A new 'CL' idea

All those for NCL, just stick to the idea at hand in this new thread please. Several people have pointed out that CL stop certain decks, like cryptic mission or corruption decks, cold. And yet certain cards (2nd trad, 5th trad, deflection, etc.) are excessively powerful and arguably broken. At one time, Jyhad had a list of 'restricted cards', cards that a player could not have more than X copies of in a deck (it was 6iirc). Why not do the same now? Rather than a CL on every card in the game, sliding scale or otherwise, just restrict the problem cards? T

[ quoted text not captured ] There are no problem cards. You dont seem to like V:TES, so why play. And before you reply, no, the game you are advocating is not VTES

<Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3bdce260.1644133@news... > All those for NCL, just stick to the idea at hand in this new thread > please. > > Several people have pointed out that CL stop certain decks, like > cryptic mission or corruption decks, cold. Card limits are to deck-type restriction as bars are to criminal walking-around-freedoms, but yes. > And yet certain cards (2nd trad, 5th trad, deflection, etc.) are excessively > powerful and arguably broken. Not broken at all, since X being broken would mean that everyone would be forced to either play anti-X or lose. And as there isn't a current card or deck that *IS* X right now, nothing is broken. Powerful, yes, but not broken. > At one time, Pre-Golden Tenents/SPTR (i.e. the current rules set), yes. > Jyhad had a list of 'restricted cards', cards that a > player could not have more than X copies of in a deck (it was 6, IIRC). > > Why not do the same now? Because neither cards, deck types, nor "NCL" are broken, so there is no reason to institute xCL. > Rather than a CL on every card in the game, > sliding scale or otherwise, just restrict the problem cards? (See: "So, Kevin, when did you stop beating your wife?") I reject this question as my only choice. I reject the fact that restriction of cards (i.e. xCL or a "restricted list") in some fashion is our only answer. I reject xCL, since it leads to degenerate deck types and stifles creativity, because some players aren't willing to spend $25 and buy 1000 cards so they don't feel "cheated" because some other player in their group has 5000 cards. How about I answer you like this: if you play NCL for n games, and you *still* don't see how and why it is better, in every fashion, than xCL, and I cannot then convince you of how and why NCL is better, then I will give you $5 per n game? > T Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 22:24:40 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >At one time, Jyhad had a list of 'restricted cards', cards that a >player could not have more than X copies of in a deck (it was 6iirc). In 1996 the DCI list was: Restricted list Six each of the following: * Ancilla Empowerment * Conservitive Agitation * Domain Challenge * Earth Meld * Fifth Tradition: Hospitality * Form of Mist * Freak Drive * Kine Resources Contested * Majesty * Parity Shift * Sabbat Threat Banned list * Cunctator Motion * High Stakes * Rowan Ring * Stake * Monocle of Clarity * Playing For Keeps Andrew

Talonz51 wrote: >>Several people have pointed out that CL stop certain decks, like cryptic mission or corruption decks, cold. And yet certain cards (2nd trad, 5th trad, deflection, etc.) are excessively powerful and arguably broken.>> I'm not quite sure who would argue that Deflection of all cards is broken, but that is neither here nor there. Assuming that a card is truly broken and overpowered (and I have no reason to believe that any of the cards you mention specifically fall under this category), how is limiting the number you play with going to fix this? When it comes up, it is still broken and overpowered, and still ruins a game. It just doesn't happen as often, and the game becomes more of a crap shoot--more random, less strategic. >>At one time, Jyhad had a list of 'restricted cards', cards that a player could not have more than X copies of in a deck (it was 6iirc).>> It was a short time, and was quickly deemed a bad idea. Any problems that the 6CL list was attempting to circumvent were nicely and elegantly fixed by the No Vote Pushing Rules (which are now simply the official vote rules, and arguably were the official vote rules when the game was designed--the vote pushing rules in the original Jyhad rule book were rather ambiguious, and they were turned into the "dump all you want" rules by a questionable clarification at some point) and the No Repeat Action rules (used in competetive play). There is no need for a restricted list with these rules in place. The banned list consists solely of cards inappropriate for competetive play (ante cards, Madness of the Bard) and a very few clearly broken (i.e. *way* too powerful) cards that were simply a bad idea to begin with (Return to Innocence; Monicle of Clarity, which is a fun and clever card, but perverted by too much logic). >>Why not do the same now?>> Because it simply isn't necessary. The game is balanced as it is. A few cards are probably a tad more powerful than they should be, in terms of cost and effect, but not many, and they certainly aren't game breaking. >>Rather than a CL on every card in the game, sliding scale or otherwise, just restrict the problem cards?>> 'Cause what you seem to think are problem cards simply aren't. The game has a very rich and varied strategy base. Yes, some strategies are more effective than others (say weenie Pre bleed when compared to Giovanni Bruise/Bleed), but the pool of effective strategies is quite large and quite balanced. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "...and the only person I can stand to be around is a neutered vampire who cheats at kitten poker!" -Buffy

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 23:11:35 GMT, Kevin M. wrote: >How about I answer you like this: if you play NCL for n games, and you *still* >don't see how and why it is better, in every fashion, than xCL, and I cannot >then convince you of how and why NCL is better, then I will give you $5 per n >game? Is this an open offer? I've played nothing but NCL and am not convinced that it is better. Maybe you need to pay me to play with a CL? Andrew

(Peter D Bakija) wrote > > Because it simply isn't necessary. The game is balanced as it is. I do not agree that the "game" is balanced the strategies in and of themselves are balanced the cards in and of themselves for the most part are balanced but the game as it stands is not. In the realm of deck building vs. playing skill the game is most certinly NOT balanced as it is a poor player with a good deck can win tournies and championships. This is not balance. Balance in this context to me would mean that only the best players with the best decks would win tournaments and/or Championships. I find it strange that such a great game would want to be so loppsided in it's definition of a great player. As it stands there are (officially) no great players of this game only great deck builders that metagamed properly. The player has very little tactical role in winning or losing and that is the last piece of the puzzle as far as I'm concerned. I do think this is far and away the best CCG in existance, but if WE could manage to find a way to solve this last little detail this might become one of the greatest games ever. I find this to be the main reason the CL argument comes up so often the NL'ers are the best deck builders (strategists) and (I may catch flack for this but) the CL'ers are the best players(tacticians). A CL is not the awnser. But there must be an awnser to this problem. The game should encompass both. this game is great from both directions. no matter which side your on people love this game for different reasons try out what the other side has to offer you will be amazed at an entirely new game. Bringing those two sides together into the same game would result in I belive a game actually above chess on the great games ladder. Eric Would someone please ask Garfield for his imput

Darn it, I'd promised myself I wouldn't get into these CL pointless discussions again, but there are some things I just can't answer to here. > > Several people have pointed out that CL stop certain decks, like > > cryptic mission or corruption decks, cold. Yes, it was the case, and some people had a houserule for these cards, limiting them less or whatever ; now there is enough ways to corrupt, or top contract, and I don't know about the cryptics. > > And yet certain cards (2nd trad, 5th trad, deflection, etc.) are excessively > > powerful and arguably broken. They are very powerful, but I agree with Kevin in saying that they are not broken. Anyway, what I want to point out is that CL is not a way to fight broken cards. It's just a different way to play, period. The strategies and ways of thinking are altered in the following ways : - You can't rely on just one or 2 cards to win the game - If you want lots of redirecting cards, or lots of combat ends depending on your clan, or intercept, or manoeuvers etc., you'll have either to use the "no discipline" cards (Pack Tactics etc) or to put in your crypt the vampires who have the right disciplines. So the thinking behind the construction of the deck is quite different from NCL, and although I agree there are much less possibilities, I can tell you there is still an infinity of ways to build a winning deck with each clan. > > At one time, > > Pre-Golden Tenents/SPTR (i.e. the current rules set), yes. > > > Jyhad had a list of 'restricted cards', cards that a > > player could not have more than X copies of in a deck (it was 6, IIRC). > > > > Why not do the same now? > > Because neither cards, deck types, nor "NCL" are broken, so there is no reason > to institute xCL. That would effectively be saying there is a problem with the former game. That's not what I am advocating. Some of my friends, though, think it is, I haven't played enough against "abusive decks" to have an opinion on "can the system be abused". But, as has been said B4, if there was a way to win against every other deck, be it in CL or NCL, everybody would play it ; I think lots of decks still are being played, so this must not be a "one-way out" game. > I reject xCL, since it leads to degenerate deck types Allow me, Kevin, to reject what you've just said, which is totally unfounded and subjective. Please let's not get again into the "I'll prove to you that your way to play is degenerate" discussion, but we have both seen in previous discussions that both sides can have arguments to the point that the others are degenerate, and in the end nobody can prove anything, so please spare us this type of comments. > and stifles creativity, That is closer to what can be perceived as the truth, even if, as I told you, creativity will simply express itself in another way ; less deck possibilities can be made, but it's still as hard to make a good, working, fun deck, and no 2 decks will be alike. > because some players aren't willing to spend $25 and buy 1000 cards so they > don't feel "cheated" because some other player in their group has 5000 cards. My friend, this is one of the main arguments of the CL too. My friends and I play 3CL, and as most of the others play 4, I proposed to them to do it too so that I wouldn't change my deck every time. But the answer was that in order for, let's say, a fighting deck to perform well, it would require 1 more disamr, one more Decapitate, 1 more IG, etc, and thus cost more. I know, I know, you don't have to have these to make a fighting deck. You don't have to win against other good games either... > How about I answer you like this: if you play NCL for n games, and you *still* > don't see how and why it is better, in every fashion, than xCL, and I cannot > then convince you of how and why NCL is better, then I will give you $5 per n > game? Ok, pay me. I intend to play both ways for a long, long time. Just keep the dollars coming. I'll have a question / example. As some of you must know by now, I enjoy playing Lasombra (less than THE, but still...;). THE main combat card in this Clan is Entombment : no way to reduce damage, good against a For deck. It is not a hand strike, and must be played close range (no Night of the Cobra in Obt...). It can be dodged, but no way to use it with IG, so it is usually either played in defense, or combined with Arms of the Abyss or Thoughts Betrayed (or Hidden Lurker...). So, it is very, very tough anyway to use it against a Cel deck, for they will dodge and addition (and disarm if they have Pot). But it is absolutely useless against IG. Now, in CL, a part of the strategy is thinking "he can have only so much of that card, I already saw him play that many, what are the chances that he'll still have one in hand ?". This is a little like in some card games, either like the poker bluff side, or the card-counting there are in other traditionnal card games. Well, we don't really count, more like evaluate. Same goes for deflections or CE : sooner or later they'll run out of it, and when they do, if you have the right hand, they're dead ; so your goal is to make them discard these, and keep some good cards, well, I won't teach you how to play this game, you've been at it for longer than me. CL doesn't make it THAT different. So I'd like to know what happens in a NCL deck where a Lasombra has chosen to fight more than a little, and has opted for the Entombment option (not only, he'll have lots of Pot of course, but we all know that alone it's usually not enough for a win), and is the predator or prey of a Brujah with more than 4 IG, not mentionning the dodge / additionals / disarms ?? This is a genuine question, not just an argument. And concerning the Combat Ends, I can tell you that I've played all those of PRE (3 x CL) and OBT (2xCL), and that when the enemy has lots of directed attacks, he can still sometimes get at you. Not easy, but then is it easy in NCL ? You can always manoeuver (no limit) and than IG is worthless. So, different limitations, different abuses, but no "broken cards". Now, if I had ONE suggestion to make about new rules, it wouldn't concern CL. I'll post it in another thread, as I think lots of people will (rightly) avoid any discussion with written CL Vs NCL on it. Yours, -- Orpheus http://cypheranima.free.fr news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone audio...@yahoogroups.com

[ quoted text not captured ] Very interesting PoV ; please tell me what you think of the new "suggestion" thread I put. Orph

Eric wrote: >>I do not agree that the "game" is balanced the strategies in and of themselves are balanced the cards in and of themselves for the most part are balanced but the game as it stands is not. In the realm of deck building vs. playing skill the game is most certinly NOT balanced as it is a poor player with a good deck can win tournies and championships. This is not balance.>> If they win, they are good players. Having a good deck doesn't mean you are going to win. You have to know what to do with it and how to actually play. Given "poor player" X with some sort of super deck, if he sits at a table with 4 equally bad players with decks of equivelant utility, and he wins, his is a good player in relation to everyone else there, and deserves to win. If he sits at a table with 4 other superior players with decks of equal utility, he is unlikely to win. Sure, I'll give you that if Poor Player X has a really good deck, and he is playing against 4 really bad decks, he is likelier to win than not, but if he is playing against 4 really bad decks, he is either playing against 4 bad players, at which point we wins by virtue of having better deck selection/building skills (which makes him a better player than the other 4, and thus by all rights he should win anyways), or everyone at the table got a random deck, of which 4 sucked and 1 was good, and he wins by virtue of being lucky, which happens sometimes in every game. >>Balance in this context to me would mean that only the best players with the best decks would win tournaments and/or Championships.>> And they usually do. I don't dismiss that there is occasionally an anomally--a generally weak player wins a tournament due to pure luck or whatever, but that is the case in every competetive game. The people who win large tournaments filled with solid, well established players? Generally the best players with the best decks. Ben Peal won the US championships this past summer at Gen Con, a tournament that had, what, 50-70 players from all over the world. I was in no way surprised that he won. >>I find it strange that such a great game would want to be so loppsided in it's definition of a great player.>> What defenition do you mean? The defenition of "a great player" in the game, as I understand it, is someone who can build good decks, understands the metagame, understands strategy, and can play a table well. All the "great players" I know fit this defenition. >>As it stands there are (officially) no great players of this game only great deck builders that metagamed properly.>> Metagaming is just as much a part of this game as deckbuilding, and table play. If you win 'cause you metagamed correctly, this is because you are a good player. A poor player is incapable of metagaming correctly--if they can do this, they are a good player. >>The player has very little tactical role in winning or losing and that is the last piece of the puzzle as far as I'm concerned.>> You are mistaken. I often play a Rush deck in competition. My Rush deck is a good one, and I am a fairly good player (I have been playing a long time, I do pretty well). I can win tournaments with it. I can say with fair certainty that if I hand my deck to a random guy who isn't real good, he isn't going anywhere with it. Good players make good decks, know how to play them, and know how to play both the metagame and the table. Not being able to do any of these things makes you lose. Sure, occasionally you get lucky, but in a grand scheme, the people who win on a regular basis are the good ones, not the lucky ones. >>I find this to be the main reason the CL argument comes up so often the NL'ers are the best deck builders (strategists) and (I may catch flack for this but) the CL'ers are the best players(tacticians).>> Interesting. I suspect you are wrong, but an interesting viewpoint. >>A CL is not the awnser. But there must be an awnser to this problem. The game should encompass both.>> The game does encompass both (strategy and tactics). [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus wrote: >>So I'd like to know what happens in a NCL deck where a Lasombra has chosen to fight more than a little, and has opted for the Entombment option (not only, he'll have lots of Pot of course, but we all know that alone it's usually not enough for a win), and is the predator or prey of a Brujah with more than 4 IG, not mentionning the dodge / additionals / disarms ??>> He loses. Just like when that same IG Rush deck sits next to a Gangrel "Poke in the Eye" deck. Or a Malk S+B deck sits next to a deflection heavy deck. Or a Ventrue anything deck sits next to a deck that has reliable +1 intercept. Or an Assamite deck sits next to a deck with lots of Majesty. Or a Minion Tap/5th deck sits next to a Rush deck. Sometimes you just lose. That is how the game works. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I do not agree that the "game" is balanced the strategies in and of >themselves are balanced the cards in and of themselves for the most >part are balanced but the game as it stands is not. In the realm of >deck building vs. playing skill the game is most certinly NOT balanced >as it is a poor player with a good deck can win tournies and >championships. Do they often? What led you to believe that deck building is more important in this CCG than in others? My view is that this CCG rewards play skill far more than deck building skill because of the political aspect and because individual cards are so weak. This is not balance. >Balance in this context to me would mean that only the best players >with the best decks would win tournaments and/or Championships. And, this is true of how many CCGs? From observing the results of a number of major tournaments for various CCGs, I see the cream rise to the top ... in general. Doesn't mean the best player or one of the elite players will win. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:9re4na$ea5$1...@wanadoo.fr... [ quoted text not captured ] I agree too that 2nd and 5th, whilst powerful are not broken. I recently played a 4 player game and one deck had something like 18 Second Traditions. I left my prey weak enough for me to oust him at any time whilst leaving him in the game to make my grand-prey keep on having to play those seconds. Eventually I ousted my prey and got to work on Mr Second Traditon. I bled, he played 2nd Trad, I played Call of the Hungry Dead, he played 2nd Trad again, I played S:CE in the ensuing combat. I bled again, he played 2nd Trad, I played CotHD, he didn't have another 2nd Trad, I ousted him ( and won the game ). My deck had 8 Call of the Hungry Dead. The moral? A deck playing 18 copies of one of the most powerful cards in the game still didn't win, so how is the quantity or the card itself broken? [snip other stuff]

"Eric Freeman" <eric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9b6ba9ce.01102...@posting.google.com... > (Peter D Bakija) wrote > > > > > Because it simply isn't necessary. The game is balanced as it is. > > I do not agree that the "game" is balanced the strategies in and of > themselves are balanced the cards in and of themselves for the most > part are balanced but the game as it stands is not. In the realm of > deck building vs. playing skill the game is most certinly NOT balanced > as it is a poor player with a good deck can win tournies and > championships. This is not balance. > Balance in this context to me would mean that only the best players > with the best decks would win tournaments and/or Championships. I find > it strange that such a great game would want to be so loppsided in > it's definition of a great player. As it stands there are (officially) > no great players of this game only great deck builders that metagamed > properly. The player has very little tactical role in winning or > losing and that is the last piece of the puzzle as far as I'm > concerned. Give a good player a poor deck and they typically won't win. On many occasions however, I've seen a poor player loose games with a good deck. One player in one of my playgroups wasn't having much success with a deck that I was convinced was sound. Every time I play the deck I win with it, he just hasn't learnt how to adjust the way he plays the deck to fit the metagame. In both playgroups I play in, some of the not-so-good players sometimes play with decks built ( and used by ) the better players and it's never a guarantee that they'll win, even after they've got a good knowlege of the deck. It takes a good player to know the lie of the land and what to do when things don't go according to plan. There's no dbout that good fortune plays a role in any game ( CCG or not ) the best player doesn't always win but the best player will always do consistently well.

Peter wrote: > Eric wrote: > >>I do not agree that the "game" is balanced the strategies in and of > themselves are balanced the cards in and of themselves for the most > part are balanced but the game as it stands is not. In the realm of > deck building vs. playing skill the game is most certinly NOT balanced > as it is a poor player with a good deck can win tournies and > championships. This is not balance.>> > > If they win, they are good players. Having a good deck doesn't mean you are > going to win. You have to know what to do with it and how to actually play. I disagree and here is why. When I played 4CL and taught a newbie how to play I would hand them a tier 1 deck and I would take a weaker deck. they would be crushed repeatedly it would take usually weeks before they were even able to gain a VP there were to many nuances to learn when to play the cards for maximum effect when to save cards when and what to cycle ect.I was the better player and the results of the games would prove that out. By playing under 4CL they had to learn the whole game before they even had a chance. Now I play NL and when I teach a newbie I hand them a tier one deck (Usually weenie dom with 5 to 10 minutes of instruction on how the deck wins) and I will take a tier one deck. They nearly always gain a VP in their first game (ever) and generally do as well as I do after two or three games they do not need to learn how to play well to do well they just need to learn the deck. That is the basis of my position that the game is not yet fully balanced. The player does not win the decks do. > > I often play a Rush deck in competition. My Rush deck is a > good one, and I am a fairly good player (I have been playing a long time, I do > pretty well). I can win tournaments with it. I can say with fair certainty that > if I hand my deck to a random guy who isn't real good, he isn't going anywhere > with it. and I will concede the point that of all the highly repetitive decks rush requires more playing skill to do well. But can you say the same for malk S&B, or weenie Dom, or Pre vote? ect. Eric

"Eric Freeman" <eric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9b6ba9ce.0110...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] You can build a Nossie or Malk S&B under 4CL and it will be just as effective as your weenie dom deck, hell, I bet you could build a pretty effective weenie dom deck under 4CL as well. A 4CL just limits the number of decks that fit certain archtypes by reducing the options to the disciplines that best fit said archtypes, it doesn't remove those "undesireable" archtypes from the game. When I played 4CL a friend of mine and I both had S&B decks that were just as effective then under 4CL as they are now under NCL. In fact NCL has allowed one of them to actually be more inspired and actually be able to deal with combat ( through 12 Aid from Bats and 6 Carron Crows ) instead of bleeding as fast as possible and not blocking at all. I don't believe 4CL forces people to build less repetitive decks, all it does is restrict them to using the disciplines that have the most different cards that all produce the desired effect. If I want to build Dominate based S&B I can, but I'm stuck with Obfuscate & Dominate. Instead of playing Lasombra and using 20 Shadow Play, 10 Blanket of Night and 10 Shroud of Night. I'm stuck with Malkavians and use 4 Lost in Crows, 4 Elder Impersonation, 4 Faceless Night, 4 Forgotten Labyrinth, 4 Marked Path, 4 Night Moves, 4 Mask of 1000 Faces, 4 Psychic Veil, 4 Spying Mission, 4 Swallowed by the Night. It might take slightly more skill to play the Malks but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a bloody boring S&B deck. Not only that but everyone who wants to play that kind of deck is practially forced to use the same clan because it's the only clan under 4CL that can do it because it's the only one with the right discipline mix.

Eric Freeman <eric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9b6ba9ce.0110...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] That is not simply a NCL 'problem', but a 'focussed vs toolbox' difference. You seem to equate 'tier one' decks under NCL with focussed decks, but the flexibility of a toolbox deck will be a major advantage when playing against focussed decks, though possibly harder to take advantage of. A focussed weenie bleed under 4CL will be nearly as easy to play by a newbie as a NCL version. And S&B would work just the same, and probably win even more often. Focussed decks are harder to make under 4CL, but not impossible (as has been discussed over and over again). And it depends very much on who he's playing too. A good opponent will more easily find the flaws in a deck and respond appropriately, while the poor player with the good deck won't know how to do so. Even highly focused decks have to know how to respond to their enviroment. There's also the metagame to consider: if everyone plays highly focussed decks it will be harder (or even impossible) for them to adjust to the newbie's focussed deck. Recently, there are often 2 or 3 of my decks playing at each game, since other players will often forget/won't bother to bring their own decks (we'll often meet with no intention of playing VtES), and I always take at least 3 decks with me when I go play. What seems to make a deck work with each player seems not to be as much the type of deck and the experience of the player, but often the play style of the player and deck. I'll usually do better with toolbox decks myself, while playing focussed decks means the other players can more easily exploit my deck's faults, which they promptly do. Flux

Eric wrote: >>I disagree and here is why. When I played 4CL and taught a newbie how to play I would hand them a tier 1 deck and I would take a weaker deck. they would be crushed repeatedly it would take usually weeks before they were even able to gain a VP there were to many nuances to learn when to play the cards for maximum effect when to save cards when and what to cycle ect.I was the better player and the results of the games would prove that out. By playing under 4CL they had to learn the whole game before they even had a chance.>> Under a 4CL, most decks simply aren't that focused, and decks that are not focused are difficult to win with in any situation. >>Now I play NL and when I teach a newbie I hand them a tier one deck (Usually weenie dom with 5 to 10 minutes of instruction on how the deck wins) and I will take a tier one deck. They nearly always gain a VP in their first game (ever) and generally do as well as I do after two or three games they do not need to learn how to play well to do well they just need to learn the deck.>> If you hand someone a focused deck, they'll be able to do well with it. If you hand them a focused deck, and their opponents are also playing similarly focused decks, they will probably not do as well as more experienced players. >>That is the basis of my position that the game is not yet fully balanced. The player does not win the decks do.>> If you sit 5 players down at a table, each with a completely identical deck, give them each an identical crypt draw, and stack each library in the exact same manner (such that luck and deck design are not a factor), where one of them is a good player and the other 4 are completely new to the game, do you honestly believe that the good player isn't more likely to win? Player skill is just as important as deck design. Yes, it is easier for a new player to be successful with a focused deck. It is easier for anyone to be successful with a focused deck. If you hand a new player a unfocused (i.e. a 4CL all over the place deck) deck, they are going to have a harder time being successful. I don't think anyone will argue against this. However, a card limit does not change this. If, in your first example, the newbie player had been handed a Malk S+B 4CL deck, he would have been more successful, as he would have had a deck with greater focus than most of his opposition. >>and I will concede the point that of all the highly repetitive decks rush requires more playing skill to do well. But can you say the same for malk S&B, or weenie Dom, or Pre vote? ect.>> Yup. You need to know how not to get killed and what to do to be successful. If you sit a newbie down with a weenie dom bleed deck, and everyone else sits down with a deck that is slower and less focused, yeah, the newbie is going to have a good chance of doing well. That is because focused decks are generally more effective than non focused decks. If, however, you sit the newbie down with such a deck, and everyone else is playing a deck that can compete with it, the newbie probably isn't going to win--sure, he can get lucky, but overall, skill is far more important than you seem to want to make it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric Freeman wrote: > Peter wrote: > > If they win, they are good players. Having a good deck doesn't mean you are > > going to win. You have to know what to do with it and how to actually play. > > I disagree and here is why. When I played 4CL and taught a newbie how > to play I would hand them a tier 1 deck and I would take a weaker > deck. they would be crushed repeatedly it would take usually weeks > before they were even able to gain a VP there were to many nuances to > learn when to play the cards for maximum effect when to save cards > when and what to cycle ect.I was the better player and the results of > the games would prove that out. By playing under 4CL they had to learn > the whole game before they even had a chance. > > Now I play NL and when I teach a newbie I hand them a tier one deck > (Usually weenie dom with 5 to 10 minutes of instruction on how the > deck wins) and I will take a tier one deck. They nearly always gain a > VP in their first game (ever) and generally do as well as I do after > two or three games they do not need to learn how to play well to do > well they just need to learn the deck. That is the basis of my > position that the game is not yet fully balanced. The player does not > win the decks do. The problem here is not the game balance. It's the deck you keep for yourself when you hand the new player (what you call) a "tier 1" deck. Don't blame "imbalance" when you're trying to play a deck you can't win with. It doesn't seem much more complicated than that. What you're trying to claim as proof of imbalance seems more like a lack of variety in the decks you've created for yourself that can win. True proof of imbalance would be apparent in real tournaments, if only the deck you handed the newbie (or fairly close copies of that deck) were the only ones players could be assured of getting victory points with. Fred

In message <20011027124507...@mb-cd.aol.com>, Curevei <cur...@aol.com> writes: >Do they often? What led you to believe that deck building is more important in >this CCG than in others? My view is that this CCG rewards play skill far more >than deck building skill because of the political aspect and because individual >cards are so weak. In that card limits, by definition, restrict the number of potential decks you could build, deck building becomes more significant in a no limits game. If you take it down to a very simple situation: I am building an archetypal Brujah rush deck. I want to include 12 rush cards, and I'm playing under a 6CL. I can include 6 Bums Rush and 6 Ambush Under NL, you can include 8 and 4, 12 and 0, 5 and 7 - whatever you want, up to self-imposed limits and the total deck limit. Such flexibility gives you considerably more options to whittle away, and the optimum formula may well be unavailable under xCL where you just have to make do with what you're told you can use. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F 'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6 So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 22:24:40 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >All those for NCL, just stick to the idea at hand in this new thread >please. "Please, don't challenge my incorrect assumptions, because otherwise my whole idea falls apart." >Several people have pointed out that CL stop certain decks, like >cryptic mission or corruption decks, cold. And yet certain cards (2nd >trad, 5th trad, deflection, etc.) are excessively powerful and >arguably broken. "excessively" has yet to be determined. >At one time, Jyhad had a list of 'restricted cards', cards that a >player could not have more than X copies of in a deck (it was 6iirc). There was never a restricted list for V:TES/Jyhad. >Why not do the same now? Rather than a CL on every card in the game, >sliding scale or otherwise, just restrict the problem cards? You mean besides the hassle, nuisance, and general difficulty of determining appropriate restrictions for every single card in the game, not to mention the enormous amount of work it would take to do so? Because it still wouldn't work. If an effect is extremely strong, it becomes no less strong if you can only play it 6 times per game. Think of it this way: Which combo is more of a problem, the first time someone plays MT/5th in a game or the seventh? -- Derek "Agricultural barbarians? What do THEY do... rape, pillage, and plant?"

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:44:31 GMT, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> wrote: >There was never a restricted list for V:TES/Jyhad. Self-correction. Apparently there was and I missed it. Oops. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 27 Oct 2001 06:04:36 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: > >I'm not quite sure who would argue that Deflection of all cards is broken, I would defenitely argue that is very powerful (not dependent on age, nor does it tap at superior). A local player here does believe it is broken, and I don't flat out disagree with him. > >>>At one time, Jyhad had a list of 'restricted cards', cards that a >player could not have more than X copies of in a deck (it was 6iirc).>> > >It was a short time, and was quickly deemed a bad idea. Despite the excellent implementation of the no vote push and no repeat actions rulings, it does nothing to prevent powermonging cheese decks that utilize excesive copies of the same problem card(s). You yourself have argued that Sucubus club is such a card. Limiting that card to 1 per deck would help. I'm not convinced that one is broken, but I could defenitely see it being a problem and poweful card. >A few cards >are probably a tad more powerful than they should be, in terms of cost and >effect, but not many, and they certainly aren't game breaking. > Enough to be a problem when used in excessive amounts. T

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: : On 27 Oct 2001 06:04:36 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) : wrote: :>I'm not quite sure who would argue that Deflection of all cards is broken, : I would defenitely argue that is very powerful (not dependent on age, : nor does it tap at superior). A local player here does believe it is : broken, and I don't flat out disagree with him. I simply don't get the point. Deflections breaking you deck? It's your deck that's not functioning properly against bounce. Kill the bouncers, deplete the bounce cards with Change of Targets, deliver some hefty vote damage, use weenie bleed, Enticement,.. :>It was a short time, and was quickly deemed a bad idea. : Despite the excellent implementation of the no vote push and no repeat : actions rulings, it does nothing to prevent powermonging cheese decks : that utilize excesive copies of the same problem card(s). I've never, ever seen a deck that was unbeatable because of excessive amount of any single card or cards. Focus == effectiveness but also narrows the possibilities and thus adaptability of a deck. : You yourself have argued that Sucubus club is such a card. Limiting : that card to 1 per deck would help. I'm not convinced that one is : broken, but I could defenitely see it being a problem and poweful : card. Funny. I've never had 12 Succubus Clubs in any of my decks. :>A few cards :>are probably a tad more powerful than they should be, in terms of cost and :>effect, but not many, and they certainly aren't game breaking. : Enough to be a problem when used in excessive amounts. "You shouldn't use bleed modifiers because they can me. You shouldn't use that many IGs because they prevent me from S:CEing." Duh. : T T

In message <3bea802e.231798071@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >On 27 Oct 2001 06:04:36 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) >wrote: >>I'm not quite sure who would argue that Deflection of all cards is broken, > >I would defenitely argue that is very powerful (not dependent on age, >nor does it tap at superior). A local player here does believe it is >broken, and I don't flat out disagree with him. If you're playing a mono-bleed deck, this can and will happen. Garfield argued that the best decks would contain more than one element - this shows why. >>>>At one time, Jyhad had a list of 'restricted cards', cards that a >>player could not have more than X copies of in a deck (it was 6iirc).>> >> >>It was a short time, and was quickly deemed a bad idea. > >Despite the excellent implementation of the no vote push and no repeat >actions rulings, it does nothing to prevent powermonging cheese decks >that utilize excesive copies of the same problem card(s). This statement relies on a number of things: - that there is such a thing, in game terms, as 'excessive' - that there are 'problem cards' - that there is 'powermongering' going on (Also, that there is cheese, but that is a person definition, in most instances, usually related to decks one personally finds non-challenging and/or boring.) A deck, however, that uses multiple copies of a card in large quantities will find problems: - generating enough minions to use it - no repeat actions (NRA, tournament rules) - no repeat action modifiers (1/minion/action) - no repeat reactions (1/minion/action) - generating the circumstances for use (e.g. a 25 Majesty deck that never gets into combat, and when it does finds that it's being Immortally Grappled (or whichever anti-S:CE card)) - one dimensionalness (e.g. a deck that ignores politics may be easily killed by a political predator. I once drew up the third round seating for GenConUK and was bemused by one of the relationships drawn up - a Legacy of Pander monster preying on an Obfuscate stealth-bleed monster) and so on, in terms of what they will expect to affect them themself. Then, if a deck is overly overtly powerful it will generate a certain atmosphere in a tournament or on a table, in that people will often be disinclined to co-operate with it, and may be inclined to co-operate with a softer looking grand-predator/prey (say, the actual table dynamics will vary) - a key facet of a multi-player game. There is a certain amount of respect for a player who creates such a deck that rides the metagame, the players, the table dynamics, the decks s/he sits next to and a little bit of luck too, even if another player might find it boring. The best way to deal with so-called problem cards is to deal with them. If you find a card that you think is overly powerful to a broken extent, petition the Rules Team (via LSJ) to alter it, with back-up, support, real life situations, comparative costings etc. Or petition the Design Team to create hosers for it (e.g. Telepathic Tracking's creation is, in part, a response to many complaints about the relative power of S:CE). >>A few cards >>are probably a tad more powerful than they should be, in terms of cost and >>effect, but not many, and they certainly aren't game breaking. >> > >Enough to be a problem when used in excessive amounts. What is a problem? What are excessive amounts? -- James Coupe Everybody knows that "No" means "Yes" PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Just like glasses come free on the NHS EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 But the more I look through them the more I see 13D7E668C3695D623D5D I'm becoming more like Alfie

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: (referring to James Coupe) > You yourself have argued that Sucubus club is such a card. Limiting > that card to 1 per deck would help. No. The card would do the same thing as it does now, when it gets drawn. That does not help. In fact, I'm convinced that a lot of the players using the card _do_ limit it to one or two copies in their deck. It's still a problem. Fred

On Wed, 07 Nov 2001 20:15:54 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] It would help, because you could know that if you SR/Arsoned/Dterr/PolSeizured it, that player would not be getting another one out. T

In message <3BE998E0...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes: >Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >(referring to James Coupe) Erm, where do I come into this? Talonz was responding to Peter. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3bf19afa.238658843@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >It would help, because you could know that if you >SR/Arsoned/Dterr/PolSeizured it, that player would not be getting >another one out. Limiting the appearance of a broken card via superficial methods does not stop it being broken. As and when it works, it still works - in exactly the same fashion as before. [ quoted text not captured ]

Talonz wrote: >>I would defenitely argue that is very powerful (not dependent on age, nor does it tap at superior). A local player here does believe it is broken, and I don't flat out disagree with him.>> Yes, Deflection is very powerful, but so is stealth bleeding, and Deflection (and Telepathic Misdirection) is one of the main checks to balance out S+B (along with Rush combat). Deflection vs S+B is one of the main balances hardwired into the game. Deflection is very powerful, yes, but only against a heavy bleeder. Against a vote deck, or a combat deck, or an Anarch Revolt deck, or a deck that only bleeds at one or two per action, or at the end of the game when there are only 2 players left, you are better off without the Deflections. It is all about checks and balances. >>Despite the excellent implementation of the no vote push and no repeat actions rulings, it does nothing to prevent powermonging cheese decks that utilize excesive copies of the same problem card(s).>> Powermongering cheese decks. See, I don't believe that such decks exist, and I don't believe that there is such a thing of excessive copies of a given card. I believe a few cards are more powerful than they should be (Temptation of Greater Power) or inappropriate for competetive play (Succubus Club), but the solution to these cards is to either ban or errata them. Limiting the number of them in a deck doesn't fix the problem--they are still too powerful or inappropriate, just having fewer of them means that they don't come up as often, but when they do, they are still broken or inappropriate. >>You yourself have argued that Sucubus club is such a card.>> Yup. Succubus Club is inappropriate for competetive play. It isn't too powerful, it is just not an appropriate card for competetive play, much like Madness of the Bard. >>Limiting that card to 1 per deck would help. I'm not convinced that one is broken, but I could defenitely see it being a problem and poweful card.>> Nope. It would still cause the same problems, just not as often. When it came up, however, it would still cause the same problems. The way to fix Succubus Club is to either ban it from competetive play or errata it so it can't cause the incredible and arbitrary power swings it can. >>Enough to be a problem when used in excessive amounts.>> For example? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3BE998E0...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes: > >Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > >(referring to James Coupe) > > Erm, where do I come into this? > > Talonz was responding to Peter. You're clearly the cause of all our problems with Succubus Club. Stop that right now. :-) Actually, the text I was quoting from Talonz51 made reference to a "you", so I include the parenthetical comment to note _who_ he was claiming had argued that Succubus Club was a "problem card". (If you have a threaded newsreader, you can go review the genesis of the text I was quoting just after that parenthetical comment.) Fred

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3BE998E0...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes: > >Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > >(referring to James Coupe) > > Erm, where do I come into this? > > Talonz was responding to Peter. Oops. Sorry. Having trouble following the little lines on my thread newsreader. Fred

In message <3BE9B1F1...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott [ quoted text not captured ] Er, yes, the text after your parentheses was written by Talonz. In response to an article by Peter. Which was in response to an article by Talonz. Your post: Message-ID: <3BE998E0...@netcom.com> References: <3bdce260.1644133@news> <20011027020436...@mb-ms.aol.com> <3bea802e.231798071@news> (folded) Given that I wasn't part of that exchange, I fail to see how I was even remotely involved. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 23:11:35 GMT, "Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> wrote: >> Jyhad had a list of 'restricted cards', cards that a >> player could not have more than X copies of in a deck (it was 6, IIRC). >> >> Why not do the same now? > >Because neither cards, deck types, nor "NCL" are broken, so there is no reason >to institute xCL. An argument advanced versus xcl before was that combat decks would be hosed against sce. That immortal grapple was the only way to truly deal with sce. IF that's the case, then the only combat deck worth playing under ncl is a potence IG deck. Therefore the metagame is broken under ncl. Under some kind of limitations on sce/ig, you would see other kinds of combat decks being played. T

In message <3be97e94.231387918@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>Because neither cards, deck types, nor "NCL" are broken, so there is no reason >>to institute xCL. > >An argument advanced versus xcl before was that combat decks would be >hosed against sce. That immortal grapple was the only way to truly >deal with sce. This is not true, though it is true for a category of Potence based combat decks. >IF that's the case, then the only combat deck worth playing under ncl >is a potence IG deck. Therefore the metagame is broken under ncl. It isn't; assumption fails. >Under some kind of limitations on sce/ig, you would see other kinds of >combat decks being played. This is not true. S:CE features redundantly in a number of disciplines - Protean and Presence specifically - in that, in terms of simple presence, it features on more than one card. Under NL, the tricks, traps and benefits of each card can be exploited by a canny player - do they want the untap, or the damage, or the stealth? However, S:CE avoidance techniques rarely feature in a manner that is easily duplicable for many deck styles. In many cases, it is hard for a deck to achieve more than one, possibly two (often a difficult second card to use). For instance, a Lasombra combat-oriented deck would find itself lacking Immortal Grapple. Potentially, it could stretch to Thoughts Betrayed, which is not exactly a duplicate or a useful substitute. A Gangrel deck will find it extremely hard to cope outside of Scorpion Sting (for dodges) and Dog Pack. A Tzimisce deck has Telepathic Tracking. It *may* be able to use Skin Trap for some war of attrition. It *may* be able to use Fast Reactions, if it's blocking and has spare people and is willing to "waste" a combat. A Nosferatu deck has Immortal Grapple. It could, potentially, use Hidden Lurker but has no way of making people block it - because you're playing 4CL, it can't even try to guarantee a block. An Assamite deck has Pysche!, which isn't perfect S:CE circumvention. (It has the problem of card cycling.) It could use Hidden Lurker, but faces a number of problems. It's hard to make you want to block the actions it takes (inherent difficulties of finding large bleed etc.), Contract et al are at stealth and they're Assamites so you expect combat. A Brujah deck has Immortal Grapple, and Psyche! is of extremely limited value to a deck which will covet its Torn Signpost, Fists of Death, Increased Strength and so on. And so on. Do any of these have reliable access to more than one? Possibly. Do any of these have reliable access to three? Four? Majesty, Staredown, Catatonic Fear. Throw in Dodge. Excellent. You just killed combat as a viable deck strategy vs any player who actually thinks about the relative levels of offence and defence available. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >>Limiting that card to 1 per deck would help. I'm not convinced that one is > broken, but I could defenitely see it being a problem and poweful card.>> > > Nope. It would still cause the same problems, just not as often. When it came > up, however, it would still cause the same problems. The way to fix Succubus > Club is to either ban it from competetive play or errata it so it can't cause > the incredible and arbitrary power swings it can. > This reminds me a lot of the first set of tournament rules for playing Magic, which (when it needed a name) was called Type I. Essentially, the cards that were extremely strong were limited to one card per deck. This did absolutely nothing to solve the problem of their strength, but WotC did not want to ban them outright and practically destroy their value. The end result was that the best decks in this format tended to contain the same 20 or so cards (out of 60), which in total would have cost several thousand dollars at the height of their popularity. In this way the variety of the game was greatly decreased. --Bill Barksdale

>It would help, because you could know that if you >SR/Arsoned/Dterr/PolSeizured it, that player would not be getting >another one out. Unless of course Carlotta, Pochtli do their thing. (Or any Giovanni using Whispers or Summon Soul, or *any* deck using the Sargon Fragment for that matter...) Don't you think that a CL (or restricted list) would give the Giovanni an immensely unfair advantage since they could keep on pulling that same card out of the ash heap? Halcyan 2

On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 21:29:21 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3bf19afa.238658843@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>It would help, because you could know that if you >>SR/Arsoned/Dterr/PolSeizured it, that player would not be getting >>another one out. > >Limiting the appearance of a broken card via superficial methods does >not stop it being broken. > >As and when it works, it still works - in exactly the same fashion as >before. > Very true, however I was not speaking about broken cards but arguably broken cards. A subtle distinction. Im sure if we all agreed that Sucubus club was broken, a better response like erratta would be used over limitation on play of that card. T

On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 00:01:44 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> >>An argument advanced versus xcl before was that combat decks would be >>hosed against sce. That immortal grapple was the only way to truly >>deal with sce. > >This is not true, though it is true for a category of Potence based >combat decks. You missed the point. When I suggested various alternative means to counter SCE (as you did in this counterpost) I was told they were largely worthless because ofthe loss of pre-existing combate effects (TS and the like). > >>IF that's the case, then the only combat deck worth playing under ncl >>is a potence IG deck. Therefore the metagame is broken under ncl. > >It isn't; assumption fails. If you want to keep those permanents in play for the combat, it is. > > >Do any of these have reliable access to more than one? Possibly. Do >any of these have reliable access to three? Four? Majesty, Staredown, >Catatonic Fear. Throw in Dodge. > > >Excellent. You just killed combat as a viable deck strategy vs any >player who actually thinks about the relative levels of offence and >defence available. > You are fixated on the 4cl idea. Discard that. The 3 presence SCE above could be limited as a group. Or IG/Psyche could be limited to 6 each. I realize this will likely still offend many's sensibilities of "I want to build whatever I want dammit" but this solution can still work. T

[ quoted text not captured ] Admittedly, that is a tough nut to swallow. The first thing that leaps to mind is that for each card you return to deck/hand in that manner, you must burn a duplicate copy from the game to compensate. A 'ceiling' as it were on such dumpster regeneration, so that the Giovanni would have an advantage still, but not overly so. T

In message <3bf40458.526984313@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 00:01:44 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >wrote: >>>An argument advanced versus xcl before was that combat decks would be >>>hosed against sce. That immortal grapple was the only way to truly >>>deal with sce. >> >>This is not true, though it is true for a category of Potence based >>combat decks. > >You missed the point. The point you made: "That immortal grapple was the only way to truly deal with sce." You have attempted proof through assertion. This is not proof. >When I suggested various alternative means to >counter SCE (as you did in this counterpost) I was told they were >largely worthless because ofthe loss of pre-existing combate effects >(TS and the like). For a certain limited number of combat decks, they will be "worthless". You will, of course, find them of extremely limited use in an archetypal rush-potence combat deck for a number of reasons (being unable to access them in any useful manner, clan requirements etc.). However, they are all potentially useful ways to counter S:CE in the right deck, and all can work in the right deck. Remember your assertion: "That immortal grapple was the only way to truly deal with sce." No ifs, buts, maybes or anything. Just that. For a limited section of decks, this is partially true. As a statement in and of itself, it is completely unsupported. >>>IF that's the case, then the only combat deck worth playing under ncl >>>is a potence IG deck. Therefore the metagame is broken under ncl. >> >>It isn't; assumption fails. > >If you want to keep those permanents in play for the combat, it is. For a limited section of decks, potentially. A number of other decks won't even care. You may also care to revise your terminology, as most of the potence rush decks that you seem to be addressing use very few permanents outside of master cards. And let us remember: "the only combat deck worth playing under ncl is a potence IG deck" This is simply not true, as long experience has shown us. It is based on a false assumption - that IG is the only way to counter S:CE - and leads to a false conclusion. Instead, the train of thought is, in reality: - I am playing a Potence rush deck - I want to avoid being stopped by S:CE, so I can use Torn Signpost etc. effectively - I can use Immortal Grapple - I will avoid S:CE being a problem This is a chain of thought. There are many potential starting points that will all end up at the same "I will avoid S:CE being a problem". It just depends, now, what deck you're playing, what your base starting point is. Are you playing Tzimisce? Yes, then follow a different chain of thought. Are you playing Nosferatu? Follow a slightly different chain of thought. Are you playing Tremere? Then follow a different chain of thought. Your assumption goes the wrong way. There are a number of ways - now - of dealing really very well with S:CE, available to many different decks. If we are playing Jyhad *only* (that is, only the originally released card set - add in V:TES if you care to), playing Immortal Grapple based potence rush decks were one of the few truly viable combat decks. (Though weenies with Zip Guns went a long way, too, because you only had to play DBR after they'd declared strikes. >>Do any of these have reliable access to more than one? Possibly. Do >>any of these have reliable access to three? Four? Majesty, Staredown, >>Catatonic Fear. Throw in Dodge. >> >> >>Excellent. You just killed combat as a viable deck strategy vs any >>player who actually thinks about the relative levels of offence and >>defence available. >> > >You are fixated on the 4cl idea. Taking the variable card limit idea (10/8/6/4/4/4/4...), at each point, you can put in combat offence in the form of the S:CE defence and match it in the opposing deck with S:CE to excess. Since, under such a CL, you know that you cannot see enough counter-S:CE to match, you are extremely likely not to hand-jam - an extremely important factor. Under current NL rules, a number of deck building considerations turn up in the form of "But I won't be able to play that if..." These lose out considerably when you *know* they can't have enough and still have a coherent deck left. So you are going to be able to cycle them much more quickly. Obviously, *some* will get caught. But potentially not enough, and potentially not as many as do now. >Discard that. The 3 presence SCE >above could be limited as a group. In what fashion? Details are necessary. Simply saying "We could do this... *vague gesticulations*" is unlikely to be helpful where concrete mathematics and game-balance considerations are at stake. Actual proposals need to be seen to be discussed. >Or IG/Psyche could be limited to 6 >each. Why on *earth* would you want to limit IG? Though your assertion - that IG based potence rush decks are the only effective combat deck under NL - is untrue, let us assume it is true. So, we drop IG out of front line circulation - it can't work as well. This doesn't mean other combat decks do any better than they did before. Suggestions such as this - which clearly haven't thought out the implications - substantially undermine you. IG potence rush is the only effective combat deck, is your assertion. So we limit IG and don't help other decks (and, indeed, hinder those decks which don't rely on potence but which do rely on Pysche!). Erm... that's just going to hand it to the combat defence brigade on a plate. Excellent. >I realize this will likely still offend many's sensibilities of "I >want to build whatever I want dammit" but this solution can still >work. You have not proposed a solution - you have hand-waved. You have started from a false assumption, which is easily shown as wrong. You have driven this through to a false conclusion. You have then hand-waved at two potential "fixes" - one of which goes completely counter to even your line of argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3bf3028e.526525769@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>>It would help, because you could know that if you >>>SR/Arsoned/Dterr/PolSeizured it, that player would not be getting >>>another one out. >> >>Limiting the appearance of a broken card via superficial methods does >>not stop it being broken. >> >>As and when it works, it still works - in exactly the same fashion as >>before. > >Very true, however I was not speaking about broken cards but arguably >broken cards. A subtle distinction. In the end, not really. When you take action to restore play-balance to a card, whether it was broken or arguably broken, you have crossed the "It needs fixing" threshold. >Im sure if we all agreed that Sucubus club was broken, a better >response like erratta would be used over limitation on play of that >card. Why? On the one side, you have the opinion that it's broken. Fixing it is the only option because play restrictions won't fix anything - they'll just make them occur less frequently. This may even result in larger relative play impact, as people put in fewer counters because of the fact that their hand will be filled. (Aside, by way of example: Consider decks that could only use one Return to Innocence. In some ways, this is even worse than having many because of the huge luck of the draw, game balance issue it creates, along with the fact that since other people can't play lots of it, putting in adequate responses to it will jam your hand.) On the other side, you have the opinion that it's not broken. Limiting it would be useless and, indeed, pointless because it's not broken. Most people will fall into one camp or the other, eventually. A restricted list will help neither side. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3bf5054b.527227578@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>Unless of course Carlotta, Pochtli do their thing. (Or any Giovanni using >>Whispers or Summon Soul, or *any* deck using the Sargon Fragment for that >>matter...) >> >>Don't you think that a CL (or restricted list) would give the Giovanni an >>immensely unfair advantage since they could keep on pulling that same card out >>of the ash heap? > >Admittedly, that is a tough nut to swallow. The first thing that >leaps to mind is that for each card you return to deck/hand in that >manner, you must burn a duplicate copy from the game to compensate. So now we have to introduce yet another rule, to cope with the ineffectiveness and blanket uselessness of card limits. Excellent. I hope everyone's taking notes, there'll be a pop quiz next period. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 12:30:43 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> >>Admittedly, that is a tough nut to swallow. The first thing that >>leaps to mind is that for each card you return to deck/hand in that >>manner, you must burn a duplicate copy from the game to compensate. > >So now we have to introduce yet another rule, to cope with the >ineffectiveness and blanket uselessness of card limits. Excellent. > Glad you agree.*tongue in cheek* Adding a rule when necesary is not repugnant. Save the sarcasm please and either discuss the issue or let it drop. T

On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 12:28:11 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> >>Very true, however I was not speaking about broken cards but arguably >>broken cards. A subtle distinction. > >In the end, not really. > No, really. One we(majority) can agree is broken, the other we cant. >When you take action to restore play-balance to a card, whether it was >broken or arguably broken, you have crossed the "It needs fixing" >threshold. > One needs fixing, one needs limiting. Simple really. >Fixing it is >the only option because play restrictions won't fix anything - they'll >just make them occur less frequently. IF we can agree that it is broken. A problem card is better off limited. Consider it an interm solution. If it seems to work for game balance, 'fixing' the card should not be an issue. T

On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 12:21:56 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >Remember your assertion: "That immortal grapple was the only way to >truly deal with sce." No ifs, buts, maybes or anything. Just that. >For a limited section of decks, this is partially true. As a statement >in and of itself, it is completely unsupported. > Had you followed the previous arguments by other people that led to my statement, you would not say that. As it is, you are nitpicking at best, or antagonizing at worst. Quit it. > >Your assumption goes the wrong way. Actually James, it was an assumption that was presented to me by members of this newsgroup. I just carried it to its logical conlclusion. I do wish I remembered who told me that the other SCE-foilers were largely useless now. Funny that they dont step forward isnt it? > >In what fashion? Details are necessary. Simply saying "We could do >this... *vague gesticulations*" is unlikely to be helpful where concrete >mathematics and game-balance considerations are at stake. Actual >proposals need to be seen to be discussed. > "The 3 presence SCE above could be limited as a group." to X copies. There, happy? I was speaking in generalties because it is clear the proposal did not find much support here. >>Or IG/Psyche could be limited to 6 >>each. > >Why on *earth* would you want to limit IG? > Because I find it as offensive as SCE. It is exceedingly powerful for a no blood cost card. It regularily screws not only SCE but also melee, gun, and thaum decks. Not to mention the less common dem, anim, and vics strike cards. And as its primary role is to counter SCE, 6 sce v 6 IG seems fair. > >You have not proposed a solution - you have hand-waved. > A restricted card list. Limited copies of certain cards. Easy to understand I thought. >You have started from a false assumption, Which wasnt mine. >which is easily shown as >wrong. You have driven this through to a false conclusion. A logical conclusion to that false assumption. It was an academic experiment if you will. T

In message <3bf3d570.580520664@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 12:28:11 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >wrote: >>>Very true, however I was not speaking about broken cards but arguably >>>broken cards. A subtle distinction. >> >>In the end, not really. > >No, really. One we(majority) can agree is broken, the other we cant. However, if you fix something by whatever methods, you have decided that it needs fixing. >>When you take action to restore play-balance to a card, whether it was >>broken or arguably broken, you have crossed the "It needs fixing" >>threshold. >> > >One needs fixing, one needs limiting. Simple really. This is not simple. The reasons why limiting cards is not a useful option have been explained many times. For instance, in the post you responded to. It is notable that that has not been responded to. >>Fixing it is >>the only option because play restrictions won't fix anything - they'll >>just make them occur less frequently. > >IF we can agree that it is broken. If it's not broken, it doesn't need to be touched at all. If it is, it does. >A problem card is better off >limited. This is, again, proof through assertion. >Consider it an interm solution. If it seems to work for >game balance, 'fixing' the card should not be an issue. It produces numerous other problems, a number of which have been explained. Would you care to address those, rather than continued proof through assertion? [ quoted text not captured ]

[A few thoughts (blimey) about Thaumaturgy lower down. *Offensive* use of Elysium/Telepathic Tracking, anyone? Anyone done anything along these lines?] In message <3bf1d24e.579718059@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 12:21:56 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> >wrote: >>Remember your assertion: "That immortal grapple was the only way to >>truly deal with sce." No ifs, buts, maybes or anything. Just that. >>For a limited section of decks, this is partially true. As a statement >>in and of itself, it is completely unsupported. >> > >Had you followed the previous arguments by other people that led to my >statement, you would not say that. This is complete and utter rubbish. There is *no* way on this planet that the assertion "Immortal grapple was the only way to truly deal with sce" is even *slightly* true. >As it is, you are nitpicking at best, You are making unsubstantiated, unsubstantiable straw-men arguments. They are *full* of holes and ill thought out. If you don't care to have them knocked down, don't make such crap arguments. >or antagonizing at worst. Quit >it. It's not, I won't. >>Your assumption goes the wrong way. > >Actually James, it was an assumption that was presented to me by >members of this newsgroup. I just carried it to its logical >conlclusion. No, you didn't. You managed to carry it completely illogically - for instance, your Immortal Grapple proposal. >I do wish I remembered who told me that the other SCE-foilers were >largely useless now. Funny that they dont step forward isnt it? Google is that way. ------> For an archetypal potence rush deck, of the type you reference, they can be all but useless. There are plenty of other ways to skin a cat, however. Your blindness to the many other effective ways of going about combat does not make them any less effective. >>In what fashion? Details are necessary. Simply saying "We could do >>this... *vague gesticulations*" is unlikely to be helpful where concrete >>mathematics and game-balance considerations are at stake. Actual >>proposals need to be seen to be discussed. >> > >"The 3 presence SCE above could be limited as a group." to X copies. What is X? >There, happy? I was speaking in generalties because it is clear the >proposal did not find much support here. Not having support doesn't mean you can't detail a proposal. Indeed, you're often more likely to do well with a detailed proposal that elucidates interesting points, rather than just saying "Oh, well, I think we could do this but I can't be bothered to work out what." >>>Or IG/Psyche could be limited to 6 >>>each. >> >>Why on *earth* would you want to limit IG? >> > >Because I find it as offensive as SCE. Sorry dear, the game's rulings, errata and clarifications aren't based around what you find offensive. They're based around play balance considerations, the rules, card text and so forth. Difference = Huge >It is exceedingly powerful for >a no blood cost card. Let's go through finding counters and problems - some obvious, some extremely playable; some less obvious, more toolboxed. It requires a discipline. It is a combat card. It requires close range, thus packing maneuvers (of any sort, especially Deer Rifle) will require a deck to be packing its own. It does not foil (say) Elysium: The Arboretum (and friends) It does not foil damage prevention (for, chi, vic, pre-emptive Leather Jacket etc.) It does not generate a combat - you still have to generate that, and can't necessarily guarantee who it is against. It has no use against, say, Illusions of the Kindred, and many non- standard ways of dealing with combat (Shadow Step, Cailean and so forth) It limits the deck utilising it in a similar way. Whilst such is a consideration in building the deck (so you won't be relying on using guns), it makes large chunks of the deck predictable. (Well, he *has* to be striking with hands so....) It doesn't prevent claws and multiple other fight-back mechanisms (since most such archetypal potence IG rush decks have little in the way of damage prevention (since Leather Jacket slows them down quite considerably)) It cannot be played more than once per round An Undead Persistence/Trap deck (a not unseen deck) will still beat it It does not prevent a number of cards such as Carrion Crows from causing problems (due to environmental damage sources pre-empting it). The 90 Weather Control deck (a perfectly viable, if focused a little too much for my personal tastes, deck) will kill it The old stalwart of Direct Intervention (especially against a non- focused deck, such as, say, archon rush-vote or bruise and bleed) which is a potential consideration for any deck that is finding itself unable to cope with certain problematic (for it) cards (providing a multi-purpose toolbox, for a price) Ex Nihilo still doesn't care much, similarly Bloodform A defending Methuselah utilising Terror Frenzy will cause havoc (since ani/pot, for similar Drawing out the Beast situations, has its own problems in terms of vampire selection, relative pot, obf/pot or cel/pot (to take various possibly examples) If you let the vampire get into combat, that's up to you. Obedience and Voice of Madness both provide potentially useful antidotes. Lots of potential down-sides, lots of potential combat defence, combat offence, combat avoidance and so forth that will all hurt it. >It regularily screws not only SCE but also >melee, gun, and thaum decks. Thoughtful decks will prepare for the fact that someone is going to have a go at them. It doesn't matter if it's Immortal Grapple followed up by Undead Strength, Quick Meld (2 maneuvers) followed up by Claws of the Dead or Breath of the Dragon - any deck that goes into combat knows that it takes the risk that its opponent will try to hit back, in many ways that they can't stop. (TB only stops certain cards, IG stops certain kinds of strike, Dog Pack only stops a certain kind of strike etc. Combining all or enough of these into one combat deck would be nigh on impossible.) A Thaumaturgy deck can have useful items in the way of Apportation. This will screw up a significant number of close range decks (drawing their precious maneuvers), and provide a "defence" against the hand damage from an unarmed deck. A Thaumaturgy deck might also have The Spirit's Touch and Precognition if it takes an intercept angle - both useful cards for defence. Thoughts Betrayed is a similarly obvious possibility. Indeed, a potentially useful deck could be had that went forward and, if opposed by Nosferatu or Brujah archetype combat decks, tapped the Elysium and played Telepathic Tracking to go to the second round. Purchase Pact could work on the other side, though Kij, Goratrix and Ayelea may be less useful than, say, Javier. Anyone fancy dropping Mariel, Lady Thunder, into a deck? aus DOM tha. Tap to end combat? Possibly too large, for all but the cleverest uses of blood gain/pool gain combinations. Careful use of Chantry, using weenie targets, is useful. Most rush decks can't manage that much stealth (a few Swallowed by the Nights in the Nosferatu, maybe), and you're playing Tremere. > Not to mention the less common dem, >anim, and vics strike cards. Dementation's combat is often regarded mostly as a toy. It's a very nice toy, but no-one is usually going to build a serious combat deck around it. (If nothing else, it's a little expensive. And I wouldn't really want to see e.g. The Path of Madness (like Bone, Paradox etc.) added to the game.) Many deck can get around it, through all sorts of ways - maneuvers, dodge, strike: combat ends etc. It's a useful piece of "bite", but it's rarely serious offence. Animalism has a number of options at its disposal. Carrion Crows is a really useful card. Song of Serenity, similarly, causes unexpected hassle for a potence rush deck - it might not have enough damage, if it's been rationing itself. Aid from Bats and Terror Frenzy are an extremely useful potential combination for such a deck. Do not pass go, do not collect two hundred damage. Its various retainers also provide options - I do really like Murder of Crows, and Owl Companion provides a certain dis-incentive. Vicissitude's strike cards will be a problem, but Vicissitude has a depth in its abilities. You might not be able to play Bonecraft, but you can play Bloodform, Skin Trap, Inner Essence, Body Arsenal, Horrid Form, Chiropteran Marauder, Blood of Acid and so forth. Not to mention that it's combined with Animalism, so a whole Terror Frenzy option is available. >And as its primary role is to counter SCE, 6 sce v 6 IG seems fair. For some values of primary role. Given what it limits itself to, it seems clear that this was not intended - by design - to be its only role. Dodges were also, presumably, considered, and that weapons were supposed to be intrinsically more powerful than they ended up being, it seems likely that it was intended to be used as weapon defence when going on the offence in certain situations too. You've also just knocked out Presence S:CE. Is every other S:CE card still fine to load up on? So I can have twelve copies of Earth Meld and Rapid Change? Meld with the Land? Why do these escape? >>You have not proposed a solution - you have hand-waved. >> > >A restricted card list. It's been explained numerous times precisely why a restricted list doesn't work. If cards are a problem, they're a problem whether in the deck once or twenty times. If they're not, they're not. >Limited copies of certain cards. Easy to >understand I thought. Yet if S:CE is a problem for you, you are also knocking out counter-S:CE with Immortal Grapple and Psyche! limitations. This is not easy to understand. >>You have started from a false assumption, > >Which wasnt mine. If you adopt it, that's your problem. It is a false assumption. You picked it up, you ran with it. It was wrong, your deal. Who said it, why you adopted it - that doesn't matter. You asserted it, you worked with it. >>which is easily shown as >>wrong. You have driven this through to a false conclusion. > >A logical conclusion to that false assumption. And an illogical conclusion as well, based on what you find offensive. There is very little logical about basing rulings for all players based on your concept of offensive. >It was an academic >experiment if you will. Except for the lack of any consistent, coherent thought, fore-planning or work, unfortunately. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3bf2d505.580413564@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>So now we have to introduce yet another rule, to cope with the >>ineffectiveness and blanket uselessness of card limits. Excellent. >> > >Glad you agree.*tongue in cheek* > >Adding a rule when necesary is not repugnant. You have added one rule that wasn't necessary, for reasons that have explained multiple times. Then you've added another rule because your first rule doesn't work. This is rather different from your hypothetical situation of one necessary rule. > Save the sarcasm please >and either discuss the issue or let it drop. Discussion at this point really requires you to put significant thought and effort into defending your view-point from all sorts of criticisms - a number of which you are entirely ignoring. If you would care to address the issues you aren't addressing, you may make some progress. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 23:05:45 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >It produces numerous other problems, a number of which have been >explained. > >Would you care to address those, rather than continued proof through >assertion? > Well the last time I tried to do that with the Giovanni dumpster diving problem, you started to complain that that required another rule. You cant have it both ways James. I'm finished with this. T

On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 23:01:29 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >Except for the lack of any consistent, coherent thought, fore-planning >or work, unfortunately. BS. T

Can we please restrict ourselves to posts with some semblance of content? Thanks, Scott -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

In message <3bf6cdc9.156252010@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes: >>Would you care to address those, rather than continued proof through >>assertion? >> > >Well the last time I tried to do that with the Giovanni dumpster >diving problem, you started to complain that that required another >rule. Yes, it required another rule to fix the mess you'd just made which was unnecessary in the first place. People have been addressing the issues of restricting cards and why it doesn't work. You keep rambling about different fixes, without addressing the fundamental inadequacies of card restriction. Until you do so, all your "work" is resting on an extremely unsound foundation. [ quoted text not captured ]