4CL and Sabbat.

I am always happy to stir up hornets nests, so here is a new point for the endless CL vs NL debate. Now with the inclusion of the Sabbat set, what is the point of continuing to use a 4CL, as now there are so many subtle variation cards that there is effectively no limit in the 4CL. Sabbat has substantially increased the redundancy in the card set, such that almost all disciplines have the same redundancy as Obfuscate and Dominate did originally. For instance, under CL, it has been historically difficult to build an effective Rush Combat deck (i.e. one that can compete with the Malk S+B deck). With the addition of the Sabbat set, it is almost easy to make, for instance, a Pot Rush Combat deck: 4 Haven Uncovered 4 Bum Rush 4 Ambush 4 Torn Signpost 4 Fists of Death 4 Fire in the Blood 4 Undead Strength 4 Mighty Grapple 4 Pushing the Limit 4 Growing Fury 4 Pulled Fangs 4 Disarm ect... There is no imagintation needed to build this deck (as is often used as a strong point of 4CL). You just put in 4 of every similar card and shuffle. It is very similar to many NL combat decks, but perhaps you would use 8 Undead Strength as opposed to 4 US and 4 PtL. The net result is pretty much the same. If you wanted to use Celerity for additional strikes, there are, like, 6 or 7 Cel cards that give additional strikes. What is the difference, really, between using 4 of each or 24 of one? The only difference between this 4CL deck and a non CL similar combat deck is the lack of enough Immortal Grapples to combat the now 8 or 12 Strike:Combat Ends cards that Presence has. My point is basicaly that with all the extra Sabbat cards that are very similar to the regular cards (two types of Deflection. Two types of Skin of Steel. Two Elder Interventions. Two WWEF. Multiple damaging votes...), 4CL becomes something of a pointless design limit. You can now make a "Degenerate" Gangrel Rush deck with 12 easy get into combat cards (I am yet to see an effective NL rush deck that uses more than 15% get into combat cards, and 12 is 15% of 80...) and 12 "Wolf Claws"; or any sort of "Degenerate NL deck" you want. You can almost even make an effective Brujah Pitch deck (almost...). The only cards that do not have redundancy at this point are some of the obscure but useful cards like Immortal Grapple and Vote modifiers, which are needed to combat other types of decks that are unhindered by 4CL. What do you all think? Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "And the license said you had to stick around until I was dead. But if you're tired of looking at my face I guess I already am." -Liz Phair

pd...@aol.com writes: > Now with the inclusion of the Sabbat set, what >is the point of continuing to use a 4CL, as now there are so many subtle >variation cards that there is effectively no limit in the 4CL. Sabbat has >substantially increased the redundancy in the card set, such that almost >all disciplines have the same redundancy as Obfuscate and Dominate did >originally. For instance, under CL, it has been historically difficult to >build an effective Rush Combat deck (i.e. one that can compete with the >Malk S+B deck). With the addition of the Sabbat set, it is almost easy to >make, for instance, a Pot Rush Combat deck: The inclusion of the Sabbat cards seems to change 4CL to run like 6CL/10% used to. All the basic deck types are there (especially rush combat, the great lacuna of 4CL), just less variety (e.g., there are bleed bounce decks, but only with both AUS and DOM - AUS- or DOM-only bounce doesn't work reliably). >My point is basicaly that with all the extra Sabbat cards that are very >similar to the regular cards (two types of Deflection. Two types of Skin >of Steel. Two Elder Interventions. Two WWEF. Multiple damaging >votes...), 4CL becomes something of a pointless design limit. 4CL has always been an arbitrary, and not very effective, way to control deck types. Obviously 4CL on Assault Rifle is much less of a limit than 4CL on Fake Out. And, as you point out, the presence of duplicates and near substitutes has a big effect on the relevance of CLs too. The best way to channel Jyhad decks would probably be minimum %'s of card types - e.g. at least x% combat, y% actions, z% Masters etc. Because of instant-redraw, minimum percentages are much more meaningful than maximums. Limits on card purposes (no more than x% stealth) would be a bear to define - too many grey-area and specialized cards. This is not to say that such limitations are desirable, merely that they would be more effective and less arbitrary. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <19961109164...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, pd...@aol.com wrote: >I am always happy to stir up hornets nests, so here is a new point for the >endless CL vs NL debate. Now with the inclusion of the Sabbat set, what >is the point of continuing to use a 4CL, as now there are so many subtle >variation cards that there is effectively no limit in the 4CL. Sabbat has >substantially increased the redundancy in the card set, such that almost >all disciplines have the same redundancy as Obfuscate and Dominate did >originally. For instance, under CL, it has been historically difficult to >build an effective Rush Combat deck (i.e. one that can compete with the >Malk S+B deck). With the addition of the Sabbat set, it is almost easy to >make, for instance, a Pot Rush Combat deck: [rest of message snipped] Hi Pete, The reason to keep using 4 CL is that there are some very good cards in the game that we feel would be degenerte if you could use as many as you like. That is the whole reason behind the limits in the first place. Before the expansions were brought out malkavian S&B used to dominate the game but this trend was reduced by dark soveriegns and now has been totally stopped by the sabbat. With the new cards there is now no sure-fire deck strategy in 4CL and more variation in deck design without having to use obscure cards. You have shown this in your deck above. However cards that are very good are limited so that you only have 4 of them (I.E thoughts betrayed, Blood to water and sensory deprivation) so you cannot simply base a deck around these cards. Also, using a wider variation of cards is good for the game (IMO) so why not use the limits? We also use 1cl on uniques which cuts down degenerate strategies even more (No repeat faming, lots of TOR etc..). We enjoy this style of play immensely so if it ain't broke, don't change to NL is our philosophy. Well thats the reasons for keeping NL. LOS

>I am always happy to stir up hornets nests, so here is a new point for the >endless CL vs NL debate. Now with the inclusion of the Sabbat set, what >is the point of continuing to use a 4CL, as now there are so many subtle >variation cards that there is effectively no limit in the 4CL. I suppose that you have somethingt of a point here, but perhaps you are coming at it from the wrong angle. Could it not also be said that there is now no reason for NL players to criticise CL players? However, unfortunately it is not that simple. Under 4CL the major criticisms were down to the brokeness of sneak and bleed and the lack of a viable rush deck (both of which facts haven't been observed when playing in a highly skilled and experienced gaming group). Now it seems that there is no problem with either of these: - "Ambush" makes the formation of rush decks a hell of a lot easier. - The fact that rush decks are now viable under CL (in the minds of NL players - we CL's have always said that they are) means that S&B is also limited in its effectiveness. The effectiveness against a rush deck is down primarily to the seating order, but the argument has been used against us, so we'll defend ourselves with the standard NL claims that a viable rush deck strategy is effective at reducing the power of an S&B deck. - The doubling of the Bleed bounce can effectively reduce the power of any bleed strategies. - The addition of extra intercept cards, many from different disciplines than Auspex (and with extra crossovers with auspex using clans), and new permanents, means that the stealth of a bleed deck can be effectively countered. As for the "So many subtle variation cards"; I would like to refute this statement. The only cards that were varied were the ones that seemed to be unbroken and needed to help counter previously broken strategies. You seem to have ignored the arguments *FOR* 4CL, there are not many, but they do seem to be accepted by both sides as accurate. The advantages to 4CL are: 1: certain cards are no longer broken (with a 4CL, 1 CL Uniques - as we play). Examples - ToR, Blood to Water, Art Meseum etc. >under CL, it has been historically difficult to >build an effective Rush Combat deck (i.e. one that can compete with the >Malk S+B deck). With the addition of the Sabbat set, it is almost easy to >make, for instance, a Pot Rush Combat deck: > >4 Haven Uncovered >4 Bum Rush >4 Ambush > >4 Torn Signpost >4 Fists of Death >4 Fire in the Blood > >4 Undead Strength >4 Mighty Grapple >4 Pushing the Limit >4 Growing Fury >4 Pulled Fangs >4 Disarm >ect... > >There is no imagintation needed to build this deck (as is often used as a >strong point of 4CL). Well you seem to have found the second argument in favour of 4CL for me. The challenge and skill required in deck building and in game play is greater in CL. To a certain extent that has been reduced, but not very greatly at all. The only things that have changed are really for the better - S&B has become more difficult to make a competitive deck (GOOD, as it was too easy before), Rush decks have become easier to make (GOOD - They were v. difficult before). There may be other deck strategies that will be different, but I'm not sure there are. >You just put in 4 of every similar card and >shuffle. It is very similar to many NL combat decks, but perhaps you >would use 8 Undead Strength as opposed to 4 US and 4 PtL. The net result >is pretty much the same. If you wanted to use Celerity for additional >strikes, there are, like, 6 or 7 Cel cards that give additional strikes. >What is the difference, really, between using 4 of each or 24 of one? Decks with as little thought as you have put in to that one would loose VERY easily, thats the whole point of the CL environment - the deck standard needs to be a lot higher to compete effectively. I have browsed the deck designs posted on the WWW (corrupters page for example) and all the NL decks seem to be made to 4CL standards for the case of most cards (excluding a few one trick ponies that I would rather not play against), and even still, all decks that I've seen would not cut it in our playing circle. The third point in favour of CL is that we don't have to change the rules with GT or anything else. There is no problem with Vote pushing in CL, there is no problem with multiple actions in CL. >The only difference between this 4CL deck and a non CL similar combat deck >is the lack of enough Immortal Grapples to combat the now 8 or 12 >Strike:Combat Ends cards that Presence has. Fair comment. >My point is basicaly that with all the extra Sabbat cards that are very >similar to the regular cards (two types of Deflection. Two types of Skin >of Steel. Two Elder Interventions. Two WWEF. Multiple damaging >votes...), 4CL becomes something of a pointless design limit. No, it stops broken cards an means that the GTs are irrelevent. The high standard of deck creation is still just as high except for Rush and S&B which have been sorted out. >You can now >make a "Degenerate" Gangrel Rush deck with 12 easy get into combat cards >(I am yet to see an effective NL rush deck that uses more than 15% get >into combat cards, and 12 is 15% of 80...) and 12 "Wolf Claws"; or any >sort of "Degenerate NL deck" you want. I don't think that you have understood what is meant when we say "degenerate" a degenerate deck is one that is both exceedinglty effective and is solely limited to an offensive strategy and in addition, mainly but not always, based around a single concept or card combo. >You can almost even make an >effective Brujah Pitch deck (almost...). You always could, now its just better. >The only cards that do not have >redundancy at this point are some of the obscure but useful cards like >Immortal Grapple and Vote modifiers, which are needed to combat other >types of decks that are unhindered by 4CL. There is no problem with the strategies of CL games any more, and the problems the limit solves are still being solved by it, perhaps even moreso with the addition of what a lot of people see as broken cards in the sabbat. hope thats cleared things up for you, Anonymous

Anonymous wrote: > > As for the "So many subtle variation cards"; I would like to refute this > statement. The only cards that were varied were the ones that seemed to be > unbroken and needed to help counter previously broken strategies. But now you can have 8 of those, while (for example) you can still only have 4 Immortal Grapples. The problem with CL is that the environment changes drastically every time new cards come out. "Oh, now I can have 8 Bum's Rush type cards, where before I could only have 4." What's the point? It's like having selective 4/8/12/etc.-CL based on what has been printed. > You seem to have ignored the arguments *FOR* 4CL, there are not many, but > they do seem to be accepted by both sides as accurate. The advantages to 4CL > are: > > 1: certain cards are no longer broken (with a 4CL, 1 CL Uniques - as we > play). Examples - ToR, Blood to Water, Art Meseum etc. ToR is not _more_ broken when you have many of them. Even if I owned 50, I'd probably only put 2 in any deck (the same number of Eco-Terrorists I play with in my Gangrel deck, even though I had 3). Blood to Water is not broken, especially with the new ruling that it can only be played _after_ range is determined and then only at short range. You are aware that is cannot burn a vampire, yes? Some people had confusion about that... Art Museum is not broken. Unlike ToR, it cannot immediately pay for itself and is vulnerable to Arson, Unnatural Disaster, Rampage, Disputed Territory... [snip "4 of everything you need" deck] > >There is no imagintation needed to build this deck (as is often used as a > >strong point of 4CL). > > Well you seem to have found the second argument in favour of 4CL for me. The > challenge and skill required in deck building and in game play is greater in > CL. Please defend this statement. I do not see how 4CL _increases_ necessary skill. I am making a Brujah rush combat deck. How many Torn Signpost? 4. How many Undead Strength? 4. Etc. With NL, you have to decide how many you need. In my Nosferatu rush deck, I have 11 Undead Strengths. I don't know if that's too many or too few, I still have to test it out. I _know_ 4 is too few, but if we still played with 4CL, I would have 4, with no doubt. > To a certain extent that has been reduced, but not very greatly at all. > The only things that have changed are really for the better - S&B has become > more difficult to make a competitive deck (GOOD, as it was too easy before), Not really. With Rush combat reasonably effective, the Setites become the worse problem. My Pre/Obf deck doesn't have more than 6 of anything, and even under 4CL would be quite effective, since I don't use many of the new Sabbat Pre bleed cards. With only 4 IG or 4 Psyche, S:CE will win most of the time. And, since no vampire in the crypt has capacity above 4, the occasional loss of a vampire will not be a problem. How was this deck difficult to create? What _doesn't_ it have 4 of? And, most importantly, how does your group deal with that? [talking about Peter's supposed deck] > Decks with as little thought as you have put in to that one would loose VERY > easily, thats the whole point of the CL environment - the deck standard > needs to be a lot higher to compete effectively. Huh? How would _you_ suggest putting together a Brujah rush deck under 4CL? I predict it would have 4 of almost everything. > I have browsed the deck > designs posted on the WWW (corrupters page for example) and all the NL decks > seem to be made to 4CL standards for the case of most cards That's because you hardly every need _singificantly_ more than 4 of anything, just by nature of decks doing multiple things. But to take away the freedom and creativity that results from not having an upper limit, not having the choice of deciding just how many Flashes you want, is _less_ creative. > (excluding a few > one trick ponies that I would rather not play against), and even still, all > decks that I've seen would not cut it in our playing circle. You wouldn't want to play against them? Why? OTP's are notoriously vulnerable to their anti-pony (i.e. WVP/WPV vulnerable to Atonement). > The third point in favour of CL is that we don't have to change the rules > with GT or anything else. There is no problem with Vote pushing in CL, there > is no problem with multiple actions in CL. But look at everything else it breaks. [it = 4CL] > No, it stops broken cards an means that the GTs are irrelevent. The high > standard of deck creation is still just as high except for Rush and S&B > which have been sorted out. See my comments above. > I don't think that you have understood what is meant when we say > "degenerate" a degenerate deck is one that is both exceedinglty effective > and is solely limited to an offensive strategy and in addition, mainly but > not always, based around a single concept or card combo. What you describe is a One Trick Pony. OTP's are not degenerate; in fact, they are a bad idea, since they usually are not versatile enough to deal with a *well-designed* deck. Unfortunately, one thing 4CL decks are not is well-designed. > >You can almost even make an > >effective Brujah Pitch deck (almost...). > > You always could, now its just better. Yeah, whatever. Show me a Brujah pitch deck under 4CL. The only new card which adds to that is Sacrament of Carnage. So you have 16 strikes, 4 of which are Well-Aimed Car. This is good? James -- | James E. Hamblin | "Only one human captain has ever survived battle with | <je...@cornell.edu> | the Minbari fleet. He is behind me. You are in front | Cornell University | of me. If you value your lives, be somewhere else." | Senior Math/CS Major | -- Ambassador Delenn, "Babylon 5: Severed Dreams" Home Page: http://www.csuglab.cornell.edu/Info/People/jeh13

neve...@mind.com (Anonymous) writes: >I suppose that you have somethingt of a point here, but perhaps you are >coming at it from the wrong angle. Could it not also be said that there is >now no reason for NL players to criticise CL players? (If one assumes that the myriad of cards acheiving similar effects reduces the effect of CL on the game...) Only that CL-players are imposing a (strange, to the VtES NL paradigm) restritcion on deck contruction that no longer makes much difference to game play. [...] >You seem to have ignored the arguments *FOR* 4CL, there are not many, but >they do seem to be accepted by both sides as accurate. The advantages to 4CL >are: >1: certain cards are no longer broken (with a 4CL, 1 CL Uniques - as we >play). Examples - ToR, Blood to Water, Art Meseum etc. ToR is still broken - perhaps moreso since you are less likely to see your precious Tomb contested under 4CL. Blood to Water doesn't break the game under either 4CL nor NL, it is simply a strong effect, that gets ludicrous under the *real* broken card: Thoughts Betrayed (TB also doesn't break the game under CL/NL - it just breaks a basic function of the game - playing cards). Art Museum? Who ever said that *that* was broken? (And if it is, it would be more broken under CL than NL, again since you end up contesting it less often). >The third point in favour of CL is that we don't have to change the rules >with GT or anything else. There is no problem with Vote pushing in CL, there >is no problem with multiple actions in CL. The good thing about GT (and, now, the official DCI/Sabbat rules) is that you don't have to hamstring deck development with some external limit (CL *is* a change in the rules). Jyhad/VtES cards are (by and large) self-limiting. >>My point is basicaly that with all the extra Sabbat cards that are very >>similar to the regular cards (two types of Deflection. Two types of Skin >>of Steel. Two Elder Interventions. Two WWEF. Multiple damaging >>votes...), 4CL becomes something of a pointless design limit. >No, it stops broken cards an means that the GTs are irrelevent. The high >standard of deck creation is still just as high except for Rush and S&B >which have been sorted out. GT is already irrelevant - it has served its purpose. With the DCI/Sabbat rules (mimicing the GT), the GT are no longer needed. The only "house rule" under discussion is CL - and (with the near-duplicate cards) CL is less justifiable than (if) it had previously been. >>You can almost even make an >>effective Brujah Pitch deck (almost...). >You always could, now its just better. You cannot make a straight (non-vote, non-weapon) pitch deck under CL before Sabbat. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Experience is something you http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | get just after you need it. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

(Part 1 of 2) Some anonymous person wrote: "As for the "So many subtle variation cards"; I would like to refute this statement. The only cards that were varied were the ones that seemed to be unbroken and needed to help counter previously broken strategies." As for "Subtle Variations", I mean cards that are just like another card, just a little different. They have nothing to do with "Broken" cards. The bulk of the new cards in Sabbat are "Subtle Variation" cards. I like the "Subtle Variation" cards, and think they are the best cards in the set, but that is what they are, "Subtle Variations". For instance, "Pushing the Limit" vs. "Undead Strength", "Redirection" vs "Deflection", and "Superior Mettle" vs "Skin of Steel", "Pursuit" vs "Nimble Feet". These cards are very similar, but have enough difference to make you want to use one over the other for a subtle reason. Under 4CL, having a choice between PtL and US means "Oh good! Now I can have 8 first round POT strikes." Undr NL, having a choice between PtL and US means "Ok, now which do I want to use? US does less damage but costs no blood. PtL Costs blood. Maybe I'll use 8 of one or 6 and 2..." The "Subtle Variation" cards under NL allow for slight deck modifications but have no overwhelming effect on the play environment. Under 4CL, the "Subtle Variation" cards greatly affect the play environment ("Hey! Now I can have EIGHT deflections!"), and the subtle differences have little meaning. For instance, where in NL it may be significant to have 8 "Superior Mettle" rather than 8 "Skin of Steel" (because you like to Press, for instance...), in 4CL, you just are happy cause you now can have 4 of each, effectively just having 8 "Skin of Steel". He then wrote: "1: certain cards are no longer broken (with a 4CL, 1 CL Uniques - as we play). Examples - ToR, Blood to Water, Art Meseum etc." Regardless of the debatability of the brokenness of the above mantioned cards, having only 4 of them does not make them any less broken, it just makes it less likely that they will be drawn. This does limit their effect on the game slightly, but when they come up, they are still just as busted. And then he wrote: "Well you seem to have found the second argument in favour of 4CL for me. The challenge and skill required in deck building and in game play is greater in CL." Now mind you, my group played 4CL for a year or so, so I fully understand what is involved in making 4CL decks, and all of the arguments in favor, as I made them all (before I decided that I was wrong...:-). The main skill and challange in building 4CL decks is figuring out how to get around the card limit. Once you have exausted 4 of every useful card you need, you spend the rest of the time trying to figure out how to make other cards do what you want circumvent the limit. For instance, everybody who has tried to build a Rush Combat deck under 4CL put in 4 Bum Rush, 4 Haven Uncovered, and then when faced with "How do I get in combat more often when I can only use 4 of each of these cards?" put in 4 Rampages, reasoning "Well, they'll have to block me if I go to Rampage on their Art Museum..." (Cumon. Admit it . You all have :-). Show me a 4CL deck that does not have simply 4 of every useful card for the deck, and I'll show you a 4CL deck that is fairly inefective. My deck example (4 of every good POT card) is fairly similar to most 4CL POT combat decks, just plug in the seasoning cards (CEL or OBF or DOM or whatever) (continued, hopefully below. Stinking AOL). [ quoted text not captured ]

(Part 2 of 2) He still wrote: "The third point in favour of CL is that we don't have to change the rules with GT or anything else. There is no problem with Vote pushing in CL, there is no problem with multiple actions in CL." 4CL is as just an arbitrary rules change as GT/SPTR, and has a far greater effect on the intended rules of the game (i.e. the ones in the rule book). Under 4CL it is still easy to build a Weenie Vote Push deck that will be extreemly potent, if not overly so, due to the vote push rules (start with 4 KRC, 4 CA, 4 Parity Shift, 4 Sabbat Threat, 4 Ancillae Empowerment, 4 Anarch Revolt. Season with Praxis Seizures and other vote cards just to ditch as votes. Then sweep the table...). Multiple actions are just as much of a problem, but again, like broken cards, won't come up as much. It becomes more of a crap shoot. It is still wack to be killed by some Ventrue who taps you out (by trying to bleed you and then Majestying 4 times), and then bleeds you 4 times for 5 points each just because he happened to draw all 4 Freak Drives. Just lucky, I guess. And finally he wrote (regarding the Brujah thrown objects deck): "You always could, now its just better." I think James hit this nail on the head. 4 Lids, 4 Gates, 4 Sacrament of Carnage, and 4 Well Aimed Cars does not a good combat deck make. You will, assuming you manage to draw them all, run out of Strikes after 3 combats. Then? (thanks for following along. Stinking AOL.)\ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <19961116174...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, pd...@aol.com writes: > >(Part 1 of 2) >Some anonymous person wrote: > ~~~~discussion of variation cards deleted~~~~~ [ quoted text not captured ] Someday I must play in one of these High-Powered Jyhad circles where the experts all compete at higher levels than the poor masses. The deluded No Card Limit players think they know what they are doing but, according to the annonymous person, their decks "would not cut it" in HIS group. ;-)= If the NCL decks are that woeful then why not allow the poor ignorant NCL fans to build them and compete with them against the far superior 4CL decks? Since his group's 4CL decks are better, then why have a prohibition against someone playing those ineffective NCL decks at all? Just continue playing those 4CL decks and destroy the NCL decks. If they get smart and start building those superior 4CL decks they will be playing the 4CL game and if they insist on playing the NCL decks they have no advantage over the 4CL players. And that is yet another arguement against having a 4CL. > >Peter D Bakija >PD...@aol.com > > Anyway, play 4CL if you like it but plese don't pretend that NCL players are somehow less skilled or competitive. Statements to that effect just lessen the credibility of the speaker and damage the entire arguement. Doug Dunaway

Well as usual I am going to stick my neck out and give my pennies worth to this 'stimulating' conversation.... >>"1: certain cards are no longer broken (with a 4CL, 1 CL Uniques - as we >>play). Examples - ToR, Blood to Water, Art Meseum etc." >> >>Regardless of the debatability of the brokenness of the above mantioned >>cards, having only 4 of them does not make them any less broken, it just >>makes it less likely that they will be drawn. This does limit their >>effect on the game slightly, but when they come up, they are still just >as >>busted. I don't believe that those cards (except for TOR) are broken anyway. I beleive however that having endless amounts of the very good cards just limits what other cards will be used in a deck and therefore variation will suffer. For instance a Tremere deck in NL may well have just Blood to water as it's second round strike, whereas with only 4 in CL one must use another strike card as well and not just rely on this powerful card. Perhaps this is what the gentleman concerned was trying to say when he said it fixed the 'brokeness' of certain cards? >>And then he wrote: >>"Well you seem to have found the second argument in favour of 4CL for me. >>The challenge and skill required in deck building and in game play is >>greater in CL." >> >>Now mind you, my group played 4CL for a year or so, so I fully understand >>what is involved in making 4CL decks, and all of the arguments in favor, >>as I made them all (before I decided that I was wrong...:-). The main >>skill and challange in building 4CL decks is figuring out how to get >>around the card limit. Once you have exausted 4 of every useful card you >>need, you spend the rest of the time trying to figure out how to make >>other cards do what you want circumvent the limit. This is true. You are creating against the limit (which some people find challenging and therefore fun) which would be pointless if Jyhad was truely balanced. Alas, it is not. Therefore in order to cut down on some of the more abuse worthy cards, if you limit them to 4 it will mean that a good card cannot be played again and again and again. This, for me, creates variation that is much needed in a card game involving a thousand cards (with all those cards it would be a shame not to use more of them!) or so and also destroys all the potentially degenerate decks with one house rule. If it didn't, why would we play with them? >>For instance, >>everybody who has tried to build a Rush Combat deck under 4CL put in 4 >Bum >>Rush, 4 Haven Uncovered, and then when faced with "How do I get in combat >>more often when I can only use 4 of each of these cards?" put in 4 >>Rampages, reasoning "Well, they'll have to block me if I go to Rampage on >>their Art Museum..." (Cumon. Admit it . You all have :-). Show me a >>4CL deck that does not have simply 4 of every useful card for the deck, >>and I'll show you a 4CL deck that is fairly inefective. My deck example >>(4 of every good POT card) is fairly similar to most 4CL POT combat >decks, >>just plug in the seasoning cards (CEL or OBF or DOM or whatever) This is not really the case as it depends on the deck and the player creating it. Certainly your deck is similair to some potence decks but shoving in just 4 of every useful card tends to mean hrrible death as your 120 card deck plays a playtested and refined 90 card deck! > >Someday I must play in one of these High-Powered Jyhad circles where the >experts all compete at higher levels than the poor masses. The deluded No >Card Limit players think they know what they are doing but, according to >the annonymous person, their decks "would not cut it" in HIS group. ;-)= <A very hurt player complaining (rightly) about the suggestion that NL decks were crap compaired to 4CL decks snipped> I agree with your point here. That kind of inference does the game no good and I thought would be absent from this newsgroup. CL is very agreeable to some but that doesn't mean that if you don't play with it you lack the imagination and the deck building skills necessary! Please, by all means state what makes CL/NL fun for you but do not say to anyone they are 'wrong' for doing something they find fun. Do what you want with your own scalp, but don't be telling me what to do with mine! Keep this newsgroup abundant with Jyhad information (from both sides) and insult free. LOS

>>Could it not also be said that there is >>now no reason for NL players to criticise CL players? > >(If one assumes that the myriad of cards acheiving similar effects >reduces the effect of CL on the game...) If you look at the cards that have been "duplictated" in this manner you will find that it is only the cards that gave CL problems, not the ones which problems CL solved.... For example: Rush, Bleed bounce, Interception, Damage votes. >Only that CL-players are imposing a restritcion on deck contruction that no >longer makes much difference to game play. Ah, but it does... CL does no longer have the problems with the types of deck that are either broken or unworkable (although this was always a contested issue), and the fact that none of the cards that were considered broken under NL are equally broken under CL (please see below) >>You seem to have ignored the arguments *FOR* 4CL, there are not many, but >>they do seem to be accepted by both sides as accurate. The advantages to >>4CL are: >> >>1: certain cards are no longer broken (with a 4CL, 1 CL Uniques - as we >>play). Examples - ToR (Tomb of Ramses), Blood to Water, Art Meseum etc. > >ToR is still broken - perhaps moreso since you are less likely to see >your precious Tomb contested under 4CL. No this is not the case. There are two ways of using ToR - one is to use it as a continual blood back supply, in which case it is less efficient than the Art museum, etc. Alternatively, and most common, is that you can use it to bring out, say, an inner circle vampire for only 3 pool, saving 8 pool. However this is a limited resource and will be burnt when the vampire is brought into play. Under the first method the card is not partricularily broken at all. However, under the latter option the card, under NL can be devastating when you are getting out 3 or 4 per game. Under a CL that restricts you to 1 unique this no longer becomes a problem, in a game everyone is likely to get out their ToR at some stage and the advantages for one person having it will be gone. Its only 3 pool to get out, and pays you back instantly, so there's not much problem with getting it out late on in the game (in our games if someone goes below 4 pool their usually pretty much dead before long). Also the 1CL unique environment makes Unnatural disater playable (infact, most of us use them), which can make ToR effectively an Assention, with regards to blood netted. playing with this environment we havenot found that ToR is broken, infact many of us have stopped using it as clan specific masters tend top be better, in our opinions. >Blood to Water doesn't break the game under either 4CL nor NL, it is >simply a strong effect, that gets ludicrous under the *real* broken >card: Thoughts Betrayed (TB also doesn't break the game under CL/NL - >it just breaks a basic function of the game - playing cards). Well, I have to admit, I dobn't know from my own experience that Blood to Water is broken. I was merely commenting upon many complaints from posters who have found it to be broken under a NL environment whereas under CL it most deffinately is not. I think most group members will agree that TB is broken purely and simply for the fact that it has no counter at all. >Art Museum? Who ever said that *that* was broken? (And if it is, it would >be more broken under CL than NL, again since you end up contesting it >less often). Well, I have to admit here that this was my interpretation of a card that I could see being broken under NL, so if you don't think so then fine, I'll withdraw the comment. I do remember, however, about a year or so there were a few comments on the group about it being "annoying" which I suppose probably means that it is a little bit broken. With regards to your comment about contesting, I think you are very much mistaken if you consider this to be a problem for CL - I would like to know how an Art museum could be contested when nobody else is playing Toreador. When it comes down to it clan specific Locations are very difficult to contest if everyone is playing different clans (which tends to happen in our group so that we get lots of variety in our games, which I think all of us agree makes the game more fun) The advantage to playing CL is that the unnatural disasters become playable, thus making any location a risk (after all, 2 pool is not much to pay when you are stopping someone getting that permanent flow of bloodback. >>The third point in favour of CL is that we don't have to change the rules >>with GT or anything else. There is no problem with Vote pushing in CL, >>there is no problem with multiple actions in CL. > >The good thing about GT (and, now, the official DCI/Sabbat rules) is that >you don't have to hamstring deck development with some external limit (CL >*is* a change in the rules). I never claimed that CL wasn't a change in the rules. The thing that annoys me is when NL players say that we CL players are changing the game of Jyhad, when they are doing so themselves with GT. Its not a major point but I'm not trying to get NL players to convert - if your happy I'm happy - I just don't like being insulted because I have made an inteligent, informed desicion of how to play the game so that it doesn't have the problems that straight Jyhad NL has without tweaking it everso slightly with GT or CL. When it comes down to it its just a case of take which ever one you prefer to play under, if I prefer one and you the other then theres no major problem, there's no need to dig the knife in, etc. The point I was trying to make is that NL GT bends the rules aswell, and there's no logical way to say outright that one is better than the other. >Jyhad/VtES cards are (by and large) self-limiting. The attempt to make them as such is there, but unfortunately they didn't quite make it, otherwise there'd be no need for either CL or GT >>>My point is basicaly that with all the extra Sabbat cards that are very >>>similar to the regular cards (two types of Deflection. Two types of Skin >>>of Steel. Two Elder Interventions. Two WWEF. Multiple damaging >>>votes...), 4CL becomes something of a pointless design limit. > >>No, it stops broken cards an means that the GTs are irrelevent. The high >>standard of deck creation is still just as high except for Rush and S&B >>which have been sorted out. > >GT is already irrelevant - it has served its purpose. >With the DCI/Sabbat rules (mimicing the GT), the GT are no longer needed. So it changes its name, its still a fix for a NL game. The comment about GT being irrelevent is specifically related to the CL environment, where there is no need for it. >The only "house rule" under discussion is CL - and (with the near-duplicate >cards) CL is less justifiable than (if) it had previously been. There's no need to be so insulting. You are wrong about CL being less justifiable now - its more justifiable, all the problems have been Ironed out with CL and it doesn't cause us any problems with deck creation limitation, whereas its bonuses - cutting down on broken cards, causing less need for in game rule alterations, creating a more challenging deck building environment and adding a much larger element of skill to *playing* the game - are still very much relavent. >>>You can almost even make an >>>effective Brujah Pitch deck (almost...). > >>You always could, now its just better. > >You cannot make a straight (non-vote, non-weapon) pitch deck under CL >before Sabbat. I did make one, it was a very boring deck, but it had no problem either maneouvring to range or dealing lots of damage from range. It didn't have a single vote in it, and no weapons (unless you include basic non weapon equipment such as IR googles). Cheerio, Anonymous

>> As for the "So many subtle variation cards"; I would like to refute this >> statement. The only cards that were varied were the ones that seemed to >> be unbroken and needed to help counter previously broken strategies. > >But now you can have 8 of those, Yes, and that is a good thing as it now means that previously broken strategies, such as Stealth and Bleed (S&B) are now ineffectual unless a deck can be made to the same high quality as the rest of our decks have been. >while (for example) you can still only have 4 Immortal Grapples. So? Why is Immortal grapple so damned amazing? Yes its good against tremere. So does potence bung combat. Yes it cuts down on combat ends. So do three other cards - Psyche, Fast reaction (for anintercept deck) and hidden lurker (for a rush deck). >The problem with CL is that the environment changes drastically every time >new cards come out. which makes the game much more exciting as it is always changing and adding depth and variety to the game, rather than sticking with a simple stagnant deck design for eternity, because it wins. >"Oh, now I can have 8 Bum's Rush type cards, where before I could only have >4." What's the point? It makes rush decks, that were previously more difficult to make effective than most other deck types (Some NLimiters will have you believe that this is only possible with princes, but they are wrong in my experience). The addition of four more Rush cards makes rush decks easier to build,bringing them back on line with thye easier briuse & bleed and intercept combat decks. >It's like having selective 4/8/12/etc.-CL based on what has been >printed. Yes. And its the selective part that makes it so much better. WotC seem to have realised what the problems were with CL and have accounted for that with bringing out altered duplicates for all the areas where CL was left lacking. Now there is no longer any problem with playing CL and the bonuses for playing it are still there. >> You seem to have ignored the arguments *FOR* 4CL, there are not many, but >> they do seem to be accepted by both sides as accurate. The advantages to 4CL >> are: >> >> 1: certain cards are no longer broken (with a 4CL, 1 CL Uniques - as we >> play). Examples - ToR, Blood to Water, Art Meseum etc. > >ToR is not _more_ broken when you have many of them. Even if I owned >50, I'd probably only put 2 in any deck (the same number of >Eco-Terrorists I play with in my Gangrel deck, even though I had 3). ToR is most efficient if you use it to bring out a large cap vampire for very little pool. If you use ToR as a continual blood back device then it is not as good as an Eco terrorists. If you use it to its most efficient then it will be an advantage to have more than one in, because you can bring out a vamp for dirt cheap, and then bring out another later in the game, and possibly even another. The possiblities are endless, infact I read about a deck that did just this using minion taps and return to inocence to bleed for lots very quickly. This is the reason why it is broken under NL under CL you are limited to having only one in the deck and may find that it will get unnatural disastered (as CL makes these cards worth having, 2 pool to stop someone having a limitless continual blood supply is not a problem, especially when that supply is then cut off for good!) >Blood to Water is not broken, especially with the new ruling that it can >only be played _after_ range is determined and then only at short >range. You are aware that is cannot burn a vampire, yes? Some people >had confusion about that... Yes, I'm aware of this and the range errata (is that an official one, by the way?) and I am only going off what I have heard on this group - NL players saying that Blood to water is broken, under card limits it was not; not even when it could be played at long range!) >Art Museum is not broken. Unlike ToR, it cannot immediately pay for >itself and is vulnerable to Arson, Unnatural Disaster, Rampage, Disputed >Territory... Okay, so its a one pool loss, not particularily scary, and not much different to the one pool gain from the ToR after a turn (and this isn't blood back to pool yet either, so a quick ousting could still topple you). Again I was only commenting on people saying that it was "annoying" which I took to been that it was slightly broken (Perhaps overpowered would be a better description?) >[snip "4 of everything you need" deck] >> >There is no imagintation needed to build this deck (as is often used as >> >a strong point of 4CL). >> >> Well you seem to have found the second argument in favour of 4CL for me. >> The challenge and skill required in deck building and in game play >> is greater in CL. > >Please defend this statement. I do not see how 4CL _increases_ >necessary skill. Deck building: Under an NL environment you only need to think about what cards you want to put in your deck to make it work - there will always be a measure of balance, this comes with any environment. Under a CL envirnment you will have to compensate for being restricted in some areas, meaning that you will have to be a lot more careful, intelligent, skillful (or what ever you want to call it) at planning your deck so that you can rely on it working to close to its maximum efficiency all the time. Game Playing: Under CL, because your deck is so much more "highly strung" (as one NL player put it) than a comparative NL deck, you will have to makesure that all your cards are used to their best value - a combat is only successful if you can manage to torporise or burn an opponent (or escape unharmed if that is your aim), etc. If you waste too many cards on frivolous failiures then you will be destined to loose. Under CL you need to utilise what you have to the best of its capability, rather than under NL where the majority the tactics are in deck construction. A CL deck that has to discard is probably a bad CL deck. >I am making a Brujah rush combat deck. How many Torn Signpost? 4. How >many Undead Strength? 4. Etc. With NL, you have to decide how many >you need. Yes, so you will have more than four in an NL deck. There is very little difference; the advantage you gain from adding more cards I can gain from reducing the size of my deck (which is a much harder task, IMO). >In my Nosferatu rush deck, I have 11 Undead Strengths. I >don't know if that's too many or too few, I still have to test it out. >I _know_ 4 is too few, but if we still played with 4CL, I would have 4, >with no doubt. Well, now you could add pushing the limit which would give you 8, reduce your deck size down from what it would be, and make sure that when you are playing the game that each and evry card counts for something. >> To a certain extent that has been reduced, but not very greatly at all. >> The only things that have changed are really for the better - S&B has become >> more difficult to make a competitive deck (GOOD, as it was too easy before), > >Not really. With Rush combat reasonably effective, the Setites become >the worse problem. My Pre/Obf deck doesn't have more than 6 of >anything, and even under 4CL would be quite effective, since I don't use >many of the new Sabbat Pre bleed cards. With only 4 IG or 4 Psyche, >S:CE will win most of the time. Okay... S:CE, yes it is a problem. No its not deadly. you can have 4 different cards that will counter S:CE (Psyche, Hidden Lurker, Fast reaction and Immortal Grapple) Presence has, to my knowledge, 2 different S:CE cards, with another dubious one found in the skilless pack. Majesty, under CL (without GT) is excedingly useful in offense and any rush deck that can use up these cards is actually doing well. Staredown is only an S:CE at superior presence, and how many setites have that? 1 below 9 blood, and she's a 7 cap without any obfuscate! Only two that have both obfuscate and Presence, and their both 9 and 10 cap. The Serpentis S:CEs are useless unless you have a fame on you, and then you have a problem with amaranths and decapitates. >And, since no vampire in the crypt has >capacity above 4, the occasional loss of a vampire will not be a >problem. How does it work with these vampires? you have 4 different vampires available to you, only one has obfuscate and only 2 have presence, and then only at inferior. You would need to add a lot of skill cards to make it work which would severly reduce your deck's speed and it would get its vampires rushed into torpor faster than it can think. And as those vampires will stay in torpor rather than be burnt (unless you have your one fame - as it is restricted as being unique - on one of them), than you will have very rubbish vampires out. You would not be able to stealth very well, you would have reduced bleed capability (as Aire of Elation is pretty rubbish at inferior), although not especially significantly and you will have limited S:CE ability as you will have less blood than your rusher and won't be able to staredown as you won't have superior presence... Also, You've no bleed bounce capacity so all you can do is attempt to block big bleeds, which would kill you... >How was this deck difficult to create? I suppose it wouldn't be, but then it also wouldn't win, in fact it would die quite spectacularily. >What _doesn't_ it have 4 of? Ready Vampires, probably, as it goes... >And, most importantly, how does your group deal with that? You seriously think that this deck would cause us problems? In addition to everything above you also have to remember that you are restricted to four skillcards and four efficient management >[talking about Peter's supposed deck] >> Decks with as little thought as you have put in to that one would loose VERY >> easily, thats the whole point of the CL environment - the deck standard >> needs to be a lot higher to compete effectively. > >Huh? How would _you_ suggest putting together a Brujah rush deck under >4CL? I predict it would have 4 of almost everything. In that case it would probably end up being far to large and wouldn't get anything it needed through quickly enough, it would have to refuse to block something or rush when it had a horrid hand jam and would be stuck with having to discard every turn. Deck creation in CL is as much a bout balance as it is under NL, the only difference is that you have to obtain that bin ways that, IMO, are more challenging to obtain. >> I have browsed the deck >> designs posted on the WWW (corrupters page for example) and all the NL decks >> seem to be made to 4CL standards for the case of most cards > >That's because you hardly every need _singificantly_ more than 4 of >anything, just by nature of decks doing multiple things. But to take >away the freedom and creativity that results from not having an upper >limit, not having the choice of deciding just how many Flashes you want, >is _less_ creative. So, your saying that its just down to a point of principle? Who am I to tell you what to do, sort of thing? Well, that swings both ways: why can't I restrict myself if I like that better. All the people I play with feel the same so its not a huge problem for us. I'm not trying to get you to play CL, okay, so might I think that your life might be slightly better if you did, but its not my place to tell you that, so I won't. The point that I would debate with here is that placing a CL on a game makes it less creative, perhaps it does to a certain extent, but I think that really this is not true, when you get down to the bare bones of it: I doubt that there is any deck that would be uncreatable under CL that is creatable under NL (barring One-Trick-Ponies), I think that its all a matter of how you look at it. Rather than saying "I've not got enough of this card so I can't make that deck work", think instead "How can I make this deck work? What other cards can I use to emulate this effect?" That is where the creativity and the challenge comes in to deck building under CL. >> (excluding a few one trick ponies that I would rather not play against), >> and even still, all decks that I've seen would not cut it in our playing >> circle. > >You wouldn't want to play against them? Why? OTP's are notoriously >vulnerable to their anti-pony (i.e. WVP/WPV vulnerable to Atonement). What is WVP/WPV? do you mean that I have to make a deck that counters another deck deliberately? Or have to use a sideboard to counter any OTPs that might crop up? Either of these ideas I find distasteful! (infact it was one of your NL lot - Curt Adams, I think - who has written an article that can be found on Judith and Marks web page about why side boards are inappropriate) >> The third point in favour of CL is that we don't have to change the rules >> with GT or anything else. There is no problem with Vote pushing in CL, there >> is no problem with multiple actions in CL. > >But look at everything else it breaks. >[it = 4CL] This is my point about the Sabbat expansion. Now the things that 4CL breaks are gone! All its problems have been completely obliterated by this expansion and we can now go on and play 4CL with out you lot saying "S&B! S&B! S&B! S&B!!!" at us all the time - there is no longer any problem with 4CL apart from principle, and GT also has breaks a principle aswell, so now we truely are even! >> I don't think that you have understood what is meant when we say >> "degenerate" a degenerate deck is one that is both exceedinglty effective >> and is solely limited to an offensive strategy and in addition, mainly >> but not always, based around a single concept or card combo. > >What you describe is a One Trick Pony. No. What I describe is an effective OTP (as S&B used to be under the old 4CL before Sabbat). >OTP's are not degenerate; in fact, they are a bad idea, since they usually >are not versatile enough to deal with a *well-designed* deck. But if a deck is to deal with a truely degenerate OTP (ie. one that can destroy you very quickly), then you will need a sideboard, which will reduce the challenge and creativity of deck building (I'm sure there are other NL players who agree with me on the down side of sideboards). If an OTP is counterable by a well designed deck, the I wouldn't have a problem with it (such as your settite S&B deck above), however a well designed effective OTP makes the game dull; that I don't like. I can't see any OTP's that would work effectively under 4CL therefore its not a problem for me. >Unfortunately, one thing 4CL decks are not is well-designed. This is an insulting statement that is both unfounded and untrue. I expect this statement to be withdrawn. >> >You can almost even make an >> >effective Brujah Pitch deck (almost...). >> >> You always could, now its just better. > >Yeah, whatever. Show me a Brujah pitch deck under 4CL. The only new >card which adds to that is Sacrament of Carnage. So you have 16 >strikes, 4 of which are Well-Aimed Car. This is good? Okay, I will. It'll take me a bit to get it practiced, so I'll get back to you on that one... Anonymous

>~~~~discussion of variation cards deleted~~~~~ >> >>He then wrote: (She actually) >>"1: certain cards are no longer broken (with a 4CL, 1 CL Uniques - as we >>play). Examples - ToR, Blood to Water, Art Meseum etc." >> >>Regardless of the debatability of the brokenness of the above mantioned >>cards, having only 4 The original post of mine does mention that uniques are restricted to 1 card >>of them does not make them any less broken, it just >>makes it less likely that they will be drawn. This does limit their >>effect on the game slightly, but when they come up, they are still just >>as busted. No, not in the case of ToR, as it is worst when you have more than one. With only one it makes it easy for everyone to get one out, therefore making all players about the same sort of level. Broken Uniques are also less broken under a 1CL because they cannot be replaced after they get destroyed, this makes bruise & arson combat effective for getting in to combat (although you would never have a deck solely built around this concept, but it does give you effectively 4 more rushes) and doesn't make Unnatural disaster completey pointless. As for other cards, most are only effective if used in multitude (such as many over powered combat cards) in this case restricting to four does not cause you any of the problems a NL deck based around that card would. >> >>And then he <SHE!> wrote: >>"Well you seem to have found the second argument in favour of 4CL for me. >>The challenge and skill required in deck building and in game play is >>greater in CL." >> >>Now mind you, my group played 4CL for a year or so, so I fully understand >>what is involved in making 4CL decks, and all of the arguments in favor, >>as I made them all (before I decided that I was wrong...:-). The main >>skill and challange in building 4CL decks is figuring out how to get >>around the card limit. To a certain extent you are right here. I suppose it is all about getting around the limit, But I don't see this as a problem. Its the challenge that I like, its that that keeps me playing - I don't think that I'd like the game if I could have an unlimited amount of any card I wanted. I also think that decks become dull if everytime you get into combat with a brujah it didged with a sideslip (unless you didn't do to much damage to it) and then blurred for two additional undead strengths, or every vote called was a KRC. What keeps me playing and spending my dosh is the fun that comes from overcoming the challenge, and not knowing exactly what awaits you... I suppose it has a bit to do with luck, and often you are required to gamble, but thats not the main buzz - that comes from hving a deck that can cope with anything, a deck that can win despite the fact that its cards are limited. And then theres the side note about broken cards... >>Once you have exausted 4 of every useful card you >>need, you spend the rest of the time trying to figure out how to make >>other cards do what you want circumvent the limit. For instance, >>everybody who has tried to build a Rush Combat deck under 4CL put in 4 >>Bum Rush, 4 Haven Uncovered, and then when faced with "How do I get in >>combat more often when I can only use 4 of each of these cards?" put in 4 >>Rampages, reasoning "Well, they'll have to block me if I go to Rampage on >>their Art Museum..." (Cumon. Admit it . You all have :-). Show me a >>4CL deck that does not have simply 4 of every useful card for the deck, Almost every deck that I've made! My current Tzimisce deck only has 4 of one card in it - Body arsenal, and I'd like to reduce it to three, but I've only got two Horrid froms, which I would like to substitute. >>and I'll show you a 4CL deck that is fairly inefective. well, it won 50% of its games, considering the fact that its a new deck I'm not dissappointed with that, I'll keep tweeking it until it does better, but Tzimisce really are a challenge without having great combat control... >>My deck example >>(4 of every good POT card) is fairly similar to most 4CL POT combat >>decks, >>just plug in the seasoning cards (CEL or OBF or DOM or whatever) Its nothing like my friend's new Lasombra/Brujah-anti, which has also been pretty damn effective (better record than mine). >Someday I must play in one of these High-Powered Jyhad circles where the >experts all compete at higher levels than the poor masses. The deluded No >Card Limit players think they know what they are doing but, according to >the annonymous person, their decks "would not cut it" in HIS group. This is blatant misrepresentation of my statements. I said that the decks that I have seen posted on the web page wouldn't cut it, that doesn't mean that all NL decks wouldn't, by any means. I just offered that up as my limited knowledge of NL (remember - I'm not trying to slate NL, just to stop you from slating CL) and stated the simple fact that those decks wouldn't. If this offends you then I'm sorry, but its a simple fact. I was expecting to get many replies saying that those decks were a bit crap anyway and I shouldn't pay too much attention to them... However, If you feel that they are a fair representation of how good NL decks really are then I'm sorry, but I can't see you being able to make it in our playing circle. >If the NCL decks are that woeful then why not allow the poor ignorant NCL >fans to build them and compete with them against the far superior 4CL >decks? Barring some degenerate magic-esque OTP's that the NL environment seems to breed I wouldn't mind playing against a NL deck. I play CL for my own pleasure, I have no desire to stop other people from playing it. >Since his group's 4CL decks are better, then why have a >prohibition against someone playing those ineffective NCL decks at all? >Just continue playing those 4CL decks and destroy the NCL decks. If they >get smart and start building those superior 4CL decks they will be playing >the 4CL game and if they insist on playing the NCL decks they have no >advantage over the 4CL players. And that is yet another arguement against >having a 4CL. You seem, in true NL tradition, to have completely missed the point. I make no distinction between NL and CL with respect to the ability of the players, I am just sticking up for us poor CL players who don't seem to be able to type anything past "4CL" before thousands of people are mailing us and jumping down our throats before they've properly read what we've said. The point that I was trying to make is that you NL players seem have your opinions clouded as to how good a CL deck can actually be. I'm sure that our gaming circle is at a very standard of play, but I'm equally sure that there must be equally competant NL players out there, I was just commenting that I haven't seen any evidence for it. I AM NOT SAYING THAT ALL 4CL DECKS ARE BY DEFINITION BETTER THAN NL ONES, I AM ONLY SAYING THAT 4CL DECKS CAN BE BETTER THAN YOU THINK! If you take the example that you give I can see one of 2 things happening - either the NL player learns from our group or they don't. If they do learn then they will be able to play NL decks that are equally good, possibly even better, than our CL decks. If they either refuse or are unable to learn they will be doomed to make substandard decks of either NL or CL, either way they will undoubtedly loose all the games they play. I do not mean to be insulting, but perhaps the truth hurts... >Anyway, play 4CL if you like it but plese don't pretend that NCL players >are somehow less skilled or competitive. This was not my point, I was only trying to raise to the profile of CL players so that they can be considered equals with all you high and mighty NL players. >Statements to that effect just lessen the credibility of the speaker and >damage the entire arguement. Well, I think that you'll find your own credibility damaged as much as mine. Anonymous

Anonymous wrote: > > >But now you can have 8 of those, > > Yes, and that is a good thing as it now means that previously broken > strategies, such as Stealth and Bleed (S&B) are now ineffectual unless > a deck can be made to the same high quality as the rest of our decks > have been. How is S&B ineffective? It is not so under NL. There was never any attempt to restrict S&B. S&B is not a problem in NL. If, as you say, S&B is ineffective under 4CL, there's another point against it. > >while (for example) you can still only have 4 Immortal Grapples. > > So? Why is Immortal grapple so damned amazing? Yes its good against > tremere. Immortal Grapple stops Dodge and S:CE, and does it more effectively than any of the cards you mention below. > So does potence bung combat. Who cares about beating up the Tremere? In general, IG is effective against a large number of strategies. > Yes it cuts down on combat ends. So do three > other cards - Psyche, Fast reaction (for anintercept deck) and hidden > lurker (for a rush deck). But no deck will be able to play with more than one of these, and there are a plethora of S:CE cards out there. [4CL env. constantly changing] > which makes the game much more exciting as it is always changing and > adding depth and variety to the game, rather than sticking with a > simple stagnant deck design for eternity, because it wins. There is no NL deck which always wins. Having 4CL when there are so many duplicates is pointless. It doesn't fix anything, and puts a stranglehold on creativity. > >"Oh, now I can have 8 Bum's Rush type cards, where before I > >could only have 4." What's the point? [answer: rush decks easier to make] I understand that. My point is that why bother having this arbitrary 4CL when, in the case of "get into combat actions", it's really an 8CL. > >It's like having selective 4/8/12/etc.-CL based on what has been > >printed. > > Yes. And its the selective part that makes it so much better. It's _better_ to have a random 4/8/12 CL depending on what's been _printed_? > WotC seem to > have realised what the problems were with CL and have accounted for > that with bringing out altered duplicates for all the areas where CL > was left lacking. WotC puts out a NL game. The "duplicates" of which you are so fond are actually well-designed cards, unlike a lot of that set. > Now there is no longer any problem with playing CL and the bonuses > for playing it are still there. Bonuses? What bonuses? [ToR] > If you use it to its most efficient then > it will be an advantage to have more than one in, because you can > bring out a vamp for dirt cheap, and then bring out another later in > the game, and possibly even another. Although this is fairly unlikely to happen. If everyone has lots of these things, it would be contested all the time. Whereas with a 1CL on it, it will never be contested, and the person who happened to shuffle it to the top of their deck gets a huge advantage. > This is the reason why it is broken under NL It's not any less broken under CL. In fact, as I argued above, it might be more broken. > under CL > you are limited to having only one in the deck and may find that it > will get unnatural disastered (as CL makes these cards worth having, 2 > pool to stop someone having a limitless continual blood supply is not > a problem, especially when that supply is then cut off for good!) You think it's advantageous to know for sure how many card someone has left in their deck? "Oh, you've used all 4 Majesties? I Bum's Rush you..." Yeah, that's great fun. > NL players saying that Blood to water is broken, under card limits it > was not; not even when it could be played at long range!) Blood to Water is not broken. > Again I was only commenting on people saying that it was "annoying" > which I took to been that it was slightly broken (Perhaps overpowered > would be a better description?) Annoying != Broken. Madness of the Bard is not broken, but boy, is it annoying. Art Museum is not broken, but it is powerful. Why restrict it? > >Please defend this statement. I do not see how 4CL _increases_ > >necessary skill. > > Deck building: > Under an NL environment you only need to think about what cards you > want to put in your deck to make it work Under a CL environment you only need to think about what cards you want to put in your deck to make it work and then you put in 4. > Under a CL > envirnment you will have to compensate for being restricted in some > areas, meaning that you will have to be a lot more careful, > intelligent, skillful (or what ever you want to call it) at planning > your deck so that you can rely on it working to > close to its maximum efficiency all the time. In a NL environment you will have to make the same decisions, except that you have more freedom. How does lack of freedom to decide increase creativity? Put another way, 4CL increases the need to be "crafty"; the need to find other cards to put in your deck that circumvent the limit. So if all of the effort is spent trying to get around the limit, why have it? > Game Playing: > Under CL, because your deck is so much more "highly strung" (as one NL > player put it) than a comparative NL deck, you will have to makesure > that all your cards are used to their best value So you sit around doing nothing until you get exactly the right combination of cards in your hand (i.e., "gin")? Woo hoo. Sounds like fun to me. > - a combat is only > successful if you can manage to torporise or burn an opponent (or > escape unharmed if that is your aim), etc. This is true in NL too. If you didn't escape unharmed, then you were probably sent to torpor or burned. > If you waste too many cards > on frivolous failiures then you will be destined to loose. So what happens when a combat deck gets in a fight with a deck which wants to "escape unharmed"? According to you, one of them is "destined to lose". So table position determines victory? This is true to some extent in NL, but not to this degree. > Under CL > you need to utilise what you have to the best of its capability, > rather than under NL where the majority > the tactics are in deck construction. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Thank you. That's because deck construction in 4CL is mindless and pointless. > A CL deck that has to discard is probably > a bad CL deck. So the mighty, creative, wonderful 4CL deck _never_ hand jams? Yeah, right. > >I am making a Brujah rush combat deck. How many Torn Signpost? 4. > >How many Undead Strength? 4. Etc. With NL, you have to decide how > >many you need. > > Yes, so you will have more than four in an NL deck. There is very > little difference; the advantage you gain from adding more cards I can > gain from reducing the size of my deck (which is a much harder task, > IMO). No, you _might_ have more in a NL deck. At least you get to choose. I'm not saying that every 4CL deck has 4 of everything, but you certainly are not going to have any _less_ than 4 Bum's Rushes in a 4CL rush deck. > Well, now you could add pushing the limit which would give you 8, > reduce your deck size down from what it would be, and make sure that > when you are playing the game that each and evry card counts for > something. The deck is 80 cards. [But then, maybe you brought the 60-card deck limit over from Magic, too.] What if I don't _want_ to play with Pushing the Limit? 4CL forces me to play with it if I want to be competitive. With 4CL, you _have_ to buy significant amounts of every expansion, just to stay competitive. > >Not really. With Rush combat reasonably effective, the Setites > >become the worse problem. My Pre/Obf deck doesn't have more than 6 > >of anything, and even under 4CL would be quite effective, since I > >don't use many of the new Sabbat Pre bleed cards. With only 4 IG or > >4 Psyche, S:CE will win most of the time. > > Okay... S:CE, yes it is a problem. ...which it is not under NL. > No its not deadly. you can have 4 > different cards that will counter S:CE (Psyche, Hidden Lurker, Fast > reaction and Immortal Grapple) ...which no deck will be able to use all of. > Presence has, to my knowledge, 2 > different S:CE cards, Three, with Staredown. > and any rush deck that can use up these cards is actually doing well. But didn't you say that if a deck that wants to beat people up in combat fails to do so, they are "destined to lose"? It sounds like Majesty is a problem after all. > >And, since no vampire in the crypt has > >capacity above 4, the occasional loss of a vampire will not be a > >problem. > > How does it work with these vampires? you have 4 different vampires > available to you, only one has obfuscate and only 2 have presence, > and then only at inferior. The crypt: Angela Decker (1) pre Dimple (2) obf Frederick the Weak (2) pre Delilah Easton (2) pre Lena Rowe (3) pre obf Gideon Fontaine (3) PRE Aggripina (4) OBF 2x Hadrian Garrick (4) obf pre Nepata (4) obf pre Tansu Bekir (4) OBF Violette Prentiss (4) PRE > You would need to add a lot of skill cards > to make it work which would severly reduce your deck's speed The deck would have 8 skill cards, but it is by no means slow. > and it > would get its vampires rushed into torpor faster than it can think. > And as those vampires will stay in torpor rather than be burnt (unless > you have your one fame - as it is restricted as being unique - on one > of them), I wouldn't even put Fame in; there's no need. [snip: smack talking] > >How was this deck difficult to create? > > I suppose it wouldn't be, but then it also wouldn't win, in fact it > would die quite spectacularily. You claim that all of my vampires would be in torpor constantly. Quite a feat, with only 8 rush cards. How do you do it? > >What _doesn't_ it have 4 of? > > Ready Vampires, probably, as it goes... Well, no. > >And, most importantly, how does your group deal with that? > You seriously think that this deck would cause us problems? In > addition to everything above you also have to remember that you are > restricted to four skillcards and four efficient management The NL version of the deck has 4 of each skill card and 2 effective managements. > >Huh? How would _you_ suggest putting together a Brujah rush deck > > under 4CL? I predict it would have 4 of almost everything. > > In that case it would probably end up being far to large and wouldn't > get anything it needed through quickly enough, OK, when I say "4 of everything", I don't literally mean 4 of every single card in the game. My point is (which I made earlier and you chose to ignore) that in a 4CL Brujah rush deck, you would be a fool not to put in 4 of the following: Bum's Rush Ambush Haven Uncovered Undead Strength Torn Signpost Immortal Grapple Flash Blur There's 32 cards that _must_ go in. No thought involved. The rest of the deck would be "season to taste". How is that too big? How will that suffer from hand jams other than the ones indicative to the 4CL environment (i.e., I don't have any of card X in my hand, since I only have 4, so I'm useless). > it would have to refuse > to block something Does this indicate that a combat must rely on blocking actions to get into combat? Gosh, sounds like stealth still is the most effective strategy. > Deck creation in CL is as > much about balance as it is under NL, the only difference is that you > have to obtain that in ways that, IMO, are more challenging to > obtain. "Challenging" and "difficult" are two different things. > So, your saying that its just down to a point of principle? Who am I > to tell you what to do, sort of thing? Well, that swings both ways: > why can't I restrict myself if I like that better. As long as you see that it's an arbitrary restriction with no overall redeeming value. > All the people I > play with feel the same so its not a huge problem for us. I'm not > trying to get you to play CL, okay, so might I think that your life > might be slightly better if you did, but its not my place to tell you > that, so I won't. But you just did. I could go up to you and say "I could tell you that you're an idiot, but I won't". [Just kidding] I still don't see what 4CL fixes. You claim that it obviates the need for the GT, but I don't see that either. Vote pushing is still very, very effective. > The point that I would debate with here is that > placing a CL on a game makes it less creative, perhaps it does to a > certain extent, but I think that really this is not true, when you get > down to the bare bones of it: I doubt that there is any > deck that would be uncreatable under CL that is creatable under NL > (barring One-Trick-Ponies), I think that its all a matter of how you > look at it. You cannot make any NL deck under 4CL because NL decks will have more than 4 of something. > Rather than saying "I've not got enough of this card so I can't make > that deck work", think instead "How can I make this deck work? What > other cards can I use to emulate this effect?" That is where the > creativity and the > challenge comes in to deck building under CL. That is where the craftiness and difficulty come. I don't see having to try really hard to get around a self-imposed limit as being creative at all. > >You wouldn't want to play against them? Why? OTP's are notoriously > >vulnerable to their anti-pony (i.e. WVP/WPV vulnerable to Atonement). > > What is WVP/WPV? Weenie Vote Push / Weenie Presence Vote. > do you mean that I have to make a deck that counters another deck > deliberately? Or have to use a sideboard to counter any OTPs that > might crop up? Either of these ideas I find distasteful! (infact it > was one of your NL lot - Curt Adams, I think - who has written an > article that can be found on Judith and Marks web page about why side > boards are inappropriate) My point was not that sideboards are a good idea (I think that they are _not_), but that any OTP is easily defeatable by a well-designed deck, i.e., one that is built with many strategies in mind. > This is my point about the Sabbat expansion. Now the things that 4CL > breaks are gone! All its problems have been completely obliterated by > this expansion and we can now go on and play 4CL with out you lot > saying "S&B! S&B! S&B! S&B!!!" at us all the time - there is no longer > any problem with 4CL apart from principle, and GT also has breaks a > principle aswell, so now we truely are even! The problems with 4CL, as I have outlined them above: * S&B still a major swing strategy. [Especially with Setites.] * Stifles creativity and freedom of deck construction. * S:CE [anti-combat in general] * Required to buy every expansion to stay competitive * Counting cards in ash heap becomes valuable * CL varies based on cards in print > >What you describe is a One Trick Pony. > > No. What I describe is an effective OTP (as S&B used to be under the > old 4CL before Sabbat). That's what I said. > But if a deck is to deal with a truely degenerate OTP (ie. one that > can destroy you very quickly), then you will need a sideboard, which > will reduce the challenge and creativity of deck building You would _not_ need a sideboard. When a deck is made, you should make considerations for what other decks might be your predator/prey. Any deck should be able to deal with Bleed, Vote and Combat. If not, then that deck is not well-designed. > I can't see any OTP's that would work effectively under > 4CL therefore its not a problem for me. I still claim that the Obf/Pre deck would be very effective. > >Unfortunately, one thing 4CL decks are not is well-designed. > > This is an insulting statement that is both unfounded and untrue. > I expect this statement to be withdrawn. No. I was not insulting you. I truly believe that it is impossible to make a well-designed deck in 4CL. The card limit itself limits design possibilities. James -- James Hamblin je...@cornell.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Only one human captain has ever survived battle with the Minbari fleet. He is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives, be somewhere else." -- Ambassador Delenn, "Babylon 5: Severed Dreams"

mUST WEAnonymous wrote: <huge volume of text about NL vs CL snipped> > Anonymous Is it really necessary to rehash this CL NL argument??? I think both have their merits, and its a personal decision. If you feel strongly enough about it to carry on this thread then you might want to think about discussing it over e-mail. I for one am tired of sorting through the CL is this... Nl is this debate. Whatever happened to the newsletter idea for the CL/NL argument that was suggested not so long ago?? Karl

James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> wrote in article <3294A8...@cornell.edu>... > Anonymous wrote: > > > Yes it cuts down on combat ends. So do three > > other cards - Psyche, Fast reaction (for anintercept deck) and hidden > > lurker (for a rush deck). > > But no deck will be able to play with more than one of these, and there > are a plethora of S:CE cards out there. My 4CL Rush deck regularly stocks both Immortal Grapples and Psyches...and I don't use 4 of either. S:CE is annoying, but it doesn't usually cause too much of a problem for me. > [4CL env. constantly changing] > > which makes the game much more exciting as it is always changing and > > adding depth and variety to the game, rather than sticking with a > > simple stagnant deck design for eternity, because it wins. > > There is no NL deck which always wins. > > Having 4CL when there are so many duplicates is pointless. It doesn't > fix anything, and puts a stranglehold on creativity. Interesting opinion. The point of CL is to restrict certain degenerate strategies, which it does reasonably well. However, before all these duplicates, it also hampered a lot of *un-degenerate* strategies. With the duplicates, these undegenerate strategies become more viable, and the degenerate strategies/card combos are still limited. This is a bad thing? What you seem to arguing is that a) CL is bad because it limits your options and reduces creativity, and yet b) CL is "pointless" because with the new duplicates it is no longer limiting your options to use certain cards. HUH? > > >"Oh, now I can have 8 Bum's Rush type cards, where before I > > >could only have 4." What's the point? > [answer: rush decks easier to make] > > I understand that. My point is that why bother having this arbitrary > 4CL when, in the case of "get into combat actions", it's really an 8CL. This has always been the case...there have always been cards that have closely duplicated the effects of other cards. You could have said the same thing about additional strikes with Blur and Acrobatics: "in the case of additional strikes it's an 8CL?" This line of reasoning makes no sense to me. Problem cards don't get duplicated...non-problem cards (like cards that let you Rush into combat) do. This is why a blanket CL works. I have played under both CL and NCL environments...I prefer CL. > > >It's like having selective 4/8/12/etc.-CL based on what has been > > >printed. > > > > Yes. And its the selective part that makes it so much better. > > It's _better_ to have a random 4/8/12 CL depending on what's been > _printed_? Yep, as long as we can trust WOTC to only reprint cards that are not problems. For example, when they print duplicates of Thoughts Betrayed or Return to Innocence, there will be a big problem with CL. > You think it's advantageous to know for sure how many card someone has > left in their deck? "Oh, you've used all 4 Majesties? I Bum's Rush > you..." Yeah, that's great fun. That is a matter of opinion. I would argue that it's more fun than watching someone do the same action over and over and over (with a NL deck)... In a CL environment, after all the Majesties are gone, the Toreadors simply dodge (multiple times if necessary), and the Setites Mummify themselves... > > > Game Playing: > > Under CL, because your deck is so much more "highly strung" (as one NL > > player put it) than a comparative NL deck, you will have to makesure > > that all your cards are used to their best value > > So you sit around doing nothing until you get exactly the right > combination of cards in your hand (i.e., "gin")? Woo hoo. Sounds like > fun to me. This is no more true than under NL. A good CL deck won't worry about hand jam any more than a good NL deck. > > Under CL > > you need to utilise what you have to the best of its capability, > > rather than under NL where the majority > > the tactics are in deck construction. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Thank you. That's because deck construction in 4CL is mindless and > pointless. If you say so, it must be true! ;) Actually deck construction under 4CL is just as (if not more) challenging than under NL, BECAUSE of the self-imposed restrictions. What Anonymous seemed to be saying is that most of the tactics under NL are in deck construction, a point that I don't necessarily agree with, unless the deck is a OTP, which are more viable under NL, IMHO. > No, you _might_ have more in a NL deck. At least you get to choose. > I'm not saying that every 4CL deck has 4 of everything, but you > certainly are not going to have any _less_ than 4 Bum's Rushes in a 4CL > rush deck. So? How many are you going to have in a NL deck? 8? You are correct that a themed deck will have many cards of that theme. I'm not sure what the point of that argument is though. > > What if I don't _want_ to play with Pushing the Limit? 4CL forces me to > play with it if I want to be competitive. With 4CL, you _have_ to buy > significant amounts of every expansion, just to stay competitive. Not really. You can buy small amounts (or even none) and trade for the cards you want to use. > > >Not really. With Rush combat reasonably effective, the Setites > > >become the worse problem. My Pre/Obf deck doesn't have more than 6 > > >of anything, and even under 4CL would be quite effective, since I > > >don't use many of the new Sabbat Pre bleed cards. With only 4 IG or > > >4 Psyche, S:CE will win most of the time. > > > > Okay... S:CE, yes it is a problem. > > ...which it is not under NL. Really? When I was playing NL, S:CE was just as much of a problem as it is under CL. I don't really see it as a "problem" per se...more of an annoyance. > > Does this indicate that a combat must rely on blocking actions to get > into combat? Gosh, sounds like stealth still is the most effective > strategy. Nope, not at all. I've enjoyed great success (a better than 50% win rate) with my 4CL Rush deck. Blocking? What's that? ;) Just my 2 cents. -Elfholme

Mark Havener wrote: > > > But no deck will be able to play with more than one of these, and > > there > > are a plethora of S:CE cards out there. > > My 4CL Rush deck regularly stocks both Immortal Grapples and > Psyches...and I don't use 4 of either. S:CE is annoying, but it > doesn't usually cause too much of a problem for me. I meant more than one of {Psyche, Hidden Lurker, Fast Reaction}. My point is that with more S:CE than get into combat cards, S:CE is more likely to be more effective. > > Having 4CL when there are so many duplicates is pointless. It > > doesn't fix anything, and puts a stranglehold on creativity. > > Interesting opinion. The point of CL is to restrict certain > degenerate strategies, which it does reasonably well. However, > before all these duplicates, it also hampered a lot of *un-degenerate* > strategies. With the duplicates, these undegenerate strategies become > more viable, and the degenerate strategies/card combos are still > limited. This is a bad thing? What degenerate strategies? 20 Majesties is not degenerate. > What you seem to arguing is that a) CL is bad because it limits your > options and reduces creativity, and yet b) CL is "pointless" because > with the new duplicates it is no longer limiting your options to use > certain cards. HUH? Even with the duplicates, it limits creativity. But since there are as many as 12 of one type of card, why have a limit at all? > Problem cards don't get duplicated...non-problem cards (like cards > that let you Rush into combat) do. This is why a blanket CL works. > I have played under both CL and NCL environments...I prefer CL. How do you know that so-called "problem cards" won't get reprinted? There is no guarantee. The entire playing environment changes every time new cards are printed. > Yep, as long as we can trust WOTC to only reprint cards that are not > problems. For example, when they print duplicates of Thoughts > Betrayed or Return to Innocence, there will be a big problem with CL. But, don't you see? The fact that you have to rely on WotC to print certain types of cards and not print others is one of the big problems. The CL environment is constantly teetering on the edge of disaster. > > You think it's advantageous to know for sure how many card someone > > has left in their deck? "Oh, you've used all 4 Majesties? I Bum's > > Rush you..." Yeah, that's great fun. > > That is a matter of opinion. I would argue that it's more fun than > watching someone do the same action over and over and over (with a NL > deck)... I keep hearing the same thing over and over. No NL deck has 20 of anything. Such a deck is poorly designed. I think that the CL players (and I used to be one) are afraid of the horrible, degenerate things that could happen under NL, but the truth is, the environment balances itself out. > In a CL environment, after all the Majesties are gone, the Toreadors > simply dodge (multiple times if necessary), Dodge has never been an effective anti-combat measure, especially against additional strikes, and especially when you can only have 4... > and the Setites Mummify > themselves... Oh, yeah. That's _really_ effective... > > So you sit around doing nothing until you get exactly the right > > combination of cards in your hand (i.e., "gin")? Woo hoo. Sounds > > like fun to me. > > This is no more true than under NL. A good CL deck won't worry > about hand jam any more than a good NL deck. Actually, most CL decks are in a state of perpetual hand jam, as someone else posted. NL decks have that problem less often, since they have many copies of the card(s) that they need. > > That's because deck construction in 4CL is mindless and > > pointless. > > If you say so, it must be true! ;) Actually deck construction under > 4CL is just as (if not more) challenging than under NL, BECAUSE of > the self-imposed restrictions. Again, I think that you are confusing "challenging" with "difficult". > What Anonymous seemed to be saying > is that most of the tactics under NL are in deck construction, a point > that I don't necessarily agree with, unless the deck is a OTP, which > are more viable under NL, IMHO. And also more defeatable. OTP's are not a problem in NL, something that I don't think the CL'ers agree with... > So? How many are you going to have in a NL deck? 8? You are correct > that a themed deck will have many cards of that theme. I'm not sure > what the point of that argument is though. So, I'm saying that 4CL decks are boring in that you know most of the person's deck, whether it be 4 Majesties, 4 Bum's Rush, 4, 4, 4, ... > > With 4CL, you _have_ to buy > > significant amounts of every expansion, just to stay competitive. > > Not really. You can buy small amounts (or even none) and trade for > the cards you want to use. Maybe. But the group as a whole has to buy significant amounts of the expansion. > > > Okay... S:CE, yes it is a problem. > > > > ...which it is not under NL. > > Really? When I was playing NL, S:CE was just as much of a problem as > it is under CL. I don't really see it as a "problem" per se...more > of an annoyance. It's not a problem under NL. The 20 Majesties deck doesn't work. Under CL, you can only have 4 of the stop-S:CE cards, and you probably lose. > Nope, not at all. I've enjoyed great success (a better than 50% win > rate) with my 4CL Rush deck. Blocking? What's that? ;) 50% win rate? Were the other people at the table asleep? Even with rush (sort of) viable, Bleed Bounce is still non-existent. S&B should still be a powerful strategy... unless your group has banned it in order to justify playing CL... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3294A8...@cornell.edu> James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> writes: >Anonymous wrote: [lots of snippage, as James said it better than I could.] >> Game Playing: >> Under CL, because your deck is so much more "highly strung" (as one NL >> player put it) than a comparative NL deck, you will have to makesure >> that all your cards are used to their best value > >So you sit around doing nothing until you get exactly the right >combination of cards in your hand (i.e., "gin")? Woo hoo. Sounds like >fun to me. [more snippage] >> A CL deck that has to discard is probably >> a bad CL deck. > >So the mighty, creative, wonderful 4CL deck _never_ hand jams? Yeah, >right. No. The CL deck is waiting for the right combination. In other words, it's almost *always* hand jammed. The players just don't realize it. I play in a group that used to play CL, and half the players *still* don't understand hand jam. (Those are the ones that want to go back to CL because they can't figure out how to deal with Majesties and other 'unbalanced' decks. You force them to hand jam, for those who also don't know....). I had one of them sit half the game as my predator, discarding stealth cards because he was jammed, and complaining bitterly that he couldn't do anything because he couldn't draw the right cards. [more massive snippage] -- Tom Doehne doe...@cse.ogi.edu

James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> wrote in article <3295F7...@cornell.edu>... > Mark Havener wrote: > > > > > But no deck will be able to play with more than one of these, and > > > there > > > are a plethora of S:CE cards out there. > > > > My 4CL Rush deck regularly stocks both Immortal Grapples and > > Psyches...and I don't use 4 of either. S:CE is annoying, but it > > doesn't usually cause too much of a problem for me. > > I meant more than one of {Psyche, Hidden Lurker, Fast Reaction}. So now you are not including Immortal Grapple, the best S:CE deterrent??? Why? Like I said before, my deck uses two different S:CE deterrents (Immortal Grapple and S:CE). > My > point is that with more S:CE than get into combat cards, S:CE is more > likely to be more effective. To have more S:CE than me, they have to be playing with a wierd combination of vamps in their crypt, or lots of skill cards. It's possible to have a deck that uses Majesties and Mummifies ('course Mummify has it's own problems) AND Earth Melds, but is it a good deck? Under NL, he can have just as many S:CE cards as I have Rush cards...so what's the difference? > > > Having 4CL when there are so many duplicates is pointless. It > > > doesn't fix anything, and puts a stranglehold on creativity. > > > > Interesting opinion. The point of CL is to restrict certain > > degenerate strategies, which it does reasonably well. However, > > before all these duplicates, it also hampered a lot of *un-degenerate* > > strategies. With the duplicates, these undegenerate strategies become > > more viable, and the degenerate strategies/card combos are still > > limited. This is a bad thing? > > What degenerate strategies? 20 Majesties is not degenerate. Without GT it is. Evidently you have never played against a Freaky Majestic Bleed deck... > > What you seem to arguing is that a) CL is bad because it limits your > > options and reduces creativity, and yet b) CL is "pointless" because > > with the new duplicates it is no longer limiting your options to use > > certain cards. HUH? > > Even with the duplicates, it limits creativity. But since there are as > many as 12 of one type of card, why have a limit at all? Look, either say it matters, or say it doesn't, but make up your mind! If there is no reason to have a limit, then it obviously doesn't limit creativity very much, does it? IMHO (and the opinion of many other CL players), CL INCREASES the need for creativity. What it limits are OTP's. > > Problem cards don't get duplicated...non-problem cards (like cards > > that let you Rush into combat) do. This is why a blanket CL works. > > I have played under both CL and NCL environments...I prefer CL. > > How do you know that so-called "problem cards" won't get reprinted? > There is no guarantee. The entire playing environment changes every > time new cards are printed. > > > Yep, as long as we can trust WOTC to only reprint cards that are not > > problems. For example, when they print duplicates of Thoughts > > Betrayed or Return to Innocence, there will be a big problem with CL. > > But, don't you see? The fact that you have to rely on WotC to print > certain types of cards and not print others is one of the big problems. > The CL environment is constantly teetering on the edge of disaster. I think it's pretty obvious that we ALL (CL and NL players) rely on WOTC to give us a fair game environment. Saying that CL players are at the mercy of WOTC and NL players are not is very niave. > > > You think it's advantageous to know for sure how many card someone > > > has left in their deck? "Oh, you've used all 4 Majesties? I Bum's > > > Rush you..." Yeah, that's great fun. > > > > That is a matter of opinion. I would argue that it's more fun than > > watching someone do the same action over and over and over (with a NL > > deck)... > > I keep hearing the same thing over and over. No NL deck has 20 of > anything. Such a deck is poorly designed. I think that the CL players > (and I used to be one) are afraid of the horrible, degenerate things > that could happen under NL, but the truth is, the environment balances > itself out. Well, like I said before, I played in a NL enviroment too, and I've SEEN the horrible, degenerate things that can happen. > > In a CL environment, after all the Majesties are gone, the Toreadors > > simply dodge (multiple times if necessary), > > Dodge has never been an effective anti-combat measure, especially > against additional strikes, and especially when you can only have 4... Um...I think you are forgetting the multiple dodges Toreadors can have with their Cel. Notice that my "dodge" above is not capitalized (therefore it refers to a strike, not a particular card). Dodge strikes are an effective anti-combat measure if you also have access to multiple strikes (like the Toreadors), and you use them correctly (knowing when to dodge and when to S:CE is very importatn...under NL, I don't even have to think about it...) > > and the Setites Mummify > > themselves... > > Oh, yeah. That's _really_ effective... It is if they are using Fame...Mummify is a good card IF USED INTELLIGENTLY. Not as good as Majesty perhaps, but still a good card. > > > So you sit around doing nothing until you get exactly the right > > > combination of cards in your hand (i.e., "gin")? Woo hoo. Sounds > > > like fun to me. > > > > This is no more true than under NL. A good CL deck won't worry > > about hand jam any more than a good NL deck. > > Actually, most CL decks are in a state of perpetual hand jam, as someone > else posted. NL decks have that problem less often, since they have > many copies of the card(s) that they need. "perpetual hand jam"? That's a bit harsh. A well-designed CL deck has hand-jam problems about as often as a NL deck, because other cards tend to get substituted. I've read through several NL decks, and most of them (the non-OTP's) didn't use substantially more than 4 of any single card anyway (most NL decks I've seen would fit under a 6CL). I have to conclude from this (and from my NL experience) that hand jam is still a problem in the NL environment. > > > That's because deck construction in 4CL is mindless and > > > pointless. > > > > If you say so, it must be true! ;) Actually deck construction under > > 4CL is just as (if not more) challenging than under NL, BECAUSE of > > the self-imposed restrictions. > > Again, I think that you are confusing "challenging" with "difficult". Hmmm...I don't think so. I think deck construction under CL is harder, and that makes it more fun. That's just about my definition of "challenging"... > > What Anonymous seemed to be saying > > is that most of the tactics under NL are in deck construction, a point > > that I don't necessarily agree with, unless the deck is a OTP, which > > are more viable under NL, IMHO. > > And also more defeatable. OTP's are not a problem in NL, something that > I don't think the CL'ers agree with... Right...we don't agree here. They aren't a problem if you know that they are going to be used. > > So? How many are you going to have in a NL deck? 8? You are correct > > that a themed deck will have many cards of that theme. I'm not sure > > what the point of that argument is though. > > So, I'm saying that 4CL decks are boring in that you know most of the > person's deck, whether it be 4 Majesties, 4 Bum's Rush, 4, 4, 4, ... Well, I haven't found that to be true with CL. You can pretty much be sure about a couple of cards in a person's deck (Blur if they are playing Celerity, Majesty if they are playing Presence, Wakes with any deck...), but not all, or even a majority of their cards. I've found NL decks to be much more predictable. That's a problem for me. > > > With 4CL, you _have_ to buy > > > significant amounts of every expansion, just to stay competitive. > > > > Not really. You can buy small amounts (or even none) and trade for > > the cards you want to use. > > Maybe. But the group as a whole has to buy significant amounts of the > expansion. Maybe it's just me, but that's never been a problem. If you have a solid group of 8 players (and the groups I have played with usually had a few more than that), then getting a "substantial amount" of a new expansion isn't a problem. Especially if you have a few die-hards who "have to have" the newest cards (not because they need them to "remain competitive", but because they genuinely love the game). > > > > Okay... S:CE, yes it is a problem. > > > > > > ...which it is not under NL. > > > > Really? When I was playing NL, S:CE was just as much of a problem as > > it is under CL. I don't really see it as a "problem" per se...more > > of an annoyance. > > It's not a problem under NL. The 20 Majesties deck doesn't work. Under > CL, you can only have 4 of the stop-S:CE cards, and you probably lose. Actually, if you have a deck that's built for combat, you will most likely have eight, but who's counting? ;) The Assamites, Toreadors, and Brujah all have this option. > > Nope, not at all. I've enjoyed great success (a better than 50% win > > rate) with my 4CL Rush deck. Blocking? What's that? ;) > > 50% win rate? Were the other people at the table asleep? Even with > rush (sort of) viable, Bleed Bounce is still non-existent. S&B should > still be a powerful strategy... unless your group has banned it in order > to justify playing CL... Nope. We ban nothing. The 50% win rate was gained over several months (and I posted the results to this newsgroup while I was running my "test", along with posting the deck multiple times), against many different players (I used it in two different playing groups). I can assure you the table wasn't asleep! Bleed bounce is not a necessity! The deck's success was actually much higher than 50%, and it got me ganged up by the table a few times! The hardest times it had were when it had a S&B predator or a For combat prey, but even in those situations, it's success rate was about 50%...and many times it swept the table! This was all in response to a challenge posted by a couple of the NL die-hards, which I accepted. S&B is a powerful strategy, but so is Bruise and Bleed, Vote and Bleed, pure Vote, Rush, etc. -Elfholme

All right, I am replying to my own post, so I snipped everything. One more thing I wanted to interject was this: I'm not trying to say that CL is a better way to play than NL. Which style you prefer is subjective...neither one is "better" than the other. Many people like playing CL. For some reason, a few NL players seem to regard this as a personal attack, and they proceed to rip CL players up and down. I see statements like "deck building under CL is mindless", "CL are for players with no imagination", even "CL stifle imagination" get me a little upset. Either NL players are offended by the fact that many players prefer CL, or they are just not trying to see the other side. I have played under both CL and NL, and I prefer CL. I don't think one is measurably better than the other (as long as you use the GT's with NL). The new expansion (Sabbat) has made CL even more viable (with the new "duplicate" cards), not less. I know we're not going to convince each other...my point in entering this debate was to fend off some of the attacks that were aimed at CL. We CL players enjoy the game playing under CL...what's the problem in that? So CL is not "the way the game was designed to be played"...so what? Neither is GT. The fact is, the game is broken if played the way it was designed to be played. Okay, I'm done now. Hopefully we can agree to disagree on this issue (once again). Truce? -Elfholme

Mark Havener (elfh...@ix.netcom.com) wrote: : To have more S:CE than me, they have to be playing with a wierd combination : of vamps in their crypt, or lots of skill cards. It's possible to have a : deck that uses Majesties and Mummifies ('course Mummify has it's own : problems) AND Earth Melds, but is it a good deck? Under NL, he can have : just as many S:CE cards as I have Rush cards...so what's the difference? It doesn't matter if they have more S:CE than you do, you want to get into a fight. Majestying their majesty is an interesting trick, but you can keep doing it until the cows come home and you aren't going to be able to hit them upside the head with PtL. : > What degenerate strategies? 20 Majesties is not degenerate. : : Without GT it is. Evidently you have never played against a Freaky : Majestic Bleed deck... CL are not necesarry for this. It isn't needed to prevent someone from packing 6 spirits touch (b/c they're quietus/auspex combat deck wants to maneuver to long range in order to hock death loogies, no I'm not kidding), b/c 6 majesties is degenerate. The tournament rules, despite being a WOTC support product, work just fine. And Vote Pushing is now balanced (but still decent) under the printed rules addendum in Sabbat. : : > > What you seem to arguing is that a) CL is bad because it limits your : > > options and reduces creativity, and yet b) CL is "pointless" because : > > with the new duplicates it is no longer limiting your options to use : > > certain cards. HUH? : > : > Even with the duplicates, it limits creativity. But since there are as : > many as 12 of one type of card, why have a limit at all? : : Look, either say it matters, or say it doesn't, but make up your mind! If : there is no reason to have a limit, then it obviously doesn't limit : creativity very much, does it? IMHO (and the opinion of many other CL : players), CL INCREASES the need for creativity. What it limits are OTP's. : It makes a difference, my ally (I think) is saying, b/c in _some_ decks, they just don't care, there are 12 cards that are the same they pack as many as they like. In other decks it's a problem. In some cases it makes no difference, and is therefore unnecesarry and annoying to have to keep in mind, while other strategies are punished for it. And what do you have against One Trick Ponies? OTP's are variety, and variety increases creativity, you need to be able to deal with more contingencies. And you have more optionts available under NL. : > > Yep, as long as we can trust WOTC to only reprint cards that are not : > > problems. For example, when they print duplicates of Thoughts : > > Betrayed or Return to Innocence, there will be a big problem with CL. : > : > But, don't you see? The fact that you have to rely on WotC to print : > certain types of cards and not print others is one of the big problems. : > The CL environment is constantly teetering on the edge of disaster. : : I think it's pretty obvious that we ALL (CL and NL players) rely on WOTC to : give us a fair game environment. Saying that CL players are at the mercy : of WOTC and NL players are not is very niave. This is true. However, there are allready duplicates of all the cards required for one rather tasteless strategy, Stealth and Bleed, which of course must exist (a necesarry evil), but benefits extensively from CL b/c all of it's cards are now duplicated - it can have 8, 12 if you count "Enemy of my Enemy", deflections under CL, and it's enemy the presence deck can only have 4 of presence's only bleed enhancer? The fact is - No Limits is well balanced, all strategies have a seat at the table, all are capable of winning. One Trick Ponyies, which can be very interesting decks, occasionally beat up well balanced generic decks, and occasionally the other way around. _Nobody_ always wins. I'm not saying that nobody always wins in 4CL, either, but, it's an unncesarry change. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. : > > > You think it's advantageous to know for sure how many card someone : > > > has left in their deck? "Oh, you've used all 4 Majesties? I Bum's : > > > Rush you..." Yeah, that's great fun. : > > : > > That is a matter of opinion. I would argue that it's more fun than : > > watching someone do the same action over and over and over (with a NL : > > deck)... : > : > I keep hearing the same thing over and over. No NL deck has 20 of : > anything. Such a deck is poorly designed. I think that the CL players : > (and I used to be one) are afraid of the horrible, degenerate things : > that could happen under NL, but the truth is, the environment balances : > itself out. : : Well, like I said before, I played in a NL enviroment too, and I've SEEN : the horrible, degenerate things that can happen. : Where you playing the tournament rules? CL is _not_ a substitute for the tournament rules. If you want to avoid degeneracy, use the official published thingies. Interestingly, the official tournament rules fall under the category of "good taste", rather than a limit (no more than 2 of any of the obviously gross cards). : > > In a CL environment, after all the Majesties are gone, the Toreadors : > > simply dodge (multiple times if necessary), : > : > Dodge has never been an effective anti-combat measure, especially : > against additional strikes, and especially when you can only have 4... : : Um...I think you are forgetting the multiple dodges Toreadors can have with : their Cel. Notice that my "dodge" above is not capitalized (therefore it : refers to a strike, not a particular card). Dodge strikes are an effective : anti-combat measure if you also have access to multiple strikes (like the : Toreadors), and you use them correctly (knowing when to dodge and when to : S:CE is very importatn...under NL, I don't even have to think about it...) : Not true. If you have something nasty to do on the second round... and in any case, there are many decks that don't have unlimited access to presence among their vampires; such decks will pack only a limited quantity of majesty to avoid hand jams - this limited quantity is more than four, but finding it requires creativity and in many cases you want to fill out, since all of your guys have celerity (in this particular deck), with various celetity dodges. Thus, majesty is a limited resource when you draw light on it instead of heavy. Thus, you may have to make a careful decision to dodge instead of S:CE. In other decks, you have more presence and pack no celerity and S:CE or _punch_ is your only responses to combat. In any case, making decisions around this kind of thing requires a _hell_ of a lot more creativity than putting in 4 majesty, 4 catatonic fear and some celerity dodges and then doding potence while S:CEing celerity and tremere. : > > and the Setites Mummify : > > themselves... : > : > Oh, yeah. That's _really_ effective... : : It is if they are using Fame...Mummify is a good card IF USED : INTELLIGENTLY. Not as good as Majesty perhaps, but still a good card. : This is true. And a deck that did this would still want less than four mummiffy. : > > > So you sit around doing nothing until you get exactly the right : > > > combination of cards in your hand (i.e., "gin")? Woo hoo. Sounds : > > > like fun to me. : > > : > > This is no more true than under NL. A good CL deck won't worry : > > about hand jam any more than a good NL deck. : > : > Actually, most CL decks are in a state of perpetual hand jam, as someone : > else posted. NL decks have that problem less often, since they have : > many copies of the card(s) that they need. : : "perpetual hand jam"? That's a bit harsh. A well-designed CL deck has : hand-jam problems about as often as a NL deck, because other cards tend to : get substituted. I've read through several NL decks, and most of them (the : non-OTP's) didn't use substantially more than 4 of any single card anyway : (most NL decks I've seen would fit under a 6CL). I have to conclude from : this (and from my NL experience) that hand jam is still a problem in the NL : environment. Hand Jam is a problem in every environment. And One Trick Ponies are often cool decks, don't knock them. If you can't find a way to deal with them, then they win. Gosh, what a horror. : : > Again, I think that you are confusing "challenging" with "difficult". : : Hmmm...I don't think so. I think deck construction under CL is harder, and : that makes it more fun. That's just about my definition of : "challenging"... Deck Limits under 4CL is easier b/c the answer to 75% of your questions is "four". 6CL, admittedly, is not functionally diffrent from NCL (assuming you restrict FD, M, EM and FoM), except that it prevents people from making cool and entertaining OTP's. : : > And also more defeatable. OTP's are not a problem in NL, something that : > I don't think the CL'ers agree with... : : Right...we don't agree here. They aren't a problem if you know that they : are going to be used. They are _supposed_ to be a problem! If none of your opponents are problems than the game gets real boring, real fast. They are, however, a soluble problem, to varying degrees and with varying social environemtns and needs, etc. It's a game, and OTP's (although I don't paly them myself) are challenging to fight and challenging to play. What's the problem? : Well, I haven't found that to be true with CL. You can pretty much be sure : about a couple of cards in a person's deck (Blur if they are playing : Celerity, Majesty if they are playing Presence, Wakes with any deck...), : but not all, or even a majority of their cards. I've found NL decks to be : much more predictable. That's a problem for me. Then you're problem is that you played against boring people. Decks, regardless of design specs, are only predictable if the people who make them are inherently uncreative. But, the fact is absolute, that NCL allows more room for creativity, being less limited, than 4CL. [yes, admittedly, there are problems that CL _doesn't_ have, deleted] : Nope. We ban nothing. The 50% win rate was gained over several months : (and I posted the results to this newsgroup while I was running my "test", : along with posting the deck multiple times), against many different players : (I used it in two different playing groups). I can assure you the table : wasn't asleep! Bleed bounce is not a necessity! The deck's success was : actually much higher than 50%, and it got me ganged up by the table a few : times! The hardest times it had were when it had a S&B predator or a For : combat prey, but even in those situations, it's success rate was about : 50%...and many times it swept the table! This was all in response to a : challenge posted by a couple of the NL die-hards, which I accepted. Then you're opponents _are_ asleep. After a record like this, I don't see how you can claim that your playgroup doesn't stink. : : S&B is a powerful strategy, but so is Bruise and Bleed, Vote and Bleed, : pure Vote, Rush, etc. This is true, but it's more true under NCL. Garry

Anonymous (Neve...@mind.com) wrote: > With regards to your comment about contesting, I think you are very much > mistaken if you consider this to be a problem for CL - I would like to know > how an Art museum could be contested when nobody else is playing Toreador. > When it comes down to it clan specific Locations are very difficult to > contest if everyone is playing different clans (which tends to happen in our > group so that we get lots of variety in our games, which I think all of us > agree makes the game more fun) The advantage to playing CL is that the > unnatural disasters become playable, thus making any location a risk (after > all, 2 pool is not much to pay when you are stopping someone getting that > permanent flow of bloodback. Two questions: Why do you assume that us NL-types all play the same clans? Last I checked, everyone plays different clans (well, mostly, anyway). Why are Unnatural Disasters playable under CL, but not otherwise? Is there something special about them that they only work when you have exactly 4 of them in a deck? > > Cheerio, > > Anonymous One more question: What's the deal with the anonymous posting? -Mark Langsdorf http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html

In article <01bbda3a$043410e0$8ee51fcc@default> "Mark Havener" <elfh...@ix.netcom.com> writes: > >All right, I am replying to my own post, so I snipped everything. One more >thing I wanted to interject was this: I'm not trying to say that CL is a >better way to play than NL. Which style you prefer is subjective...neither >one is "better" than the other. Many people like playing CL. For some [rag on people posting for the NL side of the debate snipped] >I know we're not going to convince each other...my point in entering this >debate was to fend off some of the attacks that were aimed at CL. We CL >players enjoy the game playing under CL...what's the problem in that? So >CL is not "the way the game was designed to be played"...so what? Neither >is GT. The fact is, the game is broken if played the way it was designed >to be played. Most of the NL players would dispute that 'fact'. It plays fine, but for a couple of cards (allowing repeat actions). The original design (according to some) did not allow vote pushing - it was allowed in one of the first 'clarifications' of the rules. The design is beautiful, and imposing CL breaks it. But that is a matter of opinion, not fact (as you claim). -- Tom Doehne

In article <01bbd95e$d6da3b00$d9dc23c7@default> "Mark Havener" <elfh...@ix.netcom.com> writes: > > >James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> wrote in article ><3295F7...@cornell.edu>... >> Mark Havener wrote: [Lots of CL/NL debate snipped] > >> > What you seem to arguing is that a) CL is bad because it limits your >> > options and reduces creativity, and yet b) CL is "pointless" because >> > with the new duplicates it is no longer limiting your options to use >> > certain cards. HUH? >> >> Even with the duplicates, it limits creativity. But since there are as >> many as 12 of one type of card, why have a limit at all? > >Look, either say it matters, or say it doesn't, but make up your mind! If >there is no reason to have a limit, then it obviously doesn't limit >creativity very much, does it? IMHO (and the opinion of many other CL >players), CL INCREASES the need for creativity. What it limits are OTP's. CL does for Jyhad what a strict rhyme/meter does for writing: it requires a certain kind of creativity that some people enjoy, but it severely restricts what you can do. Some people like poetry, some don't. However, if you're in competition (arguing a legal case, say), speaking in verse will put you at a disadvantage. And there's plenty of room for creativity without adopting an arbitrary restriction. (My opinion, CL proponents disagree, of course.) >> > Problem cards don't get duplicated...non-problem cards (like cards >> > that let you Rush into combat) do. This is why a blanket CL works. >> > I have played under both CL and NCL environments...I prefer CL. Until Sabbat, this has not been true. And there are still only 3 vanilla Rush combat cards (for a total of 12 under 4CL). This isn't really enough in large games. And is why blanket CL is (still) broken. Another example: I've been trying to build an Assamite deck under 5CL, and can't get enough maneuvers to make a clean and simple working Assamite rush deck. IR Goggles takes a (blockable) action, and I need more than the 10 given me by Fake Out and Flash (and I don't -and shouldn't have to - own Sabbat). Could use weapons, but aside from zip guns, they take up actions/card slots (for the Disguise) - and commit me to not dodging that initial strike if I use them. I don't see this as a creativity-enhancing exercise, sorry. [more snippage] >> > > You think it's advantageous to know for sure how many card someone >> > > has left in their deck? "Oh, you've used all 4 Majesties? I Bum's >> > > Rush you..." Yeah, that's great fun. >> > >> > That is a matter of opinion. I would argue that it's more fun than >> > watching someone do the same action over and over and over (with a NL >> > deck)... >> >> I keep hearing the same thing over and over. No NL deck has 20 of >> anything. Such a deck is poorly designed. I think that the CL players >> (and I used to be one) are afraid of the horrible, degenerate things >> that could happen under NL, but the truth is, the environment balances >> itself out. > >Well, like I said before, I played in a NL enviroment too, and I've SEEN >the horrible, degenerate things that can happen. Being able to count cards makes for a very different game. And I haven't seen degenerate decks under NL nearly as much as I've seen CL players who don't understand how to play in an NL environment. The ones who keep complaining about degenerate strategies are also the ones who don't understand how to use hand jam. >> > In a CL environment, after all the Majesties are gone, the Toreadors >> > simply dodge (multiple times if necessary), >> >> Dodge has never been an effective anti-combat measure, especially >> against additional strikes, and especially when you can only have 4... > >Um...I think you are forgetting the multiple dodges Toreadors can have with >their Cel. Notice that my "dodge" above is not capitalized (therefore it >refers to a strike, not a particular card). Dodge strikes are an effective >anti-combat measure if you also have access to multiple strikes (like the >Toreadors), and you use them correctly (knowing when to dodge and when to >S:CE is very importatn...under NL, I don't even have to think about it...) Have to agree, dodging can be very effective, even against multiple strike decks. [more snipping] >> > > So you sit around doing nothing until you get exactly the right >> > > combination of cards in your hand (i.e., "gin")? Woo hoo. Sounds >> > > like fun to me. >> > >> > This is no more true than under NL. A good CL deck won't worry >> > about hand jam any more than a good NL deck. >> >> Actually, most CL decks are in a state of perpetual hand jam, as someone >> else posted. NL decks have that problem less often, since they have >> many copies of the card(s) that they need. > >"perpetual hand jam"? That's a bit harsh. A well-designed CL deck has >hand-jam problems about as often as a NL deck, because other cards tend to >get substituted. I've read through several NL decks, and most of them (the >non-OTP's) didn't use substantially more than 4 of any single card anyway >(most NL decks I've seen would fit under a 6CL). I have to conclude from >this (and from my NL experience) that hand jam is still a problem in the NL >environment. Here's a big clue: You put in more than 4 of the cards that help your deck work effectively. Those are the critical cards that prevent hand jam. <duh> NL decks usually have more than 4 of only a few cards, but those are the ones that keep the cards flowing. If you don't have those, you're waiting around for them (can you say 'hand jam', boys and girls? I knew you could!) >> > > That's because deck construction in 4CL is mindless and >> > > pointless. [snip of responses and counter-responses] It's hardly mindless - it takes a lot of thought to get around that arbirtary restriction. And it does encourage the inclusion of cards that one would otherwise not look at twice. :-) I'll agree on the pointless, but that's personal taste.... >> > What Anonymous seemed to be saying >> > is that most of the tactics under NL are in deck construction, a point >> > that I don't necessarily agree with, unless the deck is a OTP, which >> > are more viable under NL, IMHO. >> >> And also more defeatable. OTP's are not a problem in NL, something that >> I don't think the CL'ers agree with... > >Right...we don't agree here. They aren't a problem if you know that they >are going to be used. They are also not a problem if you *don't* know they're going to be used, and you built a good deck. If you can't build a good deck or don't know how to deal with OTP's in your play, then you'll have problems. [snippage of opinions on how boring CL/NL is] [actually, snippage of all the rest] Just my 2 cents. I don't like CL, but my playing group has just become a casualty of all the broken cards in Sabbat -- it decided to go back to 5CL in order to 'control' the broken cards. :P Anyone know a group in Portland, OR that plays NL? -- Tom Doehne

Mark Havener (elfh...@ix.netcom.com) wrote: > > thing I wanted to interject was this: I'm not trying to say that CL is a > better way to play than NL. Which style you prefer is subjective...neither > one is "better" than the other. Many people like playing CL. For some > reason, a few NL players seem to regard this as a personal attack, and they > proceed to rip CL players up and down. I see statements like "deck > building under CL is mindless", "CL are for players with no imagination", > even "CL stifle imagination" get me a little upset. Either NL players are This is opposed to the CL types that say "Deck building is more challenging under a CL" and "It takes more skill to play under the CL?" I don't appreciate being insulted for my play style, either. Admittedly, I do think you have a legitimate grief, here, and I wish both sides would shut up on the debate. > offended by the fact that many players prefer CL, or they are just not > trying to see the other side. I have played under both CL and NL, and I > prefer CL. I don't think one is measurably better than the other (as long > as you use the GT's with NL). The new expansion (Sabbat) has made CL even > more viable (with the new "duplicate" cards), not less. Plenty of CLs types seem offended that many players prefer NL. > > I know we're not going to convince each other...my point in entering this > debate was to fend off some of the attacks that were aimed at CL. We CL > players enjoy the game playing under CL...what's the problem in that? So > CL is not "the way the game was designed to be played"...so what? Neither > is GT. The fact is, the game is broken if played the way it was designed > to be played. I see no problem with playing the game under CL, if that's what you want to do. > > Okay, I'm done now. Hopefully we can agree to disagree on this issue (once > again). Truce? Fine by me. Mark Langsdorf http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html

"Mark Havener" <elfh...@ix.netcom.com> writes: >James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> wrote in article ><3295F7...@cornell.edu>... >> Mark Havener wrote: >> > Interesting opinion. The point of CL is to restrict certain >> > degenerate strategies, which it does reasonably well. However, >> > before all these duplicates, it also hampered a lot of *un-degenerate* >> > strategies. With the duplicates, these undegenerate strategies become >> > more viable, and the degenerate strategies/card combos are still >> > limited. This is a bad thing? >> >> What degenerate strategies? 20 Majesties is not degenerate. >Without GT it is. Evidently you have never played against a Freaky >Majestic Bleed deck... Even without GT, Freaky Majesty doesn't work. "No repeat actions" is an official rule now. For Freak Decks to become unbalanced, you'd have to add a house rule overriding that restriction. >> > > > Okay... S:CE, yes it is a problem. >> > > >> > > ...which it is not under NL. >> > >> > Really? When I was playing NL, S:CE was just as much of a problem as >> > it is under CL. I don't really see it as a "problem" per se...more >> > of an annoyance. >> >> It's not a problem under NL. The 20 Majesties deck doesn't work. Under >> CL, you can only have 4 of the stop-S:CE cards, and you probably lose. >Actually, if you have a deck that's built for combat, you will most likely >have eight, but who's counting? ;) The Assamites, Toreadors, and Brujah >all have this option. And it's still not a problem under NL. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Eschew http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | Obfuscation [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : >> What degenerate strategies? 20 Majesties is not degenerate. : : >Without GT it is. Evidently you have never played against a Freaky : >Majestic Bleed deck... : : Even without GT, Freaky Majesty doesn't work. "No repeat actions" is an : official rule now. For Freak Decks to become unbalanced, you'd have to : add a house rule overriding that restriction. There's no need. With each guy with presence you- Legal Manipulations (untap w/Majesty) Social Charm " Aire of Elation " and there are more. You tap all of your prey's vampires and run him out of wakes and kill him. Of course, it costs blood of your guys, so what you should _actually_ do is use skill cards to put presence on all your gangrel ;) and then earth meld forever and ever hallelujah. : : : >> > > > Okay... S:CE, yes it is a problem. : >> > > : >> > > ...which it is not under NL. : >> > : >> > Really? When I was playing NL, S:CE was just as much of a problem as : >> > it is under CL. I don't really see it as a "problem" per se...more : >> > of an annoyance. : >> : >> It's not a problem under NL. The 20 Majesties deck doesn't work. Under : >> CL, you can only have 4 of the stop-S:CE cards, and you probably lose. : : >Actually, if you have a deck that's built for combat, you will most likely : >have eight, but who's counting? ;) The Assamites, Toreadors, and Brujah : >all have this option. : : And it's still not a problem under NL. Yes, it is. Freak Drive, Majesty, Earth Meld and Form of Mist need to be "restricted" to three each per deck (but WoTC says two so why split hairs). If every potence combat deck has 20 immortal grapples, then the game balance isn't destroyed, but the kind of decks you see will be way flaky. Garry

shan...@cats.ucsc.edu (Samuel K Handelman) writes: >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: >: >> What degenerate strategies? 20 Majesties is not degenerate. >: >: >Without GT it is. Evidently you have never played against a Freaky >: >Majestic Bleed deck... >: >: Even without GT, Freaky Majesty doesn't work. "No repeat actions" is an >: official rule now. For Freak Decks to become unbalanced, you'd have to >: add a house rule overriding that restriction. > There's no need. With each guy with presence you- >Legal Manipulations (untap w/Majesty) >Social Charm " >Aire of Elation " > and there are more. You tap all of your prey's vampires and run >him out of wakes and kill him. Of course, it costs blood of your guys, >so what you should _actually_ do is use skill cards to put presence on >all your gangrel ;) and then earth meld forever and ever hallelujah. It *still* won't work. "No repeat actions" (NRA) is the official rule now. You cannot have the same minion attempt to bleed more than once on your turn. Majesty, Freak Drive, Force of Will, etc. will *not* allow you to ignore this restriction. --------- [S:CE] >: And it's still not a problem under NL. > Yes, it is. Freak Drive, Majesty, Earth Meld and Form of Mist >need to be "restricted" to three each per deck (but WoTC says two so why >split hairs). WotC says: "any number" (See above as to why there's no need for a restriction) Until October 1, 1996 (before the NRA took effect), WotC said "six of each" Don't spread false rumors. [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : shan...@cats.ucsc.edu (Samuel K Handelman) writes: : >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : >: >> What degenerate strategies? 20 Majesties is not degenerate. : >: : >: >Without GT it is. Evidently you have never played against a Freaky : >: >Majestic Bleed deck... : >: : >: Even without GT, Freaky Majesty doesn't work. "No repeat actions" is an : >: official rule now. For Freak Decks to become unbalanced, you'd have to : >: add a house rule overriding that restriction. : : > There's no need. With each guy with presence you- : >Legal Manipulations (untap w/Majesty) : >Social Charm " : >Aire of Elation " : > and there are more. You tap all of your prey's vampires and run : >him out of wakes and kill him. Of course, it costs blood of your guys, : >so what you should _actually_ do is use skill cards to put presence on : >all your gangrel ;) and then earth meld forever and ever hallelujah. : : : It *still* won't work. "No repeat actions" (NRA) is the official rule now. : You cannot have the same minion attempt to bleed more than once on your : turn. Majesty, Freak Drive, Force of Will, etc. will *not* allow you : to ignore this restriction. Okay, this is new. I knew that NRA was the offical rule, but I thought that only actually repeated actions (as in - I bleed you, I "bum's rush" etc.) where repeat actions. Can you cheat NRA with mask of a thousand faces? : WotC says: "any number" : (See above as to why there's no need for a restriction) : : Until October 1, 1996 (before the NRA took effect), WotC said "six of each" : : Don't spread false rumors. : I had heard that the tournament rules (what I meant when I said "WoTC says") said two of each. If, in fact, the NRA forbids you from legal manipulating and then social charming with the same vampire in the same turn, then yes you are right there's no need to restrict Earth Meld, Form of Mist or Majesty. I still think that Freak Drive should be restricted, however, since in combat decks it lets you equip until there's no tommorrow etc. I can also see a real problem in political decks if each Ventrue can Agitate, Contest, and the first time around they all do Domain Challenge b/c they all untap with freak drives.... Garry

Samuel K Handelman wrote: > > There's no need. With each guy with presence you- > Legal Manipulations (untap w/Majesty) > Social Charm " > Aire of Elation " But you can't take the same action twice. "Bleed" is the same action, no matter what card you use (this is official). > Yes, it is. Freak Drive, Majesty, Earth Meld and Form of Mist > need to be "restricted" to three each per deck (but WoTC says two so > why split hairs). Actually, those rules have been revoked. There is no card limit at all in official rules. Those cards do not need to be restricted. There are many things which stop it: * Don't block. Just like S&B, you'll stop up their hand with the S:CE cards. * Bleed bounce. * Anti-S:CE cards. It should only take one to kill their vampire. You don't need 20. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin (je...@cornell.edu) wrote: : Samuel K Handelman wrote: : > : > There's no need. With each guy with presence you- : > Legal Manipulations (untap w/Majesty) : > Social Charm " : > Aire of Elation " : : But you can't take the same action twice. "Bleed" is the same action, : no matter what card you use (this is official). : : > Yes, it is. Freak Drive, Majesty, Earth Meld and Form of Mist : > need to be "restricted" to three each per deck (but WoTC says two so : > why split hairs). : : Actually, those rules have been revoked. There is no card limit at all : in official rules. : : Those cards do not need to be restricted. There are many things which : stop it: : : * Don't block. Just like S&B, you'll stop up their hand with the S:CE : cards. : * Bleed bounce. : * Anti-S:CE cards. It should only take one to kill their vampire. You : don't need 20. : Except that they can use their fortitude to get out of torpor, and burning is too difficult, and you'd need to be sure you get them (the grapples). In any case, the rules I was referring to where the tournament rules (which I haven't read in four? months), which I'd assumed hadn't been changed. Garry

Samuel K Handelman (shan...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: > L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: > : >> What degenerate strategies? 20 Majesties is not degenerate. > : > : >Without GT it is. Evidently you have never played against a Freaky > : >Majestic Bleed deck... > : > : Even without GT, Freaky Majesty doesn't work. "No repeat actions" is an > : official rule now. For Freak Decks to become unbalanced, you'd have to > : add a house rule overriding that restriction. > > There's no need. With each guy with presence you- > Legal Manipulations (untap w/Majesty) > Social Charm " > Aire of Elation " > and there are more. You tap all of your prey's vampires and run > him out of wakes and kill him. Of course, it costs blood of your guys, > so what you should _actually_ do is use skill cards to put presence on > all your gangrel ;) and then earth meld forever and ever hallelujah. How do you untap with Majesty after I've: Immortal Grappled you and pummelled you into the ground? Fast Reactioned and Pulled your Fangs? Played Psyche and torpored you? Blocked and obedienced your action? Deflected your bleed to my prey? Blocked with my minion with the Dog Pack (whatever its called that blocks S:CE?) Every clan can perform one of these options, or use defensive untaps (WWeFs, Cat's Guidance, Rat's Warning, 2nd Tradition, etc, etc). Actually, most clans can do two or more of them. Bleed Defense: Its not just for intercept decks, anymore. > Yes, it is. Freak Drive, Majesty, Earth Meld and Form of Mist > need to be "restricted" to three each per deck (but WoTC says two so why > split hairs). How to you get 3? What magic oracle did you consult that told you this answer? (I need to know, I have a bitch of a Heat Transfer test due tomorrow and I could use a few questions answered). > If every potence combat deck has 20 immortal grapples, then the > game balance isn't destroyed, but the kind of decks you see will be way > flaky. > -Mark Langsdorf http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html

<snipped comments on GT> > : Even without GT, Freaky Majesty doesn't work. "No repeat actions" is an > : official rule now. For Freak Decks to become unbalanced, you'd have to > : add a house rule overriding that restriction. > > There's no need. With each guy with presence you- > Legal Manipulations (untap w/Majesty) > Social Charm " > Aire of Elation " > and there are more. You tap all of your prey's vampires and run > him out of wakes and kill him. Of course, it costs blood of your guys, > so what you should _actually_ do is use skill cards to put presence on > all your gangrel ;) and then earth meld forever and ever hallelujah. Well I hate to be the first to burst your bubble, but I probably won't be the last. No repeat actions means you cannot perform two bleed actions with the same vammpire in any given turn. So you CANNOT legal manipulate,majesty,social charm, majesty etc, with the same vampire on the same turn. On the last part of your post, this is only your opinion, and WOTC has since lifted any restrictions on cards whatsoever (barring cards like stake and the rowan ring.) I've played against many a S:CE deck myself and though I find it takes an awfully long get into a satisfying combat, when you finally do it is all the more rewarding. :) You don't need 20 anti-S:CE cards in any cmbt deck, you only need enough to keep em guessing!! Karl

shan...@cats.ucsc.edu (Samuel K Handelman) writes: >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: >: >: It *still* won't work. "No repeat actions" (NRA) is the official rule now. >: You cannot have the same minion attempt to bleed more than once on your >: turn. Majesty, Freak Drive, Force of Will, etc. will *not* allow you >: to ignore this restriction. > Okay, this is new. I knew that NRA was the offical rule, but I >thought that only actually repeated actions (as in - I bleed you, I >"bum's rush" etc.) where repeat actions. Can you cheat NRA with mask of a >thousand faces? Yes. (But you are still effectively limited to N bleeds, where N is the number of minions you control - the Masker cannot assume an action that he is prohibited from doing) >: WotC says: "any number" >: Until October 1, 1996 (before the NRA took effect), WotC said "six of each" > I had heard that the tournament rules (what I meant when I said >"WoTC says") said two of each. Tourney rules of old (over a year old, I believe) has a two card limit on restricted cards. But this limit proved to severe. It was relaxed to a six card limit. That environment wasn't sufficient to curtail the runaway weenie push-bleed, yet was still too limiting on other (valid) deck designs, so was scrapped in favor of the modified GT. (And, yes, only DCI has ever had card limits of any sort - WotC proper has never had card limits - even in that "other" game). > If, in fact, the NRA forbids you from legal manipulating and then >social charming with the same vampire in the same turn, then yes you are >right there's no need to restrict Earth Meld, Form of Mist or Majesty. Glad we got that cleared up... >I still think that Freak Drive should be restricted, however, since in >combat decks it lets you equip until there's no tommorrow etc. I can also >see a real problem in political decks if each Ventrue can Agitate, >Contest, and the first time around they all do Domain Challenge b/c they >all untap with freak drives.... I don't understand what you mean by "Agitate, Contest", but I can see the benefit in getting X Domain Challenges out, (and only paying X pool yourself for each successful action - the tapped current acting vampire). (If "Agitate, Contest" means "Conservative Agitiation, Kine Res. Contested", then it won't work anyhow - the NRA also includes Political Activites - each vampire can only call one vote per turn) I think such a deck (Freak Drive/ Domain Challenge) might be tipped into the high-power end of the scale by the appropriate use of Misdirection, but it would still be on shaky ground - not reliable enough or hardy enough to qualify as an abusive deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

Mark Langsdorf (mlan...@io.com) wrote: : Samuel K Handelman (shan...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : > L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : > : >> What degenerate strategies? 20 Majesties is not degenerate. : > : : > : >Without GT it is. Evidently you have never played against a Freaky : > : >Majestic Bleed deck... : > : : > : Even without GT, Freaky Majesty doesn't work. "No repeat actions" is an : > : official rule now. For Freak Decks to become unbalanced, you'd have to : > : add a house rule overriding that restriction. : > : > There's no need. With each guy with presence you- : > Legal Manipulations (untap w/Majesty) : > Social Charm " : > Aire of Elation " : > and there are more. You tap all of your prey's vampires and run : > him out of wakes and kill him. Of course, it costs blood of your guys, : > so what you should _actually_ do is use skill cards to put presence on : > all your gangrel ;) and then earth meld forever and ever hallelujah. : : How do you untap with Majesty after I've: : Immortal Grappled you and pummelled you into the ground? : Fast Reactioned and Pulled your Fangs? : Played Psyche and torpored you? : Blocked and obedienced your action? : Deflected your bleed to my prey? : Blocked with my minion with the Dog Pack (whatever its called that blocks : S:CE?) I thought it was a wolf pack... in any case, I agree in general, my problem is actually with freak drive more than with majesty. Also, in order to do these things, you need decks specifically designed to stop this one, or one other strategy - potence combat. : : Every clan can perform one of these options, or use defensive : untaps (WWeFs, Cat's Guidance, Rat's Warning, 2nd Tradition, etc, etc). : Actually, most clans can do two or more of them. : Bleed Defense: Its not just for intercept decks, anymore. : This is all true, nevertheless, the above is _ungamebalanced_. However, it's now also illegal, b/c, according to the keeper of lists (with whom I am not going to argue) all bleed actions are the "same" action for purposes of the repeat actions rules. : > Yes, it is. Freak Drive, Majesty, Earth Meld and Form of Mist : > need to be "restricted" to three each per deck (but WoTC says two so why : > split hairs). : How to you get 3? What magic oracle did you consult that told you : this answer? (I need to know, I have a bitch of a Heat Transfer test due : tomorrow and I could use a few questions answered) I've just found that three isn't insulting. Also, it appears that the number two is out of date (I have no idea how much) - the present number is 'as many as you want'. Still not a good idea, imo. Incidentally, I was allready told that- 1. All bleed actions are "the same" 2. All political actions are "the same" 3. All equip and recruit actions are "the same (1)" and "the same (2)" My questions, for LSJ, KoL and/or Scalpel is: 1. Can you use freak drive to take more than one "generic" action - Bum's Rush and then Ambush, for example? 2. Can you recruit an ally and a retainer? 3. Traditions? Are they all one action type? 4. I would rather die than remember my Duellist Convocation number. Could LSJ (well, I know he _can_) _will_ LSJ mail me all of the presently active, major (as in not oriented around specific cards) extra-manualar rules changes in force by WoTC and the DC? Garry

Karl Innes (in...@infomatch.com) wrote: : <snipped comments on GT> : > : Even without GT, Freaky Majesty doesn't work. "No repeat actions" is an : > : official rule now. For Freak Decks to become unbalanced, you'd have to : > : add a house rule overriding that restriction. : > : > There's no need. With each guy with presence you- : > Legal Manipulations (untap w/Majesty) : > Social Charm " : > Aire of Elation " : > and there are more. You tap all of your prey's vampires and run : > him out of wakes and kill him. Of course, it costs blood of your guys, : > so what you should _actually_ do is use skill cards to put presence on : > all your gangrel ;) and then earth meld forever and ever hallelujah. : : : : : Well I hate to be the first to burst your bubble, but I probably won't be the last. No repeat actions Not the first, either. : means you cannot perform two bleed actions with the same vammpire in any given turn. So you CANNOT legal : manipulate,majesty,social charm, majesty etc, with the same vampire on the same turn. : I've been told you can't stack equipment cards, retainers or political actions, either. : On the last part of your post, this is only your opinion, and WOTC has since lifted any restrictions on : cards whatsoever (barring cards like stake and the rowan ring.) I've played against many a S:CE deck myself and : though I find it takes an awfully long get into a satisfying combat, when you finally do it is all the more : rewarding. :) You don't need 20 anti-S:CE cards in any cmbt deck, you only need enough to keep em guessing!! A well played Combat Ends deck will swallow and go gung ho and take it's nasty medicine, or get through if you're bluffing. I agree, however, that S:CE decks are fine and also dandy, but I'd just as soon they didn't have eight freak drives. At present, it's moderately better (in many ways) than rat's warning but costs blood - I still feel emotionally certain that it is inherently cursed and will be abused in some ungodly fashion, but ah well. Garry

shan...@cats.ucsc.edu (Samuel K Handelman) writes: >Incidentally, I was allready told that- >1. All bleed actions are "the same" >2. All political actions are "the same" >3. All equip and recruit actions are "the same (1)" and "the same (2)" > My questions, for LSJ, KoL and/or Scalpel is: >1. Can you use freak drive to take more than one "generic" action - Bum's >Rush and then Ambush, for example? >2. Can you recruit an ally and a retainer? >3. Traditions? Are they all one action type? Any action type described in the rulebook is a "type" of action. These are: * Bleed * Hunt * Equip * Transfer Equipment (this may be the same as equip, but I don't think so) * Employ (Retainer) * Recruit (Ally) * Call a vote (PA) * Rescue from Torpor * Diablerize (in Torpor) * Leave Torpor Every other action is a "type" by card name. Rush and Ambush are different types, therefore. Also, every action permitted by a card in play is its own type, distinct from every other card-in-play action (even of the same name). So, entering combat with Rake via a Haven Uncovered on Rake is a different type than Haven Uncovered on Anvil (or even a second Haven Uncovered on Rake). This paragraph is subject to change (hopefully), but is currently official. >4. I would rather die than remember my Duellist Convocation number. Could >LSJ (well, I know he _can_) _will_ LSJ mail me all of the presently >active, major (as in not oriented around specific cards) extra-manualar >rules changes in force by WoTC and the DC? I have no reference for what the DC says. Just the newsgroup stuff. I can dig through that (via DejaNews) if prompted. And my summaries are widely available - and they list all of the non-card stuff at the start (at least, I think they do - if I ever spout some general (non-DCI) rule that isn't there, let me know so that I can include it. [ quoted text not captured ]

> A well played Combat Ends deck will swallow and go gung ho and >take it's nasty medicine, or get through if you're bluffing. I agree, >however, that S:CE decks are fine and also dandy, but I'd just as soon >they didn't have eight freak drives. At present, it's moderately better >(in many ways) than rat's warning but costs blood - I still feel >emotionally certain that it is inherently cursed and will be abused in >some ungodly fashion, but ah well. AWW COME ON! A deck with the card's you speak about is'nt that good! My vetrue deck can blled once, and vote once with each vampire, but i don't have 10 Freak Drive in my 100 card deck (even if i have 16) I have 4, becouse i rather had a majesty in my hand than an freak drive... if I would'nt i would sooner than later being crushed by a combat deck. >Garry

> There's no need. With each guy with presence you- >Legal Manipulations (untap w/Majesty) >Social Charm " >Aire of Elation " > and there are more. You tap all of your prey's vampires and run >him out of wakes and kill him. Of course, it costs blood of your guys, >so what you should _actually_ do is use skill cards to put presence on >all your gangrel ;) and then earth meld forever and ever hallelujah. Well, no... Legal Manipulation say "Bleed with..." Social Charm say "Bleed with..." it's the same action, but with different names and different power. Like Bums-rush, Ebananzer Rush, Ambush, wynn and "Beast,Letherface of detroit" > Yes, it is. Freak Drive, Majesty, Earth Meld and Form of Mist >need to be "restricted" to three each per deck (but WoTC says two so why >split hairs). > If every potence combat deck has 20 immortal grapples, then the >game balance isn't destroyed, but the kind of decks you see will be way >flaky. Don't need to, freak isn't half as effective anymore. Majesty cannot be used to untap and bleed again, Earth Meld can not be used to bleed again, Form of mist is NOT a bleed on 10, max 3... If someone uses return to innocence, don't play against him. If every combat deck use 20 immortal Grapple, then I would never play with a combat deck, i would just get kicked like hell and get Hand-jammed, with no combat strikes to use immortal Grapple is worthless.

Anonymous (from Leeds) wrote: > >>There is no NL deck which always wins. > >I was not refering to a single tactic, rather an attitude of a player. As an >aside, I suspect that if in your group there was one player who had built a >far superior deck then that player would be able to win nearly all their >games. But my point is that there is no such "far superior deck". Tell me what deck would win most games in a balanced environment like NL. >I was refering to the type of player who would love NL because when a >new expansioncomes along it just gives them an extra card to consider >putting in to their decks that they've always played, whereas the CL >environment, as it is always changing would force that player to shift his >deck about a bit and try out slight variations in strategy. Every time an expansion comes out, players in both environments inevitably change their decks. But in CL, each expansion makes the environment more inherently like NL, and thus more playable. As the environments become ever more similar, why continue to impose the (arbitrary) card limit when it has little effect? >Maybe this type >of player is unknown to you, but the theory, surely, is sound - its a bit >like the preverbial CL S&B player, who we have never seen, but you say that >that seems to be no objection (which is an argument I happen to agree with) Is this to say that no one plays S&B in your play group? >>Having 4CL when there are so many duplicates is pointless. It doesn't >>fix anything, and puts a stranglehold on creativity. > >1. Why does it put a strnglehold on creativity? I define creativity as the ability to create. So does the dictionary. When you don't have a per card limit, you are, in every sense of the words, able to create more. > To say that CL stiffles creativity seems to >me to be naive, you can't really comment until you've seen some CL decks in >action. I'm sure I have mentioned this a number of times: our group used to play CL. We switched to NL, and find it better for the reasons which I continue to exposit. >2. I think that you'll find that it does actually fix a lot of things. The >currently popular "Broken card of the week" line merely seems to prove this: >No Limiters from all over the world write in and say how broken they think a >card is. We Card Limit players merely get more information as to how bad the >NL environment must be to play in. (unless the current angelica thing is a >wind up, because she is so UNbroken in CL it does make us wonder...). How is unlimited master card cycling not broken in CL? >> My point is that why bother having this arbitrary >>4CL when, in the case of "get into combat actions", it's really an 8CL. > >Because 4CL fixes so many other problems - the lack of get into combat >actions was one thing that many NL players claimed made CL unbalanced, the >improvement of this made CL come backup to par with the NL decks. But you've told me that CL decks are better than NL decks... I still don't agree that CL fixes anything, but I'll deal with that below. > Maybe the DCI tounament rules >are NL, but that doesn't stop Wizards of the coast from trying to balance >the game with respect to Card Limits, for the sake of both groups of players >(cos lets face it, it doesn't effect you too much, does it). Do you see WotC print M:t$ cards which are only worthwhile when playing outside of a 4CL environment? No. The "reprint" cards are well-designed variations on existing cards, and even if, as a side-effect, they make the artificial CL environment more viable, you can't go around saying that it was the main intended result. >>WotC puts out a NL game. The "duplicates" of which you are so fond are >>actually well-designed cards, unlike a lot of that set. > >??? is this a counter to my argument? Which set? sabbat presumably - which >just goes more to show how broken cards can seriously effect NL, if you are >saying that the Sabbat has lots of broken cards, that is (which is what I >presume, but your statement is hardly clear). Sabbat has a lot of poorly designed cards, mainly vampires. I don't really think that much of Sabbat is broken. >>Bonuses? What bonuses? > >well, I guess you didn't read my article after all. And here was me taking >you seriously ;-) I'm having a hard time taking you seriously myself, especially when I discovered that you're from Leeds... If I understand correctly, you believe that 4CL fixes the same things that GT fix, while increasing "fun" (or "creativity", or whatever). This is a statement that I do not agree with. >Would you really contest something that costs three blood, when its likely >to be burnt in a couple of rounds, thus limiting your own effectiveness? Yes. >>Whereas with a 1CL on it, it will never be contested, and the person who >>happened to shuffle it to the top of their deck gets a huge advantage. > >this seems to me that you are suggesting that we cheat. I will disregard >this comment. I'm suggesting that you shuffle your decks in a random fashion before starting each game. The person who happened to shuffle a Tomb to the top of their deck (i.e., after a shuffle, that's where it ends up) will have a huge advantage. >The thing about a 1 CL unique means that no unique turns up with enough >regularity for it to be relied upon. A deck that can't win unless it gets >out its one and only stealth location is a bit on the poor side. This is true in any environment. If your only source of stealth is The Labyrinth then you won't be very effective even if you have 10 of them. > The >other thing that has to be considered is the fact that deck will be capable >of winning without its unique card, if someone gets out ToR early on then it >will be a benefit, but hardly a game winner: ToR was never a game winner. It's just too powerful. >Well, noone in our group uses the ToR because we would rather spend our >master card slots on safer, less quirky clan specific locations that will >get them more blood back in the long run and will not be discarded out of >hand unless it comes through within the first three or four turns. ToR is always useful, even in the later stages of the game. If you can afford the initial cost, it makes a fair blood machine. >>> under CL >>> you are limited to having only one in the deck and may find that it >>> will get unnatural disastered (as CL makes these cards worth having, 2 >>> pool to stop someone having a limitless continual blood supply is not >>> a problem, especially when that supply is then cut off for good!) >> >>You think it's advantageous to know for sure how many card someone has >>left in their deck? "Oh, you've used all 4 Majesties? I Bum's Rush >>you..." Yeah, that's great fun. > >No, that wasn't my point at all. I find it very hard to see how you could >have possibly derived this response from my original comments. You were saying that it's good to know exactly how many of something someone has in their deck (in the case of uniques, one). I extended this argument to indicate that it is absurd to think that this is an advantage. >I was merely >saying that the fact that uniques, of which the most widely used are blood >back locations, are limited to 1 card in the deck it will make those cards a >lot more fragile, as the player won't immediately replace it, as is possibe >under NL Under NL, a player won't immediately replace a lost unique. It's really unlikely that they would be holding a replacement in hand. Under your system, the player won't _ever_ replace it. Why is this necessary? >I no longer need to justify my argument that NL environment has more >Broken cards than the CL one, as all the posters to the "Broken card of the >week" line who think that X card is broken are NL players and there are even >CL players who post against the brokeness of said cards. The card limit does not inherently reduce the brokenness of a card. It reduces the effect that the brokenness has on the game, but an unblockable bleed for 15 is the same in any environment... >>Under a CL environment you only need to think about what cards you >>want to put in your deck to make it work and then you put in 4. > >This is again a very naive statement. I think you should try playing CL and >see if you find this to be the case. We played 4CL as soon as Jyhad came out. Like others, naively assuming that the same rules for Magic applied to this game. The very _concept_ of NL was frigtening. But we switched, and will never go back. We built 4CL decks. The answer to the question "How many..." was almost always "4". >We have played with 4CL for years and >we can't see any reason to utilise a blanket minimum of 4 cards that you >will put in a deck. the 4CL game requires sacrifice of various cards to >increase the flow of your deck and allow it to perform all the things that >you want it to do. And, of course, a 4CL deck is _forced_ to use a number of different strategies due to the card limit. >Exactly how I said it does. You are left with a deck that will have to >combine other elements than the obvious to get it to work. Which makes it better how? >For example, if >we talk about my new Tzimisce deck ... [snip deck discussion] It seems to me like what you're saying is that, since you couldn't make the deck on its own merits (due to the CL), you had to add extraneous things like Dodges, Flak Jackets, Guns and Dragon's Breath Rounds... >>Put another way, 4CL increases the need to be "crafty"; the need to find >>other cards to put in your deck that circumvent the limit. So if all of >>the effort is spent trying to get around the limit, why have it? > >because it makes the game better (In Our Opinion) in 4 ways: > >1: More challenging More difficult. This makes the game worse, since it's less flexible. >2: More competitive as it is more challenging and each deck has a **HELL** > of a lot of though put in to it to make it work, so NO ONE "Minds >losing"!! NL decks have lots of thought put into them, too. >3: more fun (due to the above to reasons _Very_ highly debatable. I'm sure that we both find our respective envrionments enjoyable. >4: Reduces the number of Broken cards as they cannot be effective enough to > be playable when restricted. It reduces the frequencies of these broken cards, which in no way reduces their brokenness. >>So you sit around doing nothing until you get exactly the right >>combination of cards in your hand (i.e., "gin")? Woo hoo. Sounds like >>fun to me. > >No, its probably more like Poker than Gin, it more to do with going with >what you have got and making the most of it - bluffing also comes in to it a >fair bit too. As I have said before, a CL deck VERY rarely discards so the >Gin tag doesn't fit too well. Why does a CL deck rarely discard and a NL deck discards fairly often? Perhaps this is just play style, but I don't see the advantage of not discarding, except that it makes you lose one of four of that card. >>So what happens when a combat deck gets in a fight with a deck which >>wants to "escape unharmed"? According to you, one of them is "destined >>to lose". > >If you either say "well, I'm going to bite the bullet, go to torpor and get >out again ASAP" (for the escape deck) ...but you possibly got burned. >or say "okay, you've S:CE'd, thats one >down, I'll see another couple gone before I waste my psyche (or whatever)" But then you've wasted a rush card. >this way, although they were not succesful in that particular action they >have not wasted lots of cards on an action that was doomed to faliure then >you will be less likely to win in the first place, but if you do as either >of those two examnples above you are likely to use up the cards of your >opponent (which they will probably have less of under CL) and therefore be >in a stronger possition against them in the future. So you never use cards that are "play before range is determined", since you don't know if the combat will end in your favor? >>So the mighty, creative, wonderful 4CL deck _never_ hand jams? Yeah, >>right. > >Very Rarely. And if your comment is correct in its suggestion that this is a >common occurence for NL, then that seems to be another benefit of playing >CL. Again, this might be play style difference, but I don't see how a deck can rarely hand jam. >>....which it is not under NL. > >Only if you ad an alternative fix (Golden Tenents, DCI rulings whatever) GT is a relatively minor change when compared to 4CL. >>Three, with Staredown. > >Majesty, stare down. And the third is? Catatonic Fear. >>It sounds like Majesty is a problem after all. > >not in the long term when there's only four of them. Or 12 (S:CE), but who's counting? >This is not a settite deck though is it, the original post explicitly quoted >settites. I actually quoted it as an Obf/Pre deck. Are you saying that because it doesn't rely on any single clan that it's not valid? >>The deck would have 8 skill cards, but it is by no means slow. > >Given this limited settite crypt, yes it would be quicker than a "settite" >deck as quoted, but its still not frightening. It can only bleed for 2 from >action modifiers (and with only four in the deck its no problem) and can get >a three bleed from actions (again which it only has 4 of) 2 bleeds aren't a >problem - especially at zero stealth, you can block and perhaps get S:CE's >but there aren't that many available for this deck under CL. You can now >succesfully bleed bounce. The deck regularly bleeds for 3-5, at up to +3 stealth. It would have 20 directed bleed actions, and faces a total of 12 possible deflection cards. >>I wouldn't even put Fame in; there's no need. > >well, it wouldn't be able to rely on the fame and it surely would need >SOMETHING, if its lucky it'll get through its first predator dead quickly, >and then run out of steam. Actually, it regularly sweeps the table here. I don't to hear you say that it's because we're not as good as you Leeds people. >>You claim that all of my vampires would be in torpor constantly. Quite >>a feat, with only 8 rush cards. How do you do it? > >1. Intercept (very little stealth available) How is there very little stealth available? Obfuscate has a bunch of stealth cards (at least 5, maybe more). >2. 4 Haven uncovered (semi permanent, means that the vamp with it on is >imediately vulnerable when the come out of torpor), The loss of a vampire is not a considerable loss of resources. >3: 65-75 card deck to maximise the rush output Deck size is not an effective strategy. >4: optional, but not needed - Assamites can have contracts (khabar-honour is > especially deadly) and a deck with princes in can have Bloodhunt (or >Sabbat equivalent) >5: Rush or intercept deck with obfuscate of auspex respectively can have > HL/FR to stop those S:CE's The NL version of the deck only has 6 Majesty (no other combat cards), and regularly gets killed in combat, since even if I have one, I might get grappled, or whatever. >>Well, no. > >I'd like to see it work, really I would, but the truth is that it would die >outright, unless it got a lucky early oust. Each vampire can bleed for at least 2, and will likely do so each turn. It outs its first prey _very_ quickly. >>The NL version of the deck has 4 of each skill card and 2 effective >>managements. > >How the hell does it work then? The only point that this deck seems to make >in my mind is that our gaming circle is a lot higher skill level than one >where this deck could work. I don't want to think this, but it seems the >only possible explaination. What kind of decks are played in your group? We have just about everything. > the 4 card limit is not an all encompassing minimum >as well as maximum (I mean, don't NL cards use less the 4 of a lot of >cards?) the majority of dodgy decks created in our gaming circle (before we >learnt the error of our ways) believed this philosophy, but when it comes >down to it, theres just too much and you'll end up with a 100+ card deck, >unless your missing in some vital areas. "Put in 4 of everything and shuffle" is unfortunately how the first version of a 4CL deck is made. >>There's 32 cards that _must_ go in. No thought involved. The rest of >>the deck would be "season to taste". > >If the above is the crux of the deck it really would loose very badly. >No blood back, ...not always needed in a rush deck. >no intercept, ...definitely not needed in every deck. >no defense, Your defense: hit them harder. This gets the Brujah (since you send them to torpor on the first strike, so they don't get additional ones). You lose against the Gangrel, maybe, but there are ways around that, too (Song of Serenity, for the Nosferatu)... >very little to stop someone from >bearing you up just as badly. Taste of Vitae to get your blood back; sorry, I forgot this one. >lack of permanents and S:CE's to defend them >from equipment destroyers You use S:CE to defend against equipment destruction? Weird... >(given our first strike beats dodge house rule - >which I'm sure was how it worked in the original Jyhad)... I wouldn't be too sure. First strike does not beat dodge, and never has. >>How will that suffer from hand jams other than the ones indicative to the >>4CL environment (i.e., I don't have any of card X in my hand, since I only >>have 4, so I'm useless). > >Well, if your useless with out 1 of card X in your hand then the deck really >is dreadful, and deserves to loose. How is a Rush deck useful without a Rush card? How do you get a rush card into your hand when you don't have one? >>"Challenging" and "difficult" are two different things. > >Are they? "difficult" and "impossible" are different. "Challenging" is a >positive way of looking at "difficult" after all, its no fun if its too >easy. I define a challenge as a difficulty that's worthwhile. >>As long as you see that it's an arbitrary restriction with no overall >>redeeming value. > >no, Its not arbitary, it a well thought out and workable restriction. Well thought out? Read on... >In the >first place we only changed to 4CL from NL because it was the magic >restriction, "We did it because it was the Magic restriction"? Yeah, very well thought out. Why 4CL, then? Why not 5CL, or 3CL? What about 2CL on uniques? How do you know that none of these work? >>I still don't see what 4CL fixes. You claim that it obviates the need >>for the GT, but I don't see that either. Vote pushing is still very, >>very effective. > >what? if you have to waste a load of good votes to get one passed? don't you >realise that you've only got four of each vote? You'd have to add in lots of >"throw away" votes that will really mess up your deck, and mean that you >won't have the stealth / S:CE when you need it. If you can only have 4 of each damaging vote, you have to have something to fill up the rest of your deck. This is the basis for the weenie vote push deck. >>That is where the craftiness and difficulty come. > >Exactly, that what makes it a challenge - what makes it good, In our >opinion! I don't like having to be clever. I don't like imposing a limit on myself only to spend all my time looking for ways around it. What's the point? If you want to get around the limit, get rid of it! >>I don't see having to try really hard to get around a self-imposed limit >>as being creative at all. > >why? did scott or amundsen say that to get to the south pole wouldn't be >worth while as they could quite happily set themselves the chalenge to go >anywhere (ie round the corner) and easily make it? Would that have reduced >the creativity that they must have utilised to plan for the many unknown >dangers that lied ahead of them? Did they say: "We can only bring 4 sleds". Someone says "But we can bring as many sleds as we want, so why shouldn't we?", to which they reply "Because it's more challenging to try to build our own sled out of ice and rocks." >>My point was not that sideboards are a good idea (I think that they are >>_not_), but that any OTP is easily defeatable by a well-designed deck, >>i.e., one that is built with many strategies in mind. > >so you would put atonement in any deck? If it was an intercept deck, yes. Not every deck should/can have intercept in it. >>The problems with 4CL, as I have outlined them above: >> >>* S&B still a major swing strategy. [Especially with Setites.] >not a hope in hell! Does anyone actually _play_ S&B in your group? >>* Stifles creativity and freedom of deck construction. >Possibly stifles freedom, but just look what you have to gain - THE >CHALLENGE! (I'm dribbling just thinking about it!) Sure, cutting your left leg off might hurt, but look at what you have to gain.... >>* S:CE [anti-combat in general] >Not a problem in the long run as you will have so few. 12 with presence. Not really that small a number. >>* Counting cards in ash heap becomes valuable >Perhaps a little bit, but then thats where TACTICS comes in to it. Tactics? Actually, it seems like it would require more tactics if you _didn't_ know. "Hmm... I could Bum's Rush him, but he might S:CE... I have no way of knowing" is much better than "Hmm... He's used all his Majesties. Good..." >>* CL varies based on cards in print >and the cards in print have (Purely by coincidence???) managed to "plug" all >the "holes" CL had. And if the next expansion produces new ones? I don't envy that sort of instability. James P.S.: Please stop e-mailing your replies to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Yes, and that is a good thing as it now means that previously broken >> strategies, such as Stealth and Bleed (S&B) are now ineffectual unless >> a deck can be made to the same high quality as the rest of our decks >> have been. > >How is S&B ineffective? It is not so under NL. There was never any >attempt to restrict S&B. S&B is not a problem in NL. If, as you say, >S&B is ineffective under 4CL, there's another point against it. Perhaps I worded that bit badly - what I meant to say was that S&B had been changed from being a broken strategy (however arguably) to being fully accountable for within the environment - not broken at all, a fair deck. >> >while (for example) you can still only have 4 Immortal Grapples. >> >> So? Why is Immortal grapple so damned amazing? Yes its good against >> tremere. > >Immortal Grapple stops Dodge and S:CE, and does it more effectively than >any of the cards you mention below. Yes I agree, Immortal Grapple (IG) is more effective than the other cards - slightly. However you will probably find that Hidden lurker (HL) or Fast reation (FR) are *Better* in the effect on the card in that they can't strike back at you, even if it does cost you an extra minion (however, some of the best clans to use either of these with [Nosferatu and Tzimisce for HL and FR respectively] also have animalism, which will give them alrger amounts of untaps, under CL. Backstab is on the whole more effective than IG (depending upon house rules) against dodges, but is less effective against Strike: Combat ends (S:CE), but the limits of CL restrict the effectiveness of S:CE as there are less available and they will cause you less problems, in the long run. >> So does potence bung combat. > >Who cares about beating up the Tremere? In general, IG is effective >against a large number of strategies. Not against combat its not. Its not very good against a typical gangrel or brujah deck (the potence *Hand* strikes or the aggro *hand* strikes tend to make it bugger you up as much, if not more, than it does your opponent) where as the only problem that the other mentioned cards suffer from is manoeuvres. >> Yes it cuts down on combat ends. So do three >> other cards - Psyche, Fast reaction (for anintercept deck) and hidden >> lurker (for a rush deck). > >But no deck will be able to play with more than one of these, and there >are a plethora of S:CE cards out there. Name them? I can only think of: Majesty, which is vary good, especially considering who can use it. Stare Down, only at sup Presence and no untap so it becomes less scary. Earth Meld, which is protean - and the gangrel don't make the best bleeders in the world (although it has been done), gangrel also tend to want to fight you back a fair bit too. Form of mist; damn good, but only at superior. Protean again. Mercy for the week, not useable very easily, only good early on in the game cos your vamps will *tend* to loose blood as the game goes on. Serpentis have a couple which aren't worth mentioning as they are pretty crap. >[4CL env. constantly changing] >> which makes the game much more exciting as it is always changing and >> adding depth and variety to the game, rather than sticking with a >> simple stagnant deck design for eternity, because it wins. > >There is no NL deck which always wins. I was not refering to a single tactic, rather an attitude of a player. As an aside, I suspect that if in your group there was one player who had built a far superior deck then that player would be able to win nearly all their games. I was refering to the type of player who would love NL because when a new expansioncomes along it just gives them an extra card to consider putting in to their decks that they've always played, whereas the CL environment, as it is always changing would force that player to shift his deck about a bit and try out slight variations in strategy. Maybe this type of player is unknown to you, but the theory, surely, is sound - its a bit like the preverbial CL S&B player, who we have never seen, but you say that that seems to be no objection (which is an argument I happen to agree with) >Having 4CL when there are so many duplicates is pointless. It doesn't >fix anything, and puts a stranglehold on creativity. 1. Why does it put a strnglehold on creativity? Surely the capitalist system has taught us that challenges and competition increase creativity and productivity. The CL environment is more challenging, certainly - the competitive argument is perhaps a little harder to justify (mainly it depends upon how good the people are that you play with), however it does seem to follow a certain logical line that challenge will stimulate competition, if only slightly. To say that CL stiffles creativity seems to me to be naive, you can't really comment until you've seen some CL decks in action. 2. I think that you'll find that it does actually fix a lot of things. The currently popular "Broken card of the week" line merely seems to prove this: No Limiters from all over the world write in and say how broken they think a card is. We Card Limit players merely get more information as to how bad the NL environment must be to play in. (unless the current angelica thing is a wind up, because she is so UNbroken in CL it does make us wonder...). We seem to have a lot less problem with cards that you find to be broken that we do not. The only card we have banned due to its brokeness is Thoughts betrayed (there are a couple of other bannings, but thats more to do with the fact that they make the game dull, which we don't like, and its always a mutual consensus) >> >"Oh, now I can have 8 Bum's Rush type cards, where before I >> >could only have 4." What's the point? >[answer: rush decks easier to make] > >I understand that. My point is that why bother having this arbitrary >4CL when, in the case of "get into combat actions", it's really an 8CL. Because 4CL fixes so many other problems - the lack of get into combat actions was one thing that many NL players claimed made CL unbalanced, the improvement of this made CL come backup to par with the NL decks. >> >It's like having selective 4/8/12/etc.-CL based on what has been >> >printed. >> >> Yes. And its the selective part that makes it so much better. > >It's _better_ to have a random 4/8/12 CL depending on what's been >_printed_? Yes, I suppose you could look at it that way. Looking at it from our point of view, though, the cards that have been repeated seem to have been specifically repeated with the CL environment in mind (more rush and bleed bounce go a long way towards countering the arguments from the NL corner with regards to the lack of balance in CL). Maybe the DCI tounament rules are NL, but that doesn't stop Wizards of the coast from trying to balance the game with respect to Card Limits, for the sake of both groups of players (cos lets face it, it doesn't effect you too much, does it). >> WotC seem to >> have realised what the problems were with CL and have accounted for >> that with bringing out altered duplicates for all the areas where CL >> was left lacking. > >WotC puts out a NL game. The "duplicates" of which you are so fond are >actually well-designed cards, unlike a lot of that set. ??? is this a counter to my argument? Which set? sabbat presumably - which just goes more to show how broken cards can seriously effect NL, if you are saying that the Sabbat has lots of broken cards, that is (which is what I presume, but your statement is hardly clear). >> Now there is no longer any problem with playing CL and the bonuses >> for playing it are still there. > >Bonuses? What bonuses? well, I guess you didn't read my article after all. And here was me taking you seriously ;-) >[ToR] >> If you use it to its most efficient then >> it will be an advantage to have more than one in, because you can >> bring out a vamp for dirt cheap, and then bring out another later in >> the game, and possibly even another. > >Although this is fairly unlikely to happen. If everyone has lots of >these things, it would be contested all the time. Would you really contest something that costs three blood, when its likely to be burnt in a couple of rounds, thus limiting your own effectiveness? >Whereas with a 1CL on it, it will never be contested, and the person who >happened to shuffle it to the top of their deck gets a huge advantage. this seems to me that you are suggesting that we cheat. I will disregard this comment. The thing about a 1 CL unique means that no unique turns up with enough regularity for it to be relied upon. A deck that can't win unless it gets out its one and only stealth location is a bit on the poor side. The ToR statement was perhaps an idealised situation, but it does show one way in which the 1 CL on uniques can work to reduce the brokeness of a card. The other thing that has to be considered is the fact that deck will be capable of winning without its unique card, if someone gets out ToR early on then it will be a benefit, but hardly a game winner: that player will find that his prey will suddenly feel the need to weaken his predator much more than he normally would (this is surely a basic survival instinct). If the card comes out later in the game it is pretty much useless. > >> This is the reason why it is broken under NL > >It's not any less broken under CL. In fact, as I argued above, it might >be more broken. Well, noone in our group uses the ToR because we would rather spend our master card slots on safer, less quirky clan specific locations that will get them more blood back in the long run and will not be discarded out of hand unless it comes through within the first three or four turns. >> under CL >> you are limited to having only one in the deck and may find that it >> will get unnatural disastered (as CL makes these cards worth having, 2 >> pool to stop someone having a limitless continual blood supply is not >> a problem, especially when that supply is then cut off for good!) > >You think it's advantageous to know for sure how many card someone has >left in their deck? "Oh, you've used all 4 Majesties? I Bum's Rush >you..." Yeah, that's great fun. No, that wasn't my point at all. I find it very hard to see how you could have possibly derived this response from my original comments. I was merely saying that the fact that uniques, of which the most widely used are blood back locations, are limited to 1 card in the deck it will make those cards a lot more fragile, as the player won't immediately replace it, as is possibe under NL >> NL players saying that Blood to water is broken, under card limits it >> was not; not even when it could be played at long range!) > >Blood to Water is not broken. Well, there was a lot of NL players who didn't agree with you at the time. >> Again I was only commenting on people saying that it was "annoying" >> which I took to been that it was slightly broken (Perhaps overpowered >> would be a better description?) > >Annoying != Broken. Madness of the Bard is not broken, but boy, is it >annoying. Art Museum is not broken, but it is powerful. Why restrict >it? Yes I see the point about Madness of the Bard, but that was not the intention of the posters who posted things saying that some cards are broken. I no longer need to justify my argument that NL environment has more Broken cards than the CL one, as all the posters to the "Broken card of the week" line who think that X card is broken are NL players and there are even CL players who post against the brokeness of said cards. >> >Please defend this statement. I do not see how 4CL _increases_ >> >necessary skill. >> >> Deck building: >> Under an NL environment you only need to think about what cards you >> want to put in your deck to make it work > >Under a CL environment you only need to think about what cards you >want to put in your deck to make it work and then you put in 4. This is again a very naive statement. I think you should try playing CL and see if you find this to be the case. We have played with 4CL for years and we can't see any reason to utilise a blanket minimum of 4 cards that you will put in a deck. the 4CL game requires sacrifice of various cards to increase the flow of your deck and allow it to perform all the things that you want it to do. >> Under a CL >> envirnment you will have to compensate for being restricted in some >> areas, meaning that you will have to be a lot more careful, >> intelligent, skillful (or what ever you want to call it) at planning >> your deck so that you can rely on it working to >> close to its maximum efficiency all the time. > >In a NL environment you will have to make the same decisions, except >that you have more freedom. How does lack of freedom to decide increase >creativity? Exactly how I said it does. You are left with a deck that will have to combine other elements than the obvious to get it to work. For example, if we talk about my new Tzimisce deck then I think I'll be able to show you how the process will work: My deck is based along the idea of being an intercept combat deck. I built it initially to see how it faired. I found that it had severe problems in controling combat - it either sent someone to Torpor but went there as well, or it was in effectual as some one ran away or dodged (sometimes both). I then came up with the idea of increasing the equipment damage prevention (flak and leather jackets) and got my hands on some song of serenities I also added Traps to it - the idea was that someone couldn't dodge for ever and I'd evntually hit them with a meaty aggro strike. I also added some dodges (too many, as it turned out) that would allow me to avoid someone trying to hit me really badly. I found that this seemed to work pretty well against noncombat and fortitude decks Range combat was not a bit problem except for the fact that the tremere and Assamites were pretty good at killing me off from range, but still had problems with the dodge/ additional strike combo that celerity decks rely on. So then I got to thinking of a way around the celerity problem. The solutions that I came up with were that I could either scorpion sting them for the aggro before they got an additional strike or could use Blood acids to stop them beating me up. The problem with ranged combat I plugged up with Dragons breath. That is a very simplified version, but I hope it illustrates how you have to be creative. I didn't just think "Oh good card - in goes four of them" I tried to avoid Blood acid initially because of its price, I thought it was tempting getting my vamps burnt, but when I realised how useful it was in stoppuing celerity I put it in. This is just a simplified example and please read it in the manner it was meant. >Put another way, 4CL increases the need to be "crafty"; the need to find >other cards to put in your deck that circumvent the limit. So if all of >the effort is spent trying to get around the limit, why have it? because it makes the game better (In Our Opinion) in 4 ways: 1: More challenging 2: More competitive as it is more challenging and each deck has a **HELL** of a lot of though put in to it to make it work, so NO ONE "Minds losing"!! 3: more fun (due to the above to reasons 4: Reduces the number of Broken cards as they cannot be effective enough to be playable when restricted. >> Game Playing: >> Under CL, because your deck is so much more "highly strung" (as one NL >> player put it) than a comparative NL deck, you will have to makesure >> that all your cards are used to their best value > >So you sit around doing nothing until you get exactly the right >combination of cards in your hand (i.e., "gin")? Woo hoo. Sounds like >fun to me. No, its probably more like Poker than Gin, it more to do with going with what you have got and making the most of it - bluffing also comes in to it a fair bit too. As I have said before, a CL deck VERY rarely discards so the Gin tag doesn't fit too well. >> - a combat is only >> successful if you can manage to torporise or burn an opponent (or >> escape unharmed if that is your aim), etc. > >This is true in NL too. If you didn't escape unharmed, then you were >probably sent to torpor or burned. In CL, however, this is achieved by using your cards at the best times and playing through to the best of your abilities. In NL it would most likely be that your hand was so stacked with good combat cards that you could hardly loose. >> If you waste too many cards >> on frivolous failiures then you will be destined to loose. > >So what happens when a combat deck gets in a fight with a deck which >wants to "escape unharmed"? According to you, one of them is "destined >to lose". If you either say "well, I'm going to bite the bullet, go to torpor and get out again ASAP" (for the escape deck) or say "okay, you've S:CE'd, thats one down, I'll see another couple gone before I waste my psyche (or whatever)" this way, although they were not succesful in that particular action they have not wasted lots of cards on an action that was doomed to faliure then you will be less likely to win in the first place, but if you do as either of those two examnples above you are likely to use up the cards of your opponent (which they will probably have less of under CL) and therefore be in a stronger possition against them in the future. This may seem like a bit of a contradiction, but its all about balancing the two and trying to out wit your opponent. >So table position determines victory? This is true to some >extent in NL, but not to this degree. Not really. It can have some advantages, but its really down to having a deck that can take on anything and win (in the long run). We normally play in a different order each game we play to give everyone a chance at bleeding / being bled by everyone else. >> Under CL >> you need to utilise what you have to the best of its capability, >> rather than under NL where the majority >> the tactics are in deck construction. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Thank you. That's because deck construction in 4CL is mindless and >pointless. Then why do we spend so long planning and refining decks? I know for a fact that none of us are stupid in any sense of the word, and would be insulted if you were to say that we were. When posting messages to a public forum like this there are certain rules of ettiquette, that I at least attempt to follow; one such rule is to consider everyone a genius no matter how obviously they are not. Your above point does, again, seem to be slightly misguided; perhaps you should try playing with our group (I'm sure geography will make this difficult, but if your ever in England...), I think that many NL players may find our level of play a bit above what they might expect from a CL group. >> A CL deck that has to discard is probably >> a bad CL deck. > >So the mighty, creative, wonderful 4CL deck _never_ hand jams? Yeah, >right. Very Rarely. And if your comment is correct in its suggestion that this is a common occurence for NL, then that seems to be another benefit of playing CL. >> >I am making a Brujah rush combat deck. How many Torn Signpost? 4. >> >How many Undead Strength? 4. Etc. With NL, you have to decide how >> >many you need. >> >> Yes, so you will have more than four in an NL deck. There is very >> little difference; the advantage you gain from adding more cards I can >> gain from reducing the size of my deck (which is a much harder task, >> IMO). > >No, you _might_ have more in a NL deck. At least you get to choose. Whats so good about the choice? If we want to start bringing Philosophy in to a debate about a simple card game I think that you are really missing the point about the FUNof the game! (mind you, I do actually find Philosophy fun, but thats beside the point) >I'm not saying that every 4CL deck has 4 of everything, but you >certainly are not going to have any _less_ than 4 Bum's Rushes in a 4CL >rush deck. Well, I actually made a succesful rush deck with only three bums rushes in it (as I only actually had three at the time, but it still proves the point about the capability of rush under CL) >> Well, now you could add pushing the limit which would give you 8, >> reduce your deck size down from what it would be, and make sure that >> when you are playing the game that each and evry card counts for >> something. > >The deck is 80 cards. [But then, maybe you brought the 60-card deck >limit over from Magic, too.] 80 cards is a pretty good number - I can't see a well designed CL 80 card deck needing more than 8 strike cards, when you talk about hand damage, which has numerous other ways of getting permanent or semi permanent increases (other combat forms are different, however). >What if I don't _want_ to play with Pushing the Limit? 4CL forces me to >play with it if I want to be competitive. With 4CL, you _have_ to buy >significant amounts of every expansion, just to stay competitive. Yes I will accept this as a fair comment. I'm not sure its bad, though as I doubt anyone I play with would not buy some of an expansion out of interest rather than anything else. The money argument has always tried to be played by one side or the other, and when it comes down to it there are money arguments on both sides of the fence and its probably best to leave the money issue out of it all together. >> >Not really. With Rush combat reasonably effective, the Setites >> >become the worse problem. My Pre/Obf deck doesn't have more than 6 >> >of anything, and even under 4CL would be quite effective, since I >> >don't use many of the new Sabbat Pre bleed cards. With only 4 IG or >> >4 Psyche, S:CE will win most of the time. >> >> Okay... S:CE, yes it is a problem. > >....which it is not under NL. Only if you ad an alternative fix (Golden Tenents, DCI rulings whatever) >> No its not deadly. you can have 4 >> different cards that will counter S:CE (Psyche, Hidden Lurker, Fast >> reaction and Immortal Grapple) > >....which no deck will be able to use all of. no, but if you can make each one count for a burnt vampire, then you've not got a problem with an S:CE deck. >> Presence has, to my knowledge, 2 >> different S:CE cards, > >Three, with Staredown. Majesty, stare down. And the third is? >> and any rush deck that can use up these cards is actually doing well. > >But didn't you say that if a deck that wants to beat people up in combat >fails to do so, they are "destined to lose"? No I said that if it wastes cards on a futile attempt then it is destined to loose. >It sounds like Majesty is a problem after all. not in the long term when there's only four of them. >> >And, since no vampire in the crypt has >> >capacity above 4, the occasional loss of a vampire will not be a >> >problem. >> >> How does it work with these vampires? you have 4 different vampires >> available to you, only one has obfuscate and only 2 have presence, >> and then only at inferior. > >The crypt: > >Angela Decker (1) pre >Dimple (2) obf >Frederick the Weak (2) pre >Delilah Easton (2) pre >Lena Rowe (3) pre obf >Gideon Fontaine (3) PRE >Aggripina (4) OBF >2x Hadrian Garrick (4) obf pre >Nepata (4) obf pre (forgot her actually) >Tansu Bekir (4) OBF >Violette Prentiss (4) PRE This is not a settite deck though is it, the original post explicitly quoted settites. >> You would need to add a lot of skill cards >> to make it work which would severly reduce your deck's speed > >The deck would have 8 skill cards, but it is by no means slow. Given this limited settite crypt, yes it would be quicker than a "settite" deck as quoted, but its still not frightening. It can only bleed for 2 from action modifiers (and with only four in the deck its no problem) and can get a three bleed from actions (again which it only has 4 of) 2 bleeds aren't a problem - especially at zero stealth, you can block and perhaps get S:CE's but there aren't that many available for this deck under CL. You can now succesfully bleed bounce. >> and it >> would get its vampires rushed into torpor faster than it can think. >> And as those vampires will stay in torpor rather than be burnt (unless >> you have your one fame - as it is restricted as being unique - on one >> of them), > >I wouldn't even put Fame in; there's no need. well, it wouldn't be able to rely on the fame and it surely would need SOMETHING, if its lucky it'll get through its first predator dead quickly, and then run out of steam. >[snip: smack talking] Please explain this comment. Being from a different country, colloquialisms are different, I suspect it is not the insult it sounds like to be. >> >How was this deck difficult to create? >> >> I suppose it wouldn't be, but then it also wouldn't win, in fact it >> would die quite spectacularily. > >You claim that all of my vampires would be in torpor constantly. Quite >a feat, with only 8 rush cards. How do you do it? 1. Intercept (very little stealth available) 2. 4 Haven uncovered (semi permanent, means that the vamp with it on is imediately vulnerable when the come out of torpor), 3: 65-75 card deck to maximise the rush output 4: optional, but not needed - Assamites can have contracts (khabar-honour is especially deadly) and a deck with princes in can have Bloodhunt (or Sabbat equivalent) 5: Rush or intercept deck with obfuscate of auspex respectively can have HL/FR to stop those S:CE's I see no problem. >> >What _doesn't_ it have 4 of? >> >> Ready Vampires, probably, as it goes... > >Well, no. I'd like to see it work, really I would, but the truth is that it would die outright, unless it got a lucky early oust. >> >And, most importantly, how does your group deal with that? >> You seriously think that this deck would cause us problems? In >> addition to everything above you also have to remember that you are >> restricted to four skillcards and four efficient management > >The NL version of the deck has 4 of each skill card and 2 effective >managements. How the hell does it work then? The only point that this deck seems to make in my mind is that our gaming circle is a lot higher skill level than one where this deck could work. I don't want to think this, but it seems the only possible explaination. >> >Huh? How would _you_ suggest putting together a Brujah rush deck >> > under 4CL? I predict it would have 4 of almost everything. >> >> In that case it would probably end up being far to large and wouldn't >> get anything it needed through quickly enough, > >OK, when I say "4 of everything", I don't literally mean 4 of every >single card in the game. Well, no obviously, I'm not THAT stupid [although some people may want to argue against that fact ;-) ] >My point is (which I made earlier and you chose to ignore) I didn't ignore it. I thought that I countered it quite succesfully. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough; the 4 card limit is not an all encompassing minimum as well as maximum (I mean, don't NL cards use less the 4 of a lot of cards?) the majority of dodgy decks created in our gaming circle (before we learnt the error of our ways) believed this philosophy, but when it comes down to it, theres just too much and you'll end up with a 100+ card deck, unless your missing in some vital areas. >that in a 4CL >Brujah rush deck, you would be a fool not to put in 4 of the following: > >Bum's Rush >Ambush I would probably go for somewhere between 5 and 7, depending upon how large my deck ended up after all the combat and everything else. >Haven Uncovered >Undead Strength These two I'll agree. >Torn Signpost Not that useful. The fact that its played so early means that it can be countered by a lot of cards striaght away (Skin of Rock, S:CE etc) >Immortal Grapple Thesehave been proven in our gaming circle to be as much a danger to you as to your opponent. Many people wouldn't put in a full set of four. >Flash not at all. >Blur Another one I'll give you. >There's 32 cards that _must_ go in. No thought involved. The rest of >the deck would be "season to taste". If the above is the crux of the deck it really would loose very badly. No blood back, no intercept, no defense, very little to stop someone from bearing you up just as badly. lack of permanents and S:CE's to defend them from equipment destroyers (given our first strike beats dodge house rule - which I'm sure was how it worked in the original Jyhad)... The lack of thought goes on, even just aboutthe combat side of things. >How will that suffer from hand jams other than the ones indicative to the >4CL environment (i.e., I don't have any of card X in my hand, since I only >have 4, so I'm useless). Well, if your useless with out 1 of card X in your hand then the deck really is dreadful, and deserves to loose. >> it would have to refuse >> to block something That was a highly edited quote, and its taken out of context with the current line in this article. You can't rweally expect me to know what I wrote in the firstplace. The only thing that I can think of is a reference to using Arson/rampage to get into combat instead of rush (something that was likely, but not nessessarily, to be used in a pre-sabbat 4CL rush deck. If this was the case I was refering a deck that was being rushed, not rushing, having to decline to block an arson could seriously handicaop a deck that has grown to rely on the card being in play. >Does this indicate that a combat must rely on blocking actions to get >into combat? Gosh, sounds like stealth still is the most effective >strategy. Perhaps it was not the arson comment. Perhaps you could let me know what it was so that I can comment in full. >> Deck creation in CL is as >> much about balance as it is under NL, the only difference is that you >> have to obtain that in ways that, IMO, are more challenging to >> obtain. > >"Challenging" and "difficult" are two different things. Are they? "difficult" and "impossible" are different. "Challenging" is a positive way of looking at "difficult" after all, its no fun if its too easy. >> So, your saying that its just down to a point of principle? Who am I >> to tell you what to do, sort of thing? Well, that swings both ways: >> why can't I restrict myself if I like that better. > >As long as you see that it's an arbitrary restriction with no overall >redeeming value. no, Its not arbitary, it a well thought out and workable restriction. In the first place we only changed to 4CL from NL because it was the magic restriction, but we have found that it works. We only left NL because we found it to spoil our games - the 1CL uniques was totally our own choice. And our card limit restrictions have proved to solve a lot of problems that NL causes (perhaps not causes, but fails to fix - see above) >> All the people I >> play with feel the same so its not a huge problem for us. I'm not >> trying to get you to play CL, okay, so might I think that your life >> might be slightly better if you did, but its not my place to tell you >> that, so I won't. > >But you just did. no, actually I said that I might think it, I never said anything definite >I could go up to you and say "I could tell you that >you're an idiot, but I won't". [Just kidding] why thank you. >I still don't see what 4CL fixes. You claim that it obviates the need >for the GT, but I don't see that either. Vote pushing is still very, >very effective. what? if you have to waste a load of good votes to get one passed? don't you realise that you've only got four of each vote? You'd have to add in lots of "throw away" votes that will really mess up your deck, and mean that you won't have the stealth / S:CE when you need it. >> The point that I would debate with here is that >> placing a CL on a game makes it less creative, perhaps it does to a >> certain extent, but I think that really this is not true, when you get >> down to the bare bones of it: I doubt that there is any >> deck that would be uncreatable under CL that is creatable under NL >> (barring One-Trick-Ponies), I think that its all a matter of how you >> look at it. > >You cannot make any NL deck under 4CL because NL decks will have more >than 4 of something. A NL deck, as you keep telling me, will not nessessarily have more than four of something, its just that you have the option to. I was merely refering to the raw idea / concept / principles behind a deck design. I reckon that I could convert any NL deck into a workable CL deck design, excluding a few one-trick-ponies that rely on a restrictive single card or combo, but I would rather not play with them anyway. >> Rather than saying "I've not got enough of this card so I can't make >> that deck work", think instead "How can I make this deck work? What >> other cards can I use to emulate this effect?" That is where the >> creativity and the >> challenge comes in to deck building under CL. > >That is where the craftiness and difficulty come. Exactly, that what makes it a challenge - what makes it good, In our opinion! If you don't like the challenge then don't try and play CL, but we find this challenge in itself one of the most stimulating and addictive aspect of the game. >I don't see having to try really hard to get around a self-imposed limit >as being creative at all. why? did scott or amundsen say that to get to the south pole wouldn't be worth while as they could quite happily set themselves the chalenge to go anywhere (ie round the corner) and easily make it? Would that have reduced the creativity that they must have utilised to plan for the many unknown dangers that lied ahead of them? >> >You wouldn't want to play against them? Why? OTP's are notoriously >> >vulnerable to their anti-pony (i.e. WVP/WPV vulnerable to Atonement). >> >> What is WVP/WPV? > >Weenie Vote Push / Weenie Presence Vote. Ah, right. And you expect either of these to work anyway do you? (by the way, atonement is very vulnerable to stealth, or it gives a combat deck something to aim for - it is also restrictive in that it can only be used by weenies themselves) >> do you mean that I have to make a deck that counters another deck >> deliberately? Or have to use a sideboard to counter any OTPs that >> might crop up? Either of these ideas I find distasteful! (infact it >> was one of your NL lot - Curt Adams, I think - who has written an >> article that can be found on Judith and Marks web page about why side >> boards are inappropriate) > >My point was not that sideboards are a good idea (I think that they are >_not_), but that any OTP is easily defeatable by a well-designed deck, >i.e., one that is built with many strategies in mind. so you would put atonement in any deck? >> This is my point about the Sabbat expansion. Now the things that 4CL >> breaks are gone! All its problems have been completely obliterated by >> this expansion and we can now go on and play 4CL with out you lot >> saying "S&B! S&B! S&B! S&B!!!" at us all the time - there is no longer >> any problem with 4CL apart from principle, and GT also has breaks a >> principle aswell, so now we truely are even! > >The problems with 4CL, as I have outlined them above: > >* S&B still a major swing strategy. [Especially with Setites.] not a hope in hell! >* Stifles creativity and freedom of deck construction. Possibly stifles freedom, but just look what you have to gain - THE CHALLENGE! (I'm dribbling just thinking about it!) >* S:CE [anti-combat in general] Not a problem in the long run as you will have so few. >* Required to buy every expansion to stay competitive The money argument is probably best left unused as it swings both ways and will probably cancel each other out >* Counting cards in ash heap becomes valuable Perhaps a little bit, but then thats where TACTICS comes in to it. >* CL varies based on cards in print and the cards in print have (Purely by coincidence???) managed to "plug" all the "holes" CL had. >> >What you describe is a One Trick Pony. >> >> No. What I describe is an effective OTP (as S&B used to be under the >> old 4CL before Sabbat). > >That's what I said. > >> But if a deck is to deal with a truely degenerate OTP (ie. one that >> can destroy you very quickly), then you will need a sideboard, which >> will reduce the challenge and creativity of deck building > >You would _not_ need a sideboard. When a deck is made, you should make >considerations for what other decks might be your predator/prey. Any >deck should be able to deal with Bleed, Vote and Combat. If not, then >that deck is not well-designed. Show me a deck that can't. The point is that a degenerate deck can get around your defenses effectively. >> I can't see any OTP's that would work effectively under >> 4CL therefore its not a problem for me. > >I still claim that the Obf/Pre deck would be very effective. well, stop, because it wouldn't be (I have tried it, but changed to stealthy presence vote [settite/toreador] as it was both more fun and didn't get bleed bounced or intercepted as easily. >> >Unfortunately, one thing 4CL decks are not is well-designed. >> >> This is an insulting statement that is both unfounded and untrue. >> I expect this statement to be withdrawn. > >No. I was not insulting you. I truly believe that it is impossible to >make a well-designed deck in 4CL. The card limit itself limits design >possibilities. well, I think you'd best think again, cos if you've got those ideas in your head you'll really be surprised when you see our group in action. Anonymous

> Well I hate to be the first to burst your bubble, but I probably won't be > the last. No repeat actions >means you cannot perform two bleed actions with the same vammpire in any >given turn. So you CANNOT legal manipulate,majesty,social charm, majesty >etc, with the same vampire on the same turn. > On the last part of your post, this is only your opinion, and WOTC has since > lifted any restrictions on >cards whatsoever (barring cards like stake and the rowan ring.) I've played >against many a S:CE deck myself and though I find it takes an awfully long >get into a satisfying combat, when you finally do it is all the more >rewarding. :) You don't need 20 anti-S:CE cards in any cmbt deck, you only >need enough to keep em guessing!! He cannot accept that the opponent S:CE becouse he have a worthless deck. Me to have no trouble at all against S:CE... And Form Of Mist, why is that card so nice!? It's no more than a Faceless Night.

Mark Havener wrote: > Problem cards don't get duplicated...non-problem cards (like cards > that let you Rush into combat) do. This is not true. The new Majesty alternatives exemplify duplicating a semi-broken card. Ditto for Obedience. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <57aa8m$4...@reuter.cse.ogi.edu>, doe...@church.cse.ogi.edu (Thomas Doehne) wrote: >In article <01bbda3a$043410e0$8ee51fcc@default> "Mark Havener" ><elfh...@ix.netcom.com> writes: >> >>All right, I am replying to my own post, so I snipped everything. One more >>thing I wanted to interject was this: I'm not trying to say that CL is a >>better way to play than NL. Which style you prefer is subjective...neither >>one is "better" than the other. Many people like playing CL. For some > >[rag on people posting for the NL side of the debate snipped] > >>I know we're not going to convince each other...my point in entering this >>debate was to fend off some of the attacks that were aimed at CL. We CL >>players enjoy the game playing under CL...what's the problem in that? So >>CL is not "the way the game was designed to be played"...so what? Neither >>is GT. The fact is, the game is broken if played the way it was designed >>to be played. > >Most of the NL players would dispute that 'fact'. It plays fine, but >for a couple of cards (allowing repeat actions). The original design >(according to some) did not allow vote pushing - it was allowed in >one of the first 'clarifications' of the rules. The design is >beautiful, and imposing CL breaks it. But that is a matter of opinion, >not fact (as you claim). > The fact that the gentleman above was refering to is the need for some extra rules other than the ones given in the original rule book. Without a fix the game IS unplayable and this IS a fact. You seemed to have missed the point the first time around so I thought I would re-iterate it. The 'couple of cards that allow repeat actions' as you put it were a fundemental part of the original game yet they broke it quite spectacuarily. How you can say the game played fine is quite beyond me! Also the original rules made it clear that vote pushing was acceptable so again the game was 'broken' without a fix. Whichever limit you use, you cannot get away from this fact. I am not saying, and neither was the original poster, that NL/GT is broken as you clearly thought he did, I am saying that you cannot play the game just using straight NL without the game becoming stupid. One fix or the other is needed, thats all I am saying. LOS

>CL does for Jyhad what a strict rhyme/meter does for writing: it >requires a certain kind of creativity that some people enjoy, but >it severely restricts what you can do. Some people like poetry, >some don't. However, if you're in competition (arguing a legal >case, say), speaking in verse will put you at a disadvantage. And >there's plenty of room for creativity without adopting an >arbitrary restriction. (My opinion, CL proponents disagree, of course.) A very eloquent analogy! Peter "I'll just say my secret magic word..."

In article <57fkd7$e6g...@leeds.ac.uk>, neve...@mind.com (Anonymous) wrote: bloody loads! 800+ lines n'est pas? A very good reason why a neutral post should be periodically posted on the subject!!!!! See other message. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Every other action is a "type" by card name. Rush and Ambush are >different types, therefore. So let me get this straight, the same minion can: Bum's Rush, untap, Ambush, untap and attack via Haven Uncovered all in the same turn? Sorrow -- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (DPH) writes: >>CL does for Jyhad what a strict rhyme/meter does for writing: it >>requires a certain kind of creativity that some people enjoy, but >>it severely restricts what you can do. Some people like poetry, >>some don't. However, if you're in competition (arguing a legal >>case, say), speaking in verse will put you at a disadvantage. And >>there's plenty of room for creativity without adopting an >>arbitrary restriction. (My opinion, CL proponents disagree, of course.) >A very eloquent analogy! Quite an insiteful one, at that. However, rhyme/meter restrictions typically force a writer into using more obscure words (via a thesaurus, or by grace of an over-developed vocabulary). This increases variety, both within a poem and between poems. CL restrictions typically force a deck-builder into certain patterns of card usages: 4 each of the "good" cards even marginally related to the desired deck, and then a handful of flavor cards. Limiting to four increases the variety within a deck, but decreases the variations betweem decks. Poetry extends the vocabulary into new areas, CL restricts the card usage to predicable sets. [ quoted text not captured ]

cbo...@apdi.net (Sorrow) writes: >>Every other action is a "type" by card name. Rush and Ambush are >>different types, therefore. >So let me get this straight, the same minion can: Bum's Rush, untap, Ambush, >untap and attack via Haven Uncovered all in the same turn? That's correct. You could then untap and attack via a different Haven Uncovered, if available. [ quoted text not captured ]

staffan.bengtsson (staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se) wrote: : > Well I hate to be the first to burst your bubble, but I probably won't be [ quoted text not captured ] My, this is hostile, isn't it? My deck never had any trouble with S:CE bleed strategies b/c I had more deflections than he had blood on his guys. However, in general, before the new DC tournament rules, S:CE decks were a severe problem b/c although potence is seriously cool, it should not be a requirement for survival. Presently, I still dislike Freak Drive on an instinctual level, and FoM is still cheesy, but I agree that the present rules fix makes it unncesarry to restrict them. Garry

>>So let me get this straight, the same minion can: Bum's Rush, untap, Ambush, >>untap and attack via Haven Uncovered all in the same turn? >That's correct. >You could then untap and attack via a different Haven Uncovered, if >available. That's psychotic. Is it because of the card type played or because "Rushing"/"Attacking" isn't considered an official action? If the former, then what's to say you cannot Govern, untap then Enchant Kindred? If the latter, why isn't it an official action? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <01bbda3a$043410e0$8ee51fcc@default>, "Mark Havener" <elfh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: [lots and lots of 'each to his own' snipped] >Okay, I'm done now. Hopefully we can agree to disagree on this issue (once >again). Truce? > >-Elfholme If only! I entered a similar post about a month ago. Alas people continued to imply why a was better than b. Its a nice idea though and I wish it every success. By the way, I suggested back then that perhaps a neutral post stating the advantages and disadvantages of both would be a good idea. I couldn't undertake such a project myself then due to lack of time but I would happily do it now if it hasn't been done. Perhaps if people could mail me or refer me to arguments elsewhere then I could set about such a post that would be reposted every so often for the benefit of new gamers. Thankyou, [ quoted text not captured ]

> staffan.bengtsson wrote: > > Samuel K Handelman wrote: > > but I'd just as soon > >they didn't have eight freak drives. At present, it's moderately better > >(in many ways) than rat's warning but costs blood - I still feel > >emotionally certain that it is inherently cursed and will be abused in > >some ungodly fashion, but ah well. > AWW COME ON! A deck with the card's you speak about is'nt that good! > My vetrue deck can blled once, and vote once with each vampire, but i don't > have 10 Freak Drive in my 100 card deck (even if i have 16) I have 4, becouse > i rather had a majesty in my hand than an freak drive... if I would'nt i would > sooner than later being crushed by a combat deck. Freak Drive increases the number of actions your minions can take per turn, increasing the number of a finite resource like no other card, since it works during your turn. Perhaps you'd rather have a Majesty if your actions are unsuccessful or there are rush combat decks in play. However, with a Misdirection, a bunch of Freak Drives and a handful of votes and bleeds, your turn need never end. Ok, ok. It has to end eventually. But you can really make a dent in your prey's pool if you haven't killed him or her by the time you run out of Freak Drives. The Majesties should be in your hand after the card cycling. The combat deck can only try to get past Majesties and Skins of Steel. -Nathan Harada

>>So let me get this straight, the same minion can: Bum's Rush, untap, >>Ambush, untap and attack via Haven Uncovered all in the same turn? >That's correct. >You could then untap and attack via a different Haven Uncovered, if >available. AWW COME ON! that should be the same action "Attack", either they put up a good rule, or they do not do a rule about it at all!

> Freak Drive increases the number of actions your minions can take >per turn, increasing the number of a finite resource like no other card, >since it works during your turn. Perhaps you'd rather have a Majesty if >your actions are unsuccessful or there are rush combat decks in play. Yes, Sure, my Ventrue Deck uses both... >However, with a Misdirection, a bunch of Freak Drives and a handful of >votes and bleeds, your turn need never end. Ok, ok. It has to end >eventually. But you can really make a dent in your prey's pool if you >haven't killed him or her by the time you run out of Freak Drives. The >Majesties should be in your hand after the card cycling. The >combat deck can only try to get past Majesties and Skins of Steel. (I have a such deck, just so you know... I have all decks except the Sabbat decks, where I just have a Ventrue Antitribu deck, and Setites.) My Ventrue deck is one of the best, but still i have to get huge vampires out, and keep my hand with survivor combat card's becouse my vampires cost's me to much to loose them. The thing to beat it is lot's of intercept, or a earth Melding Gangrel, then it's hopeless.

> My, this is hostile, isn't it? My deck never had any trouble with >S:CE bleed strategies b/c I had more deflections than he had blood on his >guys. > However, in general, before the new DC tournament rules, S:CE >decks were a severe problem b/c although potence is seriously cool, it >should not be a requirement for survival. > Presently, I still dislike Freak Drive on an instinctual level, >and FoM is still cheesy, but I agree that the present rules fix makes it >unncesarry to restrict them. To much freak drive - and your dead. Pretty soon you will have a hand jam, and if combat begin's - youre done for it. With the new rules, freak drive IS, As you say, not that good at all...

>CL does for Jyhad what a strict rhyme/meter does for writing: it >requires a certain kind of creativity that some people enjoy, but >it severely restricts what you can do. Some people like poetry, >some don't. However, if you're in competition (arguing a legal >case, say), speaking in verse will put you at a disadvantage. And >there's plenty of room for creativity without adopting an >arbitrary restriction. (My opinion, CL proponents disagree, of course.) I actually quite like this analogy. I think it fits well. We'll keep to our CL because we like it. We'll let you keep to NL, and even let you have the tournaments played under your rules. Just gives us one thing: (in a strict legal form, of course) "We, the NL players, do hereby declare that although we do not enjoy the style of Card Limits on the game of Jyhad, we accept that there may be players who prefer to play with said restrictions. We will no longer criticse or slander the said version of the game, or the people who play it. We agree that the CL game is, overall, no better or worse than the unrestricted game and it should be all down to a matter of educated opinion as to what people wish to play." perhaps we can call it the treaty of the Sabbat, given that that is how it came about. Anyway. I'm off to go and put 4 madness of the Bards in my deck ;-) cheerio, Anonymous

On 29 Nov 1996, Judith Cookson Grunberger wrote: > > What's wrong with criticism? That like asking the Republicans not to > criticize the Democrats. You're damn straight I'm going to criticize CL > play, because I don't think it's how the game should be played. *You* can > play CL, and that's fine. You can even play CL decks with me, as long as I > can play NL (we actually have one CL player in our group -- he doesn't > care that we all play NL and we don't care that he plays CL) I have found that playing NL or with CL really makes no differenence at all to the game. Played the game both ways, found each to be enjoyable, but here are my other insights; CL players will whine incessantly about restricting certain cards to 4 or 5 in any given deck, but once they actually play NL, they tend to think, "Wow. That was kinda cool!" NL games tend to be faster since people are slamming through cards super quick, which can be nice given the time it can take to play Jyhad at times. However, CL games have one very distinct advantage over NL games, and that is CL games are more like a fine game of chess. I won't get into all the hoopla of mathematical stats and such hooey, but just relate an analogy. In chess you have a limit to the # of pieces of certain types that you are allowed to use, each with there own capabilities and some are better than others, ie- a queen is better than a pawn, is a statement I think most people will agree with. So, in NL you can, by inductive reasoning, say that you may have 20 "queens" in your deck, whereas in CL you may only be allowed 4 or 5 such "queens". Just got more tricky didn't it? You suddenly have a finite amount of "queen" resources and have to watch how you play them, making a CL game more like a game of chess. This is not to say that CL games are anything like a fine game of chess, just more analagous to it than NL games are. How we want to play the game is up to personal taste, and both are quite fun by me, but I tend to prefer NL games since if I really wanted to play a game of chess, well... I'd play a game of chess. :) > Nope, there's no way way I'm going to agree that "the CL game is, overall, > no better or worse than the unrestricted game." Sorry. Carried forth from analogy about Republicans and Democrats: Does the above statement from Judy sound like a Freshman Republican or what? :) cya folks!! ################################################################# # Judas Iscariot ju...@gladstone.uoregon.edu 541.302.5722 # # gzu...@cs.uoregon.edu # # # # "Naked Chic Air Freshners Rule!" - Beavis # #################################################################

Mark Langsdorf <mlan...@io.com> wrote in article <57a8v1$r...@nntp-3.io.com>... > Mark Havener (elfh...@ix.netcom.com) wrote: > > > > thing I wanted to interject was this: I'm not trying to say that CL is a > > better way to play than NL. Which style you prefer is subjective...neither > > one is "better" than the other. Many people like playing CL. For some > > reason, a few NL players seem to regard this as a personal attack, and they > > proceed to rip CL players up and down. I see statements like "deck > > building under CL is mindless", "CL are for players with no imagination", > > even "CL stifle imagination" get me a little upset. Either NL players are > This is opposed to the CL types that say "Deck building is more > challenging under a CL" and "It takes more skill to play under the CL?" > I don't appreciate being insulted for my play style, either. Nope...they go hand in hand. Both styles of play are viable. I don't see why there has to be such a controversy over this issue. -Elfholme

Samuel K Handelman <shan...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote in article <57a8t2$a...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>... > Mark Havener (elfh...@ix.netcom.com) wrote: > : To have more S:CE than me, they have to be playing with a wierd combination > : of vamps in their crypt, or lots of skill cards. It's possible to have a > : deck that uses Majesties and Mummifies ('course Mummify has it's own > : problems) AND Earth Melds, but is it a good deck? Under NL, he can have > : just as many S:CE cards as I have Rush cards...so what's the difference? > > It doesn't matter if they have more S:CE than you do, you want to > get into a fight. Majestying their majesty is an interesting trick, but > you can keep doing it until the cows come home and you aren't going to be > able to hit them upside the head with PtL. WHAT? I never said anything about having any Majesties myself. I have the rush cards. my opponent has the Majesties. > : > What degenerate strategies? 20 Majesties is not degenerate. > : > : Without GT it is. Evidently you have never played against a Freaky > : Majestic Bleed deck... > > CL are not necesarry for this. It isn't needed to prevent someone > from packing 6 spirits touch (b/c they're quietus/auspex combat deck > wants to maneuver to long range in order to hock death loogies, no I'm > not kidding), b/c 6 majesties is degenerate. The tournament rules, > despite being a WOTC support product, work just fine. And Vote Pushing > is now balanced (but still decent) under the printed rules addendum in > Sabbat. <snip> > : Nope. We ban nothing. The 50% win rate was gained over several months > : (and I posted the results to this newsgroup while I was running my "test", > : along with posting the deck multiple times), against many different players > : (I used it in two different playing groups). I can assure you the table > : wasn't asleep! Bleed bounce is not a necessity! The deck's success was > : actually much higher than 50%, and it got me ganged up by the table a few > : times! The hardest times it had were when it had a S&B predator or a For > : combat prey, but even in those situations, it's success rate was about > : 50%...and many times it swept the table! This was all in response to a > : challenge posted by a couple of the NL die-hards, which I accepted. > > Then you're opponents _are_ asleep. After a record like this, I > don't see how you can claim that your playgroup doesn't stink. Well, probably because the deck was tested in multiple PLAY GROUPS (not just mine) in multiple cities. The average age of the players was well over 20, and many of them have been playing since the game was first released. Evidently you have a stronger opinion on this subject than I do. I've played under both CL and NL, and think both are viable (as long as some sort of houserules are used with the NL). It just bothers me when someone says that CL is a "bad" way yo play the game. The simple fact that many groups PREFER to play this way is a convincing argument to the contrary, IMHO. -Elfholme

Judith Cookson Grunberger <jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote in article <57nfdm$6...@y.glue.umd.edu>... > In article <57mue0$f1o...@leeds.ac.uk>, Anonymous <neve...@mind.com> wrote: > > > >We agree that the CL game is, overall, no better or worse than the > >unrestricted game and it should be all down to a matter of educated opinion > >as to what people wish to play." > > Nope, there's no way way I'm going to agree that "the CL game is, overall, > no better or worse than the unrestricted game." Sorry. Too bad, because that's the root of this silly debate. It's not really about whether one style of play is better than the other...it's about respecting the opinions of others as to what's best for THEM. -Elfholme

DPH <CLA...@leeds.ac.uk> wrote in article <57hqum$e7c...@leeds.ac.uk>... > >CL does for Jyhad what a strict rhyme/meter does for writing: it > >requires a certain kind of creativity that some people enjoy, but > >it severely restricts what you can do. Some people like poetry, > >some don't. However, if you're in competition (arguing a legal > >case, say), speaking in verse will put you at a disadvantage. And > >there's plenty of room for creativity without adopting an > >arbitrary restriction. (My opinion, CL proponents disagree, of course.) > > A very eloquent analogy! Yep, I have to agree. I prefer to think of a game of V:TES as pure poetry, however, and not a debate over legalities! ;) -Elfholme

Thomas Doehne <doe...@church.cse.ogi.edu> wrote in article <57aa8m$4...@reuter.cse.ogi.edu>... > In article <01bbda3a$043410e0$8ee51fcc@default> "Mark Havener" > <elfh...@ix.netcom.com> writes: > > > >All right, I am replying to my own post, so I snipped everything. One more > >thing I wanted to interject was this: I'm not trying to say that CL is a > >better way to play than NL. Which style you prefer is subjective...neither > >one is "better" than the other. Many people like playing CL. For some > > [rag on people posting for the NL side of the debate snipped] Well, I was attempting to word my post carefully so that it wouldn't be viewed as an attack against either side (CL or NL). Evidently I failed, sorry. > >I know we're not going to convince each other...my point in entering this > >debate was to fend off some of the attacks that were aimed at CL. We CL > >players enjoy the game playing under CL...what's the problem in that? So > >CL is not "the way the game was designed to be played"...so what? Neither > >is GT. The fact is, the game is broken if played the way it was designed > >to be played. > > Most of the NL players would dispute that 'fact'. It plays fine, but > for a couple of cards (allowing repeat actions). The original design > (according to some) did not allow vote pushing - it was allowed in > one of the first 'clarifications' of the rules. The design is > beautiful, and imposing CL breaks it. But that is a matter of opinion, > not fact (as you claim). The fact that house rules HAVE to be imposed (whether they are CL, or GT, or "Sensible Players Rules" makes little difference to me) to make the game playable would seem to be strong evidence to support that "fact". Even the DCI rules are changing the way the game was originally designed to be played (because it was originally designed with some major problems. WOTC seems to finally be admitting this, why can't you?). Then again, we can disagree. -Elfholme

Hi Greg, On Fri, 29 Nov 1996, Judas Iscariot wrote: > I have found that playing NL or with CL really makes no differenence at > all to the game. Played the game both ways, found each to be enjoyable, > but here are my other insights; CL players will whine incessantly about > restricting certain cards to 4 or 5 in any given deck, but once they > actually play NL, they tend to think, "Wow. That was kinda cool!" NL > games tend to be faster since people are slamming through cards super > quick, which can be nice given the time it can take to play Jyhad at > times. I agree so far :) > However, CL games have one very distinct advantage over NL games, > and that is CL games are more like a fine game of chess. Oh no, not the chess analogy again. Algustas is making a loud groaning noise... > I won't get into all the hoopla of mathematical stats and such hooey, > but just relate an analogy. I can see why you don't want to get into statistics with chess. There aren't any. No luck at all. You never have to guess when the next Queen will be available, or decide what to do if you draw all of your Bishops at the same time... > In chess you have a limit to the # of pieces of certain > types that you are allowed to use, each with there own capabilities and > some are better than others, ie- a queen is better than a pawn, is a > statement I think most people will agree with. So, in NL you can, by > inductive reasoning, say that you may have 20 "queens" in your deck, > whereas in CL you may only be allowed 4 or 5 such "queens". Just got > more tricky didn't it? You suddenly have a finite amount of "queen" > resources and have to watch how you play them, making a CL game more like > a game of chess. This is not to say that CL games are anything like a > fine game of chess, just more analagous to it than NL games are. How we Hmm, I'm confused. If CL games aren't like a game of chess, then why that example? Actually, NL games are far more like chess than CL games, because luck plays a much smaller role in NL games than CL games. Before I ever sit down to play, I have decided the acceptable degree of luck, or randomness, or whatever you want to call it, that goes into my deck. > want to play the game is up to personal taste, and both are quite fun by > me, but I tend to prefer NL games since if I really wanted to play a game > of chess, well... I'd play a game of chess. :) Agreed. And if I wanted to play CL, I would play roulette. > > Nope, there's no way way I'm going to agree that "the CL game is, overall, > > no better or worse than the unrestricted game." Sorry. > > Carried forth from analogy about Republicans and Democrats: Does the > above statement from Judy sound like a Freshman Republican or what? :) Not really, a Republican would be more apt to want to avoid a debate completely, since her issues would not be soundly logical. I have found one very good technique for avoiding debate, especially when I am supporting a weak argument, is to simply label the other side as confrontational. A good republican would do this on issues of health care, tax breaks for the rich, and CL for Jyhad :) Algustas

Hi Mark, On 30 Nov 1996, Mark Havener wrote: > Judith Cookson Grunberger <jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote in article > > > > Nope, there's no way way I'm going to agree that "the CL game is, > overall, > > no better or worse than the unrestricted game." Sorry. > > Too bad, because that's the root of this silly debate. It's not really > about whether one style of play is better than the other...it's about > respecting the opinions of others as to what's best for THEM. > So then, you think that it isn't OK for Judith to express her opinion that NL is better? What could possibly be a beter forum for a debate on Jyhad than a Jyhad newsgroup? I have argued several (OK, many) points on this newsgroup with people who treated me respectfully, even when my argument was very weak. Were they wrong to point out that I had a weak argument? I don't think so. If I didn't have the capacity to modify my opinions, based on logical debate of the issues, I might think so... Algustas *****They are mixed with that repulsive choir of angels... undecided in neutrality. Heaven, to keep it's beauty, cast them out, but even Hell itself would not recieve them...*****Dante's Inferno

> curt...@aol.com wrote: > This is not true. The new Majesty alternatives exemplify duplicating a > semi-broken card. Ditto for Obedience. Hi, Curt. This is interesting. Could you explain to me why Majesty and Obedience are examples of semi-broken cards? Thanks. -Nathan Harada

Judas Iscariot (ju...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote: > On 29 Nov 1996, Judith Cookson Grunberger wrote: > > > > What's wrong with criticism? That like asking the Republicans not to > > criticize the Democrats. You're damn straight I'm going to criticize CL > > play, because I don't think it's how the game should be played. *You* can > > play CL, and that's fine. You can even play CL decks with me, as long as I > > can play NL (we actually have one CL player in our group -- he doesn't > > care that we all play NL and we don't care that he plays CL) > > > > Nope, there's no way way I'm going to agree that "the CL game is, overall, > > no better or worse than the unrestricted game." Sorry. > > Carried forth from analogy about Republicans and Democrats: Does the > above statement from Judy sound like a Freshman Republican or what? :) > cya folks!! > Get it right, mate, Judith is a senior. Going to graduate in May and all that. Other than that, you've hit the nail right on the head. =) Mark Langsdorf of Mark and Judy's Jyhad Page http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html

[ quoted text not captured ] >>That's correct. [ quoted text not captured ] "Attack" is not an option for a cardless action. Therefore, each action card is its own type, by name. To apply the common sense ruling you suggest, you open up an avenue for contention for other carded action types. This avenue is best closed, even if that means treating an obvious "type" of action improperly. [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote in article <57sq0a$1...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>... > > >AWW COME ON! that should be the same action "Attack", either they put up a > >good rule, or they do not do a rule about it at all! > > "Attack" is not an option for a cardless action. > Therefore, each action card is its own type, by name. So by this line of reasoning, each of the the bleeding Action cards (each it's own type, by name) should be considered a different action, and they are all different than a cardless bleed, right? To consider certain categories of actionsrepetitive and others not seems very inconsistent to me. Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that there is a fix, but is there a meta-rule here? Because it doesn't seem like it. Or if there is, it's something like: "A vampire cannot call a vote or bleed more than once a turn. In addition, a vampire may not use the same action card twice in a turn." Are there any other broad categories of actions that are supposed to be restricted? I'd sure like to know... > To apply the common sense ruling you suggest, you open > up an avenue for contention for other carded action types. > > This avenue is best closed, even if that means treating > an obvious "type" of action improperly. Okay, I can see that argument, but it sure would be nice to see some consistency... -Elfholme

Algustas <arob...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote in article <Pine.SOL.3.91.96120...@gladstone.uoregon.edu>... > Hi Mark, > > On 30 Nov 1996, Mark Havener wrote: > > > Judith Cookson Grunberger <jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote in article > > > > > > Nope, there's no way way I'm going to agree that "the CL game is, > > overall, > > > no better or worse than the unrestricted game." Sorry. > > > > Too bad, because that's the root of this silly debate. It's not really > > about whether one style of play is better than the other...it's about > > respecting the opinions of others as to what's best for THEM. > > > So then, you think that it isn't OK for Judith to express her > opinion that NL is better? Not at all. It's the inability to compromise that I have a problem with. If an issue is debated for months (or even years, as this one could well be) with neither side being convinced, it might just be time to say, "I respect your position, even though I disagree." What Judith is saying is, "You're wrong." I've read through pages (books even) of posts by people who like NL. I've played NL. I've become convinced that NL is NOT the Devil Incarnate, and might be just as viable a way to play as my preferred CL style. While I might not agree that FOR ME, NL are no better or worse than CL, I *would* agree that OVERALL (for the V:TES-playing community as a whole), one is not inherently "better" or "worse" than the other. That's the difference. Also, note that I never said it wasn't okay for Judith to express her opinion on anything. I just think it's too bad that some V:TES players cannot see the other side's viewpoint. Is that more clear? Respectfully, -Elfholme

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (DPH) writes: >>>CL does for Jyhad what a strict rhyme/meter does for writing: it >>>requires a certain kind of creativity that some people enjoy, but >>>it severely restricts what you can do. Some people like poetry, >>>some don't. However, if you're in competition (arguing a legal >>>case, say), speaking in verse will put you at a disadvantage. And >>>there's plenty of room for creativity without adopting an >>>arbitrary restriction. (My opinion, CL proponents disagree, of course.) >>A very eloquent analogy! >Quite an insiteful one, at that. >However, rhyme/meter restrictions typically force a writer into >using more obscure words (via a thesaurus, or by grace of an >over-developed vocabulary). This increases variety, both within >a poem and between poems. >CL restrictions typically force a deck-builder into certain patterns >of card usages: 4 each of the "good" cards even marginally related to >the desired deck, and then a handful of flavor cards. Limiting >to four increases the variety within a deck, but decreases the >variations betweem decks. >Poetry extends the vocabulary into new areas, CL restricts the >card usage to predicable sets. Ooooh, clever analogy and analysis. MUCH better than the ill-fated Chess Analogy of the CL debate some months ago. Remember that? :) gnfnrf

Somebody wrote: >>> What degenerate strategies? 20 Majesties is not degenerate. Maybe not, but it's bloody boring! Peter

In article <329BC9...@cornell.edu>, James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> wrote: Hello, I'll just pick up on three of your points - it was a rather long article!: >>Maybe this type >>of player is unknown to you, but the theory, surely, is sound - its a bit >>like the preverbial CL S&B player, who we have never seen, but you say that >>that seems to be no objection (which is an argument I happen to agree with) >Is this to say that no one plays S&B in your play group? Point 1 I play in the same group as "Anonymous" and someone did used to play a Malky sneak and bleed. After a few runaway successes though the other decks got better and better and countered its success using the various anti-S+B tactics. Point 2 In so far as Angelica is broken, this is ridiculous - see my arguments on this in an earlier post - if you missed this then I'd be happy to reiterate them. Point 3 "I'm having a hard time taking you seriously myself, especially when I discovered that you're from Leeds..." OK, what sort of generalised, bullshit argument is this? There seems to be some misconception that Leeds is one big combined entity. Alas this is not the case, there are several of us who contribute to the group. The person you are replying to is an individual, as are we all. If you wish to reply to his comments then by all means do so, but don't generalise. What you are effectively saying is 'all x are wankers'. Do you think this is a valid statement to the entire 'x' group. I think not. If you want to jump on the common bandwagon of misconception then you are at the very least misguided. Please take more care before making such remarks again. Peter

"Mark Havener" <elfh...@ix.netcom.com> writes: >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote in article ><57sq0a$1...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>... >> >> >AWW COME ON! that should be the same action "Attack", either they put up >a >> >good rule, or they do not do a rule about it at all! >> >> "Attack" is not an option for a cardless action. >> Therefore, each action card is its own type, by name. >So by this line of reasoning, each of the the bleeding Action cards (each >it's own type, by name) should be considered a different action, and they >are all different than a cardless bleed, right? No. "Bleed" is a cardless action, therefore any bleed action is of the "bleed" type. >To consider certain categories of actionsrepetitive and others not seems >very inconsistent to me. Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that there is >a fix, but is there a meta-rule here? Because it doesn't seem like it. Or >if there is, it's something like: "A vampire cannot call a vote or bleed >more than once a turn. In addition, a vampire may not use the same action >card twice in a turn." Are there any other broad categories of actions >that are supposed to be restricted? I'd sure like to know... All cardless actions represent a "type" of action. All actions (even carded ones) of that type are the same type. Any action card action of a type not represented by a cardless action is a "type" by card name. Any action granted by a card in play is a type distinct to that instance of the card. The rule is "A minion cannot attempt an action of a type that he has already attempted this turn." -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | It's not the same when I'm http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | not in the holodeck Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | - Riker

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >All cardless actions represent a "type" of action. All actions (even >carded ones) of that type are the same type. What I meant to say is: 'All action mentioned in the rulebook represent their own "types" of actions' - this includes "carded" actions like equiping and recruiting and calling votes. Where I say "cardless action", use "rulebook action" instead. [ quoted text not captured ]

About the "no repeat action" rule, L. Scott Johnson writes: > >All cardless actions represent a "type" of action. All actions (even >carded ones) of that type are the same type. Cardless actions that I can think of are Bleed, Hunt, Encounter a Vampire in Torpor, Leave Torpor, and Get equipment from another Minion (or is this an instance of the Equip action-type ? and is Equip an action-type - see below ?) I suppose Rapid Healing is of the Leave Torpor type. > >Any action card action of a type not represented by a cardless action >is a "type" by card name. Does this mean each political action is a type by itself, or is "Political Action" an action type ? Also, this means "Bum's Rush" and "Ambush" are different action types... > >Any action granted by a card in play is a type distinct to that instance >of the card. If "Political Action" is an action type, what is the status of political actions granted by cards in play: are they allowed in multiples or not (say, can a single vampire attempt 2 actions to remove 2 distinct Archons ?) I suppose actions granted to a minion by itself enter this class (like Etrius' steal blood, Arms Dealer's weapon-searching, etc.) ? > >The rule is "A minion cannot attempt an action of a type that he has >already attempted this turn." > Hmmm, this doesn't fix the "Malkavian Network/Malkavians with Presence/Majesty" A few more questions here. * Is "recruit an ally/retainer" an action type ? Or is "recruit Tasha Morgan" an action type ? * Same question for equip actions; I assume the answer is similar. * How does this interact with Mask of 1000 Faces ? If Mr Bleed's action is blocked and taken over by Ms Combat, is Mr Bleed considered as having already attempted a bleed action ? Is Ms Combat ? I realized this has probably been answered at least once already, but I missed it; e-mail answers will be appreciated if you don't feel like replying to the 'group. Actually, I believe a system of code words like the one used in Netrunner and a few other CCGs would be useful now; actions could be restricted based on code words: "Bleed modifier" could be a code word and save wording space "Damage Prevention" could be a code word and save rules questions about which cards can be used to prevent this or that "Attack" could become a code word so that a minion couldn't both Ambush and Bum's Rush in a single turn Now, it's too late to incorporate such mechanisms (for Jyhad/V:tES in its present incarnation; maybe in 15 years when they release a "Best CCGs of the 20th Century" collection...) --- Philippe Duchon duc...@labri.u-bordeaux.fr

Nathan Harada <i...@hula.net> writes: > This is interesting. Could you explain to me why Majesty and >Obedience are examples of semi-broken cards? Thanks. Simply put, the cards are better than the alternatives (Dodge), almost completely hose combat decks in large enough quantities, and can generally be disposed of without much trouble, so no hand jam. Disposing of Obedience does require an intercept deck. Obedience decks are rare enough that people can ignore them, but Majesty decks force combat decks to carry large quantities of anti-S:CE cards. They are semi-broken in that they do not break the game, but do warp many decks to cope with their existance. You'll note that almost all serious objections to NL today revolve around decks heavily reliant on cards that provide S:CE and untap, or have a similar effect (Obedience and Deflection). Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <19961127003...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com wrote: >> Problem cards don't get duplicated...non-problem cards (like cards >> that let you Rush into combat) do. > >This is not true. The new Majesty alternatives exemplify duplicating a >semi-broken card. Ditto for Obedience. I think you'll find that its the NL environment in which Majesty has always been (Semi)broken, not the CL. Anonymous

Mark Havener (elfh...@ix.netcom.com) wrote: > > > L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote in article > <57sq0a$1...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>... > > > > >AWW COME ON! that should be the same action "Attack", either they put up > a > > >good rule, or they do not do a rule about it at all! > > > > "Attack" is not an option for a cardless action. > > Therefore, each action card is its own type, by name. > > So by this line of reasoning, each of the the bleeding Action cards (each > it's own type, by name) should be considered a different action, and they > are all different than a cardless bleed, right? > > To consider certain categories of actionsrepetitive and others not seems > very inconsistent to me. Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that there is > a fix, but is there a meta-rule here? Because it doesn't seem like it. Or > if there is, it's something like: "A vampire cannot call a vote or bleed > more than once a turn. In addition, a vampire may not use the same action > card twice in a turn." Are there any other broad categories of actions > that are supposed to be restricted? I'd sure like to know... Employing retainers, recruiting allies, hunting, equipping, calling a vote, and bleeding are the separate categories of actions that can't be repeated (they are defined in the Jyhad rulebook, too). So you can't vote twice, bleed twice, or recruit JS Simmons and a Ghoul, but you could vote, bleed, recruit a Ghoul, buy a .45 and get an Arms Dealer into play. > > Okay, I can see that argument, but it sure would be nice to see some > consistency... > Yeah, well, we're all hoping for that sometime soon. Just not holding our breaths. -Mark Langsdorf http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html

>> This is not true. The new Majesty alternatives exemplify duplicating a >> semi-broken card. Ditto for Obedience. > Hi, Curt. > This is interesting. Could you explain to me why Majesty and >Obedience are examples of semi-broken cards? Thanks. I used my Malkav deck against my Brujah Deck today... My Brujah deck is extreme, with about 8 Bum's Rush and 2 haven Uncovered, and the rest is blood doll's and combat card's... My malkav have 19 Obedience and 2 Elysium... At all, there where 3 fight's that ended with Elysium... I ended up with 29 blood and 6 vampire's above 6... Obedience is a good way to survive =) Majesty isnt that good at all.

In article <01bbdffe$3ca11ee0$aedc23c7@default>, Mark Havener <elfh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> So then, you think that it isn't OK for Judith to express her >> opinion that NL is better? >Not at all. It's the inability to compromise that I have a problem with. >If an issue is debated for months (or even years, as this one could well >be) with neither side being convinced, it might just be time to say, "I >respect your position, even though I disagree." What Judith is saying is, >"You're wrong." I've read through pages (books even) of posts by people Hi. Call me Judy. Yes. I'm saying that in my opinion, you're wrong, and that NL is better than CL. I could go on about why I think it's better, but I think you know all the reasons -- they've been reiterated enough. However, you seem to think that I don't respect you. This just isn't true. I do respect your position, even though I disagree with it. I am not telling you that you can't play CL. I certainly don't tell the CL player in our group that he can't play CL. "No! You have to put 5 Flashes in your deck, you dumb-ass CL player!" I don't think so. But if he tells me I have to take out my fifth Govern, he can go hang. On the other hand, I don't think it's time to give up and say "let's quit this debate." What's wrong with debate? Parallel: Some people believe in gun control. Some people don't. Let's just stop debating, one is as good as the other. >who like NL. I've played NL. I've become convinced that NL is NOT the >Devil Incarnate, and might be just as viable a way to play as my preferred >CL style. While I might not agree that FOR ME, NL are no better or worse >than CL, I *would* agree that OVERALL (for the V:TES-playing community as a >whole), one is not inherently "better" or "worse" than the other. That's >the difference. I would not agree with that premise. OVERALL, I would say that NL is "better" than CL. Why do you think that there is something disrespectful, narrow-minded, and confrontational in the fact that I do not believe that two different way of playing VTES are "separate but equal"? >Also, note that I never said it wasn't okay for Judith to express her >opinion on anything. I just think it's too bad that some V:TES players >cannot see the other side's viewpoint. Is that more clear? I see your point of view and respectfully disagree with it. Is that better? Judy -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> "You boys aren't drunk. You're just stupid." - Beavis & Butt-Head <> <> jcoo...@eng.umd.edu * http://www.glue.umd.edu/~jcookson <> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Anonymous wrote: > > In article <19961127003...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, > curt...@aol.com wrote: > >> Problem cards don't get duplicated...non-problem cards (like cards > >> that let you Rush into combat) do. > > > >This is not true. The new Majesty alternatives exemplify duplicating a > >semi-broken card. Ditto for Obedience. > > I think you'll find that its the NL environment in which Majesty has always > been (Semi)broken, not the CL. I don't think Curt was referring to the repeat actions abuse of Majesty as the problem, but simply that S:CE itself is semi-broken, as it is relatively hard to cope with. If I count correctly, there are 5 anti-S:CE cards (4 from the original set, and Dog Pack), and, without those, S:CE becomes an anti-combat trump. James -- James Hamblin je...@cornell.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Only one human captain has ever survived battle with the Minbari fleet. He is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives, be somewhere else." -- Ambassador Delenn, "Babylon 5: Severed Dreams"

> "Attack" is not an option for a cardless action. > Therefore, each action card is its own type, by name. That really sucks. > To apply the common sense ruling you suggest, you open > up an avenue for contention for other carded action types. an example being? Sorrow -- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Algustas wrote: <<<<<SNIP!!!>>>> > Oh no, not the chess analogy again. Algustas is making a loud > groaning noise... hmmmmm... sounds more like a loud whining noise..... :) > > > I won't get into all the hoopla of mathematical stats and such hooey, > > but just relate an analogy. > I can see why you don't want to get into statistics with chess. > There aren't any. No luck at all. You never have to guess when the next <<<<<<<<SNIP!>>>>>> Uhmmmm.... last time I checked there *are* statistics in chess. Ever had to calculate the probabilty of a move in your head? That is using statistics.... > > > In chess you have a limit to the # of pieces of certain > > types that you are allowed to use, each with there own capabilities and > > some are better than others, ie- a queen is better than a pawn, is a > > statement I think most people will agree with. So, in NL you can, by > > inductive reasoning, say that you may have 20 "queens" in your deck, > > whereas in CL you may only be allowed 4 or 5 such "queens". Just got > > more tricky didn't it? You suddenly have a finite amount of "queen" > > resources and have to watch how you play them, making a CL game more like > > a game of chess. This is not to say that CL games are anything like a > > fine game of chess, just more analagous to it than NL games are. How we > Hmm, I'm confused. If CL games aren't like a game of chess, then > why that example? Actually, NL games are far more like chess than CL > games, because luck plays a much smaller role in NL games than CL games. Couldn't disagree more. Since you missed the boat entirely, I'll restate it again: In chess you have a finite number of pieces, ie- one queen, one king, etc. We can all agree that a queen is better than a pawn. Using inductive reasoning we can say that a NL deck can have 20 "queens" in it. In a CL deck you can have only 4 or 5 such "queens" in it, thereby approaching a game more like chess than NL since you have finite number of pieces of any given type to choose from. Where we seemed to have diverged was saying that CL are not exactly like chess. You seemed to have taken my statement previously too literally, thereby dismissing an entire analogy. My point in the end is that CL games are more like chess than NL, given the premise of a finite # of pieces of any given type. You raise an interesting counterpoint however. You seem to be saying that NL is more like chess in that when you stack your deck with 20 WweF you *know* that you will get this card, in the same way that in chess you know that you will get one queen. Let's carry this further. Let's suppose that WweF is the best card in the game (some would say it is, but that is another argument). Once again using inductive reasoning, we can say that a WweF card would be analagous to a "queen", arguably the best piece in chess. Using the argument presented by you, NL decks would be more like chess since you know you will get WweF in your hand at any given time, or in this case, the "queen" will always be at your disposal for use. How is this like chess? You don't always get to use the queen, some games if you are *really* unfortunate you won't get to use her at all! In the end I see your point that NL is like chess in that with it you will know that you will get a certain card in your hand, much the same way you know you will play with one queen in chess, and I agree with you on that point. However, I disagree with you in saying that having 20 "queens" in a jyhad deck is anything like chess at all since since there is no finite limit to your resources like there is in chess. Why all the comparison to chess? Well, I had hoped to avoid a direct comparison, and that is not what I want to cast about as my premise. I am only using chess as analogy to the finite # of resources you have when you play Jyhad with CL. We can all agree that chess is nothing at all like Jyhad, whether or not we play NL or CL. However, it is still a useful analogy to look at to see why some people would want to play with CL rules. I personally still prefer NL games due to time issues and the fact that if I really wanted to play a game like chess, I'd just go play chess.... Also, there is one final reason I prefer NL games over CL games; the omnipresent "Wheeeeee!!!!..." fun factor that CL seem to lack. ;> ################################################################# # Judas Iscariot ju...@gladstone.uoregon.edu 541.302.5722 # # gzu...@cs.uoregon.edu # # # # "Men must either be caressed or else annihilated; # # they will revenge themselves for small injuries, # # but cannot do so for great ones; therefore the # # injury that we do to a man must be such that we # # need not fear his vengeance." - Niccolo Machiavelli # #################################################################

Okay. J. Hamlin (JH) wrote a hell of a lot of stuff, and I don't want to do another 850 post length, so I'll just summerise and counter at the end. I hope this will make this shorter and easy to follow. However I realise that I may miss interperate some points, so please feel free to correct me if I have botched. 1. I pointed out that If someone has a far superior deck then that deck would win (Ths was after a long thread about how expansions changing the environment under CL is good in my opinion and bad in JH's). JH said that there was no such deck. This presumably means that JH's group is evenly matched - if it was not there could well be one player who could make a vastly superior deck and beat them all all the time. Unless JH is refering to the fact that all NL decks are by definition balanced and that there is no advantage to being a more skillful player (in this unlikely scenario there is nio point competing as it would just be down to luck who won) 1a. JH said, with reference to point (1) above, that why continue to play CL when the expansions make the game tend towards a NL environment. Because they add variety and flavour, and bring in more of the World of Darkness (from the roleplaying games - which we all play) with every expansion. 1b. JH asked if no one plays S&B in our group. The answer to this is No, at the moment - but it has not been unknown. We play for fun and S&B is not especially fun to play with or against (in our Opinion). However there have been a few decks in the past, but most people grow tired of what is a mindless strategy (when playing the game - not so much when it comes to deck construction now) 2. The creativity argument, again (unfortunately): I said that CL does not stiffle creativity very much - perhaps a little, but not to the extent that many NL players seem to think. JH said that he has played under CL and found that it was too restrictive. To this I would counter that his group had not developed the style of play under CL to the advanced stage that we have managed to attain. 2a. JH said that when you construct a deck under 4CL you WILL put in 4 of every good card, and that means that deck creation requires less skill; he said that when he played under 4CL they all did this. ref to point 2 above 2b. JH said that a CL deck is forced into using more than one strategy as the limit is too restrictive. This is not always the case, but we find that any deck with out the ability to to get rid of the last few points of blood (usually around 8 for against a rush deck), by either bleeding or voting will be very slow at the final ousting, and may well be ousted before he gets the chance to finish off his victory (hence most combat decks - intercept of rush - would add a few permanent bleed cards just to oust their prey.) 2c. I said that a deck would have to utilise more than the obvious to a certain strategy to get that strategy to work. JH wanted to know why this was better. Well, this is just down to opinion, which is what I have been trying to state all along - we like CL you like NL so lets just say fair's fair and go home (please read my "Treaty of Sabbat" article). 3. The broken cards debate: I said that becase you have less of a broken card in a deck it means that: i) that card will be less effective in the long run (for action/combat cards, eg Thoughts Betrayed), or will not be guaranteed of coming out - therefore a deck cannot rely on getting said card into play, a deck cannot win if it relies on said card. JH said that this was the same for NL. The idea is that under CL the card will come up a lot less often therefore you can't rely on it at all, rather than relying on it a little bit. 3a. broken cards sideline: Angelica. JH wanted to know how her master card cycling ability is not broken under CL. Because you won't have large amounts of master cards as most are unique and you won't have more than one, therefore you will undoubtedly need all the masters you have. 3b. I said that under a 1CL uniques environment Unnatural disaters are more likely to be played as the card will be "permanently" countered as it will never come out again, with there being only one of that card in the deck. JH miss interperated this and thought that I was meaning that under CL you will know how many cards someone has left in their deck of any given type. JH also wanted to know why it was nessessary to permanently counter such a location. I suppose its not nessesary, but there is likewise no reason why its unreasonable - we just do it for flavour and to increase the challenge - which is what we like. 3c. Majesty debate: JH said that presence has three S:CE cards (I only have seen two of these - majesty and Staredown; catatonic fear must be very rare - does it let you untap as well?) and that Majesty casues big problems with its repeat actions. Hmm. So you have 12 S:CE's and probably only 8 anti S:CEs in your defense, however - both the player's predator and prey will have 8 therefore its 12 Vs 16 is this a problem? 4. The Rush debate: Originally I said that the Sabbat was good because it made rush under CL come back up to par with the NL version of the rush deck. JH countered this by telling me that I have said that CL decks are better than NL decks. with respect to this point, I never said that CL decks were better than NL decks (as an aside I did say that our group seems to have better decks than most NL decks that I've seen on the Net) I was merely stating that, previous to Sabbat, CL was not as good at rushing than NL, now there are extra cards and CL rush becomes viable. 5. I said that Wizards of the Coast (WotC) must have been planning to fix the problems in CL, as the cards that are slightly different duplicates in the Sabbat expansion are geared towards fixing the problems with CL. JH said that I couldn't say that WotC deliberately intended this. Possibly not, but its one hell of a coincidence, especially considering that its been happening since the arival of V:tES. 6. JH took the oportunity to slander myself and my friends and my fellow students at Leeds Univerity. This point is unfair and insulting - I have tried very hard not to be insulting to JH, but he seems to find the urge insult me nonetheless - Ah well. I believe that the problem with "Leeds" started sometime last sping, when an aquaintance of our Jyhad group took it upon himself to have some fun at our expense. We do not feel that any association with these events is fair, please take back these comments. 7. I said that Card limits is a different way of fixing the game like GT, as the game seems to be unplayable in its truely original form. I also said that I personally prefer the CL environment game, JH decided that he'd decide not to agree with me. This is a problem that we CL players feel should be acknowledged - SOME NL players seem to find the fact that we like CL insulting. We argue only that one day all NL players will turn around and say "Well, its okay if you want - I don't like it, but if you do, thats fine. Its not like its any worse or anything". Please let us continue to play and stop telling us that NL is so much better - we know what its like and don't like it so let us stick to what we like. We want recognition as equals, not to be either gods or ameoba's 8. Arguments on Fun: I said that I wanted CL to be recognised as a fun environment to play in. JH said that he didn't agree with my opinion that CL was more fun and that therefore I shouldn't play CL. see above. 9. I said that a good CL deck rarely has to discard. JH does not seem to be able to comprehend this fact - he said that the only advantage is that you will not use up one of the four cards that you have in the deck. This is the entire point that I was trying to make - under CL all your cards are precious - therefore you are wasting if you are having to discard. 9a. I said that under CL you need to make sure that you don't waste cards willy-nilly, that a deck that looses too many cards on wasted actions will be doomed to inevitable failiure - JH took this to mean that if someone has an S:CE then your entire rush is wasted. This is not the case as you can have many rushes with a haven uncovered and use all those S:CE's up. if you use up a Rush then one of eight rush for one of 12 S:CEs (Then you think about 4 Havens) its not so scary. Hidden lurker / rush is pretty good too. you have to remember that you also have anti S:CE cards as well as all that rush. 10. The Obf/Pre deck. this is probably the longest bit and although effectively an aside will be dealt with here in total. Points: a) I said that the deck was origionally posted as settites (include here the quote; "Malks are no longer the problem - Now the settites become the broken ones... the following deck...") After this he posted an alternative weenie obf/pre bleed deck. and claimed that he didn't mention the settites, when in actuality he did. He then claimed that I was saying his deck was bad because it didn't use a single clan. This was not my point I commented on what I was lead to believe was a Settite only deck, which i'm sure everone would agree would not make a great weenie bleed. b) I said that it couldn't do especially scary bleeds. He said that it could do 3 - 5 blood bleeds at up to +3 stealth. Most of the vampires mentioned have inferior presence, and most who have presence don't have obfuscate (and Vice Versa), therfore, unless you get out a lot of skill cards really early on you won't be able to do big bleeds at stealth. Inf. presence allows a maximum +4 bleed with non Toreador for two blood. The blood cost of the bleed cards is too restrictive considering small vampires. c) I said that it could quite happily be bleed bounced. JH claimed that bleed bounce only had 12 cards available under CL, and that there were 20 bleed actions. there are actually 16 bleed bounce cards available, and with actions you have to declare them first, so you can counteract the majesty problems. d) I said the deck can be intercepted. JH said that there was too much stealth available for me to be able to do that. Possibly, but theres as much intercept, especially considering Elder intervention / pack tactics. and not all the vampires listed have obfuscate - they are the ones that would be blocked. e) I said that it would be very easily rushed and torporised. JH said that under CL there aren't enough rush cards to make this possible, and the loss of a vampire isn't that big a deal. I said that a slim (65-75 card) rush deck would get the rush through quickly enough to pound the deck no problem. JH said that deck size is not a viable tactic. I think that You'll find deck size is an extremely good tactic. f) JH said that his deck doesn't actually put in too many S:CE's, which was originally his idea saying how it would be degenerate. so If you don't use majesties, how are you going to cause the big problems that you expect this deck to cause? 11. the potence deck. Another deck has come into our discussions. follow as above: a) I saw the problems that the deck would have as being a lack of blood back (JH said that this was unnessesary in a rush deck) and then contradicted himself by adding Taste of Vitae's (see below) b)... no intercept (which JH also says is unnessesary) May be not, but it will suffer if it doesn't - intercept may not be the best defense against bleed, but you have to understand that a lot of combat decks will use permanents under CL and you will find you have sever difficulties against them if you can't stop them getting out there equipment. c)... no defense (JH says that you can hit them harder against the brujah and song of serenity against gangrel - basically fight back) I think you'll find that this deck wouldn't fair as well in combat as you think - especially against a ranged combat deck. d)... Very little to stop you getting beaten up yourself (JH then decides to add Taste of Vitae's) see above, and - This card is useless when you end up in Torpor, which nearly all combat decks I've seen will have no problem in doing. e)... No S:CE to protect all the equipment he put in, given the house rule "first strike beats dodge" (JH seems to take objection to the house rule - a carry through from jyhad - and stated that it was never in the old Jyhad rules) This is a house rule point, and there's no point me being told how to play when I like the way I play and don't want to play any other way. 12. The challenge argument. I basically said that I liked CL becasue it was challenging, JH, again, seems to want to stop me playing because he doesn't agree. See above. Well. Now I hope that makes things a little clearer. Anonymous PS >P.S.: Please stop e-mailing your replies to me. I'm sorry. there's nothing I can do to stop my thingy whatsit from doing it - I'm no computer boffin, I tried deleting your adress from the "To" section on the message, but it posts it anyway...

some...@leeds.ac.uk (Anonymous) wrote: >But it has done throughout every expansion that has been brought out (with >the possible exception of Dark Soveriegns). And considering the game is now >going to be handed over to White Wolf (and no more WotC expansions to come) >The game will take on a whole new edge, and if that means that NL becomes a >nessesary way to play (although I can't see that happening) then I'm sure I >will be the first to say "lets make the switch". We'll just have to see what >happens to the game under WW... This is going to happen??? WHEN? How did you learn about it? gnfnrf

duc...@LaBRI.U-Bordeaux.FR (Philippe DUCHON) writes: >About the "no repeat action" rule, L. Scott Johnson writes: >> >>All cardless actions represent a "type" of action. All actions (even >>carded ones) of that type are the same type. >Cardless actions that I can think of are Bleed, Hunt, Encounter a Vampire >in Torpor, Leave Torpor, and Get equipment from another Minion (or is this an >instance of the Equip action-type ? and is Equip an action-type - see below ?) >I suppose Rapid Healing is of the Leave Torpor type. Yes, "cardless" was the wrong term. I should've said "rulebook action", that is, any action described in the rulebook. I believe "transfer equipment" and "equip" are different types of actions. I hadn't considered it before, but, yes: Rapid Healing is a "leave torpor" action, by this definition. Whether or not the Rules Team will agree, I don't know. >>Any action card action of a type not represented by a cardless action >>is a "type" by card name. >Does this mean each political action is a type by itself, or is "Political >Action" an action type ? Sorry, again, I should've used "rulebook action". Each political action is of the "Political Action" type. >Also, this means "Bum's Rush" and "Ambush" are different action types... True. This is official. >>Any action granted by a card in play is a type distinct to that instance >>of the card. >If "Political Action" is an action type, what is the status of political >actions granted by cards in play: are they allowed in multiples or not (say, >can a single vampire attempt 2 actions to remove 2 distinct Archons ?) Oops - not specific enough (again). Try this instead: "Any non-rulebook action granted by a card in play..." They are all of the "political action" type. >I suppose actions granted to a minion by itself enter this class (like Etrius' >steal blood, Arms Dealer's weapon-searching, etc.) ? Yes. >>The rule is "A minion cannot attempt an action of a type that he has >>already attempted this turn." >> >Hmmm, this doesn't fix the "Malkavian Network/Malkavians with Presence/Majesty" Uh-huh. But this deck isn't solid enough to be a real problem, either. >A few more questions here. >* Is "recruit an ally/retainer" an action type ? Or is "recruit Tasha Morgan" > an action type ? "Recruit" is a type - it applies only to Allies. "Employ" is a separate type - it applies to Retainers. >* Same question for equip actions; I assume the answer is similar. Yes. >* How does this interact with Mask of 1000 Faces ? If Mr Bleed's action is > blocked and taken over by Ms Combat, is Mr Bleed considered as having > already attempted a bleed action ? Is Ms Combat ? By card text? Yes and Yes. By WoD (and, hopefully, forthcoming ruling - if any rulings ever come): No and Yes. >"Attack" could become a code word so that a minion couldn't both Ambush and > Bum's Rush in a single turn This is a good idea for a house rule, or even a ruling (if the Rules Team finishes with all of the "hard science" problems and starts tackling the "soft science" ones). [ quoted text not captured ]

some....@leeds.ac.uk (Anonymous) writes: >In article <19961127003...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, > curt...@aol.com wrote: >>> Problem cards don't get duplicated...non-problem cards (like cards >>> that let you Rush into combat) do. >> >>This is not true. The new Majesty alternatives exemplify duplicating a >>semi-broken card. Ditto for Obedience. > >I think you'll find that its the NL environment in which Majesty has always >been (Semi)broken, not the CL. Majesty is just as broken (if broken at all) in CL as in NL. But, the CL deck as a whole will not be as degenerate as a pre-SPTR/DCI Majestic deck. CL "fixed" this degenerate deck by crippling deck design. SPTR/DCI "fixed" this degenerate deck by crippling the game-breaking mechanism (namely, repeat actions). The CL "fix" will become less and less of a fix as more cards are introduced that mimic or parallel the effects of Majesty. The SPTR/DCI "fix" will continue to work, because it addresses the actual problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <19961202161...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com wrote: >Nathan Harada <i...@hula.net> writes: > >> This is interesting. Could you explain to me why Majesty and >>Obedience are examples of semi-broken cards? Thanks. >Simply put, the cards are better than the alternatives (Dodge), almost >completely hose combat decks in large enough quantities, and can generally >be disposed of without much trouble, so no hand jam. Disposing of >Obedience does require an intercept deck. Dodge though, when used, can be better in many situations than a Strike: combat ends. This is because it still allows you to: 1. Do damage with retainers, eg, wolves, shades etc... 2. Allows things like carrion crows, blood to water to still be effective. 3. Additional strike. 4. Probably one or two things that I cannot think of right now. Majesties allow none of these. For the combat deck then, dodges can be better but for none combat decks then obviously they are not. It is their versatility that makes them comparable to - not weaker than - a majesty and thus not broken. Peter

> DPH wrote: > > Mark Langsdorf wrote: > >Why are Unnatural Disasters playable under CL, but not otherwise? > >Is there something special about them that they only work when you have > >exactly 4 of them in a deck? > I agree with your point here - it does seem strange for them to > be effective in one and not the other... Bizarre. When we still played 4CL, I saw an Unnatural Disaster used _once_. No one played with them, and no one ever plays with them now. They cost too much, they take up a master phase action, and they might not be usable for a while if you get it at the wrong time. We stocked up on Sudden Reversals and Arsons, when we felt that the locations were being annoying. -Nathan Harada

Okay, here goes with another heavily snipped post to try and keep the size down. >First of all, I want to apologize for the Leeds comment. Appology accepted. No problem. >the _degree_ to which the environment changes is >greater than that of the NL. In your own words, you said that it would >be a problem if WotC "duplicated" problem cards, and there is no reason >for them not to. There is one reason for them to - to help out the CL players (who they seem to have been fairly loyal to of late). >I'm not saying that NL'ers don't play with the new expansions, but that >the impact that they have on the NL game is less. Fair enough, but we like the fact that the expansions change our game.What are you going to do about that? >> 1b. JH asked if no one plays S&B in our group. >> >> The answer to this is No, at the moment >The point being that you claim that your group can deal with S&B with >the release of the Sabbat, and I wonder how much actual experience in >doing so your group has. It was before the release of the sabbat that we found that S&B was not as degenerate for our playing group as we had previously thought, the deck was quite convincingly average (and was created by the player who seems to create the decks that win the most). Hence with the release of the Sabbat (which doubles the blood bounce and hugely increases the rush capability of decks) it stands to reason that the problem would be finally countered. >> we find that any deck with out the ability >> to to get rid of the last few points of blood (usually around 8 for >> against a rush deck), by either bleeding or voting will be very slow at >> the final ousting, and may well be ousted before he gets the chance to >> finish off his victory (hence most combat decks - intercept of rush - >> would add a few permanent bleed cards just to oust their prey.) > >This is true in NL as well, Finally we here the truth about this - I was seriously thinking that there must be some mysterious way that a rush deck manages to oust an opponent using rush cards when all their vamps are dead... >and the decision has to be made: put in >bleed cards or don't. At least you have the choice. And we don't? well then, tell me, must I put it in or must I not put it in? >> Well, this is just down to opinion, which is what I have been trying to >> state all along - we like CL you like NL so lets just say fair's fair and >> go home (please read my "Treaty of Sabbat" article). > >OK. > >I guess my underlying point is that, of all the CCG's I play, Jyhad is >the only one with NL, and I really enjoy that freedom. At last! the clouds start to clear! >[ The broken cards debate ] >My point being that if it's a card like Return to Innocence, whenever it >comes up, it will be devastating. This is like restricting the broken >cards in M:t$... either the card is broken, or it's not; either ban it, >or leave it alone. Okay, it so devastating that it gets bounced (and then probably bounced around until someone is unlucky.... I would say that this card would not be found to be broken under CL, but would be full of anti RtI strategies, rather like Kiss of Ra, where the game would be full of Fortitude skill cards. > I find it distasteful to be able to rummage >through someone else's discard pile and be able to determine how many of >a particular card they have left. This is a logical extension of the >attitude "It's unique, so if I kill it, he won't have anymore".It >seems to me like it requires more skill to have to take into account the >possibility that they always might have the right card in their hand. Could it not also be seen to be more "skillful" to be seen to have to protect your uniques if they do come out, and not to have to rely on your uniques (even to a small degree)? >Plus, it makes Sudden Reversal more attractive, and I hate that card. I suppose it would, but we all love it, so its just down to taste again... >> Hmm. So you have 12 S:CE's and probably only 8 anti S:CEs in your >> defense, however - both the player's predator and prey will have 8 >> therefore its 12 Vs 16 is this a problem? > >Well, if both decks are concentrating all of their efforts on one >player, that's not very fair, now is it? No, but that would mean that it would all depend on whether the S:CE deck's prey's prey uses S:CE's, as most anti-S:CE cards are useless against most non-S:CE decks... they wouldn't have to hit their predator's vamps hard anyway, just slow them down a bit... >> (as an aside I did say that our group seems to have better decks than >> most NL decks that I've seen on the Net) > >This is the statement to which I was reacting. I really would like you >to elaborate on this. Well, okay. would you admit that it is possible to tell how good a deck is likely to play from looking at it's cardlist? I think it is, and I also think that the majority of decks that I have seen on the Corrupter's deck archive are of a lower standard than the decks that play in our group. I don't want to sound snooty but I can't see how I can make this point with out doing. [are the duplicates deliberately there to help out CL gamers?] >I'm just saying that V:tES is a NL game, and that I wouldn't count on >this trend continuing. But it has done throughout every expansion that has been brought out (with the possible exception of Dark Soveriegns). And considering the game is now going to be handed over to White Wolf (and no more WotC expansions to come) The game will take on a whole new edge, and if that means that NL becomes a nessesary way to play (although I can't see that happening) then I'm sure I will be the first to say "lets make the switch". We'll just have to see what happens to the game under WW... >Besides, I still think that a vote push deck would be >killer even in a CL environment. There are so many damaging vote cards >(beyond just KRC and ConAg) that I think this would be a problem. Okay, post a deck design for a "killer" vote push deck in a CL environment and we'll see how it works (note our house rule - no sabbat and Camarilla vamps in the same deck [for roleplaying game flavour]) >> This is a problem that we CL players feel should be acknowledged - SOME >> NL players seem to find the fact that we like CL insulting. > >Statements like "our group seems to have better decks than most NL decks >that I've seen" don't help much. It was to counter the above mentioned "SOME NL players" that I made the original statement - the point I was trying to make was that our decks aren't as bad as you think all CL decks are, and therefore CL isn't as bad as you think it is... >I can't say that CL is not worse than NL. With the release of Sabbat, >the distinctions have blurred to point where it seems like CL so closely >approximates the NL environment that the limit seems pointless. But as >long as that limit is there, CL is, IMHO, stifling. Well, I would disagree with the inference that CL is now similar to NL, cos I haven't seen the evidence. And the stiffling comment is, again, opinion and I don't agree, but thats no reason to stop each other from playing how we would like... >The one thing I would like to see is your explanation as to why your >play group is so drastically different than most others: > >(1) Why are your group's decks better than most NL decks? I'm not sure its "most NL decks" full stop. I know that taking the examples from the said web page, our groups decks would appear to be of a higher standard... I'll see if I can get the guys to post up some of their decks to the page so you can see for yourself. >(2) Why _wouldn't_ a weenie Obf/Pre deck sweep the table, as it very >well might in NL? Maybe it would if it was created to the standard of the rest of the decks in the group, but its in no way degenerate. The deck that you suggested, though, would loose VERY easily! >(3) Why isn't vote push abusive in CL? it just isn't - you've not got enough damaging votes to be really degenerate as you will have to expect to get some blocked, and if you are trying to push vote you will have to use useless vote, which will mean your deck will suffer from SERIOUS hand jam and die... > you claimed that a CL deck would never >_need_ to discard, that it would never hand jam, a point that I must >disagree with. okay, disagree, but if you don't *rely* on combos and don't put in useless cards you WILL never hand jam etc... [Discussions on decks snipped - if anyone wants to take this up, fine, I'll reply later, but not on this excessively log post] >I don't want you to stop playing, but I take offense to the implications >that NL is 'soft' or 'unchallenging'. Hmm. I don't mean to be insultive, and I don't believed I ever used the word "soft", but it is central to the argument for vidicating Card Limits that the CL environment is, by nature, more challenging - that is my on;ly point on the matter. Anonymous

CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (DPH) writes: >curt...@aol.com wrote: >>Nathan Harada <i...@hula.net> writes: > >>> This is interesting. Could you explain to me why Majesty and >>>Obedience are examples of semi-broken cards? Thanks. >>Simply put, the cards are better than the alternatives (Dodge), almost >>completely hose combat decks in large enough quantities, and can generally >>be disposed of without much trouble, so no hand jam. Disposing of >>Obedience does require an intercept deck. >Dodge though, when used, can be better in many situations than a Strike: >combat ends. This is because it still allows you to: >1. Do damage with retainers, eg, wolves, shades etc... >2. Allows things like carrion crows, blood to water to still be effective. Quibble: BtW works anyway. >3. Additional strike. >4. Probably one or two things that I cannot think of right now. Except for the Dodge/Additional strike trick, these are all specialty applications. Diddling around for a round or two to do one or two extra damage is not worth all the deck space it consumes in the more common situation that your combat deck wants to plaster somebody. >Majesties allow none of these. No, but it gets you out of a combat, for sure, in almost any situation where a Dodge would do any good. With Additional Strike now in the majority of combat decks, Majesty is equal to 2 Dodges and multiple Presses to End. It's much better, and more reliable. >For the combat deck then, dodges can be >better but for none combat decks then obviously they are not. It is their >versatility that makes them comparable to - not weaker than - a majesty and >thus not broken. Shockingly, even a combat deck can use a few Majesties. Because it allows an untap, it can be disposed of at little cost in most circumstances. Every combat deck occaisionally gets in combats it will lose and the escape is a valuable option. If Majesty didn't allow untap, or the untap cost more, this would be less of an issue. The untap flexibility is worth more than the Dodge with Damage flexibility for any deck other than Dodge/Additional Strike. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> writes: >> "Attack" is not an option for a cardless action. >> Therefore, each action card is its own type, by name. >That really sucks. >> To apply the common sense ruling you suggest, you open >> up an avenue for contention for other carded action types. >an example being? Two examples (off the top of my head): Arson and Rampage. Enchant Kindred (superior) and Govern the Unaligned (superior). [ quoted text not captured ]

CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (DPH) writes: >Dodge though, when used, can be better in many situations than a Strike: >combat ends. This is because it still allows you to: >1. Do damage with retainers, eg, wolves, shades etc... >2. Allows things like carrion crows, blood to water to still be effective. >3. Additional strike. >4. Probably one or two things that I cannot think of right now. >Majesties allow none of these. Just to nit-pick: S:CE (Majesty, etc.) also allows Blood to Water to be effective. Blood to Water resolves immediately, not during strike resolution. [ quoted text not captured ]

>I don't think Curt was referring to the repeat actions abuse of Majesty >as the problem, but simply that S:CE itself is semi-broken, as it is >relatively hard to cope with. If I count correctly, there are 5 >anti-S:CE cards (4 from the original set, and Dog Pack), and, without >those, S:CE becomes an anti-combat trump. As usual, when you always count on S:CE you are destroyed when you for some sake can't use them.

>I think you'll find that its the NL environment in which Majesty has always >been (Semi)broken, not the CL. The thing that makes a good Brujah deck isnt to kill deck's that dont use Combat Ends... The thing is to kill decks that ALWAYS use S:Ce... With Haven uncovered you can easily draw 4 S:CE from his hand in one round as long as he keeps playing them. If he don't, then he's dead... With immortal Grapple he have tough luck to survive. With Psyche Mariel and Elysium dont work anymore. With Dog Pack - the S:CE is worthless... And so on. I beated a Malkav deck today... 6 Vampires of 37 Capacity together, DESTROYED ( NO TORPOR ). No match at all.

In article <663.6912...@mailbox.swipnet.se>, staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se (staffan.bengtsson) wrote: > > >I think you'll find that its the NL environment in which Majesty has always > >been (Semi)broken, not the CL. > > The thing that makes a good Brujah deck isnt to kill deck's that dont use > Combat Ends... The thing is to kill decks that ALWAYS use S:Ce... > > With Dog Pack - the S:CE is worthless... With Brujah, Dog Pack is worthless. ----- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | It's not the same when I'm http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | not in the holodeck Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | - Riker -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Nathan Harada <i...@hula.net> wrote in article <32A3FA...@hula.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Same here. Unnatural Disasters are rarely used in the CL games I have played. However, Anonymous plays with a 1CL for Unique cards, so the UD will get rid of a troublesome Master Location permanently. I've heard of other groups using this limitation as well, but never seen it, and I think it's necessary to make UD really attractive... -Elfholme

Judith Cookson Grunberger <jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote in article <57v4v9$4...@maryann.eng.umd.edu>... > In article <01bbdffe$3ca11ee0$aedc23c7@default>, > Mark Havener <elfh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> So then, you think that it isn't OK for Judith to express her > >> opinion that NL is better? > > >Not at all. It's the inability to compromise that I have a problem with. > >If an issue is debated for months (or even years, as this one could well > >be) with neither side being convinced, it might just be time to say, "I > >respect your position, even though I disagree." What Judith is saying is, > >"You're wrong." I've read through pages (books even) of posts by people > > Hi. Call me Judy. Hi Judy! :) > Yes. I'm saying that in my opinion, you're wrong, and that NL is better > than CL. I could go on about why I think it's better, but I think you know > all the reasons -- they've been reiterated enough. > > However, you seem to think that I don't respect you. This just isn't true. > I do respect your position, even though I disagree with it. I am not > telling you that you can't play CL. I certainly don't tell the CL player > in our group that he can't play CL. I wasn't really attacking you...I was commenting on the attitude that seemed to be behind that kind of statement. > But if he tells me I have to take out my fifth Govern, he can go hang. But what CL player has told you to do this? I've never told anyone in this forum that they should play CL. What I've said is that many groups prefer card limits, and that both CL and NL should be respected for what they are--viable alternative styles of playing this game. when someone says something like, "I will NEVER agree that your way of playing might be just as viable as mine!", it's not actually telling us not to play that way, but it's telling us that there must something wrong with us for wanting to play that way. After all, who in his right mind would want to play an INFERIOR version of a game? > On the other hand, I don't think it's time to give up and say "let's quit > this debate." What's wrong with debate? It's pointless if one side tells you that they will never even attempt to see your side. > Parallel: Some people believe in gun control. Some people don't. Let's > just stop debating, one is as good as the other. Sorry, but that's a poor analogy. We get to vote on gun control, and the government CAN lock you up if you violate the gun control laws (in other words the majority CAN force you to "play" the gun control "game" how they want you to). In addition, gun control issues are decided by three groups--a minority that agrees with it, a minority that disagrees with it, and the rest of the people, who can be swayed by the debate. The environment of V:TES is made up of NL groups and CL groups...it's very hard to "sit on the fence" here. > >who like NL. I've played NL. I've become convinced that NL is NOT the > >Devil Incarnate, and might be just as viable a way to play as my preferred > >CL style. While I might not agree that FOR ME, NL are no better or worse > >than CL, I *would* agree that OVERALL (for the V:TES-playing community as a > >whole), one is not inherently "better" or "worse" than the other. That's > >the difference. > > I would not agree with that premise. OVERALL, I would say that NL is > "better" than CL. And you've also told me that there is no way you'll change your mind and listen to our side, so why bother with the illusion of a "debate". > Why do you think that there is something disrespectful, narrow-minded, and > confrontational in the fact that I do not believe that two different way > of playing VTES are "separate but equal"? See above. Saying "let's debate, though I'll never see your side of things" seems rather odd to me. You say you respect my position, but you'll never listen to it...hmmm... > >Also, note that I never said it wasn't okay for Judith to express her > >opinion on anything. I just think it's too bad that some V:TES players > >cannot see the other side's viewpoint. Is that more clear? > > I see your point of view and respectfully disagree with it. Is that > better? Actually yes, that would be better. -Elfholme

Hi Nathan, On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, Nathan Harada wrote: > > DPH wrote: > > > Mark Langsdorf wrote: > > >Why are Unnatural Disasters playable under CL, but not otherwise? > > >Is there something special about them that they only work when you have > > >exactly 4 of them in a deck? > > I agree with your point here - it does seem strange for them to > > be effective in one and not the other... > > Bizarre. When we still played 4CL, I saw an Unnatural > Disaster used _once_. No one played with them, and no one ever > plays with them now. They cost too much, they take up a master > phase action, and they might not be usable for a while if you > get it at the wrong time. We stocked up on Sudden Reversals and > Arsons, when we felt that the locations were being annoying. > I occasionally put a few of them in a rush combat deck, typically they are the only master cards in the deck, and it saves me waisting a minion action to burn the Elysium or that Secure Haven with Rampage, when what I really want to do is kick some Toreador's ass.... Algustas *****The great art of governingconsists in not letting men grow old in their jobs.*****Napoleon

In article <581llq$m...@hearst.cc.macalester.edu>, aeis...@macalester.edu (Alan Eisinger) wrote: >some...@leeds.ac.uk (Anonymous) wrote: >>But it has done throughout every expansion that has been brought out (with >>the possible exception of Dark Soveriegns). And considering the game is now >>going to be handed over to White Wolf (and no more WotC expansions to come) >>The game will take on a whole new edge, and if that means that NL becomes a >>nessesary way to play (although I can't see that happening) then I'm sure I >>will be the first to say "lets make the switch". We'll just have to see >>what >>happens to the game under WW... > >This is going to happen??? WHEN? How did you learn about it? > >gnfnrf > This isn't quite correct. The game will become totally WotC and leave White Wolf if my information and memory are correct. We learnt about it from our distributer. I've no idea when, though I think that the Sabbat was to be the last 'shared' expansion. Peter

On 4 Dec 1996 16:25:48 GMT, "Mark Havener" <elfh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Judith Cookson Grunberger <jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote in article ><57v4v9$4...@maryann.eng.umd.edu>... >> On the other hand, I don't think it's time to give up and say "let's quit >> this debate." What's wrong with debate? > > It's pointless if one side tells you that they will never even attempt to >see your side. Problem A: This debate has been rehashed so many times on this newsgroup, and the same points have been reiterated by the CL people each time. All of them have been deemed to be null and void by NL people. Trust me, I used to be a CL'er. I've been playing NL for about four months now, and I have no regrets about the change. Problem B: We do see your side(at least some of us). We just think that theres not much in the way of substance there. The statement that "Lets agree to disagree and say they're the same in quality" will be contested by non-CL people, because many of us have experienced CL and NL, and NL, from our perspectives, is much better. We think we've won the debate each time it's come up, through better points, better arguments, and more evidence; it's just that the other side is being obtuse and not listening. ie. We do see the other side. We're just not impressed by dogmatism, unwillingness to listen to our(valid) arguments, and the cop-out, "Lets say they're the same in quality". What kind of debate is that? Comprimise on an issue like this is pointless. There is no middle ground. Note that I will defend anyone's right to play CL and make themselves play a different and less enjoyable game: I have nothing against people being stupid, just them trying to impose their stupidity on me as equal to or better than what I do. >> Parallel: Some people believe in gun control. Some people don't. Let's >> just stop debating, one is as good as the other. > >Sorry, but that's a poor analogy. We get to vote on gun control, and the >government CAN lock you up if you violate the gun control laws (in other >words the majority CAN force you to "play" the gun control "game" how they >want you to). In addition, gun control issues are decided by three >groups--a minority that agrees with it, a minority that disagrees with it, >and the rest of the people, who can be swayed by the debate. The >environment of V:TES is made up of NL groups and CL groups...it's very >hard to "sit on the fence" here. Yeah, and so? The issue is that there needs to be an active debate until some conclusion is reached for people. Unfortunately, all I've seen is people yelling, not making any new or valid arguments, and stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the other side's points or acknowledge that they have been losing ground. >> >who like NL. I've played NL. I've become convinced that NL is NOT the >> >Devil Incarnate, and might be just as viable a way to play as my >preferred >> >CL style. While I might not agree that FOR ME, NL are no better or >worse >> >than CL, I *would* agree that OVERALL (for the V:TES-playing community >as a >> >whole), one is not inherently "better" or "worse" than the other. >That's >> >the difference. >> >> I would not agree with that premise. OVERALL, I would say that NL is >> "better" than CL. > >And you've also told me that there is no way you'll change your mind and >listen to our side, so why bother with the illusion of a "debate". Because we want to convince you. That's why. If you come up with new, valid arguments, I'll be the first to concede the point to you. Until then, well, I can't see the point in acknowledging the same tired, baseless arguments that I've seen so often. (Y'know, I never once claimed CL involved more skill than NL. Never. That one's always struck me as somewhat cheeseball, and insulting to boot...) >> Why do you think that there is something disrespectful, narrow-minded, >and >> confrontational in the fact that I do not believe that two different way >> of playing VTES are "separate but equal"? > >See above. Saying "let's debate, though I'll never see your side of >things" seems rather odd to me. You say you respect my position, but >you'll never listen to it...hmmm... No, we'll respect your position, but we don't have to bother listening to the same old thing unless you come up with something new and cogent. >> >Also, note that I never said it wasn't okay for Judith to express her >> >opinion on anything. I just think it's too bad that some V:TES players >> >cannot see the other side's viewpoint. Is that more clear? >> >> I see your point of view and respectfully disagree with it. Is that >> better? > >Actually yes, that would be better. > Yeah, well, let's archive all this stuff and only let _new_ points on the CL/NL debate be brought up, please? I'm so tired of all this clogging the newsgroup... Alec Chang

Alec Chang (te...@lava.net) wrote: > On 4 Dec 1996 16:25:48 GMT, "Mark Havener" <elfh...@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > > >Judith Cookson Grunberger <jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote in article > ><57v4v9$4...@maryann.eng.umd.edu>... > > >> On the other hand, I don't think it's time to give up and say "let's quit > >> this debate." What's wrong with debate? > > > > It's pointless if one side tells you that they will never even attempt to > >see your side. > > Problem A: This debate has been rehashed so many times on this > newsgroup, and the same points have been reiterated by the CL people > each time. All of them have been deemed to be null and void by NL > people. Trust me, I used to be a CL'er. I've been playing NL for > about four months now, and I have no regrets about the change. > One of the reasons that this debate continues is that there are a bunch (five or six regular posters, at least, and probably more lurkers) of people who used to play 4CL. Then they heard the arguments for NL, tried it, and switched over. This debate is convincing people. I'll admit I haven't heard of any NL people being convinced to switch over to 4CL by this debate. I suppose its possible that all the NL people aren't listening to the CL people, but given my biases, I think its more likely that the 4CL arguments just aren't as convincing. > Problem B: We do see your side(at least some of us). We just think > that theres not much in the way of substance there. The statement > that "Lets agree to disagree and say they're the same in quality" will > be contested by non-CL people, because many of us have experienced CL > and NL, and NL, from our perspectives, is much better. We think we've > won the debate each time it's come up, through better points, better > arguments, and more evidence; it's just that the other side is being > obtuse and not listening. > > ie. We do see the other side. We're just not impressed by dogmatism, > unwillingness to listen to our(valid) arguments, and the cop-out, > "Lets say they're the same in quality". What kind of debate is that? > Comprimise on an issue like this is pointless. There is no middle > ground. > > Note that I will defend anyone's right to play CL and make themselves > play a different and less enjoyable game: I have nothing against > people being stupid, just them trying to impose their stupidity on me > as equal to or better than what I do. Calling people stupid probably isn't necessary. > [Munch of Judith's gun-control analogy]. > > >> >who like NL. I've played NL. I've become convinced that NL is NOT the > >> >Devil Incarnate, and might be just as viable a way to play as my > >> >preferred CL style. While I might not agree that FOR ME, NL are no > >> >better or worse than CL, I *would* agree that OVERALL (for the > >> >V:TES-playing community as a whole), one is not inherently "better" > >> >or "worse" than the other. That's the difference. Stepping into this debate lately, I can't agree. Some disciplines have more duplication that others. Some cards stay in play longer than others. The 4CL gives an advantage to decks that use permanents from highly duplicated disciplines (http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/transient.html). I have yet to see a coherent argument by the CL types that deals with that fact. > >> > >> I would not agree with that premise. OVERALL, I would say that NL is > >> "better" than CL. > > > >And you've also told me that there is no way you'll change your mind and > >listen to our side, so why bother with the illusion of a "debate". I'll listen to the 4CL side. If/when they come up with a convincing argument that 4CL is better than NL, I'll switch. > > Because we want to convince you. That's why. If you come up with > new, valid arguments, I'll be the first to concede the point to you. > Until then, well, I can't see the point in acknowledging the same > tired, baseless arguments that I've seen so often. > [MUNCH] > Yeah, well, let's archive all this stuff and only let _new_ points on Been there, done that, posted the URL: http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html Mark and Judith's Jyhad page has an archive if: All of Curt Adam's and Alan Kwan's old, good articles about the 4 Card limit. Alan's, Curt's, and Adrian Sullivan's articles on how to deal with bleed decks. We even have B.D. Redmond's defense of the 4CL. Its all there. There'd be more articles for the 4CL, if the 4CL types would write a decent article that explains the advantages of the 4CL. (BTW, the need to Computer Hacking and Arsons as "pseudo-rush" cards is _NOT_ an advantage of the 4CL, which is why I haven't archived very many articles for the 4CL. If you don't like it, start your own archive page). If you have an article you'd like posted on my page, please send it to "mlan...@io.com" Wait 2-3 weeks for reformatting and posting, though- finals are coming up. Mark Langsdorf mlan...@io.com http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html Jyhad Archiver and Maintainer of Mark and Judy's Jyhad Page

Alec Chang <te...@lava.net> wrote in article <32a6a32e...@news.lava.net>... > On 4 Dec 1996 16:25:48 GMT, "Mark Havener" <elfh...@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > >Judith Cookson Grunberger <jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote in article > ><57v4v9$4...@maryann.eng.umd.edu>... > > >> On the other hand, I don't think it's time to give up and say "let's quit > >> this debate." What's wrong with debate? > > > > It's pointless if one side tells you that they will never even attempt to > >see your side. > > Problem A: This debate has been rehashed so many times on this > newsgroup, and the same points have been reiterated by the CL people > each time. All of them have been deemed to be null and void by NL > people. Trust me, I used to be a CL'er. I've been playing NL for > about four months now, and I have no regrets about the change. I'm on the opposite side of the fence. I used to be a NL player (for much longer than 4 months!), and converted to CL. > Problem B: We do see your side(at least some of us). We just think > that theres not much in the way of substance there. The statement > that "Lets agree to disagree and say they're the same in quality" will > be contested by non-CL people, because many of us have experienced CL > and NL, and NL, from our perspectives, is much better. We think we've > won the debate each time it's come up, through better points, better > arguments, and more evidence; it's just that the other side is being > obtuse and not listening. I think the same could be said by both sides. That's the point of reaching a compromise. I'm never going to convince you that CL are a better way to play than NL, and there's no way you're ever going to convince me that the NL side ever "won" a CL/NL debate. How do you measure who won anyway? Whoever has the last word? Now who's being "stubborn" and "dogmatic"? ;) IMHO there is no "better" way to play this game. Any measurement of a "better" way to play is too subjective--it depends upon who is doing the playing. This is a game, and the point is to have fun. Can you honestly tell me that if I have more fun playing CL that NL is still a "better" way for me to play? It's a GAME! And if you think that there is a better way for me to play than the one I find most enjoyable, then you are missing the point of playing, IMHO. > ie. We do see the other side. We're just not impressed by dogmatism, > unwillingness to listen to our(valid) arguments, and the cop-out, > "Lets say they're the same in quality". What kind of debate is that? > Comprimise on an issue like this is pointless. There is no middle > ground. > > Note that I will defend anyone's right to play CL and make themselves > play a different and less enjoyable game: I have nothing against > people being stupid, just them trying to impose their stupidity on me > as equal to or better than what I do. Great! Insults! Is this the way your side "won" the last NL/CL debate? By driving the opposition off in disgust? ;) > > Yeah, and so? The issue is that there needs to be an active debate > until some conclusion is reached for people. Unfortunately, all I've > seen is people yelling, not making any new or valid arguments, and > stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the other side's points or > acknowledge that they have been losing ground. The point is that a conclusion will NEVER be reached. Many members of both sides (well, I know members of NL feel this way, and I'm sure some of the CL people feel the same) will never be convinced by, or even listen to the other side. What's the point of debate then? When have you ever seen me yelling? If you want to insult someone involved with a debate, and not listen to his arguments because he is being rude or insulting, fine, but don't attack all CL players because of it. > > > >And you've also told me that there is no way you'll change your mind and > >listen to our side, so why bother with the illusion of a "debate". > > Because we want to convince you. That's why. If you come up with > new, valid arguments, I'll be the first to concede the point to you. > Until then, well, I can't see the point in acknowledging the same > tired, baseless arguments that I've seen so often. ZING! Wow, thanks. At least you're not attacking me this time, just my ability to debate... > (Y'know, I never once claimed CL involved more skill than NL. Never. > That one's always struck me as somewhat cheeseball, and insulting to > boot...) It's not an argument I've ever made either. It *IS* an argument I've seen NL players attempt to make (about NL requiring more skill) again and again. I just don't buy it, either way. > >See above. Saying "let's debate, though I'll never see your side of > >things" seems rather odd to me. You say you respect my position, but > >you'll never listen to it...hmmm... > > No, we'll respect your position, but we don't have to bother listening > to the same old thing unless you come up with something new and > cogent. Agreed. I feel the same way about the NL arguments, actually. Unfortunately, while I DO respect your position, the presence of personal attacks in the very same post where you tell me you respect mine leads me to believe that you are not being entirely truthful. > >> > >> I see your point of view and respectfully disagree with it. Is that > >> better? > > > >Actually yes, that would be better. > > > Yeah, well, let's archive all this stuff and only let _new_ points on > the CL/NL debate be brought up, please? I'm so tired of all this > clogging the newsgroup... If you are really so tired of this, then why stoop to personal attacks and name-calling? You must understand that such actions call for a response... The reason CL players debate this less and less is because we are TIRED of being insulted. It's not that the NL players have made more solid arguments to convince us. What I have been convinced of is that many players like playing with NL, and I think that's GREAT. They have found a way of playing that works for them. I also know that many players prefer to play with CL, which I can't see as a bad thing, no matter how I look at it. They have also found the play style that gives them the most fun. What bothers me is that so many NL players cannot see this. They cannot see that the reason behind the game is to play for fun, and any aknowlegement that CL might be an okay way for us to play is prefaced with a "it's stupid, but..." Talk about stubborn! No, I can't see that the CL players are being the stubborn ones here. If you haven't convinced us to play NL, it may not be because we are stubborn; it may be because your arguments actually HAVEN'T CONVINCED US. Think about it. -Elfholme

> Alan Eisinger wrote: > >some...@leeds.ac.uk (Anonymous) wrote: > > And considering the game is now > >going to be handed over to White Wolf (and no more WotC expansions to come) > >The game will take on a whole new edge, and if that means that NL becomes a > >nessesary way to play (although I can't see that happening) then I'm sure I > >will be the first to say "lets make the switch". We'll just have to see what > >happens to the game under WW... > This is going to happen??? WHEN? How did you learn about it? Well, if this is really going to happen, we might as well throw away all of our cards when the next expansion comes out. White Wolf has made, IMO, some of the most badly broken CCG's on the market. For all my complaints about WotC and Magic, handing V:TES over to WW would be one of the last things I would want to see them do. White Wolf makes good RPG's. Most of them are good-Vampire, Changeling, Wraith... Yet their card game rarity distribution and power approaches Star Wars, their rules cards are confusing and indecipherable, and although their games are true to the feel of the WoD, the player with the most cards wins 90% of the time. Rage is so horribly messed up trump-wise that Jyhad would become worse than Magic. Arcadia, though a nice game, only works when everyone you play plays nice-meaning that they don't stack their deck against you and they don't lie about experience points. Jyhad has been going to hell in a handbasket, recently, and handing it over to WW is like kicking it when it's down. It probably won't happen. Hopefully, this is just a rumor. -Nathan Harada

L. Scott Johnson writes: >Any action type described in the rulebook is a "type" of action. >These are: >* Equip >* Transfer Equipment (this may be the same as equip, but I don't think so) Does this mean Beast can transfer equipment? Why can't ole Leatherface equip, when he can take stuff from someone else, and even pull out a disguised weapon? -- ________________ "I wish I was a fearsome ______ ___@^^^^\ / \ engine of destruction!" / \ @ \_____/ David Schwartz \__________________________/ > (^^^^^\ _______ ___/ \---\ / \ da...@schwartz.manawatu.gen.nz / \_____________/ \__________________________________/

some...@leeds.ac.uk (Anonymous) writes: >> I find it distasteful to be able to rummage >>through someone else's discard pile and be able to determine how many of >>a particular card they have left. This is a logical extension of the >>attitude "It's unique, so if I kill it, he won't have anymore".It >>seems to me like it requires more skill to have to take into account the >>possibility that they always might have the right card in their hand. >Could it not also be seen to be more "skillful" to be seen to have to >protect your uniques if they do come out, and not to have to rely on your >uniques (even to a small degree)? You argue for two entirely separate things - a 4CL generally and a 1CL on uniques. These have no relation - you can have 4CL without any particular restrictions on unique (the most common CL, actually) - and you can have 1CL on uniques in an otherwise NL environment (this has been advocated). The 4CL business has been addressed elsewhere. My question is what possible benefit do you get from a 1CL limit on uniques that you don't get from simply saying that burned uniques cannot be brought back into the game? 1CL is far less realistic for two reasons. First, if something is destroyed, then another Methuseleh can brings it out. How can this other Meth get something that no longer exists? Second, since you can only have one copy in a deck, often you'll never see the card even come up. You mean that if a Meth really wants control of the Rack, it can't get it? Ridiculous. 1CL also creates a verification issue. With a "burned stays burned" rule, you don't have to check anybody's deck to ensure compliance. Checking a deck for a 1CL means you have to go through the whole deck before play. Wouldn't you rather play? Finally, there are some decks that simply don't work right if they don't get certain specific uniques. More commonly, there are theme decks that make less sense if they don't get certain uniques. I'm not aware of any such decks that are abusive other than the ToR decks, so why would you pointlessly reduce variety and flavor? All the benefits you cite still operate. If somebody burns your hunting grounds, it's gone, period. So in summation, if you want uniques to be unique, a "burned stays burned" rule provides the following advantages over a 1CL: More realistic Greater variety of non-abusive decks Easier to enforce Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In terms of CL vs. NL, the main effect of the new card substitutes is that CL doesn't work like CL anymore. CL used to fundamentally alter the game primarily by its effects on rush decks and carded combat decks. Rush decks were impossible before DS and very restricted and stereotyped after. Likewise carded combat was very difficult, although Brujah, Tremere, and Gangrel could manage a passable job. The result was a game markedly skewed to bleed and permanent votes, defended by gunnery. Now that there are 3 disciplineless rush cards, and enough combat cards for a variety of carded combat decks, the game will be much more like NL. The marked characteristics of CL - intercept everywhere and permanents everywhere - are going to be gone now. The central balance of Jyhad - bleed/vote/combat vs. hosers for each - is now operational, whereas before it wasn't. Now many effects of card limits remain. The main one is simply that they obliterate a huge variety of decks. Mono-clan decks, with access to three disciplines, have a huge advantage over multi-clan decks, which usually have access to only one discipline. Likewise a number of cards, such as the Serpentis corruption cards or unduplicated combat cards such as Apportation and Aid from Bats, make no sense unless present in quantity. So you lose a heck of a lot of variety. You gain the limitation on S:CE/untap decks of various ilks. The puzzlement to me is that this option has always been available. 6CL, or 10% CL, with the original set works basically like 4CL with all the expansions. So why are the 4CL advocates generally happy with an expansion that changes their game into a form they have rejected for 2 years? If I were playing with Sabbat (I won't until and unless they print them with Jyhad backs) I'd be willing to play 4CL today. Just like 6CL before, it's Jyhad - limited significantly, but meaningfully Jyhad. I'd still prefer NL, of course. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Greetings to All, In article <57v28c$7...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: > >duc...@LaBRI.U-Bordeaux.FR (Philippe DUCHON) writes: > >>"Attack" could become a code word so that a minion couldn't both Ambush and >> Bum's Rush in a single turn > >This is a good idea for a house rule, or even a ruling (if the Rules Team >finishes with all of the "hard science" problems and starts tackling the >"soft science" ones). > Well, I might disagree here. I realize that some people are uncomfortable with allowing a minion to "attack" more than once in a turn since it gives combat decks an advantage that political and bleed decks don't have. However, it seems to me that this is balanced against the bleed decks' advantage of their primary action being cardless, i.e. they don't have to wait for their library to produce a card so that they can perform their design function. Against the political deck this is not the case since it also has to have a card in hand to perform it's primary function. But a political deck will have a higher proportion of political action cards in it than a combat deck will have get-into-combat cards. And political cards are useful for something other than calling the action: they can be tossed for votes. It seems to me that political action cards can be put into a deck at a reliably high proportion and not hurt the political deck's primary purpose, passing votes, but the get-into-combat cards have to be carefully mixed into a combat deck to allow reliability without hurting the combat effectiveness. This seems to be a built-in disadvantage of rush decks. I don't think there is such a problem with minions attacking multiple times in a turn that a change or house rule is needed. But of course if a group feels differently about it then a house rule would be easy enough to devise I think. Just my opinion. Doug Dunaway

In article <57v28c$7...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>>All cardless actions represent a "type" of action. All actions (even >>>carded ones) of that type are the same type. > >I believe "transfer equipment" and "equip" are different types of actions. This is important WRT Beast:Leatherface. If he can't equip, can he take an action to get equipment from another minion, or can he only get equipment thru Heidelberg? Same with Retainers. --Judy -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> "You boys aren't drunk. You're just stupid." - Beavis & Butt-Head <> <> jcoo...@eng.umd.edu * http://www.glue.umd.edu/~jcookson <> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu (Judith Cookson Grunberger) writes: >In article <57v28c$7...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: >>>>All cardless actions represent a "type" of action. All actions (even >>>>carded ones) of that type are the same type. >> >>I believe "transfer equipment" and "equip" are different types of actions. >This is important WRT Beast:Leatherface. If he can't equip, can he take an >action to get equipment from another minion, or can he only get equipment >thru Heidelberg? Same with Retainers. Retainers cannot be transfered without some outside force (like Heidelburg). This applies to all minions - not just Leatherface. Beast can certainly receive equipment via Heidelburg as well as through other means - namely Disguised/Concealed Weapon, Fast Hands (and other Steal Equipment effects), diablerizing a vampire in possession of equipment, and so on. This also includes transferring equipment from a ready minion controlled by the controller of Leatherface, as far as I understand the rulebook and the rulings. The Rules Team may eventually rule that transferring equipment is an "equip" action, and therefore off limits to Beast. But the other methods would still be available. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | * <-- Tribble http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | o <-- Jean-Luc Tribble Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

L. Scott Johnson wrote: > > jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu (Judith Cookson Grunberger) writes: > >In article <57v28c$7...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, > >L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote: > > >>>>All cardless actions represent a "type" of action. All actions (even > >>>>carded ones) of that type are the same type. > >> > >>I believe "transfer equipment" and "equip" are different types of actions. > > >This is important WRT Beast:Leatherface. If he can't equip, can he take an > >action to get equipment from another minion, or can he only get equipment > >thru Heidelberg? Same with Retainers. > > Retainers cannot be transfered without some outside force (like Heidelburg). > This applies to all minions - not just Leatherface. > > Beast can certainly receive equipment via Heidelburg as well as through > other means - namely Disguised/Concealed Weapon, Fast Hands (and other > Steal Equipment effects), diablerizing a vampire in possession of > equipment, and so on. Scott - I just read the V:TES version of Disguised Weapon, and the text is "Only usable before range is chosen. Equip this vampire with a weapon card from your hand (and pay cost to equip)." Although this is a combat card, it still says equip. Beast's text reads (taken from spoiler - if actual card text is different and effects my argument, then ok) "As a (D) action etc. Beast cannot equip, recruit allies, hire retainers, or play action cards." Beast's card text does not preclude him from taking actions, but it does specifically say he cannot equip, which I would say includes Disguised Weapon (and Concealed Weapon, which uses similar verbiage). If he could use DW to equip, then I think he would be sick (esp with Sup Obf). Of course the proper verb for retainers is employ, not hire, so maybe he can _employ_ a wolf's companion or Murder of Crows. Chris > > This also includes transferring equipment from a ready minion controlled > by the controller of Leatherface, as far as I understand the rulebook > and the rulings. I do agree with you on this point. It just means that a Methuselah must use 2 minion actions to give Beast a flamethrower. But heck, Beast can take as much equipment from the other minion as he wants! [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Shorb <ino...@ix.netcom.com> writes: >Scott - I just read the V:TES version of Disguised Weapon, and the text >is "Only usable before range is chosen. Equip this vampire with a weapon >card from your hand (and pay cost to equip)." Although this is a combat >card, it still says equip. Beast's text reads (taken from spoiler - if >actual card text is different and effects my argument, then ok) "As a (D) >action etc. Beast cannot equip, recruit allies, hire retainers, or play >action cards." Beast's card text does not preclude him from taking >actions, but it does specifically say he cannot equip, which I would say >includes Disguised Weapon (and Concealed Weapon, which uses similar >verbiage). If he could use DW to equip, then I think he would be sick >(esp with Sup Obf). Of course the proper verb for retainers is employ, >not hire, so maybe he can _employ_ a wolf's companion or Murder of Crows. Point noted - Disguised (and Concealed?) are probably not available to Beast, as printed. Thanks for checking up on me. (I'd really like a ruling on this - the whole thing - "What it means ot equip", or "What constitues an equip action?".) [ quoted text not captured ]

> David Schwartz wrote: > >L. Scott Johnson writes: > >Any action type described in the rulebook is a "type" of action. > >These are: > >* Equip > >* Transfer Equipment (this may be the same as equip, but I don't think so) > Does this mean Beast can transfer equipment? As per card text, yes. > Why can't ole Leatherface equip, when he can take stuff > from someone else, and even pull out a disguised weapon? Because although Beast can't equip per card text, it doesn't say in the little gray box that he cannot _have_ equipment. So, practically, Beast can get into a fight with his ability, and before the fight begins, Heidelburg Castle gives him Agatha's Sengir Dagger. Stupid, huh? We saw this loophole prior to Sabbat's release, but I think Shawn e-mailed something to Alec that said "but then he'd be too weak..." if he couldn't have equipment at all. (The trick only works with an action to take equipment and Heidelburg. Disguised and Concealed Weapon say "Equip this vampire with a weapon card from your hand.") -Nathan Harada

Nathan Harada <i...@hula.net> writes: >> Why can't ole Leatherface equip, when he can take stuff >> from someone else, and even pull out a disguised weapon? > Because although Beast can't equip per card text, it >doesn't say in the little gray box that he cannot _have_ >equipment. So, practically, Beast can get into a fight >with his ability, and before the fight begins, Heidelburg >Castle gives him Agatha's Sengir Dagger. > Stupid, huh? We saw this loophole prior to Sabbat's >release, but I think Shawn e-mailed something to Alec >that said "but then he'd be too weak..." if he couldn't >have equipment at all. 'Course, if you Draw Out Beast's Beast (as if he wasn't in a perpetually Drawn state to begin with), *then* he couldn't make use of that weapon. The you could relax, since he'd be limited to his 3 hand damage plus any superior Potence cards he chose to play :-). Too weak? Paugh. > (The trick only works with an action to take >equipment and Heidelburg. Disguised and Concealed Weapon >say "Equip this vampire with a weapon card from your hand.") It also works with diablerizing an equipment-bearing vampire, and with "steal weapon/equipment" combat effects (he has inferior celerity). It also (probably) works with taking an action to transfer equipment from another minion controlled by Beast's controller. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <32AE5A...@hula.net>, Nathan Harada <i...@hula.net> wrote: > > Why can't ole Leatherface equip, when he can take stuff > > from someone else, and even pull out a disguised weapon? > > Because although Beast can't equip per card text, it > doesn't say in the little gray box that he cannot _have_ > equipment. So, practically, Beast can get into a fight > with his ability, and before the fight begins, Heidelburg > Castle gives him Agatha's Sengir Dagger. > Stupid, huh? We saw this loophole prior to Sabbat's > release, but I think Shawn e-mailed something to Alec > that said "but then he'd be too weak..." if he couldn't > have equipment at all. I'd post the part of the message in which Shawn said this, but I'm at school right now, and don't have the file handy. Sigh. Of course, I haven't bothered to try and use Beast yet. I'm convinced that his limitations would have almost no effect in almost any combat deck I might place him in. And the trick w/ heidelburg and the Sengir dagger is just too horrid for me to try with all of the players in this area with the exception of Nathan and two other people being newbies. And I win too often anyway, without using unfair cards. (Just as a side note, my Tremere deck which bases itself off of Muaziz/Rebekka, Blythe and Merill Molitor has racked up a truly nasty record around here when used correctly. And mainly because of unfair abilities like "+1 stealth on all actions", and cards like Seeds of Corruption. I feel ashamed every time I play it. ;) ) > (The trick only works with an action to take > equipment and Heidelburg. Disguised and Concealed Weapon > say "Equip this vampire with a weapon card from your hand.") > Nathan ought to be right about this, unless L. Scott comes up with some obscure precedent. "Equip from hand" implies that it is equipping, and Beast, by text, cannot equip. Alec Chang -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

In article <19961208225...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] This seems to me to be a built-in disadvantage of Golden Tenants: no repeat actions rule. While the ambiguity remains over what constitutes a repeat action or, more to the point, is it fair what constitutes a repeat action, some deck types will suffer whilst others won't. Unfair? Probably. >I don't think there is such a problem with minions attacking multiple times >in a turn that a change or house rule is needed. But of course if a group >feels differently about it then a house rule would be easy enough to >devise I think. One rule for the goose and another for the gander. A little unfair. There should be one rule and no need for sub-rules to suit different styles of play, i.e. combat + vote/bleed. Whilst I'm on the subject I might as well cite this as a reason in favour of 4cl in which these sorts of problems just don't arise. I put this in for those narrow minded people who assume, without thinking, that 4cl is crap and they know best and are always asking for ANY advantage that cl has that they haven't (oh so cleverly) conclusively (in italics) proved otherwise. See Elfholmes past arguments for many more good arguments. Peter

CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (DPH) writes: >doug...@aol.com wrote: >>sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >>>duc...@LaBRI.U-Bordeaux.FR (Philippe DUCHON) writes: >>>>"Attack" could become a code word so that a minion couldn't both Ambush >>>>and Bum's Rush in a single turn >>> >>>This is a good idea for a house rule, or even a ruling (if the Rules Team >>>finishes with all of the "hard science" problems and starts tackling the >>>"soft science" ones). >> >>Well, I might disagree here. I realize that some people are uncomfortable >>with allowing a minion to "attack" more than once in a turn since it gives >>combat decks an advantage that political and bleed decks don't have. >>However, it seems to me that this is balanced against the bleed decks' >>advantage of their primary action being cardless, i.e. they don't have to >>wait for their library to produce a card so that they can perform their >>design function. >>I don't think there is such a problem with minions attacking multiple times >>in a turn that a change or house rule is needed. But of course if a group >>feels differently about it then a house rule would be easy enough to >>devise I think. >This seems to me to be a built-in disadvantage of Golden Tenants: no repeat >actions rule. While the ambiguity remains over what constitutes a repeat >action or, more to the point, is it fair what constitutes a repeat action, >some deck types will suffer whilst others won't. >One rule for the goose and another for the gander. A little unfair. There >should be one rule and no need for sub-rules to suit different styles of >play, i.e. combat + vote/bleed. There is one rule: A minion may not attempt the same type of action more than once each turn. A "type" is: Any action type described in the rulebook. For actions not described therein, each action card is its own type (type defined by card name) while each action bestowed by a card in play is its own type (type defined by individual card in play). (These "sub-rules", as you call them, were generated for Change of Target, so 4CL has exactly the same sub-rules defining what "same action" means). >Whilst I'm on the subject I might as well cite this as a reason in favour of >4cl in which these sorts of problems just don't arise. I put this in for 4CL suffers from the same disadvantages that you attribute to GT/DCI: namely, some decks will suffer whilst others don't and sub-rules. As long as we're choosing between two "evils" (that is, two options which suffer {are perceived to suffer} from the same ailments), you may as well choose the one that addresses the problem directly (no repeat actions), rather than some arbitrary limit imported from another game which will be rendered less effective with every new expansion that has new cards which mimic old ones. >those narrow minded people who assume, without thinking, that 4cl is crap and >they know best and are always asking for ANY advantage that cl has that they >haven't (oh so cleverly) conclusively (in italics) proved otherwise. See >Elfholmes past arguments for many more good arguments. This "good argument" you present rings a little hollow when viewed in any light. The only maladies you attribute herein to GT/DCI are borne by 4CL as well. Some advantage. But the name-calling really helps to convince me. [ quoted text not captured ]