CL (was Re:Theoretical.../Voting Dead)(Old arguement,ignore@will)

In article <4amuuf$2...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: > Curt, > > I understand you put a lot of thought into your argument about card limits, > however I would like to disagree with you. You gave us a lot of mathematical > formulas and made several general statements about why you feel unrestricted > decks are better, without really explaining your finer points. I am not saying > this was bad, just that in a long post such as yours, you could have benefitted > your argument by explaining each of your points with more detail and in such a > way that those of us who tend to abhore mathematics can understand. Games are based on mathematics, from Tic-tic-toe, to Go (hi Alan, Neil!). Analysis may be difficult, but if the mathematics isn't there, Casinos would be hard pressed to decide where they should place their table limits and house rules. > You told us that all the possible deck combos are infinite and that no one could > consider and test them all, yet you call on game designers to be more thorough. > Hmmmm... I think we have a paradox here Curt. "Strive for perfection though we may never attain it." This is the Ultimate Goal, taught in martial arts classes I've been in for the last 10 years. Don't fool yourself into thinking you'll ever reach it. Just try. Curt is likely saying that the game designers do not try enough. > You also stated that adding card limits to a CCG game such as Jyhad tend to > gravitate decks to the repetitive end of "degenerate" decks. This may be all > well and good to say with mathematics with all the bells and whistles of scales > and such, but this has not been my personal experience. I have not seen a single > deck limited by the 4 card rule with Jyhad. In fact, it tended to "clip" the > degenerate end of the scale by reeling in the more troublesome combos within a > limitation or rule that applies equally to all. Greg, I would thoroughly appreciate you to either post or e-mail me the cards you find troublesome or degenerate. > You seemed to be arguing more from an impassioned personal stand point than with > solid and firm evidence and a provable theorem (sp?). I am not saying this is > wrong, because my own standpoint is not based on any provable statistic or > analysis, but on my personal experience alone. As in other games I also have a > personal bias against this kind of statistical analysis. This kind of analysis > is the habit of "min and maxing". This is trying to get a scale of numbers to > play with, giving your character or deck the most benefit. I feel this takes > away from the game. Yes, it allows you to do one thing really well to its > maximum potential, but in my view takes away from the great variety and fun of > the gaming experience. No-CL Limiting variety is not a truly viable arguement. To make a simple mathematical example: Limitless! The new card game with 100 cards! Each player makes decks of 20 cards! and Limits! The new card game with 100 cards! Each player makes decks of 20 cards, with no two beings alike! In Limitless, there exist 100^20 deck possibilities. In Limits, There exist 100!/(100-20)! possible decks. This gives Limitless ~7.7 times as many deck possibilities. (realize of course, that certain combinations are not viable, EX: Malkavian Madness Network and No Malks, but the Expected value will still roughly be equivalent to ~7.7) In Jyhad, this is like the question of how many of any particular Stealth card should I add. Do I want the Cloak the Gathering hand-off stealth, or simple Lost in Crowds massive stealth. More choice is available > I tend not to like extremes in gaming that way. So, if everyone is playing under > the same 4 card limit, then there are no "extreme" decks which place a god-like > anathema over the game by dominating one particular aspect of it. As I said in > another post, this limits everyone equally. In my experience it does not > crippple any particular deck design, nor does it give itself to benefitting any > deck either. In the end, it all was a wash. Limiting everyone equally is not a true arguement. So does forcing everyone to play one clan. That doesn't mean it is better. In order to show the superiority of 4CL, you need to show where no-limits break down, and defend against the charge that 4CL favors Malks and people with large collections. > I know we will never agree, but I thought I would present a friendly and > hopefully somewhat interesting counterpoint to your feelings on this issue. See > ya on the Net kids!!! "I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ # Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) # $ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @ # PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) y*+? 3.1# @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$

In article <iago-14129...@slip-25-6.ots.utexas.edu>, ia...@mail.utexas.edu (Santiago) wrote: > I believe that limits evolved as a direct result of the introduction of > a material gains system, such as ante or tournaments. Normally, the whole > purpose of playing agme is to have fun. Most people (except possibly > Malkavians) agree that winning is fun. However, they will agree that the > fun in winning comes because it is a challenge. When one has a perfectly > tuned, mathematically designed deack that ruthlessly annialates the > competition in three turns, there is not much fun in winning, because it > is the expected outcome. It is much more fun to win in a creative, > unusual way, so degenerate decks tend to not make appearances in such > games. A tuned deck can be quite a fun deck. Some tuned decks are boring, not because they are tuned, but because they really only do one thing. The fact that they only do one thing doesn't mean that they are tuned, however, it just means that they are boring ([A=>B] <> [B=>A]) > However, the introduction of some prize for the winner changes things > drastically. Besides having fun, there is now the goal of winning > something (and avoiding the loss of one's own ante). A degenerate deck > may not be fun, but it'll get you material value, so some people will use > one. Please post or email me a degenerate deck. >To prevent this from happenning, people create card limits that are > innappropriately applied to situations where there is no prize, placing an > unjust limit on the creativity and spontaneity of the game for those who > only play for fun. (Witness Mt$ limits becoming the de facto standard > even in non-ante games.) This is why I absolutely refuse to play with > ante under any conditions. (Also, I never risk what I couldn't stand > losing.) If any of you disagree with me, please feel free to express your > opinions. The limits in magic were originally intended to make tournament rules fair and diverse. In Magic's case, a deck of Lightning bolts, and a few other cards for flavor could do really well. (Jyhad analogy deck: Imagine being able to KRC without the need for a vote, it just happens). In Jyhad's case, it has not yet been demonstrated (at least to me :) that such decks exist, and if they do they are the exception. Being an exception, and not the rule, does it not make sense to change the cards (a la house rules), rather than the game (a la CL). > P.S. But you're still wrong. :-P I'm pretty sure that this will turn into an "agree to disagree" situation, but I'll argue it anyway! :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4b00ps$p...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: > In the days of yore <Pine.SOL.3.91.951216123539.27652A-100000@gladstone>, > Algustas <cfr...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> articulated: > #On 16 Dec 1995, Nicole Janine Purvis wrote: > #> Well, you can add me to your list... I play under 4cl basically because > #> I've never needed more than 4 of any card [and rarely even 4 of a given > #> card]... > #> > # Well, you would just be a victim in our games then, just as Greg > #was when he played with 4CL and the rest of us didn't. > >Uhmmm...whoa there sparky! As I remember it, I did oust somebody from the game >(only 4 people) and I was far from tragically over-matched. I will concede that >no limit power decks will beat a 4CL deck most of the time, however I still >feel that no limit decks take away from the flavor of the game. So NYAH!!!... Sorry to continue belaboring the point (not really sorry, but its nice to be polite :), but how is a no limit deck a "power deck" and how do "no limit decks take away from the flavor of the game"? Please post an example deck or article that discusses this. (Though I doubt I will in this case, I have been known to change my mind :) Besides, I like argueing.) [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: : In article <4b00ps$p...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com : (Greg Zuvich) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] A four card limit should be used to prevent certain combos from being used over and over. As I had stated earlier a Protean Wolf Claws, Haven Uncovered, Bum's Rush, and Amaranth deck will win all the time unless played against a deck designed specifically to beat it. If you build a deck with these cards and little vampires with Protean, Igo warks, it is extremely difficult to beat. Another deck is the Ventrue Consaguios Boon and Govern the Unaligned deck with a ton of Deflections. In a group game your prey can never touch you and your predator and prey fight. Add Conservative Agitations and A ton o' Praxis:Seizures and another degenerate deck that will win constanly. Card limits must be put into play somehow if people are going to play these decks, So yes, Degenerate decks can and do work. A card limit should be placed to balance the game or simply not play against "degenerate" decks. br...@kellco.com

Hear ye! Hear ye! <Pine.NXT.3.91.951217182106.710E-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, articulated: #Games are based on mathematics, from Tic-tic-toe, to Go (hi Alan, #Neil!). Analysis may be difficult, but if the mathematics isn't there, #Casinos would be hard pressed to decide where they should place their #table limits and house rules. Since when do we equate casinos with CCG's???? The phrase apples and oranges comes to mind.... It is also the hard core statistical analysis that makes casinos suck and take away from the game. I much prefer playing such games with friends where everyone is not trying to calculate the odds and such muck. #"Strive for perfection though we may never attain it." This is the #Ultimate Goal, taught in martial arts classes I've been in for the last #10 years. Don't fool yourself into thinking you'll ever reach it. Just #try. Curt is likely saying that the game designers do not try enough. Apparently your martial arts classes are a hell of a lot different than mine... As for "power" decks, I define them as the no limit decks that do one thing and one thing only. They do that one thing really well, but rather much bore me and put me to sleep. The 4CL adds flavor to the game that isn't there with no limit, one dimensional decks. You also made some point about 4CL decks using only one clan?!? Nothing is farther from the truth! My protean/presence deck uses 4 different clans if we include caitiffs. I just happen to like the flavor that 4CL gives the game and think it is a better way to play. As for your slick attempt to call me out and name specific cards, for say that long range/no gun Brujah deck and list off a degenerate deck, nice try.... I don't play such decks and have never constructed one, although I have seen plenty of them played. By trying to get me to name specific cards you are trying to draw me into your frame of argument and put the issue under your mathematical microscope, which I abhore and denounce from the start. I will not enter a mathematical debate over cards and have no desire to escalate the issue to "casino" levels. That is what is in Tai Chi known as "A wise man never speaks about that which he does not know." I will also not post some long "treatise" on the issue either. That would take away from the game and fly in the face of everything I was saying. In the end it all comes down to preferences and choices. I choose not to play with "no limit power decks". You like how you play, so have fun. I enjoy the 4CL limit as a better way, and more intriguing (sp?) way to play. see ya!! -- Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com "Put your soul in the water and join me for a swim tonight." Live - Mental Jewelry "Beauty of Gray"

In article <4b2ltq$l...@hustle.rahul.net>, Bradley Kellogg <br...@rahul.net> writes: >A four card limit should be used to prevent certain combos from being used over and >over. As I had stated earlier a Protean Wolf Claws, Haven Uncovered, Bum's Rush, >and Amaranth deck will win all the time unless played against a deck designed >specifically to beat it. If you build a deck with these cards and little vampires with >Protean, Igo warks, it is extremely difficult to beat. Ranged combat (guns, sewer lids etc.), S:CE, Thoughts Betrayed, Fortitude, Flak Jacket, blood hunt vote, Elysium, Lady Thunder, Tradition upheld (for Igo), Dodge, someone with potence and protean who Burns your ass while they simply go to torpor, need I go on? I love the Gangrel so I get to deal with all of the above :-) > Another deck is the Ventrue Consaguios Boon and Govern the Unaligned deck with >a ton of Deflections. In a group game your prey can never touch you and your >predator and prey fight. Add Conservative Agitations and A ton o' Praxis:Seizures >and another degenerate deck that will win constanly. This is only the case when your preadator is a bleeder :-)

NOTE: Ignore this thread if you are sick of hearing about card limits. In article <4b4iun$r...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: > Hear ye! Hear ye! <Pine.NXT.3.91.951217182106.710E-100000@pentode>, The > Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, > articulated: > #Games are based on mathematics, from Tic-tic-toe, to Go (hi Alan, > #Neil!). Analysis may be difficult, but if the mathematics isn't there, > #Casinos would be hard pressed to decide where they should place their > #table limits and house rules. > > Since when do we equate casinos with CCG's???? The phrase apples and oranges > comes to mind.... It is also the hard core statistical analysis that makes > casinos suck and take away from the game. I much prefer playing such games with > friends where everyone is not trying to calculate the odds and such muck. I too enjoy playing games to have fun. I too do not like calculating odds (at least complicated ones) when in the middle of the game. But, when I try to decide whether or not to bring a vampire out of my crypt for one pool, I try to guess whether it will be worth my while. I play "the odds". I try to know how big the vampire is likely to be, etc... I am not saying casino==CCGs. I am saying that both have an underlying mathematics to them that cannot be ignored. I used the casino example because I felt that it would be relatively obvious (as they post odds) that mathematics is involved. > #"Strive for perfection though we may never attain it." This is the > #Ultimate Goal, taught in martial arts classes I've been in for the last > #10 years. Don't fool yourself into thinking you'll ever reach it. Just > #try. Curt is likely saying that the game designers do not try enough. > > Apparently your martial arts classes are a hell of a lot different than mine... As this is off-topic, please e-mail me what you mean. I'm curious. > As for "power" decks, I define them as the no limit decks that do one thing and > one thing only. They do that one thing really well, but rather much bore me and > put me to sleep. Any deck that does one thing well and that's it _is_ boring. It's also easily hosable. A tight strategy (like an army that is only good at flanking), loses in dynamic actions. They are unprepared. Under my two assumptions (no vote push, minions can't repeat an action if they untap), I have _never_ seen a degenerate deck. Please, post one. Similarly, under 4CL, I have never seen a deck be able to survive good S&B as a predator unless the whole table helped. Please, post a deck that can (and is robust enough to play with an S&B predator). >The 4CL adds flavor to the game that isn't there with no limit, > one dimensional decks. You also made some point about 4CL decks using only one > clan?!? Nothing is farther from the truth! My protean/presence deck uses 4 > different clans if we include caitiffs. >The Corrupter wrote<Pine.NXT.3.91.951217182106.710E-100000@pentode>: [In response to arguement that 4CL== No one hindered, all equal...] ># Limiting everyone equally is not a true arguement. So does forcing ># everyone to play one clan. That doesn't mean it is better. I am saying that telling everyone to play Gangrel limits everyone equally too. It doesn't mean that this limit is better, because all players are equal. >I just happen to like the flavor that > 4CL gives the game and think it is a better way to play. Fine. We disagree. I have tried the way you play (10% limits, not 4CL), and found that NL is better (IMHO). I am well aware we will probobaly not agree (hence, the opening line), but I have changed my mind and changed the minds of others on topics we felt strongly about. Maybe one of us will change... :) >As for your slick > attempt to call me out and name specific cards, for say that long range/no gun > Brujah deck and list off a degenerate deck, nice try.... I don't play such decks > and have never constructed one, although I have seen plenty of them played. By > trying to get me to name specific cards you are trying to draw me into your frame > of argument and put the issue under your mathematical microscope, which I abhore > and denounce from the start. I will not enter a mathematical debate over cards > and have no desire to escalate the issue to "casino" levels. >That is what is in > Tai Chi known as "A wise man never speaks about that which he does not know." I > will also not post some long "treatise" on the issue either. That would take > away from the game and fly in the face of everything I was saying. The problem then, is that we have no mode of discourse. If you will not show me what you think is degenerate, or write reasons (that do not have to be mathematically oriented if you do not want them to be) in a way that has a points followed by supporting evidence, how can we argue. We can only talk about pure opinion. I may have extremely strange opinions ("I am a god! I will smite you down with lightning!"), but these opinions can be somewhat tested ("Oh yeah? Smite me with lightning then..."). In regards to Jyhad, I might say that WWEF is the best card in existance, but it's a pretty hollow arguement if I just say, "because I think so." > In the end > it all comes down to preferences and choices. I choose not to play with "no > limit power decks". You like how you play, so have fun. I enjoy the 4CL limit > as a better way, and more intriguing (sp?) way to play. I guess we just differ there. We are all well within our rights to like a certain mode of play (CL or no), but your reasons for disliking CL strike me as not being quite right. I think (perhaps incorrectly...?) that you feel 4CL vs. no-CL is akin to playing Dungeons and Dragons with godlike characters (18 out of 18 in most stats, high level) vs. playing Dungeons and Dragons with typical characters (low level, with stats ranging from 8 to 14, some outside). The comparison makes no-CL seem like the Monty-Hallish, juvenile game most people have played in their early RPGing careers. "Yes," you seem to say, "You may have fun, but it is not balanced like my games." I feel the reality of it all is that no-CL is not unbalanced. I have never seen it since Jyhad came out. Aside from a few tweaks to the game itself (no vote push, no repeat actions), Jyhad doesn't have any reasons to limit cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4b2ltq$l...@hustle.rahul.net>, Bradley Kellogg <br...@rahul.net> wrote: >A four card limit should be used to prevent certain combos from being >used over and over. As I had stated earlier a Protean Wolf Claws, Haven >Uncovered, Bum's Rush, and Amaranth deck will win all the time unless >played against a deck designed specifically to beat it. I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Every clan has effective defenses against them, and a serious combat deck will (a) completely hose this deck and (b) be effective vs. its prey. Traditional Brujah Celerity/Potence, with dodges and Sideslips (those Claws are only 1 damage most of the time), will cream a Wolf Claw deck. Clans with Dominate have Obedience (Bum's Rush decks are typically weenie- heavy), clans with Presence have (duh) Majesty, clans with Fortitude have, naturally, damage prevention. Animalism provides maneuvers and presses to end if necessary. Celerity provides dodges, additional strikes, and presses; Potence makes sure two vampires are in torpor at the end of combat -- and one of them usually has blood on it. Hint: It's not the one with Protean. All this is not to say that Wolf Claw-based decks are ineffective, because they're not. I'm just saying they're not an unstoppable juggernaut, and playing Claws effectively requires more than just entering combat with a Claw in your hand. >If you build a >deck with these cards and little vampires with Protean, Igo warks, it is >extremely difficult to beat. Another deck is the Ventrue Consaguios Boon >and Govern the Unaligned deck with a ton of Deflections. In a group game >your prey can never touch you and your predator and prey fight. You can only Deflect if your predator bleeds. You can't Deflect a Parity Shift, and if you're gaining blood with Boons and GtUs, you're a primo target. Also, Boons and GtUs can be blocked, and all those Deflections don't leave a lot of room for Fortitude. Plus, if your predator realizes your trick, soon he'll stop bleeding, and those Deflections will just stack up in your hand. > Add >Conservative Agitations and A ton o' Praxis:Seizures and another >degenerate deck that will win constanly. Well, with enough Kine Resources, one doesn't need Seizures (cf. GenCon). But that's a problem with vote-pushing rules in specific, not card limits. One-push or one-vote fixes shut down these kinds of shenanigans. I run a Weenie Seizure deck, and it needs Stealth (malk/nos weenies) and good strategy (teasing out intercept, careful sacrificing) to stand up to the Toreador deck I regularly play it against. >Card limits must be put into >play somehow if people are going to play these decks, So yes, Degenerate >decks can and do work. A card limit should be placed to balance the game >or simply not play against "degenerate" decks. Please see above. gomi -- Paul Echeverri go...@pollywog.com "Two cans and a piece of string, baby. That's all the Internet you'll ever need!"

In article <4b2ltq$l...@hustle.rahul.net>, Bradley Kellogg <br...@rahul.net> wrote: > The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: [Inviting people to try to change my mind/argue about CL necessity] > A four card limit should be used to prevent certain combos from being > used over and over. As I had stated earlier a Protean Wolf Claws, Haven > Uncovered, Bum's Rush, and Amaranth deck will win all the time unless > played against a deck designed specifically to beat it. My decks: (1)Sowing Dissensions Seeds: Lotso Majesty (2)The Slumlords: Look, potence, burning wrath! We both get hurt! (3)The Stoic: Fortitude is about it here. This deck rarely takes damage in combat (except from those damn Tremere) (4)Hemophiliacs: Manuever, Lots of agg damage of my own (5)Social Revolution: Guns and celerity for manuevers and dodge + strike. (6)Wait a Minute...: Disguised Weapon, my guy dies shooting, Fast Reaction...Hi! (7)Nymphomaniacs: Thoughts Betrayed, Obedience, and Replendant Protectors. (8)Juete! Merde!: Fortitude and Chimerstry prevention (9)CDC: More manuevers than you can shake a stick at (PS: email me if you can trade Vampiric Diseases :) (10)Who?: This S&B would be utterly destroyed. C'est la vie. I am not saying these decks will all destroy that one (they won't). Some will. Others would just be up against a deck, like any other. > If you build a > deck with these cards and little vampires with Protean, Igo warks, it is > extremely difficult to beat. See the above >Another deck is the Ventrue Consaguios Boon > and Govern the Unaligned deck with a ton of Deflections. In a group game > your prey can never touch you and your predator and prey fight. Add > Conservative Agitations and A ton o' Praxis:Seizures and another > degenerate deck that will win constanly. (1) Look, votes. Oh what the hell, you are now the prey of the Brujah Gun deck (lots of Dramatic Upheavel and Restructures...) (2) Look, votes. Oh yeah, my Nossie voters Bum's Rush, Hidden Lurker yours... (3) Lots of intercept. (4) Lots of Haven Uncovered, Archons (5) Votes and Bum's Rush with guns (6) Light intercept with Hidden Lurkers, no stealth with Fast Reaction (7) Would likely be hurt badly... (8) Lots of "screw" cards (Bureacratic Overload, Cultivated Blood Shortage), light intercept. (9) Anti-vote cards and strong intercept (10) Would likely be utterly destroyed. >Card limits must be put into > play somehow if people are going to play these decks, So yes, Degenerate > decks can and do work. A card limit should be placed to balance the game > or simply not play against "degenerate" decks. Please give me an explicit example of a "degenerate deck". Please show me a 4CL deck that can beat a 4CL S&B deck. Thank you. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hear ye! Hear ye! <Pine.NXT.3.91.951218205925.2418B-100000@pentose>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, articulated: #Please give me an explicit example of a "degenerate deck". #Please show me a 4CL deck that can beat a 4CL S&B deck. My Protean/Presence deck that uses 4 different clans (mainly Gangrel/Toreador) will beat a 4CL S&B deck regularly. At least that has been my experience. And *NO*, before you even ask, I will NOT post it to the net! [ quoted text not captured ]

gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: >Hear ye! Hear ye! <Pine.NXT.3.91.951217182106.710E-100000@pentode>, The >Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, >articulated: > #Games are based on mathematics, from Tic-tic-toe, to Go (hi Alan, >#Neil!). Analysis may be difficult, but if the mathematics isn't there, >#Casinos would be hard pressed to decide where they should place their >#table limits and house rules. > >Since when do we equate casinos with CCG's???? The phrase apples and oranges >comes to mind.... It is also the hard core statistical analysis that makes >casinos suck and take away from the game. I much prefer playing such games with >friends where everyone is not trying to calculate the odds and such muck. Peace Greg, TCGs are games right? "Games are based on mathematics." [paraphrasing:] "Casinos use math to calculate the odds they use for bets in the games they run." Ever play in a tournament (any)? You used math to calculate your chances of winning and chose to play or not to, that is: you evaluated the probability of success as high/low and chose accordingly. Even when playing for fun, math abounds in games. [big empty spiel omitted] So, you are saying that you cannot justify/defend your choice of 4CL vs. NL? Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

Hear ye! Hear ye! <4b6jef$4...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, articulated: #[big empty spiel omitted] # #So, you are saying that you cannot justify/defend your choice of 4CL vs. NL? Nope. I just refuse to use statistical analysis to do it. I justify my choice as more fun. It's how I like to play. I don't buy the argument that 4CL is limiting or worse than no-cl in some way. They both balance against their own "format" just fine. I also find that 4CL games require more strategy, cunning, guile, and personal intrgue from the players since you can never "count" on any given card since you don't have some 40 gazillion in your deck. It becomes more like chess in that you have to think about your moves while considering your opponents' possible moves as well, given cards played and how many they still have left. Yes, this does involve math (you can never get away from it...), however it does not entail the in depth *statistical analysis* that some people are talking about... and consequently is exactly what casinos do to get their odds... which is why I flamed that in the first place. I am basing everything I am saying only on personal experience. Algustus made reference to the fact that a no-cl deck will beat a 4cl deck any day. Well DUH?!?... Of cousre they will and I never contested that they won't. I merely have stated for about the 40th time to everyone here that I prefer the 4CL rule and that against their own type (no-cl vs. no-cl and 4CL vs. 4CL) then the game is balanced. End of thread. I also grow tired of this thread and will ignore most future posts on this issue since I am in the vast minority on this newsgroup and neither side of this argument will ever convince the other. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: : Sorry to continue belaboring the point (not really sorry, but its nice to : be polite :), but how is a no limit deck a "power deck" and how do "no : limit decks take away from the flavor of the game"? : (Greg Zuvich) wrote: : Please post an example deck or article that discusses this. (Though I : doubt I will in this case, I have been known to change my mind :) : Besides, I like argueing.) Ummmm .... try this: For Duels: Igo (3) Smudge (2) the new caitiff w/ presence (3) the other 3 new Caitiff (2 each) Nik (2) Hasina (2) Uriah (2) ---------------- Total: 16, incl. 3 of two w/ presence. (assuming some will get hosed) 6 Presence 6 Information Highway 6 Bribes 6 Bewitching Oration 6 Majesty 24 Kine Resources Contested 6 Praxis: Solomon Assume foe goes first. (as often as not). Influences 4 blood, has X <= 4 minions, is at 26. Assume you get an Info out. (More often than not). You influence out 4 minions. He does something terrible to you. He influences and is at 22. You KRC him for 12. Bribe 2 of them. Spend 5 transfers and 3 blood to get out another minion. He does something terrible to you. He is afraid to influence already and stays at 14. You KRC him for 15. Game over. No, it's not THAT simple, but it is not far from that. ------------------------------- Bigger games: Add: Various 2-blood vamps with presence. Justine, Elder of Dallas (to keep her being used against you). Effective Management (X) Rumors of Gehenna (X) Wake With Evening's Freshness (X) KRCG (X) Conservative Agitation (as game size warrants: 5: 4; 6: 8, etc. Fortitude (X) Praxis Seizure: X (X) Skin of Steel (X) more Majesty more Presence a couple more Praxis: Solomon yet more Kine Resources Contested maybe some Pulled Fangs -- after all, no damage :) Pretty Thrilling Deck, eh??? marion delgado p.s. i am against the 4CL, but there are degenerate unlimiteds.

Greg Zuvich (gzu...@symantec.com) wrote: : I just happen to like the flavor that : 4CL gives the game and think it is a better way to play. I would wager to say that this pretty much sums up your philosophy, yes? (not that this is a _bad_ thing... read on) : As for your slick attempt to call me out and name specific cards, for : say that long range/no gun Brujah deck and list off a degenerate deck, : nice try.... I don't play such decks and have never constructed one, : although I have seen plenty of them played. By trying to get me to name : specific cards you are trying to draw me into your frame of argument and : put the issue under your mathematical microscope, which I abhore and : denounce from the start. I will not enter a mathematical debate over cards It is not a 'slick attempt' - it is the field of reference. The general contention on this group has been (and likely always will be) that Jyhad is the closest thing to a no-limits CCG that exists; the internal rules balance out the need for superimposed card limits. (Granted, there are a few spoilers and a few rules that need re-working, but then that's the _other_ half of the fun, isn't it? :-) When people say that they play 4cl, the general question asked is; how do you make all the varying kinds of decks that we can make under no-limit? So far, I have not seen a single person take the challenge (yourself included). If you want to win, then under 4cl there is one way to do that; sneak and bleed. If you are playing anything else, you are voluntarily reducing your chances of winning the game in order to make it more amusing/ entertaining/challenging/fair. That's fine, but realize that you made this choice. If you want to win, then there are a _number_ of viable strategies under no-limits; since you are not limited to 4 of any one card, you can take almost _any_ card and design a deck around it. If you (personally) enjoy reducing variety to create a greater challenge for yourself, then who are we to say that you are wrong? Please, however, do not make a claim that 4cl can do everything no-limits can do and do it better without being willing to back it up and 'enter our field of reference'. That is not an argument, that is an unfounded assertion. : In the end it all comes down to preferences and choices. I choose not : to play with "no limit power decks". You like how you play, so have fun. : I enjoy the 4CL limit as a better way, and more intriguing (sp?) way to : play. And here is the crux. You have chosen to impose artificial limits on a game that has none. This is your choice, and if you feel good about it, then fine. More power to you, and may you enjoy Jyhad forever. BUT... Once you attempt to convince others that your way is somehow 'better', then you need to be able to _quantify_ the ways in which it is better. The current method of quantification for Jyhad (and all games, from Go to Blackjack) is mathematics - which was Alan's point. One may argue with teh conclusions drawn from the math, but not the math itself (if done correctly) - and therefore it is a useful tool. 'Feelings' cannot be expressed in definite measureable terms, and so the assertion that 4cl is better 'because I _like_ it better!' - holds little weight with those trying to assess the information presented and make a choice. Shane H.W. Travis | I try to take one day at a time, tra...@duke.usask.ca | but sometimes several days attack at once. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Ashleigh Brilliant

Hear ye! Hear ye! <Pine.NXT.3.91.951218215459.2418C-100000@pentose>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, articulated: #NOTE: Ignore this thread if you are sick of hearing about card limits. "Yes," you seem to say, "You may have fun, but it #is not balanced like my games." I *never* said the no-cl way to play is unbalanced, and I don't appreciate the "seems to say" either. A no-cl deck is perfectly balanced against another, the same goes with 4CL decks vs. another. I feel the reality of it all is that #no-CL is not unbalanced. against another, no it is not. I don't like to play that way however. I enjoy the diversity of the 4CL more, that's all. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4b6op8$3...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, Greg Zuvich <gzu...@symantec.com> wrote: >My Protean/Presence deck that uses 4 different clans (mainly Gangrel/Toreador) will >beat a 4CL S&B deck regularly. At least that has been my experience. And *NO*, >before you even ask, I will NOT post it to the net! Oh. So empty bragging *is* your forte, then. Walk the walk for me, Greg. C'mon. Or, please, stop talking the talk. > "Put your soul in the water > and join me for a swim tonight." Live - Mental Jewelry > "Beauty of Gray" I come from the water That weren't no easy thing It's more than nature It's like my destiny - Toadies, "I Come From the Water" [ quoted text not captured ]

Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com writes: >I also grow tired of this thread and will ignore most future posts on this issue >since I am in the vast minority on this newsgroup and neither side of this >argument will ever convince the other. Not necessarily. I was initially in the mild limits camp (6 card, 8 card, 10%) before this group convinced me they weren't really necessary. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Greg Zuvich (gzu...@symantec.com) wrote: : I *never* said the no-cl way to play is unbalanced, and I don't : appreciate the "seems to say" either. A no-cl deck is perfectly balanced : against another, the same goes with 4CL decks vs. another. Just out of curiosity... did your 4cl S&B opponent have access to as many cards as he wanted of any type? or are you playing with a limited card set? Curt has posted the (theoretically) penultimate 4-card S&B deck, and I woiuld like to see how your deck fares against _that_ one. I never will, however, as you continue to make claims and refuse to back them up. (i.e. my deck _could_ beat it, but I'm not going to even attempt to prove it to you by actually posting the deck... you'll just have to take my word on it.) <bobbitt> : I don't like to play that way however. : I enjoy the diversity of the 4CL more, that's all. Then enjoy! But don't say that it is the way the game was meant to be played... there is no mention of limits in the rules (as there is in Shadowfist) and no 'governing body' which has said that blanket limits are necessary (as there is in MtG). If you want to limit yourself, who are we to stop you? If youa re going to argue, however, we need some solid data and facts, not just handwaving and assertions. Post the deck, Greg, unless you are afraid it won't withstand the scrutiny... [ quoted text not captured ]

Hi Greg, On 19 Dec 1995, Greg Zuvich wrote: > Hear ye! Hear ye! <Pine.NXT.3.91.951218205925.2418B-100000@pentose>, The > Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, > articulated: > #Please give me an explicit example of a "degenerate deck". > #Please show me a 4CL deck that can beat a 4CL S&B deck. > > My Protean/Presence deck that uses 4 different clans (mainly Gangrel/Toreador) will > beat a 4CL S&B deck regularly. At least that has been my experience. And *NO*, > before you even ask, I will NOT post it to the net! > Want to bet some Dark Soverign cards on it? Algustas *****Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.***** Nelson Mandela, 1994 Inaugural speech.

>Just out of curiosity... did your 4cl S&B opponent have access to as many >cards as he wanted of any type? or are you playing with a limited card >set? Curt has posted the (theoretically) penultimate 4-card S&B deck, >and I woiuld like to see how your deck fares against _that_ one. I never >will, however, as you continue to make claims and refuse to back them up. >(i.e. my deck _could_ beat it, but I'm not going to even attempt to prove >it to you by actually posting the deck... you'll just have to take my >word on it.) >: I don't like to play that way however. >: I enjoy the diversity of the 4CL more, that's all. >If youa re going to argue, however, we need some solid data and facts, >not just handwaving and assertions. Post the deck, Greg, unless you are >afraid it won't withstand the scrutiny... Obviously it used the maximum Auspex allowed for intercept, bleed bounce, and counter and celerity for damage. Then it uses maximum animalism intercept, combat and raven spies. Use protean to torporize. Throw in 4 KRGC and 4 London Evening Times, 4 sport bikes and 4 raven spies and you have early permanent intercept up the wazoo. You can bounce 4 bleeds, counter 8 points of bleeds, block any bleeds you can't counter. Use Archon investigation to stop 4 bleeds above 3. Season with princes and 2nd tradition. 4 Info Highways to make sure you get out enough vamps early enough. Use Renegade Garou to directly attack the offending vampires. Sounds like it can beat a a 4 CL bleed deck to me. It can torporize, burn or bounce every bleed attempt made. Use movt of slow body, rapid healing and force of will for bleeding your prey along with day op, dawn op, form of mist, earth meld, backways.

NOTE: Ignore this thread if you are sick of hearing about card limits. In article <4b6op8$3...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: > Hear ye! Hear ye! <Pine.NXT.3.91.951218205925.2418B-100000@pentose>, The > Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, > articulated: > #Please give me an explicit example of a "degenerate deck". > #Please show me a 4CL deck that can beat a 4CL S&B deck. > > My Protean/Presence deck that uses 4 different clans (mainly Gangrel/Toreador) will > beat a 4CL S&B deck regularly. At least that has been my experience. And *NO*, > before you even ask, I will NOT post it to the net! :( Difficult to tell if it would work then... or if it did, how many rares it would need... In article <4b6p9m$3...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: > Hear ye! Hear ye! <Pine.NXT.3.91.951218215459.2418C-100000@pentose>, The > Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, > articulated: > #NOTE: Ignore this thread if you are sick of hearing about card limits. > > "Yes," you seem to say, "You may have fun, but it > #is not balanced like my games." > > I *never* said the no-cl way to play is unbalanced, and I don't appreciate the > "seems to say" either. A no-cl deck is perfectly balanced against another, the > same goes with 4CL decks vs. another. By, "seem to say", I was trying to imply that I wasn't presuming to think I "knew" what you meant. Sorry if it offended. I agree that no-cl is fine against no-cl, but I have never seen a 4CL (or even 10%CL) beat another (well-done) S&B deck, unless table play was a factor (i.e., two S&B contesting, or the table attacking the S&B-er). > I feel the reality of it all is that > #no-CL is not unbalanced. > > against another, no it is not. I don't like to play that way however. I enjoy > the diversity of the 4CL more, that's all. As I tried to imply when I opened this thread, this is an old arguement. I didn't expect to win over anyone else, but since I used to agree with your position, but was won over, I didn't mind trying... :) C'est la vie. Have fun, and play well. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4b6op8$3...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, Greg Zuvich <gzu...@symantec.com> wrote: >Hear ye! Hear ye! <Pine.NXT.3.91.951218205925.2418B-100000@pentose>, The >Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, >articulated: >#Please give me an explicit example of a "degenerate deck". >#Please show me a 4CL deck that can beat a 4CL S&B deck. ^^^^ >My Protean/Presence deck that uses 4 different clans (mainly Gangrel/Toreador) will >beat a 4CL S&B deck regularly. At least that has been my experience. And *NO*, >before you even ask, I will NOT post it to the net! You have told us about your deck, not shown it. I (and anyone else with 10 minutes) could detail for you a Malkavian S&B deck that can and will beat any other 4CL deck the majority of the time, excepting those built with Malk hosing as their primary goal. If you want to see it, just ask. However, your claims to fame of your deck (and refusal to post it) sound oddly similar to the elusive "apathy deck" of Mage Bob, often talked about but never seen. Just to lay a context. You like 4CL. Fine. I don't. Fine. I (we) have presented numerous arguments, asthetic, mathamatic, and other, to support the quantifiable advantages of NCL. One of the key arguments against 4CL from a practical standpoint is the supremacy of Malk S&B. You claim to have the problem solved, but will not prove so to us. We have reached an impass in this thread, maybe that is for the best, but the NCL side has finished with the unrefuted argument. And I would like to see your deck. gnfnrfe

Hear ye! Hear ye! <4b6n7n$b...@tribune.usask.ca>, tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Travis), the great and noble sovereign, articulated: # #When people say that they play 4cl, the general question asked is; how do #you make all the varying kinds of decks that we can make under no-limit? #So far, I have not seen a single person take the challenge (yourself #included). I would not post a deck design because I do not wish to the arena of *statistical analysis*. This is different than the claim about mathematics. Sorry if my earlier spammings were not so clear. I have no issue with math (1+1=2, etc.) but where I draw the line (no pun intended) is at statistical analysis, ie- "Well, with the direct correlation of these two divergent variables we can clearly see that such and such a deck is clearly outside the mean scale of a consistently viable deck approaching the high end of the winning deviation." ACK!!!!... :(- #If you want to win, then under 4cl there is one way to do that; sneak and #bleed. Not true. As I said before (and it seems I keep repeating myself around here...), I won, and still do, consistently with my protean/presence deck. If you reference my previous posts you will also notice it was quite a diverse deck clan wise... which seems to be another attack against a 4CL deck, which is once again, not true. #If you want to win, then there are a _number_ of viable strategies under #no-limits; since you are not limited to 4 of any one card, you can take #almost _any_ card and design a deck around it. Same with 4CL, only instead of picking a specific card such as WWEF (just as an example!) to construct a deck around, you construct an overall plan centered around disciplines and vampires, and not on having massive amounts of a specific card combination. Believe this takes a great deal of thought (which I happen to enjoy... thinking that is.) because you have to think of original combinations and how to best assess a given tactical situation as the game goes on and how to best allocate ones resources... hence, the challenge. I also have won several games in the 4cl rules with political decks. Maybe in another post I will relate how with pol. deck I have I started a turn with 9 pool and by the time the turn was over I had wiped out *two* opponents, put another vampire in play, still had a couple of minions untapped at the end of my turn, and *increased my POOL to 38* by the time the turn was over. It can, and does happen. And no, it was not a Malk/Venture pol. deck. #If you (personally) enjoy reducing variety to create a greater challenge #for yourself, then who are we to say that you are wrong? Please, #however, do not make a claim that 4cl can do everything no-limits can do #and do it better I never made that claim. I said that *I liked playing with a 4CL better.* Obviously a 4CL deck cannot do the exact same thing a no-cl deck can since it does not have the massive use of one particular card combo that no-cl decks do. However, I doubt that a no-cl deck can do the diverse number of things *in one deck* that a 4CL deck can. What we are really talking about here is that a no-cl deck can be anything (as can 4CL decks) and do it to the extreme. So in that course we can say that the no-cl rule allows for infinite diversity, but only to be held within individual decks singularly. In 4CL decks you have the same range of deck choices, however they DO NOT have the same capacity to repeat certain card combos in the way that no-cl decks can since they are inherently limited in this "repetitive card combo sphere" by their very design construct. 4CL decks, due to this limit on repetitiveness, by their very nature are constructed in a way that is more diverse in it's singular internal design than a no-cl would be. In a conclusion, a no-cl deck will to fewer things by itself than a 4CL deck will, but it *will* do those few things damn well!! This so-called "limitation" on things, a no-cl deck can do is inherent to its design, since massive repetitive card combos preclude a diverse internal deck design. On the other hand, a 4CL deck will do more things and is capable of more diverse actions than a no-cl deck, but it will not excel in any one of these spheres. By it's very nature, a 4CL deck lacks the ability to repeat a given action "ad infinitum", so this gives itself to a more diverse design and a greater capablity to do more things by its own inherent design, ie- a larger number of diverse cards lending itself to a broader range of available actions, none of which can be executed in a large repetitive scale. As we can see, how we use the word "diversity" depends greatly on how we choose to define the term. I hope this helps people assess the standpoint I take on the issue a little better, and develop a closer understanding of what I mean by my adversity to mathematics and by diversity in deck design. In the end I can't help but wonder if the new "graveyard fiddling cards" will help 4CL decks compete on a more consistent basis with no-cl decks in the same game since they do introduce an element of "repetitive card combos" that was not available to them before... hmmmm?... cheers all!! -- Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com [ quoted text not captured ]

NOTE: If you are sick of hearing about card limits, ignore this thread. In article <4b73vl$h...@news.alaska.edu>, fs...@merlin.acf-lab.alaska.edu (David H. Pennell) wrote: : The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: [Basicly a challenge to make a no-Card limit degenerate deck issued] > Ummmm .... try this: > > For Duels: > > Igo (3) > Smudge (2) > the new caitiff w/ presence (3) > the other 3 new Caitiff (2 each) > Nik (2) > Hasina (2) > Uriah (2) [...] > Total: 16, incl. 3 of two w/ presence. > > (assuming some will get hosed) > > 6 Presence > 6 Information Highway > 6 Bribes > 6 Bewitching Oration > 6 Majesty > 24 Kine Resources Contested > 6 Praxis: Solomon > > Assume foe goes first. (as often as not). Influences 4 blood, has X <= 4 > minions, is at 26. Assume you get an Info out. (More often than not). > You influence out 4 minions. > > He does something terrible to you. He influences and is at 22. > > You KRC him for 12. Bribe 2 of them. Spend 5 transfers and 3 blood to get out > another minion. > > He does something terrible to you. He is afraid to influence already and > stays at 14. > > You KRC him for 15. Game over. > > No, it's not THAT simple, but it is not far from that. [more add ons for larger games] > Pretty Thrilling Deck, eh??? > > marion delgado > > p.s. i am against the 4CL, but there are degenerate unlimiteds. Sorry, I still disagree. Part of my challenge is to institute a "degenerate" deck under two contentions: 1) No "vote push" (for new readers, this means not allowing more than one additional vote card per Methuselah. Thus, other methuselahs can put down _a_ political action for a vote, but the KRC deck cannot simply drop 7 KRC and say "I win." They need political power). 2) No "offensive untap" (for new readers this means to repeat the same type of action after untapping. For example, a deck full of earth meld/freak drive cannot simply tap out all of the blockers, and then continue to bleed...and bleed...and bleed until running out of freak drives). The deck above might do decently well, but the moment the first voter got on the table, it would _require_ a Bewitching Oration to pass the vote, or it would need to deal with the voter. In either case, it can no longer be as effective, as the true vote power might say, "I'll let your vote pass, IFF you do 3 damage to my prey and one to yours" (they might not be so harsh.) I still challenge anyone to come up with a "degenerate" deck under those assumptions. [ quoted text not captured ]

NOTE: If you are too sick of card limit discussion to continue, stop. :) In article <dhoffman.8...@cris.com>, dhof...@cris.com (Daniel Hoffman) wrote: > >Just out of curiosity... did your 4cl S&B opponent have access to as many > >cards as he wanted of any type? or are you playing with a limited card > >set? Curt has posted the (theoretically) penultimate 4-card S&B deck, > >and I woiuld like to see how your deck fares against _that_ one. I never > >will, however, as you continue to make claims and refuse to back them up. > >(i.e. my deck _could_ beat it, but I'm not going to even attempt to prove > >it to you by actually posting the deck... you'll just have to take my > >word on it.) > > >: I don't like to play that way however. > >: I enjoy the diversity of the 4CL more, that's all. > [ quoted text not captured ] Is this about what you mean?: 8 wolfclaw/clawsofdead, 8 KRCG/LondonEveningTimes, 8 sportsbikes/ravenspies, 8 ratswarning/catsguidance, 8 telepathiccounter/misdirection, 4 2ndTradition, 4 Archoninvestigation, 8 Animalism/Auspex(to be able to use the skills), 12(?) generalAuspex, 2 Renegade Garou, 12 animalismCombat. At this point, you have 82 cards. You can beat Malk S&B. What else can you beat? (The point of the challenge was to be _robust_ and beat S&B.) As always, everyone, feel free to disagree... :) [ quoted text not captured ]

: 8 wolfclaw/clawsofdead, 8 KRCG/LondonEveningTimes, 8 : : sportsbikes/ravenspies, : 8 ratswarning/catsguidance, 8 telepathiccounter/misdirection, 4 2ndTradition, : 4 Archoninvestigation, 8 Animalism/Auspex(to be able to use the skills), : 12(?) generalAuspex, 2 Renegade Garou, 12 animalismCombat. : : At this point, you have 82 cards. You can beat Malk S&B. What else can : you beat? (The point of the challenge was to be _robust_ and beat S&B.) : : As always, everyone, feel free to disagree... :) I believe if you add a few wakes this will beat a political deck, by simply intercepting all the votes. Danny The oppinions above are not mine, they are forced upon me by my employer.

On Wed, 20 Dec 1995, The Corrupter wrote: > NOTE: If you are too sick of card limit discussion to continue, stop. :) > > Is this about what you mean?: > > 8 wolfclaw/clawsofdead, 8 KRCG/LondonEveningTimes, 8 sportsbikes/ravenspies, > 8 ratswarning/catsguidance, 8 telepathiccounter/misdirection, 4 2ndTradition, > 4 Archoninvestigation, 8 Animalism/Auspex(to be able to use the skills), > 12(?) generalAuspex, 2 Renegade Garou, 12 animalismCombat. > > At this point, you have 82 cards. You can beat Malk S&B. What else can > you beat? (The point of the challenge was to be _robust_ and beat S&B.) Actually, I disagree (what a suprise!), but I can make a 4cl malk sneak and bleed so efficient that it will still beat this deck, of course, I would use lots of rares, but hey, 4cl gives a big advantage to those of us with, say, 4 "behind you" and other rares.... > > As always, everyone, feel free to disagree... :) I always do.... Algustas *****My personal feeling is that this is how any further improvement of the world will be done: by individuals making quality decisions and that's all.***** Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: >Hear ye! Hear ye! <4b6n7n$b...@tribune.usask.ca>, tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane >Travis), the great and noble sovereign, articulated: ># >#When people say that they play 4cl, the general question asked is; how do >#you make all the varying kinds of decks that we can make under no-limit? >#So far, I have not seen a single person take the challenge (yourself >#included). > >I would not post a deck design because I do not wish to the arena of *statistical >analysis*. This is different than the claim about mathematics. Sorry if my >earlier spammings were not so clear. I have no issue with math (1+1=2, etc.) but >where I draw the line (no pun intended) is at statistical analysis, ie- "Well, >with the direct correlation of these two divergent variables we can clearly see >that such and such a deck is clearly outside the mean scale of a consistently >viable deck approaching the high end of the winning deviation." ACK!!!!... :(- Peace Greg, Statistics aren't necessary (though they are a part of mathematics). Shane (and myself) are looking for a 4CL deck that we can tell by looking at it would have a good chance (eek! probability=statistics) of winning against a 4CL max'd out S&B deck. We don't believe that one exists, except maybe Tremere intercept/cmbt. >#If you want to win, then under 4cl there is one way to do that; sneak and >#bleed. > >Not true. As I said before (and it seems I keep repeating myself around >here...), I won, and still do, consistently with my protean/presence deck. If >you reference my previous posts you will also notice it was quite a diverse deck >clan wise... which seems to be another attack against a 4CL deck, which is once >again, not true. We're asking for proof. You need to post your Pro/Pre deck to _prove_ to us that it is capable of handling a S&B deck. >Same with 4CL, only instead of picking a specific card such as WWEF (just as an >example!) to construct a deck around, you construct an overall plan centered >around disciplines and vampires, and not on having massive amounts of a specific Gee, sounds exactly like what I do, when I'm building a deck (no CL). >card combination. Believe this takes a great deal of thought (which I happen to >enjoy... thinking that is.) because you have to think of original combinations >and how to best assess a given tactical situation as the game goes on and how to >best allocate ones resources... hence, the challenge. I also have won several Same as under NL, except, I can choose any card or number of cards to fill slots to provide those responses to varying tactical situations. >#If you (personally) enjoy reducing variety to create a greater challenge >#for yourself, then who are we to say that you are wrong? Please, >#however, do not make a claim that 4cl can do everything no-limits can do >#and do it better > >I never made that claim. I said that *I liked playing with a 4CL better.* >Obviously a 4CL deck cannot do the exact same thing a no-cl deck can since it >does not have the massive use of one particular card combo that no-cl decks do. >However, I doubt that a no-cl deck can do the diverse number of things *in one >deck* that a 4CL deck can. What we are really talking about here is that a no-cl This is a patently false statement. The set of all 4CL decks is wholly contained within the set of NL decks (as you could chose to use only four of any one card and still play NL), so everything that 4CL decks are capable of NL decks must be capable of. >deck can be anything (as can 4CL decks) and do it to the extreme. So in that >course we can say that the no-cl rule allows for infinite diversity, but only to >be held within individual decks singularly. In 4CL decks you have the same range >of deck choices, however they DO NOT have the same capacity to repeat certain >card combos in the way that no-cl decks can since they are inherently limited in >this "repetitive card combo sphere" by their very design construct. 4CL decks, >due to this limit on repetitiveness, by their very nature are constructed in a >way that is more diverse in it's singular internal design than a no-cl would be. False. 4CL decks do NOT have the same range of deck choices; some decks require more than four of a single card to work. I think you are just hung up on the idea that any NL deck is going to automatically be a one-trick-pony, which they aren't. Any OTP is going to be extremely vulnerable to a single card counter. If your pred/prey happens to possess that SCC, your deck is wrecked, so you have to diversify to maintain playability in the worst case scenario. Check out the decks I have posted previously. Sometimes I choose to use four or less of a single card (because that is all I feel I need of that card), but sometimes I feel I need more than four of a card to make the deck work properly. >In a conclusion, a no-cl deck will to fewer things by itself than a 4CL deck >will, but it *will* do those few things damn well!! This so-called "limitation" False conclusion from false premises (sp). All NL decks are not OTPs. >on things, a no-cl deck can do is inherent to its design, since massive >repetitive card combos preclude a diverse internal deck design. On the other >hand, a 4CL deck will do more things and is capable of more diverse actions than >a no-cl deck, but it will not excel in any one of these spheres. By it's very False, again 4CL is a subset of NL. >nature, a 4CL deck lacks the ability to repeat a given action "ad infinitum", so >this gives itself to a more diverse design and a greater capablity to do more >things by its own inherent design, ie- a larger number of diverse cards lending >itself to a broader range of available actions, none of which can be executed in >a large repetitive scale. Which any competent player under NL will design into his/her/its deck. >In the end I can't help but wonder if the new "graveyard fiddling cards" will >help 4CL decks compete on a more consistent basis with no-cl decks in the same >game since they do introduce an element of "repetitive card combos" that was not >available to them before... hmmmm?... Why are you obsessing on "repetitive card combos", Greg? Do you play with some really munchkin players? We don't have this problem around here (NL) and I'm not sure why you seem so sure that all NL decks are just piles of "repetitive card combos" waiting to be drawn. [ quoted text not captured ]

>: 8 wolfclaw/clawsofdead, 8 KRCG/LondonEveningTimes, 8 : : >sportsbikes/ravenspies, >: 8 ratswarning/catsguidance, 8 telepathiccounter/misdirection, 4 >2ndTradition, >: 4 Archoninvestigation, 8 Animalism/Auspex(to be able to use the skills), >: 12(?) generalAuspex, 2 Renegade Garou, 12 animalismCombat. >: At this point, you have 82 cards. You can beat Malk S&B. What else can >: you beat? (The point of the challenge was to be _robust_ and beat S&B.) >: As always, everyone, feel free to disagree... :) >I believe if you add a few wakes this will beat a political deck, by >simply intercepting all the votes. Bounce a few bleeds on to your prey, use backways to sneak your own bleeds through, use force of will to increase bleeds, day ops to make them unblockable. You could trim a few animalism combat/master cards out and use some guns, zip gun/DBR combos. You can beat a 4cl Brujah combat deck or a 4cl Nostferatu Assassin deck...

<Lots of old arguements snipped, we all know the battle lines> Everyone I have ever played with has always played by a 4CL, the few games we did not got a little annoying when one person pulled his eigth Acrobatics to dodge and additional strike. However it did not save him, we voted that he die (and so it was). The reason that we play a 4CL is that tends to be all we have, being students, only two people had enough money to complete the Jyhad set and they regretted spending that much. By playing 4CL we ensure that everyone has a fair chance. It also means a friendly trade in commons so that everyone has four of each rather than people hoarding some and having none of others. However, all things considered, I will still play any deck that comes up against me, no matter what rules made it and I think I would win my fair share of games, lots of some card make you weak in others, as people have pointed out. About 4CL favouring S&B decks, I wouldn't know. In St. Andrews, if you play a S&B deck you get laughed at for having no imagination... Just my two pence worth. If anyone can muster the enthusiasm to reply, please e-mail jw...@st-and.ac.uk as I am about to take a week off for Christmas and won't read the newsgroup.

fs...@merlin.acf-lab.alaska.edu (David H. Pennell) wrote: [dueling portion omitted; Jyhad begins at four players] >Bigger games: > >Add: > >Various 2-blood vamps with presence. >Justine, Elder of Dallas (to keep her being used against you). > >Effective Management (X) >Rumors of Gehenna (X) >Wake With Evening's Freshness (X) >KRCG (X) >Conservative Agitation (as game size warrants: 5: 4; 6: 8, etc. >Fortitude (X) >Praxis Seizure: X (X) >Skin of Steel (X) >more Majesty >more Presence >a couple more Praxis: Solomon >yet more Kine Resources Contested >maybe some Pulled Fangs -- after all, no damage :) Peace marion, Using the Jyhad rules as written (no vote push), the first prince/Justicar on the table stops your deck cold. Yes, with the current mis-ruling (vote push), KRC/CA decks can degenerate (see, the silly and wholly unnecessary tourney rules), I'm not impressed by wienie decks in Jyhad (4+ players). [ quoted text not captured ]

Greg Zuvich (gzu...@symantec.com) wrote: : I also find that 4CL games require more strategy, cunning, guile, and : personal intrgue from the players since you can never "count" on any given : card since you don't have some 40 gazillion in your deck. Personally, I prefer to play against my opponents than against lady luck. : I also grow tired of this thread and will ignore most future posts on : this issue Free shots on Greg! :-) : since I am in the vast minority on this newsgroup and neither side of this : argument will ever convince the other. Actually, you are incorrect here (too). There are several people on this group who have realized that 4cl are not necessary and have changed their playing to no-limits (one of whom has repeatedly stated in his posts to this thread). You _are_ correct, however, that I have never seen anyone voluntarily go to 4cl after playing no-limits... [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: : NOTE: If you are too sick of card limit discussion to continue, stop. :) : Is this about what you mean?: : 8 wolfclaw/clawsofdead, 8 KRCG/LondonEveningTimes, 8 sportsbikes/ravenspies, : 8 ratswarning/catsguidance, 8 telepathiccounter/misdirection, 4 2ndTradition, : 4 Archoninvestigation, 8 Animalism/Auspex(to be able to use the skills), : 12(?) generalAuspex, 2 Renegade Garou, 12 animalismCombat. : At this point, you have 82 cards. You can beat Malk S&B. What else can : you beat? (The point of the challenge was to be _robust_ and beat S&B.) : As always, everyone, feel free to disagree... :) As I read it, we were to provide ANY 4cl deck to beat an S&B deck. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "What is a man without the beasts? If the beasts were gone, | | man would die from a great loneliness of spirit." | | "Confuse, annoy, and dee-STROY!!" Call me "Nicole" and I | | npu...@tiger.lsu.edu -- Jet...@aol.com will have to kill you. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article h...@news.alaska.edu, fs...@merlin.acf-lab.alaska.edu (David H. Pennell) writes: > The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: > > : Sorry to continue belaboring the point (not really sorry, but its nice to > : be polite :), but how is a no limit deck a "power deck" and how do "no > : limit decks take away from the flavor of the game"? > > : (Greg Zuvich) wrote: > : Please post an example deck or article that discusses this. (Though I : > doubt I will in this case, I have been known to change my mind :) : > Besides, I like argueing.) > > Ummmm .... try this: > > For Duels: > > Igo (3) > Smudge (2) > the new caitiff w/ presence (3) > the other 3 new Caitiff (2 each) > Nik (2) > Hasina (2) > Uriah (2) > ---------------- > Total: 16, incl. 3 of two w/ presence. > > (assuming some will get hosed) > > 6 Presence > 6 Information Highway > 6 Bribes > 6 Bewitching Oration > 6 Majesty > 24 Kine Resources Contested > 6 Praxis: Solomon > stuff deleted. > Pretty Thrilling Deck, eh??? > > marion delgado > > p.s. i am against the 4CL, but there are degenerate unlimiteds. > This deck does not get it's power from being degenerate, it gets it power from vote pushing rule. With out vote push you would have to cut your KRC by half and add, + vote mod's, presence skill cards, and Praxis: Seasures to win your votes. This would also slow it down enough that most fast bleed or intercept untap decks couls keep up with it. No, no combat deck would stand much of a chance (except maybe a weenie brujah/ally deck) Vote rules will become much more balanced with more players and after four or so players I don't think such a weenie deck would have much of a chance (without vote push of course.)

NOTE: If you are too sick of card limit discussion to continue, stop. :) In article <dhoffman.9...@cris.com>, dhof...@cris.com (Daniel Hoffman) wrote: > >: 8 wolfclaw/clawsofdead, 8 KRCG/LondonEveningTimes, 8 : : > >sportsbikes/ravenspies, > >: 8 ratswarning/catsguidance, 8 telepathiccounter/misdirection, 4 > >2ndTradition, > >: 4 Archoninvestigation, 8 Animalism/Auspex(to be able to use the skills), > >: 12(?) generalAuspex, 2 Renegade Garou, 12 animalismCombat. > >: At this point, you have 82 cards. You can beat Malk S&B. What else can > >: you beat? (The point of the challenge was to be _robust_ and beat S&B.) > >: As always, everyone, feel free to disagree... :) > > >I believe if you add a few wakes this will beat a political deck, by > >simply intercepting all the votes. > > Bounce a few bleeds on to your prey, use backways to sneak your own bleeds > through, use force of will to increase bleeds, day ops to make them > unblockable. You could trim a few animalism combat/master cards out and use > some guns, zip gun/DBR combos. You can beat a 4cl Brujah combat deck or a 4cl > Nostferatu Assassin deck... I made a defacto attempt to stop 4cl S&B under the above. Put simply, even with large numbers of permanent intercept (slow... :( ), and animalism for untaps, protean to end the bleeder, and rushes/have uncovered, it was only able to beat S&B consistently without help. The other problem was that any other combat deck simply slaughtered me. Vote decks (usually presence based) were not scared by this deck. Ventrue have fortitude and presence for prevention and S:CE. With Dominate they can obedience and bleed bounce (tapping out the gangrel or hurting it). Toreador have celerity for manuevers and additional strikes. Brujah have... well, they're Brujah - they beat up other vampires. By adding the above cards, you begin to take away from the intercept necessary to stop S&B (if you're lucky), and begin to get hurt by not having the cards in hand with the vampires in play (heck, only Gunther has auspex, and you only have 4 auspex masters in the deck). Someone, please post an explicit, robust 4-cl deck that can handle S&B. (Apologies to all who feel I am being haughty. If you enjoy 4cl, fine. Just don't say 4cl is better without supporting evidence.) [ quoted text not captured ]

NOTE:This old debate drives many away in droves. Ignore at will. In article <dhoffman.9...@cris.com>, dhof...@cris.com (Daniel Hoffman) wrote: : >I made a defacto attempt to stop 4cl S&B under the above. Put simply, : >even with large numbers of permanent intercept (slow... :( ), and : >animalism for untaps, protean to end the bleeder, and rushes/have : >uncovered, it was only able to beat S&B consistently without help. The : >other problem was that any other combat deck simply slaughtered me. Vote : >decks (usually presence based) were not scared by this deck. Ventrue : >have fortitude and presence for prevention and S:CE. With Dominate they : >can obedience and bleed bounce (tapping out the gangrel or hurting it). : >Toreador have celerity for manuevers and additional strikes. Brujah : >have... well, they're Brujah - they beat up other vampires. : : >By adding the above cards, you begin to take away from the intercept : >necessary to stop S&B (if you're lucky), and begin to get hurt by not : >having the cards in hand with the vampires in play (heck, only Gunther : >has auspex, and you only have 4 auspex masters in the deck). : : It is toreador/gangrel. Toreador block early, Gangrel block late. Still, cards in hand are not going to be to effective. Auspex/Protean/Animalism/Celerity. That might be fine if there were any toreador/gangrel crossover on those disciplines besides a 7-gangrel, and a 9 and 11 toreador. : >Someone, please post an explicit, robust 4-cl deck that can handle S&B. : : S&B is an all offense deck. To beat an all offense deck you need an all : defense deck. If a deck could stop an all offense deck at predator and still : beat another strong defense deck at prey then it would be unbalanced. Is that : what you mean by robust? Then there is no such thing. By robust, I mean a deck that can handle S&B and any other such thing in any game. I do not mean it must hose predator and prey. I mean that it should be able to be a decent deck even if S&B isn't your predator. : If S&B is your prey, you mop the floor with them. So any deck can handle a : S&B deck if it is your prey. Is that what you mean by robust? Read above. : If S&B is your predator you use a snapping turtle deck like the one above. : You are too busy defending yourself to oust your own prey. There is no deck : even without limits that can oust its prey while at the same time stopping a : full force S&B. I guess you could use 20 deflections with one vampire with : superior dominate and be playing an S&B deck yourself. Is that what you mean : by a good NL deck? No. Read above. There are decks that would be able to _easily_ handle the Malk S&B king. Under no-CL gangrel Rush (or Tremere Rush/Intercept) would be able to easily torporize those vampires and hurt the prey. A sleeping vampire cannot bleed. Thus, under No-CL, a pure S&B is essentially a gamble. You are gambling that your prey is going to have no way of handling you. In 4-cl, you are gambling that someone won't contest you/the table won't gang-bang you. [ quoted text not captured ]

James R. McClure Jr. (jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu) wrote: : npu...@tiger.lsu.edu (Nicole Janine Purvis) wrote: : >CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: : >: Not necessarily. I was initially in the mild limits camp (6 card, 8 card, : >: 10%) before this group convinced me they weren't really necessary. : > : > Same here, I was for the 6cl [even though I never played with more than : >4 of any crd, but I'm different than many players], but after reading all : >the hubbub, I think that 4cl really is the way to go... : Peace Nicole, : . . . if you want Malk S&B to be the order of the day. : People wouldn't believe it, but I've held off Malk/Nosferatu S&B before. Not too often, maybe a third of the time they've been my predator; but my deck ["my deck" meaning my Toreador/Brujah] has its fair share of intercept:3 Enhanced Senses, KRCG, Mr. Winthrop, 3 Sport Bikes and 2 2nd Traditions, along with 3 Telepathic Counters [no bleed bounce]. As long as I've got enough intercept to stop a couple of bleeds a turn, the predator doesn't usually bleed me for much, because the deck also has combat abilities--which I forsake the extra intercept in order to use. It often hinges on choices. If I can stop one bleed in a turn and have an idea of what they are going to do, sure I'll let that Night Moves go by, knowing that blocking it may let them Condition me. If I'm lucky with presses and especially additional strikes, I can send the would-be bleeder to torpor and be done with them. And unless it's a 2-player game, after a few turns my predator has to deal with his prey as well as bleeding me. Maybe I just get lucky, but the great S&B isn't unstoppable--or maybe I haven't faced the right deck yet. And the S&B decks I do face, for the record, are either 4CL or 10%. [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: : Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com writes: : >I also grow tired of this thread and will ignore most future posts on : this issue : >since I am in the vast minority on this newsgroup and neither side of : this : >argument will ever convince the other. : Not necessarily. I was initially in the mild limits camp (6 card, 8 card, : 10%) before this group convinced me they weren't really necessary. Same here, I was for the 6cl [even though I never played with more than 4 of any crd, but I'm different than many players], but after reading all the hubbub, I think that 4cl really is the way to go... -- [ quoted text not captured ]

npu...@tiger.lsu.edu (Nicole Janine Purvis) wrote: >CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: >: Not necessarily. I was initially in the mild limits camp (6 card, 8 card, >: 10%) before this group convinced me they weren't really necessary. > > Same here, I was for the 6cl [even though I never played with more than >4 of any crd, but I'm different than many players], but after reading all >the hubbub, I think that 4cl really is the way to go... Peace Nicole, . . . if you want Malk S&B to be the order of the day. [ quoted text not captured ]

>I made a defacto attempt to stop 4cl S&B under the above. Put simply, >even with large numbers of permanent intercept (slow... :( ), and >animalism for untaps, protean to end the bleeder, and rushes/have >uncovered, it was only able to beat S&B consistently without help. The >other problem was that any other combat deck simply slaughtered me. Vote >decks (usually presence based) were not scared by this deck. Ventrue >have fortitude and presence for prevention and S:CE. With Dominate they >can obedience and bleed bounce (tapping out the gangrel or hurting it). >Toreador have celerity for manuevers and additional strikes. Brujah >have... well, they're Brujah - they beat up other vampires. >By adding the above cards, you begin to take away from the intercept >necessary to stop S&B (if you're lucky), and begin to get hurt by not >having the cards in hand with the vampires in play (heck, only Gunther >has auspex, and you only have 4 auspex masters in the deck). It is toreador/gangrel. Toreador block early, Gangrel block late. >Someone, please post an explicit, robust 4-cl deck that can handle S&B. S&B is an all offense deck. To beat an all offense deck you need an all defense deck. If a deck could stop an all offense deck at predator and still beat another strong defense deck at prey then it would be unbalanced. Is that what you mean by robust? Then there is no such thing. If S&B is your prey, you mop the floor with them. So any deck can handle a S&B deck if it is your prey. Is that what you mean by robust? If S&B is your predator you use a snapping turtle deck like the one above. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hear ye! Hear ye! <4b6u5l$k...@shellx.best.com>, go...@shellx.best.com (up and crumbling), the great and noble sovereign, articulated: #In article <4b6op8$3...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, #Greg Zuvich <gzu...@symantec.com> wrote: # #>My Protean/Presence deck that uses 4 different clans (mainly Gangrel/Toreador) #will #>beat a 4CL S&B deck regularly. At least that has been my experience. And #*NO*, #>before you even ask, I will NOT post it to the net! # #Oh. So empty bragging *is* your forte, then. # #Walk the walk for me, Greg. C'mon. Or, please, stop talking the talk. # the highly unprofessional phrase that comes to mind here is, "suck my what?". If you have been following this thread Herr Dingleberry, then you would know why I won't post my decks. I loath the *statistical analysis* that some people apply to games. That is the only reason why. And as for you, you have just earned yourself a place in my filter file. congrats! [ quoted text not captured ]

I had a Nos Gun Deck 4cl that beat a malk 4cl 2 out of 4 times. Errol.T

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >npu...@tiger.lsu.edu (Nicole Janine Purvis) wrote: >>CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: >>: Not necessarily. I was initially in the mild limits camp (6 card, 8 card, >>: 10%) before this group convinced me they weren't really necessary. >> >> Same here, I was for the 6cl [even though I never played with more than >>4 of any crd, but I'm different than many players], but after reading all >>the hubbub, I think that 4cl really is the way to go... > >Peace Nicole, > > . . . if you want Malk S&B to be the order of the day. This is ridiculous. Obviously, James, she's having a different experience than you; one more similar to mine. I find that voting, weenie, and weenie vote can do damage pretty damn quickly in 4cl (ask Biomech). That, and my better bleed decks don't use more than a few Malkavians, and are constructed under 4cl... TJH

[ quoted text not captured ] Don't forget the Elder Interventions... TJH

gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) writes: >Hear ye! Hear ye! <4b6u5l$k...@shellx.best.com>, go...@shellx.best.com (up and >crumbling), the great and noble sovereign, articulated: >#In article <4b6op8$3...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, >#Greg Zuvich <gzu...@symantec.com> wrote: >#>before you even ask, I will NOT post it to the net! >#Oh. So empty bragging *is* your forte, then. ># >#Walk the walk for me, Greg. C'mon. Or, please, stop talking the talk. ># > the highly unprofessional phrase that comes to mind here is, "suck my what?". >If you have been following this thread Herr Dingleberry, then you would know why >I won't post my decks. I loath the *statistical analysis* that some people apply >to games. That is the only reason why. And as for you, you have just earned >yourself a place in my filter file. congrats! Can I be included in your filter too? :-) You loathe any inspection at all into your ideals. You offer one view ("The world is flat" or "The world is round") and refuse to offer any support for this view. The opposing view holders offer science, math, opinion, statistics, and conjecture, and welcome debate. You welcome bended knees, and are prone to name-calling when someone prefers to see substance over hollow refrains. --- <q> My deck can beat yours every time, but I won't post it or offer any further information other than "it is built under a 1-card limit with the cards from only a starter and two boosters. :-) -- 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. |

npu...@tiger.lsu.edu (Nicole Janine Purvis) writes: >: Peace Nicole, >: . . . if you want Malk S&B to be the order of the day. >: > People wouldn't believe it, but I've held off Malk/Nosferatu S&B >before. Not too often, maybe a third of the time they've been my Holding off the Predator may be possible, but do you mean that you held off your predator and ousted the last opponent at the table, or just that you didn't get toasted as quickly. I have found that INt/Combat decks have a real problem with one Meth getting two VP becasue then even if they do last to be the last at the table they'll usually only have two VP and be tied. Let me know more of what you mean to survive the S&B under 4cl. Stu -- "Next time, my way." -- a note from Correlilmurzon to Ivanova, "Acts of Sacrifice"

npu...@tiger.lsu.edu (Nicole Janine Purvis) wrote: >The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: >: At this point, you have 82 cards. You can beat Malk S&B. What else can >: you beat? (The point of the challenge was to be _robust_ and beat S&B.) > >: As always, everyone, feel free to disagree... :) > > As I read it, we were to provide ANY 4cl deck to beat an S&B deck. Peace Nicole, When you build your deck do you always target one specific type of deck, even to the total detriment of your own? The point is: it should be possible to have a deck which is otherwise effective (can oust its pred/grandpred) which can also stop S&B. Under 4CL, I've yet to see one. [ quoted text not captured ]

sba...@cso.geg.mot.com (Steven Bauer) writes: >> Ummmm .... try this: >> Igo (3) >> Smudge (2) >> the new caitiff w/ presence (3) >> the other 3 new Caitiff (2 each) >> Nik (2) >> Hasina (2) >> Uriah (2) >> >> 6 Presence >> 6 Information Highway >> 6 Bribes >> 6 Bewitching Oration >> 6 Majesty >> 24 Kine Resources Contested >> 6 Praxis: Solomon >> Try this instead More fun fewer cards tourney legal One each Caitiff and one each two blood vamp Effective mgts: (crypt size)-4 in number Praxis and justicars, one of each 2 KRC 2 CA 4 Political flux one laptop per vamp in crypt Remainder to max library size - Autaurkis Persecution This deck is a little slow (and weenie, that shouldn't be) it gets out a bunch of vamps, makes then princes to completely own political clout and gives them laptops to make them bleed for a worthwhile amount. And whenever necessary, it passes a gain blood referendum that only you predator will want to block, and if he can lock then he won't be bleeding you too much, so it's a trade off. I've played this deck, in various forms and ti has always changed the face of the game. only won twice, but it's always fun to play. [ quoted text not captured ]

dhof...@cris.com (Daniel Hoffman) wrote: >a 4cl Brujah combat deck Peace Daniel, This is a joke, right? If not, why am I laughing? [ quoted text not captured ]

"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: >"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>npu...@tiger.lsu.edu (Nicole Janine Purvis) wrote: >>>CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: >>>: Not necessarily. I was initially in the mild limits camp (6 card, 8 card, >>>: 10%) before this group convinced me they weren't really necessary. >>> >>> Same here, I was for the 6cl [even though I never played with more than >>>4 of any crd, but I'm different than many players], but after reading all >>>the hubbub, I think that 4cl really is the way to go... >> >> . . . if you want Malk S&B to be the order of the day. > > This is ridiculous. Obviously, James, she's having a different >experience than you; one more similar to mine. I find that voting, >weenie, and weenie vote can do damage pretty damn quickly in 4cl >(ask Biomech). That, and my better bleed decks don't use more than a >few Malkavians, and are constructed under 4cl... Peace T.J., I never said that vote/wienie/wienie vote couldn't be effective (I bet you are using vote push). I said Curt's Pentultimate Sneak & Bleed Deck shows that S&B is faster/more effective than all other 4CL decks. Does anyone in your group play Malk S&B? Do they have four of each of the Dom/Obf rares? Do you have a lot of table-play, that is, if said Malk deck is wiping the walls with you, do you ask the non-adjacent players for help? I've seen NL Malk S&B kick. I've also seen it ground up by Brujah rush. I don't see any effective strategies, under 4CL, to stop CPS&BD. If you have some ideas, I'm all ears. That's what this discussion is for, to create new ideas by combining different points of view. As I said, I don't see a 4CL solution. Maybe you do. If so, enlighten me. Just because I ask for facts & logical proof doesn't mean I'll discount whatever you say. If you can prove me wrong, I'll happily admit it, but I want proof. 4CL is a Mt$ holdover, it limits deck choices, and it favors S&B (see CPS&BD). I've attempted to prove this during my previous posts on 4CL (some today). I don't see any sort of response from the 4CLers except "well, I like it better." OK, that is your choice, but that doesn't mean that I'm not correct or that you aren't playing a "broken" version of Jyhad. [ quoted text not captured ]

dhof...@cris.com (Daniel Hoffman) wrote: >S&B is an all offense deck. To beat an all offense deck you need an all >defense deck. If a deck could stop an all offense deck at predator and still >beat another strong defense deck at prey then it would be unbalanced. Is that >what you mean by robust? Then there is no such thing. Peace Daniel, False, the best defense is a strong offense. See below. >If S&B is your prey, you mop the floor with them. So any deck can handle a >S&B deck if it is your prey. Is that what you mean by robust? If you are a "normal" speed deck trying to out bleed a S&B prey, you can easily lose the race. Even fast vote decks can be slow compared to full-bore S&B. >If S&B is your predator you use a snapping turtle deck like the one above. >You are too busy defending yourself to oust your own prey. There is no deck >even without limits that can oust its prey while at the same time stopping a >full force S&B. I guess you could use 20 deflections with one vampire with >superior dominate and be playing an S&B deck yourself. Is that what you mean >by a good NL deck? False, I've done it with Brujah Cel/Pot rush combat. Everytime a Malk w/ sup Dom or Obf would appear, I'd BR/HU and *poof* it would be in torpor. I'd leave a small Malk or two untouched so that he could block his pred. Sent all my other vamps to bleed my prey (who didn't block my 1pt "power" bleeds). When my granpred got to strong (had too many minions and was going to be my pred soon), I started sending his biggest vamps to torpor. Eventually, I won that game. I won another when I Major Booned a 1pt bleed that the Malk took, so when he got to me he couldn't bleed big (both of us were extremely low on pool). No deflections and very little intercept (KCRG + 3 Sport Bikes), just good, old-fashioned boot-to-the-head. [ quoted text not captured ]

gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: >"James R. McClure Jr."<jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> said: >#So, you are saying that you cannot justify/defend your choice of 4CL vs. NL? > >Nope. I just refuse to use statistical analysis to do it. I justify my choice >as more fun. It's how I like to play. I don't buy the argument that 4CL is >limiting or worse than no-cl in some way. They both balance against their own >"format" just fine. I also find that 4CL games require more strategy, cunning, >guile, and personal intrgue from the players since you can never "count" on any >given card since you don't have some 40 gazillion in your deck. It becomes more >like chess in that you have to think about your moves while considering your >opponents' possible moves as well, given cards played and how many they still >have left. Yes, this does involve math (you can never get away from it...), >however it does not entail the in depth *statistical analysis* that some people >are talking about... and consequently is exactly what casinos do to get their >odds... which is why I flamed that in the first place. I am basing everything I >am saying only on personal experience. Algustus made reference to the fact that >a no-cl deck will beat a 4cl deck any day. Well DUH?!?... Of cousre they will >and I never contested that they won't. I merely have stated for about the 40th >time to everyone here that I prefer the 4CL rule and that against their own type >(no-cl vs. no-cl and 4CL vs. 4CL) then the game is balanced. Peace Greg, You call it stat, I call it a logical argument. You have every right to say you like 4CL better ("it is more fun") as that's a personal belief. When you say that 4CL requires more strategy, cunning, is more chess-like, etc. THEN you have to be willing to defend your stance logically or be thrown into the fire with the other chaff. I posted about a dozen other times today (gee, I need a life) detailing why 4CL is less strategic, more luck oriented, more limiting (less viable decks), etc. I attempted to logically explain my point. The only response I seem to get is "well, I like it better ;-p". If someone chooses to use stat as a tool toward constructing their argument, big deal. Stat is just another math tool, no biggie. I play NL all the time and though I may expect that the next card will be something, I can never bank on it and have to be prepared for the worst. You've said that your interpretation of NL is that it leads to OTPs. I disagree in that your deck has to be broad to be effective in Jyhad. You are playing against a table of players (4+), so you are that much more likely to see the single card that shuts your OTP down cold. This isn't a consideration in Mt$, wher the 4CL infected from. You play one person at a time. If they aren't carrying the card that hoses you, your OTP is fine. If you play in a Jyhad tourney, you'll probably face over 50% of the competing decks; a pretty good chance you'll encounter your hoser. In a Mt$ tourney, you'll encounter less than 10% of the decks, your OTP is fairly safe. I'm not sure who you've played against, but your impression of NL is significantly different than mine. >End of thread. Unlikely. >I also grow tired of this thread and will ignore most future posts on this issue >since I am in the vast minority on this newsgroup and neither side of this >argument will ever convince the other. False, it has already happened (people have converted). Just because you feel that you are in the minority doesn't mean you should go silent. The minority has a voice on UseNet. That's why most of us are here, to find new viewpoints/ideas. Everyone's a minority of one, when you look at it. [ quoted text not captured ]

James can you please post a dictionary of your shorthand abriviations (sp?), while I believe I had some success at guessing most of them, not everyone knows the game well enough to do that, and since we all want to know what the hell you are talking about, it would benifit the whole group. Thx Danny PS What the hell is OTP (One Type Player???) The oppinions above are not mine, they are forced upon me by my employer.

Stuart J. Pieloch (dsa...@prism.gatech.edu) wrote: : npu...@tiger.lsu.edu (Nicole Janine Purvis) writes: : >: Peace Nicole, : >: . . . if you want Malk S&B to be the order of the day. : >: : > People wouldn't believe it, but I've held off Malk/Nosferatu S&B : >before. Not too often, maybe a third of the time they've been my : Holding off the Predator may be possible, but do you mean that : you held off your predator and ousted the last opponent at the : table, or just that you didn't get toasted as quickly. Hmmm. See what you mean. The only times like that I was the last person on the table was when someone took down the S&B that I was holding off, and then found me much harder to handle--as S&B is probably the best prey to have in a game. : I have found that INt/Combat decks have a real problem with : one Meth getting two VP becasue then even if they do last to : be the last at the table they'll usually only have two VP and be tied. True. But I don't have a problem with tying, either. One would think that they as old as Methuselahs would know there is strength in numbers... [ quoted text not captured ]

wold...@aol.com (WOL DannyX) wrote: >James can you please post a dictionary of your shorthand abriviations >(sp?), while I believe I had some success at guessing most of them, not >everyone knows the game well enough to do that, and since we all want to >know what the hell you are talking about, it would benifit the whole >group. > >PS What the hell is OTP (One Type Player???) Peace Danny, OTP: One Trick Pony; deck that does only one thing (usually degenerate) IMO: in my opinion YMMV: your milage may vary TTBOMK: to the best of my knowledge CPS&BD: Curt's Preeminant Sneak & Bleed Deck; an all Malk 4CL deck posted to prove that S&B is the ultimate strategy in 4CL H&K: hugs & kisses or Heckler & Koch Peace: may the Peace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, be with you 4CL: four card limit; an infection from Mt$ NL: no limit; the way Jyhad was designed to be played OoTM: Out of Turn Master s/h/it: she/he/it; PCness taken to the Malkavian point of view S&B: sneak & bleed B&B: bruise & bleed WTF: What the fuck? NFG: no fucking good SNAFU: situation normal, all fucked up USAF: United States Air Force; a division of the largest welfare program in the United States That's all I can think of, right now. [ quoted text not captured ]

James R. McClure Jr. (jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] : Peace Danny, [ quoted text not captured ] : Nil carborundum illigitimi, [ quoted text not captured ] : <insert disclaimer here> S:CE- Strike: combat ends

Thx a lot 'nuff said Danny [ quoted text not captured ]

dhof...@cris.com (Daniel Hoffman) wrote: >>False, I've done it with Brujah Cel/Pot rush combat. Everytime a Malk w/ sup >>Dom or Obf would appear, I'd BR/HU and *poof* it would be in torpor. I'd leave >>a small Malk or two untouched so that he could block his pred. Sent all my >>other vamps to bleed my prey (who didn't block my 1pt "power" bleeds). When >>my granpred got to strong (had too many minions and was going to be my pred >>soon), I started sending his biggest vamps to torpor. Eventually, I won that >>game. I won>another >when I Major Booned a 1pt bleed that the Malk took, so >>when he got to me he>couldn't >bleed big (both of us were extremely low on >>pool). No deflections and very>little >intercept (KCRG + 3 Sport Bikes), >>just good, old-fashioned boot-to-the-head.> > >My NCL brujah deck doesn't work very well. I am probably not a great player >since I don't play too often and our group tends to be pretty small. I >probably dilute the whole thing out with votes too much. I'm going to try >making the deck small and more focused. I'm going to starting using the >Book of Nod and the Barrens to discard non-combat cards when in combat. I >don't use rushes because everyone always blocks. I have trouble with Gangrel >and an ally horde/tapping deck. Peace Daniel, What sort of votes are you trying to call? Given the number of combat cards you can expend in a single action, you need to load up on strikes (Pot) & add strikes (Cel) in at lease a 3:2 ratio. Use the maximum number of cards you are allowed, you'll need them. FoBoN & Barrens are very nice to have. Rush anyway. If they send Joe Expendable Minion to block, torp/burn him. Next time JEM won't be there to block when you rush. Vs. Gangrel: bring out the Acrobatics, Sideslips, Flashes. If you have to blow off torp'g him to stay out of torpor yourself, call it even. If they're loaded for bear w/ For, watch out! Vs. horde: the first time or two the horde wave attacks you, it'll succeed. Hopefully, your torp'g/burn'g minions along the way. He'll run out of steam pretty quickly (Catiffs are easy pickings). If he uses larger (3+) vamps for rescues (from torp), Bum's Rush the saviors and he'll end up with no active minions. Bring out your own allies. Brujah have cheap allies. [ quoted text not captured ]

"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: >"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>I never said that vote/wienie/wienie vote couldn't be effective (I bet you >>are using vote push). > >Enough Praxis seizures and it doesn't matter which rules you're using. Peace T.J., Given that give you one big vote, you are hoping that absolutely no one else at the table has a PA in hand nor any title votes. You can have seven Praxi in your hand, if there are title votes hanging around, you'll just fail seven times. >>I said Curt's Pentultimate Sneak & Bleed Deck shows >>that S&B is faster/more effective than all other 4CL decks. > >And I dispute this fact. Ok, we agree to disagree. >>Does anyone >>in your group play Malk S&B? Do they have four of each of the Dom/Obf >>rares? > >Yes, and yes, and by the way, straight Malkavian is among the less >effective sneak/bleed decks (say, one that can include Fortitude and >Presence), Fortitude may help (with Freak Drive), but I don't see what Presence has to offer, bleed-wise, that Dominate doesn't already do/have. >>Do you have a lot of table-play, that is, if said Malk deck is >>wiping the walls with you, do you ask the non-adjacent players for help? > > It's usually pretty basic strategy to gang up on anybody wiping the >walls with somebody (unless you don't want to win), So, table-play _is_ necessary to fight against Malk S&B . . . >>I've seen NL Malk S&B kick. I've also seen it ground up by Brujah rush. >>I don't see any effective strategies, under 4CL, to stop CPS&BD. > > Only 'cause you don't want to. Toreador intercept can stop it, voting >does damage faster (especially in large games; have you played any?), >and a rush deck based on Archon can completely hose it (if it's the >Grandprey or better). If you don't like where it is, rearrange the >table with a few votes. Concerning this specific deck, we're not even >*in* to all the Malkavian hosers... Intercept has been discussed before. There are more stealth cards, so it's easier to stealth (not counting the highly abusable Cloak the Gathering). I don't see players who want to win giving the combat monster deck Archon. Yes, if you called the Psychic Hotline (1-900-SUCKERS) and knew that Malk S&B was a'comin' and loaded up on hosers, sure, you'd beat it. I'm talking about a deck you'd play under "normal" circumstances, when you didn't know that CPS&BD would happen to be your predator this evening. >>If you >>have some ideas, I'm all ears. > > I doubt it. I'd be willing to wager that if we polled the people who read my posts, we'd find that I'm one of the most open-minded, understanding, and resonable people you'll ever converse with (OW! I think I strained my arm patting myself on the back like that). If you have come to the opinion that I'm close-minded, well, it obviously would be a waste of ATP to try to convince you otherwise. >>That's what this discussion is for, to >>create new ideas by combining different points of view. As I said, I >>don't see a 4CL solution. Maybe you do. If so, enlighten me. Just because >>I ask for facts & logical proof doesn't mean I'll discount whatever you >>say. > > Oh, ouch. Thank you for the presupposition of the quality of my >statements. I've had just about enough of this conversation. I reread the quoted portion three times and I still can't see an insult there. Maybe I'm going blind in my old age. Can someone other than T.J. explain to me why he is offened be the above paragraph? [ quoted text not captured ]

Greg Zuvich (gzu...@symantec.com) wrote: : go...@shellx.best.com (up and crumbling), said : #Greg Zuvich <gzu...@symantec.com> wrote: : # : #>My Protean/Presence deck that uses 4 different clans (mainly : #>Gangrel/Toreador)will beat a 4CL S&B deck regularly. At least that has : #>been my experience. And *NO*, before you even ask, I will NOT post : #>it to the net! : #Oh. So empty bragging *is* your forte, then. : #Walk the walk for me, Greg. C'mon. Or, please, stop talking the talk. Offensively put, but with a point behind it I think bears repeating. : the highly unprofessional phrase that comes to mind here is, "suck my : what?". If you have been following this thread Herr Dingleberry, then : you would know why I won't post my decks. I loath the *statistical : analysis* that some people apply to games. That is the only reason : why. And as for you, you have just earned yourself a place in my filter : file. congrats! The reason I read this newsgroup is so I can discuss and learn about Jyhad. A discussion that has been on .jyhad as long as I have been lurking is the 4CL issue, and the 4CL Malk stealth/bleed deck has, for as long as I have been lurking, been a show pony for the anti-4CL side. If you have a deck, 4CL, that can reliably whup a maxed-out 4CL malk S&B deck, then that is news. I want to know about it. If you aren't going to post the deck, then your post is 100% noise, 0% signal. It's a waste of our time. We aren't learning a thing. If you are not prepared to contribute to the ongoing discussion (which is your right, it's a free net), please don't post. That's all I'm saying. : -- : Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com Kevin Lowe.

Hear ye! Hear ye! <4bdpgr$f...@texas.nwlink.com>, "T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com>, the great and noble sovereign, articulated: #>If you #>have some ideas, I'm all ears. # # I doubt it. # #>That's what this discussion is for, to #>create new ideas by combining different points of view. As I said, I #>don't see a 4CL solution. Maybe you do. If so, enlighten me. Just because #>I ask for facts & logical proof doesn't mean I'll discount whatever you #>say. # # Oh, ouch. Thank you for the presupposition of the quality of my #statements. I've had just about enough of this conversation. # # TJH # Well, I happen to agree with you TJ. Mr. McClure seems to be quite adept at talking the very same smack you accuses everyone else of using. My suggestion to you TJ is, put him in a filter. That way you never see posts from him again and can blissfully move through your day without even wasting the energy to even look at his posts. I am close to putting him on filter, but not yet. I just posted a note that I will be writing an article on the benefits of 4CL. Let me know what you think when it appears... I'm sure all the no-cl adherents will.... [ quoted text not captured ]

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >I reread the quoted portion three times and I still can't see an insult there. Then none taken. But I bet we're still at an impasse, and probably talking right past each other too :-) T.J. P.S. Concering Presence - it offers more directed bleeds to slap bleed modifiers on, and includes an additional bleed modifier (now, anyway). Majesty (superior) is also a useful tool if one happens to be blocked. I also forgot to list Protean as a helpful skill; it 1. Lets you untapped if blocked (or continue the action at +1 stealth), 2. offers additional stealth, and 3. is a leg of the Force of Will combo. TJH

NOTE: Barely off-topic. Apologies to all. Not meant as a personal attack. In article <4bev1g$k...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: > Well, I happen to agree with you TJ. Mr. McClure seems to be quite adept at > talking the very same smack you accuses everyone else of using. My suggestion > to you TJ is, put him in a filter. That way you never see posts from him again > and can blissfully move through your day without even wasting the energy to even > look at his posts. Mr. McClure has been contributing here as long as I can remember, and I have always been impressed by how he carries himself. I often find that I don't agree with him, but I've never seen him act negatively towards disagreement. Oh, well. If anyone does filter him, it's their loss. In article <4babt3$a...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: [to a supporter of 4CL] > be prepared to be deluged with requests to post your deck and > all the rest of the lovely bitz that statistical analysts around here love to do. > cheers mate and welcome to the minority!!!! neee-ha!! What's wrong with posting a deck? I've done it (once), others have done it, and the commentary by various people has always been helpful and appropriate to their circumstances. Look at one of the decks posted here by others: was it torn apart by people here because it was built under 4CL. No. Don't make yourself and others out to be the martyrs you aren't. When many of the NL proponents on this newsgroup have spoken we have given our opinions. Just because you have a different one than us, we don't post saying things like you have above. This is supposed to be a _debate_ not a j_i_had. In article <4bac36$a...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: > Hear ye! Hear ye! <4b7f8l$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com > (NCascone), the great and noble sovereign, articulated: > #We've _always_ played w/4CL; makes it a better game. > Eee Gads! Another one!?!? Don't these fair people following my warnings? On > *this* newsgroup don't ever tell anyone you play with the 4CL lest you wish to be > lambasted with posts and such. Oh ye in your little bark, that doth venture to > travel in my wake, sail not the waters upon which I have found the very road unto > hell... Greg, we are not in the habit of attacking those with differing opinions here. Please don't pretend that you are being crucified. In article <4bf0mm$l...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: > Hear ye! Hear ye! <4behbq$q...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." > <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, > articulated: > #Because they have Potence and tasting your opponent's blood as you pound > #them into mush is so much more fun. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > OH MY GOD!!!! Did he just say he was playing Jyhad the way he wants because it was > more fun for him!?!?!!!??? Dear Lord God! It's a miracle!! Halleluah and praise > Jesus.... There may be hope for him yet guys!!... ;) I note your wink. Still, everything lately smacks of too much of the personal. Please, Greg, if I (we) have made you angry, I apologize. But what did the above accomplish, other than a personal swipe. I try to keep my posts on the same level of discourse as the person I respond to (the eye-4-eye method). If I am not doing that, let me know through e-mail (I _do_ appreciate it). Otherwise, please, let's not begin walking down the road of flamewar. In article <4baap6$9...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: Someone said (in Regards to Greg not posting a deck): > #Oh. So empty bragging *is* your forte, then. > # > #Walk the walk for me, Greg. C'mon. Or, please, stop talking the talk. > # > the highly unprofessional phrase that comes to mind here is, "suck my what?". > If you have been following this thread Herr Dingleberry, then you would know why > I won't post my decks. I loath the *statistical analysis* that some people apply > to games. That is the only reason why. And as for you, you have just earned > yourself a place in my filter file. congrats! This kind of post is something more appropriate for personal e-mail. --------------- I just would like to see the level of personal attack lower. I have seen a decided change in tone in the newsgroup since Curt's "Theoretical discussion of CCG card limits (long!)" and my "CL (was RE:Theoretical.../Voting Dead)(Old arguement,ignore@will)" posts. People always will disagree. But I, for one, would like to see a return to the old newsgroup I knew, where people disagreed civilly. Please, any comments are welcomed, either thru e-mail or here. "I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ # Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) # $ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @ # PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) y*+? 3.1# @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$

In article <4bdpgr$f...@texas.nwlink.com>, "T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: > "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> > wrote: > >Peace T.J., > > > >I never said that vote/wienie/wienie vote couldn't be effective (I bet you > >are using vote push). > > Enough Praxis seizures and it doesn't matter which rules you're using. It still does. If using one of each, that is _alot_. The more you put in, the less damage you are doing quickly. The less damage you are doing quickly, the more likely someone will get out a voter. The power of pushable KRC is that it doesn't matter which vampire gets toast, he just calls the vote, the pushing passes it. A rush will kill the voters. Any weenieKRC contesting a real prince will lose. Etc. etc. > >I said Curt's Pentultimate Sneak & Bleed Deck shows > >that S&B is faster/more effective than all other 4CL decks. > > And I dispute this fact. > > >Does anyone > >in your group play Malk S&B? Do they have four of each of the Dom/Obf > >rares? > > Yes, and yes, and by the way, straight Malkavian is among the less > effective sneak/bleed decks (say, one that can include Fortitude and > Presence), Try not allowing repeat actions. The untap-bleeder deck is still effective, but is now more defensive or broad based because it cannot simply untap and bleed again, but must try something different (if anything at all). > >Do you have a lot of table-play, that is, if said Malk deck is > >wiping the walls with you, do you ask the non-adjacent players for help? > > It's usually pretty basic strategy to gang up on anybody wiping the > walls with somebody (unless you don't want to win), I'll disagree with James' logic here. TJH is right. Whoever is grinding the hell out of someone usually does get slapped about a bit (so that others may grab that tasty Victory Point, and so she doesn't get the 6 pool). On the other hand, under 4CL, I see it _far_ more often be the S&B that gets slapped up. > >I've seen NL Malk S&B kick. I've also seen it ground up by Brujah rush. > >I don't see any effective strategies, under 4CL, to stop CPS&BD. > > Only 'cause you don't want to. :( Was that necessary? > Toreador intercept can stop it, voting > does damage faster (especially in large games; have you played any?), > and a rush deck based on Archon can completely hose it (if it's the > Grandprey or better). If you don't like where it is, rearrange the > table with a few votes. Concerning this specific deck, we're not even > *in* to all the Malkavian hosers... Archon requires a Prince/Justicar and an action. So the turn after the appropriate voter comes out, you _might_ be able to get Archon to pass. Toreador don't have as much intercept as Malks have stealth. > >If you > >have some ideas, I'm all ears. > > I doubt it. Come on, T.J.. Give him a chance. I haven't converted 2 (out of _alot_ of players) people in the area, but I still listen to their arguements. If I don't I might miss a new or important point. When I'm wrong I would prefer to know rather than sit clueless. On the same token, I try to let people know when I think they are wrong. That doesn't mean I'm so egotistical to think I'm always right (far from it!). > >That's what this discussion is for, to > >create new ideas by combining different points of view. As I said, I > >don't see a 4CL solution. Maybe you do. If so, enlighten me. Just because > >I ask for facts & logical proof doesn't mean I'll discount whatever you > >say. > > Oh, ouch. Thank you for the presupposition of the quality of my > statements. I've had just about enough of this conversation. <shrug> I think James feels the same way I do. We _will_ listen. Us NL people aren't all inhuman monsters...;) [ quoted text not captured ]

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: >>"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>>npu...@tiger.lsu.edu (Nicole Janine Purvis) wrote: >>>>CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: >>>>: Not necessarily. I was initially in the mild limits camp (6 card, 8 card, >>>>: 10%) before this group convinced me they weren't really necessary. >>>> >>>> Same here, I was for the 6cl [even though I never played with more than >>>>4 of any crd, but I'm different than many players], but after reading all >>>>the hubbub, I think that 4cl really is the way to go... >>> >>> . . . if you want Malk S&B to be the order of the day. >> >> This is ridiculous. Obviously, James, she's having a different >>experience than you; one more similar to mine. I find that voting, >>weenie, and weenie vote can do damage pretty damn quickly in 4cl >>(ask Biomech). That, and my better bleed decks don't use more than a >>few Malkavians, and are constructed under 4cl... > >Peace T.J., > >I never said that vote/wienie/wienie vote couldn't be effective (I bet you >are using vote push). Enough Praxis seizures and it doesn't matter which rules you're using. >I said Curt's Pentultimate Sneak & Bleed Deck shows >that S&B is faster/more effective than all other 4CL decks. And I dispute this fact. >Does anyone >in your group play Malk S&B? Do they have four of each of the Dom/Obf >rares? Yes, and yes, and by the way, straight Malkavian is among the less effective sneak/bleed decks (say, one that can include Fortitude and Presence), >Do you have a lot of table-play, that is, if said Malk deck is >wiping the walls with you, do you ask the non-adjacent players for help? It's usually pretty basic strategy to gang up on anybody wiping the walls with somebody (unless you don't want to win), >I've seen NL Malk S&B kick. I've also seen it ground up by Brujah rush. >I don't see any effective strategies, under 4CL, to stop CPS&BD. Only 'cause you don't want to. Toreador intercept can stop it, voting does damage faster (especially in large games; have you played any?), and a rush deck based on Archon can completely hose it (if it's the Grandprey or better). If you don't like where it is, rearrange the table with a few votes. Concerning this specific deck, we're not even *in* to all the Malkavian hosers... >If you >have some ideas, I'm all ears. I doubt it. >That's what this discussion is for, to >create new ideas by combining different points of view. As I said, I >don't see a 4CL solution. Maybe you do. If so, enlighten me. Just because >I ask for facts & logical proof doesn't mean I'll discount whatever you >say. Oh, ouch. Thank you for the presupposition of the quality of my statements. I've had just about enough of this conversation. TJH

I personally think that a 4cl restriction is too harsh, and would prefer a 10% limit or maybe even NL, but TJ has made one good point: What about new players who want a chance to compete with old ones? TJ and I play about once a week and desperately try to embrace everyone around us and bring them into the world of darkness, usually we just let them try one of our decks out and they do quite well, when it comes time for them to get cards and build a deck they aren't going to go out and buy boxes of cards are they? A starter and a few boosters is more like it. If people don't think that a deck will work under 4cl against another 4cl deck (the Malk S&B) how do you think a less than 4cl deck is going to fair against a NL environment? Another bonus of 4cl to new players is that no matter how many cards the veteran has, the 5th card is worthless and so it's up for trade. I have seen TJ give new players cards (and I'm not talking about concealed weapon and chainsaw). Last night I played my second game of L5R which has a 3cl and one of the veterans was practically giving cards to a new player... If the environment was NL some of the players with really big hordes might part with cards, but most of the players would be holding on to their cards to use in decks. Though I have seen valid arguments for NL or simply against 4cl this is the only argument for 4cl I haven't seen countered. I don't know how many new players everyone plays with... but it's something to think about.

Hi Biomech, On 23 Dec 1995, Biomech8 wrote: > I personally think that a 4cl restriction is too harsh, and would prefer a > 10% limit or maybe even NL, but TJ has made one good point: > What about new players who want a chance to compete with old ones? > TJ and I play about once a week and desperately try to embrace everyone > around us and bring them into the world of darkness, usually we just let > them try one of our decks out and they do quite well, when it comes time > for them to get cards and build a deck they aren't going to go out and buy > boxes of cards are they? A starter and a few boosters is more like it. > If people don't think that a deck will work under 4cl against another 4cl > deck (the Malk S&B) how do you think a less than 4cl deck is going to fair > against a NL environment? This is a good argument, the answer basically comes in two parts: A) The cards you want a lot of in your decks are generally all common cards. On several occasions I have ordered 1000 common cards from Ed Baine for about $14, and then sold the lot to new players for cost. In addition, individual commons (say bums rush) can be bought fairly cheaply over the internet. Often local game stores sell individual cards. B) 4CL actually favors people who buy lots of cards more than NL does. While there are groups that play 4CL to get away from efficient decks, (decks that do one thing very well and everthing else not so well), if the group plays long enough eventually people efficient decks under 4CL. This inevitably invloves lots of rare and uncommon cards which new players don't have. Lets face it, if you want to win a game with a starter and a few boosters, then you have to play Overpower or some other game that limits the playing field to pretty much a starter deck. To be competitive in a game where you actually design your decks, you need lots of cards, the only real question is "how much are those cards going to cost?" For 4CL those cards are rare and cost a bundle, for NL they are common and are quite cheap. > Another bonus of 4cl to new players is that no matter how many > cards the veteran has, the 5th card is worthless and so it's up for trade. > I have seen TJ give new players cards (and I'm not talking about > concealed weapon and chainsaw). Last night I played my second game of L5R > which has a 3cl and one of the veterans was practically giving cards to a > new player... If the environment was NL some of the players with really > big hordes might part with cards, but most of the players would be holding > on to their cards to use in decks. Though I have seen valid arguments for > NL or simply against 4cl this is the only argument for 4cl I haven't seen > countered. I don't know how many new players everyone plays with... but > it's something to think about. The problem here isn't really card limits, it is how much do you want to make new players feel part of the game. I guarantee you I can build 4CL decks that will make new players quit in disgust, as they simply will not have enough rare cards to compete. With NL, all they really need are common cards, with an occasional uncommon or rare. We have soooo many commons that we can easily loan them cards until they decide if they want to invest in the game, if they do , we order them the cards they need from Ed Baine, for less than $20 they can build extremely competitive decks. Algustas *****Be ashamed to die until you have one some victory for humanity.***** Horace Mann, Baccalaureate address, Antioch College, 1859

"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: > P.S. Concering Presence - it offers more directed bleeds to slap bleed >modifiers on, and includes an additional bleed modifier (now, anyway). Peace T.J., I wasn't thinking 4CL-wise about Pre. You are correct. Having several redundant cards is an advantage in 4CL. I'm just not used to looking at it that way, coming from NL. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here> PS: See, I can admit when I'm wrong, Greg.

biom...@aol.com (Biomech8) wrote: >What about new players who want a chance to compete with old ones? Peace be with you, This has not been a problem locally. Since Jyhad has an (almost) balanced card mix, having ten thousand cards isn't the tremendous advantage that it is under other TCGs. Perhaps you missed my early post about the new guy who played in our group and had only two starters and five boosters. He played against five other players, all of whom have significant collections, and won (he ousted me first, BTW). > Another bonus of 4cl to new players is that no matter how many >cards the veteran has, the 5th card is worthless and so it's up for trade. > I have seen TJ give new players cards (and I'm not talking about >concealed weapon and chainsaw). Last night I played my second game of L5R >which has a 3cl and one of the veterans was practically giving cards to a >new player... If the environment was NL some of the players with really >big hordes might part with cards, but most of the players would be holding >on to their cards to use in decks. Though I have seen valid arguments for >NL or simply against 4cl this is the only argument for 4cl I haven't seen >countered. I don't know how many new players everyone plays with... but >it's something to think about. Since most of the staple cards are commons, it is not a problem for established players to give cards to new players to help them flesh out their deck. I've done it. I've seen other players in my group do it. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >biom...@aol.com (Biomech8) wrote: >>What about new players who want a chance to compete with old ones? > >Peace be with you, > >This has not been a problem locally. Since Jyhad has an (almost) balanced >card mix, having ten thousand cards isn't the tremendous advantage that >it is under other TCGs. Perhaps you missed my early post about the new >guy who played in our group and had only two starters and five boosters. >He played against five other players, all of whom have significant >collections, and won (he ousted me first, BTW). > Kinda blows a hole into the whole CL argument on both sides doesn't it. Errol T.