Deck limitations at GenCon (sanctioned VTES tournament)

I was at GenCon this past weekend, and signed up for the VTES Sanctioned Tournament (i.e., the one being run by WotC). At the beginning of the tournament (actually, about 10 minutes after it was supposed to have begun) a WotC rep announced the deck limitations -- no ante cards and no more than four of any given card! Players were given about 15 minutes to tweak their decks. I only had a my deck with me (no extra cards), and it had 5-8 copies of some cards. So I dropped out before play began. This would seem like good info to disseminate *before* the convention. Hunter -- J. Hunter Johnson jhun...@io.com (Illuminati Online) "Good job, ratboy. See you in hell." -- Gibby, cheerfully to Martin after Martin betrays his secretary (HBO's Dream On 8/9/95).

In article <40q095$d...@pentagon.io.com>, J. Hunter Johnson <jhun...@io.com> wrote: >I was at GenCon this past weekend, and signed up for the VTES Sanctioned >Tournament (i.e., the one being run by WotC). > >At the beginning of the tournament (actually, about 10 minutes after it >was supposed to have begun) a WotC rep announced the deck limitations -- >no ante cards and no more than four of any given card! Players were >given about 15 minutes to tweak their decks. Everybody get this? WotC takes great pains to make a no-restriction-needed card game, blows it with mis-rulings on some basic levels, and tries to cover their collectives by slapping a no-thought card limit on a game, when it has already been clearly shown that such a card limit (esp. one with no consideration to the size of the deck) breaks the game. Fix the rules, WotC, and the decks will follow. -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger | and subject to card text

jhun...@io.com (J. Hunter Johnson) wrote: >I was at GenCon this past weekend, and signed up for the VTES Sanctioned >Tournament (i.e., the one being run by WotC). > >At the beginning of the tournament (actually, about 10 minutes after it >was supposed to have begun) a WotC rep announced the deck limitations -- >no ante cards and no more than four of any given card! Players were >given about 15 minutes to tweak their decks. > >I only had a my deck with me (no extra cards), and it had 5-8 copies of >some cards. So I dropped out before play began. > >This would seem like good info to disseminate *before* the convention. Peace Hunter, Just more evidence of WotC's continuing efforts to destroy their better game. Just say "No!", to card limits, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

Hmm..this is confusing. So is 4 copies per card the official ruling? That would suck, and yes, the game will be hurt baaaaaadly. But if that's the official rule, I think we should all go by it and keep complaining or just play your own house rules.... ---jAMES, who's taking out many of his grave robbing cards--- .

jhun...@io.com (J. Hunter Johnson) writes: >I was at GenCon this past weekend, and signed up for the VTES Sanctioned >Tournament (i.e., the one being run by WotC). >At the beginning of the tournament (actually, about 10 minutes after it >was supposed to have begun) a WotC rep announced the deck limitations -- >no ante cards and no more than four of any given card! Players were >given about 15 minutes to tweak their decks. Three possibilities on this one, all of them bad: 1) There was nobody to run the Jyhad tournament. They hauled in some Magic tournament official who didn't know any better. (My favorite explanation; this indicates only lack of interest, or, if we're really lucky, just an untimely epidemic affecting the WotC Jyhad staff) 2) Somebody clued them in on the power of the untap cards or the severity of the vote-pushing misrule. They threw on the 4-card limit in a desperate attempt to fix things, not realizing that, while Freak Drive and pushable KRC's create broken decks, 4-card limits make Jyhad come apart at the seams and create a broken GAME. 3) They've completely lost it. Gracious, even if you did want to impose card limits in Jyhad (a bad idea) you wouldn't want 4. You need at least 15% rushes (6 Bum's Rushes and 6 Haven Uncovered in an 80-card deck) for operational rush decks and at least 10% bleed bounce for Ventrue vote decks (8 Deflections in an 80-card deck). Less those decks, there is no Jyhad game. There's a lot of other decks that need certain cards in large numbers to deal with certain tricks, but those 2 are essential to prevent Jyhad: the Malkavianade. Incidentally, I played at a tournament run by somebody who'd almost been a victim of my Freaky Bleed deck at the one tournament I played it. He decided to install 4-card limits. I sat down and built, on the spot, one of these boring 4-of-every-stealth and 4-of-every-bleed and 4-of-every-card-you-want-in-a-Malk/Tremere-dominated-game Malk decks (I normally don't play such things). In the first round, I simply plowed through a table of 2 players trying to play non-Malk decks (functional concepts, both of them, but they had no chance with 4-card) and a beginner Malk deck crippled by a lack of access to rare and uncommon cards (normally also functional, but, again, not with card limits). The second round never happened, partly as there were some scheduling conflicts, and partly as it was judged unlikely anybody could catch me. The tournament director does NOT intend to use card limits for his next tournament, thank god. >I only had a my deck with me (no extra cards), and it had 5-8 copies of >some cards. So I dropped out before play began. Boy, what a bummer. I'm now carrying around that Malkavian monstrosity deck just in case I run into 4-card somewhere. >This would seem like good info to disseminate *before* the convention. Anybody who wishes to depart from standard tournament rules must announce it in advance, even if it's for a very good reason. I would think this particularly true of the company that published the tournament rules, but maybe I'm just old-fashioned :-) Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: >Gracious, even if you did want to impose card limits in Jyhad (a bad idea) >you wouldn't want 4. You need at least 15% rushes (6 Bum's Rushes and 6 >Haven Uncovered in an 80-card deck) for operational rush decks and at >least 10% bleed bounce for Ventrue vote decks (8 Deflections in an 80-card >deck). Less those decks, there is no Jyhad game. There's a lot of other >decks that need certain cards in large numbers to deal with certain >tricks, but those 2 are essential to prevent Jyhad: the Malkavianade. >Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) My group has been together for about 6 months now and we have always played a 4 card limit. After following a similar thread for a while I suggested that we try no limits and I was greeted with a *gasp* of magnanimous proportions. I seem to remember mention of an article written here outlining in detail why a card limit in Jyhad is a bad idea. If anyone could email or repost it I would be grateful. Back to the issue: Malk decks dont tend to last long in our group. Soon, as a malk hits the table, that Methuselah is usually history in a few turns. The problem card we see with no limits is Majesty. A Toreador deck with loads of these would be about THE most annoying deck I would ever have to face. Scott Larabee smla...@uci.edu IRC #mtg "Fuchi"

On 15 Aug 1995, J. Hunter Johnson wrote: > I was at GenCon this past weekend, and signed up for the VTES Sanctioned > Tournament (i.e., the one being run by WotC). > > At the beginning of the tournament (actually, about 10 minutes after it > was supposed to have begun) a WotC rep announced the deck limitations -- > no ante cards and no more than four of any given card! Players were > given about 15 minutes to tweak their decks. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO EVIL EVIL EVIL EVIL EVIL Very Bad..... Algustas *****EVIL. That which one believes of others. It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake.*****H. L. Mencken

jhun...@io.com (J. Hunter Johnson) wrote: >I was at GenCon this past weekend, and signed up for the VTES Sanctioned >Tournament (i.e., the one being run by WotC). >At the beginning of the tournament (actually, about 10 minutes after it >was supposed to have begun) a WotC rep announced the deck limitations -- >no ante cards and no more than four of any given card! Players were >given about 15 minutes to tweak their decks. >I only had a my deck with me (no extra cards), and it had 5-8 copies of >some cards. So I dropped out before play began. >This would seem like good info to disseminate *before* the convention. Well if they had there probably would have been enough backlash from the newsgroup to make them make a saner decision and we couldn't have *that*. I made it to the finals and had the eventual winner down to 1 pool (he woke twice and deflected 2 Day Operation bleeds from a Famed vampire in the same turn-->I Freak Drived the Famed vamp on his way to torpor and rescued him for the second Day Op bleed). And guess what?! The champ was playing a Malkavian S & B deck! Who'd of thunk it? Actually I'd expected Malks to be everywhere and had a couple of Dementia's in my deck. If I'd had four (or six without card limits) then I'd have had a better chance. Now that Fame is unique I really don't see why anything needs to be restricted. Freak drives can be vicious in quantity but it isn't even close to Magic's Time Walk for instance. I would strongly suggest that the WOTC people solicit the advice of the gaming community in determining deck construction limitations. Magic has set a precedent but this is a different game. If there are particular cards that are so vicious then restrict them and leave the rest of the cards alone. Maybe a standard limit of 8 or 10 with a limit of 4 for the more unbalancing cards. Again now that Fame has been fixed I think there's an effective defense against any supposedly game-breaking strategy. BTW the format of the tournament was a bit cooler than the deck construction rules: 4 rounds of Swiss style play with total victory points determining who would play in the final round. (I got skunked in the first round and was obviously happy to have had another chance.) Jeff Ingalls yo...@aol.com

Sounds like all you guys have ever played is no limit games. In Sacramento we have always had the 4 card limit in place and the ONLY clanthat has almost no chance of winning is Brujah. I have only seen one such deck win (a seven player game with 2 Malks and 1 Tremeir). Numerous players have finely tune decks of 60 cards that have no problems with card shortages in a seven player game. The card limit just forces you to get more creative with your combos instead of relying on KRC, Majesty and other overused cards. SABRjay I'll catch up on my sleep after I am dead.

je...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (jAMES e. lIN) writes: >Hmm..this is confusing. So is 4 copies per card the official ruling? Not to my knowledge. The very last word I had on it was that there was no DC limits of any sort on any card type. My Duelist Companion with the oficial DC deck construction rules for Jyhad is at home but if I recall correctly the only major deviation from the rulebook deck construction rules was the overall deck size (60-80 cards regardless of number of players, if memory serves). >That would suck, and yes, the game will be hurt baaaaaadly. If that game was advertised as DC-sanctioned, WotC ought to do some explaining here. They don't let non-WotC sponsors running DC tournaments deviate from the official rules. It seems to me that WotC should also stick to their own rules. Fred

sab...@cwo.com wrote: : The card limit just forces you to : get more creative with your combos instead of relying on KRC, Majesty : and other overused cards. I don't think that you will find anyone on this group who will argue that both Majesty and KRC are undervalued/overused/abused cards (along with some others, i.e. WWEF), BUT the main thrust of no-limit arguments is that there is no point limiting over 98% of the cards because 2% are improperly made. Limits on specific (broken) cards - sure. Limits based on a percentage of deck size - more objectionable, but still playable. To lift whole cloth a card limit from a game that was never designed to be played without limits without even really examining the issue is rather silly. Magic was originally designed with two inherent limits. It was expected that people would spend about as much on the game as they would with any other RPG/Wargame ($30-$75), and it was designed to be played for Ante: in this way, all-common decks would win less-often but take more valuable cards from more powerful, rare-dependent decks. When it became obvious that neither of these laboratory conditions carried over to the real world, it became quickly obvious that the game was broken. The 4-card limit was designed to circumvent this breakage. Jyhad was designed (by all external evidence) to fit together as a cohesive whole, and not to need card limits. Granted, a few mistakes were made and a few bad rulings have been made by the DT, but generally, the game works better without card limits than with them. If you don't think so, try anything other than a Malkavian S&B deck against Curt's aforementioned 4-card monster. I'll lay odds as to who comes out on top... "This isn't about answers. It's about questions. Having the right question will succeed every time; having the right answer will succeed only when the right question is asked. And how often does the universe ever ask the _right_ question of you?" -- David Gerrold, _The Middle of Nowhere_ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shane H.W. Travis | tra...@duke.usask.ca | Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

SMLA...@uci.edu (Scott Larabee)n writes: >My group has been together for about 6 months now and we have always >played a 4 card limit. After following a similar thread for a while I >suggested that we try no limits and I was greeted with a *gasp* of >magnanimous proportions. I seem to remember mention of an article >written here outlining in detail why a card limit in Jyhad is a bad >idea. If anyone could email or repost it I would be grateful. It's on its way, I hear. >Back to the issue: Malk decks dont tend to last long in our group. >Soon, as a malk hits the table, that Methuselah is usually history in >a few turns. Well,if the whole table can efficaciously gang up on one player, that will stop just about anything. But, as I read in another discussion somewhere, that just proves the power of the deck - nobody has a chance against it alone. > The problem card we see with no limits is Majesty. A >Toreador deck with loads of these would be about THE most annoying >deck I would ever have to face. You're right on Majesty - it's a "whoops" card. But the solution is to recost Majesty (I recommend adding a blood cost of one) or, if worst comes to worst, restricting Majesty. The power of Majesty is no reason to restrict Dodge. Incidentally, the whole table ganging up will toast a no-limits Majestic Bleed at least as well as a Malk Bleed under 4-card. One Brujah rush deck in the game and it's Sayonara, Mr. Majesty. There are a couple of "whoops" cards about (about a dozen, IMO), and there's been a lot of discussion here on which they are and how to fix them. But the problem cards give reason to restrict or change the problem cards, and are no reason to restrict any other card in the game. I'm of the opinion that a Ventrue Majesty deck is scarier that a Toreador, although both would be pretty bad. P.S. "Magnamious" isn't the right word. I suspect you meant "monstrous" :-) But we all know what you meant. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

<sab...@cwo.com> writes: >Sounds like all you guys have ever played is no limit games. I wish. I suffered under 4-card and all its associated problems form months. >In Sacramento we have always had the 4 card limit in place and the ONLY >clanthat has almost no chance of winning is Brujah. Under no-limit rules EVERY clan and indeed EVERY clan combo with shared disciplines has a good chance of winning. 20 different combos. It's a big contrast. Brujah, BTW are a great clan. >I have only seen one >such deck win (a seven player game with 2 Malks and 1 Tremeir). Numerous >players have finely tune decks of 60 cards that have no problems with >card shortages in a seven player game. The card limit just forces you to >get more creative with your combos instead of relying on KRC, Majesty >and other overused cards. KRC and Majesty are problem cards (actually a problem ruling and a problem card) and DO have to be fixed. But that has nothing to do with the appropriateness of 4-card (or any other number) limits for other cards. The unbelievable variety and ease of deck design without card limits is a shocking contrast to the stereotyped decks and bizarre contortions with 4-card. Oh, the things I see, with Tremere decks trying to eek out presses or Nosferatu trying to stop Malk decks. It'd be funny if people didn't waste so much time on it. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Jeff Ingalls writes: >BTW the format of the tournament was a bit cooler than the deck >construction rules: 4 rounds of Swiss style play with total victory >points determining who would play in the final round. (I got skunked in >the first round and was obviously happy to have had another chance.) Now THAT was a good system. Complements to WotC for the Swiss setup. How long did it take? Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <40ss7j$6...@mksrv1.dseg.ti.com>, Charles T. Schwope <ch...@fpah1.dseg.ti.com> wrote: >CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: >: There are a couple of "whoops" cards about (about a dozen, IMO), and > > I'm just curious as to what the list of "whoops" cards is, and what >people have done to fix them in their groups. I haven't played anywhere >near enough (or had the number of cards needed) to see which cards are >broken. Check out L. Scott Johnson's House Rules list that he posts every couple of weeks to this group. It's a very comprehensive list of what most people think is wrong and how we have corrected what we see. It's totally unofficial, but it's a great resource. | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "There. That should do nicely. After all, we don't want the locals to see grannies clipped to trash bins by their teeth, do we?" -- Mr. Gone

> >At the beginning of the tournament (actually, about 10 minutes after it > >was supposed to have begun) a WotC rep announced the deck limitations -- > >no ante cards and no more than four of any given card! Players were > >given about 15 minutes to tweak their decks. I remember that when Jyhad first came out, there was discussions on card limits, and 4 turned up to be the magic number. In all the discussions we figured that at tournys, there would be a 4 card limit, so we(the ones active during the discussion, and no I don't remember who :) ) desided to play with a 4 card limit. and If at tournys no limit was implied, grab the cards you would love to have that would put you over that 4 card limit. Yes, you can make some real cool decks if you can put a lot of certain cards in, but you see how good you really are when you have a limit, and keep it to that small of a number. FYI

On Tue, 15 Aug 1995, Scott Larabee wrote: > My group has been together for about 6 months now and we have always > played a 4 card limit. After following a similar thread for a while I > suggested that we try no limits and I was greeted with a *gasp* of > magnanimous proportions. I seem to remember mention of an article > written here outlining in detail why a card limit in Jyhad is a bad > idea. If anyone could email or repost it I would be grateful. Scott, I glad someone remembers the conversations, I was beining to think I was the only one. <G> Terry

CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: : There are a couple of "whoops" cards about (about a dozen, IMO), and : there's been a lot of discussion here on which they are and how to fix : them. But the problem cards give reason to restrict or change the problem : cards, and are no reason to restrict any other card in the game. I'm just curious as to what the list of "whoops" cards is, and what people have done to fix them in their groups. I haven't played anywhere near enough (or had the number of cards needed) to see which cards are broken. Also I'm hopefully going to start playing regularly (if I can find some people to play) and this discusion about card limits has made me think I'm going to have to fight to get a no-limit rule installed (even though it won't really effect me since I have more then 4 or like 2 cards only). I know that the one person who plays Jyhad that I know if for card limits. -- Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a ch...@fpah1.dseg.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.

On 16 Aug 1995, CurtAdams wrote: > Incidentally, the whole table ganging up will toast a no-limits Majestic > Bleed at least as well as a Malk Bleed under 4-card. One Brujah rush deck > in the game and it's Sayonara, Mr. Majesty. Well, the whole table ganging up should beat pretty much any deck. As for the Brujah Majesty stomper, it only works if you've got more than 1 or 2 Immortal Grapples and/or Psyches. --------- Paul Schaaf sch...@u.washington.edu

ch...@fpah1.dseg.ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) writes: >CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: >: There are a couple of "whoops" cards about (about a dozen, IMO), and >: there's been a lot of discussion here on which they are and how to fix >: them. But the problem cards give reason to restrict or change the problem >: cards, and are no reason to restrict any other card in the game. > I'm just curious as to what the list of "whoops" cards is, and what >people have done to fix them in their groups. I haven't played anywhere >near enough (or had the number of cards needed) to see which cards are >broken. A semi-consensus "whoops" list: Freak Drive Majesty WwEF 5th Tradition Taste of Vitae Dragonsbreath Rounds My personal list is longer, but I haven't had much support on the rest. The simple (although less satisfying) fix is to restrict them. The better fix is to fix the cards; suggestions can be found on L. Scott Johnson's house rules list. > Also I'm hopefully going to start playing regularly (if I can find >some people to play) and this discusion about card limits has made me think >I'm going to have to fight to get a no-limit rule installed (even though it >won't really effect me since I have more then 4 or like 2 cards only). I >know that the one person who plays Jyhad that I know if for card limits. It's very worth it to play Jyhad w/o limits. 2-player Jyhad is particularly bland with limits, as it's very tough to have a variety of significantly different strategies, which makes 2-player fly. (If it's two very similar decks, he who gets the first advantage usually wins). You can get more by trading the commons you don't use for the ones you do - e.g., Wolf Claws for Bum's Rush. The majority of good non-$$$ deck need at least 8 of at least one card. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Terry Jarrard <jar...@galaxy.galstar.com> writes: >I remember that when Jyhad first came out, there was discussions on card >limits, and 4 turned up to be the magic number. > If at tournys no limit was implied, grab >the cards you would love to have that would put you over that 4 card limit. My group had a great time at Manafest trashing the people who thought that the cards that were so awesome in their 4-card games (like Deflection) would win them tourneys. In one tournament our 3 players took 1, 2, and 3! >Yes, you can make some real cool decks if you can put a lot of certain >cards in, but you see how good you really are when you have a limit, and >keep it to that small of a number. Deck design under card limits is like deck design with other weird constraints (1 guy in my group built a deck with only female-oriented cards. It even kinda worked!) But it's only loosely related to deck design skill, and the contorted decks it produces greatly reduce the strategy of the game, amongst many other problems. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: >>Jeff Ingalls writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Eleven and a half hours for a total of five rounds of play. I'm really going through a bad bout of withdrawal. It really sucks when you can't get your 10 hours of Jyhad in every day. Jeff Ingalls (yo...@aol.com)

4-card limits make Jyhad come apart at >the seams and create a broken GAME. This coming from someone who obviously has never played card restrictions. Less those decks, there is no Jyhad game. mabe for you guys that like to play no card restriction, If that is the way you like then great play that way, play the type of tournaments that allow you to play the way you like. >of these boring 4-of-every-stealth and 4-of-every-bleed and ^^^^^ Here is were some people differ,I think that playing with 10 different cards is boring, Yeah they have there neat little combos,but wear thin quite quickly. >Boy, what a bummer. I'm now carrying around that Malkavian monstrosity >deck just in case I run into 4-card somewhere. Any skilled player can design a deck to counter a Malk bleed deck. I am suprised by the controversy this topic seems to garnish. Errol

In article <40qlai$a...@agate.berkeley.edu> je...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (jAMES e. lIN) writes: >From: je...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (jAMES e. lIN) >Subject: Re: Deck limitations at GenCon (sanctioned VTES tournament) >Date: 15 Aug 1995 17:25:38 GMT [ quoted text not captured ] >. Who's official ruling? Do we have to depend on WotC for tournament rules? WE can decide on some tournament rules, submit them to WotC as the players' opinion of what the rules should be, and if they don't agree, so what? I've run Magic tournaments in my town for the last 2 years with slight rule differences from Duelist sanctioned tournaments with great success. Let's try and avoid spoon feeding and think for ourselves. We are the actual players of the game, after all -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Andrews S2...@nmu.edu

In <40toib$c...@bert.compusmart.ab.ca> Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes: > >>4-card limits make Jyhad come apart at >>the seams and create a broken GAME. > >This coming from someone who obviously has never played card >restrictions. Ahem. I'd suggest you read Curt's posts more carefully before making such an assertion. I also know for a fact that Curt have played plenty of Jyhad (and Magic too!) with cards restriction. > >>Less those decks, there is no Jyhad game. > >mabe for you guys that like to play no card restriction, If that is the >way you like then great play that way, play the type of tournaments that >allow you to play the way you like. It's not a matter of choice. It's more a matter of game balance (there are several excellent posted articles on this subject). In any case, most CCG tournaments follow tourney rules imposed by the company that produces the CCG in question (does the name Duelists' Convocation ring a bell ?) The 4 cards limit "house rule" came directly from the Duelists' Convocation's Magic the Gathering tournament rules. The current Duelists' Convocation's VTES (Jyhad) tournament rules contain no such restriction. Are you playing Jyhad or are you playing Magic ? > > >>of these boring 4-of-every-stealth and 4-of-every-bleed and > ^^^^^ >Here is were some people differ,I think that playing with 10 different >cards is boring, Yeah they have there neat little combos,but wear thin >quite quickly. Why have a limit at 4 cards ? How about 3, or 2, or just 1 ? Can you explain why we need such an *arbitrary* limit ? I find it very strange that you feel it is boring to have more options when building decks. > >>Boy, what a bummer. I'm now carrying around that Malkavian monstrosity >>deck just in case I run into 4-card somewhere. > >Any skilled player can design a deck to counter a Malk bleed deck. Under the 4 cards limit and without having most of the players ganging up on the Malk player ? Please back up your assertion with a sample deck listing... > >I am suprised by the controversy this topic seems to garnish. You shouldn't be. A lot of us do not care to play Jyhad like a variant of Magic the Gathering. > > >Errol

><etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes: [el-snippo] >>I am suprised by the controversy this topic seems to garnish. Garnish? Is that like parsley? Sorry. English major on the loose here... I think he meant "garner," though IMHO "generate" would be a better word... ObJyhad: 4-card limits are eeeeevil. The Malks would steal the whole game. Tho I could see you making a 4-card limit political combat deck that might work - Archons & Bloodhunts for rushers, potence cards, sengir dagger, etc. Rake & Hector Sosa, Agrippina for starters. Lots of Praxis Seizures. It's a bit of a $$$ deck, which is sad. Also, I tend to disagree with the point that Majesty is broken... I tend to build desks that use up to 8 Majesties (any more than that and they start to jam my hand), and they regularly get hosed by my boyfriend's psychotic (and yes, effective in taking out more than just Majesty decks) combat decks. If you put too many Majesties in your deck, they jam it up. Too few, and your weenie obfustcate/domnate/presence deck is torporised before you can even get that first boosted bleed. Judy -- "As you know, I am a Jew, so I am going back to my vault where I control the media." -- Jon Lovitz, 1995 MTV Movie Awards *** jcoo...@eng.umd.edu * http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jcookson ***

Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes: >> 4-card limits make Jyhad come apart at >>the seams and create a broken GAME. >This coming from someone who obviously has never played card >restrictions. I wish. I suffered under card limits for months. I didn't oppose them so much until I experienced them. (I thought I said this yesterday - am I having deja vu here? :-) >>less those decks, there is no Jyhad game. >mabe for you guys that like to play no card restriction, If that is the >way you like then great play that way, play the type of tournaments that >allow you to play the way you like. If Wizards sticks on 4-card limits to patch up holes they created or chose not to fix, we may have to. I don't think they are that clueless, though. >>of these boring 4-of-every-stealth and 4-of-every-bleed and ^^^^^ >Here is were some people differ,I think that playing with 10 different >cards is boring, Yeah they have there neat little combos,but wear thin >quite quickly. Ah you're denying yourself one of the great pleasures of Jyhad play. In Jyhad, the combos don't wear thin. In many card games, the limit on what you can do comes from what you've been lucky enough to draw. Draw a combo, it goes off. Effectively you play against Lady Luck and your own deck construction rules. In Jyhad, if you want a combo, you can arrange for it to be fairly reliable. What stops you is not luck or deck construction rules - it is the other players, spinning their own webs and combos. Believe me, they are far more capable and interesting opponents than luck or deck construction rules. You get a fascinating environment where decks and players evolve against each other. As Richard Dawkins points out, evolution is much more interesting when things evolve against each other than when they evolve against external limits. >>Boy, what a bummer. I'm now carrying around that Malkavian monstrosity >>deck just in case I run into 4-card somewhere. >Any skilled player can design a deck to counter a Malk bleed deck. Without limits, sure. With limits, only the Tremere. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

B >> I'm just curious as to what the list of "whoops" cards is, and what >>people have done to fix them in their groups. I haven't played anywhere >>near enough (or had the number of cards needed) to see which cards are >>broken. > >A semi-consensus "whoops" list: > >Freak Drive >Majesty >WwEF >5th Tradition >Taste of Vitae >Dragonsbreath Rounds > are these cards "whoops" as in they are printed wrong (i don't think so) or they unbalance gameplay? I thought the original thread was the unacknowledged misprints, but i could be wrong. On that subject, what is the consensus list for that? gnfnrf

Alan Eisinger (eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu) wrote: : : >A semi-consensus "whoops" list: : > : >Freak Drive : >Majesty : >WwEF : >5th Tradition : >Taste of Vitae : >Dragonsbreath Rounds : > : are these cards "whoops" as in they are printed wrong (i don't think so) or : they unbalance gameplay? Mostly the latter. Almost all Jyhad cards as printed are fine, in that they all have different strengths and weaknesses, or advantages in specific situations and weaknesses in others. Some of the 'whoops' cards above are such that there is (almost) no conceivable situation where they are worse than a similar card of that type, and others are simply written in such a way that they unbalance the game. Fame was one such card until WotC came up with the fix for it that it did - and now it is no longer a 'whoops' card. Shane H.W. Travis | When a stupid man is doing something he is tra...@duke.usask.ca | ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- George Bernard Shaw

In article <40rgg8$r...@falcon.ns.net>, <sab...@cwo.com> wrote: >Sounds like all you guys have ever played is no limit games. In >Sacramento we have always had the 4 card limit in place and the ONLY >clanthat has almost no chance of winning is Brujah. I have only seen one >such deck win (a seven player game with 2 Malks and 1 Tremeir). Numerous >players have finely tune decks of 60 cards that have no problems with >card shortages in a seven player game. The card limit just forces you to >get more creative with your combos instead of relying on KRC, Majesty >and other overused cards. Actually, my deck had *no* KRCs or Majestys. It simply had 5-8 of some rather useful cards (I was playing a Prince non-vote deck, for fun). And yes, all I've ever played is no limit games. Seems reasonable since that was/is the official style and it isn't broken. Everyone in my group is creative in their combos, and no one relies on KRC, Majesty, or other overused cards. Anyone relying on them (i.e., playing the same strategy every week) would lose. This seems to be a good enough check-and-balance. And Brujah decks can win (along with any other clan or other well thought theme) in unlimited games. So I'm afraid you haven't won a convert here. :-) Hunter -- J. Hunter Johnson jhun...@io.com (Illuminati Online) "Good job, ratboy. See you in hell." -- Gibby, cheerfully to Martin after Martin betrays his secretary (HBO's Dream On 8/9/95).

eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Alan Eisinger) writes: >>A semi-consensus "whoops" list: > >>Freak Drive >>Majesty >>WwEF >>5th Tradition >>Taste of Vitae >>Dragonsbreath Rounds > >are these cards "whoops" as in they are printed wrong (i don't think so) or >they unbalance gameplay? I thought the original thread was the unacknowledged >misprints, but i could be wrong. On that subject, what is the consensus list >for that? These cards are unbalancing, not misprinted. ToV may have had some unintentional omissions (i.e., nobody even considered multiple ToV per round). Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

> >These cards are unbalancing, not misprinted. ToV may have had some >unintentional omissions (i.e., nobody even considered multiple ToV per >round). >Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) Well, can you use multiple Taste of Vitai in a round? Or how about using it after a strike:steal X blood (drain essence, etc.)? It is an unreasonably good card. gnfnrf

jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu (Judith Cookson Grunberger) writes: >Also, I tend to disagree with the point that Majesty is broken... I tend >to build desks that use up to 8 Majesties (any more than that and they >start to jam my hand), and they regularly get hosed by my boyfriend's >psychotic (and yes, effective in taking out more than just Majesty decks) >combat decks. As has been mentioned, just because Majesty can be an abusive card does not mean all uses of Majesty are abusive. >If you put too many Majesties in your deck, they jam it up. Too few, and >your weenie obfustcate/domnate/presence deck is torporised before you can >even get that first boosted bleed. What exactly does your deck do? The classic Majesty abuse is 20+ Majesties ina Ventrue deck with lots of serious Dominate Bleed boosters (there are others, tho). Although you can indeed jam such decks by refusing to ever block actions, you tend to take a horrendous pool loss first, plus face an ongoing 1 per minion per turn. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Alan Eisinger) writes: >>These cards are unbalancing, not misprinted. ToV may have had some >>unintentional omissions (i.e., nobody even considered multiple ToV per >>round). >Well, can you use multiple Taste of Vitai in a round? Official ruling: Yes. Net consensus: Get real. (Technically, there is nothing on the card to prohibit it. I believe this is because the designers didn't even consider such a ridiculous use of the card.) >Or how about using it after a strike:steal X blood (drain essence, etc.)? Official ruling: Yes. Net consensus: Get real. (This is not straight from the card. The card refers to "blood lost", which is not a defined term. The obvious meaning, IMO, is "blood lost to heal damage".) >It is an unreasonably good card. Agreed. Even with the above fixed it's pretty fearsome in a good combat deck. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

eisi...@galaxy.ee.rochester.edu (Alan Eisinger) writes: >> >>These cards are unbalancing, not misprinted. ToV may have had some >>unintentional omissions (i.e., nobody even considered multiple ToV per >>round). >>Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) >Well, can you use multiple Taste of Vitai in a round? Or how about using it >after a strike:steal X blood (drain essence, etc.)? >It is an unreasonably good card. Officially, yes. See the house rules list for other options. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text. Graphics Specialist and Jyhad Rulemonger. |

Heya, My group plays without limits or problems. One of the things I enjoy about a no-limit rule is fear. No one knows for sure what's, left in your library, ever. Last night I played a five hour, three-player game. I was gangrel, they were Malk, Brujah, Tremere, and Toreador. The bluffs that were going on were brutal! With a four card limit, it's easy to tell when someone's run out of Wakes, or Majesties, or Claws, or whatever. It's great to watch your opponents sweat as they consider their next move. It's great to sweat yourself! And it's divine to finally actually have the combo your opponent thinks you have, just when he or she decides to perform that critical move... In Halifax we refer to Jyhad as a sort of "Blame Game". The decks just don't seem to be as crucial to the game as the play, and if a person loses, the blame is easily traced back to an error they made. In terms of tourneys, the drag about having more than 4 of each card is tweaking your deck as you go. I usually make an engine of 40 or 50 cards, trying to adhere to a 4 card formula, and then make 10 card add-ons, so I don't go mad or run out of cards if 2 or 3 more people show up. Like that game last night. I needed every card in that deck, and all our libraries were empty before we finished. Nasty! Stay outta the sun, 'Nis ti...@is.dal.ca