The English Civil War continues .....

Andrew DAvidson [AD]: The main culprit in this case was legbiter. Legbiter [LB]: What am i guilty of? You stuck this post on the end of an ancient thread about card limits. Are you accusing me of being guilty of card limits, perhaps? AD: He used his tournament report as the launch pad for some ridiculous triumphalism about NCL. LB: No, i used my tournament report to adduce data that refutes an old argument of the pro-cl camp, namely that ncl makes it impossible for people with lowish numbers of cards to play competitively. The evidence i used was that the first, second and third-placed decks in this large, competitive, ncl tournament were all 6cl legal. Since there has been so much interest in this i will put the decks into my next Gangrel antitribu newsletter, so that they can be archived in case the argument comes up again. The winning deck contained a Gangrel antitribu, i notice with some smug pride. AD: This was preaching to the choir but he explicitly "rattled my cage" and so can't complain if I rise to put the opposing view. LB: i actually used your name in a different context, referring to a deck-type [degenerate rush-combat] about which you've complained in the past, IIRC going so far as to say that in your opinion the existence of this deck-type shows that VTES is broken. Accordingly, i said this deck-type rattled your cage. It was present at Watford [run by Niki Sehmi], and got to the final but didn't prove to be a great problem except for poor Chris who only had dodges and 8 million minions as combat defense. And why do you think i would complain about anybody putting an opposing view? If i complain about your arguments it is not because you oppose me, but because i sometimes find them flimsy, legalistic and opinionated. AD: I am not actually a fervent believer in CL for VTES LB: Huzzah! Rejoicing, repentant, sinner, heaven kind of quote. AD: but I just can't let you guys get away with spouting nonsense. LB: So, what have i said that is nonsense? You yourself often use data to back up your opinions, sadly not in this argument, but when you do i like it. Over this matter i have copied your occasional approach by showing, with independently-witnessed and empirically-verifiable material, that in the current ncl environment 6cl-legal decks are competitive. It follows therefore that the suggested impossibility of cl decks competing in a ncl environment is false. This is an important point which needs airing, and a genuinely new contribution to an old debate. Which part of the above is nonsense? AD: It seems that there are still people out there who regularly play VTES with a CL. LB: Indeed, i'm one of them. ALL the decks we play with at home are 4cl-legal, because my wife and Andrew Sparkes [one of my most treasured gaming friends] do not like to play with or against focussed/degenerate decks at all. AD: This is not such a bad thing LB: No, it's not a bad thing. At least we agree about something. i like to drink Blended Scotch, sometimes with ice, lemon or soda. It's a good thing. i like to drink Single Malts. They are better things. AD: and you are wrong to stigmatize them as idiots. LB: That was Matt, i think. But i don't want to be all pedantic about this, because i basically agree with him. However, when we talk about cl idiots we are not wailing on the many groups who play like this, because [a] i belong to one of them, and [b] it really it is up to them; cl is a perfectly fine way to play provided you also have house-rules or some other mechanism to stop everybody building the broken cl malkavian stealth-bleed machine. We ARE wailing on the folk who come on the NG and say that CL should be introduced because it makes the game better, or that ncl allows broken decks to be built [EXACTLY the opposite is true, as it happens]. We think this is like saying that the blending process makes malt whisky better.

On 28 Jun 2001 02:56:19 -0700, legbiter wrote: >Legbiter [LB]: What am i guilty of? You stuck this post on the end of >an ancient thread about card limits. Are you accusing me of being >guilty of card limits, perhaps? Guilty of raising the subject of card limits. Me, I'm guilty of responding to LSJ's jibe - I usually don't respond to ad homs. The way in which that response was threaded must be an artifact of your newsreader. >AD: It seems that there are still people out there who regularly >play VTES with a CL. > >LB: Indeed, i'm one of them. What are we arguing about? I agree that NCL is an interesting and novel feature of the game. You agree that the game can be played in a CL format. All that divides us is a matter of degree and some nitpicking about how we arrive at our conclusions. >We ARE wailing on the folk.. We might as well get something out of this. Not to pick on you, but I've been seeing this mispelling a _lot_ lately. The word is more properly spelt "whaling" and, according to my dictionary, either has something to do with whalebone whips or has the same root as the word "weal". "Wailing" is what players do when someone rushes across table at them. <grin> Andrew

> Guilty of raising the subject of card limits. Me, I'm guilty of > responding to LSJ's jibe - I usually don't respond to ad homs. The > way in which that response was threaded must be an artifact of your > newsreader. > > >AD: It seems that there are still people out there who regularly > >play VTES with a CL. > > > >LB: Indeed, i'm one of them. > > What are we arguing about? I agree that NCL is an interesting and > novel feature of the game. You agree that the game can be played in a > CL format. All that divides us is a matter of degree and some > nitpicking about how we arrive at our conclusions. As a long-time fan of Jyhad, and a newbie player, I am curious as to what is the current player consensus regarding card limits. If this topic has been beaten to death, raised from the dead, beaten yet again, etc, I'd appreciate either a brief summary (i.e. card limits suck!) or a link to old posts. Back in the good ol' days, I remember my M:TG Plague Rat deck getting hosed by card limits, but in the end I thought limits brought more variety to the game. Of course, "newbie player" means my knowledge of V:TES deck stylings is... limited. Cheers, Manny

>> We ARE wailing on the folk.. > > We might as well get something out of this. Not to pick on you, but > I've been seeing this mispelling a _lot_ lately. The word is more > properly spelt "whaling" and, according to my dictionary, either has > something to do with whalebone whips or has the same root as the word > "weal". "Wailing" is what players do when someone rushes across table > at them. <grin> [*OT*]: And when they get ousted, they do not "loose," they "lose." And FOR THE LOVE OF PETE, "Noone" is NOT a word, people! It's "No one"! Someone could get a thesis for linguistics out of the "non-words" that propagate on USENET that were never commonly accepted words before, and certainly aren't correct English (and this from the American, even). </rant> -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> > Someone could get a thesis for linguistics out of the "non-words" that > propagate on USENET that were never commonly accepted words before, and > certainly aren't correct English (and this from the American, even). > </rant> How about australia ? reyda

In message <OoJ_6.99305$lq1.25...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>, Manuel Rivera <mri...@hot.rr.com> writes >As a long-time fan of Jyhad, and a newbie player, I am curious as to what is >the current player consensus regarding card limits. If this topic has been >beaten to death, raised from the dead, beaten yet again, etc, I'd appreciate >either a brief summary (i.e. card limits suck!) or a link to old posts. The official stance is that the game is played without card limits. The Rules Team of the game is currently led by a noted player (LSJ) along with an unknown number of other people. Officially, card limits "suck", therefore. Links wise, you might find: http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/#4-CARD useful, though the articles are now fairly old. Also, search on groups.google.com/advanced_group_search Summary wise: Arguments that people bring out saying CL is good: 1) It promotes creativity. No, it just means you can't have lots of the same card in a deck. 2) It fixes brokeness. The most powerful deck archetype in the game is generally taken as the Malkavian Stealth and Bleed decks. Under CL, a deck cannot reliably bleed bounce. It cannot reliably reduce bleed. It cannot reliably rush the annoying bleeders. It cannot reliably generate pool. And so on. 3) But rare cards are expensive for new players. True, if you want to make certain decks - it is, of course, entirely possible to make a deck with 90 rare cards in it. But that's not really an issue. Many successful, competitive viable decks can be made with common cards. True, there are a number of decks they can't make - but those decks aren't automatically powerful, because they've got rares in them. For the vast majority of cards, their rarity doesn't make them more or less powerful - unlike, say, the Black Lotus was in Magic. This is because the game designers knew that rarity wouldn't fix things. Magic had taught them this 4) But all these horrible combos! If you have a card limit, they can't get pulled off! See above, also. But remember, just because you only have 4 copies of certain cards in a deck doesn't mean you can't pull them at the right time - it's just unlikely. If there's something you don't like, it can still happen, just less often - and having fewer copies of the defence cards means it's also unlikely that you'll be able to defend when whatever combo you're afraid of happens. This also encourages sloppy deck creation and play, to some extent. If you can build around the concept of "Well, he can't do this, this, this and this" it means you never have to adapt to such situations, you can never progress your deck building skills beyond a certain level - because you don't have the flexibility and never need to exercise it properly. You'll never have to think about putting in lots of combat defence - since you'll never face lots of combat offence. Other points: A) Remember, there are a lot of cards - like Corruption - which become pretty useless if you can't have more than 4 of them in a deck. People start making exceptions for these cards - and then you start poking the holes in the entire argument B) There are a lot of inherent factors in the game which limit people far, far more than a card limit can; remember that there is a total deck limit. You have limits on the number of actions you can do, because of your minions. You can't play lots of Lost in Crowds on the same action. You can't block everyone with 20 Enhanced Senses, because of the limits there. You can't cycle stealth endlessly unless people block you. You can't cycle intercept endlessly unless they play stealth. You can't cycle maneuvers endlessly against yourself. You can't cycle presses endlessly against yourself. You can't cycle strikes endlessly, because of the limitations of only one strike card per phase. You can't cycle additional strikes, because of the limits of one source per round. These are internal limits that CL players rarely come up against - because the fact that they are rarely going to have two Lost in Crowds in their hand at the same time makes it unlikely they'll regularly bump into the "1 action modifier per minion per action" rules. People can screw up their own deck under NL, because they will fall into those problems if they put too many in. C) People who only have a limited card pool can play perfectly competitive decks. Indeed, some of the best decks come very close to a 6 card limit. D) You miss out on some of the most inventive, creative decks in the game if you instigate card limits. The Betrayer Deck, the Madness Network Out-Of-Turn Rotschreck deck, the Cryptic Mission/Society of Leopold deck are all perfectly, perfectly viable decks which can be defended against by players with properly constructed decks, which aren't too powerful, which provide diverse opponents for you. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F "Analogies can be dangerous, Amanda," he begins, smiling B457CA213D7E6 slightly, "because the world is like a sandcastle..." 68C3695D623D5D

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<2CDE7155B8CFAF35.29211853...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 28 Jun 2001 02:56:19 -0700, legbiter wrote: > > >Legbiter [LB]: What am i guilty of? You stuck this post on the end of > >an ancient thread about card limits. Are you accusing me of being > >guilty of card limits, perhaps? > > Guilty of raising the subject of card limits. True, and fair. Me, I'm guilty of > responding to LSJ's jibe - I usually don't respond to ad homs. The > way in which that response was threaded must be an artifact of your > newsreader. > > >AD: It seems that there are still people out there who regularly > >play VTES with a CL. > > > >LB: Indeed, i'm one of them. > > What are we arguing about? I agree that NCL is an interesting and > novel feature of the game. You agree that the game can be played in a > CL format. All that divides us is a matter of degree and some > nitpicking about how we arrive at our conclusions. So it now appears. Good! Who says that Usenet must always be nah-nah ya-boo bollocks? > > >We ARE wailing on the folk.. > > We might as well get something out of this. Not to pick on you, but > I've been seeing this mispelling a _lot_ lately. The word is more > properly spelt "whaling" and, according to my dictionary, either has > something to do with whalebone whips or has the same root as the word > "weal". "Wailing" is what players do when someone rushes across table > at them. <grin> Quite right, and i apologise for the mis-spelling. Of course, i reserve the right to wail, moan and gesticulate when somebody comes at me cross table... > > Andrew

Thanks... that was pretty enlightening. You certainly make a strong argument in favor of deck limits; Lord knows how useless Corruption would become, and then where would my poor FoS be? - Manny

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9hfti2$kcl$1...@quark.noos.net... [ quoted text not captured ] mmm...What about Australia? Our written english is identical to the english of the UK however the wolves of US culture are baying at the door. Already we are seeing signs that read "thru" and "tonite"...shudder..

In message <3b3b...@news.iprimus.com.au>, theventrue <chr...@comcen.com.au> writes >mmm...What about Australia? Our written english is identical to the english >of the UK <troll mode="racist" level="offensive"> Another thing they stole? </troll> [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:5+weyHzbl$O7E...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3b3b...@news.iprimus.com.au>, theventrue > <chr...@comcen.com.au> writes > >mmm...What about Australia? Our written english is identical to the english > >of the UK > > <troll mode="racist" level="offensive"> > > Another thing they stole? > > </troll> > Yep, that's right, we stole the best parts of england and transplanted them in a place with a better climate and better beaches. not that i descend from any of those convicts but it's a badge of honour in Oz if you do!

Pat Ricochet wrote: > > [*OT*]: And when they get ousted, they do not "loose," they "lose." > > And FOR THE LOVE OF PETE, "Noone" is NOT a word, people! It's "No >one"! Someone could get a thesis for linguistics out of the >"non-words" that propagate on USENET that were never commonly accepted >words before, and certainly aren't correct English (and this from the >American, even). > And "irregardless" (shudder). -- chris shorb <www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site in development) prince of torrance, california Ultimate Disc - Hockey - Vampire the Eternal Struggle Ebay page <http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/vtessingles/>

Chris Shorb <chr...@vtesinla.org> wrote: >Pat Ricochet wrote: >> >> [*OT*]: And when they get ousted, they do not "loose," they "lose." >> >> And FOR THE LOVE OF PETE, "Noone" is NOT a word, people! It's "No >one"! > Someone could get a thesis for linguistics out of the >"non-words" that > propagate on USENET that were never commonly accepted >words before, and > certainly aren't correct English (and this from the >American, even). > >And "irregardless" (shudder). It gets worse: While "noone" is not a word, "irregardless" is, according to webster. www.m-w.com -- 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/

Chris Shorb <chr...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:<3B3C267B...@vtesinla.org>... > Pat Ricochet wrote: > > > > [*OT*]: And when they get ousted, they do not "loose," they "lose." > > > > And FOR THE LOVE OF PETE, "Noone" is NOT a word, people! It's "No >one"! Someone could get a thesis for linguistics out of the >"non-words" that propagate on USENET that were never commonly accepted >words before, and certainly aren't correct English (and this from the >American, even). > > > > And "irregardless" (shudder). i am kinda with y'all on this though i reserve the right of people who know how the language ought to be spoken and written to mis-use it for fun, either occasionally or systematically. But don't altogether diss the neologisers, comrades. i well remember once hearing an interview with somebody who had narrowly avoided being killed during one of the pogroms which marked Milton Obote's second period of power in Uganda. This chap said that he had been very chanceful to escape. i think chanceful is a lovely word and i use it whenever i, erm, get the chance. Noone is not so pretty but it has a history, too; it's used passim in the Molesworth books, which are probably only funny if you've been to school in Britain [and/or possibly aren't known about AT ALL oustide the UK]. Swiz is another grand word from Molesworth.

I just have to leap in and be petty here. There were in fact a few separate English Civil Wars. The only truly cool thing that I remember from my classes was that there were Scots fighting for both Charles and the Parliament. BTW, Scotland could well become a republic before Australia ;-) Hell, *England* could. Now that would be profoundly embarrassing... -Michael legbiter <legb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:68f2e9f8.01062...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Michael Bradley" <michael...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<ZC1%6.11632$mO.2...@ozemail.com.au>... > I just have to leap in and be petty here. > There were in fact a few separate English Civil Wars. > The only truly cool thing that I remember from my classes > was that there were Scots fighting for both Charles and the > Parliament. > BTW, Scotland could well become a republic before > Australia ;-) Hell, *England* could. Now that would be > profoundly embarrassing... > > -Michael I don't know, the war between King Stefen and the Empress Maud were interesting. Although, they were gory, mean, and treacherous. Cameron

legbiter <legb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:68f2e9f8.01062...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Ah. Correct spelling. It was perhaps a properly placed post from a particulary punctilious pedant. I'm quite glad that somebody looked that one up. I've used it because it sounds good, but typed it "wailing (sp?)"... Michael No more cerebrospinal-fluid tests. if you please...