: their deck is to opt for ante - if I had 40 rares in my deck, and someone >: asked me to play for ante, I'd probablly run for the hills. You're not going to see ante in a tournament [which is the only time any of this is important because outside of a tournament you simply don'y play with someone.] >: I've seen >: many other posts of people who do not want Jyhad to become anymore like >: Magic than it already is, and who do not want it to become a game for the >: wealthy(like magic). > >Which is what your suggesting. It isn't hard to get four of each of the >"good" cards in Jyhad, ie assendence, short term, WwEF. To get 20 >requires buying a box. It's not as if the rares in Jyhad are nessacey to >make a good tourney deck (unlike Moxen). I just hope they don't cut cards >like WwEF or else we'll have a simaler mox scare. I think the rares in Jyhad are about as nessacary as those in Magic. The moxen ARE NOT required, BUT someone that has 20 moxen in the deck in place of 20 mountains will probably do better :) I think someone with a SB deck will do better if they have elysiums in... or madness network... or freak drive, or the embrace, or all of them... moxen for mountains is like form of mist for majesty. -- (E-MAIL gru...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca NOT jgr...@bnr.ca) I don't speak for BNR. If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will try to catch you because, hey, free dummy. -- Jack Handey.

In article <1995Mar15.0...@cs.cornell.edu>, Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: // Deck limits kill some skills. If I can't use 10 Undead // Strengths, (1) the Torn Signposts are in there anyway, // and more than 4 of them. Now, instead of 10 Undead // Strenghts and 5 Torn Signposts, I only get to use // 4 of each. (2) Lucky Blow is non-disciplined. // Forcing skillful vampires to use non-disciplined // cards shifts the whole balance of the game to // de-emphasise some skills. What?!? You're still using Signposts? You should toss those out and stick in 5 more Fists of Death! Why bother using signposts at all? If my vampires have two damage they should get 3 or 4! You don't have enough Fists or Death? Hey, we can solve that... just fork out a couple $100 and we'll have you a nice 60 card deck featuring hordes of the best 5 cards for your deck strategy and not much else! Why go out bleeding if you can't bleed for 7 every time... why go into combat if you can't do 20-30 points of damage. Just go out and spend all that nice money you get from selling your Magic Cards! Build the deck that will keep doing the same thing... again... and again... and again... every vampire... every vampire action... every turn... every game... yawn. // If you play a 4-card limit combat deck against // a well-designed one that does not have card // limits, you'll soon notice the difference. // The one without card limits is much more boring and predictable... we already have lots of experience building tournament style magic decks. You build for predictablity around your deck concept. We have some rather odd Magic tournament rules around here, which tend to be a bit more constraining than convocation (some cards are less restrained). Why? Because we around here like to have to have at least some chance that we'll have to use some odd combo of cards on the spur of the moment, rather that keep pounding away with the same cards every time. You'd be surprised at some of the creativity that can happen when you've got good cards for any situation, but probably not the best card for a given situation. Oh, and the other reason is that we don't like spending more money on a collectable card game, than we would spend on other games (see above). -- Brent Ross // "Skuld is nicer than // "Skuld is nicer than bwr...@uwaterloo.ca // Medea." -- mlvanbie // mead." -- mtompset

bwr...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Brent Ross) writes: (re card limits) >You're still using Signposts? You should toss those out and >stick in 5 more Fists of Death! Why bother using signposts at all? a) FoD has a blood cost. b) Although FoD is nice if one has unlimited access to cards, with card limits they're OBLIGATORY for a deck using Potence. It becomes impossible to play a deck without a substantial investment of money. Without card limits you can build a very nice deck with piles of Undead Strength and Growing Fury and a few Torn Signposts. >Build the deck that >will keep doing the same thing... again... and again... and again... >every vampire... every vampire action... every turn... every game... >yawn. If you're predictable, a skilled player can thrash you consistently. Particularly if you use cards with blood costs like FoD. >// If you play a 4-card limit combat deck against >// a well-designed one that does not have card >// limits, you'll soon notice the difference. >// The one without card limits is much more >boring and predictable... we already have lots of experience building >tournament style magic decks. Have you realized how different Jyhad is from Magic? Your experience with Magic has little to do with Jyhad. Alan has written a very nice article on the difference. I've played Jyhad an average of two nights a week since it was released and I assure you that in Jyhad decks designs become extremely predictable with strict card limits. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

[ quoted text not captured ] Peace Curt, What a concept, we agree that card limits would force use of rares. The combat deck I tried this weekend has about eight Undead Strengths (I don't have any FoD). I couldn't build an effective combat deck with silly card limits. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

In article <3kaehp$f...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) says: > >In article <3kabpq$1...@stargate.promus.com>, >Chris Carter <cca...@promus.com> wrote: >>Not! Card limits and restrictions were around long before the deck >>minimum was increased from 40 to 60. And further more 20 mountains and >>40 lightning bolts is easily stomped by 10 CoP:Red's and 50 of what ever >>you care crush your narrow minded opponent with. > > What is your source for this info? As far as I am aware, the DC >tournament rules set the 60 min, 4 card max for most people, and those >came out all at once. Restricted and banned cards have changed, but the >60/4 limits came out at the same time as far as I know... I'll have to do a little digging to be sure (you may be correct)but using the Duelist as a time frame reference - I beleive that the Convocation Rules in The Duelist #1 had the 4/40 card limit. I seem to recall that the 60 card limit did not come in to effect until WotC further revised the basic rules in early/mid 1994 (Duelsit #2) [ quoted text not captured ]

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >What a concept, we agree that card limits would force use of rares. The >combat deck I tried this weekend has about eight Undead Strengths (I don't >have any FoD). I couldn't build an effective combat deck with silly card >limits. How did that go, BTW? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Time Out! This is a Jyhad group, and while I'm sure this started as a Jyhad topic, the *date* that a card limit was imposed on MtG by WotC is completely irrelevant to a jyhad group. Please take it to *.magic or, better yet, to e-mail. Thank you.

In article <3kk7rk$r...@stargate.promus.com>, Chris Carter <cca...@promus.com> wrote: >>>Not! Card limits and restrictions were around long before the deck >>>minimum was increased from 40 to 60. And further more 20 mountains and >> >> What is your source for this info? As far as I am aware, the DC > >I'll have to do a little digging to be sure (you may be correct)but using >the Duelist as a time frame reference - I beleive that the Convocation >Rules in The Duelist #1 had the 4/40 card limit. I seem to recall that >the 60 card limit did not come in to effect until WotC further revised >the basic rules in early/mid 1994 (Duelsit #2) There were no deckbuilding rules in either the Duelist #1 or the Duelist Supplement. The first time they appeared was in #2 (I just checked). And those were the 4/60 rules. I first got the rules here on the net. And the earliest version I can find was also 4/60. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3kkaco$8...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: I'm trying to put together tournament rules for a tournament to run here in Fairbanks Alaska. So Far: Monocle of Clarity banned ( I don't have time to go around and explain how easy it is to get around it logically to every single person. ) 10 % limit on every card (ie a sixty card deck has a max of 6 of any card, and a 100 card deck has a max of 10 of any card). Any other degenerate situations other have come up with house rules against? by the way....I tried the deck mentioned under this post a while back with some changes and walked through 7 people winning an 8 player game with 72 blood in the end. (Did I mention it took only 10 turns). 30 Kine Resources Contested 30 Conservative Agitation 12 Effective Management 8 Blood Dolls 10 Autarkis Persecution 5 Disputed Territory (To steal KRCG, Ventrue Headquarters) 5 Kindred Segregation 9 Praxis (one of each) 5 Rumours of Gehenna (If you have em) 6 Discipline Cards (any) Vampires: all non-stupid caitiff all 2 blood vamps 2 Justine-Elder of Dallas Ok....so you tell me....are card limits necessary? (Noone will ever play against this deck again, by the way) V V Alpha

Distribution: fs...@aurora.alaska.edu scribbles: : 10 % limit on every card (ie a sixty card deck has a max of 6 of any card, :and a 100 card deck has a max of 10 of any card). : by the way....I tried the deck mentioned under this post a while back with :some changes and walked through 7 people winning an 8 player game with 72 blood :in the end. (Did I mention it took only 10 turns). : 30 Kine Resources Contested : 30 Conservative Agitation : 12 Effective Management : 8 Blood Dolls : 10 Autarkis Persecution : 5 Disputed Territory (To steal KRCG, Ventrue Headquarters) : 5 Kindred Segregation : 9 Praxis (one of each) : 5 Rumours of Gehenna (If you have em) : 6 Discipline Cards (any) : Vampires: : all non-stupid caitiff : all 2 blood vamps : 2 Justine-Elder of Dallas : Ok....so you tell me....are card limits necessary? :(Noone will ever play against this deck again, by the way) : V V Alpha If no one will play against it, then limiting the number of cards isn't required. (No opponents = No game) However, isn't it possible to make a counter deck of gangrels a load of protean, and just toporize all those little 2's and Catiffs, or burn them outright. I mean political actions are at +1 stealth, and not all impossible to intercept.. Even Toreadors seem to carry Auspex and Celerity... (Additional strikes against a Caitiff! :) Fun stuff... Seb.

In article <3kkaco$8...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) says: > >Time Out! > >This is a Jyhad group, and while I'm sure this started as a Jyhad topic, >the *date* that a card limit was imposed on MtG by WotC is completely >irrelevant to a jyhad group. > This thread started out as, and continues to be, a thread containing arguments for and against impossing a card limit on Jyhad. This thread is about Jyhad and belongs here not in the MtG groups. Please familiarize your self with the overall gist of a line of threads before commenting on the contents of any of the posts in that thread. Geez! If the header didn't show otherwise I'd have sworn you were an AOL'er. Chris

In article <1995Mar22...@aurora.alaska.edu>, <fs...@aurora.alaska.edu> wrote: >In article <3kkaco$8...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: > I'm trying to put together tournament rules for a tournament to run here > Monocle of Clarity banned ( I don't have time to go around and explain how > 10 % limit on every card (ie a sixty card deck has a max of 6 of any card, Well, you may want to limit Fame. > by the way....I tried the deck mentioned under this post a while back with >some changes and walked through 7 people winning an 8 player game with 72 blood >in the end. (Did I mention it took only 10 turns). > > Ok....so you tell me....are card limits necessary? >(Noone will ever play against this deck again, by the way) Any deck with a solid theme that nobody expects will mop up on its first time out. I've seen it in Magic, Star Trek, INWO, OnTE, and yes, even in Jyhad. The trick is to see if people start beating it once they know it's out there. I mean, a Gangrel deck will make short work of that deck, or a Brujah/Rush deck. Caitiff are just too puny to last. 10 turns is impressive, but hardly legendary. [ quoted text not captured ]

> by the way....I tried the deck mentioned under this post a while back with >some changes and walked through 7 people winning an 8 player game with 72 blood >in the end. (Did I mention it took only 10 turns). > 30 Kine Resources Contested > 30 Conservative Agitation > 12 Effective Management > 8 Blood Dolls > 10 Autarkis Persecution > 5 Disputed Territory (To steal KRCG, Ventrue Headquarters) > 5 Kindred Segregation > 9 Praxis (one of each) > 5 Rumours of Gehenna (If you have em) > 6 Discipline Cards (any) > Vampires: > all non-stupid caitiff > all 2 blood vamps > 2 Justine-Elder of Dallas > Ok....so you tell me....are card limits necessary? >(Noone will ever play against this deck again, by the way) > V V Alpha Card limits do not fundamentally fix this kind of deck. As the number of cards grows, you'll need fewer and fewer of each particular vote to win. This happened with Magic; originally the 4-card was intended to stop (amongst many other things) bolt decks, yet there are now so many red direct damage spells that you can basically build a bolt deck anyway. I know about this tactic, because I built a deck like this under 4-card limits. It basically works just fine, because there are 9 Praxis Seizure cards. I added in some small guns, which are incredibly good under card limits, and the "Velvet Revolution" now inspires moderate panic in my group - comparable to that engendered by a Malk deck. By the way, you'll find Anarch Revolt and Sabbat Threat very useful in this kind of thing too. The only real fix for this problem is explicitly laid out in the original rulebook. According to the original rules, the Methuseleh calling the vote cannot push the vote with additional vote cards. Only the other Meths may do so. This rule shuts down ALL these broken "nothing but vote" decks and will continue to do so in a year, when there 2 expansions and 5 different ways to vote pain onto your prey. Oddly, as time goes on, I'm finding the original rulebook better and better written. It seems confusing because many of the rules run counter to expectations. But on more careful reading, it's often more precise than the "fixed" one. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <1995Mar22...@aurora.alaska.edu>, <fs...@aurora.alaska.edu> wrote: [gruesome tale of crushing elided, along with weenie-vote deck relying on 30 KRC and 30 CAgitation] > Ok....so you tell me....are card limits necessary? >(Noone will ever play against this deck again, by the way) wow. combat decks must really suck in your area. i have both a gangrel- combat and a weenie-vote deck (similar to the one you've posted, though less repetitive). the gangrel simply torporize, outright burn, and retorporize princes as fast as the weenie deck seizes titles; it takes about 8-10 pool worth of hits in the beginning, but in the mid- and endgame phases it just crushes the opposition. keep in mind the weenie deck can usually get 3 blood dolls and 3 hunting grounds out in an average game, and even that only serves to draw out the agony in most cases; the weenie deck has been known to win -- hell, i'm actually overstating my case. the weenie deck wins about 1 game in 3. my point is that, while weenie political machine is a viable and fun strategy, on a table with a good combat deck (and most tables have at least one of these), it simply fails to crush in the overwhelming fashion you've described. heckler comments encouraged -- for some reason, whenever I read about these people who are really elves or dragons or unicorns (notice that they are never shoggoths or ithyphallic toad-dwarfs?) I always think of 'talking barbie' saying "Math is Hard!" -josh geller, alt.magick march 1995

Chris Carter (cca...@promus.com) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] ========================================================================= STANDARDIZED BONEHEAD REPLY FORM (original by David Parsons) I took exception to your recent _X_ post to _rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad_. (newsgroup) ___ email It was (check all that apply): ___ lame. _X_ stupid. ___ much longer than any worthwhile thought of which you may be capable. Your attention is drawn to the fact that: ___ what you posted/said has been done before. (Mark only if above checked) ___ Not only that, it was also done better the last time. ___ your post/letter was a pathetic imitation of ______________________. (net.personality) ___ your post/mail originated on FidoNet. ___ your post/mail originated on Delphi. ___ your post referred to the newsgroup as a Board, BBoard, BBS, or Notesfile. ___ your post contained commercial advertising. THE FINE FOR THIS IS $20. Please remit immediately to: Usenet News Network Security & Standards Patrol 3 Cielo Vista Terrace Monterey, CA 93940 or your posting privileges will be cancelled. ___ your post/letter contained numerous spelling errors. ___ your post/letter contained multiple grammatical errors. ___ YOUR POST CONTAINED EXCESSIVE CAPITALIZATION AND/OR PUNCTUATION!!!!! ___ you posted a "newgroup" message without Leader Kibo's permission. ___ you posted a "rmgroup" message without Bruce Becker's permission. ___ your post/letter was an obvious forgery. (Mark only if above checked) ___ It was done clumsily. ___ you have a lame login name. _X_ your machine has a stupid name. ___ you quoted an article/letter in followup and added no new text. ___ you quoted an article/letter in followup and only added ___ lines of text. ___ you quoted an article in followup and only added the line "Me, too!!!" ___ you predicted the "Imminent Death of the Net[tm]". ___ you asked for replies via email because you "don't read this group". _X_ you flamed someone who has been around far longer than you. _X_ you flamed someone who is far more intelligent and witty than you. ___ your lines are 80 columns wide or wider. ___ you failed to check the "Followups-To:" line. ___ your .sig is longer than four lines. (Mark only if above checked) ___ And your newsreader truncated it. ___ your .sig is ridiculous because (check all that apply): ___ you listed ___ snail mail address(es). (Mark only if above checked) ___ you listed a nine-digit ZIP code. ___ you listed ___ phone numbers for people to use in prank calls. ___ you included a stupid disclaimer. (Mark only if above also) ___ your pathetic attempt at being witty in the disclaimer failed. (Mark only if above also) ___ Miserably. ___ you included: (Mark all that apply) ___ a stupid self-quote. ___ a stupid quote from a net.nobody. ___ a Rush Limbaugh quote. ___ a Dan Quayle joke. ___ a reference to Beavis & Butthead. ___ lame ASCII graphic(s) (Choose all that apply): ___ USS Enterprise ___ Australia ___ The Amiga logo ___ Company logo (Mark only if above also) ___ and you stated that you don't speak for your employer. ___ Bicycle ___ Bart Simpson Furthermore: _X_ You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of ___r.g.t-c.jyhad____. (newsgroup) ___ You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of the net. ___ You are a loser. _X_ You must have spent your entire life in a skinner box to be this cllueless. ___ *plonk* ___ This has been pointed out to you before. ___ It is recommended that you: (Mark all that apply) ___ stick to FidoNet and come back when you've grown up. ___ find a volcano and throw yourself in. ___ get a gun and shoot yourself. ___ stop reading Usenet news and get a life. ___ stop sending email and get a life. ___ consume excrement. ___ consume excrement and thus expire. Additional comments: Shane Travis | A fanatic is someone who can't change his sht...@duke.usask.ca | mind and won't change the subject. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Winston Churchill