Return to WWEF (HEY! A 4CL post!)

We've _always_ played w/4CL; makes it a better game. We use vote pushing too; why penalize the Vote decks, they've already been hard enough hit! With the 4CL, they need the help vote pushing provides. BTW, what's multiple actions?

I might as well throw my vote in with the minority, for I too impose the 4CL upon my decks. Just because no one else in the group plays that way, although I think there's one person who plays 10%, doesn't stop me from winning sometimes and having fun. I am not even going to touch on the benifit/drawbacks of the 4CL vs. NL, I just want to say that I've been playing 4CL since Jyhad came out (due to the influence of Magic) and I never found myself in an inferior position on the table due to the self imposed limitation. Danny The oppinions above are not mine, they are forced upon me by my employer.

Hi all! In article <4b781t$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Biomech8 <biom...@aol.com> wrote: <snipped> >And TJ plays with vote pushing... <snipped> A newbie question: What is vote pushing? And by the way, could anybody post a sample no-limit deck? I play 4-CL, but that's only because otherwise nobody wants to play around here... I don't think the game needs 4-CL. Best Wishes /Ola Mikael -- ----------------------| \ _, "Search for the unicorn in Ola Mikael Hansson | /*.\___ your heart, believe - and you ----------------------| ` ( __ )\ shall find true beauty!" email: un...@df.lth.se | (l (l '

wold...@aol.com (WOL DannyX) wrote: >I might as well throw my vote in with the minority, for I too impose the >4CL upon my decks. Just because no one else in the group plays that way, >although I think there's one person who plays 10%, doesn't stop me from >winning sometimes and having fun. >I am not even going to touch on the benifit/drawbacks of the 4CL vs. NL, I >just want to say that I've been playing 4CL since Jyhad came out (due to >the influence of Magic) and I never found myself in an inferior position >on the table due to the self imposed limitation. Peace Danny, Ever tried to build an Brujah rush combat deck (Cel/Pot) under 4CL? Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

un...@df.lth.se (Ola Mikael Hansson) writes: >In article <4b781t$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, >>And TJ plays with vote pushing... >A newbie question: What is vote pushing? V:TES explicity allows any meth to take a Political Action card in hand during a vote (when votes are being tallied) and to toss it into he ash heap in order to gain one vote for doing so. Since this card is worth one votem, but is not replaced. , This allows for a deck of very small vamps (and lots of them) to call a vote and then burn PA's to pass it. Then repeat as necessary. Makes for a broken game so WotC slaps a two card limit on Ofensive votes. Most people who play, play with their own house rule regarding the limits on vote pushing. One vote per Meth (burned by card) helps. One of each type of PA helps too. like Action Modifiers and reactions helps alot. >And by the way, could anybody post a sample no-limit deck? I play 4-CL, but >that's only because otherwise nobody wants to play around here... I don't >think the game needs 4-CL. Just think of your favourite deck, Then take all the cards that you have four of in your favourite deck and maybe you should have five or even six of them. And maybe the lesser cards that just allow you to do something with the deck while your waiting for the Real cards can be reduced. If you want to have a couple of No limit decks, let me know and I'll mail ome to you I have then in ASCII entered on my account (which no one other than Ga Tech students can get to) Let me know Stu >Best Wishes >/Ola Mikael -- "But once you are real, you can't become unreal again."

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >Peace Danny, >Ever tried to build an Brujah rush combat deck (Cel/Pot) under 4CL? I have. It doesn't work not well at all. shame too. That might actually pose a threat to 4 CL Bleed Stealth decks > Nil carborundum illigitimi, > James R. McClure Jr. > The OS/2 Apostle ><insert disclaimer here> Stu [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4b7f8l$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com says... [ quoted text not captured ] Our group played 4CL for nearly a year, and decided that this was slightly restrictive. We voted a house rule to play with a maximum card limit of 10% (rounded down) of the deck size. This allows everyone to play what they want, and prevents the deviant decks. ************* The North Dallas Thursday night group *********** ************* *********** ************* soon to be the North Dallas *********** ************* Thursday and Monday nights group ***********

In article l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone) writes: > We've _always_ played w/4CL; makes it a better game. We use vote pushing > too; why penalize the Vote decks, they've already been hard enough hit! > With the 4CL, they need the help vote pushing provides. BTW, what's > multiple actions? Multiple Actions is allowing a minion to do the same action over and over in the same turn (ala freak drive). A Freak drive and bleed deck would be just about unbeatable with out some kind of limit. 4 CL will not have this problem, but for us in the no card limits camp a rule that you can only perform an action once per turn will also stop this deck. --Steve

This is not a Brujah cel/pot deck, so if that's all you're looking for I'm sorry, if you think the Brujah have more to them read on... this is not a 4CL discussion...I've played a Brujah Prince rush combat deck using guns & celerity and 4 of: Haven uncovered, bum's rush, archon and bloodhunt. Add in a couple of bleed modifiers (those new princes have dominate and everyone else has presence) you can up the bleed and force people to block. Or up the amount of political cards and be sure you get those archons declared, and don't forget Camarilla exemplary, not to mention the damage votes and banishment :-) But if you want pure combat/rush nothing is better than rushing an IC member (Stanislava) Psyche through all her S:CE until you have her where you want her! Even at 11 blood that's only 2 round of Blur w/a 44, press and then hit with the 44 add one additional strike w/Dragon Breath rounds, or 2 additional strikes and diablerize. (Archons w/the Hunt Club are beautiful: I pool to block, +1 stealth to diablerize, and no blood hunt vote?) I realize that I am supporting a carry over from M:t$, but it isn't support for 4cl, I'm just trying to point out that you can make decks under restriction, you may not want to and that's fine :-) I would like something less restrictive than the 4cl, but I can live with it, and I still have limited freedom to make a variety of decks. If you want specific cards for the above let me know. (the example above was when a my Brujah deck was played against my untap bleed deck that has several ways of avoiding combat... I used the dragon breath rounds :-)

Hear ye! Hear ye! <4b7dk7$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, wold...@aol.com (WOL DannyX), the great and noble sovereign, articulated: #just want to say that I've been playing 4CL since Jyhad came out (due to #the influence of Magic) and I never found myself in an inferior position ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ too late Danny boy. be prepared to be deluged with requests to post your deck and all the rest of the lovely bitz that statistical analysts around here love to do. cheers mate and welcome to the minority!!!! neee-ha!! -- Greg Zuvich |gzu...@symantec.com "Put your soul in the water and join me for a swim tonight." Live - Mental Jewelry "Beauty of Gray"

Hear ye! Hear ye! <4b7f8l$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com (NCascone), the great and noble sovereign, articulated: #We've _always_ played w/4CL; makes it a better game. Eee Gads! Another one!?!? Don't these fair people following my warnings? On *this* newsgroup don't ever tell anyone you play with the 4CL lest you wish to be lambasted with posts and such. Oh ye in your little bark, that doth venture to travel in my wake, sail not the waters upon which I have found the very road unto hell... [ quoted text not captured ]

<jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >Peace Danny, > >Ever tried to build an Brujah rush combat deck (Cel/Pot) under 4CL? Here's a deck: Donal O'Connor x2 Constanza Vinti Volker, the Puppet Prince Bianca Anvil Angel Dre: (blah blah) Antionette DuChamp Nik 4 Bloodhunt 4 Haven Uncovered 4 Bum's Rush 4 Archon 6 Praxis: whatevers 4 Blur 4 Flash 4 Acrobatics 4 Nimble Feet 3 Sideslip 3 Vampiric Speed 1 Uncle Al's 1 Vast Wealth 4 Torn Signpost 2 Fists of Death 4 44. Mag. 2 Flamethrowers 1 Sengir Dagger 1 Celerity 3 Potence 4 Undead Strength 4 Mighty Grapple --- 71 cards. Tear apart to your heart's wish, but *try* it first. I repeat, intercept, bleed or vote is *much* better for initiating combat (esp. the Brujah bleed), but this works too. Other good cards for this deck include Conditioning, Legal Manipulations, KRC, Taste of Vitae... TJH

not to mention 2nd Tradition, WWEF (oops...) TJH

gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) writes: >Hear ye! Hear ye! <4b7f8l$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ncas...@aol.com >(NCascone), the great and noble sovereign, articulated: >#We've _always_ played w/4CL; makes it a better game. >Eee Gads! Another one!?!? Don't these fair people following my warnings? On >*this* newsgroup don't ever tell anyone you play with the 4CL lest you wish to be >lambasted with posts and such. Oh ye in your little bark, that doth venture to >travel in my wake, sail not the waters upon which I have found the very road unto >hell... You drove yourself. People who play 4CL are not lepers. That's a viable way of playing. No one laughs or picks them apart for it. We explain our position and our /reasoning/ and /logic/, nad hopefully convert a few. We also lose a few occasionally, to groups that play with the broken official rules on vote pushing. No problem. OTOH, people who claim that 4CL is superior to NL and flatly refuse to offer any support for such a claim get what they deserve. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

biom...@aol.com (Biomech8) wrote: >This is not a Brujah cel/pot deck, so if that's all you're looking for I'm >sorry, if you think the Brujah have more to them read on... this is not a Peace be with you, I never said they didn't. I'm making a point that 4CL effectively prevents some types of decks. Real Brujah don't rely on toys (guns)! >4CL discussion...I've played a Brujah Prince rush combat deck using guns & Yes, the fact that 4CL prohibits an effective Brujah Cel/Pot deck (w/o resorting to toys or pushed votes) is part and parcel of my argument. >block. Or up the amount of political cards and be sure you get those >archons declared, and don't forget Camarilla exemplary, not to mention the Vote push should be illegal. >diablerize, and no blood hunt vote?) I realize that I am supporting a >carry over from M:t$, but it isn't support for 4cl, I'm just trying to I'm glad that you've admitted that. >point out that you can make decks under restriction, you may not want to >and that's fine :-) I would like something less restrictive than the 4cl, >but I can live with it, and I still have limited freedom to make a variety ^^^^^^^ >of decks. If you want specific cards for the above let me know. (the My point exactly. Thank you for agreeing with me. 4CL limits my freedom of choice when it comes to building decks, that is, there are certain decks (which are not degenerate or OTP) which will not work under 4CL. [ quoted text not captured ]

"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: ><jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>Ever tried to build an Brujah rush combat deck (Cel/Pot) under 4CL? > > Here's a deck: > >Donal O'Connor x2 >Constanza Vinti >Volker, the Puppet Prince >Bianca >Anvil >Angel >Dre: (blah blah) >Antionette DuChamp >Nik Peace T.J., Only ten vamps? Who are the other two? Why not Rake? He's a cheap prince too. I think Antionette is a poor choice for this deck. The celerity cards you are going to want to use are Blur & Acrob, both of which already have a one blood cost. She can't use them unless you get skill card onto her and then hunt. >4 Bloodhunt 4 Haven Uncovered >4 Bum's Rush 4 Archon >6 Praxis: whatevers >4 Blur 4 Flash 4 Acrobatics 4 Nimble Feet >3 Sideslip 3 Vampiric Speed >1 Uncle Al's 1 Vast Wealth >4 Torn Signpost >2 Fists of Death >4 44. Mag. 2 Flamethrowers 1 Sengir Dagger >1 Celerity >3 Potence >4 Undead Strength 4 Mighty Grapple Guns do not belong in a Cel/Pot deck. Neither do the Flamethrowers. You have only fourteen strike cards in this deck. You could go through those in just five combats. That doesn't look sufficient to me. Relying on voting could be a problem if a real vote deck shows up. Loading up on Praxi can be $$$ consuming. >71 cards. Tear apart to your heart's wish, but *try* it first. I >repeat, intercept, bleed or vote is *much* better for initiating >combat (esp. the Brujah bleed), but this works too. Other good cards >for this deck include Conditioning, Legal Manipulations, KRC, >Taste of Vitae... Not if my prey is S&B, B&B, or wienie bleed (or any of a dozen other decks) and I'm trying to torp his/her/its minions before s/h/it ousts my grandprey. Then I need BR/HU. The advantage of Cel/Pot Rush Combat is I control when and where the combats occur. I don't have to hope my prey/pred chooses to block my actions. I KNOW that this minion is going to torp someone when I rush. Unless you direct your (D) bleeds upstream, your ability to slow your pred is also limited (no intercept). Using two minions (one to vote & one to fight) isn't efficient, you'll be lucky to get a fifth minion into play (avg crypt of 4.9 [including Rake & Hector]). You're just proving my point. 4CL does limit my choices of deck types. There are just some decks that do not work under 4CL. [ quoted text not captured ]

gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: >Hear ye! Hear ye! <4b7dk7$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, wold...@aol.com (WOL >DannyX), the great and noble sovereign, articulated: > >#just want to say that I've been playing 4CL since Jyhad came out (due to >#the influence of Magic) and I never found myself in an inferior position > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >too late Danny boy. be prepared to be deluged with requests to post your deck and >all the rest of the lovely bitz that statistical analysts around here love to do. >cheers mate and welcome to the minority!!!! neee-ha!! Peace All, Translation: be prepared to logically defend your argument like a cognizant adult. In a logical discussion, nothing is taken on faith, everything must be proved. Posting one's deck is an advantageous learning experience for all involved. The readers get to see new ideas or old ideas presented in new ways and the poster gets new viewpoints/insights on his/her/its deck. What's wrong with that? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4baou1$6...@texas.nwlink.com>, "T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> writes: > >not to mention 2nd Tradition, WWEF (oops...) > > TJH Don't forget concealed weapon if you play it as non-disciplined... ~Biomechanoid

Hear ye! Hear ye! <4bboie$6...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, articulated: #Yes, the fact that 4CL prohibits an effective Brujah Cel/Pot deck (w/o #resorting to toys or pushed votes) is part and parcel of my argument. It only prevents an effective deck against a no-cl deck. I have seen this type of deck be *very* effective in 4CL games... ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

Hi Greg, On 21 Dec 1995, Greg Zuvich wrote: > Hear ye! Hear ye! <4bboie$6...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." > <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, > articulated: > #Yes, the fact that 4CL prohibits an effective Brujah Cel/Pot deck (w/o > #resorting to toys or pushed votes) is part and parcel of my argument. > > It only prevents an effective deck against a no-cl deck. I have seen this type of > deck be *very* effective in 4CL games... ;) > > Now wait a minute, if I built a 4cl Malk sneak and bleed, are you saying that you could build a 4cl brujah deck that could beat it in a 4 player game? Be careful how you answer.... In all fairness, I understand why you play 4cl, and I'm not arguing against your reasoning. What I am saying is that if people build decks the way I do, then 4cl means you play Malk, because it is almost as efficient under 4cl as it is under nl, where as other deck strategies do not come out as well. Algustas *****The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything.***** Theodore Roosevelt

> In all fairness, I understand why you play 4cl, and I'm not > arguing against your reasoning. What I am saying is that if people build > decks the way I do, then 4cl means you play Malk, because it is almost as > efficient under 4cl as it is under nl, where as other deck strategies do > not come out as well. I'm probably digging a grave for myself, but... If everyone in a group plays 4CL, not everyone will make a Malk deck. [If everyone does, you're playing with a lot of uncreative people...] The one guy who plays the Malk will eat everyone, so everyone will build their deck to eat the Malks (Malkavian Dementia!), the guy will stop playing Malks, the anti-Malk cards will go unused, will be taken out, the guy starts playing Malks again, eats everyone, etc. etc. etc. The point is that the Malk deck is formidable. If the person who plays Malks keeps winning and killing everyone over and over again, either something will change or they will stop playing with that person. It would be like a Magic Type I tourney winner playing against people who have <100 cards to their name. Either the Type I guy will make a less effective deck, or people will stop playing with him. Just my nickel. James -- James Hamblin | Consultant, CS 212 Cornell University | V.P. of Wargames, CSSS http://www-sunlab.cit.cornell.edu/Info/People/jhamblin/index.html

In article <30D9E6...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu>, James Hamblin <jham...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu> wrote: >> In all fairness, I understand why you play 4cl, and I'm not >> arguing against your reasoning. What I am saying is that if people build >> decks the way I do, then 4cl means you play Malk, because it is almost as >> efficient under 4cl as it is under nl, where as other deck strategies do >> not come out as well. > >I'm probably digging a grave for myself, but... > >If everyone in a group plays 4CL, not everyone will make a Malk deck. [If everyone does, >you're playing with a lot of uncreative people...] The one guy who plays the Malk will >eat everyone, so everyone will build their deck to eat the Malks (Malkavian Dementia!), >the guy will stop playing Malks, the anti-Malk cards will go unused, will be taken out, >the guy starts playing Malks again, eats everyone, etc. etc. etc. Using interpersonal dynamics as a crutch for a hobbled game to maintain its enjoyability is a frequent phenomena described by 4CL proponents. Who wants to win all the time when it's so easy? If someone always build a Brujah Rush deck (under 4CL - a diluted deck at best), would everyone have to build their decks to eat the Brujah? No. Everyone's decks are already capable of surviving the Burjah to a reasonable extent, since the Brujah deck is crippled by 4CL. Similarly for Tremere B&B, and for Toreador gun decks (plenty of guns, not so plenty extra strikes and dodges (and, for those with proper house rules, very few Concealed Weapons)). This dynamic, however suitable it is to a prticular gaming group, is not a good reason to maintain the handicap. Sure it works, but so does driving 45mph (sorry, all you non-Americans, for the localized ref.) on the interstate. No one is saying you can't continue to drive 45, but the interstate was designed for 75mph traffic. (Consider the vote pushing to be those soft shoulders near construction sites, and the Freak Drive/5th Trad combos to be the ragged-out muscle cars with no license plates cutting in front of everyone without a signal. Soft shoulders aren't that dangerous at low speeds, and that combo hurts no matter what speed - but more so at high speeds.) -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text

dsa...@prism.gatech.edu (Stuart J. Pieloch) wrote: >"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: > >>Peace Danny, > >>Ever tried to build an Brujah rush combat deck (Cel/Pot) under 4CL? > >I have. >It doesn't work >not well at all. >shame too. >That might actually pose a threat to 4 CL >Bleed Stealth decks Uhh... They actually work *quite* well, as a matter of fact. But Brujah Bleed or Vote work better. TJH

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >I think Antionette is a poor choice for this deck. The celerity cards you >are going to want to use are Blur & Acrob, both of which already have a one >blood cost. She can't use them unless you get skill card onto her and then >hunt. I wondered about that. Antionette pays extra blood for Celerity STRIKES and ACTIONS. So far, these are Cat Burglary and Riposte. Has this been corrected to be 'additional strike' cards (clearly not the same thing as a mere strike card.) She's still a bit too good. A Catiff with Pre, and for her disad? Let's see, oh, we'll give her a second discipline which has a drawback.

"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: >"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: >>><jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>>>Ever tried to build an Brujah rush combat deck (Cel/Pot) under 4CL? >>I think Antionette is a poor choice for this deck. The celerity cards you >>are going to want to use are Blur & Acrob, both of which already have a one >>blood cost. She can't use them unless you get skill card onto her and then >>hunt. > > Read the card. She pays blood for "strike" cards, i.e. Vampiric >speed, Riposite... Peace T.J., Sorry, I don't have any DS cards (I was just skimming through Shane's list) as WotC won't let me buy any. >>Guns do not belong in a Cel/Pot deck. Neither do the Flamethrowers. > >Gee, why not? Because you don't want them to? Because, then it is not a Cel/Pot deck. >>You have only fourteen strike cards in this deck. You could go through >>those in just five combats. That doesn't look sufficient to me. > >Guns don't do damage? Torn Signpost doesn't do damage? I counted TS as part of your fourteen strike cards. Guns still do not belong in a Cel/_POT_ deck. You are reinforcing my point that 4CL PROHIBITS some types of decks, which are valid concepts (like Cel/Pot). >>Relying on voting could be a problem if a real vote deck shows up. >>Loading up on Praxi can be $$$ consuming. > >Make deals. You have a high percentage of getting an early Praxis. >Last I checked, you get a Praxis almost every pack in Dark Soverigns. Sorry, again, no DS here. Praxi are rare (to me) and that means $. >>>71 cards. Tear apart to your heart's wish, but *try* it first. I >>>repeat, intercept, bleed or vote is *much* better for initiating >>>combat (esp. the Brujah bleed), but this works too. Other good cards >>>for this deck include Conditioning, Legal Manipulations, KRC, >>>Taste of Vitae... > >>Not if my prey is S&B, B&B, or wienie bleed (or any of a dozen other decks) >>and I'm trying to torp his/her/its minions before s/h/it ousts my grandprey. > >Whatever. You're right, Conditioning won't help me oust my prey. Why >should a combat deck bleed, right? There was Dominate in that deck! I profusely appologize for not seeing that! A combat deck can bleed, it just tends to be much weaker/slower at it than other decks. >>Then I need BR/HU. The advantage of Cel/Pot Rush Combat is I control when >>and where the combats occur. I don't have to hope my prey/pred chooses to >>block my actions. I KNOW that this minion is going to torp someone when I >>rush. > > Look, I saw your deck. I even put it together and tried in out. In >no way is it a sure thing that that deck will torp someone. Did you >offer the same respect to my deck, and try it out? No. This is not a >way to add credence to your arguments. Ok, so my deck didn't work for you. Maybe it is bad karma. I can't build your deck for two reasons: 1) no DS here (no trade-in = no DS); 2) insufficient Praxi to get enough princes to make those Prince/Justicar votes work. >>Unless you direct your (D) bleeds upstream, your ability to slow >>your pred is also limited (no intercept). > >Gee, that's the whole point of my Archons - to slow my predator. Funny, >huh? Again, you have to have a Prince in play and the vote has to pass. Yes, w/ enough Praxi or the DS Princes, you may have enough votes to push it through, but in this neck of the woods, no one lets the combat monster deck gain the advantage of Archon. >>You're just proving my point. 4CL does limit my choices of deck types. >>There are just some decks that do not work under 4CL. > > No. You're refusing to see another point be proved. Predictable... [Boot to the head. Ow! I knew it.] I disagree with your "no." You had to resort to toys and questionable votes to make what you call a Cel/Pot deck. I don't think toys should be in a Cel/Pot deck. I don't wish to wait for a Prince or pray my vote passes to be able to engage in combat when _I_ choose to. 4CL limits my choices of deck. It is that simple. [ quoted text not captured ]

gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: >Hear ye! Hear ye! <4bboie$6...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." ><jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, >articulated: > #Yes, the fact that 4CL prohibits an effective Brujah Cel/Pot deck (w/o >#resorting to toys or pushed votes) is part and parcel of my argument. > >It only prevents an effective deck against a no-cl deck. I have seen this type of >deck be *very* effective in 4CL games... ;) Peace Greg, Mind elucidating on this deck? [ quoted text not captured ]

"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: >"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>biom...@aol.com (Biomech8) wrote: >>>This is not a Brujah cel/pot deck, so if that's all you're looking for I'm >>>sorry, if you think the Brujah have more to them read on... this is not a >> >>I never said they didn't. I'm making a point that 4CL effectively prevents >>some types of decks. Real Brujah don't rely on toys (guns)! > >Why not? Peace T.J., Because they have Potence and tasting your opponent's blood as you pound them into mush is so much more fun. >>>4CL discussion...I've played a Brujah Prince rush combat deck using guns & >> >>Yes, the fact that 4CL prohibits an effective Brujah Cel/Pot deck (w/o >>resorting to toys or pushed votes) is part and parcel of my argument. > >Oh, wah. My Concealed Weapon/Chainsaw deck doesn't win any games, it >must be the rules system... Hope for a resonable discussion waning. Are you reading my replies? I never said that you can't win with your deck(s) under 4CL. I said that certain deck concepts are effectively prohibited under 4CL. 4CL is not part of the rule system; it is a disease that infected from Mt$. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >[Boot to the head. Ow! I knew it.] I disagree with your "no." You had >to resort to toys and questionable votes to make what you call a Cel/Pot >deck. I don't think toys should be in a Cel/Pot deck. I don't wish to >wait for a Prince or pray my vote passes to be able to engage in combat >when _I_ choose to. 4CL limits my choices of deck. It is that simple. I've only been vaguely following this discussion, so I'm not sure of exactly what's going on. But, it seems to me that what is basically going on is that you see a Cel/Pot deck in the NL fasion which doesn't have toys. Is this the same as what J.T. is showing us? No it isn't, b/c you can't make a "pure" Cel/Pot deck under 4CL. What he has done is made something similar to the deck that works under 4CL. 4CL and NL are just about totally different games (IMHO), and it is patently obvious that 4CL is a subset of NL, so there will be things workable under NL that don't work under 4CL. Charles -- Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.

c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) wrote: >I've only been vaguely following this discussion, so I'm not sure of >exactly what's going on. But, it seems to me that what is basically >going on is that you see a Cel/Pot deck in the NL fasion which doesn't >have toys. Is this the same as what J.T. is showing us? No it isn't, >b/c you can't make a "pure" Cel/Pot deck under 4CL. What he has done >is made something similar to the deck that works under 4CL. Not a bad summary. After incessant requests for a "Brujah Rush Celerity/Potence deck" that is 4cl, I posted one. Turns out James is looking for a straw man to knock down, not a deck. I should have known. Although this deck relied on celerity and potence as primary diciplines, did rush, and was an effective combat deck, it did not meet the mystic criteria. My request that the deck be put to the test was ignored, as I should have expected. There is no further need for discussion, as the other party is not interested in a differing point of view. I don't enjoy being a target when my intent was to help someone out. >4CL and NL are just about totally different games (IMHO), and it is >patently obvious that 4CL is a subset of NL, so there will be things >workable under NL that don't work under 4CL. Given. But when you restrict a game enviroment equally, different things are possible (this is probably what you meant when you classed them as different games). I posted a deck in response to a request, which was not given in good faith. I won't post one to this newsgroup again. TJH

Hear ye! Hear ye! <4beg4e$q...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, articulated: #[Boot to the head. Ow! I knew it.] I disagree with your "no." You had #to resort to toys and questionable votes to make what you call a Cel/Pot #deck. I don't think toys should be in a Cel/Pot deck. I don't wish to #wait for a Prince or pray my vote passes to be able to engage in combat #when _I_ choose to. 4CL limits my choices of deck. It is that simple. You are correct in that you cannot build *the same kind* of cel/pot deck under 4CL as you can with no-cl, but that goes without saying since you can only have 4 of any given card... so, yes. You CANNOT make a deck of 20 gazillion pot/cel cards under 4CL, based on the premise of 4CL alone. What I hear you saying Mr. McClure is that you wanna be able to do what you want, when you want, without giving a second thought to your opponents. But hey, with 4CL you might have to think more, and well, that would be just too difficult eh?... But fear not my valiant adversary! I will post an article on 4CL in due time, hopefully soon! [ quoted text not captured ]

Hear ye! Hear ye! <4behbq$q...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, articulated: # #Because they have Potence and tasting your opponent's blood as you pound #them into mush is so much more fun. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ OH MY GOD!!!! Did he just say he was playing Jyhad the way he wants because it was more fun for him!?!?!!!??? Dear Lord God! It's a miracle!! Halleluah and praise Jesus.... There may be hope for him yet guys!!... ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

Hear ye! Hear ye! <4begtg$q...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, articulated: #gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: #>It only prevents an effective deck against a no-cl deck. I have seen this #type of #>deck be *very* effective in 4CL games... ;) # #Peace Greg, # #Mind elucidating on this deck? Well, since it was not my design and I do not play Brujah as a rule I can give you the run down of the basics. If I remember correctly it was almost an all Brujah deck. It had 4 of every single combat card you can imagine, including all relevant celerity, potence, non-vampire cards and such. Things like WWEF, Dodge, Bum's Rush, Immortal Grapple, Undead Strength... I'm not exactly sure. Granted it was not the "pure cel/pot" deck of which you speak, because you cannot have more than 4 of any card. But then I believe I made my point in an earlier post that under the 4CL you don't focus on specific card combos or one discipline in particular, but on a general strategy as a whole and what vampires can best execute that general plan. Needless to say this Brujah deck fit under the "combat deck" category and it was damn leathal. This is not to say that the Brujah are the only ones who can make such a leathal combat deck under 4CL, because I have seen Malkavian and Nosferatu decks be just as good at it. I had been playing a rather nasty Tremere deck and the group was looking for a counter to it, and they found one all right. My Tremere deck was based on the principle of "I'm comin' ta' bleed ya' and I think I'm comin' in. If ya wanna stop me, yer gonna take some punishment." Well, I had the requisite thaumaturgy and potence cards, as well as all the neccessary press cards and such. But hey, Mr. Brujah ended up being my prey and I couldn't do diddly squat to him because he was prepared and his combat deck was highly effective. He didn't win, but then neither did I, in essence effectively canceling each other out. I hope this helps, but I'm quite sure you'll slam this like you do everything else. cheers! [ quoted text not captured ]

"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: >c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) wrote: >>I've only been vaguely following this discussion, so I'm not sure of >>exactly what's going on. But, it seems to me that what is basically >>going on is that you see a Cel/Pot deck in the NL fasion which doesn't >>have toys. Is this the same as what J.T. is showing us? No it isn't, >>b/c you can't make a "pure" Cel/Pot deck under 4CL. What he has done >>is made something similar to the deck that works under 4CL. > > Not a bad summary. After incessant requests for a "Brujah Rush >Celerity/Potence deck" that is 4cl, I posted one. Turns out James is >looking for a straw man to knock down, not a deck. I should have known. Peace be with you, It's the Amazing T.J.! the man who can read minds over the Internet! >Although this deck relied on celerity and potence as primary diciplines, >did rush, and was an effective combat deck, it did not meet the mystic >criteria. My request that the deck be put to the test was ignored, as >I should have expected. There is no further need for discussion, as >the other party is not interested in a differing point of view. I don't >enjoy being a target when my intent was to help someone out. Cel/Pot is a mystic criteria?? I told you I couldn't test you deck, because I don't have any DS cards. If you feel that I "targetted" you, T.J., then I, James Ronald Francis McClure Jr., hereby, in the presence of my net.peers humbly appologize for my error. It was not my intention to treat you ill. >>4CL and NL are just about totally different games (IMHO), and it is >>patently obvious that 4CL is a subset of NL, so there will be things >>workable under NL that don't work under 4CL. > > Given. But when you restrict a game enviroment equally, different >things are possible (this is probably what you meant when you classed >them as different games). How come you can agree with him about my point that 4CL prohibits some decks, but can't agree with me on the same point? > I posted a deck in response to a request, which was not given in >good faith. I won't post one to this newsgroup again. Everything I post is in good faith. Ask around. I'll stand on the opinion of others. [ quoted text not captured ]

gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: >I had been playing a rather nasty Tremere deck and the group was looking for a >counter to it, and they found one all right. My Tremere deck was based on the >principle of "I'm comin' ta' bleed ya' and I think I'm comin' in. If ya wanna >stop me, yer gonna take some punishment." Well, I had the requisite thaumaturgy >and potence cards, as well as all the neccessary press cards and such. But hey, >Mr. Brujah ended up being my prey and I couldn't do diddly squat to him because >he was prepared and his combat deck was highly effective. He didn't win, but >then neither did I, in essence effectively canceling each other out. Peace Greg, That strategy is usually refered to a Bruise & Bleed (for future reference). Yes, if two combat-type decks end up next to each other, it can get quite nasty. >I hope this helps, but I'm quite sure you'll slam this like you do everything >else. cheers! Gee, Greg, what'd I do to offend you. You'd think I treat you like T.J. or something. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4bf475$9...@hermes.louisville.edu>, James R. McClure Jr. <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: >> Not a bad summary. After incessant requests for a "Brujah Rush >>Celerity/Potence deck" that is 4cl, I posted one. Turns out James is >>looking for a straw man to knock down, not a deck. I should have known. > >Peace be with you, > >It's the Amazing T.J.! the man who can read minds over the Internet! Must be a new kind of packet switching. Better than ISDN -- the Motorola PsychSurfr, in stores now! >>Although this deck relied on celerity and potence as primary diciplines, >>did rush, and was an effective combat deck, it did not meet the mystic >>criteria. My request that the deck be put to the test was ignored, as >>I should have expected. There is no further need for discussion, as >>the other party is not interested in a differing point of view. I don't >>enjoy being a target when my intent was to help someone out. Your deck (and I'm not saying it's ineffective, because it looked quite workable) is referred to in no-card-limit land as a pot/cel/guns/vote deck; its objective seems to be the same as a no-limit pot/cel deck, i.e., pound people into torpor and snicker, but it has to contort around a limit-induced lack of potence and celerity cards with guns, and around a limit-induced lack of bum's rushes and haven uncovered's with archon votes. All James (and I) are saying is that these contortions aren't necessary under no-limit. I've built decks like yours under a no-limit environment, just because I wanted to play with many different kinds of toys at once. I've also built straight pot/cel decks with no equipment in it at all. I don't use equipment much because, in general, there's a discipline out there that can do whatever it is I want the equipment to do without risking the equipment getting intercepted/stolen/destroyed. In general, if I build a voting machine that can reliably pass Archon votes, I've got such a good thing going I might as well throw out combat and go for a full-on vote deck. >Cel/Pot is a mystic criteria?? I told you I couldn't test you deck, because >I don't have any DS cards. If you feel that I "targetted" you, T.J., then >I, James Ronald Francis McClure Jr., hereby, in the presence of my net.peers >humbly appologize for my error. It was not my intention to treat you ill. The limit/no limit debate has gotten heated of late; personally, I feel much of it is due to Greg Zuvich's taunting ways, innumeracy (if not outright math phobia), and general unwillingness to participate in a mature debate -- yes, I was rude to him, but only after multiple and frustrating evasion on his part. Perhaps if we all sit back and reexamine the issues, we can proceed with a reasoned discussion. >>>4CL and NL are just about totally different games (IMHO), and it is >>>patently obvious that 4CL is a subset of NL, so there will be things >>>workable under NL that don't work under 4CL. >> >> Given. But when you restrict a game enviroment equally, different >>things are possible (this is probably what you meant when you classed >>them as different games). The point the no-limit camp tries to make is that 4cl does not make any new possibilities available; it only forces use of suboptimal strategies. Under no-limit, use of suboptimal strategies is not only possible, but workable -- themed, fun decks account for many of my fond Jyhad memories. We aren't saying "4cl is no fun and lame." We're saying "4cl doesn't let us have fun in this particular kind of way." 4cl proponents seem to be saying "4cl is more fun than no limits." I have no beef with this assertion; fun is a value judgment. We just want folks to recognize that 4cl doesn't let us use decks we like to use, and that these decks are also fun. >Everything I post is in good faith. Ask around. I'll stand on the opinion >of others. I'll say here that James has, in my experience, always been fair, reasoned, polite, and calm. He debates equitably and thoroughly. He is one of the people that give this group its remarkably conflict-free nature, and he has my respect. gomi no sensei -- i come from the water that weren't no easy thing it's more than nature it's like my destiny - the toadies

"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> writes: > Here's a deck: >Donal O'Connor x2 >Constanza Vinti >Volker, the Puppet Prince >Bianca >Anvil >Angel >Dre: (blah blah) >Antionette DuChamp >Nik >4 Bum's Rush 4 Haven Uncovered >4 Bloodhunt 4 Archon >6 Praxis: whatevers >4 44. Mag. 2 Flamethrowers 1 Sengir Dagger >4 Blur 4 Flash 4 Acrobatics 4 Nimble Feet >3 Sideslip 3 Vampiric Speed >4 Torn Signpost >2 Fists of Death >4 Undead Strength 4 Mighty Grapple >1 Celerity >3 Potence >1 Uncle Al's 1 Vast Wealth >--- >71 cards. Tear apart to your heart's wish, but *try* it first. This is a pretty common type of deck, which has been tried lots among 4CL groups (I've seen it done, and I don't see that many games.) The "problem" is that 2nd group of cards -- 21 of them -- which represent all the actions you need to take before you can start this deck. The two problems with this are 1) the deck is diluted and won't fight as well as other 4CL combat decks can (like pure guns/cel, or retainers/ FOR that I like, or Tremere,) and 2) you need too many damn actions to be able to start fighting. Again, compare to guns/cel which only need to grab a gun and can wake/intercept right away, or Tremere who can fight "out of the can." To see what I mean by diluted, think about Dre Rushing a helpless Malk on his first action. He should be able to TS/UStr/Blur/UStr for 6, while taking 2 in return. More likely he's going to do 3 or 4 while taking 2 as you hold a bunch of those 21 "action" cards, or more extra strike cards. By slow, you've got to use 2 turns to make the 2nd 8 of your "get into combat" cards work. A Seizure and an Archon/Bloodhunt next turn. Praxis Seizures don't always work, Bloodhunts don't work on Princes, and you may not have gotten the gun you need for the minion doing the dirty work. These are problems that slow you down. I've seen it.

In article <4beraf$q...@texas.nwlink.com>, "T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: > c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) wrote: > > >I've only been vaguely following this discussion, so I'm not sure of > >exactly what's going on. But, it seems to me that what is basically > >going on is that you see a Cel/Pot deck in the NL fasion which doesn't > >have toys. Is this the same as what J.T. is showing us? No it isn't, > >b/c you can't make a "pure" Cel/Pot deck under 4CL. What he has done > >is made something similar to the deck that works under 4CL. > > Not a bad summary. After incessant requests for a "Brujah Rush > Celerity/Potence deck" that is 4cl, I posted one. Turns out James is > looking for a straw man to knock down, not a deck. I should have known. You don't know James then (not that I do, but I know him better than that). > Although this deck relied on celerity and potence as primary diciplines, > did rush, and was an effective combat deck, it did not meet the mystic > criteria. My request that the deck be put to the test was ignored, as > I should have expected. There is no further need for discussion, as > the other party is not interested in a differing point of view. I don't > enjoy being a target when my intent was to help someone out. <sigh> No one is targetting you. You are not a martyr... My own comments: The crypt seems a good choice. 5 of your vamps are princes, giving you an excellent ability to get up your bloodhunts/Archon's. The Praxis helps as well. The library seems to also be relatively decent, but the flamethrowers would be better replaced with some other weapon (SMG), so you can take more advantage of your additional strikes. This is a fine deck. His "mystic criteria" was for it to be a C/P deck. He is right. Guns don't belong in it. IMHO, you'd be better served by more potence and more melee weapons. Generic manuevers and presses would be useful, as well as a Amaranth or two (to make more use out of your princes). > >4CL and NL are just about totally different games (IMHO), and it is > >patently obvious that 4CL is a subset of NL, so there will be things > >workable under NL that don't work under 4CL. > Given. But when you restrict a game enviroment equally, different > things are possible (this is probably what you meant when you classed > them as different games). Anything possible under 4CL is possible under NL (4CL is a subset of NL). > I posted a deck in response to a request, which was not given in > good faith. I won't post one to this newsgroup again. Please do. I believe you are talking about my request to see a deck. It was given in good faith. It was the same kind of request that changed my mind about NL. "I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ # Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) # $ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @ # PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) y*+? 3.1# @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$

In article <4bevij$k...@symiserver2.symantec.com>, gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: > Hear ye! Hear ye! <4beg4e$q...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." > <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, > articulated: > > #[Boot to the head. Ow! I knew it.] I disagree with your "no." You had > #to resort to toys and questionable votes to make what you call a Cel/Pot > #deck. I don't think toys should be in a Cel/Pot deck. I don't wish to > #wait for a Prince or pray my vote passes to be able to engage in combat > #when _I_ choose to. 4CL limits my choices of deck. It is that simple. > > You are correct in that you cannot build *the same kind* of cel/pot deck under > 4CL as you can with no-cl, but that goes without saying since you can only have 4 > of any given card... so, yes. You CANNOT make a deck of 20 gazillion pot/cel > cards under 4CL, based on the premise of 4CL alone. What I hear you saying Mr. > McClure is that you wanna be able to do what you want, when you want, without > giving a second thought to your opponents. But hey, with 4CL you might have to > think more, and well, that would be just too difficult eh?... "...think more..."? Well, actually, yes. He has to worry about what happens if he is facing a deck that can out manuever him (use ranged potence), majesty (use Psyche), ignore damage with fortitude (ew...), etc. Since literally _anything_ can be facing him, he needs to pick and choose what to prepare for. If he tries to prepare for everything, he will not be able to handle everything. Just because he has a NL rush deck does not mean he is a Terrible Demon who will destroy any opponent he plays. In reality, they could just as easily welcome his attack. One of my decks comes to mind. It tries to only being in combat for a round, then Hidden Lurker/Fast Reaction. The first combat might terribly hurt my first vampire, but the second one will usually toast the poor surprised one. It is extremely resilient against Bleeders from telepathic counters, rat's warnings, cat's guidance, telepathic misdirection, WWEF, and Rush. > But fear not my > valiant adversary! I will post an article on 4CL in due time, hopefully soon! There is no need to make _anyone_ here an adversary. I look forward to your article. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >"T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: >><jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >>>Ever tried to build an Brujah rush combat deck (Cel/Pot) under 4CL? >> >> Here's a deck: >> >>Donal O'Connor x2 >>Constanza Vinti >>Volker, the Puppet Prince >>Bianca >>Anvil >>Angel >>Dre: (blah blah) >>Antionette DuChamp >>Nik > >Peace T.J., > >Only ten vamps? Who are the other two? Oops, typo. Add Smudge (I ignored him) and another Volker. >Why not Rake? He's a cheap prince too. Crappy skills. >I think Antionette is a poor choice for this deck. The celerity cards you >are going to want to use are Blur & Acrob, both of which already have a one >blood cost. She can't use them unless you get skill card onto her and then >hunt. Read the card. She pays blood for "strike" cards, i.e. Vampiric speed, Riposite... > >>4 Bloodhunt 4 Haven Uncovered >>4 Bum's Rush 4 Archon >>6 Praxis: whatevers >>4 Blur 4 Flash 4 Acrobatics 4 Nimble Feet >>3 Sideslip 3 Vampiric Speed >>1 Uncle Al's 1 Vast Wealth >>4 Torn Signpost >>2 Fists of Death >>4 44. Mag. 2 Flamethrowers 1 Sengir Dagger >>1 Celerity >>3 Potence >>4 Undead Strength 4 Mighty Grapple > >Guns do not belong in a Cel/Pot deck. Neither do the Flamethrowers. Gee, why not? Because you don't want them to? >You have only fourteen strike cards in this deck. You could go through >those in just five combats. That doesn't look sufficient to me. Guns don't do damage? Torn Signpost doesn't do damage? >Relying on voting could be a problem if a real vote deck shows up. >Loading up on Praxi can be $$$ consuming. Make deals. You have a high percentage of getting an early Praxis. Last I checked, you get a Praxis almost every pack in Dark Soverigns. > >>71 cards. Tear apart to your heart's wish, but *try* it first. I >>repeat, intercept, bleed or vote is *much* better for initiating >>combat (esp. the Brujah bleed), but this works too. Other good cards >>for this deck include Conditioning, Legal Manipulations, KRC, >>Taste of Vitae... >Not if my prey is S&B, B&B, or wienie bleed (or any of a dozen other decks) >and I'm trying to torp his/her/its minions before s/h/it ousts my grandprey. Whatever. You're right, Conditioning won't help me oust my prey. Why should a combat deck bleed, right? >Then I need BR/HU. The advantage of Cel/Pot Rush Combat is I control when >and where the combats occur. I don't have to hope my prey/pred chooses to >block my actions. I KNOW that this minion is going to torp someone when I >rush. Look, I saw your deck. I even put it together and tried in out. In no way is it a sure thing that that deck will torp someone. Did you offer the same respect to my deck, and try it out? No. This is not a way to add credence to your arguments. >Unless you direct your (D) bleeds upstream, your ability to slow >your pred is also limited (no intercept). Gee, that's the whole point of my Archons - to slow my predator. Funny, huh? >You're just proving my point. 4CL does limit my choices of deck types. >There are just some decks that do not work under 4CL. No. You're refusing to see another point be proved. Predictable... TJH

reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) wrote: >"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> writes: >>I think Antionette is a poor choice for this deck. The celerity cards you >>are going to want to use are Blur & Acrob, both of which already have a one >>blood cost. She can't use them unless you get skill card onto her and then >>hunt. > > I wondered about that. Antionette pays extra blood for Celerity STRIKES >and ACTIONS. So far, these are Cat Burglary and Riposte. Has this been >corrected to be 'additional strike' cards (clearly not the same thing as >a mere strike card.) > > She's still a bit too good. A Catiff with Pre, and for her disad? >Let's see, oh, we'll give her a second discipline which has a drawback. I hadn't seen errata on this. Tom, clarification? TJH

"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >biom...@aol.com (Biomech8) wrote: >>This is not a Brujah cel/pot deck, so if that's all you're looking for I'm >>sorry, if you think the Brujah have more to them read on... this is not a > >Peace be with you, > >I never said they didn't. I'm making a point that 4CL effectively prevents >some types of decks. Real Brujah don't rely on toys (guns)! Why not? > >>4CL discussion...I've played a Brujah Prince rush combat deck using guns & > >Yes, the fact that 4CL prohibits an effective Brujah Cel/Pot deck (w/o >resorting to toys or pushed votes) is part and parcel of my argument. Oh, wah. My Concealed Weapon/Chainsaw deck doesn't win any games, it must be the rules system... TJH

: "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> : wrote: : >Peace be with you, : > : >I never said they didn't. I'm making a point that 4CL effectively prevents : >some types of decks. Real Brujah don't rely on toys (guns)! Woah... Then what are Arms Dealer and Al's Army Apparatus for, and why would Black Cat have a reduced equip cost? Even though the Brujah have their potence for great fisticuffs, guns always work great with their celerity--even in V:TM [which is where I assume the "real Brujah" are], guns are commonly toted amongst the Brujah, as often, if not more than the other clans [at least from what I've played...] -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "What is a man without the beasts? If the beasts were gone, | | man would die from a great loneliness of spirit." | | "Confuse, annoy, and dee-STROY!!" Call me "Nicole" and I | | npu...@tiger.lsu.edu -- Jet...@aol.com will have to kill you. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

: "T.J. Hull" <t...@nwlink.com> wrote: : >Make deals. You have a high percentage of getting an early Praxis. : >Last I checked, you get a Praxis almost every pack in Dark Soverigns. : Sorry, again, no DS here. Praxi are rare (to me) and that means $. Warning: [Beep! Beep!] Off the general topic of this thread. Huh. I DID finally get my DS! I bought a box, most for me but part as a Christmas gift to some of the players in the group here [one of whom I live with], but opened 6 packs only so far [saving the rest for Christmas]; while I did get the Ravnos and Giovanni acceptances, I didn't get a single Praxis Seizure... [ quoted text not captured ]

Charles T. Schwope (c-sc...@ti.com) wrote: : 4CL and NL are just about totally different games (IMHO), and it is : patently obvious that 4CL is a subset of NL, so there will be things : workable under NL that don't work under 4CL. And now we followers of Caine are in four camps divided: NL types who will buy DS (me) NL types who won't buy DS 4CL types who will buy DS 4CL types who won't buy DS If The Game About Vampires had the popularity of That Other Game by WotC, this wouldn't be a problem. But it doesn't. I suggest a little more acceptance of other peoples' playing styles, or we'll share equal responsible with WotC for the game's death. - Neil -- nwbe...@unix.amherst.edu, lentus in umbra | nudus ara, sere nudus... in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro

Neil Bernstein (nwbe...@unix.amherst.edu) wrote: : Charles T. Schwope (c-sc...@ti.com) wrote: : : 4CL and NL are just about totally different games (IMHO), and it is : : patently obvious that 4CL is a subset of NL, so there will be things : : workable under NL that don't work under 4CL. : And now we followers of Caine are in four camps divided: : NL types who will buy DS (me) : NL types who won't buy DS : 4CL types who will buy DS : 4CL types who won't buy DS Don't forget: 4CL/NL types who would buy DS if retailers in their area had it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Antoinette is written correctly: she only plays for celerity strikes (Riposte, all of the Strike: Dodges, etc.), and for celerity actions (Cat Burglary, Distraction, etc.). Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) writes: >Hear ye! Hear ye! <4behbq$q...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." ><jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, >articulated: >#Because they have Potence and tasting your opponent's blood as you pound >#them into mush is so much more fun. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >OH MY GOD!!!! Did he just say he was playing Jyhad the way he wants because it was >more fun for him!?!?!!!??? Dear Lord God! It's a miracle!! Halleluah and praise >Jesus.... There may be hope for him yet guys!!... ;) Actually no. If you retain whole threads and can follow a conversation, you know that James said "Real Brujah do not use guns because it is more fun to pound with fists." (paraphrase, of course) But, you have to be able to follow a train of thought and logic to keep up with James, so... -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | These opinions are mine and http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | are subject to card text. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) wrote: > I wondered about that. Antionette pays extra blood for Celerity STRIKES >and ACTIONS. So far, these are Cat Burglary and Riposte. Has this been And Strike: Dodge (Vampiric Speed and Acrobatics) [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson wrote: >But, you have to be able to follow a train of thought and logic to >keep up with James, so... Now tell me that wasn't a personal shot. Come on was that called for, can't we all have a civilized debate without if getting personal? Danny The oppinions above are not mine, they are forced upon me by my employer.

In article <4bickd$m...@redwood.cs.sc.edu> sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: >From: sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) >Subject: Re: Antionette >Date: 24 Dec 1995 02:07:09 GMT >reyn...@cs.iastate.edu (Owen Reynolds) wrote: >> I wondered about that. Antionette pays extra blood for Celerity STRIKES >>and ACTIONS. So far, these are Cat Burglary and Riposte. Has this been >And Strike: Dodge (Vampiric Speed and Acrobatics) And Distraction and Sideslip and Fast Hands (strike: steal weapon). Those are all 7 cards that cost an extra blood. I hope that clears it all up.

Nicole Janine Purvis (npu...@tiger.lsu.edu) wrote: : Neil Bernstein (nwbe...@unix.amherst.edu) wrote: : : Charles T. Schwope (c-sc...@ti.com) wrote: : : : 4CL and NL are just about totally different games (IMHO), and it is : : : patently obvious that 4CL is a subset of NL, so there will be things : : : workable under NL that don't work under 4CL. : : And now we followers of Caine are in four camps divided: : : NL types who will buy DS (me) : : NL types who won't buy DS : : 4CL types who will buy DS : : 4CL types who won't buy DS : Don't forget: : 4CL/NL types who would buy DS if retailers in their area had it. Find a major credit card and call 1-800-GAME-CLUB. [ quoted text not captured ]

gzu...@symantec.com (Greg Zuvich) wrote: >"James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>: >#[Boot to the head. Ow! I knew it.] I disagree with your "no." You had >#to resort to toys and questionable votes to make what you call a Cel/Pot >#deck. I don't think toys should be in a Cel/Pot deck. I don't wish to >#wait for a Prince or pray my vote passes to be able to engage in combat >#when _I_ choose to. 4CL limits my choices of deck. It is that simple. > >You are correct in that you cannot build *the same kind* of cel/pot deck under >4CL as you can with no-cl, but that goes without saying since you can only have 4 >of any given card... so, yes. You CANNOT make a deck of 20 gazillion pot/cel >cards under 4CL, based on the premise of 4CL alone. What I hear you saying Mr. >McClure is that you wanna be able to do what you want, when you want, without >giving a second thought to your opponents. But hey, with 4CL you might have to >think more, and well, that would be just too difficult eh?... But fear not my >valiant adversary! I will post an article on 4CL in due time, hopefully soon! Peace Greg, Certain other decks, S&B, for example, do not suffer this problem, as there are enough diverse cards of the same theme to allow that sort of deck to function fully under 4CL. A deck that is primarily combat NEEDS to be able to enter combat nearly any time it wants to. This is not possible under 4CL as there are really only two cards that allow that (BR & HU). I don't have 20 "gazillion" on any card, and I've never needed 20 "gazillion" of any card for any of the dozen NL decks that I have built. What you hear me saying is what you wish to delude yourself into hearing. Insulting me doesn't further your argument. (he said after returning the favor) Difficulty isn't a problem, freedom of choice is. [ quoted text not captured ]

wold...@aol.com (WOL DannyX) wrote: >L. Scott Johnson wrote: >>But, you have to be able to follow a train of thought and logic to >>keep up with James, so... > >Now tell me that wasn't a personal shot. Come on was that called for, >can't we all have a civilized debate without if getting personal? Peace Danny, HE STARTED IT! Sorry, couldn't help myself. Been hanging around my twelve year old step- sister. [ quoted text not captured ]

npu...@tiger.lsu.edu (Nicole Janine Purvis) wrote: >: "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu> wrote: >: >I never said they didn't. I'm making a point that 4CL effectively prevents >: >some types of decks. Real Brujah don't rely on toys (guns)! > Woah... Then what are Arms Dealer and Al's Army Apparatus for, and why >would Black Cat have a reduced equip cost? Even though the Brujah have >their potence for great fisticuffs, guns always work great with their >celerity--even in V:TM [which is where I assume the "real Brujah" are], >guns are commonly toted amongst the Brujah, as often, if not more than >the other clans [at least from what I've played...] Peace Nicole, Firearms are considered a poor crutch by the elders (they have strong disciplines to use) and necessary by anarchs/ancillae (who need them to "equalize" against the elder's power). Yes, Brujah have the Arms Dealer, but I've never used one. [any one want a few?] I feel that Potence is superior to toys for damage dealing purposes. Potence doesn't cost me (the Meth) pool. Potence doesn't get destroyed or stolen. Potence can involve surprise (guns must already be in play [exception: DW, CW]). Potence doesn't take an action to aquire (which can be intercepted). Yes, guns+Cel=lots-o-damage, but I could just as easily play Toreador (and trade off my unused Potence for Auspex). Caine gave you Potence; you should use it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Well James, I don't like 4cl, but what I have not seen the NL side of this thing do is post one of these NL decks. Post one and prove to me that you can make 12 decks with out using quite a few cards, bottom line is you can't I have 4500+ cards and have trouble making more than 3 decks 50-70 decks,NL, with out having to reach into other decks to pull 1 or 2 cards that I don't have enough of. Errol T.

Hear ye! Hear ye! <4bno4i$3...@hermes.louisville.edu>, "James R. McClure Jr." <jmcc...@e-mail.kdp-baptist.louisville.edu>, the great and noble sovereign, articulated: #Firearms are considered a poor crutch by the elders (they have strong #disciplines <snip!> #Caine gave you #Potence; you should use it. you're an RPG'er who's in an anarch campaign aren't you?!? just a pot shot from left field James.... yeah, so it wasn't funny! <sheesh.......> ;) [ quoted text not captured ]