Elegance (was CL "rebuttal")

In article <elfholme...@netcom.com>, elfh...@netcom.com (Mark Havener) wrote: > In article <4e8ikc$4...@tribune.usask.ca>, > Shane Travis <tra...@duke.usask.ca> wrote: > >NCascone (ncas...@aol.com) wrote: [The ongoing melodrama ;)] > I won't try to debate the arguments above (though I might point out that > if several of the students in the class were having problems, it *might* > be more appropriate to assign extra homework to the class...particularly > if you only have a certain amount of time to allocate to each student). > The question is, which is more important to you. You, obviously, favor > that answers be precise rather than use the minimum thought necessary. I > favor the latter. My group plays in a room provided by a game store, and > anyone is invited to stop by and play with us. It is much easier for > "drop-ins" if we play with as few house rules as possible. I agree about "house rules", but usually "drop-ins" are handled by a large gaming group I go to with "no repeat actions, no vote push" and that's that. > <discussion of elegance coming through hard work deleted> > > I'm not sure which side has put more "hard work" into their fix...but > I'll tell you this: if I started seeing a game as work, then I'd stop > playing. "Hard work" implies that you are striving against something. > I hardly think playing a game over and over (even if you are trying new > things constantly) is "hard work". Again, if you see the game as hard > work, maybe you should find something more pleasurable to spend your free > time on. I disagree. Hard work means to strive _for_ something. I _love_ to play Jyhad, and I guess I feel the "hard work" comes from trying to make the game even more fun to play. As for seeing a game as hard work being a negative thing, I've been working on my own game system for almost three years (editing/playtesting/revising/losing possible artists/etc...), and its been lots of "hard work", but I've loved it. In regards to Jyhad, it takes more thought to figure out a pair of "Golden Tenets" then to slap a 4CL. For other CLs, it took more thinking then a 4CL. But whatever the "fix", thinking through the ramifications of what your change is doing to the game is a lot more work than importing a rule from another game. > >How does this apply to the CL/NCL debate? In this way: > > > >The 4CL is indeed 'simpler' than targetted solutions; as a 'first pass' > >it does the job acceptably with a minimum of fuss, much in the same way > >that breaking a table over someone's head will cause them to lose > >consciousness - effective, but not elegant. > > As more and more expansions come out for V:TES, your list of house rules > will be forced to grow (broken cards are inevitable...they are a problem > with every game, not just games produced by WOTC...though they are more > of a problem in some games than others). Eventually, I will reach the > point where I'd *rather* have a table broken over my head than remember a > bunch of rules that essentially create a different game. Whatever you > think about CL, it should be apparent that they change the rules of the > game a lot less than inventing new rules. This will become even more > apparent as more house rules become necessary to make a NL environment work. Your point about house rules is relatively unimportant, as many other people's arguements about house rules have been. Maintaining house rules is no more difficult than maintaining erratad rulings. If you play by even some of the DTR's rulings, you have a set of house rules. And secondly, one can ignore house rules just as easily as one can ignore the DTR (example, my group and Rotschreck). In my own group, the only house rules we use are reality check rules: things controlled by a vampire are contested like titles, "Golden Tenets", misprints, and a little (D) action stuff. Regardless of what else the DTR says, we don't add any more unless we feel they make the game make more sense. Even if _I_ (or we) feel that Werewolf Pack ought to be changed to make it a decent card, we don't. SInce the DTR errata is the same as an "official" set of house rules, any arguement against maintaining a set of house rules attacks playing by the DTR. > >The specific House Rules on broken cards are an effort to try and apply > >force _only where necessary_, and not as a blanket solution. While they > >do work (at least, some combination of them usually does the trick) they > >fall down where the 'simplicity' factor kicks in. There is no denying > >that it _is_ more difficult to remember many rules than to remember one; > >it is also more difficult to do something well than to do it poorly, but > >that _in and of itself_ is not a reason for doing it poorly. > Well/poorly, that's a matter of opinion, and I don't think it's relevant > here (I think the CL solution fixes V:TES' problems just as well as the > Golden Tenets). It's also more difficult to wring stones for juice than > oranges, but is that a good reason to drink "stone juice" each morning > instead of orange juice? No. What about weenie vote push? > >The 'Golden Tenets' are (so far) the ultimate in elegance. They look at > >an overall _class_ of problems and fix them in a way that is, while a > >little sloppier than targetted rules, acceptable to all. As for > >simplicity, two rules are not significantly more difficult to remember > >than one and they pass this test as well. > This is not true, even by your definition. Since you haven't assigned > "weights" to your four "factors" of elegance, a fix that is better in one > factor (precision) but worse in another (level of thought/work necessary) > is no better than the fix you are comparing it to. > >Given, people will say that there are cards which are still broken which > >are not fixed by these two rules. This means that the cycle will have to > >start again - but hopefully not from scratch. Jut because a specific > >vehicular design doesn't work, the engineers don't go back and reinvent > >the wheel! They start from where it last _did_ work. The 'Golden Tenets' > >are the last place where things did work; no blanket limits were necessary > >and every card was accounted for. > Exactly my point. Your list of rules to fix the problem will continue to > grow and get more and more complicated, while mine stays the same. The only point to add to that, is if your list stays the same, your game will grow more broken. CL doesn't stop weenie vote push, and since you advocate not having to remember a set of added rules (a la DTR's errata, which is _certainly_ alot of things to remember), bad unique cards (Castle Heidelburg) hurt your playing environment. "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 <4eaqkb$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: > In article <4e8ikc$4...@tribune.usask.ca>, tra...@duke.usask.ca (Shane > Travis) writes: [>>CL=table over the head analogy] > OK, CL's are a table over the head. To me, GT's that know they'll have to > expand are like Archie Andrews' car: patched together, needing more and > more repairs, always in danger of breaking down. Bottom line -- I don't > want to have to suffer through a deck built with 10 Thoughts Betrayed > because the card is busted and no one "official" has gotten around to > making up a new GT. Why should the Golden Tenets increase? So far, no other _class_ of problem's has shown itself to be a problem. As for 10 Thoughts Betrayad, what about infinite? Carlotta is wholly capable of that... Beyond fixing classes of problems (something that both CL and GT attempt to do), individual broken cards will always be a problem in both environments, especially the unique cards and Carlotta'd cards. > Breaking a table over someone's head is faster, and it lets you get on > with what you were doing before you had to do it. I never heard of the > GT's before I ggot online, and not many of the people I play with have net > access. CL's work better, faster, and clearer than 2 or 3 or 5 or however > many "Golden" tenets. This is all completely subjective, anyway 8). I doubt many people outside of those who have access to this newsgroup, the VTES mailing lists, and the people they play with have heard of the GTs. Whether people have heard of them or not, this doesn't make things any more difficult in telling a new person about them. As for working better, no. Weenie Vote Deck counterexample (a CL deck beating up 5 NL decks because of vote push, a GT). Faster, yes, but I have a lot of female friends who will tell you that faster isn't always better. 1CL and 20CL is just as fast as 10% or 6 or 4. Clearer, just barely. No repeatable actions and no vote push takes about 10 seconds to explain. [ quoted text not captured ]

ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) writes: >First, Carlotta does not provide an infinite number of anything >automatically. You sure put a lot of stock behind a 1-stealth action! >The GT's _will_ increase. I base that on WotC's past performance. >Thoughts Betrayed, Heidelberg Castle, Toreador Grand Ball, all broken. >Maybe they'll make rulings that change the wording of the cards; however >they deal with these obviously unplaytested cards, it'll be more rules to >remember. CL helps by limiting the appearance of these cards in actual >play. Eventually, with the Lightning Bolt effect, 4CL _will_ become stricter. Either by grouping cards into a pseudo restricted list, or my moving to 3CL. As more cards are introduced, changes will have to be made (unless playtesting really does become a part of the release path) no matter what set of rules (4CL, 2GT, etc.) you currently find acceptable. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Any sufficiently advanced bug is http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | indistinguishable from a feature. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | -- Kulawiec

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960130120617.4211C-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >Why should the Golden Tenets increase? So far, no other _class_ of >problem's has shown itself to be a problem. As for 10 Thoughts Betrayad, >what about infinite? Carlotta is wholly capable of that... Beyond >fixing classes of problems (something that both CL and GT attempt to do), >individual broken cards will always be a problem in both environments, >especially the unique cards and Carlotta'd cards. First, Carlotta does not provide an infinite number of anything automatically. You sure put a lot of stock behind a 1-stealth action! The GT's _will_ increase. I base that on WotC's past performance. Thoughts Betrayed, Heidelberg Castle, Toreador Grand Ball, all broken. Maybe they'll make rulings that change the wording of the cards; however they deal with these obviously unplaytested cards, it'll be more rules to remember. CL helps by limiting the appearance of these cards in actual play. >> Breaking a table over someone's head is faster, and it lets you get on >> with what you were doing before you had to do it. I never heard of the >> GT's before I ggot online, and not many of the people I play with have net >> access. CL's work better, faster, and clearer than 2 or 3 or 5 or however >> many "Golden" tenets. This is all completely subjective, anyway 8). > >I doubt many people outside of those who have access to this newsgroup, >the VTES mailing lists, and the people they play with have heard of the >GTs. Whether people have heard of them or not, this doesn't make things >any more difficult in telling a new person about them. As for working >better, no. Weenie Vote Deck counterexample (a CL deck beating up 5 NL >decks because of vote push, a GT). Weenie vote is broken, but the GT is no fix by itself. I played the WV deck against 2 others and both opponents quit. Total votes used to push: 0. Voting's busted, too. What are we going to do about it? > Faster, yes, but I have a lot of >female friends who will tell you that faster isn't always better. 1CL >and 20CL is just as fast as 10% or 6 or 4. Clearer, just barely. No >repeatable actions and no vote push takes about 10 seconds to explain. By "fast", I meant that you can institute a CL before a new set comes into play, and play with the cards quickly, with a minimum of degeneracy. We are now in a period of waiting for the RTR to catch up with DS in play. Good playtesting would avoid this, but in it's absence CL's help. I'm not sure what you mean by fast, from the above. Surely "time it takes to explain" is pretty low on the priority list of comparisons between NL and CL . . . BTW, my "female friends" like it fast sometimes . . . but now we've gone from bashing heads to making love . . . actually, I kind of like the progression . . .

In article <4env48$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960130120617.4211C-100000@pentode>, The > Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: > >Why should the Golden Tenets increase? So far, no other _class_ of > >problem's has shown itself to be a problem. As for 10 Thoughts Betrayad, > >what about infinite? Carlotta is wholly capable of that... Beyond > >fixing classes of problems (something that both CL and GT attempt to do), > >individual broken cards will always be a problem in both environments, > >especially the unique cards and Carlotta'd cards. > First, Carlotta does not provide an infinite number of anything > automatically. You sure put a lot of stock behind a 1-stealth action! No, I put a lot of stock in a Carlotta deck. Dominate, Obfuscate, Necromancy, Potence. In a Thoughts Betrayed deck, wait until you have a TB in hand before going for more. With Obfuscate you can easily stealth through. Necromancy to S:CE out of blocking and trying again next turn. Carlotta could be put into a Malk deck of any type (Crazy Combat, S&B, whatever), a Nosferatu deck, or a Giovanni centered deck, not to mention any other deck that you care to put her in just for her special ability. I have here in a NL deck in which the disciplines are Auspex and Thaumaturgy (with TB thrown in for spice). Given a deck that protects her, Carlotta is extremely tough in CL. In NL, she is just convenient. > The GT's _will_ increase. I base that on WotC's past performance. > Thoughts Betrayed, Heidelberg Castle, Toreador Grand Ball, all broken. > Maybe they'll make rulings that change the wording of the cards; however > they deal with these obviously unplaytested cards, it'll be more rules to > remember. CL helps by limiting the appearance of these cards in actual > play. The GTs are not going to increase unless some class of problems present themselves. Despite the overall botching of DS, no such class of problems has occurred. As for individual cards needing fixing (a la House Rules), CL/NL are in the same boat. Unless one plays without listening to _anything_ the DTR says, a list of rules to remember will continue to grow. Or do you play with Blythe Candeleria as printed? CL does not hold down any list of rules. > >> Breaking a table over someone's head is faster, and it lets you get on > >> with what you were doing before you had to do it. I never heard of the > >> GT's before I ggot online, and not many of the people I play with have net > >> access. CL's work better, faster, and clearer than 2 or 3 or 5 or however > >> many "Golden" tenets. This is all completely subjective, anyway 8). > >I doubt many people outside of those who have access to this newsgroup, > >the VTES mailing lists, and the people they play with have heard of the > >GTs. Whether people have heard of them or not, this doesn't make things > >any more difficult in telling a new person about them. As for working > >better, no. Weenie Vote Deck counterexample (a CL deck beating up 5 NL > >decks because of vote push, a GT). > Weenie vote is broken, but the GT is no fix by itself. I played the WV > deck against 2 others and both opponents quit. Total votes used to push: > 0. Voting's busted, too. What are we going to do about it? I've never believed voting is busted. Show me a vote deck that is degenerate under the Golden Tenets. As for both opponents quitting without you needing to push a vote, I am surprised. Most decks should have a reasonable amount of defense against any major strategy (vote, bleed, combat). Not needing to push a vote means that they likely had no vote defense, or you got an excellent draw while they drew poorly. I repeat again, show me a vote deck that is degenerate under NL/GT. > > Faster, yes, but I have a lot of > >female friends who will tell you that faster isn't always better. 1CL > >and 20CL is just as fast as 10% or 6 or 4. Clearer, just barely. No > >repeatable actions and no vote push takes about 10 seconds to explain. > By "fast", I meant that you can institute a CL before a new set comes into > play, and play with the cards quickly, with a minimum of degeneracy. We > are now in a period of waiting for the RTR to catch up with DS in play. > Good playtesting would avoid this, but in it's absence CL's help. I'm not > sure what you mean by fast, from the above. Surely "time it takes to > explain" is pretty low on the priority list of comparisons between NL and > CL . . . I was assuming your "fast" came from explaining to new people your set of house rules. We missed each other there. :) As for being able to go out and play "with a minimum of degeneracy", this occurs in NL as well, because by the time we play cards such as Heidelburg Castle in a NL environment, it usually becomes obvious that cards have potential for disruption (as would happen in CL), but decks are not yet built with this potential in mind. > BTW, my "female friends" like it fast sometimes . . . but now we've gone > from bashing heads to making love . . . actually, I kind of like the > progression . . . <Laughs> Note I said "... isn't always better." When I was looking over what I sent out, I thought I might catch heat for that last analogy, and I'm glad it was taken in humor (at least, I _think_ it was). Maybe we should start a new thread... Nah, that'd be too off-topic. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960131114024.5824D-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >No, I put a lot of stock in a Carlotta deck. Dominate, Obfuscate, >Necromancy, Potence. In a Thoughts Betrayed deck, wait until you have a >TB in hand before going for more. With Obfuscate you can easily stealth >through. Necromancy to S:CE out of blocking and trying again next turn. >Carlotta could be put into a Malk deck of any type (Crazy Combat, S&B, >whatever), a Nosferatu deck, or a Giovanni centered deck, not to mention >any other deck that you care to put her in just for her special ability. >I have here in a NL deck in which the disciplines are Auspex and >Thaumaturgy (with TB thrown in for spice). Given a deck that protects >her, Carlotta is extremely tough in CL. In NL, she is just convenient. We just haven't really started playing with DS much, yet. I'll make a Carlotta deck or two and see what's what. Hey, she's just 1 vampire . . . >> The GT's _will_ increase. I base that on WotC's past performance. >> Thoughts Betrayed, Heidelberg Castle, Toreador Grand Ball, all broken. >> Maybe they'll make rulings that change the wording of the cards; however >> they deal with these obviously unplaytested cards, it'll be more rules to >> remember. CL helps by limiting the appearance of these cards in actual >> play. > >The GTs are not going to increase unless some class of problems present >themselves. Despite the overall botching of DS, no such class of >problems has occurred. As for individual cards needing fixing (a la >House Rules), CL/NL are in the same boat. Unless one plays without >listening to _anything_ the DTR says, a list of rules to remember will >continue to grow. Or do you play with Blythe Candeleria as printed? CL >does not hold down any list of rules. I understand what you're saying; the GT's deal with "classes of problems". Call my belief "faith"; I predict 2GT will become 3GT (at least) eventually. You're right, though; since voting need a fix, both CL and NL need house rules. BTW, what's wrong with Blythe? >I've never believed voting is busted. Show me a vote deck that is >degenerate under the Golden Tenets. As for both opponents quitting >without you needing to push a vote, I am surprised. Most decks should >have a reasonable amount of defense against any major strategy (vote, >bleed, combat). Not needing to push a vote means that they likely had no >vote defense, or you got an excellent draw while they drew poorly. I >repeat again, show me a vote deck that is degenerate under NL/GT. Well, I plan to try the same deck at a local con next month, but this deck is pretty degenerate, GT or not. Again, by degenerate, I mean basically a OTP that wins too much. How's that for vague? >> By "fast", I meant that you can institute a CL before a new set comes into >> play, and play with the cards quickly, with a minimum of degeneracy. > >I was assuming your "fast" came from explaining to new people your set of >house rules. We missed each other there. :) As for being able to go out >and play "with a minimum of degeneracy", this occurs in NL as well, >because by the time we play cards such as Heidelburg Castle in a NL >environment, it usually becomes obvious that cards have potential for >disruption (as would happen in CL), but decks are not yet built with this >potential in mind. Hmm. So the first time you play, you notice that cards like HC have the potential for degeneracy. What happens the second time? [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : Eventually, with the Lightning Bolt effect, 4CL _will_ become stricter. : Either by grouping cards into a pseudo restricted list, or my moving : to 3CL. : As more cards are introduced, changes will have to be made (unless : playtesting really does become a part of the release path) no : matter what set of rules (4CL, 2GT, etc.) you currently find : acceptable. : -- : L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Any sufficiently advanced bug is : http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | indistinguishable from a feature. : Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | -- Kulawiec Well, it's about time someone finally said that... And it's absolutely true. On the one hand, people say there will never need to be additional golden tenets because the tenets are not based on single cards, but on idea principles. However, the no-repeat actions tenet would not have been necessary if not for a few (what, 4? 5?) cards that allow untapping. What may not be a problem with a single card now may become a much more devastating one when similiar cards under the same discipline or same cards under different disciplines are created. The CL's will eventually have to change as well, unfortunately, although I think that 4CL [which, as I have stated before, we play by] will stand for some time to come. But yes, the Lightning Bolt-Chain Lightning-Incinerate effect will occur, as long as WotC creates new expansions. There is only so much that can be done with a given discipline [especially in the cases of Obfuscate, Auspex and Fortitude; Discplines like Protean lend themselves to vast variety beyond any powers in the original V:TM]. While each may desire on playing method or the other now, as these methods change, so might someone's opinions about which is better. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "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 <4epbvq$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960131114024.5824D-100000@pentode>, The > Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: > >No, I put a lot of stock in a Carlotta deck. Dominate, Obfuscate, > >Necromancy, Potence. In a Thoughts Betrayed deck, wait until you have a > >TB in hand before going for more. With Obfuscate you can easily stealth > >through. Necromancy to S:CE out of blocking and trying again next turn. > >Carlotta could be put into a Malk deck of any type (Crazy Combat, S&B, > >whatever), a Nosferatu deck, or a Giovanni centered deck, not to mention > >any other deck that you care to put her in just for her special ability. > >I have here in a NL deck in which the disciplines are Auspex and > >Thaumaturgy (with TB thrown in for spice). Given a deck that protects > >her, Carlotta is extremely tough in CL. In NL, she is just convenient. > We just haven't really started playing with DS much, yet. I'll make a > Carlotta deck or two and see what's what. Hey, she's just 1 vampire . . . I saw a Carlotta based deck for the first time last night. 4 Carlotta's, and The rest either IC, Justicar, or a 9 or 10 sized vamps with useful special abilities. The library contained 4 Praxis:Solomon to stop contestment; 6 Deals with the Devil and 2 Fragments of the Book of Nod to get cards to the graveyard. Minion Taps and Blood Dolls to regain blood, as well as other blood factory cards (Hunting Ground, Palatial Estate). Most of the deck consisted of only 1 copy of a particular card (after all, once it's in the ashheap...). The most interesting part was Carlotta had Safe Haven on her. In a deck with good obfuscate, Thoughts Betrayed (always one kept in hand), and that Safe Haven, Carlotta was a virtual goddess... I'm thinking of copying some of the ideas for myself. > >> The GT's _will_ increase. I base that on WotC's past performance. > >> Thoughts Betrayed, Heidelberg Castle, Toreador Grand Ball, all broken. > >> Maybe they'll make rulings that change the wording of the cards; however > >> they deal with these obviously unplaytested cards, it'll be more rules to > >> remember. CL helps by limiting the appearance of these cards in actual > >> play. > >The GTs are not going to increase unless some class of problems present > >themselves. Despite the overall botching of DS, no such class of > >problems has occurred. As for individual cards needing fixing (a la > >House Rules), CL/NL are in the same boat. Unless one plays without > >listening to _anything_ the DTR says, a list of rules to remember will > >continue to grow. Or do you play with Blythe Candeleria as printed? CL > >does not hold down any list of rules. > I understand what you're saying; the GT's deal with "classes of problems". > Call my belief "faith"; I predict 2GT will become 3GT (at least) > eventually. You're right, though; since voting need a fix, both CL and NL > need house rules. BTW, what's wrong with Blythe? I agree that GTs will increase, but right now there doesn't exist another class of cards that need to be fixed. Under CL, most "problem" cards are somewhat contained, but since any _one_ of them could be a subject of the "Lightning Bolt" effect, CL are far more fragile. Blythe is misprinted to have superior Auspex and Thaumaturgy. She should only have inferior Auspex (DTR). > >I've never believed voting is busted. Show me a vote deck that is > >degenerate under the Golden Tenets. As for both opponents quitting > >without you needing to push a vote, I am surprised. Most decks should > >have a reasonable amount of defense against any major strategy (vote, > >bleed, combat). Not needing to push a vote means that they likely had no > >vote defense, or you got an excellent draw while they drew poorly. I > >repeat again, show me a vote deck that is degenerate under NL/GT. > Well, I plan to try the same deck at a local con next month, but this deck > is pretty degenerate, GT or not. Again, by degenerate, I mean basically a > OTP that wins too much. How's that for vague? Under GT, I've only seen that deck win if _no one_ has intercept or politics at the table. > >> By "fast", I meant that you can institute a CL before a new set comes into > >> play, and play with the cards quickly, with a minimum of degeneracy. > >I was assuming your "fast" came from explaining to new people your set of > >house rules. We missed each other there. :) As for being able to go out > >and play "with a minimum of degeneracy", this occurs in NL as well, > >because by the time we play cards such as Heidelburg Castle in a NL > >environment, it usually becomes obvious that cards have potential for > >disruption (as would happen in CL), but decks are not yet built with this > >potential in mind. > Hmm. So the first time you play, you notice that cards like HC have the > potential for degeneracy. What happens the second time? I didn't think HC is degenerate. Since I first saw HC, I thought that it brought in timing issues that are awful and belong in Magic (see my article elsewhere on this ng). Archon Investigation (from V:tES) was something the moment I saw, I despised. This card ought to be immediately changed, but that is a different thread (If anyone wants to argue taht, please start a new thread). I had never seen TB in a deck built around it until last week (my speculation before that point was purely academic :), and am now under the opinion that it needs _some_ kind of errata. Usually, a degenerate card is clear. Occasionally, a card may have loopholes that really shouldn't be there. Usually these aren't seen until someone exploits them. Whether or not they have 4 or 8, this exploitation can still be seen. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960201153422.7658F-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >I agree that GTs will increase, but right now there doesn't exist another >class of cards that need to be fixed. This after a long discussion of how Carlotta was so hard to deal with? How about "cards that bring cards back from the ash heap", a class of cards with a current membership of one? I thought WotC learned their lesson about "cards from the discard pile" with MtG, but obviously . . .

In article <4eto0k$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] In NL, Carlotta's ability is merely useful. She can get back a card reliably and give you access to a card as often as you want. All this does in NL is give you reliability in access to a card you want. You already can have as many as you want in a deck, as do your opponents. In CL, your opponents only have access to 4 or 6 or whatever number of cards copies, while you have as many copies as you can retrieve (easy to do in a Carlotta deck (stealth/seduction/TB, all options that work well)). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960202153644.1834C-100000@pentode>, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >In NL, Carlotta's ability is merely useful. She can get back a card >reliably and give you access to a card as often as you want. All this >does in NL is give you reliability in access to a card you want. You >already can have as many as you want in a deck, as do your opponents. In >CL, your opponents only have access to 4 or 6 or whatever number of cards >copies, while you have as many copies as you can retrieve (easy to do in >a Carlotta deck (stealth/seduction/TB, all options that work well)) I don't know; I think you're drawing a theoretical difference here. In practice, Carlotta works pretty much the same in CL or NL. That Carlotta deck you referred to; you said they only put one of each permanent in there, since Carlotta could just go retrieve it. Works the same, NL or CL. The "multiple copies" argument in CL is offset by the fact that, in NL, you can use Carlotta to reliably retrieve permanents from the ash heap, allowing more space in a limited deck size for the goodies you really want . . . Also, in CL, the particular card you want to repeat on is less likely to be in play at any given time. I suspect that, in play, Carlotta has the same impact limits or no (all bad; the ash heap is supposed to be _ashes_, for crying out loud!).

In article <4evfu3$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) wrote: > In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960202153644.1834C-100000@pentode>, The > Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: > >In NL, Carlotta's ability is merely useful. She can get back a card > >reliably and give you access to a card as often as you want. All this > >does in NL is give you reliability in access to a card you want. You > >already can have as many as you want in a deck, as do your opponents. In > >CL, your opponents only have access to 4 or 6 or whatever number of cards > >copies, while you have as many copies as you can retrieve (easy to do in > >a Carlotta deck (stealth/seduction/TB, all options that work well)) > I don't know; I think you're drawing a theoretical difference here. In > practice, Carlotta works pretty much the same in CL or NL. That Carlotta > deck you referred to; you said they only put one of each permanent in > there, since Carlotta could just go retrieve it. Works the same, NL or > CL. In a Carlotta based deck, the just one of each permanents is a good idea. But that is not the point about why there is a difference in NL/CL environments regarding Carlotta. In CL, everyone _else_ has 4 or 6 or whatever of a particular card. In NL, everyone else has however many copies of cards they want. Thus, the difference lies not in the Carlotta deck, but in the cards that the NL decks can answer with. > The "multiple copies" argument in CL is offset by the fact that, in NL, > you can use Carlotta to reliably retrieve permanents from the ash heap, > allowing more space in a limited deck size for the goodies you really want > . . . Also, in CL, the particular card you want to repeat on is less > likely to be in play at any given time. Again, the major issue is not the Carlotta deck compared in NL/CL, but how other decks in the same environment compare. > I suspect that, in play, Carlotta has the same impact limits or no (all > bad; the ash heap is supposed to be _ashes_, for crying out loud!). Dead is supposed to be dead, but the Giovanni are well known for messing with what should be dead and gone in V:tM. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I saw a Carlotta based deck for the first time last night. 4 Carlotta's, > and The rest either IC, Justicar, or a 9 or 10 sized vamps with useful > special abilities. The library contained 4 Praxis:Solomon to stop > contestment; 6 Deals with the Devil and 2 Fragments of the Book of Nod to My friend once made a deck that would destroy a deck like that. It was packed full of Brainwashes. You'd never get a single vampire out. (I'll put 4 blood on this vampire, it doesn't come out yet. Predator's Turn: Brainwash. Your turn: I guess I'll put blood on this vampire. Brainwash, etc etc. etc.) Didn't work to well in multi-player games though. By the time you finish your first opponent, your new prey has 3 or 4 vampires out already. Chad Lubrecht lubr...@udel.edu

>> >In NL, Carlotta's ability is merely useful. She can get back a card >> >reliably and give you access to a card as often as you want. All this >> >does in NL is give you reliability in access to a card you want. You >> >already can have as many as you want in a deck, as do your opponents. >In >> >CL, your opponents only have access to 4 or 6 or whatever number of >cards >> >copies, while you have as many copies as you can retrieve (easy to do >in >> >a Carlotta deck (stealth/seduction/TB, all options that work well)) Under the card limits we play you are restricted to one of each unique card, therefore one Carlotta in your crypt of twelve. This deck could really struggle under CL! Ben

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, I can think of a _lot_ of decks that would struggle under a 1CL for uniques. I know it's going to spawn a jihad (as in holy war) but I've got to say it: what you're playing is barely recognizable as Jyhad. Want to play a crypt of big vamps without getting hammered in the early going? Sorry, only 1 Info Highway in your library. Want your Brujah to intercept some actions? Well better hope the action is at only +1 stealth because it's going to be damn hard to find a KCRG News Radio to help out your sports bike. A Ventrue voting deck gets to put in 1 Ventrue HQ? A master-intensive strategy had better be a voting strategy as well because you may be able to pass a Rumors of Gehenna but you'll be damn lucky to get Anson out of your crypt. I mean, if I squint I can see the reasoning for playing 4CL: little worry about broken-card stategies. What is the reason for a 1CL on uniques? Is there some glaring problem that this rule fixes that is worth crippling dozens of deck designs for? You know, you can't even form an all-Ravnos or all-Giovanni crypt under these limits. Deck design is no longer a matter of what cards work best for a strategy, but rather finding any cards that remotely relate to the strategy. And a 1CL on uniques adds a _lot_ more lucky to the game. If a powerful unique is in the top 20% of your deck, you have a significant advantage over when it's in the bottom 20%. --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

In article <4g5ot2$n...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, [ quoted text not captured ] All I can really say is that we play this and it seems to work well, we played it the without, and there seemed to be a lot more messy situations, and a lot more contesting of cards that just made the game boring (but quick). If you don't like it, or don't want to play it, then fine, no skin off my nose. All I can say is that we've found that this works well in conjunction with 4CL, it will probably affect NL badly, but NL is NL, and putting on any restriction is betraying the concept of that style of play. I'm not saying that NL or 4CL are better than the other, its just a matter of personal taste and I personally prefer 4CL, as it means that you have to think about all aspects of deck construction, rather than just a single tactic - some say that this ruins the fun of the game, but if there are people who enjoy playing it then surely that is okay too. As for the comment on Ravnos and Giovanni, all I can say is that we have found that for the majority of decks, one clan crypts just don't work. The game we play means that there is very little room for effectiveness of a deck design, which means that the games can be PLAYED at a more tactical level, even for players who've constructed a deck using only 2 or 3 starter decks of cards. This means that each game can be more challenging, even if your deck isn't the best in the group, rather than watching one deck go through everyone simultaneously, as no one can stop them. Ben

GEN...@leeds.ac.uk (B.D. Redmond) wrote: > In article <4g5ot2$n...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, > pe...@homer.ucsf.edu (Eric Pettersen) wrote: > >GEN...@leeds.ac.uk (B.D. Redmond) wrote: [description of Carlotta deck deleted] - >> - >> Under the card limits we play you are restricted to one of each unique - >> card, therefore one Carlotta in your crypt of twelve. This deck could - >> really struggle under CL! - >> - > - > Yeah, I can think of a _lot_ of decks that would struggle under a - >1CL for uniques. I know it's going to spawn a jihad (as in holy war) but - >I've got to say it: what you're playing is barely recognizable as Jyhad. - > Want to play a crypt of big vamps without getting hammered in the - >early going? Sorry, only 1 Info Highway in your library. Want your - Brujah - >to intercept some actions? Well better hope the action is at only +1 - >stealth because it's going to be damn hard to find a KCRG News Radio to - >help out your sports bike. A Ventrue voting deck gets to put in 1 Ventrue - >HQ? A master-intensive strategy had better be a voting strategy as well - >because you may be able to pass a Rumors of Gehenna but you'll be damn - >lucky to get Anson out of your crypt. - > I mean, if I squint I can see the reasoning for playing 4CL: little - >worry about broken-card stategies. What is the reason for a 1CL on - uniques? - >Is there some glaring problem that this rule fixes that is worth crippling - >dozens of deck designs for? - > You know, you can't even form an all-Ravnos or all-Giovanni crypt - >under these limits. Deck design is no longer a matter of what cards work - >best for a strategy, but rather finding any cards that remotely relate to - >the strategy. - > And a 1CL on uniques adds a _lot_ more lucky to the game. If a - >powerful unique is in the top 20% of your deck, you have a significant - >advantage over when it's in the bottom 20%. - - - All I can really say is that we play this and it seems to work well, we - played it the without, and there seemed to be a lot more messy situations, - and a lot more contesting of cards that just made the game boring (but - quick). If you don't like it, or don't want to play it, then fine, no skin - off my nose. All I can say is that we've found that this works well in - conjunction with 4CL, it will probably affect NL badly, but NL is NL, and - putting on any restriction is betraying the concept of that style of play. - I'm not saying that NL or 4CL are better than the other, its just a matter - of personal taste and I personally prefer 4CL, as it means that you have to - think about all aspects of deck construction, rather than just a single - tactic - some say that this ruins the fun of the game, but if there are - people who enjoy playing it then surely that is okay too. As for the - comment on Ravnos and Giovanni, all I can say is that we have found that - for the majority of decks, one clan crypts just don't work. - The game we play means that there is very little room for effectiveness of - a deck design, which means that the games can be PLAYED at a more tactical - level, even for players who've constructed a deck using only 2 or 3 starter - decks of cards. This means that each game can be more challenging, even if - your deck isn't the best in the group, rather than watching one deck go - through everyone simultaneously, as no one can stop them. - - Ben Ben and I have exchanged mail on this and I think it's another situation of "we'll have to agree to disagree." To summarize my responses to the points above: "I personally prefer 4CL, as it means that you have to think about all aspects of deck construction, rather than just a single tactic" -- NL can focus somewhat more narrowly on offensive strategies if you desire to, but still has to defend against the broad spectrum of predator strategies (vote, rush, S&B, weenies, etc.) I think the CL crowd exaggerates the focusing aspects of NL. "As for the comment on Ravnos and Giovanni, all I can say is that we have found that for the majority of decks, one clan crypts just don't work" -- this could well be a side effect of a 1CL on uniques and 4CL overall; you are limited to 4 Consanguineous Boons, and 1 of clan-specific uniques such as Hunting Grounds, Spawning Pool, Storm Sewers, Art Museum, etc. I've certainly seen effective single-clan decks in NL. "...rather than watching one deck go through everyone simultaneously, as no one can stop them" -- maybe my group is incompetent, but I haven't had this "unstoppability" phenomenon. A Weenie Vote Deck is the only one I would really worry about, and I'd rather put in one house rule to stop a WVD, than another rule (such as low CL) that stops dozens of deck designs. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I would just like to thank you, Eric, for a nice, polite pleasant comment post, rather than a down right nasty flame. You have my respect. Ben